It's interesting to see these events described through your eyes, as it somewhat differs from what I experienced. It's not that you report events I don't recall, or miss those I do, but that how you view them differs.

"Claims that it prevents worse outcomes are dubious at best, because the predicted severity of outcomes tended to be wildly exaggerated in the first place."

There are several means by which medical interventions can provide relief from disease. Prophylaxis is an intervention after infection has occurred that kills pathogens, which reduces the impact of disease, such as antibiotics. Vaccination is not prophylaxis. Vaccination is activating the immune system to prior to infection and immunizes the subject, making prophylaxis unnecessary because the immune system prevents infection. Vaccination is said to provide immunization, which recovering from an infection does also.

The mRNA jabs did not provide immunity to SARS2, nor it's variants. When a subject is immunized from a disease, the subject's immune system is competent to tackle the target pathogen and kill it, preventing the pathogen from replicating and the subject from suffering disease. mRNA jabs never provided immunization, never prevented transmission of the SARS2 virus, and never reduced incidence of Covid19.

In fact, recently it has been shown that Pfizer not only never claimed their jabs reduced transmission, but instead acknowledged in their submissions to the FDA that people jabbed were more likely to catch SARS2 and suffer Covid19 as a result.

Their sole potential efficacy was to immunize people and prevent them from suffering infection with the pathogen SARS2, and it was known prior to the FDA issuing the EUA (emergency use authorization) that the jabs had negative efficacy, increased infections with the SARS2 pathogen, and increased the number of people dying as a result (claimed vaccine efficacy was ephemeral, at best, as that initial immune response progressively destroyed the immune system through a complex process nicotine disrupted). Claims being jabbed caused a prophylactic effect and reduced severity of Covid19 disease were similarly false. mRNA jabs cause our cells to produce spike proteins, which are the primary toxin that causes harm from Covid19 infection. Therefore being jabbed and catching Covid19 increased the harm over only one of those injuries).

This was not what we were told. We were told they reduced transmission, over and over, and that's what the touted efficacy rates claimed. 95% efficacy reduces transmission rates by 95%. The jabs never provided such efficacy. Those claims are lies.

"Meanwhile, anecdotal evidence of MRNA vaccine risks continue to mount, although I hesitate to fully endorse such claims for now."

It is true there are anecdotes indicating mRNA jabs causes severe adverse events and death. However there is clinical evidence of those adverse events that has always been part of the discussions of licensing bodies. What is not determined by peer reviewed research are the rates of such adverse events occurring in people subjected to mRNA jabs. This is because every effort is being made to push these jabs into people's arms, and research that quantified the risks, which are substantial, would be counterproductive to that effort.

Nonetheless Steve Kirsch and others have done a very good job estimating those risks from public data, denied access to proprietary data that would be available for research funded in order to undergo the peer review process. Those estimates are robust, and more than horrific enough to require these mRNA products to be withdrawn from use. Steve has several times offered prizes of up to $1M for folks that could disprove his claims, recently offering to pay 10x what someone was willing to bet that the harm he claimed wasn't being done (IIRC this was that the jabs caused mortality to increase, and all someone had to do to claim 10x their money was demonstrate the jabs reduced all cause mortality, rather than increase it).

This dislodges people from hesitancy. When folks that want $1m start actually figuring out how to get their hands on the offered prize, they are motivated to investigate Steve's assertions in order to be able to disprove them. When they do that they inevitably learn his claims aren't able to be falsified, and this dispels their uncertainty.

The recent public health advisory issued by Florida Surgeon General Joe Ladapo is unambiguous and not anecdotal. If you seek empirical evidence of the jabs causing adverse events I recommend you review both that public health advisory, and have a look at Steve Kirsch's substack, where he publishes his offers and claims.

Thanks!