Have Pfizer and Moderna released all study data for Covid vaccines
Executive summary
Pfizer and Moderna have publicly released large amounts of trial results, safety analyses and real‑world effectiveness data for their COVID-19 vaccines, including peer‑reviewed trial publications and company data portals; Pfizer in 2025 posted myocarditis and pregnancy analyses and Moderna’s Phase 3 COVE trial results were published showing 94.1% efficacy in 2020 [1] [2]. Available sources do not say that “all study data” from either company have been released; sources document many public datasets and company postings but do not claim exhaustiveness [1] [2].
1. What companies have made public: trial papers and targeted data dumps
Both firms have published core trial results in peer‑reviewed journals and posted additional analyses on their websites or research hubs. Moderna’s pivotal COVE study data were published in The New England Journal of Medicine and reported as showing 94.1% efficacy in the primary analysis [2]. Pfizer has posted targeted analytic packages — for example, public global myocarditis analyses and pregnancy study summaries on Pfizer’s COVID‑19 updates and research hub [1] [3]. These releases represent major pieces of the evidence base regulators and clinicians relied on [2] [1].
2. What “released data” means in practice: summaries, papers and regulatory files
The public record contains peer‑reviewed manuscripts, company press releases, regulatory submissions and slide decks used by advisory committees. Pfizer’s postings include analyses shared with regulators and the public about myocarditis and vaccination in pregnancy [1] [3]. Moderna’s pivotal trial results were published and widely cited [2]. These materials provide endpoints, efficacy estimates and many safety summaries but usually in the formats typical for clinical research (papers, regulatory summaries and company reports) rather than raw, patient‑level datasets [2] [1]. Available sources do not mention whether fully de‑identified patient‑level datasets have been exhaustively released for every study.
3. Transparency claims and company framing
Both companies frame their postings as commitments to transparency. Pfizer explicitly stated it posted myocarditis analyses “further representing its dedication to transparency” and highlighted ongoing presentations and peer‑reviewed publications [1]. Pfizer’s pregnancy analysis announcement likewise described data “shared publicly” and submitted to regulators [3]. Corporate communication emphasizes selective, high‑impact analyses and regulatory submissions rather than asserting that every underlying file has been opened to independent reanalysis [1] [3].
4. Areas where public sources show ongoing questions
Regulatory and scientific bodies continue to request evolving datasets to inform vaccine composition and policy (WHO advisory notices), indicating ongoing data needs beyond what companies have published [4] [5]. WHO’s TAG‑CO‑VAC has explicit lists of data types it wants from manufacturers to inform antigen composition decisions — a sign that regulators seek continual data flows from vaccine makers, not a one‑time dump [4] [5]. Available sources do not claim that these WHO requests have been fully satisfied by Pfizer or Moderna.
5. Safety signal reporting and recent developments
Pfizer’s 2025 postings included myocarditis analyses and pregnancy data; company materials note myocarditis risk is highest in young males after the second dose and that myocarditis after booster doses appears less common than after the second primary dose [1]. Independent reporting suggests regulators are continuing to evaluate adverse events — for example, a Reuters story reports an FDA memo linking some child deaths to vaccine‑associated myocarditis, indicating ongoing regulatory review and contested findings in public discourse [6]. These developments show that safety evaluation is an ongoing public and regulatory process, not a closed chapter [1] [6].
6. What remains “not found in current reporting”
Available sources do not state that Pfizer or Moderna have released every file, study protocol amendment, raw patient‑level dataset and all regulatory correspondence in fully open repositories. They also do not assert that external researchers have had unfettered access to every raw dataset for every analysis. For these specific claims, available sources do not mention comprehensive, unrestricted public releases of every underlying study file [2] [1].
7. How to interpret claims that “all data” have been released
When politicians, advocates or company statements assert “all data” have been released, the phrase requires scrutiny: public trial results, selected safety analyses and regulatory summaries are indeed available [2] [1] [3], but public demands from WHO and ongoing regulatory memos show that data needs continue and independent scrutiny remains active [4] [6]. Readers should treat “all” as a strong claim that current sources do not substantiate; the factual record shows extensive disclosures but not an explicit, documented release of every possible study dataset [2] [1].
Limitations: this analysis uses only the supplied documents; it does not incorporate other reporting or direct company repositories beyond the cited Pfizer and Moderna trial coverage [2] [1].