Pfizer Side Effects [pdf](phmpt.org)
phmpt.org
Pfizer Side Effects [pdf]
https://phmpt.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/11/5.3.6-postmarketing-experience.pdf
8 comments
Why do you suppose documents like these are never discussed and flagged on forums like HN?
Because there isn't enough context to draw conclusions and most people don't know what they are reading.
This sort of report includes everything that goes wrong with anybody who took the medication. That means it includes "things that would happen anyway". It doesn't attempt to normalize or contextualize that vs the baseline rate. Note that there are not any phrases to the effect of "X% increase of problem Y" anywhere in it. That isn't it's job. Even more researchers will need to look at that, and for most of the issues the data may well just be signal noise.
This sort of report includes everything that goes wrong with anybody who took the medication. That means it includes "things that would happen anyway". It doesn't attempt to normalize or contextualize that vs the baseline rate. Note that there are not any phrases to the effect of "X% increase of problem Y" anywhere in it. That isn't it's job. Even more researchers will need to look at that, and for most of the issues the data may well just be signal noise.
In this case, there should be a category like „car accident“ there. I don’t see it.
Instead there are strokes, myocarditis, thrombosis, facial paralysis, etc.; most of them in age group 30-50 that has comparatively small covid risk ( U Oxford numbers: qcovid.org ).
In my understanding these are reports submitted voluntarily by regular people after market release, who saw a connection to the medication. See section 2 point 1, „Methodology“.
Why do you think did Pfizer fight in court against publishing these documents?
And why have they still blacked out the total number of vaccines shipped? (p.6, 3.1.1)
Instead there are strokes, myocarditis, thrombosis, facial paralysis, etc.; most of them in age group 30-50 that has comparatively small covid risk ( U Oxford numbers: qcovid.org ).
In my understanding these are reports submitted voluntarily by regular people after market release, who saw a connection to the medication. See section 2 point 1, „Methodology“.
Why do you think did Pfizer fight in court against publishing these documents?
And why have they still blacked out the total number of vaccines shipped? (p.6, 3.1.1)
> In this case, there should be a category like „car accident“ there. I don’t see it.
Instead there are strokes, myocarditis, thrombosis, facial paralysis, etc.; most of them in age group 30-50 that has comparatively small covid risk ( U Oxford numbers: qcovid.org ).
That would be the NEXT step in analysis, yes. Feel welcome to write and publish such an analysis. This document is not pretending to be that analysis.
> In my understanding these are reports submitted voluntarily by regular people after market release, who saw a connection to the medication. See section 2 point 1, „Methodology“.
Right, just because they saw an association doesn't mean there is one. There might be one, but once more, that's the next step.
> Why do you think did Pfizer fight in court against publishing these documents?
Just bc something is innocuous doesn't mean it isn't bad PR. Clearly reality is optional here.
> And why have they still blacked out the total number of vaccines shipped? (p.6, 3.1.1)
Information that is relevant to revenue tends to intentionally be limited to communications like shareholder/earnings reports. Go read their next earnings report and it will be there.
Like this on for last year: https://investors.pfizer.com/Investors/Financials/Quarterly-...
That would be the NEXT step in analysis, yes. Feel welcome to write and publish such an analysis. This document is not pretending to be that analysis.
> In my understanding these are reports submitted voluntarily by regular people after market release, who saw a connection to the medication. See section 2 point 1, „Methodology“.
Right, just because they saw an association doesn't mean there is one. There might be one, but once more, that's the next step.
> Why do you think did Pfizer fight in court against publishing these documents?
Just bc something is innocuous doesn't mean it isn't bad PR. Clearly reality is optional here.
> And why have they still blacked out the total number of vaccines shipped? (p.6, 3.1.1)
Information that is relevant to revenue tends to intentionally be limited to communications like shareholder/earnings reports. Go read their next earnings report and it will be there.
Like this on for last year: https://investors.pfizer.com/Investors/Financials/Quarterly-...
Good people have died. And you are thinking about bad PR and shareholder feelings.
No, you asked why Phiser did things. I explained why. I haven't expressed any of my own opinions here other than the fact I think this document doesn't provide evidence of your claims/concerns. You might be right, but this document isn't what you want it to be.