The COVID case is weird because they both lied about it extensively (and censored information about it) but also put it in public writing. For example:
Moderna (mRNA-1273) Vaccine
This was a phase 1, dose-escalation, open-label clinical trial to assess the safety and efficacy of mRNA-1273 (Moderna) vaccine in 45 healthy adults of 18 to 55 age. The test vaccine was administered in two doses at the gap of 28 days in the dose of 25 μg, 100 μg, and 250 μg. There were 15 participants in each dose group. The safety endpoint was the occurrence of any adverse event after seven days of each dose [7].
After both vaccinations, the common solicited systemic adverse reactions were of mild to moderate intensity (included headache, chills, fatigue, myalgia, and pain at the site of injection). Local adverse events were of mild to moderate intensity and the most commonly reported local reaction was pain at the site of injection. The systemic adverse reaction was in 5 of 15 (33%) in 25 μg, 10 out of 15 (67%) in 100 μg, and 8 of 15 (53%) in the 250 μg dose group. All the systemic reactions were mild and were common after the second vaccination with 7 of 13 (54%) in the 25 μg group, 15 of 15 (100%) in the 100 μg group, and 14 of 14 (100%) in 250 μg dose group. There was no incidence of fever in any participant after the first vaccination but after the second vaccination 6 out of 15 (40%) in 100 μg and 8 of 14 (57%) in the 100 μg dose group. One participant had a fever of 39.6 °C which was graded as a severe adverse reaction. One participant was withdrawn from the study due to the occurrence of transient urticarial after the first dose in the 25 μg dose group. There was no serious adverse reaction reported during this clinical trial [7].
I don’t know why the summary says that someone had a fever that was graded as severe, but then says no serious adverse reactions were reported. I think that says something about peer review. It also says something about the study it’s summarizing, which says:
No serious adverse events were noted
But also says:
one participant in the 25-μg group was withdrawn because of an unsolicited adverse event, transient urticaria, judged to be related to the first vaccination.
and:
Solicited systemic adverse events were more common after the second vaccination and occurred in 7 of 13 participants (54%) in the 25-μg group, all 15 in the 100-μg group, and all 14 in the 250-μg group, with 3 of those participants (21%) reporting one or more severe events.
If at least 3 people reported at least one severe event, and also someone got rash/itch from the first vaccination bad enough to withdraw them from the study, then how were there no serious adverse events?
Anyway, the study being summarized in my first quote was published July 2020. It found a 33% systemic adverse reaction rate in the best group (25 μg, which is the dose they later used in the public vaccination campaign). They published that negative information but then basically didn’t analyze it and put a positive spin on things. Then the media told people people the vaccine is scientifically studied and proven safe, and people believed the adverse reaction rate was much lower than 33%. (This was a small sample size. I think actual vaccine safety is better than a 33% adverse reaction rate but worse than the media has told the public.)
The results section contains numbers that look concerning to me, but then the conclusion section just says:
no trial-limiting safety concerns were identified. These findings support further development of this vaccine.
Then the media said ~“super safe; don’t even hesitate”.
I thought that if they had found important safety concerns during the vaccine trials, that would have been reported to the public, but I was wrong.
The scientists reported their data matter of factly (at least sometimes; I don’t know what was left unpublished or falsified). Unlike their data, their analysis appears agenda-driven, and one of their main tactics is to simply not analyze some concerning data. When I look at the data/numbers reported, it looks concerning to me. But they just publish those numbers and then say everything is fine with no real analysis of the concerns. (BTW another tactic, used elsewhere, is to decide that adverse events in study participants were not vaccine related, without explanation. Another tactic is to limit data collection, e.g. only counting and recording adverse events within 7 days of a vaccination. Another tactic is to categorize some adverse reactions as “unsolicited” by only actually asking study participants about some problems, apparently not including rash/itch in this study.) They also wrote:
Those studies showed that solicited systemic adverse events tended to be more frequent and more severe with higher doses and after the second vaccination.
They knew that two vaccinations was riskier than one, but told the public it’s fine and safe. They knew that having the two doses closer together was riskier, but they told people to get them close together.
One way DD’s analysis is wrong, IIRC (still haven’t reread), is he thinks if you do evil stuff and a bunch of people know, then some will do whistle blowing. There are some problems with that. First, whistle blowing is discouraged and punished in a lot of ways (kind of like being a victim, or otherwise complaining and wanting anything to change). Second, lots of people did try to whistle blow about the COVID vaccines, but a lot of their information was suppressed by Google, Facebook, Twitter and a few other platforms with a huge amount of control over communication. Third, most people trying to blow the whistle on the COVID vaccine didn’t know what they were talking about, so there was a big signal/noise ratio problem.