Monday, 10 November 2008

Burden of proof

Truth Seeker uses the "burden of proof" argument fairly frequently. His (her?) argument goes like this:

The onus to prove vaccinations do not suppress immunity and do not make one more suscetable to chronic diseases such as autoimmune diseases lies with the makers, the DOH and people who licence them which they have not done.

Actually, Truth Seeker, all the available evidence does suggest that vaccinations do not suppress immunity, and don't make one more susceptible to chronic diseases. The problem lies with cretins like you who have an agenda to pursue, and are well aware that it's logically impossible to prove a negative. For example, it's impossible to prove that vaccinations don't leave you more likely to be attacked by tigers. There's no evidence that suggests you are more likely to be - just as there's no evidence to suggest that vaccinations make you more susceptible to autoimmune diseases. When all the evidence (and there's a hell of a lot of it) points to there being no connection, and there's no evidence to suggest that there is a connection - if you come up with a theory, the onus is on you. But you're trying to convince worried mothers that there might be a connection. You evil, evil bastard. I hope you get attacked by tigers.

No comments: