I’m finding it difficult to summon the energy to read through these fully when the abstract of the first link has a political dog whistle[1] in the abstract bef

I’m finding it difficult to summon the energy to read through these fully when the abstract of the first link has a political dog whistle[1] in the abstract before it gets to any actual hypothesis or claims. Finishing the abstract I see they end it with this sentence[2], implying this isn’t even original research? Is this actual research or a statistical analysis of the VAERS database? This second link is even worse, it’s a blogpost with a a short paper riddled with citations linking to other blogposts from the same site making wild claims about how the vaccine actually makes things worse. I started on section 1 after his synopsis and he just points to a diagram included in his paper and then trots out the debunked anti vaxxer claim of > vaccinees are now increasingly becoming asymptomatic shedders of SC-2. There is no data or citation supporting that beyond his diagram. He just makes a claim and then starts making logical leaps off that claim. This is the kind of “evidence” that makes everyone groan and roll their eyes when people claim that the anti vaxxers actually have proof and no one’s paying attention to them because it’s a conspiracy or doesn’t toe the party line. I am legitimately upset that I gave you the benefit of the doubt and wasted my time reading through these just to find out that your claims are as weakly supported as I had assumed. [1]the sentence below, anti vaxxers commonly bring up lack of precedent as a reason the vaccines can’t possibly work > The utilization of mRNA vaccines in the context of infectious disease has no precedent. [2] > We show evidence from the VAERS database supporting our hypothesis.