Dr. Tenpenny Get Rejected

Dr. Moulden is also rejected.  He turns out to be connected to Wakefield's ex-stomping ground, Thoughtful House.   Moulden turns out to be more bizarre than I thought possible.  But Tenpenny is taken more seriously.

They both wanted to have their expert testimony included in a case before the vaccine court. The court rejcted both of them. Once upon a time, people could go into American courts, have decent credentials that allowed them to be declared experts and then say whatever they wanted.

This explains the Bendictin nonsense and the bankrupting of Dow from silicone breast implants that turn out not to cause the problems they were supposed to.

So the US Supreme Court decided in Daubert to change the rules. Now, experts aren't allowed to testify to anything they want.

Through a series of complicated maneuvers, someone came to the vaccine court blaming their problems on the Hepatitis A vaccine.  Two of their experts were Dr. Moulden (not so well known) and Dr. Tenpenny.  The court rejected both of them.

This info came via the Pertinent Inquiry blog which has a great entry titled Andrew Moulden and his junk science in Vaccine Court - Veryzer v. HHS  In addition to the blog entry, I recommend reading the actual decision, which is also to linked to from the blog.  There are a lot of words used there (not medical) that I haven't seen before.   I especially loved these:

Petitioner also finds relevant Dr. Tenpenny’s many media appearances giving her opinion on vaccine injuries, although he does not explain why the Court should.  Id.  A few clicks of the remote hammers home the reality that qualified knowledge is not now, if it ever was, a precondition to getting on  television.

and 

To this, Petitioner argues that Dr. Tenpenny is something of an autodidactic polymath, and that her expertise is not limited to her areas of formal study, but extends to all manner of potential vaccine injury.  The basis for this claim is Dr. Tenpenny’s reading diet in the area of vaccine injury, and her loquacious discussion in print and electronic media concerning same.   Though  these may be useful in a variety of contexts, they do not equate with medical expertise.  Truly, by the standard Petitioner espouses,  the Undersigned would be accounted a medical expert, after 19 years of reading medical  literature,  reviewing  individual  cases,  and  hearing  scientific  and medical  testimony.  However, it is clear that this argument is not persuasive.  Expertise is not acquired through osmosis or accretion, just as television interviews do not an expert make.  Her ideas on vaccine injury have not been exposed  to any critical analysis of  those  in  the  relevant  field,  let alone peer-reviewed medical  journals.   There is no way to ascertain whether Dr. Tenpenny’s opinion is credibly accepted by  those who would know;  there  are only  the patent defects  in her  report  that militate  for  the opposite. 

I'm surprised that Dr. Tenpenny allowed herself to be put forward as an expert before the Vaccine Court, especially as she has zero formal credentials backing up what she says. Event the castration drug pushing Geiers have some credentials.