@Magna I am not going to argue with you on this.
The VAERS system and any other reporting system, i.e. reporting side effects from pharmaceuticals, etc. is only as good as the forms provided and the rules for reporting. With that, there can be some inaccuracies. A good example is my wife's situation. She is the nurse manager at a rare disease clinic. The patients she manages are on several drugs, they are very brittle in terms of their health, often will have multi-system organ dysfunction. With that known, she is required to report any symptom they have on all the drugs that patient is on,...whether or not any of those drugs or combinations of those drugs are at fault. Pay attention to any of those drug commercials on TV,...listen to all that fast-talking list of potential side effects,...knowing what I know, it is frankly laughable, but they are required by the FDA to disclose these things whether or not that particular drug is in any way responsible for any of those side effects. It is not the reporters that are at fault, but rather the reporting system that they must follow. In order for the reporters to be at fault, there would have to be some sort of mass conspiracy amongst them,...laughing,...most doctors have poor communication with their own partners, let alone some sort of wide spread biased reporting. It would be comical to even suggest it. Furthermore, it is often not the doctors filling out those FDA and CDC forms, but rather a nurse, medical assistant, or secretary of some sort,...the physician simply co-signs.
However, it's been my observation over the years that the media and, in fact, most people do not understand the scientific process. It is a slow and methodical process of taking an anecdotal observation or association, then over the period of years and multiple experiments involving different situations in order to slowly wittle down and come to a truth. Much of what we know about our world would fall under the category of "emerging truths". What happens all too frequently is that the media jumps onto something way, way too early in the process. Every day you see articles reporting that "scientists say...". Two years later,..."scientists say,..." something that is closer to the truth, but may even contradict what was said two years earlier. I have had personal experience with legitimate news reporters, and have been misquoted. I have seen national news reports do large televised pieces based upon scientific journal articles,...and when you actually read the journal article,...the news piece got it all wrong. I've come to the conclusion that lay people are almost incapable of reading scientific journals, interpreting them correctly, and reporting it accurately. Unless you've been specifically trained upon HOW to read a journal article, it is probably best not act upon, interpret, and report what you've read.
Distrust in the science and scientists is almost never the fault of either, but rather lay people reporting such findings far too early in the process and/or misinterpreting the data. Furthermore, there are too many "snake oil" salespeople out there,...people with devices, supplements,...fantastical reports of how this or that has been a miracle in their life,...all based upon premature scientific data. Most of it BS. It's no wonder so many have been "burned". A fool and his money are soon separated.
No one should have "blind faith" in anything that would fall under the category of an "emerging truth". Everyone I have ever met in the medical field is highly skeptical of the data presented to them,...and will read into all the little, nitty-gritty details of any scientific article. Our physicians will sit back and wait at least 10 years before enough data is collected to change their practice,...we are dealing with infants, and these things matter. I don't know of any physician or medical professional that, in practiced conversation, will use strong, direct language, but rather use soft, almost non-committal language ("suggestive", "statistically significant", etc.). Pay attention to your own doctor and the careful words used. Even if there is a 99.9% chance of being correct,...they will leave that 0.1% open to themselves for being wrong. Now,...how the patient, the media, or lay person interprets that conversation is on them, and is their responsibility.
All that said, all any of us can do as professionals is to follow what is repeatable through experimentation, follow statistics,...even if what we know is only partially true. If you read any good scientific journal article it will almost always say, "more experimentation is needed."...calling upon others to repeat or change variables in order to confirm or further challenge the truth. Jumping upon something too early is almost always a recipe for disaster,...of course, not putting anything to the test is also a recipe for disaster and perpetuates ignorance.
What I have found is that there is this interesting learning curve when it comes to science and theology. When you are ignorant of the world and how things work, you are more likely to lean upon theology. As you gain more knowledge of how things work, you tend to pull away from theology and more on science, after all, science can explain quite a bit...but here is the interesting part,...the more you truly understand the science and how things work, when you truly become an expert, you've answered so many questions,...the more you tend to think that there is a divine plan. The subatomic and quantum realm tends to suggest an intelligence at work. It's almost as if God has set things in motion, given us the mental tools to understand the physics and chemistry,...but in the end you end up looking upon God again.
The best mentor I have ever had was a neonatologist, that in my opinion, was the best balance of a man of science and God. He taught me so much about what I do, but also as a person, and am forever grateful.
Peace.
