How large a trial do you want to run to capture "rare conditions"? Millions? Billions of participants? How long do you want to run trials? Years? Decades?
It’s not very complicated.
trials ok => drug most likely ok
trials not done => we don’t really know.
We are kind of back to my initial question that is conceptually unrelated to the vaccine trial: do you need trials to run into millions or billions of participants or into decades if you want to capture certain (rare) things?.
I understand that this is to not feed the vaccine hesitancy. But to anyone observing carefully, this is a crucial break in the information chain that can feedback any ill effects of any vaccine back to the creators.
In what alternative group think echo chamber did that happen within?
Here, in the real world, it was acknowledged from the get go that vaccines carried risks and that was why the call went out, from almost the start of 2020, for trial volunteers to find the risks associated with a number of new vaccine variants in the pipelines.
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.
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.
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!"
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.
Yes, then that report is rejected because it used data from VAERS..
It suffers many of the shortfalls of, say, a Haircut Adverse Event Reporting System (HAERS)