Win / GreatAwakening
GreatAwakening
Sign In
DEFAULT COMMUNITIES All General AskWin Funny Technology Animals Sports Gaming DIY Health Positive Privacy
Reason: None provided.

Nope. I would have said this from the beginning.

That doesn't bring us anywhere, because merely admitting that side effects probably exist in a population gives us no information regarding the PERCENTAGE of the population of adverse reports that is actually experiencing these side effects because of the vaccine.

(Population here refers to the total number of adverse reports, NOT the population of the country.)

You say it's a high percentage. In fact, you said it's 100%.

Each x-hit of VAERS DATA -> CONFIRMED SIDE EFFECT = 1 INSTANCE

So... how do you know?

Because if you can provide this evidence, then you won the argument!

See? Falsifiability. I not only know how you can defeat my argument, I am telling you how to do it, exactly.

Show me in this data that a VAERS report (or even THIS report) correlates directly to a "CONFIRMED" side effect of the vaccine. Prove to me you made this statement based on evidence from the source, and not an assumption.

Until then, I really don't have time to keep dancing in circles with you. I'm not asking you of anything I wouldn't ask from any other researcher in any Q or non-Q setting, and if you aren't able to participate in that context, then I can find someone around here who will.

2 years ago
1 score
Reason: Original

Nope. I would have said this from the beginning.

That doesn't bring us anywhere, because merely admitting that side effects probably exist in a population gives us no information regarding the PERCENTAGE of the population that is actually experiencing these side effects.

You say it's a high percentage. In fact, you said it's 100%.

Each x-hit of VAERS DATA -> CONFIRMED SIDE EFFECT = 1 INSTANCE

So... how do you know?

Because if you can provide this evidence, then you won the argument!

See? Falsifiability. I not only know how you can defeat my argument, I am telling you how to do it, exactly.

Show me in this data that a VAERS report (or even THIS report) correlates directly to a "CONFIRMED" side effect of the vaccine. Prove to me you made this statement based on evidence from the source, and not an assumption.

Until then, I really don't have time to keep dancing in circles with you. I'm not asking you of anything I wouldn't ask from any other researcher in any Q or non-Q setting, and if you aren't able to participate in that context, then I can find someone around here who will.

2 years ago
1 score