Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by martyb on Friday June 30 2017, @03:59AM   Printer-friendly
from the proof-is-how-you-measure-alcohol-content dept.

The highest court of the European Union ruled [last week] that courts can consider whether a vaccination led to someone developing an illness even when there is no scientific proof.

The decision was issued on Wednesday in relation to the case of a Frenchman known as Mr. J.W., who was immunized against hepatitis B in late 1998-99. About a year later, Mr. J.W. was diagnosed with multiple sclerosis. In 2006, he and his family sued vaccine-maker Sanofi Pasteur in an attempt to be compensated for the damage they claim he suffered due to the vaccine. Mr. J.W. died in 2011.

France's Court of Appeal ruled there was no causal link between the hepatitis B vaccine and multiple sclerosis, and dismissed the case. Numerous studies have found no relationship between the hepatitis B shot and multiple sclerosis.

[...] the EU's top court said that despite the lack of scientific consensus on the issue, a vaccine could be considered defective if there was "specific and consistent evidence," including the time between a vaccine's administration and the onset of a disease, an individual's previous state of health, the lack of any family history of the disease and a significant number of reported cases of the disease occurring following vaccination.

[...] Dr. Paul Offit, a pediatrician and vaccines expert at the University of Pennsylvania, said the criteria used by the court made no sense — and are similar to those used by vaccine injury compensation programs in the United States.

"Using those criteria, you could reasonably make the case that someone should be compensated for developing leukemia after eating a peanut butter sandwich," he said.

https://www.apnews.com/b0dd5e7933564f45bd3f4d55eedd40ae/EU-court:-Vaccines-can-be-blamed-for-problems-without-proof
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hepatitis_B
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multiple_sclerosis


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 2) by jmorris on Friday June 30 2017, @04:38AM (2 children)

    by jmorris (4844) on Friday June 30 2017, @04:38AM (#533278)

    Not content to write our laws, pass taxes and generally rule over us, now the robed monsters claim the right to define Science too? When do we tell them no? Because that is the only way it stops, so long as we worship the long dead Rule of Law they appear all too willing to continue to abuse our nostalgia. It is worst in the West but we see news accounts from around the world of judges believing they are supreme rulers.

    In most cases the other governmental agencies do not interfere because they support the action but know they are too politically accountable to implement the policy. But this one is mind boggling in the overreach implied in it.

    Starting Score:    1  point
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   2  
  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 30 2017, @05:41AM

    by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 30 2017, @05:41AM (#533312)

    Not content to write our laws, pass taxes and generally rule over us, now the robed monsters claim the right to define Science too?

    The right to 'define Science', eh?, well, in this case, medicines and vaccines, better these 'robed monsters' with no financial interests having this right than 'Big Pharma' with..

    Sorry, but no, I've had to deal personally with the outcome when they listen to 'Science' and get it horribly wrong (google methotrexate toxicity and deaths..) and I'm of the age where I knew and grew up with people born affected by Thalidomide, the courts might not have the right to 'define Science', but they do have the right to give 'Science' and whatever it presents as a 'proof' a right good kicking if there's any sort of vested financial interests involved.

    'Science' is not sacrosanct, the application of 'Science' has consequences in what passes for the real world, but if the attitude of 'Science' is that ' hey, shit happens, but there was only a 0.0001% chance of a specific type of shit happening based on the results of our clinical trials, so that's ok then (so long as we bury that somewhere in the results, we're morally covered)' then there's got to be a change in 'Science's' attitude, especially if 'Science' is being paid by organisations who'll profit to come up with the most profitable outcome.
    This sort of 'Science' really does deserve a good kicking by 'robed monsters'.

  • (Score: 1) by khallow on Friday June 30 2017, @05:48AM

    by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Friday June 30 2017, @05:48AM (#533314) Journal

    so long as we worship the long dead Rule of Law

    I guess I'm ok with the Rule of Feelings as long as they're my feelings.