At no time would the CDC/FDA/NIH treat as valid evidence that the 'vaccine' was harmful because they required that those making claims of vaccine harm prove the mechanisms of action(s) (i.e., what the vaccine was doing). I believe that Pfizer and BioNTech knew exactly what their 'vaccines' were doing, but withholding the documentation prevented researchers from making their case quickly and stopping 'vax' distribution.
Fauci and Walensky both worded their advertising promotions for the 'vaccine' by saying, "We're seeing evidence that the vaccines are safe and effective..." and, at the time, they were obviously using wording from the hand of lawyers, because science doesn't base conclusions about safety/efficacy on 'some ea evidence I saw'. So those two ghouls plan to say they never saw pharma evidence based on pharma false claims that it was never studied. The dog ate their homework.
Again, rephrasing this in terms even people as dishonest as the $hot $hill$ might be able to follow: