I'm not a qualified person to evaluate any of the science of the vaccines. But the "reasonable person" in me finds it interesting that they choose to always interpret statistical significance in their favor.

They overlook the lack of statistical significance in case numbers from the trials by interpreting "95%" efficacy". And then they turn around and choose the opposite approach by citing that the side-effect numbers are too small to be statistically significant.

I can't help but feel that there is mathematically an increasing chance of something unexpected happening the more times there is "picking and choosing" of the data interpretation.