That you didn't actually cite the sources with links?

No snark intended here. But that sort of information demands sourcing, IMO. And when I saw where this is coming from- or at least some of who is pushing it- it makes me wonder why you didn't source it.

Within five seconds, I found this:

https://news.yahoo.com/texas-anti-vax-doctor-calls-140358687.html

She's a member of the group that brought the alabama lawsuit you mentioned. "America's Frontline Doctors" is a right-wing org with leadership that includes Tea Party, and a doctor who thinks cysts are caused by having sex with demons and witches.

Oh, and its founder was present for the capitol riots.

They're also known for pushing Ivermectin, and selling COVID treatments. Well, sort of; some people are goving them their money, but getting the actual product or service in return.

https://time.com/6092368/americas-frontline-doctors-covid-19-misinformation/

So we can add fraud to the mix.

I also found this:

https://www.factcheck.org/2021/05/scicheck-instagram-posts-spread-texas-lawmakers-false-claims-on-vaccine-testing/

The second article makes mention of how that data is misrepresented.

It also includes links to other articles fleshing out this point:

https://www.factcheck.org/2021/05/scicheck-tucker-carlson-misrepresents-vaccine-safety-reporting-data/

And here:

https://www.factcheck.org/2021/03/scicheck-viral-posts-misuse-vaers-data-to-make-false-claims-about-covid-19-vaccines/

I haven't yet dug deep into the actual claims, which I will.

But it took less than five minutes to learn that the credibility of the people peddling the information you provided is highly dubious, at best. And I'd say that's being generous.

Sure, so far I've moay only shown that the messenger is problematic, though the links I posted do address at least some of the claims.

But I'd say a very small amount of digging makes it hard to objectively argue that these are reliable messengers.