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 an hour ago | parent | next [-]

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 an hour ago | parent | prev [-]

How would you suggest to establish causality?

▲

qsera 34 minutes ago | parent [-]

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 15 minutes ago \| parent [-]
		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?