"u/name" to tag

Thanks.

Look, the research has to be related. Citing stuff for other viruses really is not helpful unless you're establishing background which we are past

I'm not sure what you're referring to. I did cite about other vaccines because someone replied that "vaccines" don't work. I took that to mean, and I think it meant, vaccines in general don't work.

But of all the studies I cited, like three were not about COVID (whooping cough, polio, measles, I think).

Show me a way to surveil safety that is more accurate than VAERS or else it's a mute point since VAERS data clearly deconstructs the safety argument.

I don't have to show you another way. I only have to show that VAERS isn't accurate. It says itself that it isn't accurate. That's all I need to show you that it isn't adequate for that. That there isn't another database for your purpose doesn't mean you can use an inadequate one and produce anything meaningful. That isn't logical or rational.

The site itself says that. I quoted it to you. Yet you want to use that a source to draw causal inferences. It's spurious. It's dishonest. How is it not dishonest to use a site that literally says it contains inaccurate data? The purpose of VAERS isn't to establish causal links. It is like an early warning system that can alert researchers to a possible problem that needs to be investigated. You want to skip over the "needs to be investigated" part and go directly to the drawing causal links part. If you want to be taken seriously, then go out and investigate those reports and establish the accuracy of them and then you have grounds to use the data. That's how it works.

Every single study I cited tells you exactly how its data was collected. Where it came from, how it was collected. You can read through every one of them and question how the data was collected and where it came from. That's how science works.

And no study is perfect. All studies have flaws. But here we have study after study from different parts of the world, by different research teams, all of which support the same general conclusions. That's how science works.

There are even meta-analyses which analyze many studies to draw inferences from whole batches of studies taken together. And every one of these studies is peer reviewed. But you want to gainsay all of them. Poo-poo them. You don't trust their techniques. You aren't qualified to not trust their techniques. If you have a study by qualified experts that call into question their techniques, that's a different story. But as far as I can tell, you simply refuse to accept any science that goes against your cherished beliefs.

I've asked you to cite sources, studies, present your own whatever you want to call it. But so far you haven't cited a single thing.

Look at this, you say:

else it's a mute point since VAERS data clearly deconstructs the safety argument.

VAERS does NOT clearly deconstruct anything. It says itself, as I have shown you:

VAERS reports may contain information that is incomplete, inaccurate, coincidental, or unverifiable.

While very important in monitoring vaccine safety, VAERS reports alone cannot be used to determine if a vaccine caused or contributed to an adverse event or illness. [emphasis in original]

The number of reports alone cannot be interpreted as evidence of a causal association between a vaccine and an adverse event, or as evidence about the existence, severity, frequency, or rates of problems associated with vaccines. [emphasis in original]

VAERS data do not represent all known safety information for a vaccine and should be interpreted in the context of other scientific information.

All these disclaimers and yet you claim VAERS clearly "deconstructs the safety argument." It doesn't. It says itself that it doesn't. It say it many times on several different pages of the site and sometimes several times on one page. You cannot use VAERS data to make causal inferences. It isn't legitimate to do that. It should be obvious just from reading the disclaimers on the site. Why would you dispute that?

Also, I'd say you are quite disrespectful so unless that changes I'm not willing to debate with you

I've tried to be patient. I have literally posted VAERS disclaimers half a dozen times or more. VAERS says it doesn't contain accurate data, you say you'll use it anyway. I don't see how you can justify that to yourself.

I think your sources are ridiculous but I continue to offer a resolution without attacking you.

My sources are actual peer reviewed scientific journals, the most prestigious medical journals in the world. JAMA, NEJM, BJM. You call them ridiculous. But you haven't offered a single reason for why they should be discounted. Journals that have for decades and decades been highly regarded by all medical professionals. Are these journals just flawed when it comes to vaccines?

A couple of summers ago, my wife almost died due to a hole in heart. A congenital defect. The doctors at first thought she'd need open heart surgery to fix the defect. But guess what? Around that time, a study showing the effectiveness of a plug that could be inserted without open heart surgery was published. Her doctor contacted the actual inventor of the device and they put it into my wife's heart. Every year since she's been monitored and the plug has been perfect, even better than what open heart surgery would have achieved. Not only that, the enlargement of her heart caused by it overworking has been reduced, which was one of the effect published in the study.

So if I accept the science regarding devices that can be stuck up a person's thigh and inserted into the heart, why would I think the science regarding viruses would be somehow flawed?

Face it: your opposition to vaccines is not based on science or logic. It is a dogmatic opposition based on some anti-science ideology. It is ideology, not science. I have seen the effectiveness of science. I've seen people beat cancer with the help of medical science. We all have. If you accept one area of medical science but not vaccines specifically then it must be due to an ideological stance and not a scientific one.