Lancet claims so. Leave aside that the magazine long ago went political and abandoned serious medical paper publication, having already had to publicly retract one paper that was shown (not by the magazine’s putative peer reviewers) to be badly flawed and written from a predetermined political conclusion.

This paper is just as badly flawed, in its own right.

The paper begins by depending in part on the CDC and FDA jointly maintained Vaccine Adverse Events Reporting System database. VAERS is a badly flawed database, being a collection of claims voluntarily reported by anyone who felt like interacting with it—and lacking who knows what other information that others didn’t feel like reporting.

The Lancet paper writers also depend in part on v-safe, a smart phone app(!) through which users can self-select their own reported symptom claims (or choose not to report them).

With those flaws at the center of the writing—which in an objective medical journal would have gotten the paper rejected—the paper’s writers claimed that 1.3% of the reported Wuhan Virus mRNA vaccinations resulted in deaths, and that 6.6% of the reports resulted in inpatient hospitalization [sic], prolongation of hospitalisation [sic], permanent disability, life-threatening illness, congenital anomaly, or birth defect.

Nonsense like this badly dilutes serious reporting and the public’s perception of serious reporting of the vaccines’ effectiveness and side effects. There may well be serious, but sub-lethal, and lethal outcomes to getting an mRNA vaccine against the virus. But sloppily done papers like this shed no light on the rates of those outcomes and sully legitimate reports that accurately estimate those rates.