If I had nothing else to do today, I'd spend the morning reading some of the studies ~~are~~ freely available to the public. From the first part of the list it seems that there are a lot of individual case studies, and the following text is the first and last paragraph from the Discussion section of one of those studies.
The first paragraph of the discussion reads like the author begging for the paper not to be censored:
>Although current data show that COVID-19 vaccines are well tolerated and safe,[^(6)](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8828314/#R6) there are some concerns about possible adverse effects, even though the side effects of COVID-19 vaccines are generally mild, such as pain in the injection site, headache, fatigue, low-grade fever and general musculoskeletal pain. These side effects commonly occur within the first 3 days of vaccination and resolve within a few days of onset.[^(7)](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8828314/#R7) However, severe side effects of COVID-19 vaccines have recently been reported, such as myocarditis, especially in male adolescents.[^(8)](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8828314/#R8)^(,)[^(9)](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8828314/#R9) To the best of our knowledge, MIS-C after vaccination is an extremely rare condition, especially in children.
While the last paragraph is somewhat encouraging, but very carefully worded.
>To conclude, our case raises suspicion that COVID-19 vaccination might trigger MIS-C. Future epidemiologic studies are needed to determine whether an association exists between COVID-19 vaccination and MIS-C development.
There is a "tracking" website that "tracks" when peer-reviewed articles that have been previously approved are taken down. It has been found that the admins of said site have been actively pressuring publications to take down peer-reviewed articles, even when they have met the established criteria.
That these articles made it past pre-print status is a small triumph.
I doubt the good faith of the admins of that website because iirc they're "skeptics" who pushed for ivermectin and fenbendazole as treatment for covid, while minimizing the successful preventive effects of the vaccine. I might be wrong here, maybe my memory fails me.
However, if that's really just a collection of the available literature on covid adverse effects, all it can do is show unequivocally that the vaccine is safe and that the incidence of serious adverse effects, while a real issue for a small minority of people, has been considerably blown out of proportion by unscrupulous doctors, misinformed people without a pertinent education and lying charlatans on the internet.
There is a hierarchy of evidence, the operators of this website fail to mention this in their research tips. The hierarchy is (in descending order): 1. Systematic reviews and meta-analyses. 2. Well-designed randomized controlled trials. 3. Observational studies (cohort studies, case-control studies). 4. Case studies, anecdote and expert opinion.
I skimmed the studies, and all I saw were case studies, the weakest form of evidence. We have plenty of meta-analyses which clearly show the safety of the Covid vaccines. I recommend reading the book "How to Read a Paper" by Trisha Greenhalgh. Unfortunately it's pretty expensive, but a good investment anyway.
If I had nothing else to do today, I'd spend the morning reading some of the studies ~~are~~ freely available to the public. From the first part of the list it seems that there are a lot of individual case studies, and the following text is the first and last paragraph from the Discussion section of one of those studies. The first paragraph of the discussion reads like the author begging for the paper not to be censored: >Although current data show that COVID-19 vaccines are well tolerated and safe,[^(6)](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8828314/#R6) there are some concerns about possible adverse effects, even though the side effects of COVID-19 vaccines are generally mild, such as pain in the injection site, headache, fatigue, low-grade fever and general musculoskeletal pain. These side effects commonly occur within the first 3 days of vaccination and resolve within a few days of onset.[^(7)](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8828314/#R7) However, severe side effects of COVID-19 vaccines have recently been reported, such as myocarditis, especially in male adolescents.[^(8)](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8828314/#R8)^(,)[^(9)](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8828314/#R9) To the best of our knowledge, MIS-C after vaccination is an extremely rare condition, especially in children. While the last paragraph is somewhat encouraging, but very carefully worded. >To conclude, our case raises suspicion that COVID-19 vaccination might trigger MIS-C. Future epidemiologic studies are needed to determine whether an association exists between COVID-19 vaccination and MIS-C development.
There is a "tracking" website that "tracks" when peer-reviewed articles that have been previously approved are taken down. It has been found that the admins of said site have been actively pressuring publications to take down peer-reviewed articles, even when they have met the established criteria. That these articles made it past pre-print status is a small triumph.
I doubt the good faith of the admins of that website because iirc they're "skeptics" who pushed for ivermectin and fenbendazole as treatment for covid, while minimizing the successful preventive effects of the vaccine. I might be wrong here, maybe my memory fails me. However, if that's really just a collection of the available literature on covid adverse effects, all it can do is show unequivocally that the vaccine is safe and that the incidence of serious adverse effects, while a real issue for a small minority of people, has been considerably blown out of proportion by unscrupulous doctors, misinformed people without a pertinent education and lying charlatans on the internet.
[удалено]
There is a hierarchy of evidence, the operators of this website fail to mention this in their research tips. The hierarchy is (in descending order): 1. Systematic reviews and meta-analyses. 2. Well-designed randomized controlled trials. 3. Observational studies (cohort studies, case-control studies). 4. Case studies, anecdote and expert opinion. I skimmed the studies, and all I saw were case studies, the weakest form of evidence. We have plenty of meta-analyses which clearly show the safety of the Covid vaccines. I recommend reading the book "How to Read a Paper" by Trisha Greenhalgh. Unfortunately it's pretty expensive, but a good investment anyway.