It's not a paper which contradicts VAERS.
Correct. Because VAERS is merely a reporting system. And a self-reporting system. Anyone can report an adverse event.
VAERS just collects data for further investigation. It's not something which can be agreed with or contradicted.
So someone had the Covid vaccine, the next day they died in, let's say a motorcycle accident - there's been a lot of those over the last couple of years, haven't there?
A relative could report that to VAERS. Their report wouldn't be "false", the relative did have the vaccine and the next day they did die. But when looking into that you'd find there is no causal link between those two events. The paper is not "trying" to do anything - unlike you, who are trying to emphasise the risks of the vaccine which your commander in chief developed and actively promotes.
The paper is merely looking at the VAERS data to see if there are any patterns which are of concern and should be investigated further.
And their conclusions are:
In our review and analysis of death reports to VAERS following mRNA vaccination, we found no unusual patterns in cause of death among the death reports received
and
Another surveillance system, the VSD, showed no increased risk of non-COVID-19 mortality in vaccinated people.
and
Serious adverse events, including myocarditis, have been identified following mRNA vaccinations; however, these events are rare. Vaccines are the most effective tool to prevent serious COVID-19 disease outcomes49 and the benefits of immunisation in preventing serious morbidity and mortality strongly favour vaccination
Hooray! Trump was right, the vaccine is safe. That's good, isn't it? You like it when he's right don't you?