Heh, nice loser attempt at propaganda.
Too bad you didn’t, like, *read* the article or anything?
They addressed the very issue you raise, in method 3 on pages 7-8...
the researchers looked at the relative frequencies of different adverse events (like a fingerprint, each vaccine has its own set), and they found that the shape of the curves differed once the COVID jabs entered the scene.
And then on page 17, they look at a variety of adverse events, and say (what is the ratio of this adverse event, compared to the expected background rate)?
And they do that for past years 2015-2019, and then for 2020 with the jabs.
They find that for some of the worse adverse events, the COVID jabs are (literally) HUNDREDS OF TIMES WORSE than the other jabs.
Not 8% worse. Not twice as bad. 100s of TIMES.
And no, not minor things like “my fweelings got hurt”.
Things like pulmonary embolism — 473 times worse.
Stroke — 326 times worse.
Tell your Mom not to let you post on her computer anymore.
You’re an embarrassment to trolls everywhere.
I usually agree with your posts. A couple of ad hominem attacks here, not so much.
Kirsch’s analysis has some good stuff. His two hypotheses that there are no vaccine deaths or the reporting of adverse events is identical to the past are both obviously wrong.
If we’re going to use his analysis to show the vaccines are dangerous, we should know where his arguments are weak. Maybe he’ll update his analysis.