People, including doctors, are much more likely to connect a particular medical event to a shot the closer in time it occurred to that shot.
Is that observation in any way controversial?
~~~~~~~~~~~~
You’re indifferent to data collect tenets which hold proximity to event is relevant. WHen people collapse of anaphylaxis, the primary question is ‘what just happened to trigger this?’ The same principle is time tested and valued by physicians. You’d like to rewrite analysis used by researchers but fail.
I addressed your thesis by pointing out that had proximity to reporting been irrelevant to analysis but isntead an artifact of ‘human nature’ than it would hold true for the other 30 years of data collected in VAERS. Since Covid vaccines are the only ones displaying freakish patterns of excesses not matched by appox. 70 other vaccines in VAERS, your thesis fails for lack of evidence.
I can’t help but note that I said words about your criticism and you ignored them and continue to press your assertion that Dr. McCulloughs training and experience render him less capable of evaluating medical data than you are. Note that he was citing research by two others as part of his own opinion. Evidenced based research versus your assertions of superior reasoning? Yours is not the winning opinion.
Not self reported "data collection tenets".
...you...continue to press your assertion that Dr. McCulloughs training and experience render him less capable of evaluating medical data than you are.
Is it possible for you to lie more blatantly?