False.
Fact check: Clarifying claims around Pfizer vaccine deaths and side effects https://www.reuters.com/article/uk-factcheck-pfizer-health-c...
Fact check: Clarifying claims around Pfizer vaccine deaths and side effects https://www.reuters.com/article/uk-factcheck-pfizer-health-c...
*This document was produced by Pfizer and submitted to the FDA.
*This document was released by the FDA due to FOIA
*This document shows that 1223 deaths are linked to the Pfizer vaccine in the first 90 days.
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”.
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".
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.
You straight up said deaths linked to the vaccine
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.
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.
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.
Safe to say you are purposely spreading misinformation, for example by misrepresenting real data to gullible people and I wonder what your agenda is.