What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

Pfizer to release COVID-19 vaccine documentation to public... TODAY (originally 2076) (1 Viewer)

moleculo said:
Insein said:
Data starting to trickle out now.  

9 pages of known side effects. 

https://twitter.com/TheMFingCOO/status/1498714453214474246?t=-Rg-XETPgJHy6O6BYOCCUQ&s=19
I'm going to assume that this isn't what the twitterer thinks it is.


Insein said:
I assume he thinks it's "List of Adverse Events of Special Interest." Since that's the title of the appendix. Is there a code to decipher here we're missing?


from the twitter stream, linked above:

https://twitter.com/ENirenberg/status/1498852915758485509?s=20&t=Mco2vEpfXMVRtQFAvs2pdQ
 

We need to get some definitions out of the way or we won't get anywhere (this is dry- sorry). I'll limit this to important ones from the abbreviations.

Adverse events (AEs) do not mean what you (probably) think they do. AEs ≠ side effects. 
https://fda.gov/media/93884/download

AEs are monitored regardless of whether you get the active agent or the placebo in a trial, and that information may be reported in e.g. package inserts. E.g. Gardasil has a report on its package insert of gunshot wounds as an AE. Need I explain that it doesn't cause them?

In many clinical trial designs, there is blinding, so you don't know in advance whether or not you get placebo or active agent so you monitor everyone. Additionally, the placebo group helps you to see what is normal for similar people at similar times in similar places.

Formally, what most people think of as a side effect is more properly described as an adverse drug reaction (ADR), and for formal purposes the term "side effect" is best avoided altogether: https://ema.europa.eu/en/documents/scientific-guideline/international-conference-harmonisation-technical-requirements-registration-pharmaceuticals-human-use_en-15.pdf… However, it can be very hard to tease apart what is AE vs. ADR.

AEs can be classified as serious or non-serious. These also have very specific definitions. There is also the term "life-threatening adverse event" which has a very specific meaning.

"AE of special interest" is a term that appears here (commonly abbreviated AESI). These are literally just adverse events that it's just especially important to track or monitor. That could be because they're serious, because of something about how the drug works...

or how related drugs work, or because of how significant it is as a problem. If an AESI occurs, the sponsor (the pharmaceutical company paying for the trial) generally needs to be alerted of it rapidly. https://cioms.ch/wp-content/uploads/2017/01/Mgment_Safety_Info.pdf

AESIs get specified in protocols, generally before the trial has even begun, although protocols can be amended to include new AESIs as data emerges. In other words, that big scary list in Appendix 1 that people are claiming are side effects of the Pfizer vaccine? Blatant lie.

That list alone tells us nothing about whether or not any of those things happened to anyone in the dataset. They are just things Pfizer wrote in the protocol to be watched for as AESIs. Now, onto the data:

 
Max Power said:
The denominator is unknown for this group. It's more accurate to say 2% of the reported AE cases in the group died. 
James 💙 Neill - 😷 🇪🇺🇮🇪🇬🇧🔶@jneillReplying to @ENirenberg

Also a hot (incorrect) take is 1,223 fatal from 42,086 cases...

But denominator should be number of doses, not number of reports. Doses were redacted from the document but are estimated at 119 million.

And of course most fatalities are only temporally connected, not causatively
for those keeping score at home, 1223 out of 119M is 0.001%.

 
I'd love to see the breakdown of From vs With covid deaths.  As far as I know the CDC has yet to separate the two.  I think distinguishing between the two brings the death rate down quite a bit. 

I totally understand the 1223 didn't all necessarily die from the vaccine alone.  But we do know that 1223 people who took a Pfizer product in a three month period died.  Should that not give someone pause?  Is this normal? It would be great to know what the total number of doses was, but for some dang reason Pfizer felt like that shouldn't be public information.  It only adds more speculation and isn't very transparent.

I have a tough time coming up with a reason they would censor that number.  Any ideas? 
I wonder how many people died in a three month period who drank water?  Should that not give someone pause?

And clearly Pfizer is censoring the number because the vaccine is killing 1 in 20 people it was given to.  That's a lot.

 
You’re doing exactly what AAA described. Information gets put out, some random person on the internet interprets it in a completely biased way. You then take it as being the absolute truth and repeat it as such.

What happens next? Someone who is an expert in the field and knows how to interpret the information explains that it’s nothing like what is being stated by the random person on the internet. You either back off the claim or continue that it’s a conspiracy to hide the truth.

My take is that I don’t know how to interpret the data and I’m not going to pretend that I can. I can say that if this is the bombshell that you believe it to be, it didn’t play out that way when given to the general public. No one is hiding millions of vaccine deaths. There are no vaccine injury wards at hospitals.
I disagree that it is interpreted in a bais way.  He was literally stating the numbers from a Pfizer document.  The document is then provided for everyone to read.  Everyone can put their own values on what numbers mean more or less to them, but the numbers are the numbers.  

The reporting system is set up to be an indicator if things are wrong or need to be looked at.  The 1223 claimed fatal cases just don't appear to cross the no-go line for Pfizer.  

 
the effort that goes into denigrating vaccines is staggering...and sad.
There’s valid discussions to be had about mandates, efficacy of vaccines, etc. - but when your starting point is to always give misleading information to bolster your POV then there’s no point in engaging.  

 
There’s valid discussions to be had about mandates, efficacy of vaccines, etc. - but when your starting point is to always give misleading information to bolster your POV then there’s no point in engaging.  
As opposed to starting with "The government told me to do it....."

 
James 💙 Neill - 😷 🇪🇺🇮🇪🇬🇧🔶@jneillReplying to @ENirenberg

for those keeping score at home, 1223 out of 119M is 0.001%.
Where did that estimate come from?  Just curious.   I've acknowledged from the start we didn't know the denominator, so we don't know the true number. 

From the linked expert his claim about AE is off as this was from real world safety data and not a trial where placebos were involved. 

And if you're really crunching the numbers at home, at the time this safety report was published, 9,000 cases still had unknown outcomes and 11,000 were not fully recoved.  

 
There’s valid discussions to be had about mandates, efficacy of vaccines, etc. - but when your starting point is to always give misleading information to bolster your POV then there’s no point in engaging.  
Posting Pfizer documents is now misleading information. Crazy times. 

 
Where did that estimate come from?  Just curious.   I've acknowledged from the start we didn't know the denominator, so we don't know the true number. 

From the linked expert his claim about AE is off as this was from real world safety data and not a trial where placebos were involved. 

And if you're really crunching the numbers at home, at the time this safety report was published, 9,000 cases still had unknown outcomes and 11,000 were not fully recoved.  
Good question.  Looks like produced doses so not a very good number.

https://twitter.com/jneill/status/1499007337826332678?t=ENGTt9dwyA1SLrZ3stV1-A&s=19

 
Unfortunately the official document omits the approximate number of doses delivered between 12/1/20 and 2/28/21. It has an indicator to an index "(b)(4)" but I can't seem to find it in the attached document. 

There are also another 100+ documents with anywhere from 20 to 200 pages in each that were dumped yesterday on Pfizer's site. Not all of them are Covid Vaccine related. So it takes awhile to sift through. 

https://phmpt.org/pfizers-documents/

 
Max Power said:
How would I know that? How would anyone? It's an unknown. 
Just takes some math.

  • Unvaccinated people are 53x as likely to die from COVID as the unvaccinated + boosted people and 4.2x as likely to die from COVID if vaxxed with no booster.
  • And 15% no vax * 53 + 41% vaxxed not boosted * 4.2 + 44% boosted * 1 gives you a total of 10.1 (where 1.0 is what we'd expect to see if everyone were vaccinated and boosted).  
  • So we're seeing roughly 10x as many deaths as we'd see if everyone were vaxxed and boosted.
  • In other words, if everyone had been vaxxed ~12,600 of the ~14,000 people who died last week would be alive.  In one week.  
Add that up for very many weeks and the #s get big fast.  A hell of a lot bigger than 1,223 (which isn't even a real number to begin with).

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Just takes some math.

  • If unvaccinated people are 53x as likely to die from COVID as the unvaccinated + boosted people (they are), and 13x as likely to die from COVID if vaxxed with no booster...
  • 15% unvaxxed * 53 + 41% vaxxed not boosted * 13 + 44% boosted * 1 gives you a total of 13.72 (where 1.0 is what we'd expect to see if everyone were vaccinated).  
  • So we're seeing roughly 14x as many deaths as we'd see if everyone were vaxxed and boosted.
  • In other words, if everyone had been vaxxed ~13,000 of the ~14,000 people who died last week would be alive.  In one week.  
  • And that's before you even get to the fact that the unvaxxed are, on average, a lot healthier than the vaxxed.  These are probably conservative #s.
Add that up for very many weeks and the #s get big fast.  A hell of a lot bigger than 1,223 (which isn't even a real number to begin with).
Can I ask where you're getting those numbers from? 

 
Can I ask where you're getting those numbers from? 
Yep!

ETA:  the relevant part is below.  I missed that these were already age adjusted though.  So they probably aren't super conservative.

And I made another mistake too.  I'll fix that in the original post. 

During October–November (the most recent dates in the study), age-standardized IRRs for deaths among unvaccinated persons were 53.2 compared with those in fully vaccinated persons with a booster dose and 12.7 compared with persons without a booster dose;

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Yep!

ETA:  the relevant part is below.  I missed that these were already age adjusted though.  So they probably aren't super conservative.

And I made another mistake too.  I'll fix that in the original post. 
Thank you for the link.

The CDC picked a small window (October–November) to compare the unvaccinated to the Fully vax'd with booster.  Anyone boosted at the end of 2020 was riding high on efficacy. It also ended this reporting period prior to our big wave of Omicron although it does admit that the effectiveness dropped during Omicron. I'll be interested to see the next round of data. 

For your last comment, I don't think it's accurate to use those rates pre-booster or post Omicron because those rates are/will be different.  

 
https://www.clarkcountytoday.com/news/study-pfizer-covid-shot-converts-into-dna-in-human-cells/

There's surely going to be severe long-term issues (including death) for many who've got the jab, much less all the boosters. An in-vitro study out of Sweden shows the Pfizer vaccine converts to DNA & can be found in liver cells within 6 hours.

The vast majority of people (those not compromised in any way) would've been better off standing pat & not take chances with a hastily produced mRNA vaccine. On a side note, I cringe at the thought of healthy small children getting the vaccine. 

It just took a little bit of critical thinking to come to the conclusion that you should be very leery of this vaccine. Unfortunately, it became hyper-political.

Drbeen Medical Lectures (YouTube) is a good source for the latest findings if you're interested.

 
https://www.clarkcountytoday.com/news/study-pfizer-covid-shot-converts-into-dna-in-human-cells/

There's surely going to be severe long-term issues (including death) for many who've got the jab, much less all the boosters. An in-vitro study out of Sweden shows the Pfizer vaccine converts to DNA & can be found in liver cells within 6 hours.

The vast majority of people (those not compromised in any way) would've been better off standing pat & not take chances with a hastily produced mRNA vaccine. On a side note, I cringe at the thought of healthy small children getting the vaccine. 

It just took a little bit of critical thinking to come to the conclusion that you should be very leery of this vaccine. Unfortunately, it became hyper-political.

Drbeen Medical Lectures (YouTube) is a good source for the latest findings if you're interested.
The primary study referenced in your link is interesting, but hardly a harbinger of "severe long-term issues (including death)" for vaccine recipients. It also is a huuuuge stretch to assume the "vast majority of people" would be better off unvaccinated.

All the mechanisms elaborated in the study apply to SARS-CoV-2 infection, too, so how did you determine the vaccine is a greater risk than covid-19?

Do you think the overwhelming majority of healthcare professionals, who chose to be vaccinated, are incapable of critical thought?

 
The primary study referenced in your link is interesting, but hardly a harbinger of "severe long-term issues (including death)" for vaccine recipients. It also is a huuuuge stretch to assume the "vast majority of people" would be better off unvaccinated.

All the mechanisms elaborated in the study apply to SARS-CoV-2 infection, too, so how did you determine the vaccine is a greater risk than covid-19?

Do you think the overwhelming majority of healthcare professionals, who chose to be vaccinated, are incapable of critical thought?
I can't speak for any particular person & why they would take the jab (if healthy & uncompromised). It could be as simple as it becoming political, as I mentioned, or maybe too much confidence in a hurried vaccine.

This is a helluva lot more than just "interesting" if you understand the implications of these findings (which are massive). This study could very well be just the tip of the iceberg as far as bad news surrounding this vaccine.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
I can't speak for any particular person & why they would take the jab (if healthy & uncompromised). It could be as simple as it becoming political, as I mentioned, or maybe too much confidence in a hurried vaccine.

This is a helluva lot more than just "interesting" if you understand the implications of of these findings (which are massive). These findings could very well be just the tip of the iceberg as far as bad news surrounding this vaccine.
What do you think is massive about this?

 
What do you think is massive about this?
The implications of the study.

I'd suggest you take some time & look into it if you're interested (the YouTube source I listed is a good start). It doesn't necessarily take a medical background to get a basic understanding of the medical implications of the study.

 
The implications of the study.

I'd suggest you take some time & look into it if you're interested (the YouTube source I listed is a good start). It doesn't necessarily take a medical background to get a basic understanding of the medical implications of the study.
Will do. Thanks. 

 
I can't speak for any particular person & why they would take the jab (if healthy & uncompromised). It could be as simple as it becoming political, as I mentioned, or maybe too much confidence in a hurried vaccine.

This is a helluva lot more than just "interesting" if you understand the implications of these findings (which are massive). This study could very well be just the tip of the iceberg as far as bad news surrounding this vaccine.
I was vaccinated to reduce my risk of contracting and transmitting covid. It’s not complicated, careless or political. I promise.

I also read the study referenced in your post (not the inflammatory rhetoric on nonscientific websites making a fuss about it), plus have relevant educational background and training in translational research. I’m pretty sure I understand it. The study has no sinister implications which make the vaccine a greater risk than SARS-CoV-2 infection itself. If there were an iceberg, after a billion+ vaccine recipients, we’d have already seen it. 

But to be clear, what are you worried about, specifically? What could assuage your fears?

 
I was vaccinated to reduce my risk of contracting and transmitting covid. It’s not complicated, careless or political. I promise.

I also read the study referenced in your post (not the inflammatory rhetoric on nonscientific websites making a fuss about it), plus have relevant educational background and training in translational research. I’m pretty sure I understand it. The study has no sinister implications which make the vaccine a greater risk than SARS-CoV-2 infection itself. If there were an iceberg, after a billion+ vaccine recipients, we’d have already seen it. 

But to be clear, what are you worried about, specifically? What could assuage your fears?
Everyone has their own decision to make. Getting the jab purely as a means to keep other people from contracting the virus is certainly a risk to your own health not to mention its efficacy. More power to you if that was the case. Whether or not you actually needed the vaccine to prevent serious illness is another issue (I obviously have no idea what your health risks are).

The study is extremely alarming. I'm not totally sure you understand the significance of the findings. One big concern is genotoxicity (including carcinogenesis).  Anyway, I'm just the messenger. If you honestly believe it's hogwash, I can live with that. 

 
Everyone has their own decision to make. Getting the jab purely as a means to keep other people from contracting the virus is certainly a risk to your own health not to mention its efficacy. More power to you if that was the case. Whether or not you actually needed the vaccine to prevent serious illness is another issue (I obviously have no idea what your health risks are).

The study is extremely alarming. I'm not totally sure you understand the significance of the findings. One big concern is genotoxicity (including carcinogenesis).  Anyway, I'm just the messenger. If you honestly believe it's hogwash, I can live with that. 
Re the first bolded:  it’s certainly not certain that it’s a risk.  You just feel that way, that doesn’t make it certain.   
 

Re the second: you know @Terminalxylemis a doctor right?  

 
Re the first bolded:  it’s certainly not certain that it’s a risk.  You just feel that way, that doesn’t make it certain.   
 

Re the second: you know @Terminalxylemis a doctor right?  
Of course the vaccine is a risk.

Profession is no precursor to anything. Lots & lots of doctors got the jab & continue to believe in the jab for the uncompromised. It doesn't change the study's findings whatsoever. You also don't need 'MD' by your name to understand the importance of the implications.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
BTW, the idea that we've got all the data to determine what kind of damage this vaccine has done is ridiculous. Let's not play games here.

We essentially have no grasp on it yet. The study's findings contradict the CDC (duh). The science is still wet behind the ears as it relates to the long-term issues of this vaccine and all the boosters.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Of course the vaccine is a risk.

Profession is no precursor to anything. Lots & lots of doctors got the jab & continue to believe in the jab for the uncompromised. It doesn't change the study's findings whatsoever. You also don't need 'MD' by your name to understand the importance of the implications.
Walking out your front door is a risk. If you expand “risk” wide enough everything is.  But the level of risk you’re implying there is with the vaccine is just not proven to be true at this point.  In fact the opposite is true at the moment.  
 

And while being an MD is not the end all be all you said….”I'm not totally sure you understand the significance of the findings”, as an MD I’d wager he absolutely does.  

 
This idea that there were 1200+ deaths out of 42K cases is intentionally designed to mislead.

To put it in baseball terms, it's kind of like saying "Ty Cobb batted .400 this year, which is 40%.  We all know that 40% is an F grade."

Both statements are true, but the conclusion is intentionally designed to mislead the reader.

 
BTW, the idea that we've got all the data to determine what kind of damage this vaccine has done is ridiculous. Let's not play games here.

We essentially have no grasp on it yet. The study's findings contradict the CDC (duh). The science is still wet behind the ears as it relates to the long-term issues of this vaccine and all the boosters.
Can I ask what your qualifications are to interpret scientific data?  Or do you think everyone has the ability to interpret scientific data?

 
This idea that there were 1200+ deaths out of 42K cases is intentionally designed to mislead.

To put it in baseball terms, it's kind of like saying "Ty Cobb batted .400 this year, which is 40%.  We all know that 40% is an F grade."

Both statements are true, but the conclusion is intentionally designed to mislead the reader.
All 42K cases drank water as well as I noted earlier.  As someone mentioned early thousands of people die each day from all causes.  The study doesn't try to link the two numbers but the fake news that Max loves to propagate certainly does. 

 
https://www.clarkcountytoday.com/news/study-pfizer-covid-shot-converts-into-dna-in-human-cells/

There's surely going to be severe long-term issues (including death) for many who've got the jab, much less all the boosters. An in-vitro study out of Sweden shows the Pfizer vaccine converts to DNA & can be found in liver cells within 6 hours.

The vast majority of people (those not compromised in any way) would've been better off standing pat & not take chances with a hastily produced mRNA vaccine. On a side note, I cringe at the thought of healthy small children getting the vaccine. 

It just took a little bit of critical thinking to come to the conclusion that you should be very leery of this vaccine. Unfortunately, it became hyper-political.

Drbeen Medical Lectures (YouTube) is a good source for the latest findings if you're interested.
Jeez the conspiracy theorists keep getting more and more right

 
So in your opinion the study cited has said that the MRNA vaccines change DNA in humans?
Not MY opinion

https://www.mdpi.com/1467-3045/44/3/73/htm

In this study we present evidence that COVID-19 mRNA vaccine BNT162b2 is able to enter the human liver cell line Huh7 in vitro. BNT162b2 mRNA is reverse transcribed intracellularly into DNA as fast as 6 h after BNT162b2 exposure. A possible mechanism for reverse transcription is through endogenous reverse transcriptase LINE-1, and the nucleus protein distribution of LINE-1 is elevated by BNT162b2.

 
Not MY opinion

https://www.mdpi.com/1467-3045/44/3/73/htm

In this study we present evidence that COVID-19 mRNA vaccine BNT162b2 is able to enter the human liver cell line Huh7 in vitro. BNT162b2 mRNA is reverse transcribed intracellularly into DNA as fast as 6 h after BNT162b2 exposure. A possible mechanism for reverse transcription is through endogenous reverse transcriptase LINE-1, and the nucleus protein distribution of LINE-1 is elevated by BNT162b2.
This occurred in humans?

 
So you're making the jump from one study involving human cells in a lab to this virus changing dna in actual humans?

Lots and lots and lots of things happen in petri dishes that do not happen in humans.
No, I'm saying the CDC said it wasn't possible. It sounds like it is possible :shrug:

 
Unfortunately the official document omits the approximate number of doses delivered between 12/1/20 and 2/28/21. It has an indicator to an index "(b)(4)" but I can't seem to find it in the attached document. 

There are also another 100+ documents with anywhere from 20 to 200 pages in each that were dumped yesterday on Pfizer's site. Not all of them are Covid Vaccine related. So it takes awhile to sift through. 

https://phmpt.org/pfizers-documents/
I see now. Someone mentioned that (b)(4) is the placeholder for redacted information. Not sure why the number of doses would be redacted but I guess we won't see the exact amount they considered for the study. 

 
The implications of the study.

I'd suggest you take some time & look into it if you're interested (the YouTube source I listed is a good start). It doesn't necessarily take a medical background to get a basic understanding of the medical implications of the study.
Why do you assume the YouTuber’s interpretation of the study is correct, but dismiss the interpretation of people who interpret these studies for a living?

 
Checking in real quick. Gotta LOL at the staunch jabbers. I remember when there were people who claimed the vaccine never hurt anyone, & if somebody mentioned a relative, friend, etc, it was hearsay. Same ol’/same ol’ in the PF hahaha.

The bottom line is the findings in this study has many in the medical community concerned. It’s par for the course that we were told one thing only to find out another. 

I posted the study to inform people. Information is good. I hope everyone makes an informed decision about whether they need the vaccine, & if you’ve already got jabbed, do you need booster after booster. The risk/reward is a very individual thing.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Checking in real quick. Gotta LOL at the staunch jabbers. I remember when there were people who claimed the vaccine never hurt anyone, & if somebody mentioned a relative, friend, etc, it was hearsay. Same ol’/same ol’ in the PF hahaha.

The bottom line is the findings in this study has many in the medical community concerned. It’s par for the course that we were told one thing only to find out another. 

I posted the study to inform people. Information is good. I hope everyone makes an informed decision about whether they need the vaccine, & if you’ve already got jabbed, if you need booster after booster. The risk/reward is a very individual thing.
It’s interesting that the people who have been anti-vaccine from the beginning all seemingly know a bunch of people who have had negative health outcomes related to the vaccine. I know hundreds of people who have been vaccinated and haven’t heard of a single instance of a side effect besides short term immune responses.

What I have seen is 3 family members die from Covid (2 pre-vaccine and 1 post, but he was anti-vax), dozens of people suffering long term side effects from Covid, and a whole family down the street including two high schoolers being taken to the hospital in ambulances and the mom coming within an inch of losing her life to Covid. She is in her 40’s, lost her job because she refused to get vaccinated after consuming all this misinformation, and now she can barely get out of bed because she is still short of breath. Despite all of that she still refuses to get the vaccine because she is “young and healthy” even though she is a bit overweight and a smoker.

I’ve never seen a disease affect the health of so many people that I know, much less in the timeframe we are dealing with, yet somehow the vaccine is the danger with some folks. 

ETA: Yes, I know I'm working with a small sample size, and I'm not dismissing that the vaccine has caused some side effects, the people in my social circles that I'm really close with all have similar experiences.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
It’s interesting that the people who have been anti-vaccine from the beginning all seemingly know a bunch of people who have had negative health outcomes related to the vaccine. I know hundreds of people who have been vaccinated and haven’t heard of a single instance of a side effect besides short term immune responses.

What I have seen is 3 family members die from Covid (2 pre-vaccine and 1 post, but he was anti-vax), dozens of people suffering long term side effects from Covid, and a whole family down the street including two high schoolers being taken to the hospital in ambulances and the mom coming within an inch of losing her life to Covid. She is in her 40’s, lost her job because she refused to get vaccinated after consuming all this misinformation, and now she can barely get out of bed because she is still short of breath. Despite all of that she still refuses to get the vaccine because she is “young and healthy” even though she is a bit overweight and a smoker.

I’ve never seen a disease affect the health of so many people that I know, much less in the timeframe we are dealing with, yet somehow the vaccine is the danger with some folks. 
Astounding isn't it?  I work for a large healthcare system and have heard NOTHING about vaccine caused injuries.  What I have heard a lot of is unvaccinated folks dying in our ICUs and clogging up our medical system.

And I believe just under 100% of our docs are vaccinated.  I guess they're all mindless sheep jabbies?

SMH

 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top