[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?

[bagster]

Nice dodge.

Ha, nice, coming from the shortstop for the Dodgers.

#DodgesAllEvidence

#FormerlyKnownAsMojo

[bagster]

The burden of evidence is on the one making the claim.

Which leaves you free to sit in the peanut gallery and shout, "Nuh-uh. Nanny nanny boo boo, I told you!".

Must be nice.

[Captain Walker]

I think we would agree that the percentage of "vaxed" in the general population is larger than the "unvaxed" and if I understand your point correctly, it's that someone could point to everyday incidents like motor vehicle violations or coffee spills, and say that it was the shot that caused someone to be careless with their coffee or drive too fast.

But these are people being admitted to a hospital, which begs the question I raised earlier: If they're ending up in the hospital anyway, what is the selling point for the shot?