Apparent to who? More people who haven’t seen them? Your 2+2=5 analogy doesn’t work because you have no idea what the allegations in the cases even were.

You’d think, if all his cases were so bogus, and given the money behind the tort reformers (tobacco cash), someone would have gone and pulled the files from the courthouses. It’s not like that many stones are left unturned in political races of this magnitude And yet no one has. . . wonder why?

Apparently, the medical records that have not been seen by commenters contain data and evidence that refute the findings of multiple studies that have failed to show a link bettween CP and prolonged labor.

Analogously, you can claim that 2+2=5. You can sue me over some issue related to your assertion that 2+2=5. But anyone who doesn’t see the transcript of the trial cannot draw conclusions about your assertion that 2+2=5?

In other words, you’ve not seen a single medical record from a single case of his. None, Zero. You don’t even know as much as Bill Frist knew before diagnosing Schaivo.

Therefore, your claims that the cases were wrongly decided lack ANY basis whatsoever. Use any method you want – scientific, rhythm, whatever – and that’s still the conclusion you, and the author of the article in question, have to reach.

Good luck.

Glad we got that out of the way.

Please reread your statement. What is clear to me is that you have no understanding of research or the scientific method. The studies done have show NO clear association with CP and prolonged labor. There is a subset of CP (5-10%) which may or may not have a weak association. Depending on the study you read. Your statement shows an utter lack of how to ask and answer a scientific question. Let’s insert some other words in your “warped” reasoning to just show how idiotic you sound:

“No study has ever concluded that CP cannot result from Coca-cola”

“No study has ever concluded that cannot CP cannot result from smoking”

“No study has ever concluded that CP cannot result from a sedentary lifestyle”

“No study has ever concluded that CP cannot result from being a republican”

etc etc.

End of story. None of the thousands of anti-Edwards stories generated by doctors involves a physician who has actually reviewed the evidence in his cases. Thus their opinions are at best, uninformed.

Why anyone makes a choice for President based on the opinions of uninformed people is beyond me.

It is interesting to me that the article cites to studies done AFTER Edwards litigated his cases. What did the science show at the time he was litigating? (Edwards shouldn’t be president, but I think this is an inaccurate way of achieving those politcal gains.)

I think the insurance companies have done a fantastic job of shifting the blame to attorneys for high premiums. Look at the profits reaped by insurance companies.

Also, look what happened with aneasthesiology (spelling?). It is my recollection that at one point they were easy targets for litigation and often paid significant settlements. At some point, “they” got the clue and started examining what went wrong. They changed the way they practiced and as a result harmed fewer patients. Not overtesting or overtreating, but simple things like color-coding certain tubes so that there was less chance of error. Now — I believe they are not so easily sued (rightfully so). (Another caveat, this information about aneasthesiology comes from a vague memory I have of reading an article in a magazine. Maybe it was Time, Newsweek, or maybe even a newspaper — I don’t remember, but I don’t recall it being a periodical that catered to attorneys.)