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.
Nowhere does it say "NDA" in the articles you posted. That year number is derived from the number of pages the FDA can produce a month with current staffing levels, as funded by the federal government. If you wan the FDA to become more efficient, maybe we should lobby the federal government to provide more funding so it can act quicker.
> Egh… no. They wanted the FDA to put it under NDA for 75 years. Which a judge said was bull.
Cool, how does that any way shape or form relate to this discussion? Did they make the claim that they are 100% safe and will never cause interactions ever? If so, show me the exact quote where they said that. There are many reasons to ask for an NDA, and lying is only one of them. Hanlon’s razor and all that.
Are the numbers incorrect? That is what actually matters, in the end.
> I don’t have to be anti-vax at all (and I’ve got the full regular schedule) to say that’s acting suspicious and like you have something to hide.
Just because something looks suspicious doesn’t mean that it is. You are choosing to believe that it is, and that is influencing your response.
You still haven’t shown any sort of study or proof that vaccines (or even this vaccine specifically) cause cancer, by the way. If you’re so sure they do, I’m sure there’s something to back that up. After all, Moderna has provided the data to back their own claims up already.
A. I didn’t say they did cause cancer. I don’t believe they do. I am sympathetic to those who want more investigation.
B. Hanlon’s razor is flawed, as well-executed malice is indistinguishable from stupidity.
C. Contrarywise, you are choosing to believe that it is not suspicious behavior; when being suspicious of a company with decades of fines and convictions is arguably quite reasonable.
D. There are many reasons for your wife to not be talking to you, have a dating profile, and have legal letters in the mail. Divorce planning is just one of them.
