Report 51: Liver Adverse Events – Five Deaths Within 20 Days of Pfizer’s mRNA COVID Injection. 50% of Adverse Events Occurred Within Three Days.
Pfizer used different data collection and reporting methods for the hepatic System Organ Class (SOC) vs. other SOCs - seemingly in order to underestimate liver-related adverse events.
The War Room/DailyClout Pfizer Analysis Post-Marketing Group – Team 1 created the following Liver (i.e., Hepatic) System Organ Class (SOC) Review from data in Pfizer document 5.3.6 Cumulative Analysis of Post-Authorization Adverse Event Reports of PF-07302048 (BNT162B2) Received Through 28-FEB-2021 (a.k.a., “5.3.6“). There were 70 patient cases with 94 adverse events reported in the hepatic SOC category.
The report shows that five deaths, unexplained by the broad adverse event (AE) descriptions, occurred within 20 days of injection, which suggests severe and rapid liver injury or failure. Also, 50% of adverse events occurred within three days of receiving Pfizer’s mRNA COVID drug. At the data collection cutoff date of February 28, 2021, more than half of the outcomes were unknown and remain unknown to this day.
This report is unique compared to other SOC category reports, because the data published by Pfizer largely consist of lab test abnormalities related to liver enzymes rather than clinical disease descriptions. No further categorization or classification under medically recognized diseases, such as hepatitis or hepatobiliary (gallbladder or bile duct) conditions, was done, though the lab tests cited often point to disease entities. Additionally, no justification is offered to explain this inconsistency in Pfizer’s data collection and reporting.
Shockingly, for liver adverse events, Pfizer deviated from listing every adverse event, as it had for strokes and cardiovascular abnormalities, and set a threshold of three separate occurrences of an adverse event before the AE became “reportable.” Therefore, when a liver abnormality occurred only once or twice during Pfizer’s post-marketing analysis time frame, it did not reach the threshold of “reportability.”
Why was a threshold of “three or more” used before Pfizer would list liver-specific diagnoses? What is potentially hidden in those diagnoses conveniently not reported because they did not reach that arbitrary threshold? One can only conclude that Pfizer deliberately underestimated the number of adverse events in its 5.3.6 document, which it knew would have to be submitted to the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for safety signal monitoring.
It is important to note that the adverse events in the 5.3.6 document were reported to Pfizer for only a 90-day period starting on December 1, 2020, the date of the United Kingdom’s public rollout of Pfizer’s COVID-19 experimental mRNA “vaccine” product.
Please read this important report below.
One of the things I had to ask myself about 1.5 years ago was ... do I know much of anything about the neighbors living just 1.5 blocks away from me? The answer was no. And what are the implications of this as I spread out from there. Same. I realized that unless something is reported on we pretty much don't know much about anything house to house going on with folks.
I have since asked friends the same question ... same answer.
These large amounts of adverse events literally go unseen when what we call "the media" ignore or suppress them. It really does drive it home. VAERS under reporting factors of 41-100 start to make even more sense. The more we learn the worse this gets because the knowledge was actively suppressed.
100's of doctors, scientists, researchers, attorneys, etc.. have been out there trying to raise the alarm for years, pretty much every prediction they made has come true, even things they didn't foresee. Actively censored, demeaned, cancelled and etc. Every once and a while, we get a bit that gets out there, thankful for that. Yet so many things did not need to happen and there are a fairly large number of folks that are most definitely culpable of significant crimes.
We continue to find serious issues in Pfizer's own documents in the immediate aftermath of the release of the vaccine. None of this data was ever discussed at the VBPAC meetings when the vaccines were evaluated, just the conclusion that no serious safety signals existed! These are seasoned professional 'experts' in their field, and one would expect them to actually review the data rather than trusting Pfizer at their word. In fact, they only had to read the APPENDIX 1 of the Post Marketing Experience document 5.3.6, to see the huge number of Severe Adverse events that had occurred within the first 90 days of the vaccine