No True Scotsman fallacy: "No reliable evidence... ." "Not aware of... ." In this case, the strategy uses weasel-word qualifiers to invalidate evidence or facts. Very lawerly as they can use the weasel words to dismiss evidence that doesn't support their conclusion and they can use lack of awareness to defend themselves in court (if we ever get there.)

Motte and Bailey: Conflating SV40 virus with SV40 promoter/enhancer then explaining why the promoter/enhancer isn't dangerous, only the full viral sequence is. There are other ways this is employed such as blurring the lines between the process 1 and 2 and what was tested for each.

And then of course we have appeal to authority: post-marketing monitoring systems operated by the implicated agencies themselves. Also, "not peer reviewed" is a form of appeal to authority as well and equally as laughable with the current state of science journals.

And then you have batshit crazy stuff like a guy who puts a big qualifier -at the end of a sentence- that means [if regulators were competent and well-intentioned], thus invalidating everything he said before.

It's all so tiresome.