SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
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
(Score: 2) by Mykl on Friday June 30 2017, @04:46AM (2 children)
...they work for the EU.
Presumably we should also be able to sue for other unproven, but 'possible' relationships?
- American Sitcoms and brain damage
- Video Game Consoles and arthritis / osteoporosis
- Twitter and ADHD
- HFCS and obesity. Oh wait, that one was proven...
(Score: 3, Informative) by Fluffeh on Friday June 30 2017, @04:51AM
Amusingly, the way I read it - yes, you can, and the courts can't dismiss it out of hand if there's no evidence to prove your statement, but I also read it as the evidence burden being on you to supply the link between those two things. The courts just aren't allowed to toss it out because the evidence DOESN'T exist to support your argument.
(Score: 2) by tfried on Friday June 30 2017, @12:13PM
Vaccines do have side-effects. Severe complications are very rare, and they are often related to errors in procedure (production, storage, or application), but there is no doubt whatsoever that they happen. On the large scale, the benefits for approved vaccines clearly outweigh the risk. But on the individual level: yes, you can have terribly bad luck. You can also have terribly bad luck when deciding against vaccination, at much higher odds, too. But this involved risk plays a major role in many parents decision not to have their kids vaccinated. So much easier to ignore a risk by choosing inaction, that to take a (smaller) risk by choosing to vaccinate.
That's not easy to fix, but a credible promise to compensate for any damage done (without asking for a level of proof that is simply unattainable on an individual level) is a sensible part of any pro-vaccination strategy.
That's not saying anything about this specific case (and, as others have pointed out, the court did not actually decide on that, at all), but the principle still applies.