Haha! Well, to be accurate, Chiz said he read the headline, clicked the link, "saw there was a lot of text and said 'that's cool' and clicked away again." OH CHIZ. But I just read about it too - I guess that's sort of a real result, but I don't know! I'd be really interested to see if it does put them on a new track for what they actually need to go after.

And as for the incidences being random weird people, well, then you would expect every large vaccination trial to have error like that - but the whole "statistically significant" part means that they probably took that into account and know that that amount cannot be due to random fluctuations like that. Who knows! It's interesting to be sure.