I had a look and I’m not seeing the claimed substantial COIs at all? The studies were either publicly/government/hospital/university/charity funded, or states 'no funding'. None of the studies were run or funded by pharma. A few of the authors consults/consulted for some biotech companies. A few received personal/research funds and grants, which is not uncommon with more prolific researchers.
Financial COIs and funding also don’t seem like grounds to outright exclude or dismiss studies; good practice is probably to identify and report the funders/COIs, and evaluate the risk of bias (study design/methods, publication/reporting bias etc.) and certainty of evidence. If there are enough studies, can probably do a sensitivity analysis excluding studies with industry/financial bias. Typically it appears to be considered for industry, pharma and manufacturer funded studies, which are apparently more likely to have report positively.
Anyway, none of this should change the fact that there just doesn’t appear to be any evidence that Foxx was ‘blinded and partially paralysed' after 'vaccine complications'; just appears to be a completely unsubstantiated/made-up claim.
And as the article mentioned, only the viral vector jabs have been associated with blood clots, with a very low incidence; we don't know if Foxx took a viral vector jab (or any vaccine at all) in the days/weeks before his symptoms appeared.
