A serious adverse event doesn't have to be life threatening.[1] The difference between groups wasn't statistically significant. And there was no pattern either.
"Serious adverse events are defined as: • Death; • A life-threatening adverse event; • Inpatient hospitalization or prolongation of existing hospitalization; • A persistent or significant incapacity or substantial disruption of the ability to conduct normal life functions; • A congenital anomaly/birth defect; • An important medical event that based on appropriate medical judgement may jeopardize the individual and may require medical or surgical intervention to prevent one of the outcomes listed above."
So 4 out of the 6 criteria are, in fact, life-threatening, one is "your life is permanently altered, sorry", and the final one is irrelevant.
(and no, despite your link to the other thread, "persistent or significant incapacity" does not include "a sick day")
> And there was no pattern either.
They didn't release the raw data, so there's no way for you to know that.
It does, actually. From the UI Medcom link: "symptoms that preclude patient from attending work, school or perform their typical daily activities"
Serious adverse events have to be reported to VAERS. I think the FDA would notice if Pfizer lied about there being no pattern.
"A persistent or significant incapacity or substantial disruption of the ability to conduct normal life functions; e.g. symptoms that preclude patient from attending work, school or perform their typical daily activities"