Do either of you dispute the data?

What data? The shit you pulled out of your arse? The bs you hear from Bob on Farcebonk? Yeah. I guess you could say I do dispute your "data"... however, you're such a thick plank, nothing I can say or do will ever convince you to ignore your orange god-emperor...

He's bringing up "the chart" again😂😂😂...

So do you dispute the data on the graph?

It's all he has. Poor bastard.

Idk, ... do you, Shannon? I think, data on Doctor John PhD is pretty clear so far😁🤷‍♂️

Do you dispute this data?

Nah it's fine, Tim. Really. I mean it. You did some amazing research right there. Who am I to judge your work in this... field... I guess. *I even gave you a like.* Here. Enjoy some applause as well: 👏👏👏👏😁👍 [Well done]

I did not produce the graph, all I did was use an AI to check that it was a real reflection of the data from VAERS. I am not claiming any praise for any "work" on this. I do wish people could look at evidence and debate the evidence.

Using slop to "verify" slop. What's next? The sky is blue because it's blue? Really leaning into that gullibility, aren't you skippy...

You have no concept of the word evidence. You made that pretty clear. You are trying to make an argument based on a graph brought forth by an antivax nutjob homepage. So, if anybody asks you "based on what?" - and your only answer is "based on this", this is laughable. This discussion is futile.

It is irrelevant who produced the graph. If you need all your information to be approved of by others before you will consider it you are in a cult. Now do you dispute the validity of the graph?

Who produced the graph is entirely relevant. If the intent was to mis-inform or dis-inform, then the source is very much relevant. In your case, it's to spread disinformation and lies.

The graph is a good fair representation of the VAERS data. Do you dispute that? The motivation for making the graph is not important in judging the validity of it.

That idiot wouldn't understand the fact that he is gaslighted - not in a thousand years🤷‍♂️...

You are in a cult.

A KKKult member is accusing others of being in a cult. The irony is thick...

The cognitive dissonance won't let him. He is so fully invested in the Big Lie that he can't or won't accept his entire world view is bunk.

How would you suggest we both evaluate if either or bot of us fit that? What thought exercises should we do?

That's the main problem. That's also the reason why even rather intelligent and educated people (not Tim though; he's... just Tim😁🤷‍♂️) could fall victim to that crap. Because it's not about logic. The bunk networks are quite proficient in manipulating emotions. And those are hard to fight...

No. It's not. It is ABSOLUTELY NOT IRRELEVANT who produced that graph. That's the whole point. Not that an empty drone like you would understand. I'm going to mute you right now. You are too stupid - and quite frankly - not worth the time. Have a nice life lying to yourself and to others.

The point of facts in that they are the same for you or I or anybody else. Just because you don't like whoever it is who produced the graph in the first place does not make a difference to the data.