You are misrepresenting that story (deliberately, to make a point?). One person on a vaccine trial has reported adverse symptoms -- it is not yet known whether the patient's symptoms are a reaction to the vaccine or not. They could be sick with some completely unrelated issue.
The trial has been paused in order to investigate the cause of this person's symptoms.
> “At this stage, we don’t know if the events that triggered the hold are related to vaccination,” said Dr. Luciana Borio, who oversaw public health preparedness for the National Security Council under Mr. Trump and who was acting chief scientist at the F.D.A. under former President Barack Obama. “But it is important for them to be thoroughly investigated.”
If anything, this should make you more confident, not less, in the safety of a well-tested vaccine.
> this should make you more confident, not less, in the safety of a well-tested vaccine.
Indeed it should! The fact that people are about to communicate messages such as "I am worried that this vaccine caused harm" means that it is more likely that this risk of harm is being appropriately managed.
I'm struggling to understand what you are saying here. Can you... sort of... unpack your point rather than indirectly alluding to it? (I'm an ex-biologist and read the Times article and don't see it as misinformation. It is almost entirely factual and lays out all the critical information an educated reader would need to understand the current situation).
Which word do you have an issue with in the NYT headline, 'reaction'? As in, the 'adversity' faced by this patient may not in fact be a 'reaction' to the vaccine?
The NYT makes the headline about an adverse reaction and the study is paused because of it. To my mind 'adverse reaction' means that they've established the cause and effect, and the study was halted because someone reacted badly to the vaccine.
My issue is that it's not clear whether the patient's illness is due to the vaccine or something else, so headlining with 'adverse reaction to the vaccine' is jumping to a conclusion. They don't say 'possible', which is the truth.