Looking at Pfizer’s vaccine alone in the table, totaling ischaemic and hemorrhagic stroke gives 203…

Summary

The web content provides an analysis of the excess deaths associated with Pfizer's mRNA vaccine, suggesting a reasonable estimate of around 1000 deaths in the U.S. due to vaccine-related adverse events, which is significantly lower than COVID-19 deaths.

Abstract

The author examines data from a study on Pfizer's vaccine, noting that the total of ischaemic and hemorrhagic strokes indicates 203 excess cases per 10 million vaccinated individuals. Despite the lack of excess death calculations for arterial thromboembolism and CVST in the 28-day period following vaccination, the author includes their risk numbers due to their significance within a 15-21 day window. The author then estimates the excess deaths from ischaemic and hemorrhagic strokes, arriving at 35.6 deaths per 10 million people, which scales to approximately 783 deaths for a population of 220 million. Considering other potential fatal adverse events, the author rounds this figure to 1000 deaths, which represents 0.005% of the vaccinated population. This estimate is juxtaposed with the much higher COVID-19 death toll in the U.S. The author also notes a lack of formal statistical analysis on deaths in the studies reviewed and prefers the UK data over the VSD study, which suggested vaccines might be protective against non-COVID-related deaths.

Opinions

The author considers it reasonable to combine ischaemic and hemorrhagic stroke cases for analysis, despite their usual independence, due to the use of the same database.
The risk of arterial thromboembolism and CVST is deemed insignificant in the 28-day period but is included in the analysis because of their significance in the 15-21 day period.
Myocarditis, although a known risk of Pfizer's mRNA vaccine, is noted to almost never result in death.
The author's estimate of 1000 vaccine-related deaths is an extrapolation and is rounded off for simplicity, acknowledging that it could be incorrect.
The author expresses a preference for the UK data over the findings of the Xu et al. paper, which used the Vaccine Safety Datalink (VSD) and found vaccines to be protective against non-COVID-related deaths.

Looking at Pfizer’s vaccine alone in the table, totaling ischaemic and hemorrhagic stroke gives 203 excess cases per 10 million vaccinated people. Although the same database was used, ischaemic and hemorrhagic don’t usually occur together, so I think totaling them is reasonable.

For the two other adverse events (i.e., arterial thromboembolism and CVST) associated with Pfizer’s vaccine in the table, the studies did not compute their excess deaths. I think it’s because the risks of arterial thromboembolism and CVST were insignificant in the 28-day period, and the excess deaths were based on 28-day period too. Arterial thromboembolism and CVST were only significant at 15–21 days only for unexplained reasons. But I still decided to put their risk numbers in the table because 15–21 days is still within 28 days in my view.

That said, myocarditis, a known risk of Pfizer’s mRNA vaccine, almost never resulted in death. So I think judging the excess deaths of Pfizer’s mRNA vaccine based on ischaemic and hemorrhagic stroke is reasonable:

Ischaemic stroke: 143 excess cases per 10 million with a 14.9% death rate gives 21.3 excess deaths per 10 million people.
Hemorrhagic stroke: 60 excess cases per 10 million with a 23.8% death rate gives 14.3 excess deaths per 10 million people.
Totaling them gives 35.6 excess deaths per 10 million people. For 220 million, this means 35.6 x 22 = 783.2 deaths.
Accounting for other potential adverse events that might also result in death, I think rounding off to 1000 deaths makes sense (which is 0.005% out of 220 million).

Since Moderna’s and Pfizer’s mRNA vaccines are similar, and they form the majority of vaccinations in the U.S., I also estimate 1000 covid vaccine death in the U.S. (edit: which is still 800-times lower than covid-19 deaths, standing at over 800k in the U.S. alone.).

As you know, this is just an estimate that could be wrong. One important note is that I extrapolated the death rate from their study paper’s result section. The studies did not do a formal statistical analysis on deaths, however.

But I just use what I got. Of over the 200 papers I went through, I only found one study that analyzed vaccine mortality, which is the Xu et al. paper using VSD, finding that vaccines are actually protective against non-Covid-related deaths compared to no vaccine. But I think I’d rely on the U.K. data more than the VSD. I hope I’m clear but just let me know if anything is not.