tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23662617.post3155569610443364836..comments2023-10-12T04:28:37.276-07:00Comments on Graphictruth: If you don't have anything nice to say about Clifford, Seidel on over here.Bob Kinghttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12331371505961522315noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23662617.post-42525993716696777242008-07-12T21:40:00.000-07:002008-07-12T21:40:00.000-07:00I was one of the bloggers named in Shoemaker's sub...I was one of the bloggers named in Shoemaker's subpoena, which is my dog in the hunt.<BR/><BR/>You may find Seidel's two latest posts of interest.<BR/><BR/>Billing the Adversary<BR/><BR/><A HREF="http://www.neurodiversity.com/weblog/article/165" REL="nofollow">http://www.neurodiversity.com/weblog/article/165</A><BR/><BR/>Numerous decisions issued over the twenty year history of the Vaccine Injury Compensation Program (VICP) document the extent to which the limits on attorney compensation have been tested by practitioners seeking remuneration from its taxpayer-financed coffers. The following review summarizes decisions involving the recently-sanctioned VICP specialist Clifford Shoemaker, Esq. -- a central instigator of the campaign to convince the public of the speculative, scientifically unsupported hypothesis that a significant number of cases of autism result from vaccine injury, co-founder of the Institute for Chronic Illnesses, and a founding member its Institutional Review Board, which sponsors and provides ethical oversight of medical research and experimentation on autistic children and adolescents conducted by his long-time colleague Dr. Mark Geier.<BR/><BR/><BR/>Inspecting the Outstretched Palm<BR/><BR/><A HREF="http://neurodiversity.com/weblog/article/166/" REL="nofollow">http://neurodiversity.com/weblog/article/166/</A><BR/><BR/>The potential for procedural and billing improprieties by Vaccine Injury Compensation Program petitioners’ attorneys — especially those representing numerous clients with similar, speculative claims — is made painfully evident in Special Master Denise Vowell’s recent fee and cost decision in Carrington v. HHS, Case 99-495V (Fed.Cl.Spec.Mstr., June 18, 2008) (unpublished), posted to the U.S. Court of Federal Claims website three days ago.Liz Ditzhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03455722013211350247noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23662617.post-34808377398450531772008-06-26T20:48:00.000-07:002008-06-26T20:48:00.000-07:00His google profile is ruined.Fifty percent of the ...His google profile is ruined.<BR/><BR/>Fifty percent of the front page hits now refer to his blatant abuse of legal process against Ms. Seidel and the sanctions imposed.Hugo Chavezhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08736070712763908085noreply@blogger.com