by Chris Black
The study looked at 30,712,101 individuals who had received various doses of the Pfizer, Moderna and Johnson & Johnson vaccines between 11 December 2020 and 15 January 2022.
They identified four statistical signals for elevated risk of acute myocardial infarction (ACI), pulmonary embolism (PE), disseminated intravascular coagulation (DIC) and immune thrombocytopenia following the Pfizer vaccine.
PEs (blood clots on the lungs) were 54% more likely, ACIs (heart attacks) were 42% more likely, DICs (blood clotting disorder) were 91% more likely and ITPs (platelet disorder) 44% more likely.
However, they say that after further evaluation the rate ratios for AMI, DIC and ITP no longer met the statistical threshold for a signal. But, even after their further evaluation, the rate ratio for PE still met the statistical threshold.
Comically/Tragically, after more than two years of injecting people, they call their monitoring study an “early warning safety system”!
They conclude that this FDA “early warning safety system is working to rapidly identify potential new and important safety concerns following COVID-19 vaccination”.
Wow, I’m glad they didn’t use their slower system because then we’d be in real trouble!
As usual and as you would expect, they go to great lengths to say that the four outcomes aren’t necessarily caused by the vaccine and may be related to other factors.
Furthermore, even though their own study has just shown the increased risks to the elderly, they say they BELIEVE the potential benefits of the vaccines outweigh the potential risks of Covid infection.
Since when has ‘believe’ been a scientific way of analyzing things? It sounds more like a religious conviction.
As a result, they won’t be taking any regulatory actions based on these signals, because they are still under investigation and require more robust study.
So in the meantime, keep taking your boosters and we’ll let you know in maybe another two years that yes the blood clots in your lungs were from the vaccine.
But we still BELIEVE your blood clots were better than your Covid infection, which you still got five times anyway – Amen.
I wonder which MSM outlets will report on the FDAs own study
Link to the study: www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0264410X22014931
Most vaccination in general, not just COVID vaccination, is unnecessary for most people.
Many illnesses that are commonly “vaccinated” against are themselves very low-risk illnesses with low Infection Fatality Rates.
When you administer a vaccine, there is always some amount of risk of adverse reaction, like with any other drug. When we take any kind of drug, we weigh risk against reward.
Is the risk of taking the drug greater or lesser than the risk of not taking it?
Given that the efficacy of vaccines and drugs in general is almost always misrepresented by drug manufacturers—by using RELATIVE numbers instead of ABSOLUTE ones—it is understandable why so many people are confused as to the actual efficacy of vaccination.
In the case of the COVID vaccine, it’s pretty much indisputable that it doesn’t protect you from COVID. Whatever risk reduction you get at all is very, very small in absolute terms.
Journal articles were being published about this even in the early days of the vaccine rollout.
If we assume that there are no real risks involved in taking the vaccine, then in the absolute best case scenario, it’s basically snake oil.
The freebie shots are ending and now there’s a whole contingency of brainwashed fools who will continue to shell out for shots that don’t work because they’re scared of catching a cold.
Again: assuming no risk at all…
