The CDC just recommended 3 doses of the Pfizer COVID-19 vaccine for babies 6 months and older – is that safe? Here is what you need to know…
Are 3 doses of Pfizer COVID-19 vaccine safe for babies?
The Children’s Health Defense, which is chaired by Robert F. Kennedy Jr., just posted an article (archive) which claims or suggests that it might not be safe for babies to receive 3 doses of the Pfizer COVID-19 vaccine because it’s unlicensed for children under 12.
There Are No Licensed COVID Vaccines for Kids Under 12 — But CDC Wants Babies to Get 3 Pfizer Shots by Age 9 Months
According to the latest CDC guidance, 9-month-old babies must receive multiple doses of an unlicensed mRNA COVID-19 vaccine to be considered “up to date” with their COVID-19 vaccination.
Nine-month-old babies must receive multiple doses of an unlicensed mRNA COVID-19 vaccine to be considered “up to date” with their COVID-19 vaccination, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).
The CDC’s updated guidance, issued Aug. 30, states that children — as young as 6 months old — should get either two doses of the 2024-2025 Moderna vaccine or three doses of the 2024-2025 Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine.
If getting the new Pfizer shot, the baby is supposed to receive the first dose at 6 months, the second dose three weeks later and the third dose at least eight weeks after the second dose — meaning, that by 9 months old, babies are supposed to have received three Pfizer shots.
Children’s Health Defense (CHD) CEO Mary Holland told The Defender, “The earlier COVID shots have been proven unsafe and ineffective. Now we’re asked to believe that newer versions are miraculously safe and effective?”
“This is an insult to people’s intelligence,” she said, “I pray that parents will have the good sense to say no to these dangerous and unnecessary shots for babies.”
As of July 28, 37,814 deaths following COVID-19 vaccination had been reported to VAERS, the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System, run by the FDA and CDC.
It has since been shared and promoted as evidence that the Pfizer COVID-19 vaccine is dangerous for babies.
Robert F. Kennedy Jr. : The CDC recommends THREE Pfizer Covid shots for babies by age 9 months. These shots are unsafe and ineffective, especially over the long term. And babies are at near-zero risk from Covid. So whose benefit is the CDC serving here?
Mary Talley Bowden : All babies are expected to get 3 C0VID shots before their 1st birthday.
Eliminating mandates is not enough. All risk, no benefit. Profits over safety. Any other product would have been pulled off the market a long time ago.
CDC : 3 doses of Pfizer COVID-19 vaccine are safe + effective for babies
In this article, I will go through some of their points, and show you what the facts really are!
Fact #1 : FDA authorised Pfizer COVID-19 vaccines for babies
First, let’s start by pointing out that the US FDA just authorised the latest, updated Pfizer COVID-19 vaccine, including for babies 6 months or older:
Unvaccinated individuals 6 months through 4 years of age are eligible to receive three doses of the updated, authorized Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 Vaccine or two doses of the updated, authorized Moderna COVID-19 Vaccine.
Individuals 6 months through 4 years of age who have previously been vaccinated against COVID-19 are eligible to receive one or two doses of the updated, authorized Moderna or Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccines (timing and number of doses to administer depends on the previous COVID-19 vaccine received).
In other words – there is nothing wrong with the CDC’s recommendation that the babies as young as 6 months old should receive 3 doses of the Pfizer COVID-19 vaccine.
Fact #2 : FDA authorised two COVID-19 vaccines for babies
In fact, the US FDA actually authorised two COVID-19 vaccines for babies 6 months and older (archive):
Moderna COVID-19 Vaccine (2024-2025 Formula) for individuals 6 months through 11 years of age
Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 Vaccine (2024-2025 Formula) for individuals 6 months through 11 years of age
So why is Children’s Health Defense article focusing only on the Pfizer COVID-19 vaccine? After all, the Moderna COVID-19 vaccine is also based on a similar mRNA platform.
Does this mean that Children’s Health Defense believes only the Pfizer COVID-19 vaccine is dangerous for babies, but not the Moderna COVID-19 vaccine? Why only Pfizer, but not Moderna – they didn’t say.
In that case, well, just go ahead and opt for the Moderna COVID-19 vaccine! Problem solved for people who are hesitant about the Pfizer COVID-19 vaccine for babies.
In case you are wondering – the Pfizer COVID-19 vaccine has full FDA approval for children and adults who are 12 years and older, and is authorised for emergency use in children between 6 months and 11 years of age.
This does not mean that the Pfizer COVID-19 vaccine is dangerous or ineffective in children. After all, both EUA and full FDA approval undergo the same approval process, with this major difference in post-study follow-up:
EUA : At least half of the participants in the studies must be followed for at least two months after vaccination.
Full FDA Approval : All of the participants in the studies must be followed for at least six months.
In addition, full FDA approval requires more details on manufacturing plans and processes, as well as extra time for FDA to conduct oversight and inspections of manufacturing facilities.
You can read more about the differences between full FDA approval, and Emergency Use Authorisation (EUA) here.
Fact #4 : Pfizer COVID-19 vaccine was proven safe + effective for babies
As the Mayo Clinic points out, both the Pfizer and Moderna COVID-19 vaccines were tested to confirm their safety and effectiveness in children aged 6 months and older:
To find out the effectiveness of the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine for children ages 6 months through 4 and the Moderna COVID-19 vaccine for children ages 6 months through 17 years old, the FDA looked at the immune responses of children in these age groups after they were fully vaccinated.
The FDA compared those responses to the immune responses of young adults who’d been given higher doses of the same mRNA vaccine.
As with the other vaccines, side effects were recorded. Some of the children were monitored for safety for at least two months after being fully vaccinated.
So it would be false to suggest that the Pfizer or Moderna COVID-19 vaccine was never tested in babies as young as 6 months old.
The Children’s Health Defense article said that there were “37,814 deaths following COVID-19 vaccination had been reported to VAERS, the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System, run by the FDA and CDC.”
As I pointed out many times before, VAERS data is unverified, and notoriously susceptible to abuse, and false reporting. That’s because it’s an open system that anyone – not just doctors, can report anything they want.
In addition, the reports may be duplicated and have not been verified to be related to the vaccine or drug in question. That’s why VAERS specifically warns against using its reports to reach any conclusion about the risks or safety of vaccines / drugs in question.
But that is probably why anti-vaccination activists love using VAERS data – it’s unverified, and very susceptible to abuse and false reporting.
Please help us FIGHT FAKE NEWS by sharing this fact check article out, and please SUPPORT our work!
Don’t forget to protect yourself, and your family, by vaccinating against COVID-19!
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.
Did a new 125-country study show that COVID-19 vaccines killed 17 million people, while pandemic measures caused another 30.9 million deaths?! Take a look at the viral claim, and find out what the facts really are!
Claim : 125-country study shows vaccines killed 17 million people!
People are sharing an article (archive) by Children’s Health Defense, which claims or suggests that a new 125-country study show that COVID-19 vaccines not only killed 17 million people, pandemic measures caused another 30.9 million deaths!
Here is an excerpt of the article, which is long and (intentionally?) confusing, so feel free to skip to the next part for the facts!
Vaccines Caused 17 Million Deaths During Pandemic Plus 4 More Takeaways From Largest Excess Mortality Study to Date
A years-long investigation by Canadian researchers into excess mortality during the COVID-19 pandemic found that patterns of excess death globally could not be explained by a pandemic respiratory virus. Here are the data and logic behind some of the key findings.
A major investigation by Canadian researchers into excess mortality during the COVID-19 pandemic found that patterns of excess death globally could not be explained by a pandemic respiratory virus, The Defender reported last week.
Instead, the authors concluded the major causes of death globally stemmed from the public health establishment’s response, including lockdowns, harmful medical interventions and the COVID-19 vaccines.
The study by researchers from the nonprofit Correlation Research in the Public Interest analyzed excess mortality in 125 countries — about 35% of the global population — during the COVID-19 pandemic, beginning with the March 11, 2020, World Health Organization (WHO) pandemic declaration and ending on May 5, 2023, when the WHO declared the pandemic over.
The investigation concluded that “nothing special would have occurred in terms of mortality had a pandemic not been declared and had the declaration not been acted upon.”
The 521-page analysis — by Denis Rancourt, Ph.D., former physics professor and lead scientist for 23 years at the University of Ottawa, Correlation’s president Joseph Hickey, Ph.D., and Christian Linard, Ph.D., from the University of Quebec at Trois-Rivières — was published July 19.
Five takeaways from largest pandemic excess mortality study to date
1. Vaccines caused approximately 17 million deaths and vaccine toxicity increased with age and number of doses.
2. Pandemic interventions led to about 30.9 million deaths globally and vaccines didn’t prevent any deaths.
3. Many deaths were linked to respiratory viruses that could have been treated, but treatment was withheld.
4. There was essentially no excess mortality before the WHO declared a pandemic.
5. An ‘elegant’ methodology for analyzing all-cause and excess mortality.
Truth : 125-country study did not show vaccines killed 17 million people!
In this article, I will go through some of their points, and show you what the facts really are!
Fact #1 : It Appears To Be A “Refreshed” Self-Published Report
First, let’s start by pointing out that the paper in question (archive) is not a published scientific report. It is just another self-published report by Correlation Research in the Public Interest.
Also, the study does not appear to be new. Rather, it appears to be a “refreshed” version of their September 2023 report, which also claimed that COVID-19 vaccines killed 17 million people.
Fact #2 : It Has Not Been Peer-Reviewed
Like their previous report, there is no indication that this “refreshed” report has undergone even the basic peer review process.
In other words – subject matter experts have yet to inspect their data and findings, never mind verify and authenticate them. Interestingly, Children’s Health Defense failed to point this out in its very long article. Oops? Perhaps this should have been mentioned, no?
Fact #3 : There Was No Causal Link To Vaccines
The World Mortality Dataset is a big and critical tool for tracking all cause mortality for many countries around the world. However, it is ultimately just a database of all-cause mortality.
There is no way it can be used to demonstrate the causality of any particular cause of death. After all, it only tracks all-cause mortality! It doesn’t differentiate between death from a car accident or a fall, from death from COVID-19, or death from a vaccine injury.
So there is simply no way for anyone to use the World Mortality Dataset to determine the cause of any excess mortality. That would be like using data on all deaths from traffic accidents to claim that excess deaths were somehow caused by the use of electric vehicles. Doesn’t make sense? PRECISELY!
Perhaps that’s why the refreshed report is an insane 521 pages long – almost 3x longer than the previous report with its already crazy 180 pages. It’s like they were trying to mask their lack of conclusive data with nonsensical verbiage…
Fact #4 : World Mortality Dataset Study Identified COVID-19 As Cause
The two researchers who maintained the World Mortality Dataset (WMD) actually published a peer-reviewed study in the eLife journal, on 30 June 2021.
Unlike this “refreshed” Correlation Research report, this was an actual peer-reviewed study, published in a journal and the NIH National Library of Medicine. It was also written by the two people who knows the WMD database best – the very people maintaining and updating it!
Both Ariel Kaplinsky and Dmitry Kobak used their WMD data to look at the impact of COVID-19 on the all-cause mortality from 103 countries, and here was what they found:
We found that in several worst-affected countries (Peru, Ecuador, Bolivia, Mexico) the excess mortality was above 50% of the expected annual mortality (Peru, Ecuador, Bolivia, Mexico) or above 400 excess deaths per 100,000 population (Peru, Bulgaria, North Macedonia, Serbia). At the same time, in several other countries (e.g. Australia and New Zealand) mortality during the pandemic was below the usual level, presumably due to social distancing measures decreasing the non-COVID infectious mortality
Summing up the excess mortality estimates across all countries in our dataset gives 4.0 million excess deaths. In contrast, summing up the official COVID-19 death counts gives 2.9 million deaths, corresponding to the global undercount ratio of 1.4.
In other words – many people were likely being killed by COVID-19 infections, which appear to be undercounted by some 40%.
To be clear – their data do not show COVID-19 vaccines causing those deaths, never mind 17 million deaths!
It is also important to point out that just because there is a spike in excess deaths during the COVID-19 pandemic, it does not mean that the COVID-19 vaccines, or pandemic measures (like requiring face masks to be worn, or lockdowns) taken by various governments, were the cause.
For example, if you get pregnant after getting an mRNA vaccination, does it mean that the vaccine made you pregnant? Of course, not. It’s the same silly argument being made with the results of this South Korean study.
How can anyone establish any “causal relationship” between the spike in excess deaths during the COVID-19 pandemic and the mRNA vaccines based on these results? No one can, and that is why this ridiculously long report is just utter nonsense.
Please help us FIGHT FAKE NEWS by sharing this fact check article out, and please SUPPORT our work!
Don’t forget to protect yourself, and your family, by vaccinating against COVID-19!
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.
Find out why the journal Cureus just retracted a controversial Japanese study which claimed to link COVID-19 vaccines to cancer!
Cureus Retracts Study Linking COVID Vaccines To Cancer!
Cureus just retracted a controversial Japanese study by Gibo M, Kojima S, Fujisawa A, et al. which claimed to link COVID-19 vaccines to cancer, a decision which drew outrage amongst the anti-vaccine community.
Some publications even suggested that Cureus made that decision after it was fact-checked by Facebook or Reuters.
Journal Retracts Peer-Reviewed Study Linking COVID Vaccines to Cancer After Reuters ‘Fact Checks’ It
Mortality for some cancers increased by as much as 9.7%, according to a study by Japanese researchers who analyzed government statistics to compare age-adjusted cancer mortality rates during the COVID-19 pandemic (2020-2022) with pre-pandemic rates.
The journal Cureus last week retracted a Japanese study that found statistically significant increases in cancer mortality following COVID-19 vaccination, especially after the third COVID-19 shot.
Slay News : Top Journal Removes Peer-Reviewed Study Linking Covid Shots to Cancer after Facebook ‘Fact Check’
An explosive peer-reviewed study was recently published in a prestigious medical journal which identifies a direct link between Covid mRNA shots and cancer.
As Slay News reported, the study, published in the Cureus journal, found that the risk of dying from cancer dramatically increased each time a patient received an mRNA injection.
Why Cureus Retracted Study Linking COVID Vaccines To Cancer!
Here is a quick primer on why Cureus retracted the controversial Japanese study linking COVID-19 vaccines to cancer, and what it means…
Fact #1 : Cureus Relies On Post-Publication Peer Review
Let me start by quickly pointing out that Cureus relies on post-publication peer review.
Even though this paper was marked as “peer-reviewed”, the peer review process at Cureus is “unusually fast“, and Cureus relies on “post-publication peer review“, as its Editor in Chief John R. Adler explained to Retraction Watch in 2015:
Yes, Cureus has an unusually fast review process, which is an important part of the journal’s philosophy. We believe that post publication peer review, a focus of our journal through commenting and our unique SIQ process, is potentially a more powerful way to discern truth.
In other words – the pre-publication peer review appears to be superficial, and Cureus relies on the scientific community to peer-review the papers after publication.
Even if the paper was properly peer-reviewed by a prestigious journal, that would only be the first step in the scientific review process, which would include replication and verification, as well as criticism by other members of the scientific community.
Fact #2 : Cureus Says Study’s Conclusions Are Invalid
After publishing the study on April 8, the Editors-in-Chief at Cureus initiated a comprehensive post-publication editorial review on June 12, after the scientific credibility of the article was severely criticised.
The Editors-in-Chief have been made aware of several concerns regarding the scientific credibility of this article. A comprehensive post-publication editorial review is being conducted to determine if any action is required.
Finally, on June 26, the Editors-in-Chief at Cureus determined that the data in the study did not show any correlation between mortality rates and vaccination status, which invalidated its conclusion. They then decided to retract the study:
The Editors-in-Chief have retracted this article. Upon post-publication review, it has been determined that the correlation between mortality rates and vaccination status cannot be proven with the data presented in this article. As this invalidates the conclusions of the article, the decision has been made to retract.
The authors disagree with this retraction.
This may seem like closing the stable doors after the horses have bolted, but at least the controversial article has finally been retracted. In hindsight, perhaps such studies should undergo a more stringent peer-review process before being allowed to be labelled as “peer-reviewed”, or published…
The Gibo et. al. study only performed statistical analysis of publicly-available data to look at whether there has been any increase in cancer deaths. While such studies may suggest a potential issue with the COVID-19 vaccines, they cannot prove any correlation, much less causation.
Back in April, I wrote a comprehensive look at that study, but here are the key points of why that Japanese study does not show a rise in cancer deaths in Japan and/or that they were caused by mRNA vaccines:
it did not even establish the COVID-19 vaccination status of people in the data!
Japan used a mix of COVID-19 vaccines, not just mRNA vaccines
the study lacked a control group of unvaccinated people, which invalidated its conclusion
cancer deaths have been rising for decades, as the chart below shows
Japan has an aging population, which could easily explain the increase in cancer rates and deaths
cancer has been the leading cause of death in Japan since 1981
The study did not even establish the vaccination status of people included in the data, never mind how many actually received the third dose! The authors actually admitted that at the end of their long paper:
Finally, there is no such thing as “turbo cancer”, and after billions of doses have been administered worldwide in the past 3 years – there is still no evidence that any COVID-19 vaccine can cause cancer, or make cancer go “turbo”.
The US National Cancer Institute also clearly states that there is no evidence that any COVID-19 vaccines cause cancer, lead to recurrence, or lead to disease progression. It also pointedly stated that COVID-19 vaccines do not change your DNA.
Please help us FIGHT FAKE NEWS by sharing this fact check article out, and please SUPPORT our work!
Don’t forget to protect yourself, and your family, by vaccinating against COVID-19!
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.
Did WHO DG Tedros arrange for Robert Fico to be shot after failing to convince him to continue with the Pandemic Treaty?! Take a look at the viral claim, and find out what the facts really are!
Claim : WHO DG Had Robert Fico Shot Over Pandemic Treaty!
People are sharing a video of Meryl Nass, who appeared to suggest that WHO DG Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus may have ordered the failed assassination of Robert Fico, after failing to convince its populist Prime Minister to continued with the Pandemic Treaty!
“[F]irst Tedros was there [in Slovakia], and then someone tries to assassinate him [PM Robert Fico]…I can’t guarantee you the two things are related, but it is extraordinary that every major newspaper claimed immediately that the assassination was the result of a ‘lone wolf.'”
Physician and writer Dr. Meryl Nass (@NassMeryl) describes during a May 16 Children’s Health Defense (@ChildrensHD) roundtable discussion with Senator Ron Johnson (@SenRonJohnson) et al. how it had been reported that WHO Director-General Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus had visited Slovakia and tried to talk the country’s prime minister, Robert Fico, out of “breaking consensus” for the WHO’s so-called “Pandemic Treaty” and International Health Regulation (IHR) amendments before the PM was the victim of an assassination attempt.
“It had been reported, actually, that Tedros, the Director-General of the WHO, had gone to Slovakia and had tried to talk him out of quote-unquote ‘breaking consensus for the documents,” Nass tells the roundtable participants.
“So, first Tedros was there, and then someone tries to assassinate him [Fico]…I can’t guarantee you the two things are related, but it is extraordinary that every major newspaper claimed immediately that the assassination was the result of a ‘lone wolf.’ And how they knew that—they obviously didn’t know that—but they obviously were all instructed to say that.”
Truth : WHO DG Did Not Have Robert Fico Shot Over Pandemic Treaty!
This is yet another example of fake news circulating on X (formerly Twitter), and here are the reasons why!
Fact #1 : Dr. Tedros Did Not Fly To Slovakia To Meet Robert Fico!
Let me start by pointing out that WHO Director-General Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus did not fly to Slovakia to speak with Prime Minister Robert Fico, in an attempt to convince him to continue with the Pandemic Treaty.
In fact, the last time Dr. Tedros flew to Slovakia was in June 2022 – almost two years ago, when he attended the GLOBSEC Bratislava Forum, with Zuzana Čaputová, the President of the Slovak Republic.
Fact #2 : WHO DG Tedros Was In Paris + Geneva
Robert Fico was shot by a gunman while greeting people outside the House of Culture in Handlova, at around 2:30 PM local time on Wednesday, 15 May 2024.
A day before Fico was shot, WHO DG Tedros was in Paris, attending the Summit for Clean Cooking in Africa. He even posted photos of a high-level dialogue hosted by French President Emmanuel Macron that day!
After that, a WHO spokesperson confirmed that Dr. Tedros flew back to WHO headquarters in Geneva, where he posted his condemnation of the attempt assassination of Robert Fico, before hosting Francophone ambassadors in Geneva.
It would be a miraculous feat for Dr. Tedros to be in two places at the same time. Needless to say, neither Meryl Nass, nor the people sharing her video / claims, ever provide any evidence WHO DG Tedros was in Slovakia in May 2024…
Fact #3 : Robert Fico Did Not Reject WHO Pandemic Treaty
Claims that Robert Fico was shot because he rejected the WHO Pandemic Treaty is nonsense. Robert Fico did not recently formally and/or publicly reject the WHO Pandemic Treaty, as some people have claimed or suggested.
It was Peter Kotlár, the Slovak Government Plenipotentiary for the COVID-19 pandemic, who formally and publicly rejected the “current version” of the WHO Pandemic Treaty on 10 May 2024. Even that was not a final, conclusive rejection of the WHO Pandemic Treaty.
While Robert Fico himself appear to speak out against the WHO Pandemic Treaty, he did not actually say that he was rejecting the WHO Pandemic Treaty. He only said that the SMER party will not support expanding the powers of the WHO, at the expense of the state’s right to tackle future pandemics.
In other words, it very much sounds like he’s okay with WHO gaining more powers, as long as Slovakia still retains the right to tackle future pandemics its own way.
Fact #4 : Fico’s Ministers Called It Politically Motivated
In addition, claims that media outlets were instructed to claim that the shooting was committed by a lone wolf is equally nonsensical.
For one thing – the gunman, who was later identified as 71 year-old Juraj Cintula from Levice, was immediately detained by Fico’s security detail.
Then, both Defense Minister Robert Kaliňák and Interior Minister Matúš Šutaj Eštok called the shooting “politically motivated,” with Šutaj Eštok saying that “the suspect made the decision to do it shortly after the presidential election,” which ended just last month – on 6 April 2024.
Juraj Cintula frequented events organised by the pro-Russian paramilitary group, Slovenski branci (Slovakian Recruits), and praised the group and its anti-immigration stance multiple times on social media.
There is no evidence that Juraj Cintula was inspired to shoot Robert Fico because he was against the WHO Pandemic Treaty. In fact – none of those who made those suggestions or claims ever provided any evidence to back them up!
Please help us FIGHT FAKE NEWS by sharing this fact check article out, and please 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.
Did scientists call for a global moratorium on the mRNA vaccine, after finding high rates of serious post-injection injuries?!
Take a look at the viral claim, and find out what the facts really are!
Claim : Scientists Call For mRNA Vaccine Moratorium!
The Children’s Health Defense (CHD) activist group, which is chaired by Robert F. Kennedy Jr., just posted an article claiming that scientists have called for a global moratorium on the mRNA vaccine, after finding high rates of serious post-injection injuries!
Here is an excerpt from the CHD article (archive) with my emphasis in bold.
Scientists Call for Global Moratorium on mRNA Vaccines, Immediate Removal From Childhood Schedule
A review paper published last week in the journal Cureus is the first peer-reviewed paper to call for a global moratorium on the COVID-19 mRNA vaccines. The authors say that reanalyzed data from the vaccine makers’ trials and high rates of serious post-injection injuries indicate the mRNA gene therapy vaccines should not have been authorized for use.
Governments should endorse a global moratorium on mRNA vaccines until all questions about their safety have been thoroughly investigated, according to the authors of a new, peer-reviewed article on the COVID-19 vaccine trials and the global vaccination campaign published last week in Cureus, Journal of Medical Science.
Cureus is a web-based peer-reviewed open-access general medical journal using prepublication peer review.
The authors surveyed published research on the pharmaceutical companies’ vaccine trials and related adverse events. They also called for the COVID-19 vaccines to be removed immediately from the childhood immunization schedule.
After the first reports from vaccine trials claimed they were 95% effective in preventing COVID-19, serious problems with method, execution and reporting in the trials became public, which the paper reviewed in detail.
Evidence also shows the products never underwent adequate safety and toxicological testing, and since the vaccine rollout, researchers have identified a significant number of adverse events (AEs) and serious adverse events (SAEs).
Scientists Call For mRNA Vaccine Moratorium : My Fact Check
The CHD story appears to suggest that scientists are calling for a global moratorium on the mRNA vaccine because it’s dangerous. However, it’s really more like the same bunch of anti-vaccine activists repeating long-debunked claims about the mRNA vaccine, and calling (yet again) for a moratorium.
Here are the reasons why the vast majority of scientists and health authorities are ignoring them, and why you too should ignore their repeated calls for an mRNA vaccine moratorium:
Fact #1 : Cureus Relies On Post-Publication Peer Review
The Children’s Health Defense (CHD) article repeatedly points out that the paper was “peer-reviewed”, probably to suggest that it should be taken seriously. That’s not exactly accurate.
Even though this paper was marked as “peer-reviewed”, the peer review process at Cureus is “unusually fast” at just a few days. That’s because the journal Cureus relies on “post-publication peer review“, as its Editor in Chief John R. Adler explained to Retraction Watch in 2015:
Yes, Cureus has an unusually fast review process, which is an important part of the journal’s philosophy. We believe that post publication peer review, a focus of our journal through commenting and our unique SIQ process, is potentially a more powerful way to discern truth.
In other words – the pre-publication peer review appears to be superficial, and Cureus relies on the scientific community to peer-review the papers after publication.
Fact #2 : It Regurgitates Long-Debunked Claims
The paper in question is a literature review called “COVID-19 mRNA Vaccines: Lessons Learned from the Registrational Trials and Global Vaccination Campaign” by Mead et. al. (archive), which includes anti-vaccine activists like Jessica Rose, Steve Kirsch, and Peter McCullough.
While it is being heralded as something new, the paper appears to be nothing more than a regurgitation of long-debunked claims about mRNA COVID-19 vaccines. It certainly offers no evidence to back up their claim for a vaccine moratorium. Let’s just take a look at a few:
COVID-19 Vaccine Clinical Trials Were Too Short?!
The paper claimed that no vaccine was permitted for market release without a testing period of at least four years, using the mumps vaccine by Merck as example. That’s not true.
The Mumpsvax (Jeryl Lynn strain) vaccine was developed and approved in a record four years, but its testing did not last four years. The mumps vaccine clinical trial in 1966 (abstract) only lasted 6 months.
This paper gives the results of a large field trial of the vaccine conducted among schoolchildren in North Carolina.
Vaccination was carried out in November 1966, every tenth child receiving a placebo preparation. Serum specimens were obtained at the time of vaccination and 4 weeks later from 556 children representing a cross-section of the total group of participants.
During the 180 days of post-vaccination surveillance, 56 cases of mumps were reported among the study population and 69 cases among non-participants.
There is no requirement by health authorities that testing or assessing any vaccine should last 10 years. The typical vaccine development time of 10-15 years is not a reflection of how much time a clinical trial needs to run, but rather the time it “generally” takes to create a vaccine, gather resources, get approvals, run clinical trials, process the data, file for approval, etc.
COVID-19 vaccines were so quickly developed because scientists all over the world collaborated on the effort, while governments funded their development, and fast-tracked their clinical trials and manufacturing preparations.
The speedy development of COVID-19 vaccines was also enabled by new vaccine platforms using mRNA or DNA technologies, in which genetic information from the new virus only needed to be “plugged in” to produce a new vaccine.
More importantly – the paper provided no evidence that the accelerated development of COVID-19 vaccines has actually resulted in unsafe vaccines.
mRNA COVID-19 Vaccines Were Not Proven Safe / Effective?
The Mead et. al. paper claimed or suggested that the clinical trials did not show that the mRNA COVID-19 vaccines were safe or effective because too few people in the unvaccinated (placebo) group died from COVID-19.
Well, not only is that a “misunderstanding” of the clinical trial results (see the next section), many studies have been conducted into the safety and efficacy of the mRNA vaccines for COVID-19 since they were deployed.
Those real world studies (example, example, example) consistently showed that the mRNA vaccines for COVID-19 are safe and effective.
Low Absolute Risk Shows No Need To Vaccinate?!
The Mead et. al. paper repeats the old trope that the low absolute risk (AR) seen in the mRNA vaccine clinical trials mean there is no need for anyone to get vaccinated. That’s simply not true, and is a (deliberate?) misunderstanding of statistical calculations.
The Absolute Risk Reduction (ARR) will “always appear low” because it depends very much on the “event rate”. As the Meedan Health Desk explained:
Let’s say a study enrolled 20,000 patients into the control group and 20,000 in the vaccine group. In that study, 200 people in the control group got sick and 0 people in the vaccine group got sick.
Even though the vaccine efficacy would be a whopping 100%, the ARR would show that vaccines reduce the absolute risk by just 1% (200/20,000= 1%).
For the ARR to increase to 20% in our example study with a vaccine with 100% efficacy, 4,000 of the 20,000 people in the control group would have to get sick (4,000/20,000= 20%).
Hence, the Relative Risk Reduction (RRR) is used instead to determine a vaccine’s efficacy, because it tells us how much risk is reduced in the vaccinated group, compared to the unvaccinated control group.
To be clear – the clinical trials and post-vaccination monitoring and studies have clearly shown that mRNA COVID-19 vaccines are effective in preventing severe disease and deaths from COVID-19.
The Mead et. al. paper claimed that the CDC said that “COVID-19 products would stop transmission”, but in the end “COVID-19 mRNA products do not prevent transmission or infection”. Well, that’s not really true.
For one thing – the CDC never said that COVID-19 vaccines would stop transmission. In fact, the CDC article the paper linked to only said that the vaccines appear to reduce (not stop) transmission:
… a growing body of evidence suggests that COVID-19 vaccines also reduce asymptomatic infection and transmission.
To be clear – the COVID-19 vaccines were primarily designed to reduce or prevent severe disease and death, which is why transmission for not an endpoint for their clinical trials. It would have been a nice bonus to block transmission completely, but partially reducing transmission is not too bad.
mRNA Vaccines Have A Lot Of AESIs?!
The Mead et. al. paper warns us about the many Adverse Events of Special Interest (AESI) reported after COVID-19 vaccinations. The problem is – those AESI are not actual vaccine side effects!
The AESI list for the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine for example has 9 pages of 1,291 adverse events, but that is not a list of the mRNA vaccine side effects. It is a list of “adverse events” that Pfizer must look for during the post-vaccination monitoring period. Not only are these “adverse events” not specific to the Pfizer mRNA vaccine, they include:
diseases like Herpes, MERS, Varicella, and other “communicable disease”,
exposure to SARS-CoV-2,
manufacturing and lab test issues, and even…
product availability and supply issues!
Needless to say – those adverse events are not vaccine side effects, or are any indication of vaccine performance or safety in any way.
The Mead et. al. paper also claimed that two large drug safety reporting systems in the US and Europe have over 7.8 million reports of adverse events, with “death, hospitalisations, and life-threatening reactions”. It is probably referring to VAERS and EudraVigilance.
The thing is – VAERS / Yellow Card / EudraVigilance data are all unverified, and may contain duplicated information. That’s why they are all prefaced with warnings like:
they may contain duplicated information and/or reports
the reported event may be caused by an illness, like a COVID-19 infection for example,
the reported event may be caused by a different drug taken by the patient at the same time
they have not been assessed by health authorities to ascertain if it’s even “biologically plausible”
In addition, open systems like VAERS, or the UK Yellow Card system, are very susceptible to abuse because they allow anyone from anywhere to post anything they want, without evidence or verification.
Anti-vaccination activists can, for example, key in unlimited numbers of adverse reaction reports, even if they never received a single dose of the COVID-19 vaccine!
Autopsy Reports Show Deaths Caused By Vaccines?!
The Mead et. al. paper claimed that “autopsy studies” showed that 74% of deaths were “judged to have been caused by the COVID-19 mRNA products”.
The problem is – the study it referred to was a preprint by one of its own authors – Peter McCullough, that was removed by The Lancet for violating its “screening criteria”.
This preprint has been removed by Preprints with The Lancet because the study’s conclusions are not supported by the study methodology. Preprints with The Lancet reserves the right to remove a paper that has been posted if we determine that it has violated our screening criteria.
Not only was that study just a “review” of autopsy reports, many of the cases had other far more likely causes of death.
The paper suggested that the mRNA vaccines are contaminated with DNA “orders of magnitude higher than the EMA’s limit”.
The truth is – residual DNA is found in all biological products manufactured using cells, and has not shown any health risk after being studied for many decades.
Pfizer Vaccine Has DNA From SV40 Virus That Causes Cancer?!
The paper also warned about the Simian Virus 40 (SV40) promoter found in samples of the Pfizer mRNA vaccine. Why? Because it warns – the SV40 virus “induces lymphomas, brain tumors, and other malignancies in laboratory animals”.
First of all – after decades of studies, there is still no conclusive evidence that the SV40 virus can cause cancers in humans. However, out of an abundance of caution, the SV40 virus is considered to potentially cause cancer in humans.
In any case, the SV40 promoter is a DNA sequence that is often used to manufacture mRNA, and is not dangerous. It certainly poses no cancer risk, because the part of the SV40 that can potentially cause cancer – the T-antigen, is not present in the SV40 promoter, or the Pfizer mRNA vaccine.
Please help us FIGHT FAKE NEWS by sharing this fact check article out, and please 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.
Did a new Turkish study suggest that giving the Pfizer COVID-19 vaccine to pregnant women may cause autism in their children?!
Take a look at the viral claim, and find out what the facts really are!
Claim : Study Suggests Pfizer mRNA Vaccine May Cause Autism!
The Children’s Health Defense (CHD) activist group, which is chaired by Robert F. Kennedy Jr., just posted an article suggesting that a new Turkish study suggests that giving the Pfizer COVID-19 vaccine to pregnant women may cause autism in their children!
Here is an excerpt from the CHD article (archive) with my emphasis in bold.
Pfizer’s COVID Vaccine Caused Autism-Like Behaviors in Offspring of Rats Vaccinated During Pregnancy
COVID-19 mRNA gene therapies (“vaccines”) were likely the first injectable medicines recommended for pregnant women based on just 11 weeks of testing — even though according to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, the average time required to test a drug for safety is eight-and-a-half years.
Now, a Turkish study in Neurochemical Research, by Mumin Alper Erdogan et al., suggests administering the mRNA vaccines to pregnant women may cause neurodevelopmental harm to their children.
Truth : Study Did Not Suggest Pfizer mRNA Vaccine Causes Autism!
Let’s take a closer look at the study from Turkey, and find out what the facts really are!
Fact #1 : mRNA Vaccines Are Not Gene Therapies
Let me just start by pointing out that the first sentence in the CHD article is factually wrong – mRNA vaccines are not gene therapies. It’s really peculiar for anyone to make such a claim.
mRNA vaccines do not enter the cell nucleus, and do not modify our cell DNA. There is no danger of “genomic integration”. The mRNA is also transitory – being broken down by the cell after some time.
Gene therapies, on the other hand, are designed to make permanent changes to a patient’s DNA, by adding a functional copy of a gene, disabling a gene, or activating an existing gene.
Fact #2 : Bridging Studies Do Not Require Long Trials
I also find it odd that the article took pains to point out that the mRNA vaccines for pregnant women were approved after “just 11 weeks of testing”. Does the CHD have any evidence that this is insufficient time to determine the vaccines’ safety and efficacy in pregnant women?
It is interesting that the article failed to mention that the 11-week trial involved more than 35,000 individuals who received the Pfizer or Moderna mNRA vaccine during or shortly before pregnancy, making it the largest trial (at that time) on the safety of COVID-19 vaccines in pregnant women.
I should point out that that wasn’t a full-blown Phase 3 clinical trial, which both Pfizer and Moderna mRNA vaccines had already passed with flying colours months earlier. That was a bridging study, which does not require long trials. So any suggestion or insinuation that they should take the “average time” of 8.5 years is nonsensical.
In any case, the COVID-19 vaccines continue to be monitored for safety and efficacy long after their approvals. If any COVID-19 vaccine was found to have a bad side effect, its approval would be rescinded.
Fact #3 : Study Never Suggested mRNA Vaccines Cause Autism In Humans
I should point out that the Turkish study never suggested that mRNA vaccines given to pregnant women may cause neurodevelopmental harm to their children. The authors stated this clearly. More on this in the next section.
The paper from Turkey by Mumim Alper Erdogan et. al., which is called Prenatal Exposure to COVID-19 mRNA Vaccine BNT162b2 Induces Autism-Like Behaviors in Male Neonatal Rats: Insights into WNT and BDNF Signaling Perturbations, is available for public access (archive).
As the title points out – the Turkish study was conducted on rats, specifically Wistar rats. Therefore, the results obviously do not translate to actual human beings.
While rats are mammals too, they are not miniature human beings, and respond differently to chemicals, drugs, and yes, vaccines too. Therefore, the results of any animal study should not be used to draw any conclusions about human beings. The authors themselves pointed this out:
… it’s vital to note these insights come primarily from animal studies, limiting their direct applicability to humans. Further human clinical research is required to confirm these findings.
It’s imperative to recognize the limitations of our research, given that it relies on animal models. Caution should be exercised in generalizing these results to humans.
Fact #5 : Pfizer Vaccine Dose Was Extremely High
To conduct their experiments, the Turkish researchers impregnated 15 female Wistar rats, splitting them into two groups – 7 receiving a saline solution (control group), and 8 receiving the Pfizer mRNA vaccine. However, it does not appear that the rats were given the appropriate dosage of the Pfizer vaccine.
Human adults receive 30 μg of the Pfizer vaccine in each dose. Given that the average female adult weight is 77.5 kg / 170.8 pounds (per CDC), and the average Wistar rat in that experiment weighed about 220 grams, each female rat should have received only 0.085 μg – 1/352th of the human dose.
Instead, each female Wistar rat was injected with 30 μg of the Pfizer mRNA vaccine – equivalent to 10,560 μg in human dosage, or 352 vaccine doses in one shot. This was the same problem we saw with an earlier Belgian study on the Pfizer vaccine causing turbo cancer.
This decision to use such a high dose of the Pfizer vaccine (in relative terms) makes the experiment a poor reflection of actual vaccine safety in human beings. Anything taken at such high doses would likely be toxic. Even water, when taken in large amounts, is toxic to humans.
The study suggested in its introduction that the spike protein – whether produced by “natural viral infection” or “post vaccination” may potentially cause “neurodevelopmental disorders, including autism”.
There are theoretical postulates suggesting that the biosynthesis of the spike protein, either through natural viral infection or post-vaccination, could induce neuroinflammation and elicit alterations in synaptic plasticity [5, 6]. These proposed changes might exert effects on brain development and have potential contributions to neurodevelopmental disorders, including autism [7].
Unfortunately, the study did not test that hypothesis by testing to see if COVID-19 infections can also cause similar changes in the progeny of pregnant Wistar rats. So it is impossible to know if it was a component in the Pfizer vaccine, or the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein, that caused those changes in the rat babies.
Think about this – if it was really the spike protein that caused those changes, then the benefits of vaccination would still outweigh the risks. After all, COVID-19 vaccines only create a limited number of spike protein analogues to trigger the immune system into learning how to create antibodies against the SARS-CoV-2 virus.
On the other hand, the actual COVID-19 infection will create an unlimited number of SARS-CoV-2 viruses – each covered with spike proteins! The longer the COVID-19 infection persists, the more cells are infected to produce more SARS-CoV-2 viruses… and yes, more spike proteins!
Fact #7 : Authors Warned Against Drawing Conclusions
I should end by pointing out that the authors of this study themselves warned against drawing any conclusions about whether the Pfizer vaccine causes autism in human beings.
It’s imperative to recognize the limitations of our research, given that it relies on animal models. Caution should be exercised in generalizing these results to humans. Further rigorous clinical studies are required to confirm these observations in human populations and to ascertain the exact mechanisms at play.
Please help us FIGHT FAKE NEWS by sharing this fact check article out, and please SUPPORT our work!
Protect yourself and your family, by vaccinating against COVID-19 and other preventable diseases!
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.
Did a study from Norway just show that the mRNA COVID-19 vaccine can cause serious side effects in children?!
Take a look at the viral claim, and find out what the facts really are!
Claim : Norway Study Shows mRNA Vaccine Danger In Children!
The Children’s Health Defense (CHD) activist group, which is chaired by Robert F. Kennedy Jr., just posted an article suggesting that a new study in Norway shows that mRNA COVID-19 vaccines can cause severe side effects in children!
Here is an excerpt from the CHD article (archive). Please feel free to skip to the next section for the facts!
Two COVID Shots Raise Risk of Anaphylaxis, Heart Issues in Older Adolescents
A Norwegian study found a low but significant risk of serious side effects among adolescents a short time following a second COVID-19 vaccination. The tenfold higher risk for anaphylaxis was the most concerning outcome, but the researchers also found swollen lymph nodes and heart issues.
Teens receiving two doses of an mRNA COVID-19 vaccine were at much higher risk for anaphylaxis, swollen glands and two types of serious heart inflammation, according to a study by the Norwegian Institute of Public Health (NIPH).
When the post-vaccination observation window increased from 14 to 42 days they observed a 39% higher risk for appendicitis after the first shot and a 43% increase after the second dose.
Researchers led by German Tapia, Ph.D., a postdoctoral epidemiologist at NIPH, enrolled 496,432 adolescents born between 2002 and 2009, living in Norway and unvaccinated before the official vaccine approval for this age group.
The researchers found no statistically significant associations between first-dose vaccination and any of the outcomes when comparing vaccinated and unvaccinated groups, but several serious safety signals arose after the second shot.
Second-dose vaccination was associated with a greater-than-tenfold increase in the risk of anaphylaxis compared with unvaccinated, a 133% greater risk of swollen glands and a 427% rise in myo- and pericarditis at up to 28 days after the last dose.
Truth : Norway Study Shows Limited mRNA Vaccine Risk In Children!
Let’s take a closer look at the various claims in the Children’s Health Defense article, and the study it referred to, and find out what the facts really are!
Fact #1 : It Was A Pre-Print On medRxiv
Let me start by pointing out that the study, which was conducted by researchers in Norway, has not been peer-reviewed – the first step or many in the scientific review process.
Hence, it has not been published in a journal, but in medRxiv – a preprint server operated by the Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory (CSHL). You can read the paper in full here – PDF.
While that does not mean its findings are wrong, such preprint papers should “not be considered for clinical application, nor relied upon for news reporting as established information“, as per CSHL.
Fact #2 : It Was A Retrospective Cohort Study
The CHD article took pains to claim twice that the researchers “enrolled” almost half a million adolescents in Norway in that study. If that’s true, it would have been a massive and costly undertaking.
Researchers led by German Tapia, Ph.D., a postdoctoral epidemiologist at NIPH, enrolled 496,432 adolescents …
By enrolling a large number of subjects and applying different observational time periods, Tapia et al. not only captured all available data but purposely subjected their data to a high level of statistical scrutiny.
But according to the study authors themselves, they did not actually enrol any participants. Rather, they used existing data from the Norwegian Emergency Preparedness Register for COVID-19 (Beredt C19).
Fact #3 : Risk Of Adverse Events Were Low
While the CHD article, and a similar article by The Epoch Times, appear to suggest that the Norway study has shown that the mRNA COVID-19 vaccine can cause severe adverse events or side effects in children, it actually suggested the opposite.
The Norway study concluded that the number of adverse events, and any “statistically significant associations” were “generally low“. While it did identify “some exceptions”, the study authors did not say that they were conclusive. They only said that they should be further monitored.
The Norway study identified lymphadenopathy as the most common “post-vaccination event”. However, lymphadenopathy isn’t as scary as it sounds.
Lymphadenopathy refers to enlarged or swollen lymph nodes that can appear for any number of reasons, most commonly an infection. Hence, it often appears in anyone – children or adults – who are suffering from infections. In fact, the study noted that lymphadenopathy was seen in both vaccinated and unvaccinated children:
Lymphadenopathy
Cases
Incidence
Vaccinated
651 out of 494,138
120 per 100,000 person-years
Unvaccinated
152 out of 493,360
103 per 100,000 person-years
According to a 2023 study (archive) published in the journal Vaccines, study results suggest that post-vaccination lymphadenopathy is caused by a “strong vaccine immune response“, possibly through the “B cell germinal centre response” after vaccination.
The study results also show that vaccine-induced lymphadenopathy is self-limiting, generally resolving by itself between 10 days to two months. In other words – lymphadenopathy seen after COVID-19 vaccination shows a robust response to the vaccine, and is not something to worry about.
Arguably, the biggest issue identified by the Vaccines study authors was in distinguishing such “reactive lymph nodes” from “metastatic lymph node enlargement” in patients who are already suffering from cancer.
Fact #5 : Study Found No Vaccine Link To Deaths
I found it interesting that the CHD article did not point out that the Norwegian study found no evidence of any deaths linked to the mRNA vaccine, even though it had a large sample size of almost half a million children:
We found no statistically significant associations with all-cause mortality within 28 days. Events were very rare.
No Norwegian adolescents were registered with vaccine-associated death (International Statistical Classification of Diseases and Related Health Problems, Tenth Revision [ICD-10] code U12.9) during follow-up.
Fact #6 : Study Found No Vaccine Link To Arrhythmia
Interestingly, this Norway study also found no link between COVID-19 vaccines and heart arrhythmia, even though it noted that myocarditis may potentially cause arrhythmia.
Myocarditis may lead to arrhythmia, but we observed no vaccine-arrhythmia association.
mRNA vaccines are known to cause myocarditis and pericarditis in children and young adults, generally in males. However, they have been shown to be milder and far less common than myocarditis and pericarditis caused by COVID-19 infections.
Fact #7 : Study Confirmed Existing mRNA Vaccine Risks
The large Norwegian study merely confirms what we already know about mRNA vaccine risks – it can cause rare side effects like anaphylaxis right after vaccination, or pericarditis / myocarditis within 7 days of receiving the vaccine.
These are known risks of the mRNA vaccines for COVID-19, from both Pfizer-BioNTech and Moderna. However, the benefits of COVID-19 vaccination still far outweighs these rare risk factors.
In fact, anaphylaxis can be dealt with immediately (which is why you are asked to wait 30 minutes after vaccination), while vaccine pericarditis / myocarditis are generally milder (and much rarer) than pericarditis / myocarditis from COVID-19 infections.
Fact #8 : Study Did Not Compare Risk To COVID-19 Infection
Finally, I should point out that this Norway study only compared adverse events reported for vaccinated and unvaccinated children. It did not compare the risk of adverse events against COVID-19 infections.
To properly weigh the benefits against the risks of COVID-19 vaccination in children, any potential vaccine side effect should be compared to those from COVID-19 infections.
For example, the massive SAFECOVAC study showed that the risk of getting myocarditis from a COVID-19 infection is hundreds of times higher, compared to getting vaccinated against COVID-19!
Myocarditis
Risk
Per Million
People
vs
Sinovac
vs
AstraZeneca
vs
Pfizer
COVID-19
450
+300x
+214x
+167x
3x Pfizer
2.7
+1.8x
+1.3x
Baseline
3x AstraZeneca
2.1
+1.4x
Baseline
-0.2x
3x Sinovac
1.5
Baseline
-0.3x
-0.4x
Please help us FIGHT FAKE NEWS by sharing this fact check article out, and please SUPPORT our work!
Don’t forget to protect yourself, and your family, by vaccinating against COVID-19!
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.
Do COVID-19 vaccines really increase the risk of long COVID symptoms?!
Take a look at the viral claim, and find out what the facts really are!
Claim : COVID-19 Vaccines Increase Risk Of Long COVID!
The Children’s Health Defense (CHD) activist group, which is chaired by Robert F. Kennedy Jr., just posted an article suggesting that a study has shown that people who received two doses of a COVID-19 vaccine may be more likely to get long COVID symptoms than people who received one or no dose at all.
Here is an excerpt from the CHD article (archive). Please feel free to skip to the next section for the facts!
Two Doses of COVID Vaccine May Increase Risk of Long COVID Symptoms
People who received two doses of a COVID-19 vaccine may be more likely to get long COVID symptoms compared with those who received one or no dose, a peer-reviewed study showed.
The study authors — who published their report on Dec. 20, 2022, in PLoS One — looked at what factors predicted whether or not 487 adults who had a COVID-19 infection later developed long COVID symptoms.
They also looked at what symptoms those with long COVID reported experiencing.
The authors found five statistically significant predictors of developing long COVID: pre-existing medical conditions, having a higher number of symptoms during the acute phase of COVID-19, two doses of COVID-19 vaccination, the severity of illness, and admission to a hospital.
In other words, these five factors were “independently associated” with a heightened risk of long COVID, Dr. Peter McCullough noted in a Substack post about the study.
Long COVID symptoms experienced by the study participants included fatigue, cough, difficulty breathing, chest pain, loss of taste or smell, brain fog, heart palpitations and anxiety.
When it came to discussing the link between two doses of COVID-19 vaccination and the development of long COVID symptoms, the study authors called it an “observational paradox” and cited research that contradicted what their data showed.
Dr. Pierre Kory told The Defender he wasn’t surprised the researchers found a link between two vaccine doses and long COVID — and he also wasn’t surprised the authors downplayed the finding.
Truth : COVID-19 Vaccines Do Not Increase Risk Of Long COVID!
Let’s take a closer look at the various claims in the article, and find out what the facts really are!
Fact #1 : Arjun et. al. Study Was Published In 2022
Let me start by pointing out that the Arjun et. al. study mentioned in the CHD article is more than a year old, being published in PLOS ONE in December 2022. You can read it in full here.
Why would the Children’s Health Defense dig up this study from 2022, when several newer studies showed that COVID-19 vaccines significantly reduced the risk of long COVID?
Fact #2 : Study Did Not Conclude Vaccines Increase Long COVID Risk
While the Arjun et. al. study results show that receiving two doses of a COVID-19 vaccine was a predictor of long COVID, the authors did not reach the conclusion, calling it “an observational paradox” that might be explained by vaccination patients more likely to survive COVID-19 infections.
This collider bias, they pointed out, was to be expected since their sample only included patients with access to hospital care. In fact, their study showed that patients who received hospital care were associated with a higher risk of developing long COVID symptoms!
An observational paradox in our study was that the participants who took two doses of COVID-19 vaccination had higher odds of developing Long COVID. It could be due to better survival in vaccinated individuals who may continue to exhibit symptoms of COVID-19 disease.
We could not find any interaction effect of COVID-19 vaccination and acute COVID-19 severity on causing Long COVID.
This association might have also arisen due to Collider bias [40]. The Collider bias might have operated in this case since the sample included only COVID-19 positive tested patients who accessed the hospital (healthcare workers included) making the sample inherently biased to derive such conclusions.
They also pointed out that other studies have shown that COVID-19 vaccination reduced long COVID risks. So why would anyone use their paper to draw a completely different conclusion?
If you read the Arjun et. al. study, you will notice (see results) that it actually found that other factors were more strongly associated with a higher risk of long COVID symptoms:
suffering from 1 to 4 symptoms of COVID-19
suffering from 5 or more symptoms of COVID-19
developing severe or critical COVID-19
being admitted to a hospital
In other words – you are more likely to get long COVID, if you experience moderate or severe COVID-19. Which means the benefits of vaccination still outweighs the risks.
Fact #4 : Newer Studies Show Vaccines Greatly Reduce Long COVID Risk
Interestingly, this CHD article came just after Scientific American posted its article on how several new studies show how getting multiple COVID-19 vaccine doses “dramatically lowers long COVID risk“.
A growing consensus is emerging that receiving multiple doses of the COVID vaccine before an initial infection can dramatically reduce the risk of long-term symptoms. Although the studies disagree on the exact amount of protection, they show a clear trend: the more shots in your arm before your first bout with COVID, the less likely you are to get long COVID.
One meta-analysis of 24 studies published in October, for example, found that people who’d had three doses of the COVID vaccine were 68.7 percent less likely to develop long COVID compared with those who were unvaccinated.
It is also a welcome departure from earlier studies, which suggested that vaccines provided only a modest defense against long COVID. In 2022 Marra’s team published a meta-analysis of six studies that found that a single dose of the COVID vaccine reduced the likelihood of long COVID by 30 percent. Now, that protection appears to be much greater.
A study published in November in the BMJ found that a single COVID vaccine dose reduced the risk of long COVID by 21 percent, two doses reduced it by 59 percent and three or more doses reduced it by 73 percent. Vaccine effectiveness clearly climbed with each successive dose.
That lines up with the findings of several new studies, which similarly show this ladderlike benefit. Marra’s October 2023 meta-analysis found that two doses reduced long COVID likelihood by 36.9 percent and three doses reduced it by 68.7 percent. And in a study published last year in the Journal of the American Medical Association, other researchers found that the prevalence of long COVID in health care workers dropped from 41.8 percent in unvaccinated participants to 30 percent in those with a single dose, 17.4 percent with two doses and 16 percent with three doses.
Fact #5 : Long COVID More Common In Unvaccinated People
According to Scientific American, the prevalence of long COVID is significantly greater in unvaccinated people, compared to people who had two or more doses of the COVID-19 vaccines.
Unvaccinated : 11%
Fully-vaccinated : 5%
Again, it clearly shows that COVID-19 vaccines have a significant protective effect against long COVID.
Please help us FIGHT FAKE NEWS by sharing this fact check article out, and please SUPPORT our work!
Don’t forget to protect yourself, and your family, by vaccinating against COVID-19!
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.
Was the mRNA vaccines just shown to trigger severe nerve damage, including multiple sclerosis?!
Take a look at the viral claim, and find out what the facts really are!
Claim : mRNA Vaccines Trigger Severe Nerve Damage!
The Children’s Health Defense (CHD) activist group, which is chaired by Robert F. Kennedy Jr., just posted an article suggesting that Brazilian researchers uncovered two cases of serious nerve damage in patients who received mRNA COVID-19 vaccines.
This was what was posted on the CHD page on X (formerly Twitter):
Brazilian researchers have uncovered two cases of serious nerve damage in patients who received mRNA COVID-19 vaccines.
Here is an excerpt from the CHD article (archive). Please feel free to skip to the next section for the facts!
COVID vaccine triggers nerve damage, MS
Multiple Sclerosis and Optic Neuritis triggered by COVID-19 mRNA; Neuroimmunology Reports, Jan. 1, 2024.
Brazilian researchers have uncovered two cases of serious nerve damage in patients who received messenger RNA (mRNA) COVID-19 vaccines.
The first case involved a 25-year-old woman presenting weakness on her right side plus lower limb pain, sensory impairment, difficulty walking and bladder trouble one week after the shot. These symptoms, plus imaging tests, led to a diagnosis of multiple sclerosis (MS).
The patient was hospitalized, treated with steroids and released with a prescription for dimethyl fumarate, an MS drug. No mention was made of her current status.
The second case was an 8-year-old boy who, 12 days after his vaccination, developed blurred vision in both eyes. Examination revealed optic disk swelling and brain magnetic resonance imaging revealed three brain lesions.
Symptoms completely resolved after five days of steroid treatment.
The authors of the case studies concluded: “Diseases or symptoms triggered or linked to this new vaccine technology must be reported and studied.”
Let’s take a closer look at the various claims in the article, and find out what the facts really are!
Fact #1 : It Was A Case Presentation
Let me start by pointing out that the Brazilian paper in question was a case presentation submitted to Neuroimmunology Reports, called Multiple Sclerosis and Optic Neuritis triggered by COVID-19 mRNA by Moretti, Fabiani, et. al.
Fact #2 : Paper Did Not Conclude mRNA Vaccines Cause Nerve Damage
If you read the conclusion, you will note that the authors never actually concluded that mRNA vaccines causes nerve damage. The authors only pointed out that such cases should be reported, and that “more studies are still needed”. Here is the relevant quote from the paper, with my emphasis underlined.
Diseases or symptoms triggered or linked to this new vaccine technology must be reported and studied, contributing to worldwide databases.
More studies are still needed on the association between neurological complications and the vaccine against COVID-19. Long-term monitoring is needed if the vaccine can cause or trigger neurological disorders.
Fact #3 : Paper Says Vaccine Benefits Outweigh The Risks
Anyone who reads the conclusion will also realise that the authors actually pointed out that the benefits of vaccinating against COVID-19 outweigh the risks. On top of that, they said that no neurological condition is an absolute contraindication for vaccinating against COVID-19.
Overall, the benefits of vaccination outweigh the risks of neurological complications, and, to date, no neurological condition is an absolute contraindication for vaccination against COVID-19.
Fact #4 : AstraZeneca Vaccine Is A Virus Vector Vaccine
With all due respect to the authors, the editors and the peer-reviewers, I should point out that the first case report does not involve any mRNA vaccine.
The first case involved the Oxford-AstraZeneca COVID-19 vaccine, which is a virus vector vaccine. It is not an mRNA vaccine.
ChAdOx1 was not the vaccine’s name either. Rather, ChAdOx1 was the name of the modified chimpanzee adenovirus the Oxford-AstraZeneca used as its vector.
Fact #5 : First Patient Already Had Multiple Sclerosis
What may not be obvious, but was mentioned in the paper, was that the first patient – who received the AstraZeneca vaccine, already had multiple sclerosis (MS).
The authors pointed out that she already met the 2017 McDonald’s criteria for multiple sclerosis. That meant that this patient had prior MRI-detected lesions, or oligoclonal bans in the spinal fluid, or prior clinical symptoms of MS.
This is because a key requirement for the diagnosis of MS is Dissemination In Time (DIT) – there must be evidence of damage, at different times, and to different parts, of the central nervous system (source).
In fact, the authors pointed out that the COVID-19 vaccination only triggered the symptoms, but did not actually cause multiple sclerosis. Here’s the relevant quote, with my emphasis underlined.
The female patient met the McDonald’s (2017) criteria for multiple sclerosis, and the vaccine only triggered the symptoms.
I should point out that multiple sclerosis patients often suffer such relapses of symptoms that are triggered by anything from viral infections to stress. Certain vaccinations involving live viruses or bacteria can also trigger a relapse.
Since the AstraZeneca COVID-19 vaccine (Vaxzevria) uses a modified chimpanzee virus, it is plausible that it may trigger symptoms in multiple sclerosis patients.
Fact #6 : Multiple Sclerosis Can Cause Optic Neuritis
The second patient in the Brazilian case presentation developed optic neuritis – inflammation of the optic nerve. Optic neuritis is most commonly seen in multiple sclerosis patients.
Even though this 8 year-old boy is not known to have multiple sclerosis, the authors noted that a brain MRI showed three small acute hypertension lesions in his brain. Such brain lesions developing in multiple places over time (Dissemination in Time, DIT) are highly suggestive of multiple sclerosis, as per the McDonald criteria.
In other words – it is possible that this patient may also have multiple sclerosis that may not have been previously diagnosed, whose symptoms was triggered by the vaccine – just like in the first case.
Fact #7 : COVID-19 Infection Can Cause Optic Neuritis
I should also point out that past COVID-19 infections can cause optic neuritis. In fact, this January 2022 case study published in the Indian Journal of Ophthalmology detailed three patients who developed optic neuritis weeks or months after recovering from mild COVID-19 infections.
The authors noted that in those three patients, demyelinating lesions were identified in two cases, while the third case was found with serum anti-myelin antibodies.
Patient 1 suddenly lost vision in his left eye two weeks after recovering from mild COVID-19.
Patient 2 lost vision in his left eye six months after recovering from mild COVID-19.
Patient 3 lost vision in his left eye twice, two weeks after recovering from mild COVID-19, and then again four weeks later.
All three patients recovered their vision, but as you can see – COVID-19 infections can potentially cause optic neuritis long after recovery. It is plausible that the second patient in the Brazilian case presentation may have had a prior COVID-19 infection (before his vaccination).
That is why we cannot draw conclusions from any of these case reports / presentations. They all need to be investigated to determine their actual cause.
It is also important to note that neither patients mentioned in this Brazilian case presentation died.
The first patient recovered partially after treatment with methylprednisolone, and was discharged with the treatment of dimethyl fumarate.
The second patient was also treated with methylprednisolone, and experienced a complete recovery, with no further treatment.
Methylprednisolone is often used in symptomatic attacks of multiple sclerosis. Dimethyl fumarate is also a treatment of multiple sclerosis.
Please help us FIGHT FAKE NEWS by sharing this fact check article out, and please SUPPORT our work!
Don’t forget to protect yourself, and your family, by vaccinating against COVID-19!
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.
Are soccer players keeling over while playing on the field from the COVID-19 vaccine?!
Take a look at the viral claim, and find out what the facts really are!
Claim : Soccer Players Are Keeling Over From COVID-19 Vaccine!
The Children’s Health Defense (CHD) activist group, which is chaired by Robert F. Kennedy Jr., just posted an article suggesting that soccer players are keeling over while playing on the field from the COVID-19 vaccine!
Here is an excerpt from the long, rambling article. Please feel free to skip to the next section for the facts!
Keeling Over on the Soccer Field: Is It ‘Long COVID’ — or the Vaccines?
There is an urgent need for studies comparing the health of COVID-19-vaccinated and unvaccinated people. This research is not being done. The data that would identify people who die or were hospitalized is available to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, but is not being released.
The first reports of people keeling over on the soccer field were in the summer of 2021, a year after the first surge in COVID-19 cases, but synchronous with the availability of mRNA vaccines for young, healthy people.
The people who are suffering heart attacks while exercising are young males of exceptional good health. There is almost no danger from COVID-19 for such people, but they are known to be a high-risk group for myocarditis from the shots.
The mRNA vaccines were pressed upon billions of people globally with no long-term safety studies. This was an unprecedented departure from past regulation practice.
And the control groups in the Pfizer and Moderna trials were given the vaccine just a few months into the trials, assuring that these trials can never test the long-term safety of the products. With Kafka-esque logic, the companies claimed that their products were so safe and effective that it would be unethical to deny their benefits to the placebo group in the study, so Shucks!
It’s just too bad that we’re never going to have the data that would establish just how safe and effective they are. At the time when they claimed it would be unethical to deny the benefit of their product to the 30,000 subjects in the control groups, more people had died in the vaccine group than in the control group.
It is now established that problems with heart inflammation and blood clots come from the spike protein of the vaccine. But the spike protein is the active epitope for all the vaccines, and it goes everywhere in the body.
Some people who are vaccinated get a much higher dose of spike protein than people who contract the disease. This is because mRNA vaccines, unlike traditional vaccines, do not deliver a measured dose of the epitope to the body. Instead, they deliver coded instructions for making the spike protein, and cells of our bodies do the work of creating it. Most people who receive the shots can degrade the mRNA within a few days.
But in a small percentage of people, the mRNA persists for months, continuing to churn out the spike protein. In a smaller set — we don’t know how many people because no one is conducting quantitative research — the mRNA is reverse-transcribed back into DNA, and the body’s generation of spike protein never stops. Since the liquid nanoparticles carrying mRNA are concentrated in the ovaries, it is possible that DNA coding for the spike could be passed to succeeding generations. No one is looking for this effect.
We now know that COVID-19 came from a bioweapon laboratory, and the spike protein was the part of the virus that was engineered to be toxic. This means that there are people who know exactly how it was designed and in what way it was engineered to be toxic.
These scientists probably also know how to cure the disease, because every bioweapon is researched in parallel with an antidote. Cross-examining these scientists could save millions of lives. Why is no one with authority conducting the investigations or issuing the subpoenas?
There is an urgent need for studies comparing the health of COVID-19-vaccinated and unvaccinated people. This research is not being done, and the data that would identify people who die or were hospitalized is available to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), but not being released.
It is my opinion, given the present messaging climate, that if such studies supported the long-term benefits of mRNA vaccination, we would be hearing about them loud and clear. The fact that these data are not being reported and the studies are not being done is suspicious.
No Evidence Soccer Players Are Keeling Over From COVID-19 Vaccine!
Let’s take a closer look at the various claims in the article, and find out what the facts really are!
Fact #1 : Sudden Cardiac Arrest Is Pretty Common
The first reports of soccer players keeling over on the field did not start only “in the summer of 2021”. Sudden Cardiac Arrest (SCA) is a medical emergency that has been documented for as long as medical records exist.
And SCA is actually pretty common. The United States alone records over half a million cases of sudden cardiac arrest cases every year – an incidence of about 130 per 100,000 individuals per year.
In addition, the COVID-19 vaccines were first prioritised towards vulnerable people, and not athletes. So some athletes who collapsed on the field in the summer of 2021, like Christian Eriksen, were actually unvaccinated!
The incidence of SCA also did not increase after the COVID-19 vaccines were introduced, which squashes the claim that vaccines are causing a spike in sudden cardiac arrest deaths.
As this Peterson-KFF chart shows, the incidence of heart disease as well as other causes of death in the United States remained relatively stable during the pandemic. Only deaths from COVID-19 varied significantly during that time.
Fact #2 : COVID-19 Causes Far More Myocarditis Than Vaccines!
It is true that younger males are more likely than other segments of the population to develop myocarditis after taking COVID-19 vaccines based on mRNA technology. However, what you may not know is that – the risk of developing myocarditis is much, much higher with COVID-19 infections!
The large SAFECOVAC study showed that the risk of developing vaccine myocarditis is less than 1 in a million doses. On the other hand, the study data showed that the risk of developing myocarditis after a COVID-19 infection is hundreds of times higher than getting 3 doses of any COVID-19 vaccine!
If you are worried about myocarditis, you should definitely want to AVOID getting infected with COVID-19.
Fact #3 : COVID-19 Vaccines Continue To Be Monitored
COVID-19 vaccines received their Emergency Use Authorisations (EUA) in December 2020 through early 2021, after passing large Phase 3 clinical trials. Even then, they continue to be monitored by their manufacturers, and health authorities across the world.
Even after the Pfizer and Moderna mRNA vaccines received their full FDA approval on 23 August 2021, and 31 January 2022 respectively, they continue to be monitored for safety and efficacy.
After three years of safety monitoring and billions of doses administered, COVID-19 vaccines have been proven to be largely safe and effective. There is zero evidence that the COVID-19 vaccines are nefariously targeting soccer players, and “assassinating” them while they play on the field.
Fact #4 : Viruses Multiply, Vaccines Won’t
The claim that COVID-19 vaccines produce more spike proteins than an actual COVID-19 virus infection is illogical. After all, viruses multiply, while the vaccines won’t.
Even if we simply look at the mRNA vaccines alone, they contain a limited number of mRNA instructions that encode for the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein. The mRNA instructions enter a limited number of cells, which then produce and display those spike proteins on their surfaces, to trigger our immune system.
If you are infected by the actual SARS-CoV-2 virus though, it quickly hijacks your cells to produce millions of copies – each covered with spike proteins, which then infect even more cells, in an ever-expanding chain reaction.
Until your immune system learns to stop and defeat the SARS-CoV-2 virus, it will keep producing millions and millions of viruses that will circulate through your body, delivering those nasty spike proteins everywhere.
So if you are really worried about the spike protein, you should really get vaccinated against COVID-19!
There is no evidence that SARS-CoV-2 was developed as a bioweapon. Neither is there any evidence that the spike protein was man-made, or “engineered to be toxic”.
For one thing – SARS-CoV-2 isn’t virulent enough to serve as a bioweapon. There are far more potent bioweapons that have already been tested in the past that make this coronavirus look puny.
COVID-19 also disproportionately targets the elderly and the vulnerable, instead of the “fighting age” population. A good bioweapon would do the opposite.
The Chinese also did not have any antidote at hand to deal with COVID-19, when it first broke out in Wuhan.
Please help us FIGHT FAKE NEWS by sharing this fact check article out, and please SUPPORT our work!
Don’t forget to protect yourself, and your family, by vaccinating against COVID-19!
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.
Did Japanese researchers just discover that COVID-19 vaccines can cause long-term heart damage, even in people with no symptoms?!
Take a look at the viral claims, and find out what the facts really are!
Claim : COVID-19 Vaccines May Cause Long-Term Heart Damage!
People are sharing an article by the Children’s Health Defense, suggesting that Japanese researchers found evidence that COVID-19 vaccines cause long-term heart damage, even in people with no symptoms!
Children’s Health Defense : 🚨 COVID Vaccine May Cause Long-Term Heart Damage, Even in People With No Symptoms
The findings contradict claims by the CDC that people who develop myocarditis following COVID-19 vaccines experience symptoms but “feel better quickly.”
Dr. Kat Lindley : Japanese researchers said they found evidence of long-term heart damage in people who received COVID-19 vaccines — including in asymptomatic patients — even though vaccine-induced myocarditis was thought to be rare, transient and limited to subjects experiencing heart symptoms.
Regardless of age or sex, patients who received their second vaccination up to 180 days before imaging showed a 47% higher uptake in heart tissues of fluorine-18 fluorodeoxyglucose (FDG), an imaging agent, than unvaccinated subjects.
FDG is identical to glucose, a sugar that is the body’s main energy source, but it contains fluorine-18, a radioactive form of fluorine that allows imaging of organs and tissues where FDG accumulates. Stressed or damaged cells, a hallmark of myocarditis, take up more glucose than healthy cells.
Researchers led by Takehiro Nakahara at Keio University School of Medicine used a retrospective study design to compare positron emission tomography/computed tomography (PET/CT) scans between patients undergoing imaging before COVID-19 vaccines were available (from Nov. 1, 2020, to Feb. 16, 2021) to scans on other subjects after the vaccine rollout (Feb. 17, 2021, to March 31, 2022).
No Evidence COVID-19 Vaccines Cause Long-Term Heart Damage!
Let’s take a look at what the Japanese researchers did, and find out why they did not actually show that COVID-19 vaccines cause long-term heart damage!
Fact #1 : Assessment Done Via Pet/CT Scan
First, let me just point out that the study in question (link) is called “Assessment of Myocardial 18F-FDG Uptake at PET/CT in Asymptomatic SARS-CoV-2–vaccinated and Nonvaccinated Patients” by Nakahara et al.
This was not an actual clinical study, but a retroactive study based on the PET/CT scans of about 1,000 people – 303 unvaccinated people and 700 vaccinated people.
Fact #2 : Study Was Paired With Editorial
The Nakahara et al study was published in Radiology Vol. 308, which lends it great credence. However, the journal paired it with an editorial by Dr. David Bluemke – a professor of radiology at the University of Wisconsin, to offer much needed context.
Professor Dr. Bluemke was very critical in his editorial, pointing out many problems with the Nakahara et al study. I will summarise some of his key findings below, but if you have the time, please read his editorial in full.
Fact #3 : Study Did Not Conclude Vaccines Cause Heart Damage
To be clear – the study did not show that vaccinated people actually had heart damage, whether long-term or otherwise. It’s even stated in the study’s conclusion:
When compared with nonvaccinated patients, asymptomatic patients who received their second vaccination 1–180 days prior to imaging showed increased myocardial 18F-FDG uptake on PET/CT scans.
The study authors only stated that those PET/CT scans increased myocardial 18F-FDG uptake. Did they not actually claim that it proves any heart damage, long-term or otherwise.
In fact, they also pointed out that the increased 18F-FDG uptake seen in the PET/CT scans may just show minor inflammation, and “may not represent severe myocardial abnormalities”:
[E]ven though vaccinated patients in this study showed elevated myocardial 18F-FDG uptake on PET/CT scans up to 180 days after vaccination, this could result from relatively minor inflammation and may not represent severe myocardial abnormalities.
Fact #4 : 18F FDG PET/CT Is Bad At Evaluating Heart Inflammation
Dr. Bluemke pointed out in his editorial that PET/CT scans using the 18F FDG tracer are a bad way to evaluate any inflammation of the heart.
Unfortunately, in routine clinical practice, 18F FDG PET/CT is a terrible tracer with which to evaluate myocardial inflammation. This is because glucose is the normal source of energy for the myocardium—almost all patients have high myocardial uptake.
As he explained, a proper study would require “diet manipulation” and “12 hours of fasting” to accurately perform myocardial imaging for 80% of patients using FDG PET/CT scans.
Typical disease processes of interest (infection or inflammatory disease) also result in high myocardial uptake. Routine PET/CT cannot help to reliably identify higher activity due to inflammation on an already high background of normal myocardium. Special steps need to be taken.
The trick is to combine a low carbohydrate and high fat diet the day before the FDG PET scan with 12 hours of fasting immediately before imaging. The myocardium will then typically convert to lipid metabolism; radiotracer activity on 18F FDG PET scans is low in about 80% of patients. Therefore, after diet manipulation and fasting, the clinician has a reasonable possibility of detecting inflammatory or infiltrative myocardial disease.
Still, that leaves 20% of patients who have not switched off their use of glucose. With fasting alone (no diet changes), the success of myocardial imaging with PET/CT is even worse, with about 30%–50% of individuals having residual myocardial activity on FDG PET/CT scans.
Fact #5 : The Patients Had Cancer + Other Diseases
I should point out that the study isn’t actually representative of the general population. About half the patients had cancer of some sort:
Vaccinated group : 328 of 700 patients had cancer (46.9%)
Unvaccinated group : 153 of 300 patients had cancer (50.5%)
On top of that, the other patients had a variety of diseases like – sarcoidosis, thyroid disease, etc. and many underwent chemotherapy and radiotherapy, and other forms of treatment that could account for the results.
Dr. Bluemke also pointed out in his editorial that such a non-representative cohort requires “further analysis”:
The main results are asymptomatic patients vaccinated for COVID-19 before PET had about 40% greater radiotracer activity in the myocardium than unvaccinated individuals. The P value was low, less than .001. This translates to only one time out of 1000 that these results would occur by chance.
These results are compelling, but we should remain suspicious without further analysis. There are simply too many things that can still go wrong with this comparison.
Patients with cancer who get vaccinated tend to be older and perhaps at greater risk for being immunocompromised or needing chemotherapy. We do not know the full characteristics of vaccinated versus unvaccinated patients (including the course and nature of chemotherapy treatments). Prior studies showed that younger male individuals had more reports of vaccine-related myocarditis after their second dose of vaccine.
Standardized uptake values are quantitative and useful, but metabolic derangements might also cause the same differences. In short, other differences besides vaccination could be responsible for differences between the two patient groups.
In short – this study requires more data, and more analysis. One certainly cannot draw any kind of conclusions based on PET/CT scams of just 1,000 people – half of which had cancer!
Please help us FIGHT MISINFORMATION by sharing this fact check article out, and please 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.
Do UK government data show that young people are dying of turbo cancer caused by the COVID-19 vaccine at “explosive” rates?!
Take a look at the viral claim, and find out what the facts really are!
Claim : UK Gov Data Show Explosive Hike In Cancer Deaths From Vaccine!
People are sharing a Children Health Defense article that appears to suggest that UK government data show that young people are dying of turbo cancer caused by the COVID-19 vaccine at “explosive” rates!
Here is an excerpt from the very long article:
New Report: Young People Dying of Cancer at ‘Explosive’ Rates, UK Government Data Show
An analysis of U.K. government data shows an unprecedented increase in cancer deaths among 15- to 44-year-olds following the rollout of COVID-19 vaccines, according to a new report by data analyst Edward Dowd. The report has prompted renewed calls for further investigation.
Teenagers and young people in their 20s, 30s and 40s in the U.K. are dying from rapidly metastasizing and terminal cancers at an unprecedented rate since mass COVID-19 vaccination began, according to a new analysis by Edward Dowd.
The 45-page report by Dowd, a former Wall Street hedge fund manager and author of “‘Cause Unknown’: The Epidemic of Sudden Deaths in 2021 and 2022,” alarmed some oncologists who characterized it as a sharp reversal of decades of mortality data.
Dowd based his analysis on readily available government statistics from the U.K.’s Office for National Statistics.
In an interview with The Defender, Dowd said he and his research partners, who include a handful of high-level scientists, data analysts and financial experts, examined all International Classification of Diseases, 10th Revision, (ICD-10) codes for cause of death in the U.K. in the study period of 2010-2022 to investigate trends in malignant neoplasms (C00 to C99 codes).
The study’s results in the rate of cancer deaths above the historic norm in 2022 for ages 15-44 in the U.K. included:
A 28% rise in fatal breast cancer rates in women.
An 80% increase in pancreatic cancer deaths among women and a 60% increase among men.
A 55% increase among men in colon cancer deaths and a 41% increase in women.
A 120% increase in fatal melanomas among men and a 35% increase in women.
A 35% increase in brain cancer deaths among men and a 12% rise in women.
A 60% increase in cancer death rates among men in cancers “without site specification” and a 55% increase among women.
No Evidence UK Gov Data Show Explosive Hike In Cancer Deaths From Vaccine!
Let’s take a look at the claims, and find out what the facts really are!
Fact #1 : It Was Just Statistical Analysis
Firsts, I should just point out that the “study” was just a statistical analysis of data from the UK Office for National Statistics (ONS). This is important to note because it does not actually show a correlation between the “excess deaths” caused by cancer, and mRNA vaccines.
Interestingly, the paper itself does not even mention the words “vaccine” or “mRNA” even once! So why would the Children Health Defense article suggest that the paper showed a link between those deaths and mRNA vaccines?
If there are actually increases in cancer deaths after the COVID-19 pandemic, could they not be caused by a lack of screening, laboratory investigations, or patients seeking diagnosis during the lockdowns?
The paper itself certainly offered no evidence linking any of the cancer deaths to the mRNA vaccines, or any COVID-19 vaccine for the matter.
Fact #2 : UK Data Showed No Increase In Cancer Deaths
On top of that, the UK excess mortality data (link) for the last 3 years (October 2020 to October 2023) showed no increase in deaths from all causes of cancer in the United Kingdom.
In fact, the data showed that weekly cancer deaths (dark grey bars) were generally LOWER than expected (dotted purple line). The light grey bars show cancer patients who died from other causes.
Does that mean that the COVID-19 vaccines were somehow protecting people in the UK from cancer deaths? Of course, not. So why should any excess death be attributed to the COVID-19 vaccines? Think about that.
There is zero evidence to back up the claims that mRNA vaccines, or even DNA fragments in those vaccines, can change our DNA.
Let me just point out that messenger RNA (mRNA) cannot enter the nucleus of our cells. Therefore, it cannot possibly change our cell DNA, or deactivate genes that suppress tumours – the basis for claims mRNA vaccines cause turbo cancers.
For that to happen, two things must occur – the mRNA must be “converted” into DNA by a reverse transcriptase enzyme, which does not exist in human cytoplasm (but exists in viruses). Even after that happens, the transcribed DNA cannot enter the cell nucleus without an integrase enzyme (that viruses produce).
Unlike mRNA vaccines, viruses not only insert their genome into our cell nucleus, they literally take over our cells to turn them into virus factories. So anyone who is worried about “alien” RNA / DNA entering our cell nucleus should worry about viruses, instead of mRNA vaccines!
Fact #4 : There Is No Such Thing As Turbo Cancer
There is no such thing as “turbo cancer”, and there is no evidence that any COVID-19 vaccine can cause cancer, or make cancer go “turbo”.
Many cases of cancer go undetected until they become symptomatic. And sometimes, patients ignore those symptoms until they worsen.
Some cancers are also known “silent killers”, because they show no symptoms until they are already in an advanced stage, and have spread to other parts of the body. Such patients often die soon after diagnosis.
Hence, many people that were claimed to have died of turbo cancers were suffering from such “silent killer” cancers, or their cancers were actually diagnosed long before the COVID-19 vaccines were invented.
Ironically, Kirstie Alley refused to get the COVID-19 vaccine. Yet, it did not stop people from claiming that she died from turbo cancer caused by the COVID-19 vaccine!
Please help us FIGHT FAKE NEWS by sharing this fact check article out, and please SUPPORT our work!
Don’t forget to protect yourself, and your family, by vaccinating against COVID-19!
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.
Do newly-released clinical trial documents show that Moderna tried to cover up deaths caused by its COVID-19 vaccine?!
Take a look at the viral claim, and find out what the facts really are!
Updated @ 2023-08-08 : Updated with some additional information. Originally posted @ 2023-07-25
Claim : Moderna Tried To Cover Up Vaccine Deaths!
People are sharing articles by The Epoch Times and Children Health Defense which claim or suggest that newly-released clinical trial documents show that Moderna covered up deaths caused by its COVID-19 vaccine!
Here is an excerpt of The Epoch Times article. Feel free to skip to the next section for the facts:
‘Serious Doubt’ About COVID-19 Vaccine Safety After Forced Release of 15,000 Pages of Clinical Trial Data: Legal NGO
Conservative public interest advocacy group Defending the Republic (DTR) has obtained almost 15,000 pages of Moderna’s COVID-19 vaccine clinical trial data, claiming the data show an “utter lack of thoroughness” of the trials and calls the vaccine’s safety into “serious doubt.”
As a result of successful Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) litigation against the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA), the group recently announced it had obtained—and is releasing—nearly 15,000 pages of documents relating to testing and adverse events associated with “Spikevax,” Moderna’s COVID-19 vaccine.
One of the key takeaways from the documents is that many of those who died after receiving the Moderna vaccine were not given an autopsy.
“According to one study, 16 individuals died after being administered the Moderna vaccine. The study’s authors indicated that out of those 16 deaths, only two autopsies were performed, five of the dead were not autopsied, and the autopsy status of nine of the dead was ‘unknown,’” DTR said in a statement.
“Yet this did not stop those running these ‘studies’ from concluding, despite the absence of evidence, that the Moderna vaccine was not related to these deaths,” the group added.
As an example, the group gave the case of a 56-year-old woman who experienced ‘sudden death’ 182 days after receiving the second dose of the Moderna vaccine.
“The cause of death was unknown, and no autopsy was conducted. It seems they purposely decided not to investigate suspicious deaths in case the Moderna vaccine might be the cause,” the group stated.
And here is an excerpt of Children Health Defense article. Feel free to skip to the next section for the facts:
Exclusive: Clinical Trial Documents Suggest Moderna Skimped on Autopsies, Discounted Serious Injuries — Did FDA Know?
A 13,685-page tranche of documents related to Moderna’s COVID-19 vaccine clinical trials released Tuesday contain details about the deaths of 16 trial participants, the prevalence of severe adverse events (SAEs) and other abnormalities.
The documents, previously submitted by Moderna to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) as part of the licensing process for Moderna’s Spikevax COVID-19 vaccine, also exposed an “utter lack of thoroughness” in how the trials were conducted, according to Defending the Republic (DTR), a Dallas-based nonprofit that obtained the documents via a a still-pending Freedom of Information Act lawsuit against Moderna.
The documents, shared with The Defender in advance of their public release, are the first set of “Moderna documents” to be released as part of the lawsuit — with approximately 8,000 more pages expected to follow later this year.
Travis Miller, a Fort Worth-based attorney representing DTR, told The Defender, “These documents include over 13,500 pages relating to serious adverse event listings that document injuries — such as shingles and Bell’s palsy and other more serious conditions — which we believe may be related to the Moderna COVID-19 vaccine.”
Miller criticized Moderna’s lack of scientific rigor in determining the causes of the deaths and adverse events, saying that, in several cases, “Individuals who died after receiving the Moderna vaccine were not given an autopsy.”
According to DTR, “The study’s authors indicated that of those 16 deaths, only two autopsies were performed, five of the dead were not autopsied, and the autopsy status of nine of the dead was ‘unknown.’”
In one instance, a 56-year-old woman experienced “sudden death” 182 days after receiving her second dose of the Moderna vaccine. The cause of death was listed as “unknown” and no autopsy was performed.
“It seems they purposely decided not to investigate suspicious deaths in case the Moderna vaccine might be the cause,” DTR stated in its summary.
Yet the deaths “did not stop those running these ‘studies’ from concluding, despite the absence of evidence, that the Moderna vaccine was not related to these deaths,” DTR added.
No Evidence Moderna Tried To Cover Up Vaccine Deaths!
In this article, I will go through some of their claims, and show you what the facts really are!
Fact #1 : Adverse Events Are Not Necessarily Vaccine Side Effects
First, let’s start with the fact that adverse events are not necessarily vaccine side effects.
Like with Pfizer, Moderna has to monitor for these adverse events, which 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 #2 : Moderna Sponsored Trial, But Did Not Run It
It is important to point out that Moderna only sponsored and created the protocol (PDF download) for the Phase 3 clinical trial of its mRNA-1273 vaccine candidate for COVID-19. Moderna itself did not conduct the mRNA-1273 vaccine trial.
The Moderna mRNA-1273 Phase 3 clinical trial was conducted by CoVPN investigators funded by the Biomedical Advanced Research and Development Authority (BARDA) of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services’ Office of the Assistant Secretary for Preparedness and Response and NIAID.
Moderna is leading the trial as the regulatory sponsor and is providing the investigational vaccine for the trial. The Biomedical Advanced Research and Development Authority (BARDA) of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services’ Office of the Assistant Secretary for Preparedness and Response and NIAID are providing funding support for the trial.
The NIH Coronavirus Prevention Network (CoVPN) will participate in conducting the trial. The network brings together expertise from existing NIAID-supported clinical research networks. The mRNA-1273 vaccine candidate will be tested at approximately 89 clinical research sites in the United States, 24 of which are part of the CoVPN.
Hana M. El Sahly, M.D., principal investigator of the NIAID-funded Infectious Diseases Clinical Research Consortium site at Baylor College of Medicine in Houston; Lindsey R. Baden, M.D., principal investigator of the NIAID-funded Harvard HIV Vaccine Clinical Trials Unit at Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston; and Brandon Essink, M.D., principal investigator and medical director of Meridian Clinical Research, will serve as co-principal investigators for the Phase 3 trial of mRNA-1273.
Defending the Republic (DTR) – the NGO that obtained and released the Moderna documents highlighted that only two autopsies were performed even though 16 people died during the clinical trial.
Just to be clear – Moderna itself did not conduct the clinical trial. Therefore, it does not have any say on whether an autopsy should or should not be conducted.
In fact, it is likely that the attending doctors / hospitals were the ones deciding whether to conduct the autopsies, while study authors only collected the data. That’s why many of the deaths were listed with Unknown autopsies. If the study authors were the ones conducting the autopsies (and refusing to do so), they would have listed them as None.
As I will show you below, there is no evidence that the study authors deliberately refused to conduct autopsies or investigate suspicious deaths in the Moderna vaccine clinical trial.
Fact #4 : Half The Deaths Were On Placebo
Many of these articles pointed out that sixteen people who received the Moderna vaccine died. What they did not tell you is that sixteen other people who received the placebo also died. In other words, a total of 32 people died during the clinical trial – half received the vaccine, and half received the placebo.
While that sounds like a lot – I should point out that the Moderna mRNA-1273 Phase 3 clinical trial involved 30,420 volunteers, and ran for approximately 3 months.
The mortality rate in the US for 2021 was 879.7 per 100,000 people, so for those three months, we should expect 89 people to die out of those 30,420 participants. Yet only 32 people died. There is simply no evidence in the clinical trial’s data to show an increase in deaths from the Moderna vaccine.
Fact #4 : Subject US3292023 Died From Heart Failure
In its summary, DTR highlighted some of those suspicious deaths that lack an autopsy. Sounds suspicious, right? Not really, if you actually look at the Moderna documents.
The first case was Subject US3292023 – an 80 year-old White male who died on 23 January 2021 due to an Adverse Event, and his autopsy status was listed as None.
If you search through the Moderna document (PDF download), you will see that this sequence of reports:
He had history of significant cardiac disease and diabetes.
He received Dose 1 on 4 August 2020, and Dose 2 on 1 September 2020.
He reported no adverse effects from both vaccinations.
He suffered from diabetic ketoacidosis (serious complication from his existing diabetes) on 26 October 2020.
He suffered from End Stage Congestive Heart Failure on 23 January 2023.
I’m sure you can see why there was absolutely no need for anyone to conduct an autopsy on this man.
Fact #5 : Subject US3472001 Likely Died From Heart Attack
The second case was Subject US3472001 – a 70 year-old White male who died on 27 November 2020 due to an Adverse Event, and his autopsy status was listed as Unknown.
If you search through the Moderna document (PDF download), you will see that this sequence of reports:
He had history of significant cardiac disease and severe obesity.
He received Dose 1 on 31 August 2020, and Dose 2 on 1 October 2020.
He reported no adverse effects from both vaccinations.
He tested positive for Hepatitis C on 29 September 2020.
He suffered from a sudden fatal event, likely myocardial infarction on 27 November 2020.
It is unknown if an autopsy was conducted, but with a history of significant cardiac disease and severe obesity, it would not be surprising if the doctor / hospital did not bother to conduct an autopsy, especially during a pandemic that was straining doctors and hospital facilities.
Fact #6 : Subject US3512042 Died From Cardiac Arrest
The third case is Subject US3512042 – a 78 year-old White male who died on 1 September 2020 due to an Adverse Event, and his autopsy status was listed as Unknown.
If you search through the Moderna document (PDF download), you will see that this sequence of reports:
He received Dose 1 on 12 August 2020, but never received a second dose.
On 30 August 2020, he reported nausea and malaise.
On 31 August 2020, he vomited three times.
On 1 September 2020, he suffered from cardiopulmonary arrest and died.
It is unknown if an autopsy was conducted, but it is not uncommon for a 78 year-old man to die from cardiopulmonary arrest.
Fact #7 : Subject US3622169 Died From Metastatic Liver Cancer
The fourth case was Subject US3622169 – a 56 year-old White male who died on 21 January 2021 due to an Adverse Event, and his autopsy status was listed as Unknown.
If you search through the Moderna document (PDF download), you will see that this sequence of reports:
He had history of severe obesity and diabetes.
He received Dose 1 on 9 September 2020, and Dose 2 on 7 October 2020.
On 29 November 2020, he reported worsening dyspnea (breathing difficulties) with nasal congestion.
On 6 December 2020, he was diagnosed with pneumonia.
On 30 December 2020, he was diagnosed with metastatic hepatocellular carcinoma (metastatic liver cancer).
On 16 January 2021, he suffered sepsis and his metastatic liver cancer worsened, and he ultimately died on 21 January 2021.
Needless to say, there was simply no need to perform an autopsy, after confirming his metastatic liver cancer diagnosis.
The fifth case was Subject US3702010 – a 74 year-old Hispanic male who died on 25 February 2021 due to an Adverse Event, and his autopsy status was listed as Unknown.
If you search through the Moderna document (PDF download), you will see that this sequence of reports:
He had history of liver disease and HIV infection.
He received Dose 1 on 4 September 2020. He never received a second dose.
He complained of nausea issues on the same day, which resolved.
He complained of fatigue and pain of the injection site on 5 September 2020, which resolved.
He complained of fatigue again on 11 September 2020, which resolved.
He complained of lower abdominal pain on 23 October 2020, which resolved.
He got infected with COVID-19 on 1 January 2021, with diagnosis confirmed on 5 January 2021
On his last follow-up 175 days after his first dose, he was still suffering from COVID-19
He died from COVID-19 on 25 February 2021
I’m sure you can see why there was absolutely no need for anyone to conduct an autopsy on this man.
Fact #9 : Subject US3752173 Died From Heart Attack
The sixth case was Subject US3752173 – a 77 year-old American Indian / Alaskan native male who died on 1 November 2020 due to an Adverse Event, and his autopsy status was listed as None.
If you search through the Moderna document (PDF download), you will see that this sequence of reports:
He received Dose 1 on 20 August 2020, and Dose 2 on 18 September 2020.
He did not report any adverse events from both Moderna vaccine injections.
He suffered a myocardial infarction (heart attack) on 1 November 2020, and died from it.
Again, you can see why there was absolutely no need for anyone to conduct an autopsy on this man.
Fact #10 : Subject US3862141 Died From Cardiac Arrest
The seventh case was Subject US3862141 – a 72 year-old Asian male who died on 9 March 2021 due to an Adverse Event, and his autopsy status was listed as Unknown.
If you search through the Moderna document (PDF download), you will see that this sequence of reports:
He received Dose 1 on 8 September 2020, and Dose 2 on 6 October 2020.
He did not report any adverse effects from both vaccinations.
On 9 March 2021, he suffered from cardiopulmonary arrest and died.
It is unknown if an autopsy was conducted, but it is not uncommon for a 72 year-old man to die from cardiopulmonary arrest.
The eighth case was Subject US3872318 – a 62 year-old White male who died on 16 September 2020 due to an Adverse Event, and his autopsy status was listed as None.
If you search through the Moderna document (PDF download), you will see that this sequence of reports:
He received Dose 1 on 27 August 2020, but never received a second dose.
He did not report any adverse effects from the first vaccination.
On 16 September 2020, he died after committing suicide.
Needless to say – an autopsy was completely unnecessary in this case.
Fact #12 : Subject US3872496 Died From Unknown Cause
The ninth case was Subject US3872496 – a 61 year-old Native Hawaiian / Pacific Islander male who died on 17 December 2020 due to an Adverse Event, and his autopsy status was listed as Unknown.
If you search through the Moderna document (PDF download), you will see that this sequence of reports:
He had history of severe obesity and diabetes.
He received Dose 1 on 9 September 2020, and Dose 2 on 9 October 2020.
He did not report any adverse effects from both vaccinations.
On 17 December 2020, he died but the details behind his death is unknown.
It is unknown how the man died, and unknown if an autopsy was conducted.
Fact #13 : Subject US3912024 Died From Organ Failure
The tenth case was Subject US3912024 – a 72 year-old White male who died on 22 November 2020 due to an Adverse Event, and his autopsy status was listed as None.
If you search through the Moderna document (PDF download), you will see that this sequence of reports:
He received Dose 1 on 28 August 2020, and Dose 2 on 24 September 2020.
On 31 October 2020, he was diagnosed with obstructing nephrolithiasis (kidney stones blocking the flow of urine).
On 3 November 2020, he was diagnosed with thrombocytopenia (low platelets), as well as acute renal failure, Klebsiella-complicated pyelonephritis (kidney infection), and atelectasis (collapse) of the lower lobes of both lungs.
On 8 November 2020, he was found to have ascites (intra-abdominal fluid), anasarca (severe, generalised accumulation of fluid in the interstitial space), and a perforated duodenal ulcer with bleeding.
On 15 November 2020, he was diagnosed with anaemia.
On 18 November 2020, the collapse of his lungs worsened and he developed pleural effusion (accumulation of fluid in the pleural cavity) as well.
On 20 November 2020, he died from multi-system organ failure and acute hypoxic respiratory failure.
Needless to say – an autopsy was also completely unnecessary in this case.
Fact #14 : Subject US3932197 Died From Unknown Cause
The eleventh case was Subject US3932197 – a 37 year-old Black female who died on 13 March 2021 due to an Adverse Event, and her autopsy status was listed as None.
If you search through the Moderna document (PDF download), you will see that this sequence of reports:
She received Dose 1 on 26 September 2020, and Dose 2 on 27 October 2020.
On 13 March 2021, she died, but her cause of death was unknown.
In this case, an autopsy might be warranted. However, that is impossible to determine, because we do not know the circumstances behind her death – she could have died from any number of causes – an accident, suicide, a fall, a surgical procedure, an infection, etc.
Fact #15 : Subject US3962094 Died From Suicide
The twelfth case was Subject US3962094 – a 56 year-old White female who died on 15 October 2020 due to an Adverse Event, and her autopsy status was listed as None.
If you search through the Moderna document (PDF download), you will see that this sequence of reports:
She had history of severe obesity.
She received Dose 1 on 9 September 2020, but never received a second dose.
On 12 September 2020, she was diagnosed with high triglycerides
On 7 October 2020, she suffered from acid reflux.
On 15 October 2020, she fell and died from head trauma.
Needless to say – an autopsy was also completely unnecessary in this case.
Fact #16 : Subject US3972010 Is Pending Autopsy
The thirteenth case was Subject US3972010 – a 27 year-old Black male who died on 8 January 2021 due to an Adverse Event, and his autopsy status was listed as Unknown.
If you search through the Moderna document (PDF download), you will see that this sequence of reports:
He received Dose 1 on 24 August 2020, and Dose 2 on 21 September 2020.
He did not report any adverse effects from both vaccinations.
On 8 January 2021, he died but the details behind his death is unknown, pending an autopsy.
It is unknown how the man died, but in this case, an autopsy was conducted.
Fact #17 : Subject US3972045 Likely Died From Heart Disease
The last case was Subject US3972045 – a 62 year-old White male who died on 3 December 2020 due to an Adverse Event, and his autopsy status was listed as Unknown.
If you search through the Moderna document (PDF download), you will see that this sequence of reports:
He had history of diabetes.
He received Dose 1 on 27 August 2020, and Dose 2 on 24 September 2020.
He did not report any adverse effects from both vaccinations.
On 21 October 2021, he was diagnosed with diabetic gastroparesis – delayed stomach emptying due to diabetes.
On 3 December 2020, he died from a suspected coronary artery disease – a complication of his diabetes mellitus.
It is unknown if an autopsy was conducted, but it is not uncommon for a 62 year-old man to die from heart disease.
Please help us FIGHT FAKE NEWS by sharing this fact check article out, and please SUPPORT our work!
Don’t forget to protect yourself, and your family, by vaccinating against COVID-19!
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.
