Of course there is ambiguity and bias in any data, it’s impossible to remove. It even exists in this counter factual argument as well, which is not presented with corresponding data or evidence and is therefore just anecdotal narrative. That doesn’t make it untrue, I’m sure it is. But it’s not unverifiable in a way that makes it 100% clear for one to truly know if what is being said is real. It’s a statement.

People have adverse reactions to vaccines, drugs, innocuous foods all the time. It is not a gotcha and just because they do doesn’t mean vaccines are bad.

I don’t see anyone trying to ban peanuts and they kill orders of magnitude more people than vaccines. The fact that they’re floating around in many foods when people can literally die if they come in contact could be considered insane, but for some reason culturally we don’t think that.

Is there a hidden conspiracy with peanuts? No.

I don’t doubt that mainstream media, or even some mainstream research attempts to remove data points, limit knowledge - of course that happens. I don’t doubt that data, research and “science” itself isn’t doctored. That isn’t my point. But science cannot operate like that at scale, or at least for the most part because there is falsifiability, and adversarial review at every stage and in that way it edges toward truths, while making mistakes along the way.

Just because there is outliers and anomalies does not equate to all science being faulty or vaccines being obviously bad because someone points the inevitable but horrific outliers that happen when people consume anything - people die from eating paracetamol. While offering no scientific rationale in return, just trust me bro.