>But hundreds of millions of doses delivered, with a complication rate significantly less than the disease itself... that's pretty powerful evidence, no? Yes.

>But hundreds of millions of doses delivered, with a complication rate significantly less than the disease itself... that's pretty powerful evidence, no? Yes. But there is a problem. This implies an unrestricted flow of information. If there is censorship (self and imposed) going on, then you cannot take this perception for granted. Is there censorship going on regarding these issue. Absolutely, there is. I think we can all agree on that. So how much is the ongoing censorship skewing the issue? We have no idea. May be the censorship is done in good faith for noble ends, but may be it is not, again we don't know. Also as seen in Vioxx issue, even a 100000 additional heart attacks can go un-noticed in a country, even without explicit censorship. We know smoking causes cancer now. But decades ago, people have been smoking for a long time without actually noticing the problem on large enough scale. This why we do systematic research based on data collected in large scales. Also one have to wonder why the systems such as VAERS depend on voluntarily reporting, that gives very little credibility to the data collected. Why is not made mandatory to report on adverse events? If you go to the VAERS cdc page, the covid vaccines are not even included in the list of vaccines to include for VAERS reportable events as prescribed by law. So according to some studies, less than 1% of actual events in reported in VAERS. Even with such a low amount of reporting, we know that reports of blood clots and heart inflammation is concerning. So what is the true picture? So the point that I am trying to make is that, "We have used these things, or have been using these things for a while without problems", is a poor proof of safety.