That hypothesis looks like very motivated reasoning tbh. Problems: 1. The risk is all concentrated in the first weeks after vaccination and consistently so ove

That hypothesis looks like very motivated reasoning tbh. Problems: 1. The risk is all concentrated in the first weeks after vaccination and consistently so over time. That's what you'd expect from a biological cause, not a change in behavior. 2. The biological pathways that cause it are known. This isn't a random correlation that leaves people scratching around for a causal explanation. The spike protein is thrombogenic. Note that the authors (who are doctors) don't have much difficulty admitting the relationship is causal, except in the conclusions, where they have to make the usual disclaimers that the vaccines are wonderful and everyone should have five for breakfast each morning, whilst readily stating that SARS-CoV-2 itself can cause blood clots. Recall that AstraZeneca was pulled from the market it yielded so many clots. 3. The idea that unvaccinated people were all cowering at home terrified of the virus whilst the vaccinated skipped around carefree is nonsense on its face. People who didn't take the shot weren't taking it because they saw no reason to do so. They weren't scared of the virus to begin with! That's why the authorities had to become so totalitarian to keep the unvaccinated out of places - they'd happily turn up and mingle if allowed to. > it's entirely possible that vaccination harmed us not through some biological mechanism but by making us more foolhardy and lockdown and mask less Sadly, that is wishful thinking. The data on this is unambiguous. Vaccines are drugs and drugs sometimes have side effects. This isn't news, it has always been that way, which is why governments are so keen to tell you all about their bulldog regulators who make sure Big Pharma doesn't skimp on safety trials (except that they did, because it was considered to be an emergency).