[Captain Walker]

I think the data presented would suggest this.

But to argue against the point, one has to present contrary data or evidence that demonstrates that the point is incorrect.

I'm not saying that such data doesn't exist, only that it hasn't been presented.

You're taking the position that there are far more numbers of "vaxed" than "unvaxed", and that the author's data is misleading because of this.

Your point might be 100% correct, except that the author is the one presenting evidence, and so far, you haven't.

[bagster]

Your point might be 100% correct, except that the author is the one presenting evidence, and so far, you haven't.

It refuses to die. Can you get checkmated twice in one thread?

[semimojo]

You're taking the position that there are far more numbers of "vaxed" than "unvaxed", and that the author's data is misleading because of this.

No, I'm making the point that without knowing whether that's the case or not the author can't make the claims they are.

The burden of evidence is on the one making the claim. The author claims to have proof that the vaccines cause AIDS but presents no evidence to back it up.

Your point might be 100% correct, except that the author is the one presenting evidence, and so far, you haven't.

Nice dodge.

Here you go.

Now that I've presented the evidence, which you were already aware of, how do you feel about the author's specious claims?