Statistically speaking, we know there are risks associated with vaccines. Most are minimal, of course,
I spoke to someone who was involved with clinical trials, and I posed the question, "do they screen people involved in control groups in the trials to exclude less than healthy subjects? I ask because, in the real world, doctors give out vaccinations like candy, and so, it's an issue of whether ornot the control groups, and their safety records, are reliable given that, in my view, the only way they can be reliable is if they reflect the real world. So, is there "HUB", healthy user bias, in the control groups?" His answer was that the demographics of control groups, getting them to match the real world , given the demographics of volunteers, etc, is not perfect. I got the impression that they are far from perfect, for I put that follow up question to him, his answer was that he didn't know.
So, therein lies the issue, how imperfect are they? and can the safety records of the trials be an accurate predictor in the real world?
The simple answer is no, they cannot. And, you don't have to go very far to find someone whose life was ruined after a vaccination reaction.
That would indicate to me the real dangers are unknown and likely to be a lot worse than the trials would have us believe. So the real issue is, are the dangers worse than the alleged benefits? I don't think it's been absolutely determined, given that, in one column disease are in decline, but in another, they are on the rise.