Our legal case: an update

We are back on track with our law suit. Rejected by the new lawyer we tried last week, we returned to the one we had been with the last couple of years. After a negative medical opinion from the immunologist he consulted, that lawyer had emailed us to say, in effect "you haven't got a case".

Or so we thought. On Sunday, hubby decided to meet with him one last time, intending to take our file and say farewell. But lo and behold the lawyer is re-enthused and back on board.

This time, he says, he wants to emphasize the fact that C.'s neurological impairment before the vaccine was so egregious that it obligated the medical establishment to warn us. (The fact that the neurologist had ordered an EEG and an MRI even before any sign of seizures supports that).

So, while the protocol at the time was not to withhold the vaccine or even warn parents where there is pre-existing neurological impairment, this case was unique.

Bear in mind, I called both the neurologist and the developmental pediatrician who were treating C. at the time, one day before the vaccine. A friend with an autistic son had just attended some lecture about vaccines and warned me that not to vaccinate C. because of her neurological issues. 

Responsible mom that I was, I figured I'd consult "the experts".

After they both urged me unequivocally  to vaccinate C. I brought her to the Baby Health Center the next morning with utter - and gullible - calm.