>>2587241>>2587244>tiny sample>dubious methodolgy>cherry picked results>multiple symptoms in the same person were counted as seperate "events" lol>not peer reviewed "pre-print"You have been competely duped. thats on you! Their argument that trial data is sufficient to capture the scope of benefit is laughably ridiculous, and not addressed in the response by the authors — and leads to an exceptionally skewed risk-benefit. I dare you to watch this and then pretend like that paper proves anything lol.
https://youtu.be/drSAsfuMkuw?t=499This paper had a much bigger sample size and had much differen results. Can you point out the flaw in data and methodology? or will just resort to more cope?
https://www.mdpi.com/2076-393X/11/1/31"In the entire population of an Italian province, followed for an average of 14 months, individuals who received one or more doses of COVID-19 vaccines did not show an increased risk of death for any cause, death unrelated to SARS-CoV-2 infection, or any of the selected potentially vaccine-related serious adverse events requiring hospitalization (myocardial infarction, acute heart failure, cardiac arrest, ischemic or hemorrhagic stroke, coronary artery dissection, aortic or peripheral aneurysm, pulmonary embolism, deep vein thrombosis, and myocarditis, or pericarditis). These findings were consistent across genders, age-classes, most frequently administered vaccine types, and SARS-CoV-2 infection status and remained so after adjustment for previous episodes of disease and several potential confounders"
Keep lobbing the softballs please lol.
