|
|
|
|
|
|
by JesseMReeves
1567 days ago
|
|
|
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) |
|
|
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-...