TomAiello 25 #1 September 4, 2004 I just can't vote for someone like this. In fact, I'd say that, in my opinion, the worst thing about Kerry is probably his taste in running mates. Even the New York Times (first linked article), which is not exactly noted for it's conservative views, is far from complimentary. In Trial Work, Edwards Left a Trademark Edwards' Malpractice Suits Leave Bitter Taste Did Junk Science Make John Edwards Rich? Edwards Responds to Junk Science Allegations There are lots more if you hunt around for them. I just can't believe the Republicans are spending so much energy digging around Kerry's Vietnam record, and so little on Edwards' illustrious career as the nations leading ambulance chaser. A few quotes from the New York Times piece (the most balanced of the above): "Studies have found that the electronic fetal monitors now widely used during delivery often incorrectly signal distress, prompting many needless Caesarean deliveries, which carry the risks of major surgery." These monitors are now in widespread use, almost entirely because of Edwards' lawsuits. "He sued the American National Red Cross three times, claiming that the AIDS virus was transmitted through tainted blood products, and obtained a confidential settlement in each case." Making your fortune suing a charity--that's so cool. "Mr. Wells, a defense lawyer, said. "He paints himself as a person who was serving the interests of the downtrodden, the widows and the little children. Actually, he was after the cases with the highest verdict potential. John would probably admit that on cross-examination."" So, more a champion of his own bank account than a champion of the little people? "It was clear which evidence would be crucial: "I had to become an overnight expert in fetal monitor readings," Mr. Edwards wrote.... "It seems to me that only trial lawyers are experienced at reading fetal monitor strips and are able to tell me exactly when infants became asphyxic," or deprived of oxygen, said Dr. William J. West Jr., an obstetrician and the president of First MSA Inc., which administers health care savings accounts." As we all know, medicine is best practiced in hindsight by trial lawyers. It also makes health care far less expensive, I am sure. "Dr. Karin B. Nelson, a child neurologist with the National Institutes of Health, says the notion that paying greater heed to electronic monitoring will prevent brain injuries remains just that, a notion. "Evidence of high medical quality contradicts the assumption that the use of electronic fetal monitoring during labor can prevent brain damage," Dr. Nelson said." Hmmm, that's the same expensive electronic monitoring that Edwards trial work has virtually forced doctors to use--and it doesn't even work? "Mr. Edwards's former colleagues in the plaintiffs' bar certainly support his candidacy. His campaign is disproportionately financed by lawyers and people associated with them, according to the Center for Responsive Politics, which calculates that about half of the $15 million he has raised comes from lawyers." So, I'm tired of the endless Kerry/Bush/Vietnam discussions here. Anyone have any thoughts on Edwards?-- Tom Aiello [email protected] SnakeRiverBASE.com Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Kennedy 0 #2 September 4, 2004 Nope, I think you summed it up with two statements. He is one of the nation's leading ambulance chasers and purveyors of junk science as a basis for reality.witty subliminal message Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards. 1* Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jimbarry 0 #3 September 4, 2004 Back off Edwards. Just back off ok? He's so young dreamy and cute in a southern twangy aww shucks sort of way. And he cares so much about the little guy. So please, please don't cloud this all with facts. My a.d.d. will simply not tolerate the long discussion thread that this is about to turn into. But then, who was it way back when that said the VP post wasn't worth a bucket of spit? So unless botox is fatal, we won't need to worry about mr. edwards. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
TomAiello 25 #4 September 4, 2004 QuoteBut then, who was it way back when that said the VP post wasn't worth a bucket of spit? John Adams, first vice president of the United States. Quote"My country has in its wisdom contrived for me the most insignificant office that ever the invention of man contrived or his imagination conceived." (Upon being elected as the first Vice President) That was back in the days when the VP was the guy who came in second in the presidential election, so the VP really couldn't do much, because his boss (the president) was the guy who had beat him in the election, and most likely had very different views.-- Tom Aiello [email protected] SnakeRiverBASE.com Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
TomAiello 25 #5 September 7, 2004 Now that it's a workday, and the usual suspects are online, I'm going to bump this up. Anyone want to discuss?-- Tom Aiello [email protected] SnakeRiverBASE.com Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
turtlespeed 212 #6 September 7, 2004 QuoteNow that it's a workday, and the usual suspects are online, I'm going to bump this up. Anyone want to discuss? What's to say that you haven't? Even the voice of the "True" liberals has bashed him. What else is there to say?I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
TomAiello 25 #7 September 7, 2004 QuoteWhat else is there to say? Actually, I was hoping that someone who supported his candidacy would chime in and explain why they support him, or at least why these things aren't as bad as they look.-- Tom Aiello [email protected] SnakeRiverBASE.com Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
turtlespeed 212 #8 September 7, 2004 QuoteQuoteWhat else is there to say? Actually, I was hoping that someone who supported his candidacy would chime in and explain why they support him, or at least why these things aren't as bad as they look. Uh huh - But that person probably, in good concience, does not exist.I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
TomAiello 25 #9 November 9, 2004 Bump for Kallend.-- Tom Aiello [email protected] SnakeRiverBASE.com Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 1,647 #10 November 9, 2004 QuoteBump for Kallend. If you can PROVE that Edwards filed frivolous lawsuits, then you have a point. Maybe you think the victims of Thalidomide, poorly designed IUDs, depo provera, etc. deserved what they got and that any compensation was undeserved.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
TomAiello 25 #11 November 9, 2004 QuoteIf you can PROVE that Edwards filed frivolous lawsuits, then you have a point. Several studies, including one commissioned by the American Academy of Obstetrics and Gynecology, have concluded that the measures Edwards urged (and most have adopted to avoid lawsuits) have either zero or negative effect on outcomes. What's your definition of "frivolous"? Because demanding that some piece of technology that has no added benefit be used regularly sounds pretty frivolous to me.-- Tom Aiello [email protected] SnakeRiverBASE.com Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
metalslug 31 #12 November 9, 2004 Alrighty, maybe I'm being very naive about the US legal system, but how was Edwards able to win these lawsuits ? If the medical evidence all pointed against his claims and experts were standing in line to oppose his measures, how was Edwards ever successful and why would the medical industry have reason to fear lawsuits if Edwards had such a weak or "frivolous" case each time ? -No 'mericans were harmed during the making of this post. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 1,647 #13 November 9, 2004 QuoteAlrighty, maybe I'm being very naive about the US legal system, but how was Edwards able to win these lawsuits ? If the medical evidence all pointed against his claims and experts were standing in line to oppose his measures, how was Edwards ever successful and why would the medical industry have reason to fear lawsuits if Edwards had such a weak or "frivolous" case each time ? - Edwards won because the ladies and gentlemen of the jury, good upstanding US citizens, believed that the expert witnesses he called were more credible and made a better argument than the expert witnesses called by the defense. But it suits the right to blame the Democrat.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
TomAiello 25 #14 November 10, 2004 At the time of the lawsuits, there was little or no evidence either way. Edwards manufactures somewhat spurious evidence, and since there had been (as of then) no contervailing studies, he was able to convince some juries that he knew better than the doctors. It'd be a bit like if I were injured under my reserve, and sued PD for making bad reserves. When it came to trial, I called some expert witness who (for some undisclosed amount of cash) testified that an octagonal reserve would have worked better. No such thing as an octagonal reserve? Doesn't matter. It's PD's responsibility to have thought of that and provided me with one. Guess what? There are no studies indicating that an octagonal reserve wouldn't be better. Why not? Because no one has ever thought to do such a study, since it's pretty much an absurd idea. But if I trot out enough "expert" testimony, those non-jumpers in the jury box may give me a big, fat cash settlement. It doesn't matter to me that PD will then have to up the price of their reserves to pay me off--that just screws all of you. I'm laughing all the way to the bank.-- Tom Aiello [email protected] SnakeRiverBASE.com Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
TomAiello 25 #15 November 10, 2004 QuoteBut it suits the right to blame the Democrat. Actually, my distaste for Edwards is pretty much based on his career, not his political affiliation. If the man was a Republican, I'd feel the same way.-- Tom Aiello [email protected] SnakeRiverBASE.com Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
metalslug 31 #16 November 10, 2004 QuoteAt the time of the lawsuits, there was little or no evidence either way. Edwards manufactures somewhat spurious evidence, and since there had been (as of then) no contervailing studies, he was able to convince some juries that he knew better than the doctors. Some juries ? Sounds like all juries. Is this similar to the way Bush convinced US citizens that he's their best man for the next 4 years ? I mean.. a trial jury and election voters are drawn from the same pool of public citizens, right ? Same kind of thinking principle ? -No 'mericans were harmed during the making of this post. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
lawrocket 3 #17 November 10, 2004 QuoteQuoteAlrighty, maybe I'm being very naive about the US legal system, but how was Edwards able to win these lawsuits ? If the medical evidence all pointed against his claims and experts were standing in line to oppose his measures, how was Edwards ever successful and why would the medical industry have reason to fear lawsuits if Edwards had such a weak or "frivolous" case each time ? - Edwards won because the ladies and gentlemen of the jury, good upstanding US citizens, believed that the expert witnesses he called were more credible and made a better argument than the expert witnesses called by the defense. But it suits the right to blame the Democrat. Bullshit. Edwards won because he knew how to use a system that did not exclude junk science. Edwards successfully sold snake oil to juries, and the Courts allowed it. I take it he did not have much federal practice. Daubert disallows most of the evidence he would like to put on. This cerebral palsy linking is junk science, plain and simple. I'll put it this way, kallend. Without evidence law to exclude him, I'm sure that I could convince more than half of a group of 12 people that I select that DNA fingerprinting is unreliable and cannot really be used to identify a rapist through semen. Would you like to take that bet with me, professor? My wife is hotter than your wife. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
TomAiello 25 #18 November 10, 2004 QuoteSome juries ? Sounds like all juries. No. He definitely didn't convince, for example, the Scott Peterson murder jury. Lawyers argue before specific juries, one at a time. There arguments are not presented to all juries ever convened. Such presentation of arguments that don't relate to the matter at hand would be quite counterproductive, as would any attempt by a lawyer to convince _all_ juries.-- Tom Aiello [email protected] SnakeRiverBASE.com Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 1,647 #19 November 10, 2004 QuoteAt the time of the lawsuits, there was little or no evidence either way. Edwards manufactures somewhat spurious evidence, and since there had been (as of then) no contervailing studies, he was able to convince some juries that he knew better than the doctors. It'd be a bit like if I were injured under my reserve, and sued PD for making bad reserves. When it came to trial, I called some expert witness who (for some undisclosed amount of cash) testified that an octagonal reserve would have worked better. No such thing as an octagonal reserve? Doesn't matter. It's PD's responsibility to have thought of that and provided me with one. Guess what? There are no studies indicating that an octagonal reserve wouldn't be better. Why not? Because no one has ever thought to do such a study, since it's pretty much an absurd idea. But if I trot out enough "expert" testimony, those non-jumpers in the jury box may give me a big, fat cash settlement. It doesn't matter to me that PD will then have to up the price of their reserves to pay me off--that just screws all of you. I'm laughing all the way to the bank. Have you ever been involved in a lawsuit? Your statements don't make much sense. First, each side's experts have to be recognized by the court as actually having expertise, and second, each side has the opportunity to challenge the credibility of the other side's experts. Now, if your side's attorney can convince the jury that you have more expertise in reserve design than PD's designers, then the problem lies with their choice of attorney for being so clueless as to let that happen. I'm sad that you have such little faith in the jury system, the "golden thread" that has been the hallmark of Anglo/American law for 1,000 years. What would you prefer? That all decisions be made by the government?... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
TomAiello 25 #20 November 10, 2004 QuoteWhat would you prefer? That individuals as obviously money grubbing and unethical as Mr. Edwards be disbarred.-- Tom Aiello [email protected] SnakeRiverBASE.com Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
