Whether it is sufficient evidence is a different question than whether it is evidence. It's certainly difficult for nothing other than a victim's testimony contradicted by the accused with no other direct evidence to meet the criminal standard for proof beyond a reasonable doubt, but it's equally certainly less difficult for it to meet the civil standard of preponderance of the evidence that would be applicable in court for sexual harassment claims, and for lots of other human actions, action based on evidence with a lower threshold than preponderance of the evidence for any single offense may be reasonable.
This makes rape un-prosecutable.
Particularly when you get many people saying the same thing independently, in a social context rather different to that of Salem in 1693.
That's how plenty of hard-working, innocent, Americans got blackballed and had their careers ruined by McCarthyism.
The House Committee on Un-American Activities resulted in many things, but the Hollywood Blacklist alone was something like 150 names of almost entirely innocent people. Those people couldn't get work because someone accused each of them of being communists, often with zero evidence.
Wasn't it revealed that most on the list continued to work in Hollywood under pseudonyms?
I mean, certainly denying work was the intent of the list, but...