Are you willing to get the Covid vaccine when offered?
2 hours, 33 minutes, and 40 seconds.
I'm gonna restate my take on the slide that wasn't intended to be shown during Anderson's presentation. Recall at the beginning of his presentation he had to ask another individual to make sure he was on the correct slides because he couldn't see what was displayed on his end. He had to state which slide he was on each time.
Regardless, the video posted is a nearly 9 hour advisory committee presentation on a wide variety of topics related to vaccines, effectiveness, safety, strategies, recommendations, etc. A lot of what they discussed were preliminary findings and not intended to be binding or conclusive. Basically they make recommendations on how to improve processes and systems.
The slide you posted was a DRAFT: Working list of possible adverse event outcomes. My belief is that it's based on data collected by the VAERS system which he covered during his presentation. VAERS is not intended to be anything more than a data aggregation method to get preliminary warning on possible adverse events from vaccines. It's not a scientific study or method. The list of adverse events aren't verified. Anyone can fill out the reports and put whatever they want in them. If there are trends that warrant concern, then the CDC or proper agency would run a scientific study to find out if the reporting trend is caused by the vaccine or something else. The list is pretty meaningless without studies to verify the veracity of the reports.
https://vaers.hhs.gov/
https://www.cdc.gov/vaccinesafety/ensuringsafety/monitoring/vaers/index.html
Below is a quote from the linked page.
As an early warning system, VAERS cannot prove that a vaccine caused a problem. Specifically, a report to VAERS does not mean that a vaccine caused an adverse event. But VAERS can give CDC and FDA important information. If it looks as though a vaccine might be causing a problem, FDA and CDC will investigate further and take action if needed.
I'm not at all discrediting the video. I actually think you're misrepresenting what the screen shot means. That's why I asked you for context which you refused to provide at the time. Now I know why. The slide wasn't intended to be part of the presentation and was up for less than a second.
In any case, I'd still rather let the scientific studies make the case. I'm not an epidemiologist.
Worth restating. A link...well, not even a link, a screenshot with no timestamp initially for a slide that was up for less than a second in a 9 hour video, with zero context is pretty useless.
You should explain why you posted it and why it's meaningful in the context of this discussion. You still haven't answered this.
I stand by my assertion that you're just looking for someone to agree with you. Really the opposite of critical thinking.
I'll evaluate each link and post on its own merits. Some probably are credible, some clearly not.