The reporting is the main issue, because those responsible for tracking the data weren't recording cardiovascular events, as advised by Pfizer's own administrators.

From their document on page 70:

https://cdn.pfizer.com/pfizercom/2020-11/C4591001_Clinical_Protocol_Nov2020.pdf

8.3.6. Cardiovascular and Death Events Not applicable.

So they didn't advise to record cardiovascular and death events.

From the same document, page 70 (bold for emphasis):

8.3.8. Adverse Events of Special Interest Not applicable

8.3.8.1. Lack of Efficacy Lack of efficacy is reportable to Pfizer Safety only if associated with an SAE

8.3.9. Medical Device Deficiencies Not applicable.

8.5. Pharmacokinetics Pharmacokinetic parameters are not evaluated in this study.

8.6. Pharmacodynamics Pharmacodynamic parameters are not evaluated in this study.

8.7. Genetics Genetics (specified analyses) are not evaluated in this study

8.8. Biomarkers Biomarkers are not evaluated in this study.

8.9. Immunogenicity Assessments Immunogenicity assessments are described in Section 8.1.

So those cytokine storm events? Just ignore them, according to Pfizer.

Now pay attention to what they said they were using to track or not track AE and SAE related incidents for the FDA report:

Reports are submitted voluntarily, and the magnitude of underreporting is unknown. Some of the factors that mayinfluence whether an event is reported include: length of time since marketing, market share of the drug, publicity about a drug or an AE, seriousness of the reaction, regulatory actions, awareness by health professionals and consumers of adverse drug event reporting, and litigation

So Pfizer purposely advising administrators to NOT report certain events combined with the fact that the FDA is admitting they have no idea how much these events are being under-reported, should set off red flags right there.

Further on it says...

Because many external factors influence whether or not an AE is reported, the spontaneous reporting system yields reporting proportions not incidence rates. As a result, it is generally not appropriate to make between-drug comparisons using these proportions; the spontaneous reporting system should be used for signal detection rather than hypothesis testing.

In some reports, clinical information (such as medical history, validation of diagnosis, time from drug use to onset of illness, dose, and use of concomitant drugs) is missing or incomplete, and follow-up information may not be available

So once again, we have no clue and no control studies about efficacy rates, drug mixtures, or medical complications spawning from these things. We just have to trust that they're "safe and effective", even while we have -- even by the FDA's own admission -- no placebo effect data to pull from to test against control studies for natural immunity, previous prescribed medications, etc., etc.

What good is the data then?!

They even admit as much in the next segment, writing...

An accumulation of adverse event reports (AERs) does not necessarily indicate that a particular AE was caused by the drug; rather, the event may be due to an underlying disease or some other factor(s) such as past medical history or concomitant medication.

So the drug masquerading as a vaccine may or may not be causing issues, just the same as Covid may or may not be causing issues, just the same as some other drug someone was taking may or may not be causing issues. So it's all guesswork and a hodgepodge of self-reporting with no way to know for sure what's what? Seriously?

And the most significant part here...

Among adverse event reports received into the Pfizer safety database during the cumulative period, only those having a complete workflow cycle in the safety database (meaning they progressed to Distribution or Closed workflow status) are included in the monthly SMSR. This approach prevents the inclusion of cases that are not fully processed hence not accurately reflecting final information.

So what about every report that WASN'T included in their workflow cycle in the safety database? What about all the culled data? How much data was culled, in fact? What was the average means?

Now let's combine Pfizer's own preamble on the limitations for what sort of data they were actually accruing regarding SAEs, health complications and death-related events, with the fact that the FDA is acknowledging they don't really have a clear-cut data set of samples to pull from, and you can basically see how this is all a game of charades and bull-crap.

TL;DR: It's all junk data because Pfizer isn't actually recording all relevant data points, and culling specific data points that might be of interest to the general public regarding both the efficacy rates and the SAE/death rates associated with the vaccines. In essence, we have no clear data and it's purposely being obfuscated by the powers that be.