Hepatitis B vaccine: the Court of Luxembourg recognizes the link with multiple sclerosis!

in #medicine8 years ago

Can hepatitis B vaccine cause multiple sclerosis and be entitled to compensation for injury? The Court of Cassation hesitated to say ... the Court of Justice of the European Union has just confirmed to her that she had the right to recognize him. A decision that will complicate the entry into force of the mandatory vaccination announced by Minister Buzyn ...

 

Agnès Buzyn would probably have gone well out of this decision which will complicate the implementation of its policy of mandatory vaccination. The Court of Justice of the European Union has considered, in the context of a question referred for a preliminary ruling, that it was in conformity with European Union law to recognize a causal link between a Sanofi Pasteur vaccine against hepatitis B and multiple sclerosis.

 

The case concerned a French case. A man in perfect health had declared a sclerosis after a vaccination. He died in 2011.

 

So far, the EU directive on the subject requires complainants to establish evidence of causation between vaccination and disease. The CJEU acknowledged that this evidence did not necessarily imply a scientific consensus, but could simply be based on strong and serious assumptions. It will be up to each national court to verify that seriousness.

 

This response paves the way for victims to be compensated by the vaccine manufacturers involved.

 

Bad news for Sanofi ... and for Agnès Buzyn.

 

In its judgment of today's date, the Court considers that a probationary regime is compatible with the Directive, which authorizes the judge, in the absence of conclusive and irrefutable evidence, to conclude that there is no vaccine and that there is a link Causal relationship between the disease and a disease on the basis of a series of serious, precise and concordant indices, since this cluster of indices allows it to consider, with a sufficiently high degree of probability, that such a conclusion Corresponds to reality. Such a system is not such as to involve a reversal of the burden of proof on the victim, since it is for the victim to establish the various indices, the conjunction of which will enable the court seised to convince itself The existence of the defect in the vaccine and the causal link between it and the damage suffered. Moreover, to exclude any mode of proof other than the certain evidence arising out of medical research would have the effect of rendering excessively difficult, or even where medical research does not establish or invalidate the existence of a causal link, The liability of the producer, thus undermining the effectiveness of the Directive and the objectives of the Directive (ie protecting the safety and health of consumers and ensuring a fair distribution of the risks inherent in Technical production between the victim and the producer). The Court nevertheless states that national courts must ensure that the indices produced are actually sufficiently serious, precise and concordant to enable it to be concluded that the existence of a defect in the product appears, having regard also to the elements and arguments presented in Defense as the most plausible explanation for the occurrence of the damage. The national court must further preserve its own discretion as to whether or not such evidence has been provided to the requisite legal standard until such time as it considers itself in a position to form its final conviction.

Sort: