[qsera]

I am talking about a case when there IS some adverse effect, after it happened.

In that case, there is generally an effort from the practitioners that the vaccine could not have caused it, particularly when the said thing is not mentioned in the package insert or in the list of adverse effects from the manufacture.

[defrost]

Is this a general complaint about the lack of causality inherent in the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS)?

It suffers many of the shortfalls of, say, a Haircut Adverse Event Reporting System (HAERS)

[RandomLensman]

How would you suggest to establish causality?

[qsera]

First step would be to collect data that is trust worthy regarding potential adverse reactions. And for that the barriers that stigmatize such reporting should be removed.

Basically, for starters, doctors should be free to report the events they see without getting labeled "Anti-vaccine doctor" or fear of getting their licence revoked.

When such barriers exist, no one could/should trust the product.

[RandomLensman]

What don't you like about current reporting such as VAERS? Where do you see the barriers there specifically? Do you have examples of doctors getting their licenses revoked for reporting something?

[qsera]

>VAERS

When you got your vaccine, were you told to report at VAERS if you have any problems? Most people does not even know such a thing exists.

Even then the reports from that database is not really considered trust worthy. It is often dismissed with a statement that "anyone can report anything there!"

[defrost]

Anyone can report anything there and it is meaningless in any single specific case what the after affects of single vaccine applied to a specific person might be when extending to the population wide results of that vaccine.

There was a particular case in the UK where a vaccine was about to be administered, there was a fumble and a slight delay during which the patient went into cardiac arrest. Had that occurred after the vaccine was administered then that would go as a (possible) adverse reaction into VAERS and entered as such by the medical staff (who do know such a thing exists). As it happened before any vaccine was applied, it didn't.

VAERS isn't "dismissed" though - correctly used it is statistically analysed to investigate whether tens of thousands of reported events after a vaccine application differ in frequency than such events in the absence of a vaccine.

[qsera]

>correctly used it is statistically analysed to investigate whether tens of thousands of reported events after a vaccine application differ in frequency

Yes, then that report is rejected because it used data from VAERS..