>>13929289I'm open to being convinced that there's some deadly covered-up problem with the vaccines, but you're going to have to do a far, far better job than this.
Make one claim at a time, state it carefully and precisely, and back it up in a careful, thorough, comprehensive way before moving onto the next.
For example,
>Millions of people dying from heart attack after mass covid vaccination all over the worldYou would need to start with a source indicating a statistically significant increase in heart attack deaths. This source needs to be trustworthy and as close to primary as possible, e.g. peer-reviewed papers.
If the information isn't available in that form (maybe there's a conspiracy amongst research journals suppressing its publication), you will need to take a detour to explain this, convince the reader that it's the case, and convince them that your source is still trustworthy despite being non-traditional.
Comparing different sources may help here, as long as you avoid classic errors- like comparing two datasets that are measuring something subtly but importantly different.
The more fringe your sources, the more thorough you'll need to be with this. Nobody is going to care about the rest of your analysis if the data you're starting with smells like bullshit.
You would need to anticipate and control for various other confounding factors that could explain the concerning numbers (e.g. lockdown affecting the care that older people received).
If there's anything strange about the stats (maybe it's stronger in certain ages or other groups), you should draw attention to this yourself instead of leaving it as a point for rebuttals to attach to, and explain the discrepancy if you can.
In the process of doing all this, you might find that your claims don't actually hold up to much scrutiny.
If they DO hold up, you will have produced a powerful, convincing argument that would be hard to ignore and is likely to be widely shared.
