I have gone through that doc/letter in detail, as well as some of the references.
The points and arguments presented appear to be valid and sound, afaict so far.
It is beyond belief that the testing often involves only days(!) of observation for adverse effects, and that investigation of longer-term adverse outcomes are (even admittedly!!) severely lacking, or in some cases non-existent. This defies logic and reason. It reminds me of cigarette companies claiming that their products were safe, despite NOT actually having evidence to reasonably prove that they were indeed safe, only perhaps that they DID NOT have sufficient evidence to prove that they were indeed UNsafe. And we all know how that turned out.
It makes no sense, until you understand that the very organisation (HHS) assigned to investigate and demonstrate the supposed safety is the same organisation that defends legal claims for harm caused.
Not "having adequate proof" of causation is highly convenient when you hold the data and are trying to protect from litigation by avoiding identification of causation. Blatant refusal to accept the relevance of investigations of longer-term health outcomes, or indeed suggesting designs for analyses that bias the results (by, for example, suggesting omission of the healthiest of non-vacc kids in a comparative study, purely on the basis that they have had minimal need to attend doc visits), is nonsensical and disingenuous at best; blatantly corrupted and deceitful at worst.
This is NOT science. This is avoiding the scientific method to avoid accurate findings and conclusions, and clearly to present a subjective narrative that appears to be absolutely and undeniably questionable, and consequently leaving the public with "inadequate" proof of causation.... how convenient.
Again, it blows my mind that the testing relied upon to "prove" the safety of these substances is so flaky/minimal/limited, and the methodology purposefully avoids proper and rigorous analysis to reveal the REAL safety profile. It amazes me that their work, as well as that conducted by the IOM has stated for many many years that there are inadequate studies to identify causation of many observed health effects, yet they continue to NOT conduct those studies, thereby perpetuating this gap of knowledge, and perpetuating their ability to hind behind the "you cannot prove causation" claim. Seems strange, when their stated mission is to enhance and protect health and wellbeing. Wow.
It is also terribly concerning, imo, that most people, as you say, have no interest or desire to question or investigate, instead relying on the supposed "expertise" of the "experts" and the passed-on message via the "authorities".
Indeed, anyone even questioning what is "instructed", is typically automatically criticised, despite the concerns and search for clarity clearly being warranted, especially when exposed by the type of work summarised in that letter.
So this begs the question - what can be done? I mean what can REALLY be done, in order to force clarity on these issues and result in appropriate analyses that can actually inform relevant personal decisions on this topic? I note also, that it's not black-and-white, by any means i.e. determining the actual pro's and con's is what is important here, so these can be properly considered and weighed - it is not just some simplified case of trying to "prove" something has xyz effects and is therefore "bad".
People are quick to jump to specific examples (e.g. Samoa as per some other posts here) to justify, but this is nonsense in the context of simply wanting an accurate and complete picture of the safety profile so that informed decisions can be made - it MAY indeed be the case that in some cases the benefits outweigh the risks - in these cases, great, but at least we will be armed with ADEQUATE information on which to make that assessment, instead of relying on what appears to currently be a very biased and conflicted "instruction" that lacks adequate testing and supporting evidence.
What can be done?
