On the contrary, this is the perfect "razor" to shave off the difference between scientific thinking, and magical thinking.

Those who concede that vaccines, as a basic concept, have 200 years of success behind them, beat smallpox and polio, have saved millions of lives and taken almost none via side-effects - BUT, do say: "a new vaccine technology hasn't been tried widely, I want extensive testing before I take one" are thinking scientifically about long-agreed facts, expressing skepticism the vaccinologists would approve. They'd be eager to show you their data! They were skeptics going in, didn't come forward until they could prove it.

Those who think all vaccines are inherently unsafe are thinking differently from that. The vaccinologists would see no point in showing them data or any other argument, argument being useless.