Fraiman was the lead author of a study ‘Serious adverse events of special interest following mRNA COVID-19 vaccination in randomised trials in adults’ published in August 2022. “These results raise concerns that mRNA vaccines are associated with more harm than initially estimated at the time of emergency authorisation,” the study authors wrote. Read more: Pfizer and Moderna Trial Data Shows a Higher Risk of Serious Adverse Events Among Vaccinated Participants, a New Study Finds In a video posted on Rumble earlier this week, Fraiman said: “We found the vaccine increases serious adverse events at a rate of one in 800. At the time of the publication, my co-authors and I did not believe our single study warranted the withdrawal of mRNA vaccines from the market. However, since its publication, new pieces of evidence have come to light and this has caused me to re-evaluate my position. “In addition, we have multiple autopsy studies that find, essentially, conclusive evidence that the vaccines are inducing sudden cardiac deaths. “I believe, given the information, the messenger RNA vaccines need to be withdrawn from the market.” In the description below his video on Rumble, Fraiman provided several links to evidence that supports his conclusion the mRNA injections must be withdrawn. Joseph Fraiman: It’s time to withdraw the mRNA vaccines? (3 mins) On the same day that he posted his video, Fraiman tweeted another study with the comment: “FDA publishes study surveillance data finds Pfizer covid vaccine increases [the] risk of lung blood clots 50%. Not a single major news source report this. If FDA reported any other drug increased lung blood clots [by] 50% can you imagine our media staying silent?” The study Fraiman was referring to was published in Vaccine on 9 January 2023 titled ‘Surveillance of Covid-19 vaccine safety among elderly persons aged 65 years and older’. “Monitoring safety outcomes following covid-19 vaccination is critical for understanding vaccine safety,” the study stated. “We present new findings from a nationally representative early warning system that may expand the safety knowledge base.” The authors evaluated 14 outcomes post-vaccination using the US Centres for Medicare & Medicaid Services (“CMS”) data covering 30,712,101 elderly people. The CMS data from 11 December 2020 through to 15 January 2022 included 17,411,342 covid vaccinees who received a total of 34,639,937 doses. Initially, four of the outcomes – pulmonary embolism, acute myocardial infarction, disseminated intravascular coagulation, and immune thrombocytopenia – following Pfizer injections met the threshold to trigger a safety signal warning. But after further evaluation, only pulmonary embolism only the safety signal threshold. The study found that the rate ratios (“RR”) of observed outcome rates for pulmonary embolism post-Pfizer covid “vaccine,” compared to historical (or expected) rates before covid vaccination, was 1.54. In other words, 54% above the rates seen in those who have not had a covid injection.
It's the latest pile of crap from Joseph Fraiman -- whose previous claims have failed numerous fact checks. Basically never a truthful word regarding Covid vaccines have come out of this man's month. Of course, this video and statement appears from Rumble since Fraiman has been banned from nearly all the other platforms for his continuous Covid misinformation. And NO, the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has not endorsed or published a study where surveillance data finds the Pfizer Covid vaccine increases the risk of lung blood clots by 50 per cent. This is purported representation not aligned with the context of the referenced study.
Dark humor (1 minute) https://www.brighteon.com/ce23bf5d-1e2e-49b3-b486-75634078ea47?utm_source=substack&utm_medium=email
Key paper, heavy on clinical and statistical research. Showed why being boosted is much worse for people when they get Covid (ie, long-term antibody issues - making the wrong ones). Very interesting and not overly technical. Also discusses wide-reaching societal implications and severe long-term implications therein, which gets somewhat disheartening. https://www.rintrah.nl/the-trainwre...f-people-stuck-with-a-broken-immune-response/ You just don’t want to see an IgG4 response to a respiratory infection. Out of the IgG’s, it’s mainly IgG3 and some IgG1 you want to see. One of the authors claims that it doesn’t matter that they’re switching to IgG4, because the antibodies don’t just matter for triggering phagocytosis (your immune cells eating the virus particles), they also matter for neutralization. This is nice and well, but you run into two problems: The virus evolves. It rapidly evolves to avoid the most neutralizing antibodies. Neutralizing potential against XBB and BQ.1 is basically gone. IgG4 isn’t really meant for neutralization. Out of the IgG’s, IgG3 is the excellent virus neutralizer. What IgG3 does in the case of SARS2, is that they have their tails bind together. This means that out of all the four subclasses, IgG3 is showing 50-fold stronger neutralization than the other three subclasses against SARS2. And now it’s time to drink, because have a look at what happens to IgG3 after three shots:
600,000% increase in myocarditis post mass-jab. Two peer-reviewed papers, and reported by most highly published cardiologist in the United States. But, yeah, 'safe and effective.' Same mantra they used for Thalidomide, btw. Sorry, pincushions. You lose.
Peter McCullough... a top dirty dozen anti-vaxxer with endless failed fact checks. Using McCullough as a source for your claim is simply SAD.
So an entire news segment on taking Statins should be prescribed with one mere sentence about Covid vaccines. I think the Twitter poster gets an F for context.