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 ;)
— “There isn't any debate about what Pfizer and the CDC say the data represent.” Really? This one thread suggests there is debate.
“People who collect the “data” tell us:
Global Deaths through 23+ months of the global population — ( 5,105,270 / 7,906,949,863 ) x 100 = 0.0645 %
Presenting this rudimentary calculation is what? Information or misinformation?
Was Ferguson-Imperial College's forecast to Trump of 2.2 million dead information or misinformation?
Are some individual testimonies information or misinformation?
-- "I'm going to shut down the virus," said a current president.
https://www.cnn.com/2021/09/13/opinions/biden-not-keeping-campaign-promises-jennings/index.html
What's information? Misinformation? You are the judge, because "There isn't any debate about what Pfizer and the CDC say the data represent."
Except there is. Go figure.