Aug 24, 2017 Last Updated 2:24 PM, Aug 23, 2017

Decision by Europe’s top court alarms vaccine experts

Published in Head news
Read 322 times
Rate this item
(0 votes)

A recent ruling by the European Court of Justice has alarmed clinicians and scientists all over the world due to the controversial decision of not considering solid "scientifical proof" as the only element in evaluating a possible connection between vaccines (or other clinical treatments) and diseases.

Apparently, plaintiffs could be allowed to use other evidences, including circumstantial ones, while pleading their case, even in the presence of inconclusive scientific studies. Nonetheless, the "burden of proof" remains, of course, on the plaintiff, which is still required to have preponderance of evidences in order to prove a correlation between the treatment and the clinical condition, while the manufacturers can easily use solid epidemiological study showing no convincing evidence of a connection.

Gretchen Vogel discusses the caveats of this delicate matter on Science News.

  Link to the original paper

Last modified on Tuesday, 08 August 2017 13:40
Login to post comments

Registered area

Thanks to the support of
merck serono biogen sanofi

Conferences & Courses

JNIInternational Brain Research Organization
Bringing Neuroscience to the World
JNIJournal of Neuroimmunology
Studies on all branches of neurosciences covering both research and clinical problems of neuroscientific interest.

This website or its third party tools use cookies, which are necessary to its functioning and required to achieve the purposes illustrated in the cookie policy. If you want to know more or withdraw your consent to all or some of the cookies, please refer to the cookie policy. By closing this banner, scrolling this page, clicking a link or continuing to browse otherwise, you agree to the use of cookies. To find out more about the cookies we use and how to delete them, see our Cookie Policy