How does Adam Ringham's method challenge conventional vaccine safety research?

Adam Ringham's post suggests that conventional vaccine safety research might not be as comprehensive as it could be. He argues that comparing a new vaccine's safety profile to that of an existing vaccine isn't a thorough enough approach. He implies that this method could potentially overlook side effects that are common to both vaccines.

Adam also mentions that all COVID vaccine trial participants in the test group were given the vaccine 30 days later, which he believes eliminates a true control group for comparison. This, he suggests, could potentially skew the results of the safety testing.

However, it's important to note that vaccine safety research is a complex field, and there are many factors and methodologies involved that aren't mentioned in this post.

Would you like to know more about how vaccine safety trials are typically conducted?