They may make mistakes but I think they're pretty competent and acting in good faith. Otherwise their data would have to be the product of a massive conspiracy and I don't believe in those.
2) discard dissenting views
No, I discard obvious misrepresentations, like saying or implying that every death occurring after a vaccination was the fault of the vaccine when the people supplying the data explicitly say you can't do that.
3) you are a booster for these vaccines
You haven't, and probably won't, see me advocating for the vaccines.
What I do do is advocate against obvious misinformation like this article because I think it can mislead people and could cause them to make harmful decisions.
I'm all for debate but it has to be based on honest data.
Clever to appoint yourself judge over “misinformation” and what constitute for you “harmful decisions.” This places you outside a debate, and above it.
— “I'm all for debate but it has to be based on honest data.”
And so you validates which is the “honest data,” such as that of the CDC, and which is judged by you as dishonest data.
This is no debate, for you are the arbiter as your replies testify. I believe you, that you believe them. As you say, “I think they're pretty competent and acting in good faith.”
I believe that you believe you can decide for others about “harmful decisions.” Trust the CDC. Trust the FDA, Pfizer-BioNTech. Moderna, Johnson and Johnson, and Merck. Trust Fauci and Collins and the federal government. They would never lie to us.
Except...
https://www.fda.gov/media/97413/download
— “They may make mistakes but I think they're pretty competent and acting in good faith.” Yes, indeed you do think so.
You see only one alternative — a conspiracy. There are others. Such as rampant ineptitude, self-serving bureaucracies, politics, CYA actions by individuals or small groups, a regulatory capture which affects and biases decisions, and more. All, of course, acting in good faith.