Consider: A friend had no heart issues for 35 years, decided to take a new route to work, and dropped dead of a heart attack. Is it coincidental?

Of course it is. Anecdotal / single point evidence is completely useless. The study gives you the actual numbers on how likely it's a coincidence or not.

The study doesn't really do that. What it does is compare different methodologies for counting the number of incidences of (myo|peri)-carditis following the 2nd shot. They conclude that the methodology used officially gives lower numbers than other methodologies.

Counting how likely a coincidence it is is something we can do reasonably well using standard null hypothesis testing: compare the number of incidences of pericarditis in a random sample against a sample of patients post-vaccine. But this is not something that the article does. The difficulty, discussed in the article, lies in deciding what counts as "post-vaccine".

I’m not sure why you keep comparing Denmark to India, but India actually has very accessible on-demand healthcare compared to the USA/EU. It wouldn’t be an issue.

Highly skeptical about this. In the US, I registered to vsafe after my vaccines and got pinged for a survey daily after the dose for a week (IIRC) then weekly for a month. Then again after 6 months. All surveys asking about my condition, new symptoms, etc..

Not saying you're lying, or that your doctor was full of shit, but I don't believe there's any time limit for reporting possible vaccine side effects.

Also, VAERS is an American thing. Not sure what Denmark has to do with it. If there's a Danish equivalent, why didn't you mention it?

I'm sorry, but your post has too many red flags.