Is the Pfizer COVID-19 Vaccine as good as they say?
Disclaimer: Nothing in this document should be construed as medical advice. Please make your health care decisions in consultation with your trusted health care providers. I am simply sharing my personal research in the hope that it will help you in your own decision process. I see it as a guided tour through some of the evidence about the Pfizer vaccine, pro and con. It is not medical advice.
To Vaccinate or not to Vaccinate, that is the question many will be facing soon. The media reports on the COVID-19 vaccines have been glowingly positive, showing 95% efficacy with minimal side effects. I know we all need some good news right now, but 95% efficacy seems too good to be true. Being curious and scientific minded (my degree is in Physics), I decided to do a deep dive into the Pfizer COVID-19 vaccine summary report filed with the FDA so that I could get a more realistic assessment.
Unsurprisingly, I found that the 95% risk reduction reported is true, but misleading. It is reporting on the relative efficacy, not the absolute efficacy. The absolute risk reduction of the Pfizer vaccine is 0.84%, hardly inspiring from a marketing perspective.
Absolute risk reduction vs. Relative risk reduction
So what is the difference between relative and absolute risk reduction? I’ll take a simple example and then link to a longer more in depth article for those that want to go deeper.
Suppose there is a new drug that is designed to prevent heart attacks. In the clinical trial, they find 2000 people with a similar risk profile, and assign them randomly into a treatment group and a placebo group of 1000 each. They follow them for two years, and at the end of the two years, there were 100 heart attacks in the placebo group, and 40 heart attacks in the treatment group. In the placebo group, 100 people out of 1000 had heart attacks, which is an absolute risk of 10% (100/1000). In the treatment group, there were 40 heart attacks out of 1000 people, which is an absolute risk of 4%. The absolute risk reduction for the treatment group is the absolute risk of getting a heart attack if untreated (10%) minus the absolute risk of getting a heart attack if treated (4%), which means the absolute risk reduction is 6% (10% - 4%). In other words, over the course of the two years, your heart attack risk if treated will fall from 10% down to 4%.
The relative risk reduction in the above example is the absolute risk reduction divided by the absolute risk, or 6%/10%, which is 60%. You are 60% less likely to have a heart attack if treated than untreated. Here is a graphic to illustrate these terms:
Said another way, your absolute risk of a heart attack is 10% if untreated, and falls to 4% if treated. If you treat 1000 people at risk of heart attack, only 40 people will have a heart attack vs. the 100 who would have had a heart attack if untreated, which is a 60% relative risk reduction. It is against the absolute risk reduction that most people would prefer to compare the costs of treatment, both financial and in terms of side effects. Side effects are always reported in absolute terms.
The larger the number of people treated, the larger the potential distortion for using relative risk reduction than absolute risk reduction. If there were a million in each group in the example above and the same number of heart attacks, then the relative risk reduction would still be 60%, but the absolute risk reduction would drop to 0.006% - you’d have to treat a million people to get 60 less heart attacks.
Both relative and absolute risk reduction give you important information, but absolute risk reduction is more important for assessing your benefit from the treatment. Since side effects are always listed in absolute terms, it is also easier to compare absolute risk reduction to the risk of side effects. You can see why drugs are usually marketed with relative risk reduction.
FDA Summary of Vaccine Testing
The Pfizer summary document filed with the FDA is 53 pages long and is rather dense reading. I have lifted quite a bit of text from this summary directly into this document, and some will find it hard to wade through. If you prefer, you can skip most of this write-up and scroll down for my conclusions. I know most will not trust my conclusions, nor should they – I'm not a health professional. I suggest people do their own research in preparation for making decisions along with their health care team. All the quotes in this document (shown as indented and italics) are from the Pfizer summary unless otherwise mentioned in the text.
High Level Summary
The Pfizer vaccine, like the Moderna vaccine, is mRNA based, which is a relatively new technology. To date, no mRNA vaccines have been given FDA approval, though mRNA has been used in various trials. Both the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines have been given an Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) by the FDA based on preliminary results. Both are in double blinded placebo-controlled Phase 3 trials that will last about 2 years. Both vaccines target the spike protein of the SARS-CoV-2 virus. Both use the Polymerase Chain Reaction (PCR) test to amplify genetic material in the sample to verify the presence of the virus.
The Pfizer vaccine participants were 16 years of age and older, with 40% of participants over 55 years of age. Pregnant were women excluded. The treatment requires two doses, 21 days apart. To be included in the efficacy calculations, the participant must be without evidence of SARS-CoV-2 infection until one week after the 2nd dose.
The participants in the Pfizer phase 3 trial were from the USA, Argentina, Brazil, Germany, South Africa and Turkey. The Pfizer trial had 18198 participants in the vaccine group, and 18325 in the placebo group.
Trial participants were followed up with for 1 – 2 months before the data collection cutoff to support filing the Emergency Use Authorization (EUA). I estimate an average of around 5 weeks of data collection for efficacy since the week after the 2nd dose cannot be counted. This is a very short time period for determining both efficacy and safety.
As of November 14, 2020, 43.9% and 79.5% of vaccine recipients completed at least 2 months (>8 weeks) and at least 1 month (>4 weeks), respectively, of safety follow-up after Dose 2. The percentages of placebo recipients completing at least 2 months (>8 weeks) and at least 1 month (>4 weeks) were similar to the vaccine group.
This document is only about the Pfizer vaccine, but I looked briefly at the Moderna vaccine summary, and it seems very similar in technology, efficacy and safety.
A little about EUA:
The Emergency Use Authorization, or EUA, is what allows the vaccine to be distributed before full FDA approval has been given. The FDA has previously given the EUA to the PCR genetic testing used to confirm the SARS-CoV-2 virus is present. The testing for these vaccines is scheduled to run another 18 months; only after that time would FDA approval be possible. Here is a snippet about the EUA and when it can be invoked. I have highlighted in bold a section below that I think is relevant:
Based on the declaration by the Secretary of HHS that the COVID-19 pandemic constitutes a public health emergency with a significant potential to affect national security or the health and security of United States citizens living abroad, FDA may issue an EUA after determining that certain statutory requirements are met (section 564 of the FD&C Act (21 U.S.C. 360bbb-3)).5
- The chemical, biological, radiological, or nuclear (CBRN) agent referred to in the March 27, 2020 EUA declaration by the Secretary of HHS (SARS-CoV-2) can cause a serious or life-threatening disease or condition.
- Based on the totality of scientific evidence available, including data from adequate and well-controlled trials, if available, it is reasonable to believe that the product may be effective to prevent, diagnose, or treat such serious or life-threatening disease or condition that can be caused by SARS-CoV-2, or to mitigate a serious or life-threatening disease or condition caused by an FDA-regulated product used to diagnose, treat, or prevent a disease or condition caused by SARS-CoV-2.
- The known and potential benefits of the product, when used to diagnose, prevent, or treat the identified serious or life-threatening disease or condition, outweigh the known and potential risks of the product.
- There is no adequate, approved, and available alternative to the product for diagnosing, preventing, or treating the disease or condition.
If these criteria are met, under an EUA, FDA can allow unapproved medical products (or unapproved uses of approved medical products) to be used in an emergency to diagnose, treat, or prevent serious or life-threatening diseases or conditions caused by threat agents. FDA has been providing regulatory advice to COVID-19 vaccine manufacturers regarding the data needed to determine that a vaccine’s benefit outweigh its risks. This includes demonstrating that manufacturing information ensures product quality and consistency along with data from at least one phase 3 clinical trial demonstrating a vaccine’s safety and efficacy in a clear and compelling manner.
In the event an EUA is issued for this product, it would still be considered unapproved and it would be under further investigation (under an Investigational New Drug Application) until it is licensed under a Biologics License Application (BLA). Licensure of a COVID-19 vaccine will be based on review of additional manufacturing, efficacy, and safety data, providing greater assurance of the comparability of licensed product to product tested in the clinical trials, greater assurance of safety based on larger numbers of vaccine recipients who have been followed for a longer period of time, and additional information about efficacy that addresses, among other questions, the potential for waning of protection over time.
Ingredients:
Here are the ingredients listed for the vaccine. There are no preservatives or heavy metals like mercury. The lipids are there to coat and protect the mRNA. I have heard some concern about people developing allergic reactions to the polyethylene glycol, but I have not done any research on that; the CDC apparently also has that concern – see the discussion later in this document about allergic reactions. Both the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines need to be preserved at very low temperatures which has challenged the logistics supply chains.
The Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 Vaccine is a white to off-white, sterile, preservative-free, frozen suspension for intramuscular injection. The vaccine contains a nucleoside-modified messenger RNA (modRNA) encoding the viral spike glycoprotein (S) of SARS-CoV-2. The vaccine also includes the following ingredients: lipids ((4-hydroxybutyl)azanediyl)bis(hexane-6,1-diyl)bis(2-hexyldecanoate), 2-[(polyethylene glycol)-2000]-N,N-ditetradecylacetamide, 1,2-distearoyl-sn-glycero-3-phosphocholine, and cholesterol), potassium chloride, monobasic potassium phosphate, sodium chloride, dibasic sodium phosphate dihydrate, and sucrose.
Study Population
The study population for phase 2/3 includes participants at higher risk for acquiring COVID-19 and at higher risk of severe COVID-19 disease, such as participants working in the healthcare field, participants with autoimmune disease, and participants with chronic but stable medical conditions such as hypertension, asthma, diabetes, and infection with HIV, hepatitis B or hepatitis C. Participants were randomized 1:1 to receive 2 doses of either BNT162b2 or placebo, 21 days apart.
Endpoints
Endpoints are the points the study is designed to illuminate. The purpose of the vaccine is to reduce COVID-19 disease, so the primary end point is based on how many people come down with COVID-19.
For the primary efficacy endpoint, the case definition for a confirmed COVID-19 case was the presence of at least one of the following symptoms and a positive SARS-CoV-2 NAAT within 4 days of the symptomatic period:
• Fever;
• New or increased cough;
• New or increased shortness of breath;
• Chills;
• New or increased muscle pain;
• New loss of taste or smell;
• Sore throat;
• Diarrhea;
• Vomiting.
For a secondary efficacy endpoint, a second definition, which may be updated as more is learned about COVID-19, included the following additional symptoms defined by CDC (listed at https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/symptoms-testing/symptoms.html):
• Fatigue;
• Headache;
• Nasal congestion or runny nose;
• Nausea.
For another secondary endpoint, the case definition for a severe COVID-19 case was a confirmed COVID-19 case with at least one of the following:
• Clinical signs at rest indicative of severe systemic illness (RR ≥30 breaths per minute, HR ≥125 beats per minute, SpO2 ≤93% on room air at sea level, or PaO2/FiO2 <300 mm Hg);
• Respiratory failure (defined as needing high-flow oxygen, noninvasive ventilation, mechanical ventilation, or ECMO);
• Evidence of shock (SBP <90 mm Hg, DBP <60 mm Hg, or requiring vasopressors)
• Significant acute renal, hepatic, or neurologic dysfunction;
• Admission to an ICU;
• Death.
Efficacy
The preliminary efficacy results are shown in the table below. I have calculated the absolute risk reduction and added it to the table. If you know how to look at their results, they list the same values for absolute risk in the summary as I do, they are just not labeled clearly. I added the absolute risk reduction values for their final endpoint: Severe COVID-19 cases. I also added some calculations for absolute and relative risk regarding the suspected COVID-19 cases; these may or may not be meaningful results - see discussion below about suspected cases.
I show primary endpoint results graphically below using the same type of pie chart I introduced in the discussion about relative vs. absolute risk above. The pie charts below are to scale. The absolute risk for the vaccine group is so small it is barely visible.
While the relative risk reduction overstates the risk reduction, the absolute risk reduction understates the risk reduction. This is because the trial is only just beginning and they have only collected a few weeks of data. At the trial’s conclusion in 2022, a lot more of the participants will have gotten COVID-19, so the absolute risk reduction will look much better at that time, perhaps 10 times better.
There was one case of Severe COVID-19 in the vaccine recipients, and 3 cases of Severe COVID-19 among the Placebo participants (see the endpoints above for a definition of Severe COVID-19). The absolute risk of Severe COVID-19 in the placebo group is only 0.0164%, but will likely go up significantly when the trial completes. The relative risk reduction of Severe COVID-19 is 66.5%, so based on this data, you are 3 times as likely to get a Severe case of COVID-19 if you don’t take the vaccine. Because the number of Severe cases is small and because of the interim nature of the data collected so far, I suspect these numbers will look very different once the trial completes in 18 months. Still, it’s what we have to go on at this point.
I found it odd that there were a lot more suspected COVID-19 cases than confirmed COVID-19 cases. The only difference in definition is that suspected cases are not confirmed by the PCR test. I’m not sure why there are so many more unconfirmed cases, but I have to wonder if it is related to the unreliability of the PCR test, which is known to have a lot of false positives and false negatives. The suspected cases (3410) far outnumber the confirmed cases (170), and are not that different in the treatment group (1594) vs. the placebo group (1816). When I added the unconfirmed cases to the pie chart (see below), the results show little percentage difference between the treated and untreated groups (the relative risk reduction is only 11.6%). I’d like to see some investigative journalist dig into this. Why are there 20 times as many people with suspected COVID-19 as confirmed COVID-19? Until it is explained, I have no choice but to ignore this anomaly, but it does undermine my confidence in the PCR testing methodology and the trial as a whole.
Adverse Events
The adverse reactions were only recorded for a subgroup of the total participants (about 8000). The common adverse reactions for Pfizer are shown in the table below. Please note that these are absolute risk numbers, not relative risk numbers. You are very likely to experience one or more of these adverse effects if you get the vaccine, though most are not considered serious and will resolve on their own. There were some adverse events in the placebo group as well, but not as many.
There were two other types of adverse reactions: lymphadenopathy and Bells Palsy. Lymphadenopathy is a swelling of tissues, probably in the vaccination arm. There were 64 cases in the vaccine group and 6 in the placebo group.
Bell’s Palsy is facial paralysis. There were 4 cases of Bells Palsy in the vaccine group, and none in the placebo group; one of these cases has resolved, and the other 3 are “continuing or resolving”. This is from the Pfizer summary:
Reports of lymphadenopathy were imbalanced with notably more cases in the vaccine group (64) vs. the placebo group (6), which is plausibly related to vaccination. Bell’s palsy was reported by four vaccine participants and none in the placebo group. These cases occurred at 3, 9, 37, and 48 days after vaccination. One case (onset at 3 days postvaccination) was reported as resolved with sequelae within three days after onset, and the other three were reported as continuing or resolving as of the November 14, 2020 data cut-off with ongoing durations of 10, 15, and 21 days, respectively. The observed frequency of reported Bell’s palsy in the vaccine group is consistent with the expected background rate in the general population, and there is no clear basis upon which to conclude a causal relationship at this time, but FDA will recommend surveillance for cases of Bell’s palsy with deployment of the vaccine into larger populations. There were no other notable patterns or numerical imbalances between treatment groups for specific categories (system organ class or preferred term) of non-serious adverse events, including other neurologic, neuro-inflammatory, and thrombotic events, that would suggest a causal relationship to BNT162b2 vaccine.
Duration of protection
The amount of time that the vaccine will protect you from COVID-19 is unknown but is likely to be at least 2 months. The amount of time that an actual COVID-19 infection will confer immunity is also unknown. Here is Pfizer’s statement about the duration of protection.
As the interim and final analyses have a limited length of follow-up, it is not possible to assess sustained efficacy over a period longer than 2 months.
Known Risks
This is from section 8.3 on the known risks, including common side effects.
The vaccine has been shown to elicit increased local and systemic adverse reactions as compared to those in the placebo arm, usually lasting a few days. The most common solicited adverse reactions were injection site reactions (84.1%), fatigue (62.9%), headache (55.1%), muscle pain (38.3%), chills (31.9%), joint pain (23.6%), fever (14.2%). Adverse reactions characterized as reactogenicity were generally mild to moderate. The number of subjects reporting hypersensitivity-related adverse events was numerically higher in the vaccine group compared with the placebo group (137 [0.63%] vs. 111 [0.51%]). Severe adverse reactions occurred in 0.0-4.6% of participants, were more frequent after Dose 2 than after Dose 1 and were generally less frequent in older adults (>55 years of age) (<2.8%) as compared to younger participants (≤4.6%). Among reported unsolicited adverse events, lymphadenopathy occurred much more frequently in the vaccine group than the placebo group and is plausibly related to vaccination.
Early data from the public vaccination program in the USA
We have some early data from the first round of inoculations. As of Dec. 18th, 2020, 112,807 vaccine registrants have recorded getting a single dose of the Pfizer vaccine, including 514 pregnant women. Of the 112,807 receiving the vaccine 3,150 had Health Impact Events (defined by the CDC as “unable to perform normal daily activities, unable to work, required care from doctor or health care professional”), which is 2.8% of those receiving their first dose.
Early data on allergic reactions
The CDC has published some early data on allergic reactions too, including Anaphylaxis. Anaphylaxis is a severe allergic reaction that can cause death if not treated. Only a very small percentage of those treated had this reaction, and most had a history of allergic reactions. If you have such a history, it might be wise to consult with your doctor before getting the vaccine. Allergic reactions in general are about 1 in 100,000 for each dose.
During December 14–23, 2020, monitoring by the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System detected 21 cases of anaphylaxis after administration of a reported 1,893,360 first doses of the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine (11.1 cases per million doses); 71% of these occurred within 15 minutes of vaccination.
Live Science writes:
The CDC recommends that people with a history of reactions to vaccines or anaphylaxis due to any cause should be observed by health care staff for 30 minutes after they receive their COVID-19 shot. (In the report, patients experienced anaphylaxis on average about 13 minutes after their COVID-19 shot.)
The agency recommends that people not receive the Pfizer or Moderna vaccine if they have a known allergy to an ingredient in these vaccines, including polyethylene glycol; and people should not receive a second dose if they have a serious reaction to the first.
Unknown Risks/Data Gaps
There is a section in the summary (8.4) for the unknown risks of the vaccine. Remember this is a new technology genetic (mRNA) vaccine that has never previously been given to humans. Many of the risks also are because the trial has only been collecting data on efficacy for such a short time, as well as excluding certain members of the population that will likely receive the vaccine before full FDA approval, i.e., pregnant women, people under 16, and people with certain pre-existing conditions. Here is Pfizer’s statement:
Safety in certain subpopulations
There are currently insufficient data to make conclusions about the safety of the vaccine in subpopulations such as children less than 16 years of age, pregnant and lactating individuals, and immunocompromised individuals.
Adverse reactions that are very uncommon or that require longer follow-up to be detected
Following authorization of the vaccine, use in large numbers of individuals may reveal additional, potentially less frequent and/or more serious adverse events not detected in the trial safety population of nearly 44,000 participants over the period of follow up at this time. Active and passive safety surveillance will continue during the post authorization period to detect new safety signals.
A numerically greater number of appendicitis cases occurred in the vaccine group but occurred no more frequently than expected in the given age groups and do not raise a clear concern at this time for a causal relationship to study vaccination. Although the safety database revealed an imbalance of cases of Bell’s palsy (4 in the vaccine group and none in the placebo group), causal relationship is less certain because the number of cases was small and not more frequent than expected in the general population. Further signal detection efforts for these adverse events will be informative with more widespread use of the vaccine.
Vaccine-enhanced disease
Available data do not indicate a risk of vaccine-enhanced disease, and conversely suggest effectiveness against severe disease within the available follow-up period. However, risk of vaccine-enhanced disease over time, potentially associated with waning immunity, remains unknown and needs to be evaluated further in ongoing clinical trials and in observational studies that could be conducted following authorization and/or licensure.
A short note about vaccine enhanced disease mentioned above: In the history of vaccines, it has sometimes happened that a vaccine either causes the disease it is designed to prevent, or creates effects where the disease hits a person harder than if they have not been vaccinated. There is no data from this trial that suggests these vaccines enhance COVID-19 for those vaccinated who do come down with the disease.
Other Factors
There are three other factors that I want to bring in that have bearing on any decision about vaccinating, and two would argue FOR taking the vaccine, and the third undermines the validity of the PCR testing, which, it true, calls into question the vaccines as well as the case load numbers.
The long term effects of COVID-19 are not well understood. This study sheds some light, saying that only 2.3% have symptoms that last longer then 12 weeks. However I know multiple people who have contracted COVID-19 and are still recovering many months later, and you have probably seen news reports of long term health damage to the lungs and heart. There is also reports of neurological damage. Perhaps you also know people who had COVID-19 as well. The data is not well characterized, but the risk certainly seems real.
Herd Immunity: This is an important argument for taking the vaccine. Anthony Fauci has suggested we need to vaccinate 70 - 85% of the population in order to achieve herd immunity. I certainly want to see the end of the pandemic. If vaccination is the only way to get there, maybe it is worth the risks associated with an unapproved vaccine.
The PCR tests that determine a confirmed case of COVID-19 may be unreliable. These tests were authorized under a similar EUA as the vaccines, and have questionable reliability. In particular, the Cycle Threshold used has not been well defined, and different tests use different thresholds. In each cycle, the amount of targeted genetic material is doubled; for 30 cycles, it is multiplied by 2^30, or about 1 billion times. If the threshold is too high, the result is a false positive. Other problems can cause false negatives. The WHO has had to recently change their recommendation to reduce false positives. The cycle threshold used in the PCR tests of vaccine trails is not documented in the summary report. I’m not sure if this has anything to do with the large number of suspected cases, but I’m dismayed at the scientific sloppiness of having such an ill-defined value given its importance to the entire world population; this criticism may or may not apply to this trial - it's hard to know when then don't document it. Here is an overview of PCR testing technology.
Summary
Relative risk reduction is excellent. The absolute risk reduction of 0.88% is not impressive, but will likely increase significantly by the end of the study.
Preliminary results may not hold up over time. Both vaccines are still in clinical trials, and only approved under the Emergency Use Authorization. The trials will continue for another 18 months. The efficacy and safety data is based on less than 60 days of data for most participants, which is not very much especially considering that the exposure level to the virus is unknown and probably unknowable.
The Pfizer vaccine is experimental and does not have FDA approval. The Emergency Use Authorization is based on interim results, so taking it under the EUA subjects the recipient to the risks listed under the known and unknown risks mentioned above. There may be additional level of risk because of the new mRNA technology that has never been used on humans before. All of this is stated clearly in the FDA summary report. Taking the vaccine before FDA approval makes you part of the experiment.
Duration of protection is unknown. From the Pfizer summary: “it is not possible to assess sustained efficacy over a period longer than 2 months.”
The vaccine’s effect on fertility has not been studied. Pregnant women were excluded from the study. Some pregnant women have taken the Pfizer vaccine however, so time will reveal if there is an impact – see below. Some drugs in the past have caused birth defects. The lack of studies applies to men and women.
The longer you wait to get the vaccine, the clearer the picture will become.
The vaccine is being administered now, so additional information about efficacy and safety should become available as the vaccine gets distributed more widely. In effect, early participants are becoming part of the trial for these vaccines. Many participants have already had health impacts as shown in the CDC reports, and is discussed again below. If you choose to get the vaccine, you might consider delaying until more data comes in. Things are evolving fast.
The large number of suspected COVID-19 cases in the Pfizer trail calls into question the validity of the results. The total number of suspected cases of COVID-19 (3410) far outnumber the confirmed cases (170), and are not that different in the treatment group (1594) vs. the placebo group (1816). How can this be explained? There are known problems with the PCR test, and especially the number of cycles used to determine the detection threshold (Cycle Threshold or Ct). The WHO has had to recently change their recommendation to reduce false positives. The cycle threshold used in the PCR tests of vaccine trails is not documented in the summary report. I’m not sure if this has anything to do with the large number of suspected cases, but I’m dismayed at the scientific sloppiness of having such an ill-defined value given its importance to the entire world population; this criticism may or may not apply to this trial.
Though data is limited, the risk benefit profile is not that impressive right now
Of the first people to receive the Pfizer vaccine, 2.8% had debilitating health impacts. This is after only one of the two required doses, so it can only get worse from here. Compare this to the 0.84% who avoided COVID-19 due to the vaccine in the trial. For most, COVID-19 is mild and people recover quickly.
An even better comparison might be between the percent of serious COVID-19 cases and the number of debilitating health impact events from the vaccine. If we assume that the cases of serious COVID-19 are understated and will jump by a factor of 10 by the completion of the trial, that would still be only 0.164% absolute efficacy compared to 2.8% risk with the vaccine. Even assuming that 10x improvement in absolute efficacy, it would still make the treatment worse than the disease by a factor of 17.
The Larger Context
Congress gave manufacturers total immunity from liability if the vaccines cause injury. This means the vaccine recipient is the one taking all the risk. If you or a loved one develops health problems or dies due to the vaccine, you cannot sue.
The pharma industry has a track record of fraud, kickbacks and false claims. This is the same industry that gave us Vioxx and Thalidomide. Indeed, the pharmaceutical companies have paid billions in fines (this list includes Pfizer and AstraZeneca - twice). Consider the profit incentive for a drug where the target market is 7.8 billion people in which they have no liability. Can you imagine the pressure these scientists are under to show a positive result?
My Personal Conclusion
I lean strongly toward not getting the vaccine due to a poor risk benefit profile, as well as a lack of confidence in the PCR testing and my distrust of the pharmaceutical industry. For now, I am choosing a wait and see attitude. That is an easy decision to make since the vaccine will not likely be available to me for some months yet. I will continue to monitor the research, as well as listen to my friend's and family's experiences.
Whether or not you choose to get the vaccine, you may be well served working on your immunity through diet, exercise and self-care. For example, I am taking Vitamin D, which seems to reduce the severity of COVID-19.
The current path of trying to vaccinate everyone on the planet before adequate testing has been completed has gargantuan risks. If it were to cause infertility or significant birth defects for example, I don’t even want to imagine how devastating that would be. As more data comes in about efficacy and safety, I could change my mind and choose vaccination in order to hasten herd immunity. Also a looming factor for me is the long term effects of COVID-19, which has hit some people really hard, including some people I know and care about.
I hope this write-up has painted a more nuanced picture than you have gotten from the media, and I encourage you to fact check anything here; hyperlinks are provided in the text. Most of the data in this report is from the FDA or CDC. I suspect many people I know and care about will choose to take the vaccine. I support your right to choose, and only wish for your choice to be an informed one.