“As for the volume of reports, in the 2 ½ months following EUA, Pfizer received a total of 42,086 reports containing 158,893 “events.” Most of these reports were from the U.S. and disproportionately involved women (29,914 vs. 9,182 provided by men) and those between 31 and 50 years old (13,886vs 21,325 for all other age groups combined, with another 6,876 whose ages were unknown). Also, 25,957 of the events were classified as ‘Nervoussystem disorders’”。 Pfizer explains, on page 6, that “Due to the large numbers of spontaneous adverse event reports received for the product, [Pfizer] has prioritised the processing of serious cases…” and that Pfizer “has also taken a [sic] multiple actions to help alleviate the large increase of adverse event reports” including “increasing the number of data entry and case processing colleagues” and “has onboarded approximately [REDACTED] additional fulltime employees (FTEs).” Query why it is proprietary to share how many people Pfizer had to hire to track all of the adverse events being reported shortly after launching its product. But no cause for alarm since Pfizer explains to the FDA: “The findings of these signal detection analyses are consistent with the known safety profile of the vaccine.” So if they knew these issues were going to arise, then why didn’t they appear to have enough staff to process this expected volume of reports? The grand conclusion by Pfizer to the FDA: “The data do not reveal any novel safety concerns or risks requiring label changes and support a favorable benefit risk profile of to the BNT162b2 vaccine.” 既然都是挺正常的expected 的副作用为啥不准受害人在社交媒体上讨论呢？为啥媒体也不报道？ https://aaronsiri.substack.com/p/fda-produces-the-first-91-pages-of 文件下载链接 https://phmpt.org/pfizers-documents/
Pfizer explains, on page 6, that “Due to the large numbers of spontaneous adverse event reports received for the product, [Pfizer] has prioritised the processing of serious cases…” and that Pfizer “has also taken a [sic] multiple actions to help alleviate the large increase of adverse event reports” including “increasing the number of data entry and case processing colleagues” and “has onboarded approximately [REDACTED] additional fulltime employees (FTEs).” Query why it is proprietary to share how many people Pfizer had to hire to track all of the adverse events being reported shortly after launching its product.
But no cause for alarm since Pfizer explains to the FDA: “The findings of these signal detection analyses are consistent with the known safety profile of the vaccine.” So if they knew these issues were going to arise, then why didn’t they appear to have enough staff to process this expected volume of reports? The grand conclusion by Pfizer to the FDA: “The data do not reveal any novel safety concerns or risks requiring label changes and support a favorable benefit risk profile of to the BNT162b2 vaccine.”
既然都是挺正常的expected 的副作用为啥不准受害人在社交媒体上讨论呢？为啥媒体也不报道？
https://aaronsiri.substack.com/p/fda-produces-the-first-91-pages-of
文件下载链接 https://phmpt.org/pfizers-documents/
那些人根本不会来看这些资料，只要白宫CDC和FDA说有效又安全他们就会继续打下去，然后骂我们这种人脑子有病。
疫苗相关帖子为啥被移动到了政治版？
我本来就发在政治版的。。。
看闲话的那几个100%的帖子笑死了。那些帖子里一堆骂那些持怀疑态度的有病的。不用等媒体煽风点火，屁民自己就颠颠地吹捧。不给这些屁民每个月来一针真对不起他们的闪闪红心。
100%有效，0严重副作用，太完美了，这算史上最佳疫苗了吧？我只想问辉瑞为何健康的受新冠影响很小的孩子们需要打这个无法阻断病毒传播的疫苗？如果是开发给高危孩子用的那参与他们实验的孩子都是高危儿童吗？
下面是Pfizer的官方数据来源： https://www.pfizer.com/news/press-release/press-release-detail/follow-data-phase-3-trial-pfizer-biontech-covid-19-vaccine