In the wake of the global COVID-19 pandemic, the world has witnessed an unprecedented race to develop and distribute vaccines. However, the Western Australian Vaccine Safety Surveillance Report 2021 raises some serious questions about the safety and efficacy of these vaccines and whether the rush to immunise has come at the cost of public health.

The report provides an overview of adverse events following routine and COVID-19 vaccines. It reveals that the highest rate of adverse events following immunisation (AEFI) was observed with the first dose of Vaxzevria (495.1 per 100,000 doses) and Spikevax (355.4 per 100,000 doses). Even Comirnaty, a vaccine that has been widely administered, showed similar AEFI rates following the first and second doses (250.6 and 257.3 per 100,000 doses, respectively).

These alarming figures beg the question: have vaccine manufacturers conducted adequate trials before releasing these products? Criticisms have been levied in Congress, the EU, and the UK Parliament, accusing these manufacturers of not conducting proper trials and thereby putting the public at risk.

These criticisms are not unfounded. The data suggests that the trials may have needed to have been more thorough. If individuals have been harmed by these vaccines, should they not have the right to seek justice?

Moreover, the report indicates that the highest AEFI rates were among people under 60 years following Vaxzevria, particularly those aged 18-24 years (1,031.2 per 100,000 doses) and 40-49 years (1,006.4 per 100,000 doses). This demographic is generally less susceptible to severe outcomes from COVID-19, which makes the high rate of adverse reactions even more concerning.

Given these results, we must ask ourselves: is the risk-benefit ratio of these vaccines worth it? With adverse reaction rates at this level and the COVID-19 virus not much worse than a nasty flu for many people, it's a question that deserves serious consideration.As a parent who had my children vaccinated during the MMR hoax, I understand the importance of trusting the science and assessing the risks. Andrew Wakefield, the doctor who perpetrated the MMR hoax, was later discredited, but the damage to public trust was done. I read the science, understood the risks, and decided to vaccinate my children with the triple vaccine.

Suppose we cannot trust that pharmaceutical companies and doctors act ethically. In that case, it poses a massive risk that the public will avoid safe and effective vaccines. This could have far-reaching implications for public health beyond the recent pandemic.

A recent case involving AstraZeneca underscores this concern. The company won the dismissal of a US shareholder lawsuit claiming that it concealed problems in developing its COVID-19 vaccine, making it unlikely the treatment would win regulatory approval in the United States. US District Judge Paul Oetken in Manhattan said AstraZeneca and its executives had no "generalised duty" to disclose "negative facts" about the trials. This ruling highlights a significant issue: if pharmaceutical companies are not required to reveal adverse outcomes about their drug trials, how can the public trust them?

While the development of COVID-19 vaccines was a knee-jerk reaction never before seen. We must recognise the potential risks associated with them. The Western Australian Vaccine Safety Surveillance Report 2021 is a stark reminder of the need for thorough trials and transparent reporting.

Only through such measures can we ensure the safety of the public and maintain trust in our healthcare systems. The stakes are high, and we must keep the public's trust in vaccination.

Note: For those interested in delving deeper into this topic, I have linked a video by Dr John Campbell that examines this in more detail. Dr Campbell provides an insightful analysis of the current situation and the implications of the findings in the Western Australian Vaccine Safety Surveillance Report 2021. His video can be found here: