EU court on vaccines and aftereffects of vaccines

  • Context: News 
  • Thread starter Thread starter jim mcnamara
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Vaccines
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion centers on a European court ruling regarding the potential causal links between vaccines and subsequent health issues, particularly focusing on a case involving the hepatitis B vaccine and multiple sclerosis. Participants explore the implications of the court's decision, the nature of evidence required to establish causality, and the broader societal impacts, including the potential rise of anti-vaccine sentiments.

Discussion Character

  • Debate/contested
  • Technical explanation
  • Conceptual clarification

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants express concern that the court's ruling allows for attributing health issues to vaccines without scientific backing, likening it to guilt by association.
  • Others reference legal interpretations suggesting that a causal link can be established through a "bundle of serious, clear and consistent indications" even in the absence of scientific consensus.
  • One participant highlights that scientific evidence does not support a link between the hepatitis B vaccine and multiple sclerosis, questioning the logic of the court's position.
  • Concerns are raised about the potential for increased legal actions from anti-vaccine advocates following the ruling.
  • Participants discuss the procedural aspects of the European court system, noting that the ruling does not resolve the specific case but provides guidance for national courts.
  • There is a discussion about the implications of the ruling for future cases, particularly regarding the burden of proof and the standards of evidence required.
  • Some participants clarify the term "autism guys," indicating it refers to those who link vaccines to autism, and debate the relevance of the court's ruling to this issue.
  • One participant contrasts the EU court ruling with a recent German court decision regarding vaccination, noting that the contexts and implications differ significantly.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express a range of views, with no clear consensus on the implications of the court ruling or its relationship to scientific evidence regarding vaccines. Disagreement exists on the interpretation of the ruling and its potential effects on public perception and legal actions related to vaccination.

Contextual Notes

Limitations in the discussion include varying interpretations of legal standards and the absence of consensus on the scientific evidence regarding vaccines and health outcomes. The discussion also reflects differing levels of familiarity with the European court system and its procedures.

jim mcnamara
Mentor
Messages
4,789
Reaction score
3,853
http://www.cnn.com/2017/06/21/health/vaccines-illness-european-court-bn/index.html

If I understood correctly, the court found that the circumstance of getting a vaccine can be attributed to later problems, without any scientific reports to back up the assertion.

Maybe my view is oversimplified. Anyone with a better or different take on this? Because a priori this looks like guilt by association. Ex: Your brother committed a crime. You live with your brother so therefore you too are guilty without any other corroborating evidence.

Even if I have it partly wrong, it still looks like Science from the court of Henry VIII of England.
 
Biology news on Phys.org
From a juristic journal: (http://rsw.beck.de/cms/?toc=njw.root&docid=392571)

"Indication of evidence for product adhesion for vaccines possible

The failure of a vaccine and the causal link between this defect and a disease can be demonstrated by a bundle of serious, clear and consistent indications in the absence of scientific consensus." (EuGH, Urt. v. 21.6.2017 – C-621/15; ECJ 6/21/2017 C-621/15).

Certain case of a Hep B vaccination. (Patient had been vaccinated 1999, died 2011 from MS. Case was first filed 2006 in Paris. Other party: Sanofi Pasteur.)

No excuse for the autism guys.
 
Last edited:
From the article:

"The scientific evidence does not support a link between the hepatitis B vaccine, or any other vaccine in current use, and multiple sclerosis," [Peter Openshaw] said. "To say that there is a link between any vaccine and multiple sclerosis and at the same time to admit that there is no scientific evidence of such a link is illogical and confusing to the public."

My thoughts exactly.
 
Jesus. This'll surely lead to an epidemic of anti-vaxers going to court.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: Greg Bernhardt
From the court statement mentioned in the article:
A reference for a preliminary ruling allows the courts and tribunals of the Member States, in disputes which have been brought before them, to refer questions to the Court of Justice about the interpretation of European Union law or the validity of a European Union act. The Court of Justice does not decide the dispute itself. It is for the national court or tribunal to dispose of the case in accordance with the Court’s decision, which is similarly binding on other national courts or tribunals before which a similar issue is raised.

So apparently this ruling doesn't decide the case in question; it is merely a directive; so I am guessing the referring court must now reconsider the case?? Is anyone familiar with how procedure for the European court system & thus what the next stage is?

The reason I ask is, it seems premature to say what the effect will be without a knowledge of the court system involved. And the article itself quoted only medical experts, not legal experts. One possibility, for example is that given that pharmaceutical companies have deep pockets, they might be able to do whatever spadework is necessary to argue statistically against any alleged causality for a specific case in which vaccine X is alleged to have produced disease Y. I don't know if this in fact is relevant, but it's the sort of thing that might be relevant.

It would also be interesting to hear informed speculation as to why this ruling was arrived at when to us it seems so clearly absurd; again this would require expert sources who know the court system in question.
 
fresh_42 said:
From a juristic journal: (http://rsw.beck.de/cms/?toc=njw.root&docid=392571)

"Indication of evidence for product adhesion for vaccines possible

The failure of a vaccine and the causal link between this defect and a disease can be demonstrated by a bundle of serious, clear and consistent indications in the absence of scientific consensus." (EuGH, Urt. v. 21.6.2017 – C-621/15; ECJ 6/21/2017 C-621/15).

Certain case of a Hep B vaccination. (Patient had been vaccinated 1999, died 2011 from MS. Case was first filed 2006 in Paris. Other party: Sanofi Pasteur.)

No excuse for the autism guys.
Could you explain what you mean by "autism guys" in this context?
Is it the lobby that links autism to vaccination?
Or are it the people with autism?

In the first case, the ruling could perhaps be taken as a precedent, even though it is about hepatitis B?
In the second case, I don't understand your remark.

Thank you.
 
Bandersnatch said:
Jesus. This'll surely lead to an epidemic of anti-vaxers going to court.
I don't think so. "... be demonstrated by a bundle of serious, clear and consistent indications" is a big and strong hurdle. The highest court in Germany recently decided in favor of a father of a daughter whose mother didn't want to vaccinate their common child and the father did (BGH / Az. XII ZB 157/16).
Krylov said:
Could you explain what you mean by "autism guys" in this context?
Is it the lobby that links autism to vaccination?
Yes. I meant the quote above, that sets conditions, which clearly do not apply to those who thinks an MMR vaccination causes autism.
From the court's reasoning:
"Neither the national legislature nor the national courts could introduce a form of evidence by means of presumptions which would allow to automatically establish the existence of a causal link if there were certain specific, pre-established indications: Such a form of proof would imply that the burden of proof laid down by the directive would be affected."

(Sorry for the translation, but juristic language is a bit strange.)
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: S.G. Janssens
fresh_42 said:
From the court's reasoning:
"Neither the national legislature nor the national courts could introduce a form of evidence by means of presumptions which would allow to automatically establish the existence of a causal link if there were certain specific, pre-established indications: Such a form of proof would imply that the burden of proof laid down by the directive would be affected."

Can you piece together how the German court decision relates or doesn't relate to the EU court ruling that started off this thread?
 
UsableThought said:
Is anyone familiar with how procedure for the European court system & thus what the next stage is?
The case has gone through various courts in France and a decision was made by the Cour d’appel de Paris. A complaint against the ruling was filed at the Cour de cassation. This court appealed to the EJC, which I assume set its own procedure on hold. Now that it received its answer, the national court will probably cop (?) the ruling of the Cour d’appel de Paris and order a new evaluation on this level.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: UsableThought
  • #10
UsableThought said:
Can you piece together how the German court decision relates or doesn't relate to the EU court ruling that started off this thread?
It doesn't relate. The EJC ruling has been a general description about the evaluation of evidences. It set conditions apart from scientific consensus, which are juristic sufficient to draw a causal link in single cases. The German ruling was about an argument between two for the education responsible persons, which one of them favored a vaccination and the other one did not. The court assessed the general protection of a vaccination to be higher valued than the personal concerns of the mother.
 
  • #11
jim mcnamara said:
http://www.cnn.com/2017/06/21/health/vaccines-illness-european-court-bn/index.html

If I understood correctly, the court found that the circumstance of getting a vaccine can be attributed to later problems, without any scientific reports to back up the assertion.

Maybe my view is oversimplified. Anyone with a better or different take on this? Because a priori this looks like guilt by association. Ex: Your brother committed a crime. You live with your brother so therefore you too are guilty without any other corroborating evidence.

Even if I have it partly wrong, it still looks like Science from the court of Henry VIII of England.

The standard of evidence in criminal cases tends to be (in the language of the US system) "beyond a reasonable doubt." In contrast, the standard of evidence in civil cases is usually "the preponderance of the evidence." From what I can see, the ruling is consistent with how scientific causality is brought into most civil liability cases in the United States.

My wife and I are consultants on lots and lots of civil liability cases, and it is extremely common for courts to accept evidence of causality by "the preponderance of the evidence" long before causality is broadly accepted in a consensus of authors in the peer-reviewed literature. In the US, there are laws shielding vaccine producers from a lot of the liability lawsuits that plague other drug manufacturers. However, the how vaccines are being treated in the European ruling is consistent with how causality is often established in liability cases when a plaintiff claims a drug (or other product) has caused some harm.

The Court of Justice said that "specific and consistent evidence" relating to timeliness, a prior healthy status, lack of family history and multiple cases may prove to be enough, according to a statement. J.W.'s case referred to the first three criteria.

The ruling added that courts must ensure that evidence is "sufficiently serious, specific and consistent to warrant the conclusion," having also considered available evidence and arguments made by a vaccine's producer, to then decide that a vaccine is the most plausible explanation for any damage to health. (Quoted from the link.)

There are many multimillion dollar awards in the US based on similar or weaker evidence. Many defendants in the US wish the standard of evidence for drug liability was consistently so high here.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: jim mcnamara
  • #12
From the link of Usable thought,
a defect in the product appears to be the most plausible explanation for the occurrence of the damage

The court is ruling on whether a product in and of itself in a particular case could have had a defect and examination of said defect if it can be proven there was, could that defect be the cause of injury, in lieu of the fact that the injury has no other possible explanation.

Quality control to keep the consumer safe in other words.
 
  • #13
Dr. Courtney said:
Many defendants in the US wish the standard of evidence for drug liability was consistently so high here.
There is another major difference between Europe and the USA. In most countries (I think all but with the exception of Great Britain and maybe Ireland as well), courts rule based on laws which have to be interpreted rather than precedent cases. So a ruling in a single case doesn't weigh even close as heavy as it does in law systems based on cases. In any case, individual assessments have to be made and the applicability to other cases is usually far more restricted than in the states. What's definitely the same, and which is so important, that the EJC felt has to be especially noted, is the direction of evidence: who has to prove whom.
 
  • #14
256bits said:
The court is ruling on whether a product in and of itself in a particular case could have had a defect and examination of said defect
As I understood it, the court did neither of the kind. The cassation court in France had to. The EJC simply assessed, whether scientific consensus has to be achieved to establish a causality or whether certain conditions of a certain case might be equally sufficient. I doubt it ruled in the case.