DOC: CDC Saying Covid Shots ‘Safe and Effective’ Is ‘a Lie,’ Not Even a ‘Scientific Term’

DeSantis So Dr Fraiman ░░░░░░░░ you ve been looking ░░░░░░░░ this issue FRAIMAN Yeah ░░░░░░░░ If someone came up ░░░░░░░░ you and just said ░░░░░░░░ know Hey doctor are ░░░░░░░░ Covid shots safe and ░░░░░░░░ how would you respond ░░░░░░░░ Well are mRNA shots ░░░░░░░░ and effective Well I ░░░░░░░░ say that from the ░░░░░░░░ that these were authorized ░░░░░░░░ December there was uncertainty ░░░░░░░░ if they were going ░░░░░░░░ the benefits were going ░░░░░░░░ outweigh the harm We ░░░░░░░░ t know We did ░░░░░░░░ know It s not ░░░░░░░░ to have known that ░░░░░░░░ that time There were ░░░░░░░░ people I believe who ░░░░░░░░ against authorizing it that ░░░░░░░░ in a climate of ░░░░░░░░ everyone was scared almost ░░░░░░░░ to vote no on ░░░░░░░░ So there s uncertainty ░░░░░░░░ was definitely uncertainty on ░░░░░░░░ people people with no ░░░░░░░░ factors That s clear ░░░░░░░░ was uncertainty when we ░░░░░░░░ the booster That is ░░░░░░░░ We had all the ░░░░░░░░ in or nearly all ░░░░░░░░ to not authorize it ░░░░░░░░ voted against authorizing it ░░░░░░░░ the FDA came back ░░░░░░░░ said OK how about ░░░░░░░░ in over 65 Then ░░░░░░░░ said Yes we ll ░░░░░░░░ it in over 65 ░░░░░░░░ the CDC two to ░░░░░░░░ weeks later tries to ░░░░░░░░ the booster for all ░░░░░░░░ They ve scientists advisory ░░░░░░░░ votes against it CDC ░░░░░░░░ Let s not listen ░░░░░░░░ these guys Just recommends ░░░░░░░░ for all age groups ░░░░░░░░ safe and effective terminology ░░░░░░░░ s been used has ░░░░░░░░ based on it s ░░░░░░░░ you know it s ░░░░░░░░ This is based on ░░░░░░░░ s it s a ░░░░░░░░ It has to be ░░░░░░░░ You ve done some ░░░░░░░░ actually to to back ░░░░░░░░ up FRAIMAN Yes LADAPO ░░░░░░░░ you talk about your ░░░░░░░░ FRAIMAN Sure Yeah So ░░░░░░░░ along with six other ░░░░░░░░ our international team we ░░░░░░░░ went back to the ░░░░░░░░ clinical trials looked at ░░░░░░░░ adverse looking at serious ░░░░░░░░ events And what I ░░░░░░░░ by serious is that ░░░░░░░░ re either hospitalized or ░░░░░░░░ were you were permanently ░░░░░░░░ or or dead or ░░░░░░░░ doctor thought that this ░░░░░░░░ a very serious a ░░░░░░░░ problem So these are ░░░░░░░░ bad events They re ░░░░░░░░ by both Pfizer and ░░░░░░░░ and assigned by them ░░░░░░░░ re looking at that ░░░░░░░░ went into reanalyze it ░░░░░░░░ a magnifying glass look ░░░░░░░░ because they originally reported ░░░░░░░░ there was no harm ░░░░░░░░ was no serious harm ░░░░░░░░ these vaccines And so ░░░░░░░░ basically were using a ░░░░░░░░ that was a WHO ░░░░░░░░ list of adverse events ░░░░░░░░ they thought were potentially ░░░░░░░░ to be caused by ░░░░░░░░ vaccine before we ever ░░░░░░░░ authorized it So we ░░░░░░░░ that list and applied ░░░░░░░░ and so are there ░░░░░░░░ of these types of ░░░░░░░░ in the in the ░░░░░░░░ group than in the ░░░░░░░░ the non in the ░░░░░░░░ group So to do ░░░░░░░░ we start counting all ░░░░░░░░ adverse events in the ░░░░░░░░ on the back tables ░░░░░░░░ the appendix To our ░░░░░░░░ in the Pfizer trial ░░░░░░░░ first first vaccine to ░░░░░░░░ through it was a ░░░░░░░░ percent increase in in ░░░░░░░░ number of serious adverse ░░░░░░░░ That was never reported ░░░░░░░░ by the FDA not ░░░░░░░░ Pfizer In fact Pfizer ░░░░░░░░ I may get it ░░░░░░░░ wrong but they said ░░░░░░░░ the incidence of serious ░░░░░░░░ events are similar in ░░░░░░░░ vaccine and placebo group ░░░░░░░░ percent increase is not ░░░░░░░░ It s actually statistically ░░░░░░░░ different So how that ░░░░░░░░ is is difficult to ░░░░░░░░ But it did happen ░░░░░░░░ once we got past ░░░░░░░░ phase of the study ░░░░░░░░ actually do the reanalysis ░░░░░░░░ what we re trying ░░░░░░░░ do it turns out ░░░░░░░░ both Pfizer and Moderna ░░░░░░░░ had a 1 in ░░░░░░░░ risk of serious adverse ░░░░░░░░ These are from that ░░░░░░░░ So now to understand ░░░░░░░░ a 1 in 800 ░░░░░░░░ consider that our other ░░░░░░░░ have about a one ░░░░░░░░ a million one in ░░░░░░░░ million maybe two in ░░░░░░░░ million This is not ░░░░░░░░ same sort of safe ░░░░░░░░ isn t 1 in ░░░░░░░░ is disastrous if true ░░░░░░░░ think about the risk ░░░░░░░░ people from Covid not ░░░░░░░░ catching it and then ░░░░░░░░ sick I mean you ░░░░░░░░ Covid right now most ░░░░░░░░ the majority of people ░░░░░░░░ t have a 1 ░░░░░░░░ 800 chance of even ░░░░░░░░ hospitalized This is an ░░░░░░░░ group who s at ░░░░░░░░ For them I think ░░░░░░░░ becomes more of a ░░░░░░░░ maybe with them and ░░░░░░░░ now with as Tracy ░░░░░░░░ saying we have Omicron ░░░░░░░░ the risk of hospitalization ░░░░░░░░ personally have not hospitalized ░░░░░░░░ ve hospitalized one patient ░░░░░░░░ February of this year ░░░░░░░░ Omicron I am not ░░░░░░░░ people sick in the ░░░░░░░░ with Omicron They they ░░░░░░░░ in they get admitted ░░░░░░░░ it s being unrelated ░░░░░░░░ I personally that s ░░░░░░░░ own personal anecdotal experience ░░░░░░░░ know they reported otherwise ░░░░░░░░ we have Omicron now ░░░░░░░░ we also have and ░░░░░░░░ also have 95 percent ░░░░░░░░ people are infected Are ░░░░░░░░ is the benefit outweigh ░░░░░░░░ harms in this environment ░░░░░░░░ has any idea There ░░░░░░░░ no way to know ░░░░░░░░ because we need you ░░░░░░░░ a study to figure ░░░░░░░░ out It s the ░░░░░░░░ way But we just ░░░░░░░░ recommending safe and effective ░░░░░░░░ t change It s ░░░░░░░░ even a scientific wording ░░░░░░░░ It s not safe ░░░░░░░░ effective It s it ░░░░░░░░ more of a campaign ░░░░░░░░ our campaign slogan or ░░░░░░░░ even it s an ░░░░░░░░ UNKNOWN MALE And that ░░░░░░░░ in 800 number that ░░░░░░░░ for short term risks ░░░░░░░░ Yes UNKNOWN MALE That ░░░░░░░░ before we get to ░░░░░░░░ things we don t ░░░░░░░░ know about the things ░░░░░░░░ might occur two years ░░░░░░░░ the road autoimmune disorders ░░░░░░░░ and and the like ░░░░░░░░ that s a conservative ░░░░░░░░ FRAIMAN It s within ░░░░░░░░ the first two months ░░░░░░░░ Joe do you want ░░░░░░░░ talk about what you ░░░░░░░░ with the data in ░░░░░░░░ looking at folks and ░░░░░░░░ the myocarditis LADAPO Yeah ░░░░░░░░ s I mean it ░░░░░░░░ like how many different ░░░░░░░░ do you want to —“