No worries; I take the same tack you do about finding sources to trust.

I was hoping to add context to the article, which neglected to inform the reader about what the VAERS system is. I'd never heard of it, so I looked it up; that's how I found out it was a public system that accepts unverified reports.

To me, it can sometimes be aggravating to read noncommittal language in news and blog posts. But is is also important to me to read accurate analysis, in which that language is often necessary.

Some other outlets stated "an unverified claim suggests that... " or similar language. It's a very different tone than presenting the report as fact.

I hope the information I added is helpful context!

The local health department (Colorado, since that's where the entry indicates this event occurred) stated this: “Given the large number of COVID-19 vaccinations currently underway, it is expected that events such as heart attacks, strokes, serious illnesses, and death will, by chance alone, occur in the days following vaccination. To date, VAERS has not detected patterns in cause of death that would indicate a safety problem with COVID-19 vaccines,” the Colorado Department of Public Health & Environment said.

I'd expect that "patterns" can take a while to be revealed, especially if adverse effects are under-reported. However, I also came across some information that the bulk of entries in the VAERS system are related to COVID-19; if I recall correctly one site claimed that something like more than half of all claims in the history of the system (that might have been the National File site where this Global Reserach post was sourced)!