Nature is not known for hyperbole and a huge miss by them like that is not normal. The fact that link 16 is broken is troublesome. The authors would've needed to back up the citation with evidence to be published. Why is the evidence broken?
You should take it up with Nature and see if they stand behind that statement.
Nature is not known for hyperbole and a huge miss by them like that is not normal
You would have found it if you'd done your reading.
Why is the evidence broken?
Because HTML does not fix broken links. If the paper links to a CDC page on Sept 23 and the CDC reorganizes their site on the 24th then the link is broken.
You can use webarchive.org to see the link on July 13 2023. No mention of fatalities, just "5 cases per one million vaccine doses administered"
You should take it up with Nature and see if they stand behind that statement.
Why would I take it up with Nature when I can read the original papers? Nature isn't going to redo the studies, they just report "so-and-so says this happened". Not all of their articles are peer-reviewed.
Alternatively have you approached Nature to tell them a link is missing and apparently they need to update their document. Id be curious to know their response to that
Ignore chode. You are arguing with a prick. literally and figuratively
Nature is not known for hyperbole and a huge miss by them like that is not normal. The fact that link 16 is broken is troublesome. The authors would've needed to back up the citation with evidence to be published. Why is the evidence broken?
You should take it up with Nature and see if they stand behind that statement.
You would have found it if you'd done your reading.
Because HTML does not fix broken links. If the paper links to a CDC page on Sept 23 and the CDC reorganizes their site on the 24th then the link is broken.
You can use webarchive.org to see the link on July 13 2023. No mention of fatalities, just "5 cases per one million vaccine doses administered"
Why would I take it up with Nature when I can read the original papers? Nature isn't going to redo the studies, they just report "so-and-so says this happened". Not all of their articles are peer-reviewed.
The reference is missing who knows what it said
You're wrong twice.
First: only one link is broken, but the original web page is available from webarchive.org. I provided you with the link but you have obviously not read it so here it is again: https://web.archive.org/web/20230831235349/https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/vaccines/safety/adverse-events.html. It mentions nothing 'fatal'.
Second: you're completely ignoring the second link, which works, and which also says nothing about 'fatal'.
Alternatively have you approached Nature to tell them a link is missing and apparently they need to update their document. Id be curious to know their response to that
Ignore chode. You are arguing with a prick. literally and figuratively