5 ms·
I also have been thinking of other examples. Imagine someone sued a vaccine manufacturer claiming that the vaccine cause autism. Imagine also that years later i
by yuhong 10y ago
I also have been thinking of other examples. Imagine someone sued a vaccine manufacturer claiming that the vaccine cause autism. Imagine also that years later it turns out that vaccines can "cause" autism, but only in case of things like leaky gut. Was the court and legal system designed for cases like this?
- ceejayoz 10y ago> Was the court and legal system designed for cases like this? Yes. There's even a law that sets up a specific court with special expertise and powers in vaccine cases. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vaccine_court https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vaccine_court
- yuhong 10y agoVaccines was used just as an example.
- AnimalMuppet 10y agoAnd it got an answering example.
- yuhong 10y agoThe point is that the problem is likely more general.
- AnimalMuppet 10y agoYeah, I got that you meant to be saying that. But you gave a specific instance, and in that specific instance, the problem didn't exist. So: Could you give, say, ten more instances, and see in how many of them the problem exists? That way, we can all get some idea of how general the problem is. But if you merely claim that "the problem is likely more general", with nothing behind that but your belief that your statement is probably true, well, don't expect to persuade many people that way...
- gizmo686 10y agoThe fact that vaccines have their own court specifically specified by law suggests that the legal system is not designed for that type of case, and special provisions needed to be added to handle the more common instances.
- ceejayoz 10y agoSo the legal system's ability to adapt as necessary is thus evidence of the legal system's inability to adapt? OK?
- gizmo686 10y agoThe legal didn't adapt in this case. The legislative system applied a patchwork fix. Further, the fix is narrowly narrowly tailored to vaccines, meaning that the legal system is still not equiped to deal with the same kind of issue if it does not involve vaccines.
- esaym 10y ago> There's even a law that sets up a specific court with special expertise and powers in vaccine cases "Experts" or just special interests? ...
- ceejayoz 10y ago"Experts", as in the vast majority of all scientists and physicians with relevant credentials amongst whom there's a near unanimous consensus on their efficacy and safety.
- zeveb 10y agoOf course, I bet that astrologers are in near-unanimity about the efficacy of horoscopes! Not that I think vaccines are either ineffective or unsafe — just that 'these conclusions are accepted by people who accept these premises' is hardly persuasive to those who don't accept those premises.
- ceejayoz 10y agoScientists/physicians have done the necessary research studies to demonstrate both efficacy and safety. They are, in fact, legally required to do both before their products can even be administered to patients. Studies have been done involving tens of millions of patients, entire diseases have been wiped off the earth, etc. Meanwhile, astrologers are in possession of plenty of empirical data that it's a bunch of hooey with no evidence supporting its efficacy. (It is, of course, generally regarded as safe.)
- erikpukinskis 10y agoHoroscopes are extremely effective. I don't know anyone who reads horoscopes who doesn't get use out of them. Is it your opinion that science fiction is "ineffective"?
- maxlybbert 10y agoI remember claims that some of John Edwards' fortune came from what turned out to be bad medical theories ( http://m.cnsnews.com/news/article/did-junk-science-make-john-edwards-rich http://m.cnsnews.com/news/article/did-junk-science-make-john... ). I don't know if there is a good solution to the problem. Some questions need to be answered "soon," while it's always possible that we'll eventually understand a problem well enough that we'll laugh at our earlier understanding.