An anonymous reader writes "A mother from the UK has won her case claiming that the MMR vaccine severely retarded her child. The main factor in her winning the case was, as the panel put it, "the balance of probabilities". A doctor Michael Fitzpatrick said, "...although a causal link has been established in law in this instance, exhaustive scientific research has failed to establish any link between MMR and brain damage." (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/healthnews/7970199/Mother-wins-MMR-payout-after-18-years.html) Since when did law trump exhaustive scientific research in scientific matters?
It's a shock that such a case has succeeded as, despite the mother's claims that she is not anti-vaccination and it has been stated in every article which prints the story that it does not confirm a link between MMR and autism, this will only fuel the anti-vaccination movement.
Does anyone else find this story slightly troubling?"
Link to Original Source