Did a landmark study just prove that mRNA vaccines are dangerous, because they have severe adverse event rates?!
Take a look at the viral claim, and find out what the facts really are!
Claim : mRNA Vaccines Were Just Proven Dangerous!
People are sharing a Twitter (X) post by Leading Report, which suggests that a landmark paper has shown that mRNA vaccines have severe adverse event rates, and is therefore dangerous and should be pulled from the market.
BRAKING: Landmark paper shows the COVID vaccine has a 1/800 severe adverse event rate; in comparison, the swine flu vaccine was pulled from the market for 1/100,000.
Here is an excerpt from the study by Fraiman, et. al.
Serious adverse events of special interest following mRNA COVID-19 vaccination in randomized trials in adults
Recommended : Did FDA just admit Pfizer vaccine has Graphene Oxide?!
Truth : mRNA Vaccines Were Not Proven Dangerous!
This is yet another example of FAKE NEWS about the mRNA vaccines, and here are the reasons why…
Fact #1 : The Study Was Published In September 2022
First, let me just point out that the study in question isn’t new. It was actually published in the journal Vaccine on September 22, 2022, and you can read the full version here.
This study was even mentioned earlier by Dr. Aseem Malhotra in an interview with Joe Rogan several months ago, which you can read here.
Perhaps that’s why Leading Report labelled the news as “BRAKING”, instead of “BREAKING”?
Fact #2 : The Article Looked At Reported AESI
The study looked at Adverse Events of Special Interest (AESI) reported in the original Phase 3 trials of the Pfizer and Moderna mRNA vaccines from 2020. It’s short, so I’m reproducing the results here for your convenience:
Pfizer and Moderna mRNA COVID-19 vaccines were associated with an excess risk of serious adverse events of special interest of 10.1 and 15.1 per 10,000 vaccinated over placebo baselines of 17.6 and 42.2 (95 % CI -0.4 to 20.6 and -3.6 to 33.8), respectively.
Recommended : Do mRNA Vaccines Increase Risk Of Death + Injuries?!
Fact #3 : Adverse Events Of Special Interest Are Not Necessarily Side Effects
I should now point out that Adverse Events of Special Interest (AESI) are not necessarily vaccine side effects. That’s why they are called “adverse events” and not “side effects“.
Adverse events are “unfavourable” or “unintended” events that happen after vaccination or taking a drug, like having an anaphylactic reaction or getting into a car accident.
All reported adverse events have to be investigated to find out if they are related (anaphylactic reaction) or not (getting into a car accident) to the vaccine or drug that was taken.
Even if an adverse event was “possibly caused” by the vaccine, it must still be confirmed that the vaccine directly caused it, because an anaphylactic reaction (for example) can also occur from a bee sting, or an existing peanut allergy.
Only once an adverse event is confirmed to be caused by the vaccine, is it then a vaccine side effect. Otherwise, it is merely an adverse event, not a side effect.
Fact #4 : Brighton AESI List Is More Specific
Unlike the much wider AESI list of 1,291 adverse events used by Pfizer, the priority AESI list from the Brighton Collaboration is much more specific. You can download the December 2020 version here (PDF).
While the Brighton Collaboration AESI list is more specific, it includes adverse events that may not be related to the vaccine itself. As stated at the top of its Executive Summary on Page 4, the AESI list was created based on:
- known association with immunization or a specific vaccine platform;
- theoretical association based on animal models;
- occurrence during wild-type disease as a result of viral replication and/or immunopathogenesis.
As noted in Fact #3, these adverse events are not necessarily vaccine side effects. Again, that’s why they are called “adverse events”, and not “side effects”.
Recommended : Why Adverse Events of Special Interest Are NOT Side Effects!
Fact #5 : The Study Used An Expanded Brighton AESI List
At first glance, one may be forgiven for thinking that the authors used the more specific Brighton Collaboration AESI list.
However, they actually expanded the Brighton list with 29 additional adverse events that the Brighton Collaboration rejected because they were “known to have been reported but not in sufficient numbers to merit inclusion on the AESI list“.
The 29 additional adverse events (see Page 8) that Brighton Collaboration declined to include in the priority list, but the authors added anyway include adverse events like:
- abscess, alopecia, conjunctivitis, mania, psychosis
- breast milk, ectopic pregnancy, pregnancy, neonatal diagnoses, foetal diagnoses
- host-specific diagnoses not related to pregnancy : geriatric, HIV
In other words – the results in the article were skewed by the inclusion of 29 additional adverse events that were expressly rejected by the Brighton Collaboration.
Fact #6 : Study Did Not Prove mRNA Vaccines Are Dangerous
While Leading Report suggested in its post that the study showed that the mRNA COVID-19 vaccines were 125X more dangerous than the swine flu vaccine that was withdrawn from the market, that is not the case at all.
The study offered ZERO EVIDENCE that the mRNA vaccines increased the risk of death or hospitalisation or injury. Neither did it show that the risks of getting the mRNA vaccines exceeded its benefits.
There is already a lot of data on actual, proven COVID-19 vaccine side effects, after more than 20 months of vaccinations (from December 2020 until September 2022). If they wanted to prove that the mRNA vaccines are dangerous, they could have reanalysed the original Phase 3 trial data using proven serious side effects, not serious adverse events.
Unfortunately, they chose to use adverse events instead of side effects, and ended up proving nothing in their study. What a waste of time.
More than a year after this study was published, not only have the mRNA vaccines not been withdrawn from the market, improved versions of the mRNA vaccines against COVID-19 were just approved! That would hardly be the case, if this was really a landmark study, would it?
Please help us fight fake news – SHARE this article, and SUPPORT our work!
Please Support My Work!
Support my work through a bank transfer / PayPal / credit card!
Name : Adrian Wong
Bank Transfer : CIMB 7064555917 (Swift Code : CIBBMYKL)
Credit Card / Paypal : https://paypal.me/techarp
Dr. Adrian Wong has been writing about tech and science since 1997, even publishing a book with Prentice Hall called Breaking Through The BIOS Barrier (ISBN 978-0131455368) while in medical school.
He continues to devote countless hours every day writing about tech, medicine and science, in his pursuit of facts in a post-truth world.
Recommended Reading
- Water Cut In Klang Valley From 10-12 October 2023!
- COVID-19 Vaccines Estimated To Cause 17 Million Deaths?!
- Infowars Proven Wrong About Biden Face Mask Mandate!
- Died Suddenly Caught Using Fake Parasite Video!
- Are Shellfish From East Coast Malaysia Toxic?!
Support Us!
If you like our work, please support us by visiting our sponsors, or donating to our fund. Thank you!
