I understand correlation does not equal causation, but for events within the two week window of injection, you can be almost damned sure the event was due to the vaccine given the CDC’s definition of “when you’re vaccinated.”

Eh, if you're dealing with a sample of a hundred patients, maybe.

But not when you're analyzing a system that's trying to track the adverse event profile of literally every vaccinated person in the country. By the sheer n-value of your population, you're going to be dealing with an enormous number of weird events that will show, in context of the large population, to regress to the mean.

The larger the population, the more "weird things" you're going to have to look at. But is it outside the norm of what we would expect for a population the size of VAERS' target demographic? I suspect not.

This is going to be a problem for all of the monoclonal antibody treatments because they never got out of EUA so there’s no reason to hold a Phase IV for any of these companies.

I don't entirely disagree here, but I also probably believe the virus presented a more imminent threat than most people here do, so I am not yet convinced that some of the accelerated measures taken (in large part due to Trump's Operation Warp Speed) weren't unjustified given the nature of the crisis. I remain open to being convinced on that.

The bigger issue, to me, is that 1) adverse events are being reported, 2) they’re considered taboo to discuss, 3) the CDC is withholding data because they’re “worried how it’ll be interpreted,” and 4) Pfizer and the FDA both sued to keep these documents from coming to light.

1. Adverse events would be reported to a system like VAERS even if the vaccine was a placebo, by design.

2. I don't disagree here, but I also don't think that such issues are nearly as taboo within scientific circles as they are between scientists and the general public.

3. Related to point 2, I actually understand their argument, because I am sitting here watching VAERS data be misinterpreted by people on this site. You can believe the vaccine is a problem, but it is impossible to support that by posting VAERS data, and if you are wrong about the vaccine, then yes, making this kind of data public IS hurting people by making them scared of something that isn't really scary. However, I do not agree that making it hidden is the best way to handle it.

4. I agree with you here. People like to think that me not being afraid of the vaccine is the same thing as being pro-pharma, and nothing could be further from the truth. I oppose the established medical system on a lot of fronts, but intelligent people don't dismiss any claim based merely on the source. I have no doubt whatsoever that Big Pharma is up to shady shit and most certainly trying to get as much profit as they can. I am just not convinced that depopulation vaccines are one of those plans or that it could be successfully pulled off with the cooperation of every single scientist and doctor on the planet.

You can’t say the vaccine is totally fine if you don’t release the data for independent scholarly analysis.

That's true, and I agree with you 100%.

But I've also seen plenty of independent studies done on these vaccines that show them as effective and having a vanishingly low chance of side-effects, and those studies get dismissed around here as part of the conspiracy.

Independent scholarly analysis of the vaccine efficacy can take place without Pfizer's cooperation at this point, and we still are not seeing the levels of problems that would cause clinical panic. I agree that the data SHOULD be public, but we don't need the data to be public to analyze the vaccinated population for potential side effects. Independent scientists peer-reviewing and replicating established observational data is nothing new and it's been present throughout this process.