>the most prevalent example of this is people taking reports from VAERS and presenting them in an article as if they’re assumed to be causal effects, rather tha

>the most prevalent example of this is people taking reports from VAERS and presenting them in an article as if they’re assumed to be causal effects, rather than correlative. I think if the jump in VAERS reports since the vaccines were released wasn't ~2,700x, you wouldn't see as big of a deal about it. But you can cut that in half and still have an astronomically alarming number of vaccine adverse events reported.