Except they are not peer-reviewing without having some kind of ties to Pfizer and/or Moderna when it comes to analysis of vaccine safety and efficacy. Case in point: the BMJ actively calling on Facebook to stop limiting discussions about vaccine-related adverse events. One of the largest German insurance companies saying they’re now seeing 2.5 million to 3 million people being treated for vaccine related side effects.

While I am not allowed to disclose everything I know about certain things due to court order, I would urge you to examine what happened with Fen-Phen. The reason we need the original data is similar to how that lawsuit went down—the executives covered it up and colluded, and the only thing that brought the people with heart murmurs any kind of justice was an idiot executive who sent an email along the lines of, “Why should I care if fat people are getting heart issues and dying?” And then the shitshow of their clinical data was brought to light.

As a data scientist, I also disagree with you about the “weird events in a large population.” I would be THRILLED to get a massive dataset like what we should have on vaccinated individuals and potential adverse reactions. Is the quality of the self-reported data on VAERS ideal? Hell no. But you can do follow-ups to get a better picture of which points to include, which points to exclude, etc. A larger population is by far better than a smaller one; you can get closer to the ND (in theory), can match pairs, and do corrections in ways you cannot do with tiny sets. But we don’t get to do that because, apparently, the collaborative spirit of science, mathematics, and medicine, no longer exists.

Whoever told you “well, when you have too much data, it’s basically useless,” is incredibly misinformed.

Edit to add: I have never once asserted that the vaccine is a placebo by design. I’ve got a cousin who developed Bells Palsy after his booster and a SIL with a heart murmur after switching from J&J to Moderna to back me up on that.