Pfizer vaccine data. Of particular interest is page 30: full pages of known adverse effects…
(twitter.com)
💉VACCINE DATA RELEASE 💉
You're viewing a single comment thread. View all comments, or full comment thread.
Comments (209)
sorted by:
Let’s make this easy.
Empirically prove that this is true. Please utilize the source material to do so.
Dude, this is literally Pfizer's own data.
Which says that it is a list of adverse events, not confirmed vaccine reactions. There is a world of difference between the two. Adverse events can be from literally anything. They just happened after the vaccine. It’s not considered a vaccine injury unless it gets verified in context.
Neither VAERS nor this report is listing vaccine injuries. It lists adverse events following vaccination that could have been from one of a million things, and serve as a starting point for medical investigators. There could be three total legitimate cases in this report, and we have no way of knowing which ones they are by looking at this data.
What you are saying is simply not true. Adverse events if severe enough constitute injury. I think you need to define 'vaccine injury' before you continue. There is no listing in a PI regarding 'injury'... they fall under Adverse Events (this includes Infections / Serious Adverse Events and Death)
All medications approved by the FDA have this information, and its robust, and long term. It's Trial Safety Data.
You are trying to say injury is different than Adverse Events, which is ridiculous.
This Adverse Events following these mRNA jabs is something we have never seen before, they are endless. And this isn't even long term Safety Data. VAERS only verifies this.
So I ask you, define vaccine injury in relation to Adverse Events.
I'm not suggesting an adverse reaction has to hit some threshold of severity to count.
A vaccine injury is ALWAYS an adverse event. But an adverse event is not necessarily a vaccine injury.
If I get a vaccine, and then two days later, I have a stomach ache, that is DEFINITIONALLY an adverse event. I can submit it to VAERS. Once it's there, you will think that proves that vaccines cause stomach aches.
In truth, I had the stomach ache because I drank a lot of alcohol and am hungover, and am too stupid to make the connection. I just reported it as a random stomach ache after I got the vaccine.
I did not commit fraud by misattributing my stomach ache. I did what VAERS wanted me to do.
The stomach ache is an adverse event.
The stomach ache is not a vaccine injury.
They are two different terms for a reason.
VAERS records adverse events. It does not record vaccine injuries. That can only be done by verifying adverse events as being caused by vaccine injuries, which VAERS does not do.
If the database is not verifying which reports are from the vaccine and which are not, then you can't use that data to make conclusions about how bad the vaccine is.
I’ve read the document. I’m asking for a specific piece of information you claim is in the document.
Please cite where in the document you can prove the following assertion you made:
I would like to see what part of the document states this as true. Can you give me the page number and quote?
No, I need the line that proves this exact statement by u/zeitreise:
That is foundational for his argument. If he can't prove that this is supported by the document, then his argument can't really proceed from there without admitting he's making assumptions unsupported by the source.
The source, in fact, says he is wrong. On page six:
This sentence is VITAL context for the data you're looking at.
"This data shows that bad things happened after the drug. We do not know which of these, if any, was definitely caused by the vaccine. People get sick all the time, and verifying whether this was actually a vaccine injury or not would require context we do not usually have."
Broken down further:
"You're going to see a shit-ton of scary symptoms here in the data. For any report of those symptoms, there's somewhere between a 0% and 100% that the report shows an actual vaccine issue and not just random medical bullshit. If you want to know for sure, then you'll need to check with the patient, because we don't know."
Which means, that no, you cannot say each adverse "instance" was actually a vaccine injury event. Because it's clearly stated that the data does not represent verified vaccine injuries, and nobody knows yet how much of this might just be random medical bullshit. These databases don't carry that information.
They're just a tip line for things that DID happen that might, maybe, possibly be connected in some way to the vaccine.
Essentially, it's just a a simple correlation/causation error. You cannot assume causation based on correlation, and these databases are incapable of proving causation. Therefore, you can't use the data to prove ANYTHING about vaccine injury. That is done by further studies that are based on the data from databases like these.
Known adverse effects is not the same thing as proven vaccine injury. Adverse effects are merely reported after a vaccine. They are not proven to be caused by the vaccine.
VAERS states this. This report states this on page 6.
Again, your assumptions are hamstringing your validity as a claimed data scientist.
Page 30 lists adverse events reported to the database. Adverse events are not established as proven vaccine injuries, just events that occurred in some period after a vaccination. This is the same as VAERS.
See page 5-6.
You cannot look at a list of adverse events reported spontaneously to the database and empirically deduce that each adverse event correlates directly to a confirmed vaccine injury.
You can make assumptions, but so can I, and that is not empirical.
Please quote the part of the report that confirms the assertion you made. So far, I can only see you relying on an assumption of how this data must correlate with vaccine injury, and refusing to demonstrate any empirical basis for that assumption by claiming that you’re just way smarter than me.
Perhaps you are. But for the benefit of your peers, who tend to hate fake researchers who make up bullshit to fit their narrative and lord their intelligence over everyone when questioned, can you lay out the mathematical basis of these assumptions?