Thank you, that helps immensely. I couldn’t get the other to focus. Any business that still mandates the shot or boosters should be handed this! Or it should be referenced in las suits for job loss, by the military, to media stations, etc.
I tend to be a bit harsh in my opinions on such things, but...
With the overwhelming plethora of information on adverse effects from the vax, Imo, anyone still pushing it or mandating it should be arrested and tried for accessory to murder.
The post I link to links to another post that lists all these in text format, in comments.
I thought Pfizer didn't care to make an actual list, it's more like "let's put in the long list of default side effects". But what is telling is that thrombosis is the most frequent word in it. And thrombosis means blood clots. Word frequency analysis:
Old news. People freaked out. Context is important.
When you conduct a study like this, FDA requires, as part of the NDA (New Drug Application) that you monitor for side effects during your clinical trials. The recordkeeping is thorough with the intent not to miss anything. The strategy is to compile a complete list of effects patients experienced, then filter those effects to a more manageable and realistic list of what the drug will actually cause.
How tf did they get 9 pages of literally everything under the sun, then, smartass? The answer is simple, they did a study of tens of thousands of old people. Old people have health issues. Everyone's got something. This study had 43,000 people of all walks of life with maximal inclusion criteria to maximize generalizability of the results. Every ache or pain, every disorder that popped up during the study period got recorded. That's the list you're looking at. Yes, some of those came from people in the placebo group who got saline!
That list is then pared down later in the analysis phase of the process. You look at the effects seen in the intervention arms only and discard the ones in the placebo group. You look at individual patients' medical history and medications and see if those factors likely explained the symptom seen. Whatever signal is there, you look at rates these occur vs rates in the general population. Bell's Palsy's a good example. It occurs naturally at ~2x the rate it was seen in this particular study. The drug didn't cause something unusual here. Having a large study population and background rates of the disease explain the symptom. Etc. The scientists run through and eliminate the lion's share of those things because it's clear that something other than the drug caused them.
You get a filtered list at the end that more accurately represents what the drug can actually be shown to have caused.
Yes, we must trust that they did the process honestly. We're not going to get a great look at the filtering process because of patient privacy concerns. It's incredibly long and boring to do as well. We have peer reviewers who looked at the data prior to publication for the NEJM. We also had a review done by the FDA prior to the EUA. That's a double check on their work by two bodies which are supposed to be independent. In order to falsify this list, you'd have to have a perfect storm of all 3 being corrupted. Though unlikely, it's possible. The post-marketing data released under court order calls into question some of their conclusions. However, this list alone isn't proof of much of anything other than Pfizer not doing a very good job of explaining the process to the public because it doesn't want to talk about this at all, and the public freaking out and echoing crazy back and forth on the internet.
However, this list alone isn't proof of much of anything
Wtf are you smoking? The typical drug has less than 100 side effects. This alone proves the vaccines are insanely dangerous when you take that into account. This is one of the few facts about the shots that might actually grab the npcs attention.
Proof the study only involved 43000 old people? And even if so, what a convenient way to deflect and claim "plausible deniability", by using older patients with preexisting health conditions.
This is not the way to build public trust. And we will not allow you to gaslight us, no matter how much you stamp your feet and clutch your pearls, faggot.
However skeptical I am of these so-called "vaccines" (more like poison death stabs), do remain vigilant regarding these kinds of statements. AFAIK this is a list of "alarming" side effects that they specifically monitor for, and would have to be mentioned in the side effects reports even if cases are relatively few.
This was released a few weeks ago.
Post of March 2nd with slightly better image
https://greatawakening.win/p/142Amr5avj
pdf (start from page 30)
https://phmpt.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/11/5.3.6-postmarketing-experience.pdf
Thank you, that helps immensely. I couldn’t get the other to focus. Any business that still mandates the shot or boosters should be handed this! Or it should be referenced in las suits for job loss, by the military, to media stations, etc.
I tend to be a bit harsh in my opinions on such things, but...
With the overwhelming plethora of information on adverse effects from the vax, Imo, anyone still pushing it or mandating it should be arrested and tried for accessory to murder.
I agree entirely. I hope I live long enough to see it happen.
The post I link to links to another post that lists all these in text format, in comments.
I thought Pfizer didn't care to make an actual list, it's more like "let's put in the long list of default side effects". But what is telling is that thrombosis is the most frequent word in it. And thrombosis means blood clots. Word frequency analysis:
thrombosis: 95 syndrome: 80 positive: 62 antibody: 59 herpes: 55 autoimmune: 41 increased: 40 anti: 37 disease: 36 embolism: 35 abnormal: 34 artery: 29 lupus: 27 vasculitis: 27 test: 27 hepatic: 26 simplex: 25 vein: 24 pneumonia: 23 infection: 22 pulmonary: 22 site: 21 decreased: 21 immune: 21 oedema: 20 respiratory: 20 seizure: 20 zoster: 20 mediated: 20 epilepsy: 19 acute: 17 neonatal: 17 liver: 17 cov: 17 encephalitis: 16 disorder: 16 venous: 16 nerve: 16 sclerosis: 14 multiple: 14 sars: 14 varicella: 13 paralysis: 13 amyloidosis: 12 cerebral: 12 renal: 12 swelling: 11 factor: 11 rheumatoid: 11 post: 11 erythematosus: 10 with: 10 neuropathy: 10 blood: 10 type: 10 cutaneous: 9 anaemia: 9 viral: 9 chronic: 9 vascular: 9 virus: 9 deficiency: 8 disseminated: 8 haemorrhagic: 8 failure: 8 negative: 8 arthritis: 8 to: 8 colitis: 8 dermatitis: 8 neutropenia: 8 in: 8 paresis: 8 progressive: 8 systemic: 8 epileptic: 7 seizures: 7 of: 7 retinopathy: 7 reaction: 7 associated: 7 myoclonic: 7 bilirubin: 7 pressure: 7 rash: 7 cardiac: 7 sarcoidosis: 7 idiopathic: 7 thrombotic: 7 retinal: 7 hepatitis: 6 shock: 6 polyneuropathy: 6 benign: 6 nephritis: 6 score: 6 glomerulonephritis: 6 inflammatory: 6 complement: 6 purpura: 6 fibrosis: 6 sepsis: 6 issue: 6 portal: 6 partial: 5 infarction: 5 distress: 5 aminotransferase: 5 allergic: 5 cell: 5 arterial: 5 arteritis: 5 sinus: 5 thyroiditis: 5 demyelinating: 5 encephalopathy: 5 eye: 5 haemolytic: 5 thrombocytopenia: 5 lung: 5 myocarditis: 5 myositis: 5 gastritis: 5 congenital: 5 covid: 5 cranial: 5 device: 5 diabetes: 5 exposure: 5 ophthalmic: 5 meningitis: 5 necrotising: 5 human: 5 herpesvirus: 5 juvenile: 5 peripheral: 5 ocular: 5 scleroderma: 5 neuritis: 4 febrile: 4 myelitis: 4 motor: 4 axonal: 4 insulin: 4 thyroid: 4 prophylaxis: 4 graft: 4 aspartate: 4 index: 4 cholangitis: 4 pancreatitis: 4 uveitis: 4 infantile: 4 enterocolitis: 4 bile: 4 urine: 4 brain: 4 bronchitis: 4 cerebellar: 4 septic: 4 urticaria: 4 convulsion: 4 coronary: 4 coronavirus: 4 interstitial: 4 postoperative: 4 related: 4 mellitus: 4 embolic: 4 stroke: 4 oesophagitis: 4 erythema: 4 tonic: 4 function: 4 meningoencephalitis: 4 lichen: 4 mesenteric: 4 myasthenia: 4 obstruction: 4 secondary: 4 protein: 4 polyglandular: 4 procedural: 4 postictal: 4 splenic: 4 tongue: 4 thrombophlebitis: 4
This is a fun format admittedly
I liked the one where someone had a 10 min video scrolling through the list.
I’d love to see. Any chance you have the link?
This was released back in March and the delay was for 50 years if I'm not mistaken but yeah those 9 pages of side effects are an absolute horror.
Old news. People freaked out. Context is important.
When you conduct a study like this, FDA requires, as part of the NDA (New Drug Application) that you monitor for side effects during your clinical trials. The recordkeeping is thorough with the intent not to miss anything. The strategy is to compile a complete list of effects patients experienced, then filter those effects to a more manageable and realistic list of what the drug will actually cause.
How tf did they get 9 pages of literally everything under the sun, then, smartass? The answer is simple, they did a study of tens of thousands of old people. Old people have health issues. Everyone's got something. This study had 43,000 people of all walks of life with maximal inclusion criteria to maximize generalizability of the results. Every ache or pain, every disorder that popped up during the study period got recorded. That's the list you're looking at. Yes, some of those came from people in the placebo group who got saline!
That list is then pared down later in the analysis phase of the process. You look at the effects seen in the intervention arms only and discard the ones in the placebo group. You look at individual patients' medical history and medications and see if those factors likely explained the symptom seen. Whatever signal is there, you look at rates these occur vs rates in the general population. Bell's Palsy's a good example. It occurs naturally at ~2x the rate it was seen in this particular study. The drug didn't cause something unusual here. Having a large study population and background rates of the disease explain the symptom. Etc. The scientists run through and eliminate the lion's share of those things because it's clear that something other than the drug caused them.
You get a filtered list at the end that more accurately represents what the drug can actually be shown to have caused.
Yes, we must trust that they did the process honestly. We're not going to get a great look at the filtering process because of patient privacy concerns. It's incredibly long and boring to do as well. We have peer reviewers who looked at the data prior to publication for the NEJM. We also had a review done by the FDA prior to the EUA. That's a double check on their work by two bodies which are supposed to be independent. In order to falsify this list, you'd have to have a perfect storm of all 3 being corrupted. Though unlikely, it's possible. The post-marketing data released under court order calls into question some of their conclusions. However, this list alone isn't proof of much of anything other than Pfizer not doing a very good job of explaining the process to the public because it doesn't want to talk about this at all, and the public freaking out and echoing crazy back and forth on the internet.
However, this list alone isn't proof of much of anything
Wtf are you smoking? The typical drug has less than 100 side effects. This alone proves the vaccines are insanely dangerous when you take that into account. This is one of the few facts about the shots that might actually grab the npcs attention.
Proof the study only involved 43000 old people? And even if so, what a convenient way to deflect and claim "plausible deniability", by using older patients with preexisting health conditions.
This is not the way to build public trust. And we will not allow you to gaslight us, no matter how much you stamp your feet and clutch your pearls, faggot.
Flip this picture horizontal and use as your Facebook profile banner... kek
Ty fren!
This image is so heavily compressed you can't read jack shit... also this was released months ago... bit late to the party, fren.
However skeptical I am of these so-called "vaccines" (more like poison death stabs), do remain vigilant regarding these kinds of statements. AFAIK this is a list of "alarming" side effects that they specifically monitor for, and would have to be mentioned in the side effects reports even if cases are relatively few.