Sexual behavior and proclivities

The decision contains considerably more information about C.G.’s sexual behavior than would ordinarily be necessary to resolve the vaccine claim, largely because the medical experts used it to explain his CMV infection, which they considered the likely trigger for his GBS.

The record establishes the following:

C.G. was 29 years old when vaccinated in July 2017.

Several months before the vaccination, he moved to New York City. He testified that after moving there, he experienced an increase in sexual activity.

He was taking PrEP (pre-exposure prophylaxis) to prevent HIV infection. The vaccination appointment was specifically a visit to obtain a PrEP refill.

The contemporaneous medical records characterize his sexual behavior as “high-risk sexual behavior.” The Hepatitis A and meningococcal vaccinations were recommended in that context.

The record specifically states that his New York sexual activity involved unprotected homosexual activity.

Dr. Callaghan characterized C.G. as being at high risk because of his sexual behavior, and testified that gay men have an elevated risk of CMV infection.

Dr. Callaghan specifically described C.G. as engaging in “high risk homosexual behavior” immediately before his CMV infection and subsequent GBS.

Dr. Gershwin similarly testified that C.G.'s lifestyle change after moving to New York included unprotected homosexual activity and that his sexual activity had increased.

What the document does not establish

Importantly, the decision does not provide a detailed account of his sexual practices. I don't see evidence in the document identifying:

the number of sexual partners;

whether he was single or in relationships;

specific sexual acts or positions;

whether he was exclusively a top, bottom, or versatile;

whether he participated in group sex;

whether he used dating apps;

whether he exchanged sex for money;

whether there were particular fetishes or kinks;

or any other specific sexual proclivities.

So the strongest characterization supported by the record is that C.G. was a gay man who, after moving to New York, substantially increased his sexual activity, engaged in unprotected sex with men, and was sufficiently sexually active/high-risk that he was taking PrEP and was medically classified as engaging in high-risk sexual behavior.

Why the sexual history mattered to the case

It was principally medical causation evidence, not character evidence. The experts agreed that CMV is a recognized trigger of GBS. Dr. Callaghan noted both that C.G. had confirmed CMV viremia and that his high-risk sexual behavior provided a plausible route of exposure.

Dr. Gershwin went further, arguing that C.G.'s move to New York, increased/unprotected sexual activity, binge drinking, subsequent CMV infection, vaccination, and eventual GBS formed an important chronological sequence.

Ultimately, however, the Special Master accepted the basic proposition that CMV was capable of causing C.G.'s GBS but rejected the theory that the vaccines materially contributed to it. The decision therefore denied the claim.

Bottom line: The document portrays C.G. as having had a relatively sexually active period in New York involving unprotected male-male sex and enough perceived HIV exposure risk to warrant PrEP, but it does not contain enough information to characterize him as having any particular fetish, kink, or other more specific sexual proclivity.

(https://xoxohth.com/thread.php?thread_id=5902445&forum_id=2#50128116)

you'd have to basically go on a message board full of autistic lawyers, bring it to their attention, and give them some sort of extreme motivation to hunt it down for anyone to ever link this case to an individual.

never going to happen.

(https://xoxohth.com/thread.php?thread_id=5902445&forum_id=2#50128497)

The decision itself says it would be posted publicly online and that C.G. had 14 days to ask the court to redact medical or other information whose disclosure would constitute an unwarranted invasion of privacy. The current Vaccine Rules similarly allow a party to seek redaction of medical or similar information when disclosure would be a **clearly unwarranted invasion of privacy**. ([Court of Federal Claims][1])

So the structure is basically:

**Private case filings/medical records:** generally restricted to the parties and court.

**Special Master's decision:** must ordinarily become public.

**Sensitive information within the decision:** petitioner gets a short opportunity to request redactions.

**Name:** can be replaced with initials/pseudonymized, as happened here. The public version identifies the petitioner only as “C.G.”

But you're identifying a real weakness in that system: **pseudonymization is not necessarily anonymity.** If an opinion says, in combination, that the person was 29 in 2017, moved to New York shortly before the illness, attended a particular health clinic on a specific date, was taking PrEP, received specific vaccines, developed an extraordinarily severe case of GBS, spent particular dates at named hospitals and a named long-term-care facility, later moved back to Indiana, worked in a restaurant, had particular psychiatric treatment, and was represented by a named law firm—someone who already knows the person could potentially recognize him.

And then the opinion adds extremely sensitive facts about sexual behavior, substance use, depression, overdoses, HIV-prevention medication, etc. So **removing the name doesn't magically make all of that non-identifying**.

The reason so much of it remains is probably the tension built into Vaccine Rule 18. The Court of Federal Claims says special masters generally don't redact medical information merely because it is sensitive when that information is necessary to understand **why the case was decided the way it was**. The court's practice guidelines explicitly say that medical conditions ordinarily aren't redacted when doing so would make the decision uninformative to the public. ([Court of Federal Claims][2])

Here, unfortunately for C.G.'s privacy, the sexual history wasn't purely gratuitous biography. The experts used it in the proposed causal chain:

**sexual exposure → increased likelihood of CMV → CMV infection → possible GBS trigger.**

That made at least *some* discussion of it relevant to the Special Master's explanation of why she rejected vaccine causation.

That said, I think there's a legitimate distinction between **“we need to say that he had risk factors for recent CMV acquisition”** and repeatedly publishing phrases like “high risk homosexual behavior” alongside a fairly detailed life history. A court could potentially convey the medically relevant point in a substantially less identifying and less intrusive way.

Also notice something unusual here: the decision was **filed May 20, 2026 but not reissued for public availability until September 3, 2026**. That's much longer than the ordinary 14-day redaction period. I wouldn't infer from that alone exactly what happened procedurally, but it does suggest there may have been some privacy/redaction process before this public version appeared.

So yes: **the initials are supposed to protect his identity. They are not a guarantee that someone familiar with his life couldn't figure out who “C.G.” is from the remaining facts.** In privacy terminology, this is much closer to *pseudonymization* than true anonymization.

[1]: https://www.uscfc.uscourts.gov/sites/cfc/files/rcfc_complete.pdf?utm_source=chatgpt.com "Rule 18. Availability of Filings"

[2]: https://www.uscfc.uscourts.gov/sites/cfc/files/Vaccine%20Guidelines%203.03.2025.pdf?utm_source=chatgpt.com "the Government Publishing Office"

(https://xoxohth.com/thread.php?thread_id=5902445&forum_id=2#50129837)

the subject vaccinations. Id. at 10. In New York, he engaged in increased sexual activity. Id. at

11.

(https://xoxohth.com/thread.php?thread_id=5902445&forum_id=2#50128007)

alcohol and drug abuse, depression, and prior hospitalizations for intoxication and “[m]edication

overdose.” See Ex. 2 at 11-16; Ex. 8 at 5-6, 12, 31, 36; Ex. 12 at 21-23, 38-40.

(https://xoxohth.com/thread.php?thread_id=5902445&forum_id=2#50128010)

he received the Hepatitis A and meningococcal vaccines, which were recommended when he

reported engaging in high-risk sexual behavior. Id. at 8-9.

(https://xoxohth.com/thread.php?thread_id=5902445&forum_id=2#50128011)

Mt. Sinai determined that long-term care was more appropriate. Ex. 6 at 184. On August 24,

2017, he was admitted to the Henry J. Carter Specialty Hospital and Nursing Facility (“Carter”)

for rehabilitation and long-term care; he remained there for seven months. Ex. 5 at 1.

(https://xoxohth.com/thread.php?thread_id=5902445&forum_id=2#50128015)

[P]etitioner was engaging in high risk homosexual behavior right before his CMV infection and

subsequent GBS.” Id. (citing Maher K. Gandhi & Rajiv Khanna, Human cytomegalovirus: clinical

aspects, immune regulation, and emerging treatments, 4 INFECTIOUS DISEASES 725 (2004) (Ex. E)

(https://xoxohth.com/thread.php?thread_id=5902445&forum_id=2#50128019)

York City, where he engaged in unprotected homosexual activity. Id. at 35. “Homosexuals are

more likely to contact CMV,” have a much higher prevalence of CMV infection, and will “develop

it earlier.” Id. Moreover, Petitioner engaged in binge drinking, which will “impact the immune

system and make it more likely for CMV to go from latent to an active phase.” Id. The timeline

of Petitioner’s illness was important: he moved to New York in May, his sexual activity increased,

he was binge drinking, he received the vaccines, and he was “finally diagnosed with [GBS] around

two weeks after his vaccination.” Id. at 35-36. The onset of Petitioner’s GBS was “consistent

with a timeline of a few days to a couple weeks after some initiating factor [the vaccinations] . . .

which would promote the likelihood that CMV would lead to [GBS].” Id. at 36.

(https://xoxohth.com/thread.php?thread_id=5902445&forum_id=2#50128027)

oh, wait

(https://xoxohth.com/thread.php?thread_id=5902445&forum_id=2#50129854)

fair

(https://xoxohth.com/thread.php?thread_id=5902445&forum_id=2#50130615)

back a week later with six of your big friends, and there’s another big guy sitting in the bar. And it’s not the same guy, but he looks just like him, so you beat him up anyway."

(https://xoxohth.com/thread.php?thread_id=5902445&forum_id=2#50128089)

******In accordance with Vaccine Rule 18(b), Petitioner has 14 days to identify and move to redact medical or other information, the disclosure of which would constitute an unwarranted invasion of privacy.******

If, upon review, I agree that the identified material fits within this definition, I will redact such material from public access."

(https://xoxohth.com/thread.php?thread_id=5902445&forum_id=2#50128108)

https://web.archive.org/web/20191022095120/https://phillipslytle.com/people/jennifer-a-shah/

(https://xoxohth.com/thread.php?thread_id=5902445&forum_id=2#50128153)

C.G. testified he moved to NYC months before the July 6, 2017 Hep A and meningococcal shots, which were given at a clinic visit for a PrEP refill (medication to prevent HIV). Records note the vaccines were recommended after he reported high-risk sexual behavior. He had no prior CMV or mononucleosis diagnosis. Experts (including petitioner’s) described a lifestyle change involving increased/unprotected homosexual activity plus binge drinking.

**Why this was relevant to the vaccine-injury claim (GBS allegedly from the shots, or shots + CMV):**

- **Vaccine indication:** Hep A and meningococcal vaccines are commonly recommended for people with high-risk sexual behavior (including MSM). This explains why he received them around that time.

- **CMV risk and GBS causation:** CMV is a well-established trigger for GBS (roughly 10-15% of cases, often more severe in younger patients with more sensory involvement—features matching C.G.’s presentation). MSM have higher CMV prevalence and earlier infection. Records showed CMV viremia (and slightly elevated *C. jejuni* antibodies) during his hospitalization; an infectious-disease specialist diagnosed primary or reactivated CMV as a possible GBS trigger. Experts on both sides agreed CMV likely played a key role (or was the cause). Petitioner’s expert argued the vaccines amplified an immune response during active CMV (“immunological storm”/cytokine dysregulation/bystander activation); respondent’s experts (and the special master) found this unpersuasive, noting no reliable epidemiologic or mechanistic link for these vaccines causing GBS (alone or with CMV), while CMV itself is a known cause. Gay men have high CMV rates but not correspondingly high GBS rates, undercutting a simple “lifestyle = GBS” leap without the infection.

- **Timeline and alternative cause:** Onset of GBS symptoms ~11 days after vaccination, with CMV documented shortly after. The special master found no sound theory that the vaccines caused or substantially contributed to GBS, a logical sequence tying the shots to the injury, or that treating physicians attributed it to vaccination. CMV (tied to the high-risk period) was the more likely explanation. PrEP, drinking, and prior substance issues were noted as additional history but secondary.

The decision denies compensation. Sexual history appears only as contemporaneous medical/risk-factor evidence in a public Vaccine Act ruling, not as character evidence. All parties treated GBS diagnosis as undisputed; the fight was vaccine vs. infection (or combination) causation under *Althen*.

(https://xoxohth.com/thread.php?thread_id=5902445&forum_id=2#50128294)

Xo should be a supportive COMMUNITY, not a den of bitch-ass culture-war partisans.

(https://xoxohth.com/thread.php?thread_id=5902445&forum_id=2#50128348)

The implication being that he couldn't get laid in Indiana, despite all gay men being WHORES. Fag moved to New York City, got access to dick for the first time, and got pozzed.

But it's okay, he still has his imaginary money stock trades.

(https://xoxohth.com/thread.php?thread_id=5902445&forum_id=2#50128515)