It also very quickly engages in what I call "conspiracy theory epistemology," which is when the fact that someone disagrees with you, especially if that someone is ostensibly an expert or in a position of authority is presented as evidence that you're correct (because clearly they're part of the cover-up!), and the more such people who disagree with you the more obvious that makes it that you're correct (because everyone is in on it!).

This isn't to say that there aren't real conspiracies or that any claims that a conspiracy exists is "conspiracy theory epistemology." The problem is this particular mode of epistemology where a claim is presented and then significant time is spent focusing on how the mere fact that experts disagree is somehow evidence of the coverup. The reason it's bad epistemology is that it can be used indiscriminately in defense of literally any claims of conspiracy.

Have you looked at the US or European vaccine adverse effects databases (VAERS and VigiAccess)? There are literally over an order of magnitude more adverse effects and deaths reported since the rollout of the covid vaccines than for all vaccines in the 20+ years before that (including the flu vaccine that roughly half of Americans take every year). And none of the "vax-is-safe" people have provided any convincing explanation for this other than asserting without evidence that the rate of adverse effect reporting has increased.

VAERS is self-reported (and you can report for others) and not verified. We live in an age where a small segment of the population is highly motivated to cast doubt on vaccines.

Also, there has never in history been as quick and wide a rollout of a vaccine as COVID-19. If a database were tracking every negative outcome for a person after taking a vaccine - even if the vaccine didn't cause it - we would see a spike. You'd see a worrying spike in negative outcomes if we spun up a database that recorded adverse reactions after eating a banana, for example; doesn't mean bananas are killing people.

That's pretty obvious, of course. The more media attention on side effects there is, the more likely it is that people will report side effects, including incidental side effects.

Regarding these self-report services, it seems that an overwhelming majority of (self) reported side-effects are due to nocebo responses[1].

[1] https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamanetworkopen/fullarticle...

[2] https://arstechnica.com/science/2022/01/up-to-76-of-covid-va...

> There are literally over an order of magnitude more adverse effects and deaths reported since the rollout of the covid vaccines than for all vaccines in the 20+ years before that (including the flu vaccine that roughly half of Americans take every year)

Putting aside the obvious difference in societal impact and media coverage, which the modern flu has never received, it seems like the drastic differences in vaccine uptake absolutely contributes to this.

Flu vaccine uptake in 18+ was estimated at 45.3% in 2018-2019, 37.1% in 2017–18, and 43.3% in 2016-2017 [1]. It's sitting at 76% for COVID right now [2].

1: https://www.cdc.gov/flu/fluvaxview/coverage-1819estimates.ht... 2: https://usafacts.org/visualizations/covid-vaccine-tracker-st...

Short term damage as in death vs unknown long term impacts on people life expectancy and health. That last part is unknown but might be an issue that has cardiologists worried.

There is a reason vaccines take a long time to develop. Let’s not pretend that this straight to market approach does not come at a potential bigger negative down the road.

I would like to have a long term phase 4 follow up. And yes I got two doses of Pfizer and I had COVID as well.

> There is a reason vaccines take a long time to develop.

What is the reason?

Lack of efficacy for the risk (search Vioxx deaths) and antibody dependent enhancement both require significant time to observe.

https://www.npr.org/2007/11/10/5470430/timeline-the-rise-and...

mRNA-based vaccine technology was in development years before COVID-19 made it economically viable to release.

Why should the evidence be overwhelming? Look at how long it took for the evidence for things like smoking, lead in gasoline, DDT to show up.

If the harm is acute then sure evidence should be overwhelming but we should continually look for evidence of injury as it could be subtle.

We should also keep in mind that even if we do find a rate of injury higher than originally thought, the overall benefit of the vaccine may still be positive as Covid itself has a higher rate of injury.