Find out why the controversial autopsy paper which claims to show that 74% of deaths were due to the COVID-19 vaccine got retracted again!
COVID-19 Vaccine Autopsy Paper Got Retracted Again!
People are sharing a post (archive) on X (formerly Twitter) by the McCullough Foundation, which announced that its autopsy paper which claims to show that 74% of deaths were due to the COVID-19 vaccines is being retracted for the “second” time!
BREAKING – Elsevier and Forensic Science International to CENSOR and RETRACT our groundbreaking autopsy study, marking the second censorship attempt following its initial suppression on the LANCET preprint server.
This represents a flagrant violation of COPE (Committee on Publication Ethics) guidelines.
The Biopharmaceutical complex does not want people to know that COVID-19 vaccines cause death. Their heinous actions to hide the truth will greatly backfire.
Why COVID-19 Vaccine Autopsy Paper Got Retracted Again!
I have earlier covered in detail why this controversial autopsy paper which claims to show that 74% of deaths were due to the COVID-19 vaccines got retracted again.
I highly encourage you to read both pieces, but in case you are short of time, here’s a quick summary why it was inevitable that this COVID-19 vaccine autopsy paper would get retracted by any reputable scientific journal.
This was a “revised” version of an earlier preprint paper, which was removed by The Lancet in July 2023, because the paper violated its screening criteria, and its conclusions were not supported.
The authors only went through other people’s papers on autopsies, and made personal judgements on what caused those deaths, based solely on what they read.
They only looked at vaccinated people, and excluded unvaccinated people, which introduces bias, and makes it impossible to determine if there is even a signal that those deaths were due to the COVID-19 vaccines.
They did not mention using any objective and standardised criteria for determining whether a death is caused by the COVID-19 vaccine.
When the same group of researchers posted a review of 28 autopsies that they determined were “likely caused by COVID-19 vaccination”, it was found that many of them had unrelated causes of death!
The mean age of death was 70.4 years, which meant that most of the people in this study were elderly. Is it any surprise that the elderly were dying from cardiovascular, haematological, or respiratory problems???
In short, there are so many problems with this paper that it is truly surprising it even passed peer review and was published in Forensic Science International.
While the study authors are claiming “censorship”, the retraction of a flawed study is not censorship. It is simply part of the scientific review process, albeit a belated correction.
You might have thought that FSI editors would be more wary after a preprint version of this paper with the same title from the same group of researchers got kicked out of Preprints with The Lancet.
While I’m glad this incredibly flawed paper is finally being retracted, I wished I could say it was better late than never. The truth is – this is like shutting the barn door after the horses have bolted.
The authors and anti-vaccine activists have already squeezed whatever publicity, prestige, page views, etc. they can get out of its publication. No one is going to do an apology tour after this paper gets retracted.
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 Korean study show that the mRNA COVID-19 vaccines can cause certain autoimmune diseases?! Take a look at the viral claims, and find out what the facts really are!
Claim : Study show mRNA vaccines cause autoimmune diseases!
Some people are sharing a South Korean study by Seung-Won Jung et. al., suggesting that it shows that mRNA COVID-19 vaccines can cause certain autoimmune diseases!
McCullough Foundation : NEW STUDY – COVID-19 mRNA injections are associated with an increased risk of developing certain autoimmune diseases, including systemic lupus erythematosus, alopecia areata, psoriasis, and rheumatoid arthritis
This population-based cohort study involves 9,258,803 individuals and includes up to one year of observation time.
The authors conclude, “long-term monitoring is necessary after mRNA vaccination for the development of autoimmune connective tissue diseases (AI-CTDs).”
Chief Nerd : “Our study found that booster vaccination was associated with an increased risk of developing certain autoimmune connective tissue diseases (AI-CTDs), such as alopecia areata, psoriasis, and rheumatoid arthritis, albeit the effect size was small. This finding could be associated with autoimmune flare-ups following repeated mRNA vaccination, which can cause subclinical diseases to become active and diagnosed. The result of our study may indicate the necessity for additional monitoring when administering booster vaccinations.”
Shaun Barcavage, FNP-BC : Long-term risk of autoimmune diseases after mRNA-based SARS-CoV2 vaccination in a Korean, nationwide, population-based cohort study “However, we observed an increased risk of developing some AI-CTDs after booster vaccination.”
Truth : Study does not show mRNA vaccines cause autoimmune diseases!
This is yet another example of anti-vaccine misinformation being propagated online, and here are the reasons why…
Fact #1 : Study does not show mRNA vaccines cause autoimmune diseases
Let me start by pointing out that you can read the entire paper by Seung-Won Jung et. al., called Long-term risk of autoimmune diseases after mRNA-based SARS-CoV2 vaccination in a Korean, nationwide, population-based cohort study.
This is a large study in which the authors compared the risk of developing certain autoimmune diseases based on historical data (for 2 years prior to mRNA vaccinations), compared to two years after mRNA vaccinations.
Despite suggestions that this study showed that mRNA vaccines for COVID-19 can cause autoimmune diseases, that’s not really the case. The authors specifically pointed this out in the abstract, right on the first page:
Overall, we conclude that mRNA-based vaccinations are not associated with an increased risk of most AI-CTDs, although further research is needed regarding its potential association with certain conditions.
They did find some signals that warrant further research, but nothing that would actually prove that mRNA vaccines cause autoimmune diseases.
Fact #2 :Data shows mRNA vaccines reduced risk for many autoimmune diseases
The data shared in this study suggest that mRNA vaccines may increase the risk of developing two autoimmune diseases:
systemic lupus erythematosus, and
bullous pemphigoid
But conversely, the data also suggest that mRNA vaccines may reduce the risk of developing five autoimmune diseases:
primary cicatricial alopecia
psoriasis
Behcet disease
Crohn disease
Rheumatoid arthritis
Does this mean that the mRNA vaccines can therefore “prevent” autoimmune diseases? Of course, not. Just because the data “appears” to show an increased or reduced risk in developing certain autoimmune diseases, that does not mean the mRNA vaccines are necessarily the reason.
I should also point out that COVID-19 infections may be a factor in the increased risk of developing some autoimmune diseases post-vaccination. This is important as the study authors themselves pointed out that prior studies have suggested that “COVID-19 infections increase the risk of patients developing autoimmune diseases“.
It appears that they may have attempted to “fix that” by filtering out COVID-19 infections from the vaccinated cohort. However, they could only accomplish this based on reported COVID-19 diagnoses.
Therefore, it is more than plausible that a substantial number of people in the vaccinated cohort may have undiagnosed COVID-19 infections, especially since unvaccinated people do experience mild or subclinical COVID-19 infections. Such patients are often undiagnosed, as they have mild or no symptoms, and are therefore unaware that they are infected.
In short – the increased risk in vaccination people may ultimately be due to undiagnosed COVID-19 infections. Hence, the need for “more research” and not just jumping to conclusions!
It is also important to point out that just because the data appears to show some kind of correlation between mRNA vaccines and an increased risk in developing certain autoimmune diseases, it does not mean the mRNA vaccines are necessary 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 increased risk in two autoimmune diseases and the mRNA vaccines based on these results? Similarly, no one can use these results to claim that mRNA vaccines prevent five autoimmune diseases!
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 study of 325 autopsy reports show that 74% of deaths were due to COVID-19 vaccines?! Take a look at the viral claim, and find out what the facts really are!
Claim : 325 Autopsy Reports Show 74% Deaths From COVID Vaccines!
People are sharing an article (archive) by The Expose (formerly The Daily Expose), which claimed that a study showed that 74% of deaths were due to COVID-19 vaccine!
Here is an excerpt of the long and (intentionally?) confusing article. Feel free to skip to the next section for the facts!
A review of 325 autopsy reports reveals 74% of deaths were directly due to covid injections
For their review, the researchers searched for all published autopsy and necropsy reports relating to covid vaccination up until 18 May 2023. “All autopsy and necropsy studies that included covid-19 vaccination as an antecedent exposure were included,” the authors said.
They initially identified 678 studies and, after screening for inclusion criteria, included 44 papers that contained 325 autopsy cases and one necropsy case. Three physicians independently reviewed all deaths and determined whether covid-19 vaccination was the direct cause or contributed significantly to death.
“We found that 73.9% of deaths were directly due to or significantly contributed to by covid-19 vaccination,” the authors stated.
Truth : 325 Autopsy Reports Did Not Show 74% Deaths From COVID Vaccines!
This is yet another example of fake news created / promoted by The Expose, and here are the reasons why…
Fact #1 : An Earlier Version Was Removed By The Lancet
Let me start by pointing out that this study appears to be a “revised” version of an earlier study which was uploaded to Preprints with The Lancet in July 2023.
That earlier study was never published by The Lancet, but was removed because its conclusion was not supported by the methodology, and violated 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.
Fact #2 : Researchers Did Not Conduct Those Autopsies
The “study” appears to be a document review involving 325 autopsy reports. None of the researchers actually conducted any of those autopsies. This was what the researchers did in the “revised” Hulscher et. al. study (archive):
search for studies with autopsy or necropsy reports whose deaths was preceded by COVID-19 vaccination.
filter the 678 studies they found to just 44 papers covering 325 autopsies and 1 necropsy.
three of the authors (Peter McCullough, Roger Hodkinson, and William Makis) then “independently” reviewed the autopsy reports and determined the “causality” of each case
According to Brian Ward, professor of experimental medicine at McGill University, that likely meant the three of them went through the autopsy reports in separate rooms.
The way they use the word ‘independently’ here simply means that each of the biased individuals sat in a separate room to reach a personal conclusion before sharing their (largely pre-determined) classifications with each other.
Interestingly, the authors chose to exclude unvaccinated people, instead of creating a control group of unvaccinated people.
This introduces bias against the vaccine, by intentionally selecting only people who were vaccinated against COVID-19 before their deaths, and not comparing them against people who were unvaccinated when they died.
As every single person in that study was vaccinated against COVID-19 before their death, it seems silly to blame their deaths on the vaccines. It’s like designing a study which only selected people who regularly drink coffee before their deaths, and then claiming that coffee must therefore be responsible for their deaths.
Fact #4 : There Was No Objective / Standardised Criteria
The study did not mention using any objective or standardised criteria to determine whether a death was caused by the COVID-19 vaccine. Instead, it appears that the three physicians involved in this study simply made that a personal judgement call by reading those studies / autopsy reports???
What criteria did they use? It doesn’t say.
Did the three doctors even use the same set of criteria? We have no idea.
Did those autopsy reports label the cause of death as COVID-19 vaccines? The paper doesn’t say that either.
So how did they come to the conclusion that those deaths were definitely caused by the COVID-19 vaccines???
I should point out that when the same group of authors posted a review of 28 autopsies that they determined were “likely caused by COVID-19 vaccination”, it was found that many of them had unrelated causes of death!
Fact #5 : Vaccine Myocarditis Seen Mostly In Young Males
Myocarditis and pericarditis are known but rare side effects of some COVID-19 vaccines, but they are mostly seen in adolescent and young male adults, and usually occur within 7 days of receiving the second dose of the COVID-19 vaccine, according to the US CDC.
It is therefore quite perplexing to see myocarditis being mentioned as a likely cause of death in this study, as the mean age of death was 70.4 years! That means the vast majority of people in this study were elderly, and very unlikely to be suffering from vaccine-induced myocarditis.
Fact #6 : Mean Age Of Death Was 70 Years!
I should stress again that the mean age of death in this study was 70.4 years, which means that most of the people in this study were elderly. Is it any surprise that the elderly were dying from cardiovascular, haematological, or respiratory problems???
That brings us back to my earlier question – why didn’t they compare this group of vaccinated people, with a similar group of elderly people who were unvaccinated??? Without a control group, how can anyone be sure that this group of elderly people did not die of natural causes of death???
Like Real Raw News and The People’s Voice, The Daily Expose is a website that capitalises on making shocking but fake or misleading stories to generate page views and money. It was later rebranded as The Expose.
Founded in November 2020 by Jonathan Allen-Walker – a welder from Lincolnshire, The Expose / Daily Expose is infamous for publishing COVID-19 and vaccine misinformation.
Its articles have been regularly debunked as fake news or misinformation, so you should NEVER share anything from Daily Expose / The Expose. Here are some of its stories that I personally debunked earlier:
Everything posted by The Expose / Daily Exposemust be considered fake news, until proven otherwise.
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 scientists discover an off switch for mRNA vaccines?! Take a look at the viral claim, and find out what the facts really are!
Claim : Scientists Discovered Off Switch For mRNA Vaccines!
People are sharing an article (archive) by The People’s Voice (formerly NewsPunch), which claimed that scientists just discovered an off switch for mRNA vaccines!
Here is an excerpt of the article. Feel free to skip to the next section for the facts!
mRNA Jab ‘Off Switch’ Discovered by Scientists – Media Blackout
A new preprint study details a method of deactivating the genetic alteration effects of Covid mRNA jabs, providing a glimmer of hope to the billions of humans who have been damaged by the experimental shots.
“The Pfizer-BioNTech and Moderna biodistribution studies refute the assertion that nanolipid-bound nms-mRNA remains in the deltoid muscle or axillary lymph nodes. Detectable vaccine mRNA levels remaining in various tissues raises potential safety concerns,” the study declared in the ‘Conclusions’ section. “The possibility of vaccine mRNA integration into the host genome and the prospect of unintended protein production due to read through advocate for a mechanism to eliminate lingering synthetic mRNA and halt damaging Spike protein production. The use of siRNA and RIBOTACs to target and degrade vaccine mRNA are promising approaches to mitigate deleterious health effects. The ability to readily tailor the siRNA and RIBOTACs to target an mRNA of interest makes these techniques particularly appealing, although further investigation is warranted to address challenges which include possible off-target effects and immune system activation.”
While the exotic injection makes the individual begin to produce the dangerous Covid spike protein, currently there is no way to stop the individual from producing that spike protein forever. There is no ‘off’ switch, at least until now.
The study described a method of turning off the production of the spike protein.
“…the longevity of the encapsulated mRNA along with unlimited production of the damaging and potentially lethal Spike (S) protein call for strategies to mitigate potential adverse effects,” the study said in the ‘Abstract’ section. “Here, we explore the potential of small interfering RNA (siRNA) and ribonuclease targeting chimeras (RIBOTACs) as promising solutions to target, inactivate, and degrade residual and persistent vaccine mRNA, thereby potentially preventing uncontrolled Spike protein production and reducing toxicity. The targeted nature of siRNA and RIBOTACs allows for precise intervention, offering a path to prevent and mitigate adverse events of mRNA-based therapies.”
Truth : Scientists Did Not Discover Off Switch For mRNA Vaccines!
This is yet another example of fake news created / promoted by The People’s Voice, and here are the reasons why…
Fact #1 : There Were Two Methods, Not One
First, let me just point out that the “study” detailed two methods, not one as stated in The People’s Voice article – siRNA (small interfering RNA) and RIBOTAC (ribonuclease targeting chimeras).
If The People’s Voice article cannot even get that right, you have to wonder – did they even read the study???
Fact #2 : There Was No Discovery
I should also point out that the “study” did not discover anything, because scientists have been researching siRNA and RIBOTACs for some time now.
Neither did the “scientists” discover anything new about siRNA and RIBOTACs as it is just an opinion piece, where no actual laboratory or clinical study was conducted.
Unsurprisingly, The People’s Voice article did not provide any evidence of any actual discovery.
Fact #3 : The Article Was Not Even Peer-Reviewed
Moreover, the article was just a preprint that has not even undergone the most basic of scientific scrutiny – peer review. Ironically, even anti-vaccine activists are pointing out that it was just an opinion piece!
This is not a peer reviewed scientific publication
You may recall Nicolas Hulscher and Peter McCullough as the authors of yet another preprint paper that was removed by The Lancet. I have no idea who Diane E. Marotta is, but she’s listed as an indepenent [sic] researcher out of Eagleville, Pennsylvania.
The People’s Voice article claimed or suggested that mRNA vaccines cause “genetic alteration”. That’s utter nonsense, and shows a lack of understanding of mRNA technology.
mRNA vaccines, as well as similar mRNA strands produced by our own cells, do not enter the cell nucleus. In short, mRNA cannot possibly change our genes.
Fact #5 : No Evidence Those Methods Actually Work
The Hulscher et. al. paper envisions the use of siRNA and RIBOTACs to block and/or deactivate mRNA COVID-19 vaccines, and shut off spike protein production.
The problem is – there is no evidence that siRNA and/or RIBOTACs can actually do that. Outside of a nice diagram showing how they could possibly do that, no actual research was done to show that any of that could actually happen.
Charitably, these could be deemed as hypotheses on possible ways to destroy mRNA COVID-19 vaccines. Whether they would actually work though would require actual scientific research, not idle prattle in a preprint paper.
Fact #6 : mRNA Vaccines Do Not Last Long
The Hulscher et. al. paper reads like a solution looking for a problem that does not exist. Despite its premise that the mRNA COVID-19 vaccine sticks around for a long time, that’s simply not true.
If the mRNA COVID-19 vaccines can persist, we would have years-long, if not lifelong, immunity. We would also not need a second dose, never mind a booster dose. Obviously, that is just not the case.
Fact #7 : The People’s Voice Is Known For Fake News
The People’s Voice is the current name for NewsPunch, which possibly changed its name because its brand has been so thoroughly discredited after posting numerous shocking but fake stories.
Founded as Your News Wire in 2014, it was rebranded as NewsPunch in November 2018, before becoming The People’s Voice. A 2017 BuzzFeed report identified NewsPunch as the second-largest source of popular fake news on Facebook that year.
Its articles have been regularly debunked as fake news, so you should never share anything from NewsPunch / The People’s Voice. Here are some of its fake stories that I fact checked earlier:
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.
Can siRNA or RIBOTAC deactivate mRNA COVID-19 vaccines and shut off spike protein production?! Take a look at the viral claim, and find out what the facts really are!
Claim : siRNA / RIBOTAC Can Deactivate mRNA COVID-19 Vaccines!
People are sharing a post (archive) on X (formerly Twitter), which claims that siRNA (small interfering RNA) and RIBOTAC (ribonuclease targeting chimeras) can deactivate mRNA COVID-19 vaccines and shut off spike protein production!
McCullough Foundation : BREAKING – Our new study finds promising methods to deactivate mRNA COVID-19 vaccines and shut off spike protein production.
Small interfering RNA (siRNA) and ribonuclease targeting chimeras (RIBOTACs) are promising solutions to target, inactivate, and degrade residual and persistent vaccine mRNA, thereby potentially preventing uncontrolled Spike protein production and reducing toxicity.
The targeted nature of siRNA and RIBOTACs allows for precise intervention, offering a path to prevent and mitigate adverse events of mRNA-based therapies.
No Evidence siRNA / RIBOTAC Can Deactivate mRNA COVID-19 Vaccines!
Let’s take a look at the “study” by the McCullough Foundation, and find out what the facts really are!
Fact #1 : The Article Has Not Been Peer-Reviewed
The study in question is called Strategic Deactivation of mRNA COVID-19 Vaccines: New Applications for RIBOTACs and siRNA Therapy, written by Nicolas Hulscher, Peter McCullough, and Diane Marotta.
If you download and read this preprint article (PDF), you will realise that:
the “study” isn’t really a study, but more like an article, or an opinion piece,
no actual laboratory / clinical study was conducted,
it was a preprint – which means it has not been peer-reviewed,
Ironically, even anti-vaccine activists are pointing out that it was just an opinion piece:
This is not a peer reviewed scientific publication
You may recall Nicolas Hulscher and Peter McCullough as the authors of yet another preprint paper that was removed by The Lancet. I have no idea who Diane E. Marotta is, but she’s listed as an indepenent [sic] researcher out of Eagleville, Pennsylvania.
But if the authors cannot even get this paper past peer-review, no one should give a hoot about it, because even the peer-review process is merely the first step in the scientific review process.
Fact #2 : No Evidence siRNA / RIBOTAC Can Deactivate mRNA COVID-19 Vaccines
The Hulscher et. al. paper envisions the use of siRNA (small interfering RNA) and RIBOTAC (ribonuclease targeting chimeras) to block and/or deactivate mRNA COVID-19 vaccines, and shut off spike protein production.
The problem is – there is no evidence that siRNA and/or RIBOTACs can actually do that. Outside of a nice diagram showing how they could possibly do that, no actual research was done to show that any of that could actually happen.
Charitably, these could be deemed as hypotheses on possible ways to destroy mRNA COVID-19 vaccines. Whether they would actually work though would require actual scientific research, not idle prattle in a preprint paper.
Fact #3 : It’s A Solution For A Problem That Does Not Exist
The Hulscher et. al. paper reads like a solution looking for a problem that does not exist. Despite its premise that the mRNA COVID-19 vaccine sticks around for a long time, that’s simply not true.
If the mRNA COVID-19 vaccines can persist, we would have years-long, if not lifelong, immunity. We would also not need a second dose, never mind a booster dose. Obviously, that is just not the case.
But more importantly – if mRNA COVID-19 vaccines are so “dangerous” (which they are not), then it would be much easier to simply not get vaccinated. Even anti-vaccine supporters and other people have pointed that logical fallacy out:
holykek : Oh neat a vaccine to cancel the vaccine 😵💫
Agus_Z_X : Wait a second, what you are saying doesn’t make any sense because @P_McCulloughMD knowingly or unknowingly is promoting gene therapy right here:
Sir Didimus : Urgh, talk about swallow the spider to catch the fly……
BitOhoney : Forget that other RNA stuff, here’s some other RNA stuff.
Simply put – there is no need for this siRNA / RIBOTAC treatment. If you are anti-vaccine, don’t get vaccinated.
Those who want to protect themselves against COVID-19 will want the vaccine to work, so it doesn’t make sense to stop the production of spike proteins, which is how the vaccines train our immune system to develop antibodies against the SARS-CoV-2 virus!
I should also point out that if the spike protein is so dangerous, then it is even more important to get vaccinated against COVID-19. 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!
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 BJ Thompson collapse suddenly from a COVID-19 vaccine-induced cardiac arrest?! Take a look at the viral claims, and find out what the facts really are!
Claim : BJ Thompson Collapsed From Vaccine Cardiac Arrest!
Right after news broke that BJ Thompson collapsed suddenly during a team meeting, some people immediately claimed or suggested that the Kansas City Chiefs defensive end suffered a COVID-19 vaccine-induced cardiac arrest!
McCullough Foundation : JUST IN – 25-year-old Kansas City Chiefs defensive end B.J. Thompson suffers a seizure and cardiac arrest during a team meeting.
Type of COVID-19 vaccine administered, number of doses, and batch information should be disclosed to investigate if this is related to COVID-19 vaccination.
COVID-19 mRNA vaccines can cause fatal myocarditis as we’ve demonstrated in our paper, “Autopsy findings in cases of fatal COVID-19 vaccine-induced myocarditis”
Paul A. Szypula : Why does this keep happening to otherwise young healthy professional athletes?
Thankfully BJ Thompson is in stable condition. Did he get the jab?
Christian 360° News :BREAKING NFL NEWS 🚨 @KMBC, “Kansas City @ChiefsB.J. Thompson in stable condition after seizure, going into cardiac arrest at team facility.” 🙏🏻
Truth : BJ Thompson Did Not Collapse From Vaccine Cardiac Arrest!
It’s now tradition for anti-vaccination activists to blame all athlete deaths or illnesses on the COVID-19 vaccine.
Here are the reasons why this is yet another example of FAKE NEWS created and propagated by anti-vaccine activists…
Fact #1 : BJ Thompson Had A Seizure
BJ Thompson (born Brandon Thompson Jr. on 23 March 1999) is a 25 year-old American football defensive end for the Kansas City Chiefs in the NFL (National Football League).
On Thursday, June 6, 2024, BJ Thompson had a seizure during a special teams meeting, before going into cardiac arrest. The Kansas City Chiefs medical staff quickly stabilised him, and BJ Thompson was taken to a hospital, where he is in stable condition.
To be clear – BJ Thompson did not collapse from a cardiac arrest, like Damar Hamlin, or Bronny James. He suffered a seizure, before going into cardiac arrest, as reported by NFL Networks’s Tom Pelissero:
The #Chiefs canceled all team activities today after a backup defensive lineman had a seizure in a special teams meeting and went into cardiac arrest, per sources.
#Chiefs DL BJ Thompson is in stable condition after suffering a seizure and going into cardiac arrest during a meeting this morning, per source.
It is important to note that BJ Thompson suffered a seizure before going into cardiac arrest, because sudden cardiac arrest (SCA) is a major cause of death for people with epilepsy, or people suffering from seizures:
Among patients with epilepsy, sudden cardiac arrest (SCA) is a major cause of death. It is commonly thought that SCA in epilepsy occurs after a seizure…
Fact #3 : COVID-19 Vaccines Do Not Cause Seizures
To be clear – COVID-19 vaccines do not cause seizures or epilepsy. There is no plausible or known pathogenesis for any vaccine to cause seizures.
Naturally, people claiming or suggesting that COVID-19 vaccines cause seizures, are unable to detail how it is possible, or provide any actual evidence. They want to convince us it’s true, but are too baffled to explain how, or show us any evidence.
In contrast, tens of billions of doses of COVID-19 vaccines have been administered worldwide, and extended monitoring over the last 3 years have shown that they do not cause seizures.
Fact #4 : Athletes Are At Higher Risk Of Cardiac Arrest
While athletes appears to be the epitome of healthy young people, many are at risk of dying from sudden cardiac arrest (SCA).
In fact, studies show that sudden cardiac arrest is the leading medical cause of death in young athletes. On average, about 2,000 young people in the United States (less than 24 years old) die from sudden cardiac arrest every year, and many do not have previously-known heart disease.
That’s why many states in the United States enacted laws requiring automated external defibrillators (AED) to be made available in health clubs, gyms, schools, and other public places.
Fact #5 : Unknown If BJ Thompson Was Vaccinated Against COVID-19
Despite suggestions that BJ Thompson was fully-vaccinated, there isn’t any actual evidence that he ever received the COVID-19 vaccine. He certainly did not post about getting the vaccine on his X account (formerly Twitter)!
It is possible that BJ Thompson was unvaccinated against COVID-19, because the COVID-19 vaccine is not mandatory in the United States. The NFL also did not require players or coaches to be vaccinated against COVID-19, even though it did require all employees who have contact with the players to be fully-vaccinated.
Until and unless he (or his family) reveals his COVID-19 vaccination status, anyone who tells you that BJ Thompson was vaccinated or otherwise, is likely lying to you. None of us know that.
Fact #6 : Vaccine Side Effects Appear Within Hours / Days
Even if BJ Thompson was fully-vaccinated against COVID-19, he would have received his doses more than three years ago!
He cannot possibly have suffered from a vaccine side effect, because they appear within hours or days, not months later.
Mild side effects like injection site pain, fever, muscle ache, headache, lethargy develop within minutes to hours of the vaccination.
Anaphylaxis develops within minutes, while other severe adverse reactions like myocarditis and VITT develop within days or weeks.
The spike proteins produced by the COVID-19 vaccines also do not stick around for months. If these spike proteins are permanent (as antivaxxers claim), we would have lifelong immunity.
Your own immune system will identify the spike proteins as foreign, and destroy them within a matter of days, although some may last for up to a few weeks. This is part of how vaccines teach your immune system to identify the enemy and destroy it.
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 study show that mRNA vaccines are behind the explosion of cancer deaths in Japan?! Take a look at the viral claim, and find out what the facts really are!
Claim : Japan study shows explosion of mRNA cancer deaths!
People are claiming or suggesting that a new study shows that mRNA vaccines are behind the explosion of cancer deaths in Japan!
Alex Jones : New Japanese Study Suggests mRNA Vaccines Behind Explosion of Cancer Cases in Japan during the Pandemic. I suggest the sun is yellow…
Comprehensive study from Japan reviewing Cancer data correlations with mRNA injections.
“Strongly suspecting increase instance of several types of cancer especially after 3rd dose of Booster Vaccine”
“Statistically significant increase in age adjusted mortality rates of all cancer, but specifically – prostate, ovarian, pancreatic & breast cancers were witnessed in 2022, after 2 thirds of the Japanese population received the mRNA Lipid nanoparticle vaccines”
Absolutely terrifying data, based on highly detailed studies.
Vaccinated or not – people everywhere should be screaming as loud as they can at their elected officials for answers on this – the subject simply continues to be ignored by Legacy Media & Governments alike.
Peter A. McCullough, MD, MPH : A COVID-19 vaccine is not analogous to recharging the body. With each shot there is the risk of cardiac arrest, stroke, blood clots, and new immunological problems. Gibo et al suggest there is cumulative oncogenicity toxity with starting at 3rd ill-advised injection.
Toby Young : A new peer-reviewed study has linked mRNA jabs to excess cancer deaths in Japan, with pancreatic, prostate and ovarian cancers showing excess deaths in both 2021 and 2022.
Truth : Japan study does not show explosion of mRNA cancer deaths!
This appears to be another example of fake news by anti-vaccine activists, and here are the reasons why…
Fact #1 : Japan Continues To Support COVID-19 Vaccination
Let me start by quickly pointing out that Japan continues to support vaccination against COVID-19. In fact, its Health Ministry has officially designated the COVID-19 vaccine (translated archive) as a routine vaccination:
Starting from 2024, the new coronavirus vaccine will be considered a routine vaccination, and people aged 65 and over will be eligible for the vaccination.
The schedule for routine vaccinations is to be conducted once every fall and winter, based on data on the status of infectious diseases and the effectiveness of vaccines.
The type of COVID-19 vaccine (strain contained in the vaccine) used for routine vaccinations will be reviewed annually for the time being.
I should also point out that COVID-19 vaccinations continue to be supported by virtually every country in the world. That would not be the case if the COVID-19 vaccines have been proven to cause or accelerate cancer.
Fact #2 : Cureus Relies On Post-Publication Peer Review
These claims appear to be based on a Japanese study by Miki Gibo et. al. called “Increased Age-Adjusted Cancer Mortality After the Third mRNA-Lipid Nanoparticle Vaccine Dose During the COVID-19 Pandemic in Japan” (PDF).
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 #3 : Study Does Not Show Cancer Deaths From mRNA Vaccines
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.
In fact, the authors themselves admitted at the end of their paper that their findings have “not been clinically validated“, and that “further studies” are warranted.
Here are some reasons why this paper does not show a rise in cancer deaths in Japan and/or that they were caused by mRNA vaccines:
COVID-19 Vaccination Status Was Not Established
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:
Further analytical statistics study by vaccination status is needed.
Japanese government data showed that as of April 2024, 80.4% received at least one dose, 79.5% received at least two doses, while just 67% received all three doses of the COVID-19 vaccine. In other words – about ⅓ of the people in the study do not meet the definition of receiving the third dose of the COVID-19 vaccine!
Japan also used a mix of COVID-19 vaccines, not just mRNA vaccines. The study did not filter out those who received non-mRNA vaccines, so how can anyone use its analysis to tie any excess deaths to the mRNA vaccines???
There Was No Control Group
The study also lacked a control group – unvaccinated people. So how can anyone use its analysis to link any excess deaths to COVID-19 vaccines?
For all we know – the excess deaths may be attributed to unvaccinated cancer patients dying from COVID-19! After all, cancer patients are more likely to die from COVID-19 than healthy people.
Cancer Deaths Have Been Rising For Years
The study appears to focus only on three years – 2020, 2021, and 2022. However, if you look further back, you will see that deaths from cancer have been rising for years, as Professor Marc Veldhoen pointed out!
The greatest surge actually occurred between 2014 and 1995, before increasing at a slower rate. Then cancer deaths started picking up from 2019 – before the COVID-19 pandemic, and before mRNA vaccines were approved.
Professor Veldhoen also pointed out that Japan has an ageing population, with over 30% of its people aged 65 years and older, while over 10% are 80 years and older.
This could easily explain the increase in cancer rates, as well as cancer deaths. Elderly people are less likely to survive cancer, after all.
Cancer Is Leading Cause Of Death In Japan
I should also point out that cancer has been the leading cause of death in Japan since 1981 (source), accounting for ⅓ of total deaths.
In fact, this 2023 study projects that cancer cases will rise by 13.1% from 2020 to 2050, based on data collected from 1975 to 2019.
Obviously, this increase in cancer cases has nothing to do with COVID-19 vaccines, because they were only approved at the end of 2020.
Fact #4 : Turbo Cancer Does Not Exist
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!
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 the CDC redact all 148 pages of its MOVING study on myocarditis after mRNA COVID-19 vaccination?! Take a look at the viral claims, and find out what the facts really are!
Claim : CDC Redacted All 148 Pages Of mRNA Myocarditis Study!
People are claiming or suggesting that the CDC released its 148-page MOVING vaccine myocarditis study with 100% of its pages redacted!
The Vigilant Fox / Vigilant News : CDC Releases Paper on Myocarditis After COVID Vaccination, and EVERY WORD Is Redacted
“148 pages. The entire thing is redacted. What good does a study do if there’s nothing there?”
There’s obviously something very damning that they’re trying to hide.
Robert F. Kennedy Jr : The level of arrogance and contempt for the public in releasing a 100% redacted document is staggering. The CDC is thumbing their nose at the Freedom of Information Act.
Without transparency, there is no such thing as democracy. When I’m President, the CDC won’t get to decide what the public can see. Everything will be out in the open, and you won’t need a FOIA request to read any taxpayer-funded data.
Peter McCullough : One more example of all trust lost with @CDCgov
Agency releases vaccine myocarditis manuscript with all pages redacted so patient and scientific community is blocked from learning more about this deadly COVID-19 vaccine side effect.
The People’s Voice : CDC Redacts Every Single Word of 148-Page Study on Myocarditis After Covid Vaccination
The Gateway Pundit : CDC Finally Releases 148 Page Study on Myocarditis Following COVID Vaccine – And EVERY SINGLE WORD is Redacted!
Hans Mahncke : The CDC “released” a 148 page study on myocarditis after COVID-19 “vaccination” and every single page is completely redacted. This must be a new record.
Truth : CDC Did Not Redact Its mRNA Myocarditis Study!
This is yet another example of fake news created or promoted by anti-vaccine activists, and here are the reasons why…
Fact #1 : It Was CDC Document, Not Study
Let me start by pointing out that the 148-page “study” was not a study, but a document released by the CDC to The Epoch Times after its Freedom of Information Act request for “information about the CDC’s MOVING project”.
Even Zachary Stieber of The Epoch Times, who posted the document (PDF), did not label it as a study. He stated that it was a FOIA-released document on the CDC’s long-term study on myocarditis after COVID-19 vaccination:
Seeing some confusion about this document: It’s a CDC document sent to us in response to a Freedom of Information Act request and is fully redacted. The request asked for information about the CDC’s MOVING project.
There is no indication that the documents contained any actual CDC study. So why would anyone claim that this 148-page document was a CDC myocarditis study???
Fact #2 : Document Was Redacted Under (b)(5) Privilege
Whenever a US government agency redacts a document, it has to label the redaction so the recipient has an idea why the information was redacted.
I went through the entire 148-page CDC document, and noticed that they were all redacted under the (b)(5) privilege. The (b)(5) redaction applies only to “inter-agency” or “intra-agency” letters or memorandums that “would not be available by law” to anyone except those that are “in litigation” with the agencies.
Exemption 5, 5 U.S.C. § 552(b)(5), applies to “inter-agency or intra-agency memorandums or letters that would not be available by law to a party other than an agency in litigation with the agency,” which has been interpreted to incorporate civil litigation privileges.
(A privilege is a legal rule that protects communications within certain relationships from compelled disclosure in a court proceeding.)
In other words – there is nothing nefarious about the redactions, and they do not conceal any study.
The redacted pages were simply letters or memorandum that would not be made available by law, except to those who have sued the CDC, or the agency / agencies involved in those letters or memorandums.
They may, for example, contain personal information of the study participants, or other confidential information that the CDC is not permitted to release by law, except in cases of litigation.
Fact #3 : CDC Study Was Already Published Publicly!
There is also no indication that the CDC is attempting to cover up the findings of its MOVING (Myocarditis outcomes after mRNA COVID-19 vaccination) study. After all, the CDC already published its initial study in The Lancet, on 21 September 2022 – more than 1.5 years ago!
Even Zachary Stieber acknowledged that, and provided the same link to the MOVING study in The Lancet. He also pointed out that the CDC told The Epoch Times in January 2024 that it planned to submit another paper with updated findings for peer review.
The CDC plans to submit another paper on updated findings from the project for peer review, a spokesperson told us in January.
To be clear – the CDC published its first study more than 1.5 years ago on the results from its MOVING project on monitoring myocarditis outcomes after mRNA COVID-19 vaccination.
And when its updated MOVING study paper is peer-reviewed and published, it will also be available for public consumption. What exactly is being covered up here???
Fact #4 : Most mRNA Myocarditis Cases Recovered After 90 Days
According to the CDC study that was published in September 2022, its MOVING project collected data on 519 young people who developed myocarditis after mRNA COVID-19 vaccination.
It found that most individuals recovered from myocarditis after 90 days, with normal or back-to-baseline:
troponin levels : 91%
echocardiograms : 94%
electrocardiograms : 77%
exercise stress testing : 90%
ambulatory rhythm monitoring : 90%
On top of that, the study concluded that “the quality of life measures were comparable to those in pre-pandemic and early pandemic populations of a similar age“.
Fact #5 : There Are Many Studies On Post-Vaccination Myocarditis
Claims that the CDC is attempting to hide its data by redacting documents is also not logical, because other organisations and research teams have already published multiple studies on post-vaccination myocarditis and/or pericarditis. For example:
Myopericarditis following COVID-19 vaccination and non-COVID-19 vaccination: a systematic review and meta-analysis (link) by Ryan Ruiyang Ling et. al.
Myocarditis and Pericarditis after COVID-19 mRNA Vaccines (PDF) by Public Health Ontario
Systematic review and meta-analysis of myocarditis and pericarditis in adolescents following COVID-19 BNT162b2 vaccination (link) by Patrick D.M.C. Katoto et. al.
SARS-CoV-2 Vaccination and Myocarditis in a Nordic Cohort Study of 23 Million Residents (link) by Øystein Karlstad et. al.
Clinical outcomes of myocarditis after SARS-CoV-2 mRNA vaccination in four Nordic countries: population based cohort study (link) by Anders Busby et. al.
Not only are these studies publicly available, they confirm CDC findings that post-vaccination myocarditis is rare, and most patients recovered within 90 days.
Fact #6 : COVID-19 Myocarditis Is More Common
What anti-vaccine activists may not tell you is that COVID-19 is known to cause myocarditis. In fact, the CDC reported in September 2021 that COVID-19 patients have nearly 16X the risk of developing myocarditis:
During March 2020–January 2021, patients with COVID-19 had nearly 16 times the risk for myocarditis compared with patients who did not have COVID-19, and risk varied by sex and age.
The findings in this report underscore the importance of implementing evidence-based COVID-19 prevention strategies, including vaccination, to reduce the public health impact of COVID-19 and its associated complications.
The risk of dying from COVID-19 myocarditis (13.54% of cases) is also almost 5X higher than non-COVID-19 myocarditis (2.88% of cases), according to a 2022 German study.
If you are worried about dying from myocarditis, well, you should certainly want to avoid getting a COVID-19 infection!
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.
Anti-vaccine activists have been excitedly sharing what they call a “peer-reviewed” paper on the lessons learned about COVID-19 mRNA vaccines, while calling for the mRNA COVID-19 vaccines to be removed.
The paper in question is called “COVID-19 mRNA Vaccines: Lessons Learned from the Registrational Trials and Global Vaccination Campaign” by Mead et. al. 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. Unfortunately, it received a patina of legitimacy when it was published in the journal Cureus, with anti-vaccine activists gleefully pointing out that it was a “peer-reviewed” paper.
What many people don’t realise is that Cureus uses “an unusually fast” peer-review process of just “a few days”, and relies heavily 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. All that “post-publication” criticism appear to have resulted in its decision to (finally) retract this controversial article.
On 19 February 2024, one of the article’s co-authors – Steve Kirsch, revealed (archive) that Cureus has decided to retract the article, citing a number of concerns.
The journal was recently made aware of several concerns regarding the validity of the work and, upon conducting an internal review, the journal has decided to retract your article. Upon further review, we have identified a significant number of concerns with your article that in our view can’t be remedied with a correction. The concerns include, but are not limited to:
We find that the article is misrepresenting all-cause mortality data
We find that the article appears to be misrepresenting VAERs data
The article states that the Pfizer COVID-19 vaccine saved two lives and caused 27 deaths per 100,000 vaccinations, and the Moderna vaccine saved 3.9 lives and caused 10.8 deaths per 100,000 vaccinations, though there does not appear to be convincing evidence for this claim.
Incorrect claim: Vaccines are gene therapy products.
The article states that vaccines are contaminated with high levels of DNA. Upon review we found that the cited references are not sufficient to support these claims.
The article states that SV40 promoter can cause cancer because SV40 virus can cause cancer in some organisms and inconclusively in humans. However, we find that this is misrepresenting the cited study (Li, S., MacLaughlin, F., Fewell, J. et al.Muscle-specific enhancement of gene expression by incorporation of SV40 enhancer in the expression plasmid. Gene Ther 8, 494–497 (2001). https://doi.org/10.1038/sj.gt.3301419
The article states that mRNA COVID-19 vaccines did not undergo adequate safety and efficacy testing, which the journal considers to be incorrect
The article incorrectly states that spike proteins produced by COVID-19 vaccination linger in the body and cause adverse effects.
Given the concerns with your article, we find that the stated findings in this narrative review are to be considered unreliable, and are not sufficiently supported either by the cited research in the article itself or by other research. In line with the COPE retraction guidelines, the Editors have therefore decided to retract your article. The journal will publish the following retraction notice:
==
The Editors-in-Chief have retracted this article. The following publication concerns were raised regarding a number of claims made in this article. Upon further review, the Editors-in-Chief found that the conclusions of this narrative review are considered to be unreliable due to the validity of some of the cited references that support the conclusions and a misrepresentation of the cited references and available data.
[will be amended as appropriate:] All authors agree to this retraction/ None of the authors agree to this retraction /[author name] agrees to this retraction/[author name] does not agree to this retraction/ [author name] has not responded to any correspondence from the editor/publisher about this retraction.
==
Please let me know by 23 February whether you agree or disagree with this retraction, as this will be noted in the retraction notice. Retraction of the article means that we will publish the retraction notice as a separate publication which will bidirectionally link to your article. The article itself will be clearly marked as retracted.
Please let me know if you have any further questions.
Best regards,
Tim Kersjes Head of Research Integrity, Resolutions Springer Nature Research Integrity Group
The list of concerns in the Cureus letter is frankly, too short. In my earlier article, I already listed a number of other concerns with the article:
unsubstantiated claims that the COVID-19 vaccine clinical trials were too short
unsubstantiated claims that mRNA vaccines for COVID-19 were not proven safe or effective
misleading emphasis on absolute risk (AR) versus relative risk (RR) in understanding vaccine efficacy
misleading emphasis on unverified adverse events that were reported after vaccination.
unsubstantiated claims that 74% of deaths were “judged to have been caused by the COVID-19 mRNA products”
In any case, Cureus officially retracted this “peer-reviewed” article on 26 February 2024, with this statement:
The Editors-in-Chief have retracted this article. Following publication, concerns were raised regarding a number of claims made in this article. Upon further review, the Editors-in-Chief found that the conclusions of this narrative review are considered to be unreliable due to the concerns with the validity of some of the cited references that support the conclusions and a misrepresentation of the cited references and available data.
The authors disagree with this retraction.
One can’t help but wonder if this incident might persuade Cureus to spend a wee bit more time and effort on its peer-review process… or better still, don’t allow such articles to be labelled as “peer-reviewed” until they have at least passed proper, legitimate peer-review.
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 study just show that COVID-19 vaccines killed 14x more people than they saved?!
Take a look at the viral claim, and find out what the facts really are!
Claim : COVID Vaccines Kill 14X More People Than They Saved!
People are sharing an article (archive) by The People’s Voice (formerly NewsPunch), which claims that a study just showed that COVID-19 vaccines killed 14x more people than they saved!
Here is an excerpt from the long, and (intentionally?) rambling article. Feel free to skip to the next section for the facts!
Peer-Reviewed Study Finds Covid Vaccines Killed 14x More People Than They Saved
A new peer-reviewed study has confirmed what the eye-test suggested all along, proving that experimental Covid-19 mRNA vaccines killed far more people than they saved.
The study published in the prestigious Cureus journal analyzed reports from the initial phase 3 trials of Pfizer and Moderna COVID-19 mRNA vaccines that led to the shots being approved under Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) in the United States.
However, the study found that efficacy rates for the vaccines were “dramatically lower” than the pharmaceutical companies claimed.
The research scientists behind the study have urged world governments to immediately cease and desist using Covid-19 mRNA vaccinations in their territories.
Based on “conservative assumptions, the estimated harms of the COVID-19 mRNA vaccines greatly outweigh the rewards: for every life saved, there were nearly 14 times more deaths caused by the modified mRNA injections.”
“Given the well-documented SAEs (serious adverse events) and unacceptable harm-to-reward ratio, we urge governments to endorse and enforce a global moratorium on these modified mRNA products until all relevant questions pertaining to causality, residual DNA, and aberrant protein production are answered.”
Truth : COVID Vaccines Did Not Kill 14X More People Than They Saved!
This is yet another example of fake news created / promoted by The People’s Voice, and here are the reasons why…
Fact #1 : Study Did Not Show 14X More People Died From Vaccines
Let me just start by pointing out that the study, which is called “COVID-19 mRNA Vaccines: Lessons Learned from the Registrational Trials and Global Vaccination Campaign” by Mead et. al. (archive), did not show that the COVID vaccines killed 14X more people than they saved.
Fact #2 : Cureus Relies On Post-Publication Peer Review
The People’s Voice article took great pains to point 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.
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.
The paper in question is a literature review, and was penned by notable anti-vaccine activists like Jessica Rose, Steve Kirsch, and Peter McCullough. You may note that some of the authors are not even scientists or were trained in medicine.
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 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.
Let’s take a look at the recent “peer-reviewed” study on the lessons learned about COVID-19 mRNA vaccines, and find out what the facts really are!
COVID-19 mRNA Vaccines: Lessons Learned??
Some people are excitedly sharing a “peer-reviewed” study on the lessons learned about COVID-19 mRNA vaccines, while calling for the mRNA COVID-19 vaccines to be removed.
Mary Talley Bowden MD : Peer-reviewed article published in @CureusInc : COVID shots must be pulled off the market. If you are a physician or politician, now is the time to be on the right side of history.
Steve Kirsch :BREAKING: It’s now published in the peer-reviewed literature! The COVID vaccines should be stopped.
“Given the extensive, well-documented SAEs and unacceptably high harm-to-reward ratio, we urge governments to endorse a global moratorium on the modified mRNA products until all relevant questions pertaining to causality, residual DNA, and aberrant protein production are answered.”
Dr Jordan B Peterson : Stunning. 2024 is opening with a bang: an utterly damning report on the Covid “vaccines.”
COVID-19 mRNA Vaccines Lessons Learned : My Fact Check
Let’s go through the “peer-reviewed” study on the lessons learned about COVID-19 mRNA vaccines, and see what the facts really are!
Fact #1 : Cureus Relies On Post-Publication Peer Review
Let me start by pointing out that the journal Cureus relies on “post-publication peer review”. Even though this paper was marked as “peer-reviewed”, it was an “unusually fast” peer review.
Cureus uses “an unusually fast” peer-review process of just “a few days”, and relies heavily 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 called “COVID-19 mRNA Vaccines: Lessons Learned from the Registrational Trials and Global Vaccination Campaign” by Mead et. al. 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. 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 top doctor just admit that vaccinated people are developing full blown AIDS?!
Take a look at the viral claim, and find out what the facts really are!
Claim : Vaccinated People Are Developing Full Blown AIDS!
People are sharing an article (archive) by The People’s Voice (formerly NewsPunch), which claimed that a top doctor just admitted that vaccinated people are developing full blown AIDS!
Top Doctor Blows The Whistle, Admits Vaccinated People Are Developing Full Blown AIDS
A world renowned cardiologist and epidemiologist has blown the whistle, revealing that staggering numbers of vaccinated people around the world are now being diagnosed HIV positive.
During a recent interview, Dr. Peter McCullough warned that a grand total of nine peer-reviewed studies have recently warned that the experimental Covid mRNA vaccines are causing a huge spike in the number of positive HIV tests in heavily vaccinated countries around the world.
But McCullough clarified that the jabs do not give people HIV – the situation for the vaccinated is actually worse than even that.
As McCullough explained, the positive HIV diagnoses are actually caused by the vaccinated suffering extreme immunodeficiency.
You would think the mainstream media would accept this is a sign there is something very wrong with the Covid mRNA roll-out. But rather than report on the nine peer-reviewed medical research articles, which were all published in prestigious journals, the mainstream media is attempting to sweep the information about mRNA under the carpet and continue the great cover up of this crime against humanity.
The immune systems of vaccinated people are completely shot because the jabs cause a spike in vaccine-acquired immunodeficiency syndrome, or VAIDS. This in turn causes people to test positive for the human immunodeficiency virus, or HIV, which as you are no doubt aware, develops into acquired immunodeficiency syndrome, more commonly known as full-blown AIDS.
This is silly, but let me just start by pointing out that there is no medical disease called VAIDS – Vaccine-Induced Acquired Immunodeficiency Syndrome. It appears to be something made-up by anti-vaccination activists to scare people.
AIDS is caused by the Human Immunodeficiency Virus (HIV). Nothing else causes AIDS. Certainly no vaccine, not even the COVID-19 vaccine, causes AIDS.
Robert Charles Gallo – one of the two scientists who independently discovered that the human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) was responsible for AIDS, said in response to the 2021 claim by Brazilian President Jair Bolsonaro that COVID-19 vaccines cause AIDS:
[I]t’s hard to believe anyone would claim that the covid-19 vaccine causes AIDS. We know what causes AIDS.
I don’t know what your president said. So I don’t want to be too critical. But it is obvious that neither the covid-19 vaccine nor any other vaccine causes AIDS.
Fact #2 : HIV Is Different From SARS-CoV-2
Just to be clear, the Human Immunodeficiency Virus (HIV) is a completely different virus from SARS-CoV-2 – the coronavirus that causes COVID-19.
HIV viruses are single-stranded retroviruses from the Lentivirus genus, and are transmitted through sexual contact, or transfer of blood and bodily fluids.
SARS-CoV-2 is a single-stranded coronavirus from the Betacoronavirus genus, and is airborne, mainly transmitted through respiratory droplets and aerosols.
There is no conceivable way for COVID-19 vaccines, or even COVID-19 infections, to cause AIDS…. or to create a new form of AIDS. That’s utter nonsense.
Fact #3 : Vaccine Candidate Gave False Positive HIV Results
It is odd that Peter McCullough should bring up the VAIDS claim, when it was debunked more than 3 years ago! This vaccine AIDS claim was based on news in 2020 that the Australian COVID-19 vaccine produced false positive HIV results.
In early 2020, the University of Queensland (UQ) and Australian biotech company CSL, worked on a COVID-19 vaccine based on UQ’s proprietary “molecular clamp” technology. The UQ molecular clamp basically used an 80 amino-acid fragment from a HIV virus protein to stabilise the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein.
While the Phase 1 trial results were promising, they also showed an unexpected problem – the HIV protein fragment was generating antibodies that were resulting in false positive HIV tests.
Fact #4 : Vaccine Candidate Did Not Cause AIDS
To be clear – the UQ-CSL vaccine candidate did not infect anyone with HIV, or cause AIDS. The vaccine was merely causing HIV tests to return false positive results, as UQ explained:
There is no possibility the vaccine causes infection, and routine follow up tests confirmed there is no HIV virus present.
Why would anyone continue to claim that COVID-19 vaccines cause full blown AIDS???
Fact #5 : Vaccine Candidate Did Not Cause Immunodeficiency
The Australian COVID-19 vaccine candidate also did not cause immunodeficiency, as claimed.
In fact, the UQ-CSL team continued its Phase 1 clinical trial, as the false positive HIV results did not present any health risk to the participants.
The Phase 1 trial will continue, where further analysis of the data will show how long the antibodies persist, with studies so far showing that levels are already falling. The University of Queensland plans to submit the full data for peer review publication.
Why would anyone claim that COVID-19 vaccines cause immunodeficiency??? Where is the evidence???
Fact #5 : Australian Vaccine Candidate Was Abandoned
For the Australian vaccine candidate to move forward, there were two possible paths:
UQ and CSL could re-engineer their vaccine candidate, but that would take another year or so, or
HIV testing procedures would need to significantly changed.
After consulting the Australian government, CSL and UQ announced that they would not proceed to further develop their COVID-19 vaccine candidate on 11 December 2020.
… [f]ollowing consultation with the Australian Government, CSL will not progress the vaccine candidate to Phase 2/3 clinical trials.
With advice from experts, CSL and UQ have worked through the implications that this issue presents to rolling out the vaccine into broad populations. It is generally agreed that significant changes would need to be made to well-established HIV testing procedures in the healthcare setting to accommodate rollout of this vaccine. Therefore, CSL and the Australian Government have agreed vaccine development will not proceed to Phase 2/3 trials.
In other words – the Australian COVID-19 vaccine that produced false positive HIV results was never approved for use. It did not receive any Emergency Use Authorisation. Heck, it did not even proceed to the Phase 2/3 clinical trials!
Fact #6 : The People’s Voice Is Known For Publishing Fake News
The People’s Voice is the current name for NewsPunch, which possibly changed its name because its brand has been so thoroughly discredited after posting numerous shocking but fake stories.
Founded as Your News Wire in 2014, it was rebranded as NewsPunch in November 2018, before becoming The People’s Voice. A 2017 BuzzFeed report identified NewsPunch as the second-largest source of popular fake news on Facebook that year.
Its articles have been regularly debunked as fake news, so you should never share anything from NewsPunch / The People’s Voice. Here are some of its fake stories that I fact checked earlier:
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 autopsies just show COVID-19 vaccines likely causing deaths in 100% of vaccine myocarditis cases?!
Take a look at the viral claim, and find out what the facts really are!
Claim : Autopsies Show COVID-19 Vaccines Caused Deaths!
People are sharing an article by The Epoch Times which claims or suggests that autopsies just showed COVID-19 vaccines likely causing deaths in 100% of vaccine myocarditis cases!
Here are excerpts from the long, rambling article. Please skip to the next section for the facts!
Autopsies Show COVID-19 Vaccines Likely Caused Deaths: Study
Twenty-eight deaths with cardiovascular involvement outlined in medical literature were likely caused by COVID-19 vaccination, according to a new study.
Dr. Peter McCullough, a cardiologist, along with co-authors, reviewed all published autopsy reports featuring myocarditis, or heart inflammation, following COVID-19 vaccination.
After excluding some papers for not meeting prespecified criteria, the group determined that of the remaining 28 patients all likely died from vaccine-induced myocarditis.
The determination came after the doctors performed an independent review of each case.
The available evidence “suggests that there is a high likelihood of a causal link between COVID-19 vaccines and death from myocarditis,” the authors wrote in the paper.
The deaths occurred in China, Germany, Japan, New Zealand, South Korea, and the United States. They included some sudden deaths.
Mr. Hulscher, Dr. McCullough, and others published a paper in 2023 reviewing 325 autopsies of patients who died after COVID-19 vaccination. That paper was swiftly removed by The Lancet, on whose preprint server the paper was briefly available. The Lancet alleged that the study’s conclusions were “not supported by the study methodology.”
The paper concluded that about three-quarters of the deaths were directly due to COVID-19 vaccination, or that vaccination was a significant contributing cause.
“Our newly published study overcame the headwinds of medical censorship after Elsevier and Lancet retracted our main paper describing the overall population of autopsied deaths,” Mr. Hulscher said.
The group later uploaded the preprint to Zenodo, another server.
The new paper published by ESC Heart Failure only has four authors, compared with nine for the original publication.
Truth : Autopsies Did Not Show COVID-19 Vaccines Caused Deaths!
This is yet another example of FAKE NEWS created or promoted by anti-vaccine activists, and here are the reasons why…
Fact #1 : An Earlier Version Was Removed By The Lancet
Let me start by pointing out that this study appears to be an “updated” version of an earlier study which was uploaded to Preprints with The Lancet in July 2023.
That earlier study was never published by The Lancet, but was removed because its conclusion was not supported by the methodology, and violated 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.
Fact #2 : Researchers Did Not Conduct Those Autopsies
To be clear – both studies were basically document reviews. None of the researchers in both studies actually conducted any of the autopsies. This was what the researchers did in the “improved” Hulscher et. al. study (archive):
search for autopsy reports involving COVID-19 vaccination-induced myocarditis
filter the 1,691 studies they found to just 14 papers covering 28 autopsies
three of the authors (Peter McCullough, Roger Hodkinson, and William Makis) then “independently” reviewed the autopsy reports and determined the “causality” of each case
According to Brian Ward, professor of experimental medicine at McGill University, that likely meant the three of them went through the autopsy reports in separate rooms.
The way they use the word ‘independently’ here simply means that each of the biased individuals sat in a separate room to reach a personal conclusion before sharing their (largely pre-determined) classifications with each other.
Fact #3 : Many Cases Had Other Likely Causes Of Death
Interestingly, if you go through the summary of those 28 autopsy reports, you will quickly see that some of those cases had other likely causes of death:
Nushida Case 1 : This 14 year-old female had Multisystem Inflammatory Syndrome (MIS) – a serious condition caused by COVID-19.
Takahashi Case 1 : This man in his 90s died from a dissection of the ascending aorta with pericardial hemotamponade. Basically, he died from a tear in the aorta – the largest blood vessel in his body, which caused blood to compress the heart and prevent it from pumping properly.
Suzuki Case 1 : This 91 year-old man had existing ischaemic heart disease, with severe coronary artery sclerosis, aortic sclerosis, diabetic neuropathy, and a previous history of a heart attack.
Ameratunga Case 1 : This 57 year-old female had a left pleural mass, which could have been a tumour.
Schneider Case 1 : This 65 year-old man had severe coronary artery sclerosis, with massive cardiac hypertrophy, and myocardial infarction scars. Basically, he had severe ischaemic heart disease, and past history of heart attacks.
Schwab Case 5 : This 75 year-old female was found to be infected with HHV-6 (human herpes virus 6) – a known cause of myocarditis.
Hoshino Case 1 : This 27 year-old male had an asymmetrically-enlarged heart with the myxomatous degeneration of the mitral valve, which suggests his heart problems were due to a connective tissue disorder.
Fact #4 : Vaccine Myocarditis Seen Mostly In Young Males
Myocarditis and pericarditis are known but rare side effects of COVID-19 vaccines. It is mostly seen in adolescent and young male adults, and usually within 7 days of receiving the second dose of the COVID-19 vaccine, according to the US CDC.
It is therefore perplexing that this study suggested that quite a number of very elderly patients died from myocarditis caused by the vaccine. It seems more likely that they developed myocarditis from other causes, or died from other causes.
Mörz Case 1 : 76 year-old man who also had encephalitis.
Takahashi Case 1 : Man in his 90s who had dissection of the ascending aorta, and pericardial hemotamponade – both medical emergencies.
Suzuki Case 1 : 91 year-old man with existing ischaemic heart disease
Ameratunga Case 1 : 57 year-old female with a left pleural mass – potentially a tumour?
Schneider Case 1 : 65 year-old man with severe ischaemic heart disease, and past history of heart attacks.
Schwab Case 1 : 46 year-old man died from myocarditis with cardiac muscle damage on the same day he received his first dose?
Schwab Case 2 : 50 year-old female died from myocarditis with cardiac muscle damage just one day after she received her first dose?
Schwab Case 5 : 75 year-old female with HHV-6 infection died from myocarditis with cardiac muscle damage just one day after she received her first dose?
I should also point out that myocarditis occurs naturally, usually though viral infections (like flu or the common cold), as well as infections by bacteria, fungus, or parasites.
COVID-19 infections aside, the “baseline” of myocarditis in the general population pre-COVID ranged b between 1 to 10 cases per 100,000 individuals per year (source). Of that, about 2.5% of the non-COVID-19 myocarditis will result in death (source).
In other words, we should expect about 375,000 cases of myocarditis worldwide, with approximately 9,375 deaths per year, in the pre-COVID years.
So is it not possible that some of those 28 deaths mentioned by the Hulscher et. al. study may be due to other non-vaccine causes of myocarditis?
Fact #6 : COVID-19 Myocarditis Is More Common
What the study may not tell you is that COVID-19 is known to cause myocarditis. In fact, the CDC reported in September 2021 that COVID-19 patients have nearly 16X the risk of developing myocarditis:
During March 2020–January 2021, patients with COVID-19 had nearly 16 times the risk for myocarditis compared with patients who did not have COVID-19, and risk varied by sex and age.
The findings in this report underscore the importance of implementing evidence-based COVID-19 prevention strategies, including vaccination, to reduce the public health impact of COVID-19 and its associated complications.
The risk of dying from COVID-19 myocarditis (13.54% of cases) is also almost 5X higher than non-COVID-19 myocarditis (2.88% of cases), according to a 2022 German study.
If you are worried about dying from myocarditis, well, you should certainly want to avoid getting a COVID-19 infection!
Fact #8 : Vaccine Benefits Far Outweighs The Risks
Even if we take all those 28 myocarditis cases mentioned in the Hulscher et. al. study at face value, the benefits of COVID-19 vaccination still far outweighs the risk of dying from vaccine myocarditis.
Vaccine myocarditis is rare – the study could only find 28 cases that satisfied its criteria, while myocarditis from COVID-19 infections are far more common.
People suffering from COVID-19 are also almost 5X more likely to die from myocarditis, than people suffering from non-COVID myocarditis (source).
So if you are really worried about myocarditis, or dying from myocarditis, you should definitely get vaccinated against COVID-19!
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.
Did top doctors just warn the UK Parliament about the deadly COVID-19 vaccines, asking for them to be removed from market?!
Take a look at the viral claims, and find out what the facts really are!
Claim : Top Docs Just Warned UK Parliament About Deadly Vaccines!
People are sharing an article by The People’s Voice (formerly NewsPunch), claiming / suggesting that it shows top doctors warning the UK Parliament about the deadly COVID-19 vaccines, and asking for them to be removed from market!
Here is an excerpt from the article (archive), which is really long. Feel free to skip to the next section for the facts!
Top Doctors Plead For Deadly Covid Jabs To Be Removed From Market In Address To UK Parliament
In video messages played before for the British Parliament on Monday, some of the world’s top doctors issued warnings to the politicians about the deadly Covid-19 jabs that have been pushed on the public.
British MP Andrew Bridgen hosted the event to share with fellow poiticians information that has been censored or withheld by the Big Tech and mainstream media gatekeepers.
Texas cardiologist Dr. Peter McCullough delivered a video message to the UK politicians, stating the Covid shots have created alarming increases in excess mortality in America and the UK.
The doctor even suggested data is showing the jabs actually killed more people than the engineered Chinese Covid-19 virus.
“The vaccine is worse than the infection itself in terms of injuring the population,” he asserted, calling on the UK politicians to “do the right thing” by removing the shots from the market and to “do an investigation” into the mRNA “vaccines.”
Truth : Most Of UK Parliament Declined To Join Their Event!
This appears to be yet another MISLEADING article by The People’s Voice, and here are the reasons why…
Fact #1 : It Was Not UK Parliament Event
Let me start by pointing out that the session COVID-19 vaccines was a small, private event hosted by British MP Andrew Bridgen in a rented room of the Portcullis House.
To raise funds, the U.K. Parliament has allowed companies and individuals to rent certain rooms for private events since January 2014. The session on COVID-19 vaccines was held in the Wilson Room, in Portcullis House, which is part of the Parliamentary estate, but not part of the Houses of Parliament.
On top of that, the meeting / event/ address / debate was short – lasting just 2 hours, from 5 PM to 7 PM.
To be clear – it was not an official UK Parliament event. It was just a private event held in a small, rented room in Portcullis House. On top of that, they were not even allowed to livestream or record the event!
In short – the speakers at that event were only “testifying” to the few attendees in the room, not to the U.K. Parliament… unless it was by telepathy?
Fact #2 : It Was A Small Private Event
Even though the private COVID-19 vaccines event was hosted by UK MP Andrew Bridgen, it appeared that he had trouble getting his fellow MPs to attend. In fact, Andrew Bridgen had to ask the public to write to their MPs to ask (beg?) them to attend that meeting!
The choice of The Wilson Room also suggests that Andrew Bridgen did not expect many to attend. The Wilson Room appears to be a small meeting room, with a maximum capacity of 12-16 delegates, with sitting room for another 30 or so people.
Although Steve Kirsch claimed that some 12-16 MPs, other people said that the MPs only popped in for a few minutes. For example, MP Desmond Swayne left “disapprovingly” after the first 5 minutes, and just two minutes into David Martin’s presentation.
For context, the United Kingdom has 650 Members of Parliament in the House of Commons, and 784 members in the House of Lords.
Prime Minister Rishi Sunak, for one, not only declined to attend, he pointed out (archive) that the COVID-19 vaccines are safe and effective.
Firstly, whilst I am unable to attend the debate, the arrival of safe, effective and medically approved vaccines brought about a dramatic shift in our fight against Covid-19, not only in the UK but across the globe. I am incredibly proud of the strong role the UK played internationally in producing a viable vaccine, and also the incredible speed at which the NHS rolled it out domestically.
The Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA) followed rigorous procedures to ensure the vaccines met the necessary high standards in safety and efficacy.
The MHRA is one of the most respected regulators in the world and the World Health Organisation not only backed its approach, but also commended its work.
As I have alluded to previously, any Covid-19 vaccine that is approved must go through rigorous clinical trials and safety checks. Millions of people have been given a Covid-19 vaccine and reports of serious side effects, such as allergic reactions, have been very rare.
Data has shown that the vast majority of reported side effects are mild and in line with most types of vaccine, including the seasonal flu vaccine. The MHRA continues to monitor potential side effects of all vaccines in the UK. Routine safety monitoring and analysis of the approved Covid-19 vaccines by the MHRA shows that the safety of these vaccines remains as high as expected from the clinical trial data that supported the approvals.
Thank you again for taking the time to contact me.
Cat Smith, the Member of Parliament for Lancaster and Fleetwood, also declined to attend, noting that the overwhelming evidence that the COVID-19 vaccine is safe, and MPs would be legitimising the debate by participating:
Thank you for your emails regarding excess deaths and next week’s debate in Parliament.
The overwhelming evidence demonstrates that the COVID-19 vaccine is safe for the overwhelming majority so no I will not be legitimising this debate by participating in it.
Regardless of what the 7 “experts or top doctors” may have said during that short 2-hour private meeting in The Wilson Room of the Portcullis House, they cannot refute the overwhelming evidence that COVID-19 vaccines have proven to be safe and effective for the vast majority of people who took them.
Tens of billions of doses have already been administered over the past 3 years, and verified cases of serious side effects and deaths have been few and far in between. In fact, the risk of developing myocarditis after a COVID-19 infection, for example, was shown to be hundreds of times higher than with multiple doses of the vaccines.
Fact #5 : The People’s Voice Is Known For Publishing Fake News
The People’s Voice is the current name for NewsPunch, which possibly changed its name because its brand has been so thoroughly discredited after posting numerous shocking but fake stories.
Founded as Your News Wire in 2014, it was rebranded as NewsPunch in November 2018, before becoming The People’s Voice. A 2017 BuzzFeed report identified NewsPunch as the second-largest source of popular fake news on Facebook that year.
Its articles have been regularly debunked as fake news, so you should NEVER share anything from NewsPunch / The People’s Voice. Here are some of its fake stories that I fact checked earlier:
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 German study show mRNA vaccines creating spike proteins in human heart cells, causing heart abnormalities?!
Take a look at the viral claim, and find out what the facts really are!
Claim : mRNA Vaccines Created Spike Protein In Human Heart!
Some people are sharing articles by American Faith and Epoch Health, which claim / suggest that a new German study found that mRNA COVID-19 vaccines created spike proteins in human heart cells. resulting in heart abnormalities.
Steve Kirsch : Wait a second. I thought these vaccines were safe and effective? Why are they attacking heart cells?
Chief Nerd : New research out of Germany observing rat and human heart cells shows that within 48 hours of vaccination, the COVID-19 mRNA vaccines form spike proteins. Spike proteins, made from the mRNA instructions inside the vaccines, were detected in the heart cells. While both Pfizer and Moderna vaccines caused cell abnormalities, the two induced different anomalies.
Here’s an excerpt from the American Faith article:
American Faith : COVID-19 Vaccine Research Shows Spike Protein Forming in Heart Cells
Research from Germany found that spike proteins from mRNA COVID-19 vaccines form in human heart cells 48 hours after vaccination.
The research, published in the British Journal of Pharmacology, revealed that spike proteins were seen after the administration of both the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines.
Different abnormalities were detected between the two mRNA vaccines, however. Heart contractions following the Pfizer COVID-19 vaccine were stronger and sustained, likely due to the increased levels of protein kinase A (PKA).
Epoch Health : mRNA COVID Vaccines Form Spike Protein in Heart Cells, but Cause Different Anomalies
New research out of Germany observing rat and human heart cells shows that within 48 hours of vaccination, the COVID-19 mRNA vaccines form spike proteins.
Spike proteins, made from the mRNA instructions inside the vaccines, were detected in the heart cells. While both Pfizer and Moderna vaccines caused cell abnormalities, the two induced different anomalies.
The different responses the cells had to the two mRNA vaccines suggest an mRNA toxicity reaction in these cells, according to Dr. Peter McCullough, a leading internist, cardiologist, and epidemiologist who has published over 1,000 research reports and is the lead author of one of the first widely utilized treatment regimens for SARS-CoV-2 patients. He added that 48 hours was a short amount of time to observe this.
Truth : Study Showed mRNA Vaccine Effect On Rat Heart Cells!
Let’s take a look at what we know about this new study, and see what the facts really are!
Fact #1 : Study Was Peer-Reviewed
First, I should point out that this is a peer-reviewed study that was published in a reputable journal – the British Journal of Pharmacology. So it’s not like the “Belgian study” that allegedly showed that the Pfizer mRNA vaccine causes turbo cancer.
That said – the pre-publication peer review is only the first step in scientific review process. After its publication, it is still subject to post-publication peer review, including verification and further research by other scientists.
Fact #2 : Study Is Not Available Publicly
I should also point out that the study itself is hidden behind a paywall, with only a brief abstract available publicly. This is important because without knowing the details, it is simply impossible to know the accuracy or significance of this study. As they say – the devil is in the details.
Fortunately, it appears that Dr. Ralf B. Lukner MD PhD has access to the study itself, and has provided some important insights into this study. So this fact check will rely on both his insights, and what’s available publicly.
Fact #3 : Study Was Conducted On Rat Heart Cells
According to the public abstract of the study, it was conducted on isolated rat cardiomyocytes (RCm) over a 72 hour period.
Basically, the study did not involve any human beings or even live animals. Instead, it used single heart muscle cells from a rat.
Even though both American Faith and Epoch Health claimed that the study involved human heart cells, the abstract itself did not mention any human heart cells being used.
In real life, the COVID-19 vaccines are injected into the deltoid muscle of a human being, and not into the heart of a rat. In real life, heart muscle cells also do not soak in a bath of hyper-concentrated COVID-19 vaccine for 3 days.
So it is important to understand that this is not at all representative of what actually happens in a human being, or even a live rat…
According to Dr. Lukner, the study used very high doses of the Pfizer and Moderna mRNA vaccines:
Pfizer : 1 μg/mL
Moderna : 10 μg/mL
In contrast, human beings – which have 36 trillion more cells, only receive 30 μg of the Pfizer vaccine, or 100 μg of the Moderna vaccine.
By my estimate, the doses used in this study are far beyond what any human being will ever receive in a million lifetimes:
Pfizer : 1.2 trillion vaccine doses
Moderna : 3.6 trillion vaccine doses
As any scientist can tell you – the dose makes the poison. At sufficiently high doses, all chemicals – including water and oxygen – can be toxic.
Fact #5 : It Was A Laboratory Study
I should also point out the salient fact that it was a laboratory study (also known as an in vitro study), not a clinical study.
In-vitro studies are important, but they cannot be extrapolated to make any conclusion about what actually happens in a human body.
For example, laboratory studies showed that hydroxychloroquine and ivermectin have an inhibitory effect on the SARS-CoV-2 virus; but once tested in actual human beings – they were shown to have no clinical benefit.
In other words – what happens in a laboratory, may not happen in an actual human being.
Fact #6 : Nothing Happened Until Spike Proteins Were Created
Interestingly, the study authors pointed out that both Pfizer and Moderna mRNA vaccines did not affect the rat heart muscle cells in any way, until they started producing the spike protein after 48 hours of soaking in a bath of vaccine.
Assuming that this can be replicated by other scientists, this suggests a couple of things:
the rat heart muscle cells are not affected by the presence of the mRNA vaccine itself
the rat heart muscle cells only “malfunctioned” after they created the spike proteins
Is it therefore possible that the rat heart muscle cells might be malfunctioning because they were overwhelmed by the extremely high vaccine doses into excessively creating the spike proteins, instead of performing their normal functions?
Is it also possible that the spike proteins caused morphological changes (shape, size, texture, etc.) that disrupted the rat heart muscle cells’ ability to contract properly?
Needless to say – MORE research is needed before any conclusion can be made about the mRNA vaccine’s cardiotoxic effects in rats, never mind any potential cardiotoxic effects in actual human beings.
Fact #7 : COVID-19 Infections Produce Far More Spike Proteins!
It is important to point out that unlike the SARS-CoV-2 virus, COVID-19 vaccines do not multiply and can only induce a limited number of cells to produce the spike protein. And again – the vaccines are injected into the arm, and not the heart.
The SARS-CoV-2 virus, on the other hand, will spread through the body, creating spike proteins in a multitude of cells. If the spike proteins are the problem, which this study suggests, then a COVID-19 infection poses a far greater threat than the COVID-19 vaccine.
The mRNA vaccines for COVID-19 are already known to cause pericarditis and myocarditis in young males, but this is a relatively rare cardiac side effect and generally milder than if caused by COVID-19 infections.
That’s why health authorities across the world continue to advocate getting the COVID-19 vaccines. After all – the risk of getting myocarditis from multiple doses of the vaccines are much lower than the risk of getting myocarditis from a single COVID-19 infection!
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 Dr. Peter McCullough testify to the EU Parliament on COVID-19 vaccine safety on 13 September 2023?!
Take a look at the viral claims, and find out what the facts really are!
Updated @ 2023-10-06 : Added a link, and other small changes. Originally posted @ 2023-09-18
Peter McCullough Testified To EU Parliament On Vaccine Safety?!
People are sharing Twitter (X) and Rumble videos of Dr. Peter McCullough, claiming that he testified about the dangers of COVID-19 vaccines to the EU Parliament on 13 September 2023:
Blake 🔮 : Must Watch: Dr. Peter McCullough Calls For Complete Stop To All COVID Injections – Not Safe For Human Use (9/13/23):
@P_McCulloughMD testifies in the European Parliament to end all COVID vaccinations.
“I submit to you the COVID-19 vaccines and all of their progeny & future boosters are not safe for human use.”
World Council for Health (WCH) : In a session focused on the @WHO, Dr Peter McCullough (@P_McCulloughMD) delivered a powerful speech to the EU Parliament ahead of his upcoming WCH event in Bath, UK with Dr Tess Lawrie on Tuesday.
William Sumner Scott : The EU decided to allow Dr. Peter McCullough to make his presentation of the dangers of the covid – 19 vaccines. Bottom line, do not take any more of them.
America Out Lout : Dr. McCullough delivered a speech to the European Union Parliament on September 13, 2023, in a session dedicated to the World Health Organization and Pandemic response.
Peter McCullough Testified At EU Parliament : What I Discovered
Don’t be surprised if you did not see any EU Parliament announcement about banning COVID-19 vaccines, after Dr. Peter McCullough’s damning testimony to them.
Such a tremendous testimony should have made international news, shouldn’t it? After doing some research, this was what I discovered…
Fact #1 : Hearing Was About New WHO Proposed Rules
Like me, you probably thought that the EU Parliament invited Dr. Peter McCullough to testify about the safety of COVID-19 vaccines.
However, the event was actually billed as an “Expert hearing with Q&A” on “Health & Democracy under WHO’s new proposed rules“.
The new WHO rules they are referring to are really proposed amendments to the International Health Regulations (IHR) that WHO member states themselves have drafted and negotiated since December 2021.
Fact #2 : It Was Not An Official European Parliament Event
If you check the European Parliament website, you will not find this event listed at all. You also won’t find it in the European Parliament’s list of official events for September 2023:
Hearings : A committee is permitted to organise a hearing with experts, where this is considered essential to its work on a particular subject. No hearings were held in August or September 2023.
Workshops : Workshops are organised by the policy departments and enable members to put questions to and exchange views with experts on subjects associated with parliamentary business or subjects of current interest. No workshops were held in September 2023.
Other Events : All other public events organised as part of committee activities involving external speakers or experts. Only one event was scheduled for September 2023 – the 13th meeting of the Joint Parliamentary Scrutiny Group on Europe on 20 September 2023.
As far as I can tell – the Health & Democracy under WHO’s new proposed rules event was not an official European Parliament event. It appears to consist of allotted time for the speakers to speak to the attendees and a livestream from within a European Parliament room, similar to the earlier International COVID Summit III.
Perhaps that was ultimately the purpose of this event – to give those speakers the patina of European Parliamentary approval? Perhaps that was all they wanted.
Fact #3 : The Event Was Held At De Madariaga S7 Room
It took some digging, but I managed to trace the location of this event. It was not held in the grand plenary hall where the 705 Members of the European Parliament meet, of course.
Rather, the Health & Democracy under WHO’s new proposed rules event took place from 2:30 PM until 4:30 PM at the S7 room in the Salvador de Madariaga (SDM) building.
This is a different, secondary building across the river from the main Louise Weiss building, with many rooms available for MEPs to use.
Fact #4 : Event Was Hosted By ECR + ID Parliamentary Groups
The Health & Democracy under WHO’s new proposed rules event appears to be sponsored or hosted by several European Parliament Members from the ECR (European Conservatives and Reformists), and the Identity and Democracy (ID) groups.
MEP Christine Anderson, Identity and Democracy – Germany
MEP Mislav Kolakušić, Non-attached Member of the European Parliament – Croatia
MEP Ivan Vilibor Sinčić, Non-attached Member of the European Parliament – Croatia
MEP Cristian Terheş, European Conservatives and Reformists – Romania
MEP Virginie Joron, Identity and Democracy – France
That explains how this event was held within the European Parliament building, even though it was not an official or sanctioned event. This is similar to the earlier International COVID Summit III event.
Obviously, speaking to those five MEPs do not constitute speaking to the European Parliament itself, since 700 other MEPs were not in the room, and it wasn’t even an official event!
On top of that, the event banner shows that they were not there as official representatives of the European Parliament, but as “hosting MEPs”…
Fact #4 : European Parliament Had Plenary Session At That Time
While it may appear that Dr. Peter McCullough and the other people at the event were speaking to the European Parliament itself, the truth is – the European Parliament was in the midst of a 4-day plenary session from 11-14 September 2023.
At the same time that Dr. McCullough was giving his “testimony” in the S7 room in the Salvador de Madariaga building across the river, the European Parliament itself was in the grand plenary hall in the Louise Weiss building for issues (itinerary) like:
Topical debate (Rule 162) – Reviewing the protection status of wolves and other large carnivores in the EU
Presentation by the Council of its position on the draft general budget – 2024 financial year
Report on the proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council establishing a framework for ensuring a secure and sustainable supply of critical raw materials and amending Regulations (EU) 168/2013, (EU) 2018/858, 2018/1724 and (EU) 2019/1020
Opening of negotiations of an agreement with the United States of America on strengthening international supply chains of critical minerals
Report with recommendations to the Commission on amending the proposed mechanism to resolve legal and administrative obstacles in a cross-border context
Fact #5 : All Hosting MEPs Attended Plenary Session!
The Health & Democracy under WHO’s new proposed rules event was hosted by five MEPs. However, the video does not actually show them present in the McCullough testimony video.
When I checked the attendance register, I was surprised to see that all five MEPs attended the plenary session on 13 September 2023 at the Louise Weiss building across the river!
Christine Anderson
Mislav Kolakušić
Ivan Vilibor Sinčić
Cristian Terheş
Virginie Joron
It is possible that those five MEPs may have taken time off from the plenary session to drop by the unofficial event they hosted – a roundtrip would take 30-40 minutes by car.
But there is currently no evidence that I can find to show that those MEPs were actually present during Peter McCullough’s testimony.
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.
Dr. Peter McCullough has finally been decertified, after two years of spouting misinformation about COVID-19 and vaccines!
Dr. Peter McCullough Has (Finally) Been Decertified!
Tech millionaire and anti-vaccination activist, Steve Kirsch (who is ironically fully-vaccinated himself!), just revealed that his antivax buddy, Dr. Peter McCullough has just been decertified!
Finally, after two years of spouting misinformation about COVID-19 and vaccines, Dr. Peter McCullough was stripped of his board certifications in Internal Medicine and Cardiology!
Peter McCullough had earlier been terminated as the Editor-In-Chief of Cardiorenal Medicine, and Reviews in Cardiovascular Medicine in March 2022. But when he was stripped of his board certifications, he went crying to his pal, Steve Kirsch:
I was terminated as the Editor-In-Chief of Cardiorenal Medicine and Reviews in Cardiovascular Medicine after years of service and rising impact factors. There was no phone call, no board meeting, no due process. Just e-mails or certified letters. Powerful dark forces are working in academic medicine to expunge any resistance to the vax.
Yesterday I was stripped of my board certifications in Internal Medicine and Cardiology after decades of perfect clinical performance, board scores, and hundreds of peer reviewed publications.
None of this will stop until there is a “needle in every arm.”
According to McCullough, the American Board of Internal Medicine said that his primary offences were:
Understating the risk COVID-19 death for people under the age of 50.
Overstating the risk of death from COVID-19 vaccines.
I would have said better late than never, but that would be like being fine with letting a serial murderer carry on slicing and dicing his victims for two years.
And the truth is – there is already a needle in every arm that is willing to accept facts, and the protection offered by the COVID-19 vaccines.
Yet the sky hasn’t fallen, except for Dr. Peter McCullough… extremely belated, but still welcome nevertheless.
It is impossible to know how much damage Dr. Peter McCullough wrought with his lies, but he definitely cost many people their lives, or those of their loved ones.
McCullough has made so many false claims about COVID-19 and the vaccines, that it would be impossible to cover all of them, so here’s just a selection of his “best hits”:
He falsely claimed that the COVID-19 pandemic was planned many years ago at a 2017 Johns Hopkins University symposium.
He falsely claimed that there’s no scientific reason for healthy people under 50 to get the vaccine.
He falsely claimed that people who develop COVID-19 have “complete and durable immunity”, and that there is no benefit in vaccinating someone who recovered from COVID-19.
He falsely claimed that over 50,000 Americans died from the COVID-19 vaccine during his Texas Senate testimony in March 2021.
He falsely claimed that there is a “low degree, if any of asymptomatic spread” of COVID-19.
He falsely claimed that the COVID-19 vaccines are experimental.
He falsely claimed that the Emergency Use Authorisation is new and has never been used before.
He falsely claimed that there was a global recall of the COVID-19 vaccines.
He falsely claimed that face masks don’t work.
Just four months ago, Dr. Peter McCullough falsely testified to a Texas Senate Committee on Health & Human Services, that the COVID-19 vaccines were recalled after over 40,000 deaths were reported.
In my fact check, I pointed out the many mistakes (lies?) Dr. McCullough made in his testimony. He may sound authoritative to the public, but he’s really “full of shit”.
When you look at just the short list above, you have to wonder – why didn’t they strip his board certifications earlier?
It wouldn’t stop him from posting misinformation, but it would have blunted the effectiveness of his misinformation, by stripping him of the credibility his board certifications offer him.
In fact, that’s the reason why McCullough kept claiming to be the Vice Chief of Internal Medicine at Baylor University Medical Center, amongst other titles, MONTHS after he was “let go”.
In the end, Baylor Scott & White Health had to sue him for $1 million in damages, and file a restraining order to stop him from associating himself with their medical facilities.
Dr. Peter McCullough has long lost the respect of the medical fraternity because they know that he has been putting people’s lives at risk with his misinformation, literally breaking the Hippocratic oath.
But the public doesn’t know that. They believe his misinformation because he frames himself as a medical authority with board certifications.
Stripping him of his board certifications will not stop him from posting more misinformation, but it sure as heck will clip his credibility.
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.
Have COVID-19 vaccines been recalled after over 40,000 deaths were reported in major safety databases?! Take a look at the viral claims, and find out what the facts really are!
Claim : COVID-19 Vaccines Were Recalled After 40K Deaths!
People are sharing a video of Dr. Peter McCullough testifying to a Senate Committee on Health & Human Services, as evidence that COVID-19 vaccines have been recalled after 40,000 deaths!
It is often shared with comments like this :
50 deaths is the threshold for a vaccine recall.
40,000 #COVID19 #VaccineDeaths and no recall.
Ask yourself, why is this the first in history?
The video shows Dr. Peter McCullough making a number of claims. Here is my transcript. It’s long so feel free to skip to the next section for the facts…
This month, the World Council for Health, which represents 70 bodies worldwide, has called for a global recall of all vaccines, because worldwide 40,000 deaths that these safety databases across the world… 40,000 in the big ones – VAERS, the Yellow Card System, the VigiSafe [sic] and Eudrys [sic] system. 40,000 deaths with the vaccines.
Unacceptably high. Technical standard for any biologic product is 50 deaths – pull it off the market. Something’s gone wrong. 50, not 40 thousand.
So when there is a global recall by an international organisation, this committee ought to be having emergency meetings. What are we going to do? A worldwide body has called for these to pull off the market.
They are still giving it. You just heard from the pharmacy director ahead of me. He is still giving them out.
When there is a worldwide recall, there should be some committee meeting so you have it down, I mean you can tell something is going on here, that we are in trouble in terms of vaccine safety.
Doctor Malone’s covered vaccine efficacy, which has honestly waned. I will just tell you that the CDC told us, as of December 10th, 2021, with the Omicron strain, 79% of people with Omicron were fully-vaccinated. That is prima facie evidence that the vaccines have completely failed against Omicron.
Truth : COVID-19 Vaccines Are Safe + Were Not Recalled!
This is yet another example of FAKE NEWS created by anti-vaccination activists, including Dr. Peter McCullough himself, and here are the reasons why…
Fact #1 : It Was A Texas Senate Hearing
First, let us understand the context behind the viral video.
It was a partial clip from a 10.5 hour long interim hearing on public health data and the COVID-19 pandemic response held by the Texas Senate Health and Human Services Committee on June 27, 2022.
The Texas Senate hearing was just political theatre, in which the Republicans brought in fringe doctors or scientists like Peter McCullough and Robert Malone to, well, tell their lies.
I will now go through the McCullough clip (which starts at about 8:05:00), and show you why he has not changed his lying ways…
Fact #2 : No COVID-19 Vaccines Were Recalled
Just to be clear – no COVID-19 vaccines were recalled, either by health authorities or the manufacturers themselves.
Fact #3 : WCH Called For Vaccine Recall Since Sept. 2021
Despite its name – the World Council for Health (WCH) is really just another anti-vaccination organisation, filled with the usual suspects.
Just to be clear – it has no authority whatsoever. The WCH is nothing more than an antivaxxer club.
The WCH was launched on September 23, 2021 with the expressed purpose of calling for “an Immediate Stop to the Covid-19 Experimental Vaccines“. They also issued a Cease and Desist declaration, claiming that “Covid-19 vaccinations are dangerous and unsafe for human use“.
So Peter McCullough falsely claimed that WCH called for a vaccine recall “this month”. It has been calling for a vaccine recall from the very first day it was established. That is really its sole purpose – to stop COVID-19 vaccinations.
Fact #4 : VigiSafe + Eudrys Do Not Exist
Peter McCullough referred to the VigiSafe and Eudrys vaccine safety databases, but they do not exist.
Perhaps he meant the WHO VigiBase / VigiAccess database, and the EudraVigilance system run by the European Medicines Agency (EMA).
It is hilarious that Peter McCullough still insists on using pharmacovigilance data from VAERS, the Yellow Card system, etc. as evidence.
Anyone who even bothers to read the highlighted WARNINGS on those websites would have understood that their data and reports cannot be considered evidence of any kind, because:
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!
Fact #6 : 40,000 Deaths Not Proven To Be Caused By Vaccines
Using pharmacovigilance data to claim that the COVID-19 vaccines caused 40,000 deaths is disinformation – false information deliberately created to deceive you.
Peter McCullough has no evidence that the 40,000 deaths reported in pharmacovigilance data were actually caused by COVID-19 vaccines.
Making an adverse reaction report is no different from making a police report. If you make a police report, it is registered in the system. However, that doesn’t mean a crime was actually committed. The police will have to investigate and determine if you were lying / mistaken, or there was indeed a crime.
Similarly, these adverse reaction reports are just reports. They must first be investigated, in order to determine if they are really side effects of the vaccine, or completely unrelated.
Fact #7 : There Is No 50 Death Threshold For Vaccine Withdrawal
There is no such thing as a 50 death threshold for a vaccine withdrawal.
Vaccines are often recalled for non-lethal reasons. In fact, they are most often recalled in batches by their manufacturers after quality control tests showed some irregularities in certain batches.
Health authorities like the US FDA also monitor vaccines continuously and determine if there is a safety concern that warrants a withdrawal. They do not have to wait for 50 people to die first. That’s just absurd!
Sometimes vaccines are also recalled due to “low vaccine potency or strength”. In such cases, people who received them would need to get an extra dose!
Fact #8 : There Were Only 43 Omicron Cases On Dec. 10, 2021
It is interesting that Peter McCullough would talk about Omicron cases six months in the past.
But if you dig a little deeper, you will realise that he chose to talk about Omicron cases on December 10, 2021 because it was the first CDC report on Omicron cases in the United States.
At that time, there were only 43 known Omicron cases in the United States. Even though it showed that 79% were fully-vaccinated, that is misleading due to the low number of cases.
Fact #9 : Vaccinated People Have Mild Symptoms, Fewer Deaths
What he does not tell you is that most fully-vaccinated people experience mild symptoms even if they were infected with the Omicron variant.
He also does not tell you that COVID-19 deaths for fully-vaccinated people remain low, even as surges increased deaths for unvaccinated people, regardless of variant.
Fact #10 : Vaccines Were Meant To Prevent Hospitalisation + Death
Peter McCullough falsely claimed that the 79% result was “prima facie evidence” that the COVID-19 vaccines failed to work against the Omicron variant.
The COVID-19 vaccines are not force fields – they cannot block infections. They were designed to prevent symptomatic infections, severe disease and death by training your own immune system to defend itself against the ancestral SARS-CoV-2 virus.
The Omicron variant causes more breakthrough infections, but the COVID-19 vaccines continue to protect against severe disease leading to hospitalisations, and death from the Omicron variant.
The truth is – the COVID-19 vaccines still work well against the Omicron variants. They may not prevent infections, but they will ensure you have milder symptoms, and greatly reduce your risk of severe disease and death.
Fact #11 : Booster Doses Increase Protection Against Omicron
What Peter McCullough does not mention is the fact that you can improve your protection against the Omicron variant by getting a booster dose (or two).
A January 2022 study by the CDC showed that getting a third dose of any mRNA vaccine increases protection against both the Delta and Omicron variants.
Fact #12 : Anti-Vaccine Claims Keep Being Proven False
This is yet another example of anti-vaccination activists twisting the facts to deceive you into believing that vaccines are dangerous. Here are some other examples:
Please help us FIGHT FAKE NEWS by sharing this fact check article out, and please SUPPORT our work!
And please 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.
