In a recent viewpoint and video interview, Michael Osterholm, executive director of the Vaccine Integrity Project, outlined what makes vaccine safety research credible. He said transparency is central, and that studies should address a clear gap in information rather than confirm what researchers already believe. He warned that some proposed studies appear designed to support pre-existing positions, which is not the same as scientifically sound inquiry.
Osterholm emphasized that study designs must be determined before anyone looks at the data, including how vaccine recipients and non-recipients are defined and how outcomes are measured. This prevents later selection of numbers that fit a desired conclusion. He also noted that his team provides a public tool containing all the data they use, allowing others to replicate the same analyses or document any differences they find.
He cautioned that running enough analyses will inevitably produce chance associations that are not cause-and-effect, so expert review is needed to interpret findings. He urged researchers and officials to call out design problems in proposed studies as they arise, rather than waiting for a dramatic public claim about vaccine danger. He tied this to the broader challenge of trust, especially when senior health officials make claims about vaccine risks.