Have you actually checked any of the referenced studies in that database? They do not say what Malone claims they say.
I just picked one randomly [0]:
> Conclusions and Relevance This systematic review and meta-analysis found low incidence rate and largely favorable early outcomes of COVID-19 mRNA vaccine–associated myopericarditis in adolescents and young adults from a wide range of populations.
I also did a brief dive elsewhere in thread [1]:
> The incidence of pericarditis and myocarditis in the total population exposed to at least one dose of mRNA COVID-19 vaccines was 5/100,000 (CI95%:3 to 8 per 100,000), compared to 70/100,000 (CI95%: 66 to 92 per 100,000) in those who were not vaccinated.
> The incidence of pericarditis or myocarditis in patients with COVID-19 infection was 200/100,000 people (CI95%: 114 to 306 per 100,000).
You may think Malone is a crank, and I will not disagree with you.
The page I linked is a repository that Malone set up for peer-reviewed papers describing MRNA side effects.
Those papers are not authored by Malone, and there are presently over 700 of them on the site.
I believe he did this because authors of those and similar papers have faced political backlash for their scientific contributions. For some reason, many world governments have censored, and advocated censorship of content such as this, and similar content that questions things such as the CoViD-19 point of origin, which for years has been riddled with misinformation.
So you can go ahead an claim that more than 700 peer reviewed papers were all authored by cranks, but my purpose was to point out that the parent article's claims of absolute "safety, effectiveness, and promise" are not unanimously accepted.
