Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. Child-safe in minutes.

Meet the Other Phone.
Child-safe in minutes.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
Covid

Mumsnet doesn't verify the qualifications of users. If you have medical concerns, please consult a healthcare professional.

Original poster

Pfizer has released data on Adverse effects

64 replies

statementstate · 02/03/2022 14:33

What do we think about them keep it unavailable for so long? Has anyone else had a read and seen things unexpected? They were sent to me this morning in a file, so I can't attach, but if anyone has a link to share, that would be helpful.

OP posts:
leafyygreens · 02/03/2022 17:28

@statementstate

It was sent to me this morning by a colleague *@leafyygreens asking me if I could make sense of it. While most of it was quite clear, I was uncertain about the side effects of special interest from page 30 onward as it was a few pages long. *@Coughee** this list isn't a list I saw with the leaflet. I think it makes sense to ask people who may know better how to interpret such data, which is why I have asked online.

The delay has been questioned because the initial timeline for release was set for decades from now apparently. The data covers the 3 months after vaccination right?

While most of it was quite clear, I was uncertain about the side effects of special interest from page 30 onward as it was a few pages long. @Coughee this list isn't a list I saw with the leaflet

@statementstate

So only side effects that we know are caused by vaccination would go in the leaflet.

If you follow 100,000+ people over 3 months, some will be in car crashes, get pregnant, miscarry, commit suicide, develop cancer etc. Only by comparing the rates of these events to what happens normally in the population can you get an idea as to whether they are likely being caused by vaccination.

There are AE listed such choking, poisoning, gunshot wounds
after vaccination included in the report. Would it make sense for these to be listed as side effects?

A good example is from one of the vaccine clinical trials of 5-11 years - there's an AE included of a child swallowing a coin. Happened after vaccination, definitely wasn't caused by vaccination.

Roselilly36 · 02/03/2022 17:33

Data should be in the public domain. Why should it be hidden, surely that isn’t in public interest. VAERS or Yellow Card reported side effects, what difference does it make?

EmmaH2022 · 02/03/2022 17:35

leafy sorry, I mean my MHRA report.

Aishah231 · 02/03/2022 17:47

Pfizer tried to avoid publishing the data for 75 years that's what OP is getting at. Why the refusal to acknowledge this - it's not being denied by Pfizer. It's also fair enough to assume there may be some stuff in the data they'd rather people didn't know.

SpinningTheSeedsOfLove · 02/03/2022 17:54

[quote statementstate]@SamphiretheStickerist I would advise you to step back and adjust your tone, because it is not appreciated and unwarranted. Unless you can be helpful please seek another thread to aim your aggression at as I refuse to engage in the interaction you seek.

Not everything is a conspiracy and attitudes like yours scare people from wanting to get answers from people who have expertise in the subject of vaccines.[/quote]
It's Matt Hancock!

leafyygreens · 02/03/2022 17:58

@Roselilly36

Data should be in the public domain. Why should it be hidden, surely that isn’t in public interest. VAERS or Yellow Card reported side effects, what difference does it make?
VAERS and Yellow card data is in the public domain.

The Pfizer specific post-marketing data has just been released. Nothing is being hidden.

leafyygreens · 02/03/2022 18:00

@EmmaH2022

leafy sorry, I mean my MHRA report.
Right, but what did you mean by:

&Re VAERS, it was an eye opener to see what I put in my report vs their interpretation of my report!*

The yellow card vigilance system is a log of any adverse event reported after vaccination. They don't attempt to interpret individual accounts, it's just used to identify signals of side effects that appear to happening at a higher rate than in the general population.

Not sure why you would think they had interpreted anything differently?

Roselilly36 · 02/03/2022 18:14

@leafyygreens I agree, the information is available, should you know where to look, so why would Pfizer go to court to ask for the data to be delayed? That being said, I am sure other Covid vaccines side effects wouldn’t be that different to Pfizer’s release.

leafyygreens · 02/03/2022 18:23

[quote Roselilly36]@leafyygreens I agree, the information is available, should you know where to look, so why would Pfizer go to court to ask for the data to be delayed? That being said, I am sure other Covid vaccines side effects wouldn’t be that different to Pfizer’s release.[/quote]
I find these claims very confusing. What specific data did Pfizer ask to ask to be delayed in it's release? It wasn't this document?

There's 100,000+ pages of information that I believe the FDA quoted would take 75 years to release, based on an estimate of how long it would take to process each page. This is due to the amount of data that needs to be redacted - things like individual level data which could be used to identify people, amongst other things. I agree the estimate is ridiculous, but having worked in science policy for the government, I can understand how someone could've come up with it.

The document that the current thread is about, was not delayed I don't believe, and is reassuring in terms of what it finds

TyrannosaurusRegina · 02/03/2022 20:30

Can someone explain this to me because I'm not sure I'm understanding correctly. Out of 270 pregnant women who had the vaccine, 23 had miscarriages/spontaneous abortions? That can't be right surely?

Pfizer has released data on Adverse effects
TyrannosaurusRegina · 02/03/2022 20:36

Although that statistic above would equate to about 9%. The average percentage for miscarriages is about 25% in the general population isn't it? So that isn't a negative statistic?

Original poster
statementstate · 02/03/2022 20:57

@SamphiretheStickerist you claimed I am spreading misinformation for something that is not misinformation at all. Just because you had not heard of the 75 year data release, you assumed it was misinformation. It feels like you wanted to derail the thread.

@Blubells I have had an account on MN for over 7 years, and I was very active then. I deleted all social media a year ago, and this is the first week I have been online in forums. Not sure it was worth coming back.

I got some really helpful answers from one responder on here which is basically what I was looking for after not being able to find anything myself from a quick search.

OP posts:
PurplePansy05 · 02/03/2022 21:06

@TyrannosaurusRegina No, it isn't a negative statistic. In fact it's probably a lower percentage than compared against control group who didn't have the vaccine in pregnancy. And the actual number of miscarriages is higher in reality than the 25% you've referred to, it's an old (guess)timate. More recent estimates are between 30 and 50% of all pregnancies, of course in many cases it might be undiagnosed and/or unreported.

PurplePansy05 · 02/03/2022 21:15

Also isn't it the case these are not side effects of the Pfizer vaccine but a variety of issues that Pfizer was looking into in clinical trials to check if the vaccine may have any impact? So correlation, but not causation?

OnceuponaRainbow18 · 02/03/2022 21:16

I turned green after my first jab and now I’m purple after my second and booster!

HoliHormonalTigerlilly · 02/03/2022 21:20

@statementstate

It was sent to me this morning by a colleague *@leafyygreens asking me if I could make sense of it. While most of it was quite clear, I was uncertain about the side effects of special interest from page 30 onward as it was a few pages long. @Coughee* this list isn't a list I saw with the leaflet. I think it makes sense to ask people who may know better how to interpret such data, which is why I have asked online.

The delay has been questioned because the initial timeline for release was set for decades from now apparently. The data covers the 3 months after vaccination right?

How on earth can it have been delayed if the original data was set to be released decades from now?!
TyrannosaurusRegina · 02/03/2022 21:22

@PurplePansy05 thank you, that's what I thought, was just a little unsure as it's being peddled as a negative outcome/statistic. By antivaxxers 🙄

HoliHormonalTigerlilly · 02/03/2022 21:24

@PurplePansy05

Also isn't it the case these are not side effects of the Pfizer vaccine but a variety of issues that Pfizer was looking into in clinical trials to check if the vaccine may have any impact? So correlation, but not causation?
Yup.
PurplePansy05 · 02/03/2022 21:31

@TyrannosaurusRegina No worries. The only statistics you should be looking at if you are concerned about this particular topic are those comparing the number of miscarriages, premature births, stillbirths and maternal deaths/morbidity amongst women who have been vaccinated and those who remained unvaccinated in pregnancy and caught covid. This is because covid in pregnancy is known to increase the risk of such negative outcomes (possibly not so much miscarriages, although I've not seen the latest data, but the other outcomes, yes). OTOH, safety of covid vaccines in pregnancy has been trialled and confirmed. Therefore, the obvious risk to be concerned about is from covid itself.

leafyygreens · 02/03/2022 21:44

@TyrannosaurusRegina

Can someone explain this to me because I'm not sure I'm understanding correctly. Out of 270 pregnant women who had the vaccine, 23 had miscarriages/spontaneous abortions? That can't be right surely?
This is a really good example.

1 in 3 pregnancies end in miscarriage - you'd expect a similar proportion to be observed in a vaccinated group. If no one miscarried after vaccination it would suggest the vaccine was somehow protecting against miscarriage.

This is what everyone means when they repeatedly explain you have to compare the rate of adverse events in pharmcovigilance data to the rate in a comparable population. Raw numbers are meaningless.

FromEden · 02/03/2022 21:49

The FDA did want 70 years to fully release the data, at a very slow pace. But a judge denied this

link

MrsFezziwig · 03/03/2022 01:48

Well this thread is giving me a bit of a break from the Ukraine threads. In fact, it’s making me feel almost nostalgic…

SamphiretheStickerist · 03/03/2022 08:22

@statementstate it's not so much I hadn't heard of it as didn't recognise it from your OP. As the Reuters piece explains, it was the FDA who are not able to publish everything instantly due to lack of manpower. Nothing being hidden. The focus here should be on why the FDA is so short staffed, not some daft story about data being withheld.

And it's nothing at all to do with Pfizer, as per your thread title.

Maybe now you can see why I thought/think this is a misinformed thread?

peppathe3rd · 05/10/2022 14:41

@SamphiretheStickerist
Here is an interesting link between Reuters and Pfizer...

https://www.pfizer.com/people/leadership/boardoffdirectors/jamessmith

saltedcaramel1 · 05/10/2022 14:44

@peppathe3rd

Why are you repeatedly spamming old vaccine threads with an irrelevant web link?

Ignore Reuters if you don't trust them - there are many other independent sources you can go to for credible information.

Many many scientists have publicly commented on Pfizer's released data, and why it is reassuring rather than worrying.