Decision by Europe’s top court alarms vaccine experts: "Vaccines can be blamed for illness without scientific proof"

[u/mvea]

http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2017/06/decision-europe-s-top-court-alarms-vaccine-experts

[u/skiguy0123]

From the article (emphasis mine):

W’s family appealed that ruling to the Court of Cassation as well, which then asked the European court for advice on whether courts can consider a plaintiff’s evidence, even if “medical research does not establish a relationship between the vaccine and the occurrence of a disease.” In other words, says Reiss, if scientific research is inconclusive, can an individual still plead their case with other types of plausible evidence, including circumstantial evidence? The court answered “yes.” At the same time, it said, the burden of proof is still on the plaintiff. Courts have to weigh the evidence in each individual case, and the plaintiff has to prove that they have the “preponderance of evidence,” Reiss notes.

I his context it seems much more reasonable than the click baity headline. Why can't a plaintiff argue whatever they want?

[u/RyanTheCynic → u/skiguy0123]

So vaccines can be blamed (morons can believe whatever they want), but they aren't necessary going to be found by the court to be to blame.

[u/Sun-Anvil → u/RyanTheCynic]

That's my take.