“.but still its not certain that it has a negative net affect”
Will ANYTHING convince you?
Was saying mere correlation is not sufficient to conclude it has an overall negative effect. If you read the rest of my sentence you quoted you might have noticed it said:
...if we are just talking about a correlation.
As far as what I am convinced of on other grounds the jabs are a net negative overall and its not even close. Their effectiveness is dubious and keeps getting estimated down by reality from their lofty pretensions of being near 100% that ostensibly was the result of the clinical studies that it is difficult to get data on (and required legal action to get and still is slow walked to the public). The effectiveness (to whatever degree it does exist if any) is said to wane in a few months anyway (and thus the "need "for new boosters are dynamically discovered in real time). Overall this does not qualify as a vaccine obviously since it does not make one immune (thus the Orwellian change to the meaning of "vaccine" used by FDA etc ). As to its side effects the VAERs data exploded with reported adverse effects including deaths compared to former years, so obviously it is dangerous in the short term. Moreover we have no long term data and it may be very dangerous in the long term as far as we know.
Add to that the obscenity of coercing people to get the dangerous and likely useless (and at best of questionable benefit) jabs is simply obscene. And as a result has undermined trust in the CDC and FDA and other authorities pushing this garbage.