Oh? Then why just a one liner and no other commentary with your first response other than "For those that won't read the article" when you brought it up in the 3rd post in this thread when there really wasn't any discussion going on yet? Why did you think it was important to make sure those that didn't read the article knew that without some explanation? Why do you think it's your responsibility to point out a single fact to people who have chosen not to read the article? If they wanted to know the specifics, they would read the article, don't you think? Why did you wait until I called you out, to defend yourself with your "reasoning" after the fact? Shouldn't that have been included in the original post to give some context if your intentions where honorable? All it looks like is you threw it up to derail the thread into a vaccination argument right from the start, and you are just making up excuses trying to cover your ass. Maybe next time, if your intentions where indeed honorable, don't just post a one liner that implies something completely different, and include some context. Otherwise, you will be considered a troll. If your intention was not to troll, and I took your post incorrectly, my apologies.
As for no mention of Cancer, it really is not relevant, he didn't die from cancer, he died from COVID. But they did update the article to include that, which is common as new information is released and comes available.