Not that I'm aware of. They were rushed to market and the clinical data was supposed to remain hidden for 75 years which certainly seems odd at the least.
"Full approval is granted when, over time, the FDA has amassed even more scientific evidence to support use of the COVID-19 vaccines, showing that the benefits of the vaccine are greater than its risks, and that the vaccines can be manufactured reliably, safely and with consistent quality."
https://www.hopkinsmedicine.org/health/conditions-and-diseas...
Look at this ultra top secret data I found by typing "covid 19 vaccine clinical trials data" into google:
https://www.pfizer.com/science/clinical-trials/data-and-resu...
wait till you type in "covid-19 vacccine risk benefit analysis" You'll be entered into a secret society with knowledge that has been kept from the sheeple.
One possibility: "We will be lynched if we even imply they're unsafe after pushing them on so many people."
People are right to be suspicious.
Unfortunately anti-vaccine inclined people aren't interested in facts.
https://blogs.bmj.com/medical-ethics/2021/07/07/persuading-a...
https://www.medpagetoday.com/special-reports/exclusives/9754...
Do you know what regulatory capture is and why I specifically brought it up? The FDA is staffed with former pfizer employees. Their chairman is a former Pfizer CEO. The relationship is incestuous and and further perverts incentives. This is not unique to the FDA, it is common in regulatory agencies, which is why the phenomenon has a name.
>And the commenters could have answered their own questions in about 10 seconds using google
I don't think you understand that the data is coming almost exclusively from the companies that benefit from positive data and agencies with political pressure to release positive data. You do not understand the strong perverse incentives that are aligned in favor of positive vaccine sentiment and you are not sufficiently skeptical. And when publishing anything critical of vaccine safety or efficacy is risky, there effectively are no competitive researchers. No one wants to risk being labeled as an "antivaxxer".
The whole stack is strongly biased in favor of the vaccines because of unchecked financial and political pressure.
>My point was that data isn't being kept hidden from the people for 75 years or whatever.
The only data that is available is high level summary/aggregations, published by the same orgs that stand to benefit from favorable results. The underlying raw data is not available.
And your link is part of the problem. If you want to convince people to take the mRNA vaccines, you could start by not conflating hesitancy about this new technology with general vaccine hesitancy, that's just dishonest.
Here's a source on the 75 years: https://news.bloomberglaw.com/health-law-and-business/why-a-...
> and the clinical data was supposed to remain hidden for 75 years which certainly seems odd at the least.
They released all of the relevant clinical data right away - weird antivaxxers sued for the full patient records which the FDA will provide after redacting PII, which they estimated would take 75 years given the huge volume of pages they'd have to review and their current staff size / existing workload that they're legally obligated to address.
The data "wasn't supposed to remain hidden" it's just never made public because the summary data already addressed everything in the individual patient files. The patient files can be made public after redaction but unless congress gives them a bunch more money to hire new staff, they're only capable of processing 500 pages/month.
Again, 75 years is just a dumb calculation of the number of pages responsive to the FOIA request divided by their 'free capacity' to review 500 pages per month. They weren't suggesting to actually spend the next 75 years doing it, they were hoping the requester would narrow their request to something relevant.
You could just have congress authorize 10 more staff, increase their capacity to 50,000 pages/month and you'd have it in 9 months. There's no technical limitation, there's no conspiracy theory, it's just a question of staff time [they are legally obligated to process FOIAs, including all of the 'regular order' ones, so they can't just drop all of their other work to focus on this one request]
To get approval for the vaccine to be sold, Pfizer submits a massive amount of documentation to the FDA. They run studies with tens of thousands of patients and then do the typical statistics work to assess whether the vaccines were safe and effective (they were). They submit these studies along with all of the patient data collected during the trials and the FDA reviews the info to make their decision whether or not to approve the sale of the vaccine.
These antivaxxers have decided that there must be something hidden in the patient files, so they filed a FOIA/lawsuit to have the FDA release all of these patient files. Those are the docs that would need to be scrubbed/anonymized. 450k pages of "Patient was administered vaccine, patient was fine".