This doesn't say what you seem to think it says. Nowhere does it say the vaccine is unsafe. All of these issues are already known issues and they have to disclose them to shareholders.
That simply means you have terrible reading comprehension, a typical trait of a vax shill. Again, feel free to review all of the documents here to catch up: https://phmpt.org/
The number of reports alone cannot be interpreted as evidence of a causal association between a vaccine and an adverse event, or as evidence about the existence, severity, frequency, or rates of problems associated with vaccines.
How am I misreading that?
Your link has nothing to do with the fact that VAERS data cannot be interpreted as evidence of a causal association between a vaccine and an adverse event.
I've gone down a lot of rabbit holes with the anti-vaxxer crowd. I'm not wasting my time with this. Cite a document that you think is particularly important, or even the top 10 and I'll read them. Otherwise, this is a wild goose chase. I actually opened a few of the PDFs. I see nothing noteworthy so far.
It's like telling people to look at VAERs. I doubt anybody here has actually gone to VAERS and looked at it. And if they have, unless they spent quite a long time with the dataset, there isn't much one could say about it.
Can you guess what I'll say about this?
This doesn't say what you seem to think it says. Nowhere does it say the vaccine is unsafe. All of these issues are already known issues and they have to disclose them to shareholders.
That simply means you have terrible reading comprehension, a typical trait of a vax shill. Again, feel free to review all of the documents here to catch up: https://phmpt.org/
What did I read wrong? It's pretty easy reading:
How am I misreading that?
Your link has nothing to do with the fact that VAERS data cannot be interpreted as evidence of a causal association between a vaccine and an adverse event.
I've gone down a lot of rabbit holes with the anti-vaxxer crowd. I'm not wasting my time with this. Cite a document that you think is particularly important, or even the top 10 and I'll read them. Otherwise, this is a wild goose chase. I actually opened a few of the PDFs. I see nothing noteworthy so far.
It's like telling people to look at VAERs. I doubt anybody here has actually gone to VAERS and looked at it. And if they have, unless they spent quite a long time with the dataset, there isn't much one could say about it.
Research the trial links and get back to me.