Emergency Authorization Use are the laws and the CDC didn't actively monitor VAERS.  Again the problem isn't exclusively the lack of monitoring, it is that people won't do math and place it into context.  Using whole numbers is scary, so saying 147,000 deaths were "reported" to VAERS is bad because the years prior were under 1000.

 But if we use percentage and not whole numbers the there is actually a decrease in death reports.  When 596 million doses are given the "reported" death rate is 0.0234899329%.  Actual death certificates from real humans is even less - but when have we ever needed people to actually die to claim the vaccine is deadly?  Just look at the millions of dead kids and thousands of soldiers.

 So if you wanted to say how bad the vaccine is would you say it has a less than 0.0234899329% chance of death or would you say 140,000 deaths have been reported?

 Remember none of these deaths are ever verified, so you and I could report deaths all day long, legally, which has been done.  No matter who claims without any evidence that it is "FRAUD", that's not true.  I know people that reported deaths to VAERS just to work people up and prove it happens.  This in itself is reason for any organization to stop using that data.


 The problem with this guy is he considers his opinion to be fact.  Also he ignores base-rate fallacy and tosses out numbers of vaccinated being at X% of risk, but consistently makes sure not to say the risk is specifically from Covid.  He states he never said he "invented" mRNA, but leaves out that his wife submitted multiple papers claiming this exact thing.  If he would stop doing this then people would listen to him more.

 Now his assessment about the reduction in the NIH and especially the CDC's neutral evidence gathering role is fairly accurate.  It's embellished but for the most part the political components are more prominent.  

 There definitely needs to be more straight data reporting by these agencies.

"What do you feel is an acceptable amount of variation or measure of unintended side effects including death?"

 I "feel" like it should be zero, but if that were the case almost no medication would ever be given out.  Maybe cough drops.

 Realistically though I would want to average the Adverse Effects of Medical Treatment for similar vaccines for the past 30 years.  So as a quick rundown I grabbed 1990, 2000, 2010 and 2017 as they had the most data sets to use.

 Incidence rates of AEMT were:
309 [95% uncertainty interval (UI), 270 to 351]
340 (298 to 384)
401 (348 to 458)
439 (376 to 505) per 100,000 population globally in those respective years.  

 This shows an increasing trend in adverse effects.  But if we also compare the rates of mortality due to medical issues that have vaccinations available, the mortality numbers go down, even with vaccines that kill people.

 So would I exchange higher adverse events for lower mortality rates?  I would.  As for the Covid vaccines I definitely would remove the batch numbers I have presented here in the past with hopes the 0.0234 reduces further.

 At this time I am ok with 0.0234 since that number includes hundreds of thousands of unverified reports, some of which are known to be false.  When it comes to filling trailers with the dead, I personally saw many more unvaccinated than I saw vaccinated.  So that alone would be enough for me to "feel" like the known side effects are pretty low in comparison to those dead with zero vaccination.

 I agree with most of your assessment except that they did not offer full disclosure for a product that doesn't work and may harm you.

 I think they thought it would work as intended and at the beginning the paperwork was appropriate.  However I think it should be updated regularly as new information is obtained and this is definitely not being done in a timely manner.