I‘m sorry Jim, but you are clearly unwilling to accept the findings of the research you yourself referenced. Why did you bother posting it? The number 4 was arrived at after controlling for normal incidence naturally. Then the authors made provisos with respect to that very small number.
It is interesting that the UK data and the very large study you referenced give very different incidence numbers. But there are probably reasons for this, such as different data collation and methodologies. One problem with a lot of the research being offered up as evidence of high vaccine risk is due to trying to make correlations at a data standard that just isn’t there. The area looks like it needs good research and data. It won‘t be coming from 21 year old hacks and keyboard warriors. So I‘ m happy to take the blue pill of known world until Morpheus turns up instead of the current gaggle of dodgy drug dealers. If a number of posters here fancy themselves as issue woke that‘s up to them. Looks like being taken in by noise and sophistry to me.
I‘m going to stop feeding the hamsterwheel as per response to helicrazi. This isn‘t going anywhere. We are not going to learn anything with this strand of discussion.