As is the case in VAERS, adverse events are NOT confirmed vaccine side effects. They are medical things that came up in some period after being vaccinated.
The term "adverse event" never means "confirmed reaction." They are two different types of data. It takes a lot of work for an adverse event to become a confirmed reaction, and this report doesn't do that work.
Because at this stage of the data, all anyone knows is that these medical symptoms have been reported by someone who filled out a form on the internet.
An accumulation of adverse event reports (AERs) does not necessarily indicate that a particular AE was caused by the drug; rather, the event may be due to an underlying disease or some other factor(s) such as past medical history or concomitant medication.
I know this seems like an ass-covering cop-out, but like VAERS, this database is only a tip line. They collect this data to help point them in areas to investigate, not to confirm any particular side effect was actually caused by the vaccine.
All they know is that OF THE PEOPLE WHO REPORTED TO THE SYSTEM, some who got vaccinated also got sick with something, and that's all you can pull from this data.
WHAT DOES THIS DATA SHOW?
So first off, when this report was gathering data, over one hundred million vaccine doses were shipped out.
It is estimated that approximately 126,212,580 doses of BNT162b2 were shipped worldwide from the receipt of the first temporary authorisation for emergency supply on 01 December 2020 through 28 February 2021.
And from those 100,000,000+ vaccines? They received a little over 40,000 reports that someone got sick after the vaccine.
Cumulatively, through 28 February 2021, there was a total of 42,086 case reports (25,379 medically confirmed and 16,707 non-medically confirmed) containing 158,893 events.
So right there, even if we wrongly assume all these reports are 100% proof of vaccine injury... well, you can divide 40,000 by 100,000,000.
And again, we're remembering that this is a tip line, and some people just get sick regardless of whether or not they're vaccinated. There is no way to differentiate those situations in this data, just like you can't differentiate which tips are worth following just by looking at 100,000,000 tips of a suspect's location
BUT THE DATA IS UNDERREPORTED.
Probably, yes, but that line will ALWAYS be in reports like this, because again, this is a tip line.
When the police put out a tip line, they are going to get a LOT of incorrect tips, and a LOT of the people who saw the suspect are not reporting it. Both of those things are true.
The data is both flooded with garbage AND underreporting from the total desired dataset. This is expected. You get a lot of data you don't need, and you can never be sure you're getting the data you actually want.
This is not proof (or even implication) that the situation is much worse than we think. Only that we'd love to have EVERYONE who took the vaccine reporting in to the system, for every little boo-boo, but we don't have that.
SO WHAT ABOUT THE PREGNANCIES?
Page 12.
So, OF THE 42,000 REPORTS, only about 400 of them involved someone who was pregnant. As stated in the report, this is less than 1% of all the data.
Of those, only 84 reported serious problems (which means that the other reports could include someone who was both pregnant and a sore elbow, which would not be considered serious).
Number of cases: 413a (0.98% of the total PM dataset); 84 serious and 329 non-serious;
SO DID 27 BABIES DIE FROM THE VACCINE?
Maybe? Maybe not. This report has ABSOLUTELY no way of telling us that.
Here's what it tells us.
100,000,000+ vaccines were out there.
Of those, only 40,000 people complained about medical problems afterwards.
Of those 40,000 people, 400 were pregnant.
Of those 400 people, 27 pregnancies resulted in the death of the child.
So did 27 of those 100,000,000 vaccines cause 27 out of 400 pregnancies in this dataset to result in failure?
Perhaps. And that's why this report exists. That's why VAERS and this reporting system exist.
But this report can't prove anything about it. This report is the STARTING POINT for such research. Just like VAERS.
Which is why any assumption that adverse event reporting data can be used to prove vaccine damage is going to fall apart in the normieverse. It's a simple correlation/causation error.
An adverse event is a correlation, and you cannot assume causation from it. And the adverse event reports CANNOT establish causation. At all. Whatsoever. It's not a mathematical obstacle, despite what some people here insist.
WHAT ABOUT THIS SCARY PART?
Pregnancy outcomes for the 270 pregnancies were reported as spontaneous abortion (23), outcome pending (5), premature birth with neonatal death, spontaneous abortion with intrauterine death (2 each), spontaneous abortion with neonatal death, and normal outcome (1 each). No outcome was provided for 238 pregnancies (note that 2 different outcomes were reported for each twin, and both were counted).
This comes from Table 6, which discusses "missing information." What this means is that they don't have enough information to know much about these cases, but in the spirit of transparency, will provide that data anyway in the report. Just in case.
These reports are not part of the 400+ that were considered full reports.
Of these "missing data" reports, 238 of basically said, "I'm pregnant" and never followed up with additional information about the pregnancy. "No outcome" means "they could have been fine, or not, and they didn't tell us."
This is also normal. This information is essentially being collected by survey, and anyone who has run an enormous survey before knows that lots of data doesn't get filled out correctly or completely and can't be used. Most reports wouldn't even include it.
Alright, let's crack this thing open.
https://phmpt.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/04/reissue_5.3.6-postmarketing-experience.pdf
WHAT IS IT?
This is a document discussing adverse events reported to Pfizer's reporting system. Anyone can submit.
As is the case in VAERS, adverse events are NOT confirmed vaccine side effects. They are medical things that came up in some period after being vaccinated.
The term "adverse event" never means "confirmed reaction." They are two different types of data. It takes a lot of work for an adverse event to become a confirmed reaction, and this report doesn't do that work.
Because at this stage of the data, all anyone knows is that these medical symptoms have been reported by someone who filled out a form on the internet.
I know this seems like an ass-covering cop-out, but like VAERS, this database is only a tip line. They collect this data to help point them in areas to investigate, not to confirm any particular side effect was actually caused by the vaccine.
All they know is that OF THE PEOPLE WHO REPORTED TO THE SYSTEM, some who got vaccinated also got sick with something, and that's all you can pull from this data.
WHAT DOES THIS DATA SHOW?
So first off, when this report was gathering data, over one hundred million vaccine doses were shipped out.
And from those 100,000,000+ vaccines? They received a little over 40,000 reports that someone got sick after the vaccine.
So right there, even if we wrongly assume all these reports are 100% proof of vaccine injury... well, you can divide 40,000 by 100,000,000.
And again, we're remembering that this is a tip line, and some people just get sick regardless of whether or not they're vaccinated. There is no way to differentiate those situations in this data, just like you can't differentiate which tips are worth following just by looking at 100,000,000 tips of a suspect's location
BUT THE DATA IS UNDERREPORTED.
Probably, yes, but that line will ALWAYS be in reports like this, because again, this is a tip line.
When the police put out a tip line, they are going to get a LOT of incorrect tips, and a LOT of the people who saw the suspect are not reporting it. Both of those things are true.
The data is both flooded with garbage AND underreporting from the total desired dataset. This is expected. You get a lot of data you don't need, and you can never be sure you're getting the data you actually want.
This is not proof (or even implication) that the situation is much worse than we think. Only that we'd love to have EVERYONE who took the vaccine reporting in to the system, for every little boo-boo, but we don't have that.
SO WHAT ABOUT THE PREGNANCIES?
Page 12.
So, OF THE 42,000 REPORTS, only about 400 of them involved someone who was pregnant. As stated in the report, this is less than 1% of all the data.
Of those, only 84 reported serious problems (which means that the other reports could include someone who was both pregnant and a sore elbow, which would not be considered serious).
SO DID 27 BABIES DIE FROM THE VACCINE?
Maybe? Maybe not. This report has ABSOLUTELY no way of telling us that.
Here's what it tells us.
So did 27 of those 100,000,000 vaccines cause 27 out of 400 pregnancies in this dataset to result in failure?
Perhaps. And that's why this report exists. That's why VAERS and this reporting system exist.
But this report can't prove anything about it. This report is the STARTING POINT for such research. Just like VAERS.
Which is why any assumption that adverse event reporting data can be used to prove vaccine damage is going to fall apart in the normieverse. It's a simple correlation/causation error.
An adverse event is a correlation, and you cannot assume causation from it. And the adverse event reports CANNOT establish causation. At all. Whatsoever. It's not a mathematical obstacle, despite what some people here insist.
WHAT ABOUT THIS SCARY PART?
This comes from Table 6, which discusses "missing information." What this means is that they don't have enough information to know much about these cases, but in the spirit of transparency, will provide that data anyway in the report. Just in case.
These reports are not part of the 400+ that were considered full reports.
Of these "missing data" reports, 238 of basically said, "I'm pregnant" and never followed up with additional information about the pregnancy. "No outcome" means "they could have been fine, or not, and they didn't tell us."
This is also normal. This information is essentially being collected by survey, and anyone who has run an enormous survey before knows that lots of data doesn't get filled out correctly or completely and can't be used. Most reports wouldn't even include it.
Hope this helps.