[Worldtraveler once upon a time]

— “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.”

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.justice.gov/opa/pr/justice-department-announces-largest-health-care-fraud-settlement-its-history

https://thehill.com/blogs/pundits-blog/healthcare/301432-the-cdc-is-being-being-influenced-by-corporate-and-political

https://www.citizensforethics.org/legal-action/legal-complaints/crew-sends-complaint-on-cdc-records-destruction/

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.

[semimojo]

Clever to appoint yourself judge over “misinformation” and what constitute for you “harmful decisions.”

When the people who collect the data tell you what it represents, presenting it as something else is misinformation by definition.

Unless you think everyone's lying to you.

This is no debate, for you are the arbiter as your replies testify.

There isn't any debate about what Pfizer and the CDC say the data represent.

You can say they're lying but you can't dispute that they say the deaths aren't necessarily the result of the vaccine.

rampant ineptitude, self-serving bureaucracies, politics, CYA actions by individuals or small groups, a regulatory capture which affects and biases decisions, and more.

All possible and I'm sure there in some measure. But none of them could begin to explain why thousands of public health professionals, in and out of government, understand and accept the description of what adverse event data represent.

They aren't all lying to you. Honest ;)