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.
How am I misreading that?
Your link has nothing to do with the fact that VAERS data cannot be interpreted as evidence of a causal association between a vaccine and an adverse event.
I've gone down a lot of rabbit holes with the anti-vaxxer crowd. I'm not wasting my time with this. Cite a document that you think is particularly important, or even the top 10 and I'll read them. Otherwise, this is a wild goose chase. I actually opened a few of the PDFs. I see nothing noteworthy so far.
It's like telling people to look at VAERs. I doubt anybody here has actually gone to VAERS and looked at it. And if they have, unless they spent quite a long time with the dataset, there isn't much one could say about it.
What did I read wrong? It's pretty easy reading:
How am I misreading that?
Your link has nothing to do with the fact that VAERS data cannot be interpreted as evidence of a causal association between a vaccine and an adverse event.
I've gone down a lot of rabbit holes with the anti-vaxxer crowd. I'm not wasting my time with this. Cite a document that you think is particularly important, or even the top 10 and I'll read them. Otherwise, this is a wild goose chase. I actually opened a few of the PDFs. I see nothing noteworthy so far.
It's like telling people to look at VAERs. I doubt anybody here has actually gone to VAERS and looked at it. And if they have, unless they spent quite a long time with the dataset, there isn't much one could say about it.
Research the trial links and get back to me.