The European Court of Justice ruled Wednesday that vaccines can be blamed for causing illnesses, specifying new, empirical standards of proof.
The new standards of proof will make it much easier for victims of vaccine injury to obtain compensation. Victims will need to show serious, clear and consistent evidence that vaccines caused an injury.
Pharmaceutical companies, in turn, will now have to prove vaccines did not cause an injury.
The ruling will be binding for courts in all countries in Europe but with some qualifications. In Germany, for example, vaccines recommended by vaccines are governed by special liability rules.
The significance of the ruling is impossible to overstate. At a minimum, it will require pharmaceutical companies to be much more careful about the vaccines they produce since they will now be liable for any injury reasonably proved.
Pharmaceutical companies have been given blanket immunity for the special category of pandemic and epidemic vaccines on the grounds that pandemics and epidemics are an emergency and the bar has to be lowered. It is not clear if the EU Court ruling will also apply to the category of pandemic and epidemic vaccines given under emergency rules, but the ruling will surely strengthen the hand of consumers.
Until now, pharmaceutical companies and governments have been more or less immune from vaccine injury liability claims due to a rigged court system. They have been able to obstruct vaccine injury claims and deny compensation using the logical fallacy of an unproven assumption, namely, the assumption that there is a “scientific consensus” that vaccines do not cause damage. Courts have accepted this statement as a fact without any proof that it is, indeed, a fact and not a fiction. Courts have, furthermore, accepted the statement as a fact so overwhelmingly true that it excludes all other arguments, evidence and facts to the contrary.
In addition, governments and pharmaceutical companies have insisted victims have to show direct, irrefutable medical proof of a causal relationship between the vaccine and an illness. But medical proof in the narrowly defined sense of clinical proof sets the bar too high since victims do not have multi billion dollar budgets to conduct clinical trials and other medical tests to deliver that kind of proof.
The EU court has shifted the burden of proof in favour of the victim.
Victims now need to prove that
*their injury or illness came shortly after the vaccine
*that they had no family history of the disease
*that there have been other similar cases of people getting a disease from a vaccine.
The court argued that the “temporal proximity between the administering of a vaccine” and the man’s onset of multiple sclerosis, the lack of familial history with the disease and the “significant number of reported cases of the disease occurring following such vaccines being administered” was enough to meet the victim’s burden of proof.
Furthermore, the court allows other forms of proof that are reasonable.
The court also asserted that “excluding any method of proof” other than science-backed evidence would make it exceedingly difficult to establish liability and undermines the objectives of the court, “which are to protect consumer health and safety and ensure a fair apportionment between the injured person and the producer of the risks inherent in modern technological production.”
The mainstream media has spun the ruling to suggest that the new standards of proof are not scientific.
In fact, they do meet the criteria of scientific evidence and of a reasonable inference based on empirical, objective facts.
Scientific evidence is evidence which serves to either support or counter a scientific theory or hypothesis. Such evidence is expected to be empirical evidence and interpretation in accordance with scientific method. Standards for scientific evidence vary according to the field of inquiry, but the strength of scientific evidence is generally based on the results of statistical analysis and the strength of scientific controls.
1 Principles of inference
2 Utility of scientific evidence
3 Philosophic versus scientific views of scientific evidence
4 Concept of “scientific proof”
5 See also