I sincerely invite any pro-vaccine “expert” MD, PhD, or otherwise to provide a rebuttal to this without appealing to authority, affirming the consequent, or using another logical fallacy (which is NOT empiricial evidence):

The burden of proof lies on the individual making the positive claim.

The positive claim is: “vaccines are safe and effective.”

That claim has never been met. It doesn’t matter how many “experts” repeat it, or how many people have been conditioned to believe it. The burden is not on those pointing out the absence of evidence. It is on those making the claim.

There has never been a double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled clinical trial (using an inert placebo such as saline) comparing a vaccinated group to a true placebo group, showing vaccinated children have better health outcomes than unvaccinated children.

Proponents of the “safe and effective” argument point to studies in which the placebo is another vaccine or another aluminum phosphate/aluminum hydroxide containing injection. That is not a genuine placebo, so that does not constitute an actual negative control.

Additionally, the placebo containing aluminum presupposes aluminum hydroxide and aluminum phosphate have been proven safe when injected, when in reality the “authorities” cite the absurd Mitkus and Flarend studies based on modeling, ingested aluminum, and injections in a total of 4 rabbits (that was looking at aluminum distribution, not harm). So no, there is no empirical evidence that aluminum adjuvants are safe when injected into infant humans (or adults for that matter).

Likewise, there is no study comparing the health outcomes of fully vaccinated children to completely unvaccinated children, demonstrating vaccinated children have better overall long-term health outcomes across the full spectrum of chronic illness and mortality.

Pro-vaccine proponents argue that these studies don’t exist due to ethical reasons, as it would be “unethical to not give children life-saving vaccines.”

That’s the whole point of the type of study in the first place—to actually demonstrate that vaccines are safe and effective.

By refusing to do this study while leaning on “ethical reasons” or “life-saving vaccines,” that is presupposing safety without clearly demonstrating safety, which is quite literally a begging the question logical fallacy, and pseudoscientific by definition.

So attempts to dismiss this standard as “unethical” only beg the question of safety in presupposing that vaccines are already proven safe and effective, which is precisely the point of the study (that has never been done) in the first place.

So in short, there is zero empirical evidence for the claim that vaccines are “safe and effective.”