That's a valid challenge. But, one I reject. Never in the history of man, has there been MORE data available about one disease. There is so much, it's practically overload.
I could spend the rest of this year posting data that proves my assertions. Or, at the very least, show very strong correlations. The data is PLENTY available for anyone who wants to spend the time looking for it.
I'm not a 'crusader'. I have a life, and a very full one at that. I'm here to offer my 'insights'. People can take or leave them as they like.
I suspect that you and I share many of the same beliefs regarding COVID, and the gross global over-reaction. I think it's all been very over-blown, initially for political reasons, and now because.. well, we've set a standard. Now, we can't back off it. I think most of what has been done is criminal. Especially, for the harm it has caused our children.
But, that doesn't change my opinion on the relative effectiveness of these "shots".. I don't really even like calling them 'vaccines'. They lower the chances for serious illness and death. If you look, you can find all the data you want that proves this.
I think much of our death data has been over-stated, but... I can't ignore this:
https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/nvss/vsrr/covid19/excess_deaths.htm
We've had a LOT of excess deaths in the US in the past 2 years. This isn't "Nothing". It's a disease that kills a lot of people who are health-compromised.
I'm not one who thinks we have to vaccinate 100% of the population. But, I do think, for MANY people, the shots improve their chances.
Of course, as you say... these mRNA shots are NEW technology. NO ONE really knows what the long-term affects might be. That's one of the main reasons I oppose mandates. My comments are strictly limited to the data we have available, NOW, about the relative benefits that have been shown.. globally.. over and over.
That is: After the shots roll out, death rates go WAY down.
It would be instructive to notice how much of the CDC is verbiage, words piled onto words. One observes the technical term "estimates" in their "data." This is consistent with the technical terms "presumed" and "assumed" from the April 2020 document on how to amplify the identity of a Covd death. Such words to not sit well with the requirements of hard data. From another source one finds that the death rate in the US is still lower than in 1950, and a rise in the death rate from its lowest point began in about 2014, not with the advent of the "pandemic." https://www.macrotrends.net/countries/USA/united-states/death-rate How do "estimate" and "presumed" fit with a rigorous collection of data points? Yet this is what the WHO and CDC have advised. https://www.who.int/classifications/icd/Guidelines_Cause_of_Death_COVID-19.pdf?ua=1 Your comment combines "overestimated" but you "can't ignore" estimates? That seems a dissonance of some sort. Still, the overall hard data says: Global deaths through 23 months -- ( 5,105,270 / 7,906,949,863 ) x 100 = 0.0645 %. Prove that wrong without resorting to estimates and presumptions, please.