Comments by "D. von N." (@D.von.N) on "The Pfizer documents" video.

  1. Oh my. I was soooo looking forward watching this and expecting you would put things into the right perspective after I have seen people using the Pfizer report as a conspiracy. How wrong I was! Once again. Watching about 15 minutes and I am not happy with the lack of honesty in this video. You correctly said: AE ASSOCIATED with vaccines, not caused by vaccines. General folks don't know the difference. You should have explained it at the beginning because I know you know the difference. Why suddenly leaving it out??? And that is all. Even if a number of effects were clinically/medically proven, it means just that: clinically/medically proven vs self reported. Still not confirmed they happened as a direct result of the vaccine or they followed the vaccination and could have been coincidental. They explain it in the report you read from. Why didn't you say it at the beginning but present it as some conspiration to deprive public of relevant data? And this all while the covid was still rampant and many of those side effects were more likely from the infection itself than from the vaccine. And even if we don't know the numbers of overall vaccinated people for this number of AE the document also explains they cannot estimate the level of underreporting of AEs, so even these figures aren't a true reflection of AE post vaccinations. This report is just a parallel to the Yellow card scheme where people report anything they associate with the vaccine they received - with a specific focus to the Pfizer. I have seen enough antivaxxers presenting the numbers from Yellow card as true side effects from the vaccines. You are adding to them with this video. You know too well that no medical intervention is without a risk and that there is no medication without side effects. The rate of side effects (proved ones, not associated) to the rate of administration is the key. There is a line where we consider something safe, with a low rate of side effects. Dozens thousands volunteers took part in safety trials. If there was some significant threat from the vaccine (a proved causal effect, not these associations) they wouldn't roll it out. Sometimes not disclosing irrelevant data for mainstream folks, who don't know what to do with the data (it is apparent here!) and freak out needlessly, is justified. You try to appear as bringing a balanced view, but from these first 15 minutes and the tone how you doubt the context (explained in the report but you leaving it out) only confuses people who don't know better, seeing you as a god, feeding them this biased view and confirming their unjustified fear from vaccines. How many of your followers will actually go to read the report and know how to interpret what is in front of them? You have some responsibility here, Doctor! And at the end, the long list of conditions... one of them was an Amniotic cavity infection... just another condition recorded after the vaccination but it is unlikely it was caused by the Pfizer vaccine, right? Ammonia abnormal; Ammonia increased... seriously? One in 5 (maybe more now) in the western world has excess fat in their liver, due to a lifestyle. Long list of conditions of special interest but again - not necessarily caused by the vaccine itself. But waaau, you are amazed by an impressively long list of conditions which were not necessarily caused by the vaccine itself. Did you actually look into them and see what they may mean in the real world? Apparently not, that would not give an ever growing list of confused followers. From the same document (p5): "Pfizer’s safety database contains cases of AEs reported spontaneously to Pfizer, cases reported by the health authorities, cases published in the medical literature, cases from Pfizer-sponsored marketing programs, non-interventional studies, and cases of serious AEs reported from clinical studies regardless of causality assessment."
    2