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.
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.