I'm not arbitrarily rejecting scientific evidence that I don't like.
Yeah you are.
I question the totality of the data presented and the meaning behind the disparity in consensus.
There's an overwhelming consensus in the scientific and medical communities. Fake news. Try again.
Statements made, intended to be interpreted as absolute, while riddled with qualifiers.
Welcome to science. Sorry the world is more nuanced and complicated than you'd like.
Attempts to shutdown dissent
Feel free to question anything and everything, but if you're just making up unsubstantiated conspiratorial garbage, then that's all that is, and it's irresponsible.
Silencing doctors because they disagree.
If a doctor irresponsibly says something antithetical to medical science, something that can cause very real harm, they shouldn't be listened to, and they shouldn't be allowed to practice medicine.
Some of you people shout "anti-science" as the 20th century's version of "blasphemy!"
The difference is we should care about science, not whether or not we've offended some imaginary deity in the sky.
It's not like America prioritizes science over corporate interest.
It should prioritize science, and regardless, it isn't like both can't exist at the same time. The science is clear and good about vaccines in the same way it's clear and good about computer technology. That doesn't mean nobody is going to try to profit off it.
Corporations and government funding fund most scientific studies.
And sometimes they don't.
What happens when they are in bed with each other?
If your answer is something nefarious in this or any other situation, you have to defend that. What motive would the government even have for helping to put out a vaccine that doesn't work? If the vaccine didn't work, we'd have a stifled economy. The government also spends money on things that are in the public interest. What's the motive for pharmaceutical companies selling a vaccine that doesn't work? If it doesn't work, they make significantly less money, and their reputation gets flushed down the toilet.
Even if you could ascribe motives, you'd also need to demonstrate this conspiracy theory. Until then, that's all it is, and I haven't even addressed the independent science corroborating vaccine safety and efficacy or the fact that it would have to be a massively global conspiracy given all of the independent science institutions and governments that would have to be in on it.
You might as well be trying to argue the conspiracy theory that the 2020 election was stolen or likely stolen from Trump (oh wait).
What happens when they are in bed with each other? It's not a theory that government actors are lobbied by pharmaceutical giants.
Who specifically are the government actors? Are they elected or unelected? What specifically did they do? Do you have evidence?
You don't appear to have thought out your own conspiracy theory, and even if you had, baseless conspiracy theories are not a reasonable justification for rejection well-established scientific evidence.
I find that rejecting VEARS data is an example of rejecting evidence because you don't like the implication.
Well, it would be moronic to think this, since the VEARS data isn't "rejected" outright; it's investigated before being rejected. We've discovered vaccine side effects from VEARS data in the past, and it's a very useful tool. The problem with VEARS is anyone can report anything, and correlation doesn't necessarily equal causation. It's not great just on its own.
The issue that you seem to have is that you don't realize the VEARS data involving whatever fake side effects you believe exist or are likely to exist was investigated, and they don't actually exist. The plural of "anecdote" is not "data," and you need more than anecdotes of alleged correlation to have anything meaningful.
Listen up, because I think you're going to learn something with this analogy. Let's pretend I ate an oatmeal cookie and then suffered a brain aneurysm. If that got reported to the Cookie Adverse Event Reporting System (CAERS), it would then be investigated. If the data showed that the proportion of people eating oatmeal cookies and then suffering brain aneurysms matches the proportion of people who didn't eat oatmeal cookies but suffered brain aneurysms, and the proportion of brain aneurysms is undercharged since the recent (and very public) release of oatmeal cookies, the claim that oatmeal cookies causes brain aneurysms can and should be rejected.
You're basically saying right now that oatmeal cookies cause, or are likely to cause, brain aneurysms. The VAERS anecdotes that didn't pan out were rejected because they were unsupported by scientific evidence, not because people "didn't like what it was saying." There are plenty of true things about COVID-19 or even the vaccines that we don't like, but we haven't rejected them because we don't like them.
Questioning your methods... is not "anti-science".
It is when those methods are called "the scientific method."