I'm not a qualified person to evaluate any of the
Post# of 36537
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.