a) you only quoted a line or two carefully selected out of all the contents of all the articles, to give the impression that the side effects were minor
b) this was misleading because both the understanding of the side effects, and the number of them that happened, have only increased over time
c) You carefully didn't mention you picked from two of the earliest papers
d) You carefully avoided both quoting from later papers, and any quotes describing the physical mechanism of the side effects -- because doing so WOULD deter people from the clot shots -- on a rigorous, SCIENTIFIC™! basis -- which would undermine the central thesis of you $hot $hills the all opposition to the jabs is either emotionalism or grifting.
TROLL!
“a) you only quoted a line or two carefully selected out of all the contents of all the articles, to give the impression that the side effects were minor”
I quote from the conclusions of each article I looked at. I posted from EVERY ARTICLE I looked at. I only looked at the first three so your statement I looked at all the articles and cherry-picked is a lie.
“c) You carefully didn’t mention you picked from two of the earliest papers”
I specifically mentioned which articles I quoted from. The first three on their list.
“d) You carefully avoided both quoting from later papers”
I avoided nothing. I just started at the beginning of their list.