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: 3, Insightful) by Snotnose on Friday June 30 2017, @04:05AM
This ruling is so stupid and unbelievable it defies the imagination. How the hell did Jenny McCarthy get on the EU top court?
I came. I saw. I forgot why I came.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 30 2017, @04:05AM
You won't find it in the EU. But if you're a scammer looking for a quick buck, welcome to the continent!
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 30 2017, @04:18AM (6 children)
...is a bitch.
(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...
Україна досі не є частиною Росії Слава Україні🌻 https://www.pravda.com.ua/eng/news/2023/06/24/7408365/
(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".
(Score: 2) by jmorris on Friday June 30 2017, @04:38AM (2 children)
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.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 30 2017, @05:41AM
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
I guess I'm ok with the Rule of Feelings as long as they're my feelings.
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 30 2017, @04:43AM (2 children)
Makes sense to me. If there's a signification correlation to a vaccine then it's worth looking into if a batch was contaminated. If everyone who ate canned cheese one year were found to have high levels of lead in the body a year later then the it's worth looking into if the can or cheese manufacture used banned products in their production lines. A case shouldn't be completely dismissed without investigation because scientifically cheese doesn't contain lead. It could have been added!
(Score: 2) by kaszz on Friday June 30 2017, @04:56AM (1 child)
It may be grounds for an investigation. But not a general conclusion. Seems they fallen into the trap of confusing correlation with causation. They are defect and should be removed from influence.
(Score: 2) by Gaaark on Friday June 30 2017, @12:11PM
What gets me is this line:
"Numerous studies have found no relationship between the hepatitis B shot and multiple sclerosis."
Obviously some other links have been made if numerous other studies have been done... Be nice to know why THEY were initiated. And who funded those other studies.
--- Please remind me if I haven't been civil to you: I'm channeling MDC. ---Gaaark 2.0 ---
(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.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 30 2017, @05:11AM (2 children)
They just come right out and say it.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 30 2017, @07:05AM (1 child)
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 30 2017, @02:49PM
Not really, if astronomers say expect an eclipse/comet/meteor shower on this day, you can verify for yourself that they can make precise and accurate predictions.
This consensus stuff is really only trotted out for fields that are likely to be in error..
(Score: 5, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 30 2017, @07:14AM (1 child)
(Score: 1) by pTamok on Friday June 30 2017, @08:39AM
Moded up 'Informative'. That article is well worth reading.
(Orac is usually worth reading in any case, but doubly so for this article.)
I think this is an example of the judges showing themselves to be experts in Law, not other fields, such as Science, Philosophy, or Theology.
Whenever I hear about seemingly absurd results of legal cases, I have to remind myself that law is neither logical, nor moral, nor just, nor fair, nor equitable - it is the application of an imperfect set of rules by imperfect people, so the outcome of the legal process can be strange.
(Score: 5, Informative) by fraxinus-tree on Friday June 30 2017, @08:39AM
The court did not state anything like that. They said that even in cases like this, scientific evidence is not the only "proof" they will consider. That makes sense. Scientific "proof" and legal "proof" are different matters.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday July 01 2017, @10:45PM
all this court said is that just because the whole deck is stacked against you (whole world of whores paid off by drug money) doesn't mean that you can't at least have your case heard. don't you dumb bitches understand that if you allow that kind of shit, they could just dismiss any case, because your case dares to question the status quo/international "consensus"/accepted "science". they have you clamoring for tyranny because you think it fits the ideals that were planted into your diseased mind by your masters. if you exhaust my legal remedy, i stop playing your way and i will get my pound of flesh.