YUP! You read that right.
In a ruling just a few days ago, the highest court in the European Union ruled that despite the lack of scientific consensus on the issue, a vaccine could be considered defective if there was “specific and consistent evidence,” which includes the time between when the vaccination was given and the onset of a disease.
Also to be allowed is 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 the vaccination.
The case started when a patient identified as J.W. was vaccinated against hepatitis B in late 1998-1999. A year later he was diagnosed with multiple sclerosis, a disease involving damage to the brain and the nervous system. 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.
The French Court of Appeal ruled there was no causal link between hepatitis B vaccine and MS and dismissed the case.
The AP wire service story about this story stated that numerous studies have found no relationship between the hepatitis B shot and MS.
The case went to France’s Court of Cassation, and then brought to the EU’s European Court of Justice.
In the statement from the EU, it was noted that such factors could lead a national court to conclude that “the administering of the vaccine is the most plausible explanation” for the disease and that “the vaccine therefore does not offer the safety that one is entitled to expect.”
Courts must be sure that evidence is “sufficiently serious, specific and consistent to warrant the conclusion,” and include arguments from the vaccine’s manufacturer. The court’s decision is not a ruling in J.W.’s case but offers guidance for all EU courts considering similar cases.
Peter Openshaw, president of the British Society for Immunology and professor of experimental medicine at Imperial College London, said “it is very concerning that the European Court of Justice has ruled that judges can consider whether a vaccination led to someone developing a medical condition, even if there is no scientific evidence to support this.”
“The scientific evidence does not support a link between the hepatitis B vaccine, or any other vaccine in current use, and multiple sclerosis,” he 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.”
The prior health of the patient, absence of family history and supposed close temporal relationship could all be coincidental, Fox said.
“The only alleged evidence that would be worth taking seriously is the alleged numbers of other similar cases,” he said. “Those data should be capable of detailed case comparisons for consistency, and probably also orthodox epidemiological study.”
But without such a study, Fox added, “one might just as well say, ‘If this vaccine causes MS, then why is it that millions of people have been vaccinated and did not get MS? And why are there so many people with MS who have never had this vaccination?’ “
Here in the states…
By law, vaccine makers have no liability for their products. Those injured or killed must throw themselves on the mercy of the Vaccine Court for compensation. The so-called vaccine court is basically an administrative law process, where vaccine manufacturers are not involved. Two thirds of the applicants for compensation tend to be rejected and it is entirely inadequate for the vaccine death and damage we know exists.
Most parents of damaged children have to hope their medical insurance covers some of the added costs for health care and no one has yet calculated the cost of housing these vaccine-damaged people when their parents grow old and die.
Now with President Trump in office…
Convinced that vaccines cause autism and directing Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., to get to the bottom of the corruption of science at the CDC, we may finally get real about our vaccine policy. Currently, 69 shots are mandatory for all children with Big Pharma pressing state legislators to eliminate ALL exemptions.
Conversely, while members of the EU do offer vaccines, 15 members have NO mandates at all and 14 members at least one, you can see that there is a wide variance in how public officials see the necessity for forced vaccination programs.
As for the hepatitis B vaccine, there are some particularly troubling issues. Here in America, mandates for children were added despite the efforts of the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons, a large and longstanding professional trade group that takes no money from Big Pharma.
According to testimony before Congress given in 1999 by Jane Orient, MD., Executive Director of the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons, which was planning to add Hepatitis B to the mandatory childhood schedule, Dr. Orient stated:
VAERS contains 25,000 reports related to hepatitis B vaccine, about one-third of which were serious enough to lead to an emergency room visit, hospitalization, or death.
It is often assumed that only 10% of reactions are reported. (This committee has heard testimony about persons being actively discouraged from reporting, even if they are aware of the reporting system.) Thus, if there have been some 80,000 serious adverse reactions associated with 20 million doses of vaccine, the risk is about 4 in 1000.
Public policy regarding vaccines is fundamentally flawed. It is permeated by conflicts of interest. It is based on poor scientific methodology (including studies that are too small, too short, and too limited in populations represented), which is, moreover, insulated from independent criticism. The evidence is far too poor to warrant overriding the independent judgments of patients, parents, and attending physicians, even if this were ethically or legally acceptable.
The hepatitis B vaccine is given to day old infants here in America.
FAIR USE STATEMENT
This post may contain copyrighted material the use of which has not been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. This material is being made available within this transformative or derivative work for the purpose of education, commentary and criticism, is being distributed without profit, and is believed to be “fair use” in accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107.
For more information go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/