The 15 Bretheren Have Painted Themselves Into a Corner

[JohnnyL]

1. Go peruse openvaers.com and look at the various menu choices in the upper left 3 lined menu. Of particular note is mortality... and the graphs show just under half of the reports are identified as US. So 8,000-9,000 deaths in less than a year in the US. ( CDC has an official number in that range.) Then look at the number of days between injection and death. Very heavy in the 1st 4 days. That sure looks like a causal effect... and it continues to hold true each reporting week after week.

2. Morbidly, I anticipated some deaths in church leadership by now from the injections but that has not transpired. I do have a close friend neighbor member who succumbed a month after the second mRNA vac, full of blood clots and COVID positive. He was doing all he could to follow the prophet.

3. I wonder if we are asked to be vaccinated for a greater cause and not an individual benefit, which may be negative for a small-yet-real and significant portion of the membership.

4. If the prophet is in error and it negatively impacts the moving forward of the Lord's will, I'm confident that truth will prevail within some small season.

5. I have a strong belief in both the precepts and historicity of the Book of Mormon, unashamedly.

Nice! Especially #3. I'm used to cognitive dissonance, so that years ago it wasn't much of a problem anymore. I've noticed that most people with cognitive dissonance go searching for an answer, and have to have one, or the c.d. becomes too great to bear; and if they can't find one, then something has to go. This saddens me. It saddens me more that many people against the vaccines and Covid plandemic have thrown out the apostles, that they are knowingly complicit, because that is the best their brains can come up with.

Yes, I strongly believe they are wrong about vaccines, not just these. But...

Give it time. Just give it time.

It's not a wise thing to throw out the Lord's apostles.

I'll bet my life that President Nelson as such has had more inspiration and revelations in one week than every single person berating him and the other apostles have had in a month, and likely those who haven't.

There are other possibilities in the mysterious workings of God.

[JohnnyL]

If indeed the Is prophet Has led people astray, then as he has said the Lord will remove him.

The problem with this statement is that it is false doctrine! Oh, oh now what?

Easy!! We call him a false prophet and push for his downfall, pray God will strike him down, and if all else fails, then assassinate him! Or believe that we are better than him and we'll come back when the liars are gone, or understand that they never had the keys anyway and start our own church, or that we don't need the Lord's church because we can do it all by ourselves, etc.

?

[JohnnyL]

If indeed the Is prophet Has led people astray, then as he has said the Lord will remove him.

The problem with this statement is that it is false doctrine! Oh, oh now what?

It’s all circular reasoning locked inside a very tidy box. Mormonism is everything it claims to be because Mormonism said so.

It's "everything it claims to be" because the Holy Ghost said so, to me. That's something we all need for ourselves, and will be responsible for, ourselves.

Maybe flimsy for others, solid for me, and hopefully will continue to be.

[JohnnyL]

1. Go peruse openvaers.com and look at the various menu choices in the upper left 3 lined menu. Of particular note is mortality... and the graphs show just under half of the reports are identified as US. So 8,000-9,000 deaths in less than a year in the US. ( CDC has an official number in that range.) Then look at the number of days between injection and death. Very heavy in the 1st 4 days. That sure looks like a causal effect... and it continues to hold true each reporting week after week.

2. Morbidly, I anticipated some deaths in church leadership by now from the injections but that has not transpired. I do have a close friend neighbor member who succumbed a month after the second mRNA vac, full of blood clots and COVID positive. He was doing all he could to follow the prophet.

3. I wonder if we are asked to be vaccinated for a greater cause and not an individual benefit, which may be negative for a small-yet-real and significant portion of the membership.

4. If the prophet is in error and it negatively impacts the moving forward of the Lord's will, I'm confident that truth will prevail within some small season.

5. I have a strong belief in both the precepts and historicity of the Book of Mormon, unashamedly.

I hate to say this, but I highly doubt any top flight religious or political leader has been given the real 'vaxx'. Too risky and a potential PR disaster if they sickened or died.

Whether they knew it or not I think everyone in the FP etc will have received saline.

Hence no deaths.

PS - let's remember "Covid positive" means absolutely nothing.

Possibly so. I could see lawyers/ PR/ ? switching the shots to saline solution.

[JohnnyL]

I went back and read this section last night. Truly fascinating.

To me, the most interesting follow-up question is:

If the Lord will immediately remove the president of the church for leading us us astray (as we are frequently taught), why then would the Lord outline a procedure for disciplinary council against him?

Like many things (e.g., bishops directly descended from Aaron not needing counselors), I believe these things are in the scriptures for a reason (there will be a need). It may be that a "constitutional crisis" in the Church will cause a schism, and the real possibility will arise where united quorums may clash (that's really hard to imagine right now).

B.H. Roberts wrote that the prophet not being able to lead astray isn't because he physically can't (his agency is curtailed), or because God would kill him if he tried, but actually because the collective members of the Church have their own testimonies, wisdom and agency. He can't, because he can't.

Brigham Young's famous quote touches on this:

"How do you know that your humble servant is really, honestly, guiding and counseling you aright, and directing the affairs of the kingdom aright? . . . How do you know but I am teaching false doctrine? How do you know that I am not counseling you wrong? How do you know but I will lead you to destruction? . . . Live so that you can discern between the truth and error, between light and darkness, between the things of God and those not of God, for by the revelations of the Lord, and these alone, can you and I understand the things of God . . . But to return to my question to the Saints, “How are you going to know about the will and commands of heaven?” By the Spirit of revelation; that is the only way you can know. How do I know but what I am doing wrong? How do I know but what we will take a course for our utter ruin?. . . But how do you know that I may not yet do wrong? How do you know but I will bring in false doctrine and teach the people lies that they may be damned? . . . If I were to preach false doctrine here, it would not be an hour after the people got out, before it would begin to fly from one to another, and they would remark, “I do not quite like that! It does not look exactly right! What did Brother Brigham mean? That did not sound quite right, it was not exactly the thing!” All these observations would be made by the people, yes, even by the sisters. It would not sit well on the stomach, that is, on the spiritual stomach . . . It would not sit well on the mind . . . and I will defy any man to preach false doctrine without being detected; and we need not go to the Elders of Israel, the children who have been born in these mountains possess enough of the Spirit to detect it. (Brigham Young, August 13, 1871. Journal of Discourses 14:204).

I think we are seeing more and more "recalcitrance" among active, believing members (e.g., vaccines and masks, but many other things as well). They sustain and believe in the prophets, but when their own revelation, conscience, and light differs, they say, “I do not quite like that! It does not look exactly right! That did not sound quite right, it was not exactly the thing!”

Sounds very similar to why Satan will be bound in the Millenium.

As to the last paragraph, I think that's good.

[JohnnyL]

I went back and read this section last night. Truly fascinating.

To me, the most interesting follow-up question is:

If the Lord will immediately remove the president of the church for leading us us astray (as we are frequently taught), why then would the Lord outline a procedure for disciplinary council against him?

B.H. Roberts wrote that the prophet not being able to lead astray isn't because he physically can't (his agency is curtailed), or because God would kill him if he tried, but actually because the collective members of the Church have their own testimonies, wisdom and agency. He can't, because he can't.

This ^^^ is much closer to my understanding of the "not lead astray" doctrine. But I phrase it a little differently.

In my view, the "not lead the saints astray" doctrine is to be understood as follows: If they are true saints (sanctified and redeemed), no man can lead them astray because they will NOT follow when wrongdoing occurs. It has more to do with the saints/members ability to discern than it has to do with any particular leader or whether that leader would be immediately removed.

But Wilford Woodruff and many others have made it all about the leader and thus somehow the members all being obligated to follow no matter what. Which is dangerous and false.

Follow the leaders? Yes, when they lead by the Holy Ghost. Which means that we will need to humble ourselves and ask for discernment and then obey the Holy Ghost.

[itsmerich]

The 15 brethren have painted themselves into a corner.


A very outspoken critic of the covid jab is Dr. Peter McCollough. Dr. McCollough is known worldwide and his credentials are unquestionable. Interestingly, he was a proponent of the jab in January and was actually administering it to his patients. What changed? In a word: Data. He knew from experience that when conducting a trial with a new vaccine or drug, if the adverse reactions lead to the death of over 25 people…it would be halted and pulled off the market immediately. That’s the established protocol for safety.

By February, Dr. McCollough knew something was very wrong. The number of deaths on the CDC’s VAERS database had climbed to over 200…yet no-one was doing anything to stop the covid jab. When he tried to sound alarm bells, he found himself being criticized, censored and slandered. He knew back in February that the jab was NOT “safe and effective”. He also knew, this had nothing to do with public health.

Today the VAERS database on the covid jab has over 17,000 deaths and over 900,000 injuries. To put that in perspective, it is greater than ALL vaccine injuries reported over the 30 years of the VAERS history.

To be parroting the ridiculous and laughable lie, at this point in time, that the jab is “safe and effective” is outright criminal and evil.

Because the 15 brethren have hitched their horse to the vax wagon with steel cables that are welded in place, it seems they have set up their own downfall. People have died and been injured BECAUSE of their urging members to get the jab. Many more will follow with ADE, cancers, autoimmune disorders, blood clots, strokes, heart attacks and weakened immune systems.

In a nutshell…this is only going to get worse and people are waking up to the fact that the jab is deadly and ineffective. so….what is the natural reaction if you loose your spouse, child, a parent, co-worker or friend BECAUSE of the jab?

How are you and others going to feel towards those who were URGING people to get it???

Now add in the “Prophet” factor and you can get a sense of what is coming…

PLEASE PROVIDE a link to this database with these #s you quoted ALWAYS document findings

[The Red Pill]

Done.

https://vaersanalysis.info/2021/10/22/v ... 0-15-2021/


Please help spread the word of this needless genocide.

[larsenb]

Appeal to authority?????

McCullough monitored the CDC'S own VAERS database on vaccine injury. Which by the way, Harvard did a study on and summarized only accounts for 1%to 10% of actual injuries.

How can the CDC'S own database be an appeal to authority? And those other 99% of doctors you speak of...they better study up on VAERS.

I was speaking specifically of your reliance on McCullough's assessment. Your use of VAERS in this way has been thoroughly debunked on this forum by a few others, so I was only remarking on your reliance of one doctor over so many others.

What you need to do then, is rebut McCullough's assessment. Can you do it? Go for it. Otherwise you're simply blowing smoke.

And no, McCullough's use of VAERS has not been debunked on this forum or any other place. You see, there is a vaaaast difference between merely saying something is "debunked" vs., explaining why exactly that something was debunked. Even referencing a previous post that debunks it, as you say, would be at least something. Again . . . . can you do even that??

[larsenb]

. . . . If you are a high risk person, I would personally recommend that you seriously consider the shot. But outside of that risk group, there is no logical reason to do it or recommend it

I agree with most of your comment, but I would advise any high risk person to run fast in the other direction from anyone recommending they take the shot.

What I think they should do, picking up on the recommendations of Dr. McCullough and many other doctors, would be to focus on sequenced multi-drug therapies, and key into detecting the onset of COVID-19 infection, to include the used of pulse oximeters (a cheap,, easy to use and acquire tool), so you can know when to start your alternative therapy . . . . especially if you aren't doing preventative prophylaxis.

[larsenb]

[
cOrReLLaTiOn iS nOt cAuSaTiOn.


Ok buddy. Even when it happens to someone close to you, you won't even connect the dots.

Should I make an exception to normal logic and reason just because it's someone close to me?

I'm waiting to see your "normal logic and reason". So far . . . . nope.

[larsenb]

. . . . . FranklinBluth is that you?

Yes, Artaxerxes is franklinbluth is Stacy Oliver. Not sure how many other sock puppets s/he has on LDSFF, but s/he is for sure those three. Sad and pathetic, but what can you expect.

Wouldn't surprise me. Stacy Oliver (he/she?) disappeared on the same day Biden was inaugurated

[larsenb]

In theory any member can lay charges and instigate church disciplinary action against the President of the church. It even says so in the D&C.
I wonder what would happen if some well informed and articulate member, quoting and evidencing real cases of deaths and injuries as a direct consequence of obedience to the FP, did this?

Per D&C 107, the governing quorums are equal in authority to others if they are unanimous. Thus, if the President of the Church did something bad, the combined, unanimous Q12 is equal in authority to the QFP. D&C 107 also states that the quorums of the 70 are equal in authority if they are unanimous if there ever arose a controversy with the higher quorums. This is the mechanism God has given for regulating the Church and dealing with "constitutional crisis" or controversies involving high leaders.

It requires unanimous agreement of the quorum in favor of the question, which would be a very tall order if someone were to want to bring it to bear against the President. I think those hoping for something like this because of masking and vaccines are delusional.

The hope would be targeting the vaccines, more than any other mandate . . . and would be more like like unrealistic than delusional.

[larsenb]

It is the choosing of sides. So critical when freedom of choice is paramount. It has always been about choosing. When Lucifer was kicked out, many chose to follow him. Some that stayed preferred the choice to follow Lucifer with a body. These people are evil the day they are born. There are a lot of them. . . . . . .

Only the most sadistic, evil prick would recommend the jab. That is why we must judge them by their fruits and not by their lying words.

"Some that stayed preferred the choice to follow Lucifer with a body" Now there is a fascinating idea; one I had never thought of! Definitely worth pondering, explaining much of what we see in this sphere'

And your last comment. Good pun.

[larsenb]

If indeed the Is prophet Has led people astray, then as he has said the Lord will remove him. This is not my stewardship and it is not your Stewardship. It is in the hands of the Lord and I trust the Lord.

I suggest we wait and see what happens by next general conference. What do you say?

I'm willing to leave it up to the Lord and meanwhile To come unto Christ well as I can

There's something here about building Zion guided by Jesus that we seem to be missing.

Given his age, "being removed" won't be long in coming; so is relatively meaningless.

My take on this situation remains, that the Lord is allowing what they are doing for His own purposes. He's not commanding it. And think we need to hang tight with that idea . . . . that "it is in the hands of the Lord" and to trust Him.

[larsenb]

"Re: No politician, no movie star.... are dying from covid
Post by EmmaLee » Wed Sep 15, 2021 3:31 am

According to Jake Oaks (Pres. Oaks grandson), the shots the FP got for the cameras were indeed placebos. Can't have our 'global faith leaders' passing out in front of the cameras while getting the clotshot.
"
viewtopic.php?p=1180548#p1180548

If true, isn't this itself, deception?

[larsenb]

I went back and read this section last night. Truly fascinating.

To me, the most interesting follow-up question is:

If the Lord will immediately remove the president of the church for leading us us astray (as we are frequently taught), why then would the Lord outline a procedure for disciplinary council against him?

Like many things (e.g., bishops directly descended from Aaron not needing counselors), I believe these things are in the scriptures for a reason (there will be a need). It may be that a "constitutional crisis" in the Church will cause a schism, and the real possibility will arise where united quorums may clash (that's really hard to imagine right now).

B.H. Roberts wrote that the prophet not being able to lead astray isn't because he physically can't (his agency is curtailed), or because God would kill him if he tried, but actually because the collective members of the Church have their own testimonies, wisdom and agency. He can't, because he can't.

Brigham Young's famous quote touches on this:

"How do you know that your humble servant is really, honestly, guiding and counseling you aright, and directing the affairs of the kingdom aright? . . . How do you know but I am teaching false doctrine? How do you know that I am not counseling you wrong? How do you know but I will lead you to destruction? . . . Live so that you can discern between the truth and error, between light and darkness, between the things of God and those not of God, for by the revelations of the Lord, and these alone, can you and I understand the things of God . . . But to return to my question to the Saints, “How are you going to know about the will and commands of heaven?” By the Spirit of revelation; that is the only way you can know. How do I know but what I am doing wrong? How do I know but what we will take a course for our utter ruin?. . . But how do you know that I may not yet do wrong? How do you know but I will bring in false doctrine and teach the people lies that they may be damned? . . . If I were to preach false doctrine here, it would not be an hour after the people got out, before it would begin to fly from one to another, and they would remark, “I do not quite like that! It does not look exactly right! What did Brother Brigham mean? That did not sound quite right, it was not exactly the thing!” All these observations would be made by the people, yes, even by the sisters. It would not sit well on the stomach, that is, on the spiritual stomach . . . It would not sit well on the mind . . . and I will defy any man to preach false doctrine without being detected; and we need not go to the Elders of Israel, the children who have been born in these mountains possess enough of the Spirit to detect it. (Brigham Young, August 13, 1871. Journal of Discourses 14:204).

I think we are seeing more and more "recalcitrance" among active, believing members (e.g., vaccines and masks, but many other things as well). They sustain and believe in the prophets, but when their own revelation, conscience, and light differs, they say, “I do not quite like that! It does not look exactly right! That did not sound quite right, it was not exactly the thing!”

That's a 'wow' post in my book. Thanks. I'd never hear of or thought of that before. Makes sense.

[Artaxerxes]

[
cOrReLLaTiOn iS nOt cAuSaTiOn.


Ok buddy. Even when it happens to someone close to you, you won't even connect the dots.

Should I make an exception to normal logic and reason just because it's someone close to me?

I'm waiting to see your "normal logic and reason". So far . . . . nope.

Correlation isn't causation. It's pretty well accepted, normal logic.

[Artaxerxes]

Appeal to authority?????

McCullough monitored the CDC'S own VAERS database on vaccine injury. Which by the way, Harvard did a study on and summarized only accounts for 1%to 10% of actual injuries.

How can the CDC'S own database be an appeal to authority? And those other 99% of doctors you speak of...they better study up on VAERS.

I was speaking specifically of your reliance on McCullough's assessment. Your use of VAERS in this way has been thoroughly debunked on this forum by a few others, so I was only remarking on your reliance of one doctor over so many others.

What you need to do then, is rebut McCullough's assessment. Can you do it? Go for it. Otherwise you're simply blowing smoke.

And no, McCullough's use of VAERS has not been debunked on this forum or any other place. You see, there is a vaaaast difference between merely saying something is "debunked" vs., explaining why exactly that something was debunked. Even referencing a previous post that debunks it, as you say, would be at least something. Again . . . . can you do even that??

Of course:

viewtopic.php?p=1200492#p1200492

[larsenb]

. . . .

This ^^^ is much closer to my understanding of the "not lead astray" doctrine. But I phrase it a little differently.

In my view, the "not lead the saints astray" doctrine is to be understood as follows: If they are true saints (sanctified and redeemed), no man can lead them astray because they will NOT follow when wrongdoing occurs. It has more to do with the saints/members ability to discern than it has to do with any particular leader or whether that leader would be immediately removed.

But Wilford Woodruff and many others have made it all about the leader and thus somehow the members all being obligated to follow no matter what. Which is dangerous and false.

What we're seeing now with the "follow the prophet, he won't lead you astray" dogma, is very similar to the papal infallibility issue that arose in the Catholic Church in the later 1800s, based on the First Vatican Counsel, but it pertained to his ex cathedra pronouncements having to do with faith and morals.

In the recent pronouncements of the Brethren on urging us to get the "god send" shots, we see a departure from an ex cathedra posture, so following the papal infallibility model, we should not be bound by such pronouncements.

But even in making these kinds of statements, popes would consult with their bishops before doing so.

The whole concept of 'papal infallibility" was objected to well before Vatican I, and has certainly caused controversy and objections ever since, no matter how it is defined. See the Wikipedia article on the concept here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Papal_infallibility

[larsenb]

[
cOrReLLaTiOn iS nOt cAuSaTiOn.


Ok buddy. Even when it happens to someone close to you, you won't even connect the dots.

Should I make an exception to normal logic and reason just because it's someone close to me?

I'm waiting to see your "normal logic and reason". So far . . . . nope.

Correlation isn't causation. It's pretty well accepted, normal logic.

The common nonsensical rebuttal used by pro 'vaxxers'.

No one is saying it is absolutely causal. What it is, is a strong indication of connection or causality, especially when no other conditions are present. . . which warrants further investigation to include autopsies and whether there were any or no prior conditions. But even with prior conditions, it would be tough to eliminate the vaccines from influencing the outcome.

[Artaxerxes]

Should I make an exception to normal logic and reason just because it's someone close to me?

I'm waiting to see your "normal logic and reason". So far . . . . nope.

Correlation isn't causation. It's pretty well accepted, normal logic.

The common nonsensical rebuttal used by pro 'vaxxers'.

No one is saying it is absolutely causal. What it is, is a strong indication of connection or causality, especially when no other conditions are present. . . which warrants further investigation to include autopsies and whether there were any or no prior conditions. But even with prior conditions, it would be tough to eliminate the vaccines from influencing the outcome.

You don't think people are saying there's a causal connection when they say "The vax has killed thousands!!!"?

[larsenb]

. . . . . What you need to do then, is rebut McCullough's assessment. Can you do it? Go for it. Otherwise you're simply blowing smoke.

And no, McCullough's use of VAERS has not been debunked on this forum or any other place. You see, there is a vaaaast difference between merely saying something is "debunked" vs., explaining why exactly that something was debunked. Even referencing a previous post that debunks it, as you say, would be at least something. Again . . . . can you do even that??

Of course:

viewtopic.php?p=1200492#p1200492

You're repeating yourself. I was looking for 'debunking' by the other posters on this forum you mentioned.

No, where the doctor on your link wrote: "VAERS is set up to capture potential adverse events caused by vaccines. It is the best tool we have to find what may be previously unrecognized and extraordinarily rare adverse events that may eventually be linked.

VAERS cannot and does not determine whether a vaccine caused something. The CDC states this clearly in their disclaimer: "A report to VAERS does not mean that the vaccine caused the adverse event, only that the adverse event occurred some time after vaccination." ; he is essentially repeating what I said in my last post. Even saying: "it is the best tool we have" to signal possible real, and provable connections between a vaccine and any subsequent adverse reactions.

Where the guy goes wrong (among other's of his assertions), is where he says: "That means that if a vaccinated person drowns, gets in a car crash or is struck by lightning, their death must be reported to VAERS as an adverse event".

This statement has two main lies: 1. There is no "must" in filling out a VAERS report; i.e., there is no penalty for not doing so, nor is there a reporting system in place checking on whether or not one is made out. 2. No doctor would go to the trouble to fill out a multi-page, detailed VAERS report on someone who died in a car crash, etc., and claim it was due to a shot the victim received a week earlier . . . if the doctor even knew about the victims shot record, or had read it.

It you believe a doctor would do this, you should be glad to know there is bridge in Brooklyn waiting for you to pick up at a very cheap price.

[larsenb]

. . . . . The common nonsensical rebuttal used by pro 'vaxxers'.

No one is saying it is absolutely causal. What it is, is a strong indication of connection or causality, especially when no other conditions are present. . . which warrants further investigation to include autopsies and whether there were any or no prior conditions. But even with prior conditions, it would be tough to eliminate the vaccines from influencing the outcome.

You don't think people are saying there's a causal connection when they say "The vax has killed thousands!!!"?

I think it is a very reasonable assumption.

[Artaxerxes]

. . . . . What you need to do then, is rebut McCullough's assessment. Can you do it? Go for it. Otherwise you're simply blowing smoke.

And no, McCullough's use of VAERS has not been debunked on this forum or any other place. You see, there is a vaaaast difference between merely saying something is "debunked" vs., explaining why exactly that something was debunked. Even referencing a previous post that debunks it, as you say, would be at least something. Again . . . . can you do even that??

Of course:

viewtopic.php?p=1200492#p1200492

You're repeating yourself. I was looking for 'debunking' by the other posters on this forum you mentioned.

No, where the doctor on your link wrote: "VAERS is set up to capture potential adverse events caused by vaccines. It is the best tool we have to find what may be previously unrecognized and extraordinarily rare adverse events that may eventually be linked.

VAERS cannot and does not determine whether a vaccine caused something. The CDC states this clearly in their disclaimer: "A report to VAERS does not mean that the vaccine caused the adverse event, only that the adverse event occurred some time after vaccination." ; he is essentially repeating what I said in my last post. Even saying: "it is the best tool we have" to signal possible real, and provable connections between a vaccine and any subsequent adverse reactions.

Where the guy goes wrong (among other's of his assertions), is where he says: "That means that if a vaccinated person drowns, gets in a car crash or is struck by lightning, their death must be reported to VAERS as an adverse event".

This statement has two main lies: 1. There is no "must" in filling out a VAERS report; i.e., there is no penalty for not doing so, nor is there a reporting system in place checking on whether or not one is made out. 2. No doctor would go to the trouble to fill out a multi-page, detailed VAERS report on someone who died in a car crash, etc., and claim it was due to a shot the victim received a week earlier . . . if the doctor even knew about the victims shot record, or had read it.

It you believe a doctor would do this, you should be glad to know there is bridge in Brooklyn waiting for you to pick up at a very cheap price.

All of claims of error are false. Let's run it down.

Your claim:

1. There is no "must" in filling out a VAERS report; i.e., there is no penalty for not doing so, nor is there a reporting system in place checking on whether or not one is made out.

The truth:

Healthcare providers are required by law to report to VAERS:
Any adverse event listed in the VAERS Table of Reportable Events Following Vaccination that occurs within the specified time period after vaccination
An adverse event listed by the vaccine manufacturer as a contraindication to further doses of the vaccine

https://vaers.hhs.gov/faq.html

Your claim:

No doctor would go to the trouble to fill out a multi-page, detailed VAERS report on someone who died in a car crash, etc., and claim it was due to a shot the victim received a week earlier . . . if the doctor even knew about the victims shot record, or had read it.

The truth:
Vaers includes reports of people who died from car crashes (https://openvaers.com/openvaers/529778), head injuries (https://openvaers.com/openvaers/1803758), gun shot wounds (https://openvaers.com/openvaers/1535608), drowning (https://openvaers.com/openvaers/1542098), and from shaken baby syndrome (https://openvaers.com/openvaers/223187).

So, yes, doctors did do exactly what you claimed was impossible. Lots of times. Because they don't claim that the shot caused their deaths. That's not what VAERS is for, as the article states.