[so_real]

VAERS should not and is not ignored. It has a very specific use, which is not for the general public to make assumptions about which vaccine is more or less safe based on VAERS reports.

Point to a better tool, one you feel is worthy of public use, or the wise will continue to use the only one that has been made available to the public. I too am a Trump fan. But it's a meaningless data point. I cannot rule out that Trump's recommendation was intended to mitigate fear among the sheople. In that regard, it has been an effective strategy in my estimation.

[2aProtectsTheRest]

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/
https://www.nejm.org/

There’s two resources right there. The problem with the general public looking at VAERS is that you aren’t even getting half the story. What the public is seeing in VAERS are simply reports that adverse events took place at some point after a vaccination was given. The investigations that are done after adverse events (such as death) don’t ever update the information in VAERS. So if there are 1,900 reports of death, there’s nothing saying “by the way, all 1,900 were fully investigated and determined to be from natural causes, and this rate is fully in line with expectations and normal rates given the ages of the individuals provided this vaccine”.

If grandma is 102 with a history of heart problems and has a heart attack two weeks after getting a Pfizer vaccine, there’s nothing to tell you that she was 102, had a history of heart problems, and had doctors, nurses, and a medical examiner all in agreement that this was a death from natural causes fully consistent with the patient’s medical history with no sign of any vaccine related problems. So there’s no context to any of the data.

If you want the investigation and the context, you have to look at the published research.