I'm not really sure of the coherence of the logic you are using

Again, let me clarify for you: virtually all medical drugs have some risks associated with them. One of the tasks of doctors is to weight those risks against the risk of not taking the medicine. In the case of the swine flu it is apparent that the risk of contracting and suffering consequences from swine flu was incredibly small and didn't warrant the risk of side effects from the vaccine. But in the general case, if I believe there's a 10% chance of dying from a disease without a medicine yet there is a 1% chance of dying from the medicine itself, I'm going to take the medicine. Apparently we differ here in how we play odds.

When I referred to there 'clearly being an issue' - I was, in part, referring to the correlation of 90 countries showing a pattern of increased transmission following vaccine rollouts. The news reports of vaccinated people becoming super spreaders and also the many experts citing the study I shared and other data.

So, the "clearly" here was referencing the theory from another post, that you just assumed everyone would have read? That's a terrible way to construct an argument. But I'll go along for the ride...

Your theory, while I didn't bother to comment on it previously as it wasn't the reason for my downvote of this post, is also poorly thought out, in my opinion. It has all the hallmarks of the amateur statistician who ends up mistaking correlation for causation. Even assuming I took your data at face value, here is one simple example of a potential flaw in your analysis: vaccination rates will increase when an outbreak occurs, because the risk/benefit ratio changes, and outbreaks often follow an exponential growth rate, then slowly stabilize and decline as mitigation procedures are applied. In summary, when you have multiple variables at play in a statistical analysis, it becomes very challenging to isolate which ones are actually causal. You have to conduct controlled studies to do this type of analysis reliably. And it is hard (and often unethical) to do controlled studies when you're dealing with a potentially lethal disease.

I also disagree with your super-spreader theory based on vaccination. The primary argument in that theory is that vaccines keep more people alive (which I suspect if I asked as a independent question, you would probably deny, but are still willing to introduce as a point of argument against vaccines) and therefore keeps alive more virus spreaders. Yet that's a terrible argument against the specific case of covid vaccinations, because original covid in civilized countries only had a mortality rate of about 1% anyways. So, instead of 99 spreaders, we have 100. Yes, I can fully see the danger now, Sherlock.

But lets get back to your essential complaint, which rather than my arguments against your points, appears to be my downvoting this post. I have already clearly explained my reasoning for downvoting this particular post: you knowingly posted a false fact as the title for your post (with the title line being denied within your post).

Your response is that your post is getting a lot of hits and I shouldn't censor it (and yet you then point out that you are not being effectively censored by it, so not sure where you were going with the latter point).

As to your popular view count argument, I find that almost reprehensible as a defense against being downvoted. You could make a post tomorrow reporting that you had discovered that Putin had secretly assassinated Princess Diane, and this also might lead to a lot of views. Shock titles do attract eyes. But they are not responsible commentary and they do not deserve high rewards simply for attracting attention. For my part, I will continue to downvote any content that I believe doesn't deserve the associated reward and is likely to risk public health. It doesn't censor it but it does reduces the rewards.