> In this case, there should be a category like „car accident“ there. I don’t see it.
Instead there are strokes, myocarditis, thrombosis, facial paralysis, etc.; most of them in age group 30-50 that has comparatively small covid risk ( U Oxford numbers: qcovid.org ).
That would be the NEXT step in analysis, yes. Feel welcome to write and publish such an analysis. This document is not pretending to be that analysis.
> In my understanding these are reports submitted voluntarily by regular people after market release, who saw a connection to the medication. See section 2 point 1, „Methodology“.
Right, just because they saw an association doesn't mean there is one. There might be one, but once more, that's the next step.
> Why do you think did Pfizer fight in court against publishing these documents?
Just bc something is innocuous doesn't mean it isn't bad PR. Clearly reality is optional here.
> And why have they still blacked out the total number of vaccines shipped? (p.6, 3.1.1)
Information that is relevant to revenue tends to intentionally be limited to communications like shareholder/earnings reports. Go read their next earnings report and it will be there.
Like this on for last year: https://investors.pfizer.com/Investors/Financials/Quarterly-...
