Science is not the decider of fact. For example, cancer is probably the result of an accumulation within a given cell, of seven or so genetic changes, but the courts decide that any given cancer does not have a cumulative cause. The scientific probability of it not being cumulative in nature is very small indeed but the legal fact (following the Phurnacite case) is that it is not. For example, among those who make a claim for whiplash if 65% are actually injured and the test is 80% accurate then the Bayesian odds of making a diagnosis is six to one. The inference is that 86% will be diagnosed! Yet if a random sample of the population is assessed (annual prevalence ~ 1%), the odds are worse than eleven to one (against) that anyone given a whiplash diagnosis actually has such an injury. Given these scientific ‘facts’, the court would be forgiven for deciding either there was no such thing as whiplash or in the alternate, that everyone who makes a claim must be injured and it