Do you accept that extreme censorship is a reality? Do you think Phelps, Doshi and many other physicians and scientists are telling the truth about it? It's not just whether or not work gets published; even their words are changed. Top UK oncologist Angus Dalgleish said what ended up published wasn't what he wanted to write. If you accept this, then you should accept any article or study in a peer-reviewed journal critical of Covid vaccines will almost always come with certain caveats.
The conclusion from the Nature study you quoted certainly does NOT absolve the jabs as a potential causative agent even in those who may have had a predisposition. That is either the opinion of the authors or a caveat they have to put in to get published.
Even if they're right, note they looked at over 65s and not the many reported cases of young people suffering strokes and other acute reactions immediately or soon after vaccination. You can see an example of this damage control in the Gill paper which reports on the deaths of two adolescents following Pfizer vaccination. The diagnosis was MIS-C (very likely what occurred with Maddie de Garay who ended up paralysed on the pfizer trial for ages 12-15 in a cohort of only 1131) and you can see one of the boys had a previous scarring which may or may not have come from the first dose. By careful selection you can blur the line between cause and effect:
As for what you say about the Covid shots preventing severe illness, hospitalisation and death, there's zero evidence of that from the original clinical trials. Real-world data is potentially corrupted by misclassification of vaccine status and vicious censorship.
You should know anyway ALL CAUSE mortality and morbidity are what to look for and the raw data on hospitalisations hasn't been released. Pfizer started with a far greater number than the 40k they focused on for their garbage clinical trial. You can find a large document released under FOIA. Do you know what happened to the thousands of people excluded after one dose?
