Jump to content
IndiaDivine.org

Epidemiologic Evidence Is Insufficient To Prove No Link Between The MMR Vaccine And Autism

Rate this topic


Guest guest

Recommended Posts

Guest guest

http://www.redflagsweekly.com/edit.htm

 

August 4, 2004

 

Epidemiologic Evidence Is Insufficient To Prove There

Is No Link Between The MMR Vaccine And Autism

 

By Clifford G. Miller

 

This is an important point concerning the

inappropriate use of epidemiologic 'evidence' cited to

support the 'No Vaccine Causal Link To Autism'

proposition.

 

The source of the following is the main US judicial

work of reference on scientific evidence which is also

used as a training manual for US judges.

 

Just so that this is clear to all, the US Federal

Judicial Centre Reference Manual on Scientific

Evidence, Second Edition, makes abundantly clear that

epidemiology is not acceptable to prove there is no

causal link between an adverse event and a

pharmaceutical . I quote from the Epidemiology

Chapter, page 381 (emphasis added)

 

" Epidemiology is concerned with the incidence of

disease in populations and does not address the

question of the cause of an individual’s disease. This

question, sometimes referred to as specific causation,

is beyond the domain of the science of epidemiology.

Epidemiology has its limits at the point where an

inference is made that the relationship between an

agent and a disease is causal (general causation) and

where the magnitude of excess risk attributed to the

agent has been determined; that is, epidemiology

addresses whether an agent can cause a disease , not

whether an agent did cause a specific plaintiff ’s

disease . "

 

Please note this is stated by reference to the injured

Plaintiff seeking to prove the cause was the drug

company's product. Epidemiology papers appear to be

relied on heavily as the science for the proposition

that, 'there is no link between MMR and autism'. The

Reference Manual on Scientific Evidence specifically

rules out epidemiology as proof of specific causation,

stating that it can only go to prove that an agent

could have caused but not that, in any particular

case, it did cause. Hence, the oft repeated citing of

epidemiology as proof of the opposite , that there is

no causal link, is more than a little incongruous and

a somewhat bizarre scientific base on which to put any

nation's policy on immunisation of children . The

logical implication seems to be that epidemiology can

never be used to prove that a particular agent did not

cause a particular adverse event. All that

epidemiology could possibly be considered to prove is

that the likelihood the adverse event was caused by a

particular agent is small, and not that there is no

likelihood .

 

An electronic version of the Reference Manual can be

downloaded from the Federal Judicial Center’s website.

 

Editorial note: The author is an English lawyer,

admitted to practice English law in England and Wales.

This editorial is meant to provoke discussion and

anyone in the U.S. who wishes personal advice on this

issue should seek the independent views of a qualified

U.S. attorney.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...