Emily
Editor, Senior Moderator
https://www.jpands.org/vol27no1/orient.pdf
Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons Volume 27 Number 1 Spring 2022
Guest Editorial
Negative Evidence:
Antibody-Dependent Enhancement
Jane M. Orient, M.D.
The term “negative evidence” is generally understood to
mean “evidence for a theory provided by the nonoccurrence
or absence of something.”1 Absence of evidence is not
the same thing. An adverse reaction, for example, might
have occurred, but is deliberately being hidden. The lack of
expected data is a highly valuable form of negative evidence
recognized by astute scientific and legal investigators.2,3
Negative evidence is not uncommon, but it is hard to
spot for good reasons. It takes time and effort to produce
believable false data. It is much easier and safer for anyone
who wants to mislead the public to hide the inconvenient
information than to create an elaborate cover-up. Deliberate
omission of data is the form of scientific misconduct that is
the most difficult to prove.4 There are numerous historical
precedents involving famous scientists who intentionally
omitted relevant data contradicting their favored theories.4-6
Discovery of compelling negative evidence requires not
only diligence and commitment but also substantial expertise
on the subject. Hence, negative evidence is frequently missed
by laypeople, who due to lack of knowledge cannot perceive
what should be there but is missing or who don’t understand
its significance. Such evidence can be easily overlooked
when accompanied by ludicrous but distracting claims made
by someone not involved in concealing the relevant clues.
The subversive tactic of highlighting such claims is called
“muddying the water”and has been used for centuries.7
Given a choice between the obvious liar and a scientist
who does not lie—but does not tell the whole truth, the
public will select the latter. It will not matter whether a liar
was deliberately planted to distract or a mentally unstable
attention seeker is being promoted. The existence of a self-
evident prevaricator boosts the credibility of the sinister
person who is hiding the evidence. The credible-appearing
scientist who willfully withholds pertinent information is at
least as dangerous as a prevaricating charlatan.
This article examines the negative evidence lurking in
the shadows of the COVID-19 vaccination debate, using
the controversial case of vaccination-related antibody-
dependent enhancement as an example...
Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons Volume 27 Number 1 Spring 2022
Guest Editorial
Negative Evidence:
Antibody-Dependent Enhancement
Jane M. Orient, M.D.
The term “negative evidence” is generally understood to
mean “evidence for a theory provided by the nonoccurrence
or absence of something.”1 Absence of evidence is not
the same thing. An adverse reaction, for example, might
have occurred, but is deliberately being hidden. The lack of
expected data is a highly valuable form of negative evidence
recognized by astute scientific and legal investigators.2,3
Negative evidence is not uncommon, but it is hard to
spot for good reasons. It takes time and effort to produce
believable false data. It is much easier and safer for anyone
who wants to mislead the public to hide the inconvenient
information than to create an elaborate cover-up. Deliberate
omission of data is the form of scientific misconduct that is
the most difficult to prove.4 There are numerous historical
precedents involving famous scientists who intentionally
omitted relevant data contradicting their favored theories.4-6
Discovery of compelling negative evidence requires not
only diligence and commitment but also substantial expertise
on the subject. Hence, negative evidence is frequently missed
by laypeople, who due to lack of knowledge cannot perceive
what should be there but is missing or who don’t understand
its significance. Such evidence can be easily overlooked
when accompanied by ludicrous but distracting claims made
by someone not involved in concealing the relevant clues.
The subversive tactic of highlighting such claims is called
“muddying the water”and has been used for centuries.7
Given a choice between the obvious liar and a scientist
who does not lie—but does not tell the whole truth, the
public will select the latter. It will not matter whether a liar
was deliberately planted to distract or a mentally unstable
attention seeker is being promoted. The existence of a self-
evident prevaricator boosts the credibility of the sinister
person who is hiding the evidence. The credible-appearing
scientist who willfully withholds pertinent information is at
least as dangerous as a prevaricating charlatan.
This article examines the negative evidence lurking in
the shadows of the COVID-19 vaccination debate, using
the controversial case of vaccination-related antibody-
dependent enhancement as an example...