All evidence starts as anecdotal observation. Even the world’s most groundbreaking papers are, at their root, a collection of anecdotal observations others look into.
Secondly, absence of evidence, is not evidence of absence. Just because there’s no evidence for something being harmful, doesn’t mean there’s any evidence proving the something isn’t harmful.
So look, I’m not an antivaxxer, but I say, “prove it.” Instead of saying “there’s no evidence it’s causing cancer,” write papers proving that it can’t be. I have no problem with the burden of proof being on for-profit billion-dollar companies repeatedly convicted of wrongdoing.
You just spent an entire paragraph pointing out a logical fallacy and then immediately follow up by trying to have someone prove a negative? Come on.
And the burden of proof generally is on the person making a claim. If someone says or implies that a vaccine causes cancer, then it’s on them to prove that, not on the vaccine maker to magically prove a negative.
> If someone says or implies that a vaccine causes cancer, then it’s on them to prove that, not on the vaccine maker to magically prove a negative.
This does not make any sense, because the vaccine maker is also making a claim:
“This drug is safe, effective, does not cause cancer or other harm in either the short term or the long term, and is in every way trustworthy.”
In which case, the burden is on them to prove it, just like any claim from any company about any product. Even more so when they have convictions and a $2.3 billion fine historically for lying. It’s also realistic, I believe, to say that when you are in a rush against competition combined with the world being in a panic, that is a perfect atmosphere for lies and omission.
You can’t prove a negative. It’s impossible to prove that something is 100% safe in all possible cases forever and always and will never cause cancer or interact with another drug or cause some unknown rare side effect. It’s impossible to predict every single interaction and edge case. We all know this, it’s basic logic, so I don’t know why I have to repeat it.
Furthermore, their claim is not and has never been “This drug is safe, effective, does not cause cancer or other harm in either the short term or the long term, and is in every way trustworthy.” as an absolute. They explicitly release numbers such as effectiveness, efficacy, etc which show how safe, how effective, etc a drug/vaccine is.
Just because you ignore those numbers and choose to believe your own absolute interpretation of what they say doesn’t somehow mean that is what was said.