Oh Gosh. What a plethora of data and varying interpretations.

I'm reminded of that old saying:

'Figures won't lie: but liars will figure' (and yes that could perhaps equally apply to all sides of any debate).

More recently, a potential side-affect of COVID vaccines was reported in Nature: "COVID vaccines linked to unexpected vaginal bleeding: A large cohort study measured how frequently women reported bleeding after receiving COVID-19 jabs".

https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-023-02996-6

So it's good that some monitoring/research is continuing. But as Dr Andrew Bamji wrote:

"One thing bothers me, and always has – with this and all other disputed items [the issues of Covid and climate change have become interweaved]. If the so-called vaccine deniers who have done careful analyses of available data like this are wrong, why are these analyses not properly and scientifically debunked? All we get is bluster, very occasionally quoting improperly conducted trials. There is of course a good reason they are not debunked, and that is because they are correct. Am I wrong?

This concern is especially important right now as there are official mutterings about the worry of a coronavirus resurgence and the need for booster vaccinations. But there are many unknowns. What is the real risk of post-Covid vaccination myocarditis? What are the potential risks of DNA contamination of mRNA vaccines? Could the introduction of plasmids cause short or long-term changes within cells that have substantial and perhaps frightening consequences?

The answer is, we don’t know. Maybe, but maybe not. The research has not been done (or if it has the results have not been revealed). Given the potential risk, particularly the long-term risk of incorporating foreign DNA into cell nuclei, would it not be wise to suspend vaccination programmes until we do know?"