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.