The difficulty with that exemption is that either a good or a bad actor would ask for it. A good actor to avoid being the target of frivolous suits and a bad actor to have cover for their actions. Because a good or bad actor would behave the same in this respect, people bring their own conceptions to the table and see what they expect to see (in either direction).
I think it is presented that way by some, but in reality, the existence of the exemption and VAERS may also help with monitoring both actors more closely, by reducing the perceived stakes and costs of tracking side-effects. Thus the exemption could help catch and punish bad actors faster, and protect good actors.
Legally speaking, I expect the exemption says something about not lying to the FDA in the fine print, so true bad actors would not be able to hide behind the exemption either.
