With all due respect, whether covid vaccination can induce HIV or any other viral infection is not a matter of opinion, but of FACT. If you are to make such an extraordinary claim, it has to be backed by fact (I.e. scientific proof).
Ironically, contrary to your opinion, all scientific experiments start with a hypothesis which is often anecdotal arguments.
In a case where highly specialized and intelligent scientists would investigate any potential link between the COVID vaccine and HIV susceptibility, the hypothesis on the paper would read something along the lines of:
‘Covid vaccine negatively impacting immune system vs HIV’ along with a few anecdotal arguments as to why it
would.
On the contrary, in the case one would claim that the covid vaccine
does not have an impact, the hypothesis would read:
‘COVID vaccine does not negatively impact the immune system vs HIV’, they’d need a few anecdotal arguments as to why it
wouldn’t. Since wtvmark lacked any sort of senseful anecdotal argument, he’s actually at a disadvantage in the conflict.
During either of their experiments, they’d need to either
prove or
disprove the hypothesis (based on how the hypothesis is worded) beyond scientific doubt, otherwise if a study is inconclusive, the hypothesis remains a possibility.
The key here is that the hypothesis is often a claim of sorts, and the purpose of scientific study is to prove whether the claim is true or false, otherwise, it remains a possibility.
So, in this case, since Obvio-0bvio’s hypothesis is that the covid vaccine could possibly have a negative impact based on his anecdotal arguments, scientifically, it remains a possibility until it is
disproven. He doesn’t have to prove it — science needs to
disprove it.
Scientific method is taught in the 9th grade, pals. Let’s try and remember it before carrying the pitchforks next time.
