Changes

Jump to navigation Jump to search

Positional asphyxiation (view source)

Revision as of 20:25, November 19, 2022

273 bytes added ,  20:25, November 19, 2022
The first court decision to use the term "positional asphyxiation" was in 1981, by an appellate state court in Massachusetts which simply repeated what a coroner alleged was a cause of death for someone found face down with his head in a gutter.
Line 5: Line 5:  
''Bryant v. Oakpointe Villa Nursing Ctr., Inc.'', 471 Mich. 411, 415 n.2, 684 N.W.2d 864, 867 (2004).
 
''Bryant v. Oakpointe Villa Nursing Ctr., Inc.'', 471 Mich. 411, 415 n.2, 684 N.W.2d 864, 867 (2004).
   −
A total of 608 decisions -- 408 federal and 200 state -- refer to this bogus, unscientific theory.  The [[U.S. Supreme Court]] has never used this term.
+
As of Nov. 18, a total of 608 court decisions -- 408 federal and 200 state -- refer to this bogus, unscientific theory.  The [[U.S. Supreme Court]] has never used this term.
 +
 
 +
The first court decision to use the term "positional asphyxiation" was in 1981, by an appellate state court in [[Massachusetts]] which simply repeated what a coroner alleged was a cause of death for someone found face down with his head in a gutter.
 +
 
 
==False basis for denying compensation for vaccine injury==
 
==False basis for denying compensation for vaccine injury==
 
Positional asphyxiation is [[fake science]] used by the government to deny compensation for [[vaccine]] injury: "For these reasons, a preponderance of the evidence establishes that the cause of Mat's death was positional asphyxia, a factor not related to his earlier receipt of the DTaP vaccine. Consequently, Ms. Nordwall is not entitled to compensation."  ''Nordwall v. Sec'y of HHS'', 2008 U.S. Claims LEXIS 86, *34.
 
Positional asphyxiation is [[fake science]] used by the government to deny compensation for [[vaccine]] injury: "For these reasons, a preponderance of the evidence establishes that the cause of Mat's death was positional asphyxia, a factor not related to his earlier receipt of the DTaP vaccine. Consequently, Ms. Nordwall is not entitled to compensation."  ''Nordwall v. Sec'y of HHS'', 2008 U.S. Claims LEXIS 86, *34.
Aschlafly
Anthony, Irenaeus, Siteadmin, apieditor, Bureaucrats, Check users, nsAm_Govt_101RO, nsAm_Govt_101RW, nsAm_Govt_101_ta, nsJudgesRO, nsJudgesRW, nsJudges_talkRO, nsJudges_talkRW, nsTeam2RO, nsTeam2RW, nsTeam2_talkRO, nsTeam2_talkRW, oversight, Administrators
126,323

edits

Retrieved from "https://www.conservapedia.com/Special:MobileDiff/1903170"

Navigation menu