Although the COVID-19 drug didn’t stop the virus from spreading or individuals from contracting it, one of the main selling points of the supposed vaccine was that it would keep citizens from being hospitalized. For over a year, the Biden administration and Dr. Anthony Fauci, with the help from the CDC and FDA, claimed that the drug was the best way to stay protected. It wasn’t that long ago that Dr. Fauci tested positive for COVID-19 even with the additional boosters. But with the drug approved for children six-months and older, a new report from Dr. Peter Doshi and his colleagues showed the jab was more likely to put a person in the hospital than protect them.
In the video, which can be watched below, Alex Jones, host of InfoWars, discussed the findings. According to the document, “In 2020, prior to COVID-19 vaccine rollout, the Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness Innovations and Brighton Collaboration created a priority list, endorsed by the World Health Organization, of potential adverse events relevant to COVID-19 vaccines. We leveraged the Brighton Collaboration list to evaluate serious adverse events of special interest observed in phase III randomized trials of mRNA COVID-19 vaccines.”
Again, not just analyzed by Doshi, his colleagues included Joseph Fraiman, Juan Erviti, Mark Jones, Sander Greenland, Patrick Whelan, and Robert M. Kaplan. Their review found, “Pfizer and Moderna mRNA COVID-19 vaccines were associated with an increased risk of serious adverse events of special interest, with an absolute risk increase 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. Combined, the mRNA vaccines were associated with an absolute risk increase of serious adverse events of special interest of 12.5 per 10,000 (95% CI 2.1 to 22.9). The excess risk of serious adverse events of special interest surpassed the risk reduction for COVID-19 hospitalization relative to the placebo group in both Pfizer and Moderna trials (2.3 and 6.4 per 10,000 participants, respectively).”
It should also be noted, unlike many studies, the one discussed above had no funding support.
Comments online read, “I’m happy to see these results being released but anyone interested should know that this paper has not been peer reviewed- it’s printed on the PDF saying so. Hopefully this will be passed around and it will become peer-reviewed.”
Another user explained, “Given the authors, my initial thoughts were ‘this is it, this is one MSM can’t ignore’. I then noticed it was published 1st June. It’s a preprint and will stay that way allowing it to be hidden from the dumb masses.”
As Red Voice Media reported previously, last week, diagnostic pathologist Dr. Clare Craig explained how the data given to the FDA in order for Big Pharma to receive the approval for young children was highly altered.
She said, “The trial recruited 4526 children aged from six months to four years old. 3000 of these children did not make it to the end of the trial. That is a huge number, two thirds of them, why was there this drop off? That needs to be answered. And without an answer to that, on that basis alone, this trial should be deemed null and void. So what did the trial show?
“Well, they defined severe COVID as children who had a slightly raised heart rate or a few more breaths per minute. There were six children aged two to four who had severe COVID in the vaccine group, but only one in the placebo group. So on that basis, the likelihood that this vaccine is actually causing severe COVID is higher than the likelihood that it isn’t.”
She further stated, “They vaccinated the children and they waited three weeks after the first dose before the second dose. In that three week period, 34 of the vaccinated children got COVID and only 13 in the placebo group, which worked out as a 30% increased chance of catching COVID in that three week period if you were vaccinated, so they ignored that data. And then there was an eight week gap between the second dose and the third dose where again, children were getting plenty of COVID in the vaccine arm. So they ignored that data. There was then several weeks after the third dose, which they also ignored, which meant that in the end, they had ignored 97% of the COVID that occurred during the trial. And they just looked at tiny numbers.”
The opinions expressed by contributors and/or content partners are their own and do not necessarily reflect the views of Red Voice Media. Contact us for guidelines on submitting your own commentary. Red Voice Media would like to make a point of clarification on why we do not refer to any shot related to COVID-19 as a "vaccine." According to the CDC, the definition of a vaccine necessitates that said vaccine have a lasting effect of at least one year in preventing the contraction of the virus or disease it's intended to fight. Because all of the COVID-19 shots thus far available have barely offered six months of protection, and even then not absolute, Red Voice Media has made the decision hereafter to no longer refer to the Pfizer, Moderna, or Johnson & Johnson substances as vaccinations.