No, that's not how burden of proof works. The default assumption is that a given event has zero effect. If you want to assert that it's actively harmful then the burden is on you to show that.

Which is why we let people sell anything they want as medicine until someone proves it's harmful...

Oh wait that's the opposite of how it works. Medical procedures have to go through a rigorous approval process to prove they are safe, or at least better than no treatment.

The “supplement” industry has entered the chat.

“First do no harm”