You do know that VAERS alone is a suitable database for drawing that conclusion right?

The VAERS website itself says on the first page:

VAERS is a passive reporting system, meaning it relies on individuals to send in reports of their experiences to CDC and FDA. VAERS is not designed to determine if a vaccine caused a health problem, but is especially useful for detecting unusual or unexpected patterns of adverse event reporting that might indicate a possible safety problem with a vaccine.

Yet here you are, using VAERS in a way that it itself cautions against. Why do you believe its legitimate to do that?

On the page: Guide to Interpreting VAERS Data, it reads:

When evaluating data from VAERS, it is important to note that for any reported event, no cause-and-effect relationship has been established. Reports of all possible associations between vaccines and adverse events (possible side effects) are filed in VAERS. Therefore, VAERS collects data on any adverse event following vaccination, be it coincidental or truly caused by a vaccine. The report of an adverse event to VAERS is not documentation that a vaccine caused the event.

No cause-and-effect relationship established. Anybody can report to VAERS. On and on. To use any of the VAERS data to demonstrate a cause and effect relationship, you'd have to verify the veracity of the report, rule out other possible causes, etc, etc. All of which is impossible to do with VAERS alone.

Another disclaimer on the VAERS site reads:

Key considerations and limitations of VAERS data:

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.

You have to wade through a lot of warning about how to not interpret this data in order to go ahead and interpret the data in exactly the way the site itself warns against. I would say that's dishonest.

You do know that VAERS alone is a suitable database for drawing that conclusion right?

The VAERS website itself says on the first page:

VAERS is a passive reporting system, meaning it relies on individuals to send in reports of their experiences to CDC and FDA. VAERS is not designed to determine if a vaccine caused a health problem, but is especially useful for detecting unusual or unexpected patterns of adverse event reporting that might indicate a possible safety problem with a vaccine.

Yet here you are, using VAERS in a way that it itself cautions against. Why do you believe its legitimate to do that?