Main Menu

Taitz expands Ebola ban

USA Map overlaid with Ebola virus imageOne wonders why a dentist from California, or even a district court judge in Texas, should be setting policy for public health in the United States. Nevertheless, that’s what Orly Taitz wants Judge Andrew S. Hanen to do in an expansion of her motion filed on October 24. There is an upcoming hearing on Taitz’ lawsuit, about which she says:

On Wednesday 29 October, we have what may be our last chance to stop or at least seriously curtain Ebola’s now wide-open entry into the US.

From the filing:

Plaintiff is seeking for this court to extend this partial ban to a full ban and stay travel to the remaining five airports with the goal of stopping proliferation of Ebola in the US, which has 70% death rate and Health Care providers, such as plaintiff, are more affected than others.

That statistic is not true for patients treated in the US; 85% is the cure rate here1, and in any case I cannot imagine how Taitz sees herself as a health care provider at special risk for catching Ebola. Recall that Taitz’ case was about the transportation of undocumented children while they were awaiting their court date. Taitz tried to show standing by claiming that she herself got sick from treating such children. There is no way Taitz can demonstrate that she is in imminent danger of catching Ebola. Judge Hanen has all he needs to dismiss this mess; let’s hope he does.

In terms of the actual death toll, measles is many times more deadly than Ebola. Measles deaths are preventable through vaccination, but junk science linking vaccines with autism have caused the vaccination rates to fall and mortality from measles to climb.


1Since the article cited, nurse Nina Pham has been declared Ebola-free.

,

18 Responses to Taitz expands Ebola ban

  1. avatar
    DaveH October 26, 2014 at 6:59 pm #

    This hearing, if it isn’t canceled, is first and foremost to determine if Orly even has standing to sue. I don’t see that she has established it.

    I hope Orly books a flight and a hotel room and the court dismisses the suit without a hearing.

  2. avatar
    John Reilly October 26, 2014 at 8:55 pm #

    Note that the latest filing makes no reference to any Birther meme. If anything says that Bitherism is dead, Dr, Taitz’s latest filing is it.

  3. avatar
    Bonsall Obot October 26, 2014 at 9:18 pm #

    She Birfed plenty on the ASK show a couple of weeks ago… but yeah, as far as lawsuits go, I think you’re right. We’re done.

  4. avatar
    Keith October 26, 2014 at 11:05 pm #

    I’m sorry Doc, I have to lodge an extreme objection to your characterization of the ‘vaccination/autism link’ affair as ‘junk science’.

    There was no ‘junk science’ involved in any way, shape or form. Zero. Zip. Nada.

    The entire affair was one of fraud. Dangerous and Deadly FRAUD. Nothing more, nothing less.

    Scientific fraud and the power structure of science (by Brian Martin)

    Ask most scientists about scientific fraud and they will readily tell you what it is. The most extreme cases are obvious: manufacturing data and altering experimental results. Then there is plagiarism: using someone else’s text or data without acknowledgement. More difficult are the borderline cases: minor fudging of data, reporting only the good results and not citing other people’s work that should be given credit. Because obvious fraud is thought to be both rare and extremely serious, the normal idea is that it warrants serious penalties.

    I quote Martin not to further his other ideas, (he is a quite prolific Australian Sociologist at the University of Wollongong in Australia) but merely to point out what is correctly thought of as “Scientific Fraud”. Note that the most obvious, agreed upon point is “manufacturing data and altering experimental results” which is exactly what Andrew Wakefield did.

    I hesitate to even call Wakefield’s actions “Scientific Fraud”, because there was precious little actual science going on. Almost every bit of the study was invented whole cloth out of Wakefield’s mind and (IMO) he should be put on trial for manslaughter, due to the his fear-mongering and all the deaths he is responsible for making possible (losing his medical license is nowhere near adequate).

    Now Wikipedia: Junk Science says that junk science ” is any scientific data, research, or analysis considered to be spurious or fraudulent.” So accepting that description allows your characterization to be OK. I don’t agree with that description however.

    Here’s a ‘correct’ example of what I would consider Junk Science: What Can We Do About Junk Science?

    In the junk science paper that is studied, the authors did not invent data or alter experimental results; they did not, as far as I know, plagiarize the work of others. But they were sloppy in their methods and even sloppier in drawing their conclusions. Wakefield, on the other hand, was not just sloppy – he was at minimum knowingly culpable in perpetrating a fraud on concerned and vulnerable parents worldwide.

    Further, as noted in the Popular Mechanics article, junk science is usually published in junk journals whereas Wakefield managed to defraud “The Lancet”, possibly the most prestigious medical journal in existence.

    However, I certainly agree with your comparison of the ebola threat to the measles threat and your conclusion about it.

  5. avatar
    john October 27, 2014 at 12:06 am #

    “There is no way Taitz can demonstrate that she is in imminent danger of catching Ebola.”

    I would beg to differ. As dentist, Orly is of high risk of getting Ebola because she in direct contact with bodily fluids of the mouth assuming for the moment that Orly is working on persons who have come from West Africa or persons who recently been around Ebola patients.

  6. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy October 27, 2014 at 6:31 am #

    It originated as fraud, but like an April fool joke to a birther, it becomes evidence.

    Keith: The entire affair was one of fraud. Dangerous and Deadly FRAUD. Nothing more, nothing less.

  7. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy October 27, 2014 at 6:33 am #

    Given the very small number of Ebola patients in the United States, the chances of Taitz treating one is extremely small, making her claim of harm hypothetical rather than imminent. Hypothetical doesn’t cut it for standing.

    john:
    “There is no way Taitz can demonstrate that she is in imminent danger of catching Ebola.”

    I would beg to differ.As dentist, Orly is of high risk of getting Ebola because she in direct contact with bodily fluids of the mouth assuming for the moment that Orly is working on persons who have come from West Africa or persons who recently been around Ebola patients.

  8. avatar
    Andrew Vrba, PmG October 27, 2014 at 9:38 am #

    john: I would beg to differ.

    There’s a surprise.

  9. avatar
    Jim October 27, 2014 at 11:43 am #

    john: “There is no way Taitz can demonstrate that she is in imminent danger of catching Ebola.”I would beg to differ. As dentist, Orly is of high risk of getting Ebola because she in direct contact with bodily fluids of the mouth assuming for the moment that Orly is working on persons who have come from West Africa or persons who recently been around Ebola patients.

    Well John, since she hasn’t even come close to anyone infected, and her chances of coming into contact with someone who’s infected are very slim in the US…she’s going to need to do something bold to impress the judge. Tell you what, why don’t you and Orly go to Liberia? Lot more cases there, better chance for Orly to run into someone who’s infected. You could be there to act as backup in case Orly doesn’t get infected…you could come down with it and be her client. That will give you perfect standing with Judge Hanen.

  10. avatar
    Andrew Vrba, PmG October 27, 2014 at 12:05 pm #

    Yeah, Orly has a better case of catching a conscience than Ebola.

  11. avatar
    Rickey October 27, 2014 at 1:13 pm #

    john:

    I would beg to differ.As dentist, Orly is of high risk of getting Ebola because she in direct contact with bodily fluids of the mouth assuming for the moment that Orly is working on persons who have come from West Africa or persons who recently been around Ebola patients.

    First of all, the brave healthcare workers who have volunteered to fight the Ebola epidemic in Africa are too smart to choose Orly Taitz to be their dentist.

    Second, a person infected with the Ebola virus isn’t contagious unless that person also is experiencing serious and obvious symptoms – high fever, projectile vomiting, and explosive diarrhea among them. A symptomatic Ebola victim is unlikely to make keeping dental appointments a high priority.

    Third, the two people in the U.S. who currently are known to have Ebola are isolated in hospitals, so the chances of them coming into contact with Orly are nil.

  12. avatar
    Rickey October 27, 2014 at 1:29 pm #

    Orly isn’t even correct about the Ebola mortality rate in Africa. According to the latest figures, the mortality rate in Africa is approximately 49%.

    There have been nine Ebola cases in Europe. Three have died, five have recovered and one is still in treatment, so the mortality rate in Europe is 33%.

    There also have been nine Ebola patients in the U.S. One has died, six have recovered, and two are still in treatment, making the mortality rate here 11.1%

    http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2014/07/31/world/africa/ebola-virus-outbreak-qa.html

  13. avatar
    Bob October 27, 2014 at 3:23 pm #

    I’d love to know how much orlytaitz is flushing down the toilet on this latest nonsense.

    $10,000-ish?

  14. avatar
    Andrew Vrba, PmG October 27, 2014 at 5:30 pm #

    Bob:
    I’d love to know how much orlytaitz is flushing down the toilet on this latest nonsense.

    $10,000-ish?

    Her crazier-than-her supporters are footing a good chunk of it, however much it may be.

  15. avatar
    Janny October 27, 2014 at 5:51 pm #

    I still don’t understand how a part-time dentist/attorney in California has any standing to decide U.S. public health policy or, for that matter, how this district court judge could possibly rule in her favor. Why hasn’t he dismissed this complaint?

  16. avatar
    Thinker (mobile) October 27, 2014 at 6:06 pm #

    Why judges don’t routinely dismiss her nonsense is something Orly-watchers have been contemplating for years. She gets many, many chances to fail, even after she had made it abundantly clear that she had no case and, even if she did, she is not sufficiently competent and ethical to pursue it.

    As for this case in particular, it seems the judge really doesn’t like the Obama Administration’s immigration policy. He apparently wants to use Taitz’s excretions to make that clear. So, the government will expend some time and money on this nonsense. Taitz will lose again, as she did in this case in August when the judge denied her motion for an injunction. But unless the judge shows that he knows she’s a dishonest, incompetent lunatic who is abusing the legal system, she will find a way to keep this case alive for several more months.

    Janny:
    I still don’t understand how a part-time dentist/attorney in California has any standing to decide U.S. public health policy or, for that matter, how this district court judge could possibly rule in her favor.Why hasn’t he dismissed this complaint?

  17. avatar
    Dr. Conspiracy October 27, 2014 at 6:38 pm #

    My theory is that to conserve judicial resources, a judge wants to make sure that a dismissed lawsuit doesn’t come back again–that any reasonable grounds for it to continue are examined and the plaintiff has every opportunity to remedy a defective filing.

    Thinker (mobile): Why judges don’t routinely dismiss her nonsense is something Orly-watchers have been contemplating for years.

  18. avatar
    Thinker (mobile) October 27, 2014 at 7:39 pm #

    The cases that Taitz has quickly abandoned are the ones where the judge didn’t put up with her BS. Her early case in Texas that was dismissed within minutes of filing. Her crazy case in Hawaii where she was trying to stop Loretta Fuddy’s body from being cremated. The cases that she pursued beyond all reason are the ones where the judge humored her–Indiana and Hawaii state court, her Barnett case in Judge Carter’s court, Taitz v Astrue with Judge Lamberth. She responds to the attention, not to any assessment of the merits of her case. So, unsurprisingly, I think the judges are wrong on this, but I accept that this is the way it is and probably isn’t going to change.

    Dr. Conspiracy:
    My theory is that to conserve judicial resources, a judge wants to make sure that a dismissed lawsuit doesn’t come back again–that any reasonable grounds for it to continue are examined and the plaintiff has every opportunity to remedy a defective filing.