re: Pfizer Documents Reveal they Had ‘Evidence’ Suggesting ‘Increased Risk of myocarditis

quote:

---

This document is simply Pfizer quoting and documenting public studies What was buried?

---

I don’t think “buried” is necessarily meant to be synonymous with “completely undisclosed or unpublished”. It seems to be more of reference to the manner in which these reports were repeatedly glossed over or ignored by many medical professionals and basically all policy makers, most notably when the vaccine was approved (and in some situations required) for the under-18 cohort.

A risk-benefit analysis that broadly favored vaccinating adolescent males in particular should have immediately been subject to greater scrutiny, since — as you correctly pointed out — any questionable interpretation should not have been due to a lack of information regarding the increased incidence of post-vaccine myocarditis vs. the almost non-existent rate of covid complications in this group. Instead, concerns over methodology or dissenting opinions were almost universally minimized, often ridiculed, and sometimes outright censored, while the official messaging heavily promoted vaccination as nothing but a net-positive across the board.

People have a right to informed consent and public health policy decisions that are ethically rigorous and grounded in unbiased evaluation of empirical data. This wasn’t that … hence people feel they were deceived. Whether by omission or by commission is a fairly immaterial distinction at that point.