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: 5, Informative) by Fluffeh on Friday June 30 2017, @04:48AM (5 children)
No, the fallacy isn't a bitch at all. The consequences of the fallacy not being recognised as such is a bitch.
However, the wording of the EU court might not be as open and shut as the headline suggests. Note this:
Basically saying "You can't rule it out" much more than saying the vaccine is at fault.
However, more interesting to me is the followup, which isn't mentioned anywhere in the summary here:
Basically that says "You can't rule the vaccine out because it hasn't done something before - but we aren't saying that it did this either. You sort it out." to the French court system. Interesting.
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 30 2017, @07:25AM
So basically they are saying that absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by mojo chan on Friday June 30 2017, @07:38AM (1 child)
The court is simply applying the normal standard of evidence for civil cases. In criminal cases the standard of proof is "beyond reasonable doubt", but in civil cases it's the "balance of probabilities". In other words, something only needs to be proven 51% likely to be the case for the claimant to win.
Of course, if the probability is only 51% the court will probably reduce the damages significantly, maybe to a token amount. The important thing here is that the EU court is saying that even if there are no rigorous studies linking this vaccine to this disease, if other evidence can be found a case that the probability of a link is >50% then the case can proceed. What the family ends up getting with such weak evidence is unlikely to be much though.
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
(Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Friday June 30 2017, @08:27PM
Exactly, and I think the title goes too far: "a significant number of reported cases of the disease occurring following vaccination." sounds like scientific proof to me, more scientific than most abstracts and preliminary studies that get published.
Now, about that definition of significant...
🌻🌻 [google.com]
(Score: 2) by theluggage on Friday June 30 2017, @11:17AM
There's a risk of meta-fallacy here: pointing out a fallacy such as "post hoc" in an argument debunks the argument, it doesn't disprove the assertion. Of course, failure to disprove isn't proof, either - but if there is other evidence you can't chuck it all out by cherry picking one bit of duff evidence.
Anyway, I think that's a red herring here: as you say, the court here isn't actually ruling on the case itself, just saying that "lack of scientific consensus" alone isn't sufficient grounds for throwing it out. As others have pointed out, "scientific consensus" is a standard of proof way beyond that needed in civil cases (and possibly even criminal cases, in practice).
I think the problem here is the overreach of civil courts: these cases have implications way beyond the individual case - they increase the cost of healthcare for everybody, hamper vaccination programs and hold back the development of life-saving vaccines. They shouldn't be decided on a case-by-case "more likely than not" basis that is only really fit for resolving disputes about property and contracts. Oh, and people who develop horrible diseases like MS should get the support they need from the state without having to find someone to sue (that's closer to reality in Europe than in the US - but we still seem to be importing the US-style litigation culture).
(Score: 2) by driverless on Saturday July 01 2017, @09:42AM
The part I liked was:
"These criteria are crazy, just like the ones the US uses".