Now to compare it. There was a vaccine mandate in 1976 over Swine Flu. It was pushed by politicans and the media. Anyhow, it was over when the number of deaths were getting close to 200 people. This is 6 times that number with 1 company!
Posted on 12/13/2021 2:03:17 AM PST by Enlightened1
Now to compare it. There was a vaccine mandate in 1976 over Swine Flu. It was pushed by politicans and the media. Anyhow, it was over when the number of deaths were getting close to 200 people. This is 6 times that number with 1 company!
That just means it’s working!/sarc
Mark
So the vaccine gives you herpes now? It’s in the VAERS, it must be true and must have been caused by the vaccine.
Electronic Support for Public Health–Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (ESP:VAERS)
https://openvaers.com/images/r18hs017045-lazarus-final-report-20116.pdf
Study that gets into the issue of how many adverse events never get into the VAERS system, the amount of underreporting. For deaths, VAERS gets from 1% to 13% of the events. So divide the number of deaths by something in that range to get the true number of vaccine-caused deaths.
If no one can explain this, why are they not reacting equally to the greater than 9,400 “unknown” results or the 11,361 “not recovered” results?
What does that have to do with Pfizer data?
— “What does that have to do with Pfizer data?”
Really?”
For the title “5.3.6 CUMULATIVE ANALYSIS OF POST-AUTHORIZATION ADVERSE EVENT REPORTS OF PF-07302048 (BNT162B2) RECEIVED THROUGH 28-FEB-2021,” one reads at the bottom of the first page the following:
“Pfizer —The information contained in this document is proprietary and confidential. Any disclosure, reproduction, distribution, or other dissemination of this information outside of Pfizer, its Affiliates, its Licensees, or Regulatory Agencies is strictly prohibited. Except as may be otherwise agreed to in writing, by accepting or reviewing these materials, you agree to hold such information in confidence and not to disclose it to others (except where required by applicable law), nor to use it for unauthorized purposes.”
“Fatal — 1223” appears on page seven of the PDF referenced.
So you ask “What does that have to do with Pfizer data?”
Given that it is Pfizer data from a Pfizer document with Pfizer disclaimer and the number, maybe it has to do with Pfizer?
People die all the time. I don’t think any of these deaths were attributed to the vaccine.
Helps to read pages 21-22 of the Pfizer PDF.
Future cemetery stones will need to have your disclaimer.
“Fact check: X was not killed by the Covid vaccine.”
;-)
It is Pfizer's own document “Cumulative Analysis of Post-authorization Adverse Event Reports” reporting on the fatalities.
Attributed? They attribute 1223 “case outcomes” as “fatal.” Please read Pfizer's PDF. Page 7.
If this was a clinical test the drug would be immediately removed from research.
They didn't say any were caused by the vaccine.
Do you understand what this report is? It's every adverse medical event someone had at some point following a shot.
Look at Appendix 1. It's 9.5 single-spaced pages listing all of the types of events that were reported. Things like tounge biting and white nipple sign.
Humans have all kinds of medical issues every day but that doesn't mean they were caused by the shot.
The relevant question is were there more deaths in this group of people than you would expect in a demographically similar population of the unvaccinated?
No one, and certainly not Pfizer, have presented any evidence that there were.
Likely true, because some will try to say every death was caused by the vaccines despite having no evidence.
The disclaimer will be there to prove that the family is “politically correct” so they can get to stay on the “gravy train” of a government controlled economy.
Yes, I do.
— “Look at Appendix 1.”
I did.
— “The relevant question is were there more deaths in this group of people than you would expect in a demographically similar population of the unvaccinated?”
The relevant issue is, were there 1223 outcomes which the Pfizer report termed “fatal.” Yes, it states that.
— “No one, and certainly not Pfizer, have presented any evidence that there were.”
Your assertion suggests that you read the report very differently than did I. Your apologia that “No one, and certainly not Pfizer, have presented any evidence that there were” is very clear.
So your conclusion is there is no evidence. Other find evidence, which brings me back to the original point, which was ivermectin.
I wrote, “Citing “experts” from a Business Insider article is the opposition to a Research Gate article. You choose. Others choose. But it is not definitive. She says so herself.”
Your choice — no evidence that the mRNA inoculations are in some outcomes “fatal” — is your choice. Therein lies the debate.
When one is judge and jury, the case is often settled.
The PDF reads "case outcomes” as “fatal.” Read it any way you wish. "Fatal" usually means fatal, and "case outcome" in a clinical trial usually refers to the clinical trial's participants. This exchange between us proves that the larger issue is as much political as anything.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.