EU Court Allows Anti Vaccination Suits Without Proof
cbsnews.com
cbsnews.com
The actual ruling says:
> a vaccine could be considered defective if there is "specific and consistent evidence," including the time between a vaccine's administration, the 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.
>In a statement, the court said that such factors could lead a national court to conclude that "the administering of the vaccine is the most plausible explanation"
if you replace vaccine with 'Chinese takeaway' and disease with 'food poisoning' I think yup get a feel for what the court is trying to achieve here. And vaccines can have adverse effects on rare occasions with some people, such as the people who are allergic to the albumen in flu shots - although in that case the scientific consensus is clear.
[0] http://curia.europa.eu/juris/document/document.jsf;jsessioni...
Not in the logical sense, but legal proof isn't logical proof. It's evidence, each piece of which, makes a conclusion more plausible than it would be in it's absence, which taken together meets a specific stabdard. Cases (both civil and criminal) or made with only the type of evidence short of scientific consensus that this ruling concerns fairly routinely.
Hawaii could make vaccines mandatory, but it wouldn't mean that a lawsuit in Rhode Island about vaccines couldn't go forward.
[0]: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/france-vaccin...
If you look at how a lot of these vaccines trials are structured, they do a lot of sketchy things. Like instead of using saline as the placebo, they use the previously approved version of the vaccine, or inject all the chemicals, but just not the actual virus culture. That way negative side effects are even in both groups. Of course, it doesn't mean that vaccines are safe across the board.