NLBS #35: The Anti-Vaccination Movement and the Measles Outbreak

originally posted by: Aquariusdude
a reply to: Pardon?

You asked if it was going forward...The judge ruled there is enough evidence in the case to proceed..Even if the whistleblowers win the case. I doubt it will be enough for you..

Wrong.
The judge ruled that there's no reason to dismiss the case.
BIG difference.
No evidence has actually been presented in the case yet.

So I'll ask again, why are anti-vaxxers treating it like it's been decided?

If they are guilty then they should be hit with everything available but until there's a judgement it's very unwise to comment on it.

originally posted by: Pardon?

originally posted by: Aquariusdude
a reply to: Pardon?

You asked if it was going forward...The judge ruled there is enough evidence in the case to proceed..Even if the whistleblowers win the case. I doubt it will be enough for you..

Wrong.
The judge ruled that there's no reason to dismiss the case.
BIG difference.
No evidence has actually been presented in the case yet.

So I'll ask again, why are anti-vaxxers treating it like it's been decided?

If they are guilty then they should be hit with everything available but until there's a judgement it's very unwise to comment on it.

No you are the one that is wrong...The case would not have gone forward if the judge found that the plaintiffs claims were not factual and exhibits attached to complaint are in fact reviewed by the judge..


B.
In deciding a motion to dismiss pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6), courts must accept all factual
allegations as true, construe the complaint in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, and
determine whether, under any reasonable reading of the complaint, the plaintiff may be entitled
to relief. Id. (internal quotation and citation omitted). Complaints that contain only “[t]hreadbare
recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported by mere conclusory statements, do not
suffice.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 129 S. Ct. 1937, 1949 (2009) (citing Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555
(2007)). The FACTS MUST DEMONSTRATE that the Plaintiff is entitled to relief, not just show a “mere
possibility of misconduct.” Fowler v. UPMC Shadyside, 578 F.3d 203, 211 (3d Cir. 2009)
(quoting Iqbal at 679). This standard asks that the complaint “‘state a claim to relief that is
plausible on its face.’” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 663 (2009) (quoting Bell Atl. Corp. v.
Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007)). “A claim has facial plausibility when the plaintiff pleads
FACTUAL CONTENT that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable

When deciding a motion to dismiss under 12(b)(6), the “court must consider only the
complaint, EXHIBITS attached to the complaint, matters of public record, as well as undisputedly
AUTHENTIC DOCUMENTS if the complainant’s claims are based upon these documents.”

Just to let you know exhibits are evidence... Nice try

www.rescuepost.com...

originally posted by: Aquariusdude

originally posted by: Pardon?

originally posted by: Aquariusdude
a reply to: Pardon?

You asked if it was going forward...The judge ruled there is enough evidence in the case to proceed..Even if the whistleblowers win the case. I doubt it will be enough for you..

Wrong.
The judge ruled that there's no reason to dismiss the case.
BIG difference.
No evidence has actually been presented in the case yet.

So I'll ask again, why are anti-vaxxers treating it like it's been decided?

If they are guilty then they should be hit with everything available but until there's a judgement it's very unwise to comment on it.

No you are the one that is wrong...The case would not have gone forward if the judge found that the plaintiffs claims were not factual and exhibits attached to complaint are in fact reviewed by the judge..


B.
In deciding a motion to dismiss pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6), courts must accept all factual
allegations as true, construe the complaint in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, and
determine whether, under any reasonable reading of the complaint, the plaintiff may be entitled
to relief. Id. (internal quotation and citation omitted). Complaints that contain only “[t]hreadbare
recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported by mere conclusory statements, do not
suffice.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 129 S. Ct. 1937, 1949 (2009) (citing Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555
(2007)). The FACTS MUST DEMONSTRATE that the Plaintiff is entitled to relief, not just show a “mere
possibility of misconduct.” Fowler v. UPMC Shadyside, 578 F.3d 203, 211 (3d Cir. 2009)
(quoting Iqbal at 679). This standard asks that the complaint “‘state a claim to relief that is
plausible on its face.’” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 663 (2009) (quoting Bell Atl. Corp. v.
Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007)). “A claim has facial plausibility when the plaintiff pleads
FACTUAL CONTENT that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable

When deciding a motion to dismiss under 12(b)(6), the “court must consider only the
complaint, EXHIBITS attached to the complaint, matters of public record, as well as undisputedly
AUTHENTIC DOCUMENTS if the complainant’s claims are based upon these documents.”

Just to let you know exhibits are evidence... Nice try

www.rescuepost.com...

You forgot to add this bit to your c&p.
"Assessing the sufficiency of a complaint is “a
context-dependent exercise” because “[s]ome claims require more factual explication than others
to state a plausible claim for relief.” W. Penn Allegheny Health Sys., Inc. v. UPMC, 627 F.3d 85,
98 (3d Cir. 2010) (cited in United States ex rel. Galmines v. Novartis Pharms. Corp., 2013 U.S.
Dist. LEXIS 120672 (E.D. Pa. Aug. 23, 2013)) (citations omitted)"

So no real evidence has been presented yet, just examples of what they have.



And here's the pleas for dismissal.
III. DISCUSSION
Defendants seek dismissal pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 9(b) and 12(b)(6)
on the grounds that Relators have failed to plead fraud with the requisite particularity and failed
to state a claim upon which relief can be granted


So it really is a case of not "going forward" but being unable to be dismissed.
Bear in mind that this is a civil case and not a criminal one and naturally the lawyers for the plaintiffs will be pushing as hard as possible as they'll get paid more.

As yet though, nothing has been decided regardless of how you look at it.

originally posted by: Pardon?

originally posted by: Aquariusdude

originally posted by: Pardon?

originally posted by: Aquariusdude
a reply to: Pardon?

You asked if it was going forward...The judge ruled there is enough evidence in the case to proceed..Even if the whistleblowers win the case. I doubt it will be enough for you..

Wrong.
The judge ruled that there's no reason to dismiss the case.
BIG difference.
No evidence has actually been presented in the case yet.

So I'll ask again, why are anti-vaxxers treating it like it's been decided?

If they are guilty then they should be hit with everything available but until there's a judgement it's very unwise to comment on it.

No you are the one that is wrong...The case would not have gone forward if the judge found that the plaintiffs claims were not factual and exhibits attached to complaint are in fact reviewed by the judge..


B.
In deciding a motion to dismiss pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6), courts must accept all factual
allegations as true, construe the complaint in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, and
determine whether, under any reasonable reading of the complaint, the plaintiff may be entitled
to relief. Id. (internal quotation and citation omitted). Complaints that contain only “[t]hreadbare
recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported by mere conclusory statements, do not
suffice.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 129 S. Ct. 1937, 1949 (2009) (citing Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555
(2007)). The FACTS MUST DEMONSTRATE that the Plaintiff is entitled to relief, not just show a “mere
possibility of misconduct.” Fowler v. UPMC Shadyside, 578 F.3d 203, 211 (3d Cir. 2009)
(quoting Iqbal at 679). This standard asks that the complaint “‘state a claim to relief that is
plausible on its face.’” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 663 (2009) (quoting Bell Atl. Corp. v.
Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007)). “A claim has facial plausibility when the plaintiff pleads
FACTUAL CONTENT that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable

When deciding a motion to dismiss under 12(b)(6), the “court must consider only the
complaint, EXHIBITS attached to the complaint, matters of public record, as well as undisputedly
AUTHENTIC DOCUMENTS if the complainant’s claims are based upon these documents.”

Just to let you know exhibits are evidence... Nice try

www.rescuepost.com...

You forgot to add this bit to your c&p.
"Assessing the sufficiency of a complaint is “a
context-dependent exercise” because “[s]ome claims require more factual explication than others
to state a plausible claim for relief.” W. Penn Allegheny Health Sys., Inc. v. UPMC, 627 F.3d 85,
98 (3d Cir. 2010) (cited in United States ex rel. Galmines v. Novartis Pharms. Corp., 2013 U.S.
Dist. LEXIS 120672 (E.D. Pa. Aug. 23, 2013)) (citations omitted)"

So no real evidence has been presented yet, just examples of what they have.



And here's the pleas for dismissal.
III. DISCUSSION
Defendants seek dismissal pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 9(b) and 12(b)(6)
on the grounds that Relators have failed to plead fraud with the requisite particularity and failed
to state a claim upon which relief can be granted


So it really is a case of not "going forward" but being unable to be dismissed.
Bear in mind that this is a civil case and not a criminal one and naturally the lawyers for the plaintiffs will be pushing as hard as possible as they'll get paid more.

As yet though, nothing has been decided regardless of how you look at it.

So not being able to be dismissed is not going forward? And just because the lawyers may be pushing the case hard doesn't mean the whistle-blowers allegations are not true...I assure you the attorneys for the defendent will be paid very well to fight the case by Merck..You want to trust your kids to a company like Merck be my guest buddy.

originally posted by: Aquariusdude

originally posted by: Pardon?

originally posted by: Aquariusdude

originally posted by: Pardon?

originally posted by: Aquariusdude
a reply to: Pardon?

You asked if it was going forward...The judge ruled there is enough evidence in the case to proceed..Even if the whistleblowers win the case. I doubt it will be enough for you..

Wrong.
The judge ruled that there's no reason to dismiss the case.
BIG difference.
No evidence has actually been presented in the case yet.

So I'll ask again, why are anti-vaxxers treating it like it's been decided?

If they are guilty then they should be hit with everything available but until there's a judgement it's very unwise to comment on it.

No you are the one that is wrong...The case would not have gone forward if the judge found that the plaintiffs claims were not factual and exhibits attached to complaint are in fact reviewed by the judge..


B.
In deciding a motion to dismiss pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6), courts must accept all factual
allegations as true, construe the complaint in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, and
determine whether, under any reasonable reading of the complaint, the plaintiff may be entitled
to relief. Id. (internal quotation and citation omitted). Complaints that contain only “[t]hreadbare
recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported by mere conclusory statements, do not
suffice.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 129 S. Ct. 1937, 1949 (2009) (citing Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555
(2007)). The FACTS MUST DEMONSTRATE that the Plaintiff is entitled to relief, not just show a “mere
possibility of misconduct.” Fowler v. UPMC Shadyside, 578 F.3d 203, 211 (3d Cir. 2009)
(quoting Iqbal at 679). This standard asks that the complaint “‘state a claim to relief that is
plausible on its face.’” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 663 (2009) (quoting Bell Atl. Corp. v.
Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007)). “A claim has facial plausibility when the plaintiff pleads
FACTUAL CONTENT that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable

When deciding a motion to dismiss under 12(b)(6), the “court must consider only the
complaint, EXHIBITS attached to the complaint, matters of public record, as well as undisputedly
AUTHENTIC DOCUMENTS if the complainant’s claims are based upon these documents.”

Just to let you know exhibits are evidence... Nice try

www.rescuepost.com...

You forgot to add this bit to your c&p.
"Assessing the sufficiency of a complaint is “a
context-dependent exercise” because “[s]ome claims require more factual explication than others
to state a plausible claim for relief.” W. Penn Allegheny Health Sys., Inc. v. UPMC, 627 F.3d 85,
98 (3d Cir. 2010) (cited in United States ex rel. Galmines v. Novartis Pharms. Corp., 2013 U.S.
Dist. LEXIS 120672 (E.D. Pa. Aug. 23, 2013)) (citations omitted)"

So no real evidence has been presented yet, just examples of what they have.



And here's the pleas for dismissal.
III. DISCUSSION
Defendants seek dismissal pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 9(b) and 12(b)(6)
on the grounds that Relators have failed to plead fraud with the requisite particularity and failed
to state a claim upon which relief can be granted


So it really is a case of not "going forward" but being unable to be dismissed.
Bear in mind that this is a civil case and not a criminal one and naturally the lawyers for the plaintiffs will be pushing as hard as possible as they'll get paid more.

As yet though, nothing has been decided regardless of how you look at it.

So not being able to be dismissed is not going forward? And just because the lawyers may be pushing the case hard doesn't mean the whistle-blowers allegations are not true...I assure you the attorneys for the defendent will be paid very well to fight the case by Merck..You want to trust your kids to a company like Merck be my guest buddy.

Right, dismissal was filed for but rejected.
That means that barring another filing, the case can be heard.
That means that nothing in the case itself has moved forward.
Which part don't you understand?

originally posted by: Pardon?

originally posted by: Aquariusdude

originally posted by: Pardon?

originally posted by: Aquariusdude

originally posted by: Pardon?

originally posted by: Aquariusdude
a reply to: Pardon?

You asked if it was going forward...The judge ruled there is enough evidence in the case to proceed..Even if the whistleblowers win the case. I doubt it will be enough for you..

Wrong.
The judge ruled that there's no reason to dismiss the case.
BIG difference.
No evidence has actually been presented in the case yet.

So I'll ask again, why are anti-vaxxers treating it like it's been decided?

If they are guilty then they should be hit with everything available but until there's a judgement it's very unwise to comment on it.

No you are the one that is wrong...The case would not have gone forward if the judge found that the plaintiffs claims were not factual and exhibits attached to complaint are in fact reviewed by the judge..


B.
In deciding a motion to dismiss pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6), courts must accept all factual
allegations as true, construe the complaint in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, and
determine whether, under any reasonable reading of the complaint, the plaintiff may be entitled
to relief. Id. (internal quotation and citation omitted). Complaints that contain only “[t]hreadbare
recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported by mere conclusory statements, do not
suffice.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 129 S. Ct. 1937, 1949 (2009) (citing Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555
(2007)). The FACTS MUST DEMONSTRATE that the Plaintiff is entitled to relief, not just show a “mere
possibility of misconduct.” Fowler v. UPMC Shadyside, 578 F.3d 203, 211 (3d Cir. 2009)
(quoting Iqbal at 679). This standard asks that the complaint “‘state a claim to relief that is
plausible on its face.’” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 663 (2009) (quoting Bell Atl. Corp. v.
Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007)). “A claim has facial plausibility when the plaintiff pleads
FACTUAL CONTENT that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable

When deciding a motion to dismiss under 12(b)(6), the “court must consider only the
complaint, EXHIBITS attached to the complaint, matters of public record, as well as undisputedly
AUTHENTIC DOCUMENTS if the complainant’s claims are based upon these documents.”

Just to let you know exhibits are evidence... Nice try

www.rescuepost.com...

You forgot to add this bit to your c&p.
"Assessing the sufficiency of a complaint is “a
context-dependent exercise” because “[s]ome claims require more factual explication than others
to state a plausible claim for relief.” W. Penn Allegheny Health Sys., Inc. v. UPMC, 627 F.3d 85,
98 (3d Cir. 2010) (cited in United States ex rel. Galmines v. Novartis Pharms. Corp., 2013 U.S.
Dist. LEXIS 120672 (E.D. Pa. Aug. 23, 2013)) (citations omitted)"

So no real evidence has been presented yet, just examples of what they have.



And here's the pleas for dismissal.
III. DISCUSSION
Defendants seek dismissal pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 9(b) and 12(b)(6)
on the grounds that Relators have failed to plead fraud with the requisite particularity and failed
to state a claim upon which relief can be granted


So it really is a case of not "going forward" but being unable to be dismissed.
Bear in mind that this is a civil case and not a criminal one and naturally the lawyers for the plaintiffs will be pushing as hard as possible as they'll get paid more.

As yet though, nothing has been decided regardless of how you look at it.

So not being able to be dismissed is not going forward? And just because the lawyers may be pushing the case hard doesn't mean the whistle-blowers allegations are not true...I assure you the attorneys for the defendent will be paid very well to fight the case by Merck..You want to trust your kids to a company like Merck be my guest buddy.

Right, dismissal was filed for but rejected.
That means that barring another filing, the case can be heard.
That means that nothing in the case itself has moved forward.
Which part don't you understand?

Which part I don't understand really? Nothing in the case has moved forward? ok...whatever you say buddy

Measles can cause many problems to pregnant women.

a reply to: boymonkey74

obviously anything with a fever is bad for the baby... all your links are dead so idk what your referenceing... but you know you could always just get the measles when your young and in 99.99% of the time you will be fine, just like the chicken pox. then you wont get it when your older when their could be complications... like the chicken pox. or you know you could just get yourself vaccinated when you older and able to make decisions about your own body instead of having your parents decide for you.