The burden of proof

“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.