Since day one of Covid there has been an on-going argument over data reliability and commonality of definitions that was relevant and significant and continues still.
Torque skipped over statements made within that linked Study where they clearly called it "Exploratory" and noted in black and white the problems pose by how the Data was compiled and submitted by those participating in the reporting of data to authorities and also how authorities different in their standards.
So all ya'll pointing fingers back and forth....grasp the fact there is very little concrete un=arguable and unchallenged data/analysis to be had.
Thata compounded by the virus itself being moving target itself is going to cause ambiguity.
I would supplest you temper your posts to reflect that and politely differ.
I have long questioned why I am mandated to take a vaccine that does not prevent me from getting Covid, does not prevent me from giving it to someone else or prevent someone else from giving it to me.
I took the vaccine as I am at riak and the value of the vaccine seemed to outweigh risks.
Certainly, I am wondering had I known of this newer information at that time....would I have taken the injections.
Few things are certain in life....and we. have to make our best and informed decisions.
Add in the side effects thing and more and more data being developed over time that does raise legitimate questions about the effectiveness and side effects....then I can see the need for a healthy discussion about it all.
As in all things internet.....you have to sort the wheat from the chaff.
I quoted the text contained in that linked article....and passed no judgement on it as it cited its own shortcomings as I read it.
Calling it junk seems a bit wide of the mark as it very much qualified its findings in clear language.
If you do not agree with its findings....that is fine....provide your own article that does.
Then sit back and see how your the content of your article fares.