No, cite a peer reviewed scholarly paper.

And it's a meta-analysis and systematic review, from a total of 54 different studies.

So you know it's not a dodgy paper.

which cherry-picks studies

Big claim. You'll have the list of at least some of the papers that weren't included, and why you think they meet the criteria for inclusion?

Note that the eligibility criteria are:

Eligibility criteria
According to the inclusion criteria, observational studies (case-control, negative case-control, case-based cohort, prospective and retrospective cohorts) were published in English that examined the effectiveness, incidence rate of COVID-19, hospitalization rate, and mortality rate after COVID-19 vaccination were suitable to enter into the meta-analysis. Also, the studies that had examined the confirmed cases of SARS-CoV-2 infection based on positive real-time Reverse Transcription Polymerase Chain Reaction (RT-PCR or PCR) tests were included, and antibody-based studies and the ones based on other diagnostic methods were excluded from the review process. In addition, case reports, case series, letters or correspondence, animal studies, and studies with mathematical model analysis [Such as the SIR model (Susceptible, Infected and Recovers model)] were also excluded (flowchart 1). The studies on autoimmune, immunosuppressed, dialysis patients, or the patients with kidney problems and mental disorders in whom the severity of the disease varied were excluded as well (23–27). Also, the studies that lacked an unvaccinated group to compare the results with were not included in the review process. Also, studies on inactive vaccines such as CoronaVac and Covaxin as well as Ad26.COV2.S were not included in the analysis due to a lack of enough evidence on these vaccines.

And that the papers were not cherry picked, but included every paper that the search strategy turned up:

Search strategy
We searched PubMed, Medline, Scopus, ProQuest, and Google Scholar databases as well as the Preprint servers including medRxiv and Research Square to identify the studies related to the keywords selected based on the Medical Subject Headings (MeSH) published until 15 October 2021, with full texts in English, without any restrictions. The search was performed blindly and independently by two researchers (K.R. and R.S.) using the following keywords in the abovementioned databases by combining four sets of related MeSH and Non-MeSH terms: (1) COVID-19; SARS-CoV-2; coronavirus; (2) vaccine; post-vaccination; (3) mortality; hospitalization; readmission; reinfection; morbidity, and (4) breakthrough infections. Any disagreement in the searches between the two researchers was dealt with by other researchers. Duplicates were also identified by title, author's name, and journal name.

I'll wait while you come up with a paper that the search strategy turned up, and met the eligibility criteria, but wasn't included.

Noting that when I say "I'll wait" the subtext is you're making shit up, there's no cherry picking, and the papers that should have been included were included. And, as anyone who's not you can see that they inclusion criteria are not biased.

And they looked for publication bias, and found none.

In addition, publication bias in the studies included in the meta-analysis was investigated through Funnel Plot and Eggers' test, the results of which showed no publication bias in the studies included in the meta-analysis (Eggers' test P-value > 0.05) (Supplementary File 2 in Figures 13–15).

Once more, you're just talking shit: You know nothing, did not even look at the paper and commented anyway.