How reliable were Eric Fombonne and Stephen Bustin? Ed Yazbak reviews the evidence in the Cedillo hearing.
By John Stone
Eric Fombonne and Stephen Bustin were the star witnesses for the defence in the Michelle Cedillo case, the first case to be heard in the Omnibus autism proceedings in the US vaccine court. There is no doubt that the case hinged on the success of the evidence the two men gave. In a series of three articles just published on Vaccination News, paediatrician and veteran court expert F Edward Yazbak subjects their testimony to scrutiny and raises important questions. How well qualified was Fombonne to give evidence in reality? Yazbak shows that while the court deferred to Fombonne’s apparent seniority over an appellant witness this was not justified by his CV and aspects of his evidence regarding his expertise and qualifications were vague and misleading.
Serious questions also arise over the evidence of Stephen Bustin. How, and why was he allowed give it, at the last moment and without giving the appellant’s lawyers time to prepare? Did he not actually endorse the validity of key results from the O’Leary laboratory while trying to discredit them?
Double Standards by F. Edward Yazbak, MD, FAAP (Part 1 of 3) Read full article HERE.
The long awaited decision in the Cedillo MMR/Thimerosal/Autism case [Theresa Cedillo and Michael Cedillo, as parents and natural guardians of Michelle Cedillo v. Secretary of Health and Human Services - No. 98-916V] was filed by Special Master George L. Hastings Jr. on February 12, 2009.
It immediately became the ultimate proof that the MMR vaccine and Thimerosal do not cause autism.
I chose not to publicly comment on the case until the plaintiffs’ appeal was decided. Needless to say, I was like many others, most saddened and disappointed to learn recently that the original decision was affirmed. This was even more painful for me because it coincided with the good news from the U.K. about the Fletchers’ case...
Busting Rules by F. Edward Yazbak, MD, FAAP (Part 2 of 3) Read full article HERE
Busting Rules: How a questionable testimony affected so many cases
The Cedillo case was one of three test cases involving the vaccine-autism connection.
The verdict in Cedillo v Secretary of HHS was interpreted as absolute proof that vaccines never triggered autistic regression in children.
The fact that the petitioners did not prevail does not mean that Michelle Cedillo was not vaccine-injured. It only means that the Special Masters did not think that the evidence presented by them was as convincing as that presented by the DOJ.
The Special Masters’ conclusion, that the DOJ evidence was more convincing, stands however on shaky ground. It should become clear that the testimony by Stephen Bustin PhD, which seriously affected the decision, should have never been considered because it included extremely complicated yet unsupported scientific evidence that had not been made available to the petitioners as expected...
Translation in the Court by F. Edward Yazbak, MD, FAAP (Part 3 of 3) Read full article HERE.
Translation in the Court
As discussed earlier, Eric Fombonne MD and Stephen A. Bustin PhD were effective expert witnesses for the respondent in the Cedillo case [Theresa Cedillo and Michael Cedillo, as parents and natural guardians of Michelle Cedillo v. Secretary of Health and Human Services - No. 98-916V].
While Dr. Bustin criticized the laboratory testing and results, Dr. Fombonne directly influenced the plaintiff’s case by discussing the vaccine-injured girl herself.
He may have been the respondent’s MVP.
Dr. Fombonne first testified in Washington DC on June 18, 2007 (Day 6).
These three articles leave a profound sense that justice has not been done.
John Stone is UK Editor for Age of Autism.