So that said, there are a couple of glaring problems with this study, which will probably make it so they can't get this past review. The first is that they didn't control for confounding variables like age and comorbidities. The Epoch Times article even says this, quote, the vaccinated group included 1.4 million people compared to 289,576 in the unvaccinated group. The latter skewed younger with fewer comorbidities, one factor that potentially affected the results. No shit! Wow, who could have guessed? If the vaccinated group includes a much higher percentage of people who are likely to get these conditions due to comorbidities or just aging, then you have zero reason to make the leap to thinking that any of the higher incidents seen in the data has anything to do with the vaccine. When I say that the data is very skewed by age, I mean that the vaccinated group was approximately 74% over the age of 50, whereas the unvaccinated group was 67% under 49. That's probably an issue. This is a factor that you can't just look past super easily. It's a flaw. It's a probably big issue. The second thing that's of note is that the comorbidities the study did track and how heavily they skewed towards the vaccinated group. They included hyperlipidemia, which is an elevated level of lipids in your blood, which is associated with heart attacks and strokes. 10% of the unvaccinated group had this compared to almost 33% of the vaccinated. They also included hypertension, which 9.5% of the unvaccinated group had compared to 29.5% of the vaccinated. If one of the things your study is looking at is like incidents of heart issues and you have this stark a difference in the groups, it's very unlikely that the result you arrive at is going to be of much use. Anyway, the point is that there's no reason to take this study seriously.