John Campbell reviewed a publication in nih.gov that reviewed the original mRNA trial data conducted by Pfizer and Moderna.
The results are concerning, especially because after more than two years, the datasets are not being released to the scientific community for further study.
The original study found that 1 out of 800 people suffered a serious adverse “event”. This may not sound like much, but with 220 million vaccinated in the USA alone, that comes out to 275,000 people have suffered a serious adverse “event”. And that number is likely to be an underestimate, not an overestimate since they couldn’t study longer term reactions. To put that in perspective, in 1975, data came out during the vaccination program for the Swine Flu, that 1 out of 10,000 people got a serious side effect, and they halted the program until further study. That is an order of magnitude lower in risk.
The abstract of the study said the following:
The excess risk of serious adverse events found in our study points to the need for formal harm-benefit analyses, particularly those that are stratified according to risk of serious COVID-19 outcomes. These analyses will require public release of participant level datasets.
I don’t see any shift to a more sophisticated approach to the vaccine strategy, where we would be looking at segments by risk, and how it changes with each variant, and the consequence of multiple boosters, none of which is in the scope of this study. I continue to be dumfounded by the lack of transparency, curiosity/independence by the Press, and people in general.