The reported adverse reactions are very serious and only occurred after the vaccine a lot of times in an otherwise healthy individual.

It should be used as a canary of safety and each report should be evaluated to see if the vaccine is the causation, especially when the individual was healthy.

Ignoring reports of adverse reactions is not proper science. Sure, we could dismiss ALL of the reports as coincidences, but is that right?

VAERS also states the data is under-reported, because not all side effects are reported to VAERS. This means for all false reports there could be true side effects not reported, this evens out the cases to some extent.

> You could get the vaccine, and then days later, you get diarrhea, or a headache, or a charlie horse in your calf,

Look at the side effects listed, it's full paralysis, death, miscarriages, etc. These are serious events that should be looked into. Those are much more rare cases than a "headache", or "diarrhea". Headaches are not reported to VAERS.

The safety monitoring is actually pretty good as well. We caught a 1 in ~100k issue with AZ/JnJ vaccine very early on in the rollout. We caught mild myocarditis (though COVID risk > vaccine for myocarditis). There was even a massive preprint today from Israel around vaccine side effects. Few were concerning. Link to study + summary https://twitter.com/erictopol/status/1430636357626466307?s=2...

> “ Bob Wachter of UCSF had a very good thread on Twitter about vaccine rollouts the other day, and one of the good points he made was this one. We’re talking about treating very, very large populations, which means that you’re going to see the usual run of mortality and morbidity that you see across large samples. Specifically, if you take 10 million people and just wave your hand back and forth over their upper arms, in the next two months you would expect to see about 4,000 heart attacks. About 4,000 strokes. Over 9,000 new diagnoses of cancer. And about 14,000 of that ten million will die, out of usual all-causes mortality. No one would notice. That’s how many people die and get sick anyway”

Exactly, that's why I said when you scale up you will get more absolute deaths and critical conditions. There's no point for those very few deaths or reactions to occur if those people had better natural immunity through previous infection.

Edit: I think you have a point about whether those who have previous infection truly need the vaccine, but the way you are using VAERS data diminishes your point

In short: in a large enough population with a random distribution of outcomes, you'll eventually have one member of the population who sees "you" (who is picking results at random, but mutually exclusively to individuals) pick the correct result of a sportsgame everytime.

This is the VAERS dataset: because it records any event proximate to vaccination, eventually every event is proximate to vaccination on a long enough timeline with a large enough population. It exists because, yes, they should be looked into...but only if they're occurring at a statistically higher rate then the average rate for the population over the time after vaccination. This is, for example, how AstraZeneca's clotting risk was identified and how the Pfizer myocarditis risk was identified.

There's about 16,000 new cases of Lupus ever year, there should be around 2,500 cases of Lupus following vaccination that could be reported into VAERS.