[manwe150]

As another commented pointed out, we have hundreds of millions of data points in people now post-vaccination and post-boosters, which haven’t detected a problem, and only 12 here in mice, that the authors suggest warrants further study. Which hypothesis are you saying has “no data”?

[FollowingTheDao]

It is hard to see a problem if you are not looking for it or if the cause is distant from the reaction.

An Example: My friend had undiagnosed alpha gal for months because the anaphylactic reaction happened to him more than 12 hours after eating red meat so they did not know the connection.

Is Long Covid actually not from COVID but from this weekend immune system having to fight off old latent viruses it once had not problem with?

[peyton]

It took only 12 mice to find unexpected effects? How was the vaccine tested again?

[yojo]

You’d be amazed at the number of unexpected effects I could find studying just a single mouse!

Having a small number data points means that a single outlier can impact your results. And since “no results” typically doesn’t get published, the rare events end up disproportionately represented in journals.

The smaller the sample size, the more likely the “effect” you’re seeing is just random chance.

[Sohcahtoa82]

> It took only 12

That's a very small sample size.

Also, it's mice.