HPV Vaccine Gardasil Kills: Confirmed By Court Ruling
“After 8 long years, the government finally conceded that we met our burden of proof that Gardasil caused my death.” 
Christina Richelle Tarsell “died from an arrhythmia induced by an autoimmune response to the HPV vaccine Gardasil which [she] had received only days before [her] death. …. This is a precedent setting case. …. Here are the links to the ruling by Judge Coster Williams and the revised ruling by the Special Master.”  [CJF emphasis]
Interestingly, in the above ruling order by Judge Williams, this is stated as part of the “Opinion and Order”:
Because the Special Master impermissibly elevated Petitioner’s burden of proof and misapplied the legal standard, the Court remands the matter to the Special Master. [Pg.2]
In this author’s opinion, the above comment/opinion by the Judge is indicative of what has become an ‘accepted modus operandi’ by Special Masters at the Vaccine Court in order to deny vaccine damage claimants their standing at court, which is totally illegal and must be FIXED immediately by Health and Human Services!
Here’s why I say that, and the Judge confirms why I do:
Althen Prong Three: The Special Master Raised Petitioner’s Burden of Showing a Proximate Temporal Relationship Between Gardasil and Christina’s Arrhythmia
The linchpin of the Special Master’s decision denying compensation appears to be “timing.” See id. at *7. The Special Master explained: “[t]he order of presentation begins with timing because a gap in Ms. Tarsell’s evidence is most readily apparent in the context of attempting to identify when Christina started to suffer arrhythmia.” Id. The Special Master found:
Ms. Tarsell has not persuasively established a basic proposition of her claim, that Christina did not experience an arrhythmia until after the first dose of the HPV vaccine. Without this foundation, the rest of Ms. Tarsell’s claim cannot stand.
Id. at *1.
In reaching this conclusion, the Special Master ignored medical-record evidence from Christina’s treating physicians that showed she did not have an arrhythmia prior to her vaccine.
Instead of assessing medical-record evidence, the Special Master invoked the experts’ candid but unremarkable conclusion that it was possible that Christina’s arrhythmia could have been present before it was detected. From this, the Special Master determined that because the onset of Christina’s arrhythmia was “unknown,” Petitioner failed to prove that Christina did not have arrhythmia before she received the vaccine. Id. at *7-8. This conclusion disregards Christina’s extensive medical-record evidence and medical history, which indicates that her arrhythmia was detected for the first time on November 20, 2007 – – ninety days after her first HPV vaccine – – and for the second time on December 27, 2007 – – thirty-seven days after her second HPV vaccine.
The Special Master’s approach to analyzing onset placed an overly onerous burden of proof on Petitioner as illustrated by the following colloquy. [Pg.8] [CJF emphasis]
In the 22-page ruling filed June 30, 2017 by Judge Mary Ellen Coster Williams, which I encourage all parents with vaccine damaged children, in particular, and all vaccine-administering MDs to read, you will find this
Petitioner’s motion for review is GRANTED. The Special Master’s decision denying compensation is VACATED, and the case is REMANDED to the Special Master for further proceedings consistent with this decision. The Court makes no factual findings of its own. On remand, the Special Master shall reassess whether Petitioner met Althen’s Prongs One, Two, and Three and whether she is entitled to compensation, consistent with the legal principles articulated in this opinion. Pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 300aa-12(e)(2), the Court allows 90 days for the completion of proceedings on remand.
The Clerk shall not disclose this decision publicly for 14 days.
Back in February of 2011, when I was part of the group of vaccine safety researchers and activists, including attorneys, who showed up on the apron of the steps of the U.S. Supreme Court to attend the press conference in protest against SCOTUS’s unfortunately ‘skewed science thinking’ in their BRUESEWITZ ET AL. v. WYETH LLC, FKA WYETH, INC., opinion , I met Christina’s mother, Emily Tarsell, a most-dedicated mom to finding true justice for her vaccine-damaged and departed daughter. I congratulate Mrs. Tarsell on her determination and follow-through!
As a result of that perseverance, patience and waiting, here’s what Special Master Christian J. Morgan ruled:
The Court’s Opinion and Order required additional consideration consistent with the legal principles articulated by the Court for analyzing the evidence in this tragic case about a woman, Christina Tarsell, who died much too young. Under the approach dictated by the Court, Ms. Tarsell is entitled to compensation. The parties should anticipate that a separate order regarding damages will issue shortly. Pursuant to Vaccine Rule 28.1(a), the Clerk’s Office is instructed to notify the Court of this ruling. [CJF emphasis]
Gardasil kills, so declares the Court and Vaccine Special Master Morgan! Shout that from the mountain tops and make certain every medical doctor knows that too!
My hope is that all who have been damaged by any vaccine—and denied their claims by Vaccine Court Special Masters—will find hope and courage in Mrs. Tarsell’s perseverance to prevail for justice due under the law as Congress passed in 1986, but which the Vaccine Court Special Masters do not honor, or go out of their way to find loopholes regarding “burden of proof”—or so it seems.
 Dissenting Opinion by Justices Sotomayor & Ginsberg
“The majority’s decision today disturbs that careful balance based on a bare policy preference that it is better “to leave complex epidemiological judgments about vaccine design to the FDA and the National Vaccine Program rather than juries.” [….] “Manufacturers, given the lack of robust competition in the vaccine market, will often have little or no incentive to improve the designs of vaccines that are already generating significant profit margins. Nothing in the text, structure, or legislative history remotely suggests that Congress intended that result. I respectfully dissent.”