Who is the author? The article posted has no byline, no way to identify the actual author and evaluate their work and/or biases
What is this organization/website? Their "About Us" is totally anonymous, says effectively nothing about who they are or their credentials and has a prominently placed donation solicitation... on top of the multiple pop-up solicitations for donations. These people want to shout but never put their names and face behind their work.
The author calls the vaccines "gene therapy." This is a bullshit narrative. They don't change the patient's DNA. Full stop. The fact that this person is still pushing this BS narrative undercuts their credibility.
They start out citing Pfizer's long history of lawsuits for misrepresenting the quality of their drugs to the public. The source (goodjobsfirst.org) isn't one I'm familiar with, but that might be because it's UK-based. The documentation is generally thorough and cites official sources. It's included here to bias the user against Pfizer in a guilt-due-to-history argument, prior to actually presenting the evidence for the author's specific claim.
The Pfizer document is sourced through a private doctor's website (drtrozzi.org) which appears to be a glorified blog of a Canadian doctor. Maybe he's the guy who did the FOIA request? His blog reads like a Paytriot news site, especially with all the stupid graphics effects. His "research" is heavily political in nature. Is he a practicing doctor, or is he retired to become an activist?
The actual document appears to be an official, non-public filing to FDA from Pfizer in keeping with the EUA's requirement for ongoing adverse effect monitoring. This is data you literally can't get without the FOIA request (I've tried, it's not public and Pfizer won't provide it).
Pfizer claims their data is underreported. Presumably, it suffers the same issues as VAERS: reporting is voluntary, people don't know to do it, people don't take the time to do it. The numbers will under-count the real value, but we have no idea by how much so we can't calculate incidence of anything from this data. Fair enough, but then they say they have so many reports they've had to hire new staff and still can't keep up with incoming reports. That's a problem months after they've been ordered to monitor this stuff by FDA.
The case report data have some really interesting skews. 3:1 rate of females to males reporting. Surprisingly, the highest rate of reports from ages 31-50, rather than among the elderly, who we'd expect to have more just as a result of generally poorer average baseline health.
1223 fatalities out of ~42,000 reports jumps out. Typically, FDA would investigate after ~25 deaths/serious adverse effects and pull the product off the market at ~50 as a danger to public health while a detailed investigation took place. While J&J and Moderna have had such temporary pauses over TTS and myocarditis, respectively, Pfizer never has. This is the biggest headline for me.
The overwhelming majority of cases reported are non-serious and are things the Phase 3 study data showed us to expect (Table 2).
The claim about vaccine-enhanced disease is weak af. It's based on 138 reports out of 42,000 who ended up getting COVID again after the vaccine, 75 whom ended up in the hospital or deceased. Why weak af? Because these are likely people who were already very sick at baseline. No vaccine is 100% effective. If you've got a patient who's got literally everything wrong with them, they're at high risk for everything, no matter how much you try and do for them. These are the kinds of patients who are on death's door, but whom modern medicine keeps them alive - and hospitals are FULL of them. We have to expect some people are going to have poor immune systems and get follow-on respiratory disease even after vaccinations. We see this routinely with flu where even with vaccination and anti-virals these people could be fighting the disease for many weeks. Nothing in this data suggests that something unusual or unpredictable was going on at the point this report was submitted.
We now have a much different picture about breakthrough cases due to the mutation of the virus. As the virus mutated, the wild-type S-protein in the vaccines has, quite logically, become less effective.
The Scotland data are more interesting than anything in the Pfizer document. They actually show what could be vaccine-enhancement. This is worth further investigation. The Pfizer data, as described above, was no smoking gun. It was easily explained by other factors. Trying to Pfizer knew in advance and covered it up based on these data is BS and why I called the author out for priming the reader with that lawsuit data at the beginning.
To be clear, I'm not defending Pfizer here. Pfizer's been non-transparent, manipulative, and created contracts with governments around the world with governments that were secret in an effort to monopolize the world's vaccination efforts with their product, including kickbacks to local officials if they assisted the effort. They should fry for it and those $36 billion in profits be confiscated and used to pay the medical costs of those they've harmed. But these data don't support the author's claims, which is probably why they wanted to remain anonymous.
Let's review this with some basic skepticism:
Who is the author? The article posted has no byline, no way to identify the actual author and evaluate their work and/or biases
What is this organization/website? Their "About Us" is totally anonymous, says effectively nothing about who they are or their credentials and has a prominently placed donation solicitation... on top of the multiple pop-up solicitations for donations. These people want to shout but never put their names and face behind their work.
The author calls the vaccines "gene therapy." This is a bullshit narrative. They don't change the patient's DNA. Full stop. The fact that this person is still pushing this BS narrative undercuts their credibility.
They start out citing Pfizer's long history of lawsuits for misrepresenting the quality of their drugs to the public. The source (goodjobsfirst.org) isn't one I'm familiar with, but that might be because it's UK-based. The documentation is generally thorough and cites official sources. It's included here to bias the user against Pfizer in a guilt-due-to-history argument, prior to actually presenting the evidence for the author's specific claim.
The Pfizer document is sourced through a private doctor's website (drtrozzi.org) which appears to be a glorified blog of a Canadian doctor. Maybe he's the guy who did the FOIA request? His blog reads like a Paytriot news site, especially with all the stupid graphics effects. His "research" is heavily political in nature. Is he a practicing doctor, or is he retired to become an activist?
The actual document appears to be an official, non-public filing to FDA from Pfizer in keeping with the EUA's requirement for ongoing adverse effect monitoring. This is data you literally can't get without the FOIA request (I've tried, it's not public and Pfizer won't provide it).
Pfizer claims their data is underreported. Presumably, it suffers the same issues as VAERS: reporting is voluntary, people don't know to do it, people don't take the time to do it. The numbers will under-count the real value, but we have no idea by how much so we can't calculate incidence of anything from this data. Fair enough, but then they say they have so many reports they've had to hire new staff and still can't keep up with incoming reports. That's a problem months after they've been ordered to monitor this stuff by FDA.
The case report data have some really interesting skews. 3:1 rate of females to males reporting. Surprisingly, the highest rate of reports from ages 31-50, rather than among the elderly, who we'd expect to have more just as a result of generally poorer average baseline health.
1223 fatalities out of ~42,000 reports jumps out. Typically, FDA would investigate after ~25 deaths/serious adverse effects and pull the product off the market at ~50 as a danger to public health while a detailed investigation took place. While J&J and Moderna have had such temporary pauses over TTS and myocarditis, respectively, Pfizer never has. This is the biggest headline for me.
The overwhelming majority of cases reported are non-serious and are things the Phase 3 study data showed us to expect (Table 2).
The claim about vaccine-enhanced disease is weak af. It's based on 138 reports out of 42,000 who ended up getting COVID again after the vaccine, 75 whom ended up in the hospital or deceased. Why weak af? Because these are likely people who were already very sick at baseline. No vaccine is 100% effective. If you've got a patient who's got literally everything wrong with them, they're at high risk for everything, no matter how much you try and do for them. These are the kinds of patients who are on death's door, but whom modern medicine keeps them alive - and hospitals are FULL of them. We have to expect some people are going to have poor immune systems and get follow-on respiratory disease even after vaccinations. We see this routinely with flu where even with vaccination and anti-virals these people could be fighting the disease for many weeks. Nothing in this data suggests that something unusual or unpredictable was going on at the point this report was submitted.
We now have a much different picture about breakthrough cases due to the mutation of the virus. As the virus mutated, the wild-type S-protein in the vaccines has, quite logically, become less effective.
The Scotland data are more interesting than anything in the Pfizer document. They actually show what could be vaccine-enhancement. This is worth further investigation. The Pfizer data, as described above, was no smoking gun. It was easily explained by other factors. Trying to Pfizer knew in advance and covered it up based on these data is BS and why I called the author out for priming the reader with that lawsuit data at the beginning.
To be clear, I'm not defending Pfizer here. Pfizer's been non-transparent, manipulative, and created contracts with governments around the world with governments that were secret in an effort to monopolize the world's vaccination efforts with their product, including kickbacks to local officials if they assisted the effort. They should fry for it and those $36 billion in profits be confiscated and used to pay the medical costs of those they've harmed. But these data don't support the author's claims, which is probably why they wanted to remain anonymous.