Epidemiologic Evidence Is Insufficient To Prove There Is No Link Between The MMR Vaccine And Autism By Clifford G. Miller

August 4, 2004 http://www.redflagsweekly.com/edit.htm

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.

The author is also a graduate physicist of The Imperial College of Science
Technology & Medicine (London University) and sometime lecturer on law
(notably evidence) standards and ethics at The Imperial College.

"john" wrote in message
...
August 4, 2004 http://www.redflagsweekly.com/edit.htm
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 .

Yes, that is true. But it is not irrelevant to the autism-vaccine claim,
where the claim is that that very large numbers of cases of autism, if not
all of them, are due to vaccines. That can definitely be challenged
severely by epidemiological evidence and, in fact, has been.

What a court of law might decide in relation to any specific case, if such
an argument was put to them, is a very different thing. That has nothing
to do with either truth or science.

Peter Moran

"john" wrote in message
...
August 4, 2004 http://www.redflagsweekly.com/edit.htm

Epidemiologic Evidence Is Insufficient To Prove There Is No Link Between
The
MMR Vaccine And Autism By Clifford G. Miller

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.

The author is also a graduate physicist of The Imperial College of Science
Technology & Medicine (London University) and sometime lecturer on law
(notably evidence) standards and ethics at The Imperial College.

John is still getting his medical opinions from lawyers....

Miller seems rather upset over the loss of the class action suit in England.
He also wrote a letter to the BMJ where he defended Wakefield.

Does anyone know if he was one of he lawyers who stood to make a few pounds
off the class action?