Post by account_disabled on Dec 19, 2023 1:37:28 GMT -5
Caused to his health and property by a defective product; whereas the manufacturer's no-fault liability is the only means of adequate solution to the problem, specific to an era characterized by technological progress and a fair allocation of the risks inherent in modern technological production; […] Whereas, in order to protect the physical well-being and property of the consumer, the defectiveness of a product should not be determined on the basis of the unfitness of the In particular, the period between the administration of the vaccine and the appearance of a disease and the lack of family or personal history of the patient indisputably prove the defect of the vaccine and the causal link.
The French Court of Cassation noted the excellent state of health country email list of Mr. W before the vaccine, the lack of family history and the temporal proximity between the vaccination and the onset of the disease, thus concluding that the causal link between the vaccine and the disease was sufficient, without examining the specific circumstances. The Paris Court of Appeal determined that there is no scientific consensus on the causal relationship between hepatitis B vaccination and the occurrence of multiple sclerosis, and that national and international health authorities have rejected the link between the risk of sclerosing lesion and vaccination. Moreover, multiple medical studies have shown that the reasons for the appearance of sclerosis in plaques are still unknown. Thus, the Court of Appeal rejected the arguments of temporal proximity and personal and family antecedents, in the absence of scientific evidence to support them.
The preliminary question asked On a new appeal, the Court of Cassation decided to address the following preliminary questions: ) If Article of Directive / opposes the criminalization of pharmaceutical laboratories for vaccinations by proving the defect of the vaccine and the causal link between it and the disease, despite the lack of medical research in this regard? ) is in the negative, then does Article preclude criminalization based on the link between the defect attributable to the vaccine and the harm suffered when causation can be proved? ) If the answer to the first question is affirmative, then should Article be interpreted to mean that proof of causation must be scientifically proven? The Court's observations Directive.
The French Court of Cassation noted the excellent state of health country email list of Mr. W before the vaccine, the lack of family history and the temporal proximity between the vaccination and the onset of the disease, thus concluding that the causal link between the vaccine and the disease was sufficient, without examining the specific circumstances. The Paris Court of Appeal determined that there is no scientific consensus on the causal relationship between hepatitis B vaccination and the occurrence of multiple sclerosis, and that national and international health authorities have rejected the link between the risk of sclerosing lesion and vaccination. Moreover, multiple medical studies have shown that the reasons for the appearance of sclerosis in plaques are still unknown. Thus, the Court of Appeal rejected the arguments of temporal proximity and personal and family antecedents, in the absence of scientific evidence to support them.
The preliminary question asked On a new appeal, the Court of Cassation decided to address the following preliminary questions: ) If Article of Directive / opposes the criminalization of pharmaceutical laboratories for vaccinations by proving the defect of the vaccine and the causal link between it and the disease, despite the lack of medical research in this regard? ) is in the negative, then does Article preclude criminalization based on the link between the defect attributable to the vaccine and the harm suffered when causation can be proved? ) If the answer to the first question is affirmative, then should Article be interpreted to mean that proof of causation must be scientifically proven? The Court's observations Directive.