I'm not entirely sure what you're trying to argue at this point. What, if anything, and please be specific, do you even disagree with that I've said? Basically

I'm not entirely sure what you're trying to argue at this point. What, if anything, and please be specific, do you even disagree with that I've said? Basically you linked to a paper showing high rates of myocarditis following injection in the US and claimed it had a net benefit because the paper claimed so. It turns out the papers claimed benefits were based on the early exaggerated claims of vaccine efficacy, and now you're linking to something from Europe that indeed shows dramatically lower benefits than the original paper assumed.