As the other commenter said, I'd like to add an example because I think it's worth it adding this to the discussion given that you are angry about a death in your family.
Just imagine, there are - to pick an example - new cancer cases (or anything really) every single day. Therefore, the vaccination will coincide with the diagnosis perfectly for a pretty large number of people.
But as should be obvious, that is not because of the vaccine. For there to be no diseases exactly following vaccinations there would have to be a stop of all disease for a week or two for anyone getting vaccinated. Now that would be an outlier.
If you want to see if a disease cold be because of vaccination you would at the very least have to show that among those getting vaccinated statistically significantly more people get the disease than normal.
Just remember, normal life and normal things - including all kinds of diseases - go on all the time. Vaccinations take place in this context, not "outside the environment" (to use a quote from a famous sketch).
What are you saying? It has nothing to do with what I wrote. Please remain constructive - and respond to what I actually wrote, not to imagined slights. Thank you. And the "hand wave" is what you are doing - read what I wrote, it is normal to have many such things coincide in timing. Timing alone is not proof of anything, since it is completely normal and expected with a constant stream of new disease. You have to show a (statistically) significant rise in numbers - as a first step, that alone still would not be proof either. Others have pointed that out too.
Given the scale of both normal disease occurrence and of the vaccination campaign, it is expected and normal for a very large number of people to get sick after vaccination - simply due to chance.
If you read into that purely statistical statement a claim of vaccinations not having any side effects than you need to read what I wrote, not what you think I wrote. One has nothing to do with the other, and I'm only addressing the one thing. Of course you can have problems due to vaccination, but you can not "hand-wave" any single random event into that category, especially when it's obvious you fail to even consider the large amount of "normally sick" cases that are bound to happen simply by random chance of them occurring all the time either way.
Just imagine, there are - to pick an example - new cancer cases (or anything really) every single day. Therefore, the vaccination will coincide with the diagnosis perfectly for a pretty large number of people.
But as should be obvious, that is not because of the vaccine. For there to be no diseases exactly following vaccinations there would have to be a stop of all disease for a week or two for anyone getting vaccinated. Now that would be an outlier.
If you want to see if a disease cold be because of vaccination you would at the very least have to show that among those getting vaccinated statistically significantly more people get the disease than normal.
Just remember, normal life and normal things - including all kinds of diseases - go on all the time. Vaccinations take place in this context, not "outside the environment" (to use a quote from a famous sketch).