EU court: Vaccines can be blamed for illness without scientific evidence

[mon]

Forget the science, as a lawyer I find this decision reprehensible. Just totally opening the floodgates for quacks to have their day in court.

More quacks.....

Unbelievable, maybe I'm cynical but I've just met my first honest solicitor. over here they'd be stacked 10 deep in the line salivating.

 

[west42]

Call me crazy, but other than getting the standard childhood vacs for debilitating diseases, why would people with functioning immune systems get pumped full of God knows what so that maybe they won't get whatever strain of flu scientists think might be bad the coming year?
I can sort of understand hpv vaccines (god forbid we use condoms), but do people not understand there's always a risk? Fucking Tylenol is actually pretty damn toxic after you surpass a 2 gram dose.
Seizure meds are hell on your liver.
Pain meds are addictive.

Point being accept the risk and make a damn assessment regarding potential benefits. You're injecting deactivated viruses that were once capable of causing horrible diseasr into your body, for Christ sake. Of course something may go wrong.
As stupid as people are today, i can't blame big pharma for half the shit they pull.

 

[chardog]

TS, I would say the article title is somewhat deceiving.

"The EU's highest court said that if the development of a disease is timely to the person's receiving a vaccine, if the person was previously health with a lack of history of the disease in their family and if a significant number of disease cases are reported among people receiving a certain vaccine, this may serve as enough proof."

what scientific evidence do you need, other than knowing a vaccination, where live diseases are injected into a person?

For instance, a doctor deems me healthy at the time of a flu shot, gives me the shot, and I come in the next day with 100+ degree fever.

Should I or Should I not be able to blame the vaccine? There's proof I was healthy and took the vaccine.

 

[klnOmega]

Yah, no.
The far right is the undisputed king of questioning science that leads to conclusions that go against ideology.
UNDISPUTED.
and your pathetic, disingenuous attempt to paint the opposite picture just shows what an unthinking shill you are.

Except I am a scientist...

 

[freaky]

Seriously, fuck these vaccines. They are nothing but cash grab for pharmaceuticals. I never had a single vaccines in my life and I'm healthy as a cow. People never had vaccines and they're fine.

Vaccines are stupid. They put a strain of the bacteria/virus in you and hope your body can learn to fight it off and be immune to it in the future. Recently I saw a commercial on HPV vaccine and it claimed HPV causes cancer therefore you must get the HPV vaccine. This scared the shit out of my GF and asked if I was vaccinated. lmao

 

[JosephDredd]

TS, I would say the article title is somewhat deceiving.

"The EU's highest court said that if the development of a disease is timely to the person's receiving a vaccine, if the person was previously health with a lack of history of the disease in their family and if a significant number of disease cases are reported among people receiving a certain vaccine, this may serve as enough proof."

what scientific evidence do you need, other than knowing a vaccination, where live diseases are injected into a person?

For instance, a doctor deems me healthy at the time of a flu shot, gives me the shot, and I come in the next day with 100+ degree fever.

Should I or Should I not be able to blame the vaccine? There's proof I was healthy and took the vaccine.

Have you ever been healthy and then got sick without receiving a vaccine first? Have a significant number of other people experienced the same phenomena?

 

[Prutfis]

Seriously, fuck these vaccines. They are nothing but cash grab for pharmaceuticals. I never had a single vaccines in my life and I'm healthy as a cow. People never had vaccines and they're fine.

Vaccines are stupid. They put a strain of the bacteria/virus in you and hope your body can learn to fight it off and be immune to it in the future. Recently I saw a commercial on HPV vaccine and it claimed HPV causes cancer therefore you must get the HPV vaccine. This scared the shit out of my GF and asked if I was vaccinated. lmao

No. You are stupid. Plain and simple. A complete fucking idiot with no clue what herd immunity means.

 

[PainIsLIfe]

Like what?

The judgment is obviously retarded. Scientific truths aren't determined in a courtroom. They are deciding causality despite a lack of evidence and not knowing wtf they are talking about. It's like saying you can seek damages from getting cancer after you sleep in a Motel 6.

Round-up, Brominated Vegetable Oil, Brominated Flour, Azodicarbonamide, BHA, Arsenic, DPA, etc. etc.

 

[vcmmafan]

They fucking save lives

 

[Andy Capp]

TS, I would say the article title is somewhat deceiving.

"The EU's highest court said that if the development of a disease is timely to the person's receiving a vaccine, if the person was previously health with a lack of history of the disease in their family and if a significant number of disease cases are reported among people receiving a certain vaccine, this may serve as enough proof."

I am forced to agree. That seems reasonable provided expert help is engaged in a full review to ensure those criteria are met and that there's no other likely cause, apparent or otherwise, of the illness.

TS was obviously being a little click-baity to attract attention, but that's normal for the War Room. I've seen many worse examples.

 

[JosephDredd]

TS was obviously being a little click-baity to attract attention, but that's normal for the War Room. I've seen many worse examples.

That was the title of the article I quoted.

 

[mon]

TS, I would say the article title is somewhat deceiving.

"The EU's highest court said that if the development of a disease is timely to the person's receiving a vaccine, if the person was previously health with a lack of history of the disease in their family and if a significant number of disease cases are reported among people receiving a certain vaccine, this may serve as enough proof."

what scientific evidence do you need, other than knowing a vaccination, where live diseases are injected into a person?

For instance, a doctor deems me healthy at the time of a flu shot, gives me the shot, and I come in the next day with 100+ degree fever.

Should I or Should I not be able to blame the vaccine? There's proof I was healthy and took the vaccine.

If it was me I'd be blaming the vaccine (actually I can't as I don't take it). There's still the off chance that it was a coincidence and while common sense would agree, common sense is not an absolute or recognised scientificly.

I only take the ones I deem on the risk reward ie tetanus, hep etc
The biggest concern is the age of the children and the volume of different vaccinations given in one needle. I will check on this but I believe vaccines where found to be less effective and the side effects worse when the multi vaccines needles were used.

 

[Andy Capp]

That was the title of the article I quoted.

Ok, then not you, but the publisher of the article, it's just that we don't need any more of that then there already is. You could have started the conversation from a more honest place had their qualifying remarks been mentioned by you at the outset.

 

[PhitePhan]

That was the title of the article I quoted.

This seems to be a good example of the kind of bias that news sources hold when presenting on this topic. Considering that pharmaceuticals spend over 5 billion a year in television and print advertising, it isn't exactly shocking... What is shocking though, is how quickly so many eat it up without a second thought. These same people will then laughably proclaim their "pro-science" viewpoints while actually parroting pharmaceutical advertising.

/rant

Regarding the OP, this actually seems to be a reasonable ruling.

In particular, the article states "The Court of Justice said that "specific and consistent evidence" relating to timeliness, a prior healthy status, lack of family history and multiple cases may prove to be enough..."

What other methods should we use?

Clinical trials are woefully inadequate on many fronts, while post-marketing safety systems might actually be worse. The CDC themselves admit that vaccine adverse events are "significantly" under-reported, with reasonable estimates suggesting that 1-10 out of 100 adverse events being reported....

 

[JosephDredd]

Ok, then not you, but the publisher of the article, it's just that we don't need any more of that then there already is.

No, I would never do something as scummy as a clickbait title.

You could have started the conversation from a more honest place had their qualifying remarks been mentioned by you at the outset.

But I wanted to get everyone fired up with deliberately misleading information.

 

[PhitePhan]

They fucking save lives

They also take lives and harm people.

For example, the MMR vaccine has shown to induce seizure in 1 out of 3000 kids. As I stated in another post, this number is a significant under-estimate of the actual rate, per the CDC's own admission. Even at 1 out of 3000, that is a lot of kids who are seriously injured (BTW, risk of subsequent seizures/disorder is increased after the first seizure).

And keep in mind, this is just ONE adverse event for ONE vaccine. The stated seizure rate associated with DTaP is 1 out of 14,000, while other vaccines also carry increased risk of seizures. And again, ONE vaccine and ONE event, there are many vaccines which each have unique risks.

 

[mon]

Not to flog a dead horse but here is another perfect example of a conflict of interest. 1 million dollars buys a lot yet it seems it just showed you need to exercise more, Perhaps the bank accounts of the directors personal/trusts/companies should be checked to see how much of the 1 million dollars were actually spent, I won't bother to mention that the source of the funding for the research result should always be checked.

FDA Fuck yeah

This sort of conflict of interest is why American safety is seen as a joke through Europe and parts of Australia. I'll just add that the money your politicians receive on both sides of the political fence directly influences you is made accountable within your organisations. I can still remember your person in charge of environmental protection having multiple board seats on different oil organisations.

http://articles.mercola.com/sites/a...=20170725Z3&et_cid=DM152289&et_rid=2092639107

A couple of the source references before you scream some crap

https://www.forbes.com/sites/robwat...longstanding-ties-to-soda-giant/#ad7a41d57b54

http://www.webmd.com/diet/obesity/news/20161010/soda-companies-health-groups

 

[Pickle Rick]

You can't get autism if you die from polio
Anti vaxxer logic

 

[Madmick]

more doctors are coming out questioning the safety of vaccines

No, they're not.

 

[RubberGuard5]

TS, I would say the article title is somewhat deceiving.

"The EU's highest court said that if the development of a disease is timely to the person's receiving a vaccine, if the person was previously health with a lack of history of the disease in their family and if a significant number of disease cases are reported among people receiving a certain vaccine, this may serve as enough proof."

what scientific evidence do you need, other than knowing a vaccination, where live diseases are injected into a person?

For instance, a doctor deems me healthy at the time of a flu shot, gives me the shot, and I come in the next day with 100+ degree fever.

Should I or Should I not be able to blame the vaccine? There's proof I was healthy and took the vaccine.

How do you determine if it was just a coincidence?