From one page before the table (which itself is on page 7):
> 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.
If I gave 42,086 people a cup of water as my experiment, some non-zero number of people will die in the ensuing 90 days. Without analysis, your comment only serves to inflame.
EDIT: I think the 42,086 number I used was misleading because that appears to be the total number of reports and not the number of people that actually received the vaccine in that time period. Which means the rates are lower as the denominator is way larger than 42,086.
It should be worth remembering that we don't need trials anymore to predict what the results of vaccinating millions of people should be. We have already done that. Indeed, by looking at the results of actual vaccination, we can find things that have happened that won't be found in trials, because 1-in-a-million events aren't going to be found in trials. (Risk of myocarditis, for example, is something that's been found with actual vaccination.)
... so if you're claiming a risk is clearly visible in the trials, you should consider if the actual experience in mass vaccination actually bears that risk out. And if it doesn't, well, there's a good chance you simply misinterpreted the trial data.
It's extremely hard to extract meaningful insight from population data, because it's massively confounded.
Recently some locations locations have reported omnicron case _rates_ being higher in the vaccinated population than unvaccinated. Your logic would have us conclude that the vaccination increases the risk of becoming a covid case with this strain.
... in reality, the vaccinated population is likely more at risk and the vaccine protection isn't enough to offset the difference. But it's extremely hard to tell, which is why RCTs are so important.
Those one in a million events also don't get found outside of trials: They go unreported because outside of trials surveillance is very low, or if noticed they'll get attributed to something other than vaccination because without a control group you can't establish a baseline rate narrowly enough to attribute it to the treatment with any confidence.
Yes, and it's worth noting that the FDA, CDC, NIH, as well as their international counterparts, ALL missed the quite significant myocarditis side effects, especially in younger, fitter, men. It wasn't until the DoD had crippled thousands of its own warfighters (possibly for life) that that particular nasty side effect came to light.
It's looking increasingly likely that there are a great many other side effects that may only become obvious on a long term basis - by definition we still can have NO IDEA what the long term risks of these never-before-tried "vaccines" may be.
Bill Joy was absolutely right - biotech and genetic engineering is BY FAR the most dangerous technology on the planet, and we're seeing that play out to our horror right now - there is no way to stuff this gene-ie back in the bottle!
The vaccines caused myocarditis at roughly the rate of ~1 in 100,000 in young males. The DoD isn't large enough to have thousands of people with myocarditis at that occurrence rate, even assuming every single case results in "crippled ... (possibly for life)" (which it doesn't).
> Please explain what part of that comment is false?
This one:
> This document shows that 1223 deaths are linked to the Pfizer vaccine in the first 90 days.
“Occurred after” ≠ “linked to”, and the document does not show the latter.
EDIT: in fact, it provides detail (for at least those causes I reviewed, didn't do the whole thing) on reasons why the specific “occurred after” events should not be considered “linked to”.
As someone who works in medical publishing, you have no idea how infuriating posts like the one you were responding to make me.
This is HN, a group I would expect to have above average understanding of statistics and statistical analysis and yet the idea of causal relationships and that old adage of "correlation is not causation" STILL seems to slip past far too often.
To the larger world: There's a reason every single drug commercial/ad you've ever engaged with has a list of "possible side effect" and not "known things that will/did happen". The "possible" doesn't even always mean "this is a side effect we conclusively know this drug causes, and could possibly happen to you" but sometimes just "we couldn't prove this drug didn't cause someone to shit blood since we had one guy who did one time during our months of trials".
To be fair I never said causation nor meant to imply any. Perhaps correlation would have been a better word than linked.
My original point meaning being FDA probably does not want these records released because it could shine a unflattering light on how our pharmaceutical industry operates.
Just like states continually acknowledge widespread statistical errors after getting called out where they attribute deaths and hospitalizations to COVID and then someone points out that person was shot in the head or had a car accident or the kid went to ER with a broken bone?
This is called "whataboutery". It's also disingenuous.
In general, there's a fast statistic about COVID deaths, which is something like "deaths within N days of a positive PCR". This will catch some people who died for another reason, though if you think that's a serious problem, you'd need to argue that so many people could be expected to die for some other reason within N days that this would significantly bias the stat.
There's a slow stat, where COVID is a contributing or underlying cause on a death certificate. In the UK, these are in rough agreement. Notably, at the start of the pandemic, when testing wasn't available, the fast stat was an underestimate. https://www.nuffieldtrust.org.uk/news-item/measuring-mortali... has some links to the ONS and places like that.
As someone who understands basic logic and ethics, you have no idea how infuriating your defending the indefensible makes me!
We're talking about a completely new type of "vaccine" that works in completely new and different ways than ANY previously, AND which has never been used in humans before (after all previous animal trials failed, AND is intended to be given under high urgency (even duress), to a large fraction of the population of the planet.
DAMN STRAIGHT that under those unprecedented high-risk conditions the default assumption MUST BE that correlation IS causation - UNTIL PROVEN OTHERWISE.
Anything else is gross and callous negligence and lack of consideration for your fellow man, not to mention the active shredding of medical ethics, including the Hippocratic oath and the Nuremberg code.
This is all the more true now that, a year on, data is clearly showing that the danger of the virus itself was grossly exaggerated, and that we are now facing vaccine injuries and deaths that are at least of the same order of magnitude as the virus itself, and may yet prove to be considerably higher.
>>DAMN STRAIGHT that under those unprecedented high-risk conditions the default assumption MUST BE that correlation IS causation - UNTIL PROVEN OTHERWISE.
I'm glad you're not in charge of Science, since this is literally the opposite of science. No matter how many caps you use. The default assumption is there is no default assumption, even if there's a gun to your head.
I'm not defending "the indefensible" I'm explaining common terms that are seemingly misunderstood by large groups of people.
We vaccinated millions of people with billions of doses with these vaccines. I have yet to see or hear of anyone who died of the vaccine and nearly everyone I know was vaccinated with Pfizer at some point.
Safe to say you are purposely spreading misinformation, for example by misrepresenting real data to gullible people and I wonder what your agenda is.
I didn't imply that the document is false. It's your interpretation of it that is false. You imply that the deaths are caused by the vaccine, which is not what this document is showing in any way shape or form. So you lied to everyone reading this HN thread.
