The burden of proof

The scientific method refers to a body of techniques for investigating unexplained phenomena, acquiring new knowledge, or correcting and integrating previous knowledge. To be termed scientific, a method of inquiry must be based on empirical and measurable evidence subject to specific principles of reasoning.

The chief characteristic that distinguishes a scientific method of inquiry from other methods of acquiring knowledge is that scientists seek to let reality speak for itself. Scientific research proposes hypotheses as explanations of phenomena or potential new technologies, and design experimental studies to test these hypotheses via predictions that can be derived or expected from them. These studies must be repeatable, to guard against mistake, confusion, or fraud in any particular experiment. Theories that encompass wider domains of inquiry may bind many independently derived hypotheses together in a coherent, supportive structure. Theories, in turn, may help form new hypotheses, or place groups of hypotheses into context.

Scientific inquiry is generally intended to be as objective as possible in order to reduce biased interpretations of results, which is another god reason for requiring repetition of studies. Another basic expectation is to document, archive, and share all data and methodology so they are available for careful scrutiny by other scientists and reviewing parties, giving them the opportunity to verify results by attempting to reproduce them. This practice, called full disclosure, also allows statistical measures of the reliability of these data to be established. That is, when data is sampled or compared to chance, what does the data tell us about the study conducted? Learning about the scientific method is basic high school stuff that science students learn if they’re paying attention instead of tossing paper planes with abusive messages written on them at the new kid.

Scientists know that the science of mankind is not infallible, and this process can take many years to produce results due to its thorough and methodical requirements. Throughout time, science has confirmed one thing, and then many decades or centuries later found it to be either slightly or completely wrong, or part of a bigger picture. This is because science is a method of learning new things, so throughout time, as humankind has improved its understanding of the natural world, science has integrated and corrected itself many times. However, this does not mean that because science was wrong once before it will be wrong again, because the science is there to teach us where we made our mistake, and hence we learn a new explanation for the phenomena in question.

The scientific method is always the first to admit it might be wrong, and it is in the scientific method where we find why, and correct the mistake. Without it, claiming that the world is flat, for example, would require an equal measure of evidence to that which has been acquired through the scientific method to prove that it is, in fact, spherical. When a claim is asserted without evidence, it can then be dismissed without evidence. The burden of proof is on the asserted claim, just like in a court of law where you are innocent until proven guilty, and the claims brought against you must be proven, with evidence, for you to receive sentencing.

Anti-vaccine proponents such as Meryl Dorey and Monika Milka like to peddle the classic anti-vaccine trope that “you can’t prove vaccines are safe.” This accusation, also adopted by many alternative medicine practitioners and their brainwashed clients demands that vaccine advocates demonstrate vaccines do not lead to harm effectively shifting the burden to prove that vaccines do cause harm from their own shoulders. This makes it easy for them to rely on anecdote and postulation to support the claims they make to their followers, who fall for said shift hook, line, and sinker.

The implication is that because there is no conclusive answer to certain problems, vaccines remain a plausible answer. Have you ever been told that “there is no definitive research proving a link between vaccines and autism, but there is also no definitive research ruling it out.” What about this one, “those who say autism is not linked to vaccines do now know what is causing the epidemics.” This involves arguing based on a lack of evidence – not knowing something is true is taken as proof it is false, or not knowing something is false is proof that it is true. By their own logic, failing to prove a link between autism and vaccines should be proof that it’s been ruled out.

Likewise, because there have been no studies conducted with the specific conditions anti-vaccination groups ask for, this lack of knowledge means vaccines are not safe. Lists of questions to ask vaccine proponents are circulated with the intention of stumping them, with the inability to answer taken as evidence against vaccination.

In 2010, nine questions were circulated by one David Mihalovic, ND. The ND means “natural doctor,” but can also mean “not a doctor.” Depends on your perspective, and whether or not you’ve been indoctrinated by the anti-vaccine cult. His questions, however, are not that hard to answer, so I decided to have a virtual “interview” with him.

Could you please provide one double-blind, placebo-controlled study that can prove the safety and effectiveness of vaccines?

“Actually, Dave, I can’t. There are none, but there’s a reason for this: you can’t do double-blind vaccine trials, it would require that the placebo group of the study’s population be switched with the vaccinated group. This would require the vaccinated group to have the vaccine reversed, which can’t be done. If you want randomised safety and efficacy trial results, however, done with a proper placebo control group, one only needs to look up the course of trials done for any one vaccine to find them.”

Could you please provide evidence on ANY study which can confirm the long-term safety and effectiveness of vaccines?

“Sure, Dave. Go look up smallpox.”

Could you please provide scientific evidence which can prove that disease reduction in any part of the world, at any point in history was attributable to inoculation of populations?

“Yes, Dave. Smallpox, again, as well as Polio. Go look them up, the evidence won’t be hard to find. It would be easier to ignore, I imagine.”

Could you please explain how the safety and mechanism of vaccines in the human body are scientifically proven if their pharmacokinetics (the study of bodily absorption, distribution, metabolism and excretion of ingredients) are never examined or analysed in any vaccine study?

“Your question implies that if the vaccine ingredients aren’t examined during vaccine trials, they aren’t examined at all. These examinations aren’t required during vaccine trials, because they’ve already been done in other trials. The vaccine trials are to test the hypothesis that they will activate the human immune system against specific viral or bacterial infections, with all the ingredients acting together for a singular purpose. Safety is tested and must be confirmed prior to human trials, or human trials don’t even occur.”

Could you please provide scientific justification as to how injecting a human being with a confirmed neurotoxin is beneficial to human health and prevents disease?

“As you should well know, being a qualified ND, that high quantities of water can be quite toxic for the human body, as well, resulting in what is known as hypernatremia, and yet water is vital to our bodies. Sunlight, too, is vital for life to even exist, and yet too much of that can cause skin cancer. Considering we are exposed to many toxic substances on a daily basis from nature itself, with no say in the matter and no serious consequences, the justification is then in the dose, and the purpose of those ingredients. The evidence is in the millions that get vaccines every day, with no ill effects.”

Can you provide a risk/benefit profile on how the benefits of injecting a known neurotoxin exceeds its risks to human health for the intended goal of preventing disease?

“The benefits of vaccines demonstrably outweigh the risks. The risks of vaccines also demonstrably outweigh the risks of their counterpart diseases. The risk analysis of the specific ingredients are included in the risk analysis of the vaccine.”

Could you please provide scientific justification on how bypassing the respiratory tract (or mucous membrane) is advantageous and how directly injecting viruses into the bloodstream enhances immune functioning and prevents future infections?

“Vaccines don’t contain living, active viruses, and they aren’t injected into the bloodstream.”

Could you please provide scientific justification on how a vaccine would prevent viruses from mutating?

“With a full understanding of antigenic drift, you’ll have your answer.

Could you please provide scientific justification as to how a vaccination can target a virus in an infected individual who does not have the exact viral configuration or strain the vaccine was developed for?

“The vaccine doesn’t target anything…it actuates the body’s immune system. The body, prepared for the disease by the vaccine, reacts to it naturally. This is why some people may still experience some of the symptoms of a disease. See, someone vaccinated against whooping cough will still get the pertussis virus in them, but a prepared immune system will fight it off. The symptoms experienced by a vaccinated person may be minimal, or none at all, but either way, it is the body fighting the infection, not the vaccine. The vaccine is just an enabler. The body does the work.”

Thank you, Martin. I might observe, if I may, that you haven’t really provided any evidence for your claims.

“Neither have you, Dave. Neither have you.”

Laziness, stupidness, and ignorance are not excuses to get away with subverting existing evidence, or pretending it doesn’t exist. It does, there is tonnes of evidence on the subject. The questions presented by our ND are erroneously assuming that they can’t or won’t be answered with evidence, but they can. They are, by being questions, effectively making claims against vaccines, and without evidence to support those claims, the can be answered without evidence. The simplest answer to each of them is, “don’t be lazy, there’s plenty of evidence, one only needs to look for it. Ignoring it doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist.” And it’s all conducted using the scientific method, with repetition, documentation, and fully disclosed methodology.

These questions all basically shift the burden of proof away from where it actually belongs. In fact, the best way to answer these questions is to ask them right back. For example, “Could you please provide scientific justification on how a vaccine would prevent viruses from mutating,” you can answer with, “could you please provide scientific justification on how it wouldn’t?” Essentially, returning the burden of proof to its owner will usually be ignored by anti-vaccine activists consumed by the delusion that they are owed something, and one has to consider the backfire effect when doing so. But at the end of the day, you don’t need to feel like you’re in the wrong if you can properly identify who’s court the burden of proof is in. Eventually anyone seeing such debate that might have otherwise sided with anti-vaccine proponents without the debate might garner a better understanding of their tactics, and be saved by the basic notion of the burden of proof.

People who are thoroughly convinced of their assertions, with or without proof, are basically brick walls with mouths and atrophied minds, but those that might be mislead by these brick walls are the ones we have to worry about.