Tag Archives: Cureus

Cureus retracts study linking COVID vaccines to cancer!

Find out why the journal Cureus just retracted a controversial Japanese study which claimed to link COVID-19 vaccines to cancer!

Cureus Retracts Study Linking COVID Vaccines To Cancer!

Cureus just retracted a controversial Japanese study by Gibo M, Kojima S, Fujisawa A, et al. which claimed to link COVID-19 vaccines to cancer, a decision which drew outrage amongst the anti-vaccine community.

Some publications even suggested that Cureus made that decision after it was fact-checked by Facebook or Reuters.

Children’s Health Defense / Vigilant News :

Journal Retracts Peer-Reviewed Study Linking COVID Vaccines to Cancer After Reuters ‘Fact Checks’ It

Mortality for some cancers increased by as much as 9.7%, according to a study by Japanese researchers who analyzed government statistics to compare age-adjusted cancer mortality rates during the COVID-19 pandemic (2020-2022) with pre-pandemic rates.

The journal Cureus last week retracted a Japanese study that found statistically significant increases in cancer mortality following COVID-19 vaccination, especially after the third COVID-19 shot.

Slay News : Top Journal Removes Peer-Reviewed Study Linking Covid Shots to Cancer after Facebook ‘Fact Check’

An explosive peer-reviewed study was recently published in a prestigious medical journal which identifies a direct link between Covid mRNA shots and cancer.

As Slay News reported, the study, published in the Cureus journal, found that the risk of dying from cancer dramatically increased each time a patient received an mRNA injection.

Why Cureus Retracted Study Linking COVID Vaccines To Cancer!

Here is a quick primer on why Cureus retracted the controversial Japanese study linking COVID-19 vaccines to cancer, and what it means…

Fact #1 : Cureus Relies On Post-Publication Peer Review

Let me start by quickly pointing out that Cureus relies on post-publication peer review.

Even though this paper was marked as “peer-reviewed”, the peer review process at Cureus is “unusually fast“, and Cureus relies on “post-publication peer review“, as its Editor in Chief John R. Adler explained to Retraction Watch in 2015:

Yes, Cureus has an unusually fast review process, which is an important part of the journal’s philosophy. We believe that post publication peer review, a focus of our journal through commenting and our unique SIQ process, is potentially a more powerful way to discern truth.

In other words – the pre-publication peer review appears to be superficial, and Cureus relies on the scientific community to peer-review the papers after publication.

Therefore, “peer-reviewed” studies published in Cureus can and do get retracted after further review, like the infamous article “COVID-19 mRNA Vaccines: Lessons Learned from the Registrational Trials and Global Vaccination Campaign” by Mead et. al.

Even if the paper was properly peer-reviewed by a prestigious journal, that would only be the first step in the scientific review process, which would include replication and verification, as well as criticism by other members of the scientific community.

Fact #2 : Cureus Says Study’s Conclusions Are Invalid

After publishing the study on April 8, the Editors-in-Chief at Cureus initiated a comprehensive post-publication editorial review on June 12, after the scientific credibility of the article was severely criticised.

The Editors-in-Chief have been made aware of several concerns regarding the scientific credibility of this article. A comprehensive post-publication editorial review is being conducted to determine if any action is required.

Finally, on June 26, the Editors-in-Chief at Cureus determined that the data in the study did not show any correlation between mortality rates and vaccination status, which invalidated its conclusion. They then decided to retract the study:

The Editors-in-Chief have retracted this article. Upon post-publication review, it has been determined that the correlation between mortality rates and vaccination status cannot be proven with the data presented in this article. As this invalidates the conclusions of the article, the decision has been made to retract.

The authors disagree with this retraction.

This may seem like closing the stable doors after the horses have bolted, but at least the controversial article has finally been retracted. In hindsight, perhaps such studies should undergo a more stringent peer-review process before being allowed to be labelled as “peer-reviewed”, or published…

Fact #3 : Japanese Study Had So Many Problems

The Gibo et. al. study only performed statistical analysis of publicly-available data to look at whether there has been any increase in cancer deaths. While such studies may suggest a potential issue with the COVID-19 vaccines, they cannot prove any correlation, much less causation.

Back in April, I wrote a comprehensive look at that study, but here are the key points of why that Japanese study does not show a rise in cancer deaths in Japan and/or that they were caused by mRNA vaccines:

it did not even establish the COVID-19 vaccination status of people in the data!
Japan used a mix of COVID-19 vaccines, not just mRNA vaccines
the study lacked a control group of unvaccinated people, which invalidated its conclusion
cancer deaths have been rising for decades, as the chart below shows
Japan has an aging population, which could easily explain the increase in cancer rates and deaths
cancer has been the leading cause of death in Japan since 1981

The study did not even establish the vaccination status of people included in the data, never mind how many actually received the third dose! The authors actually admitted that at the end of their long paper:

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!

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.

Recommended Reading

Go Back To > Fact Check | Sports | Tech ARP

Support Tech ARP!

Please support us by visiting our sponsors, participating in the Tech ARP Forums, or donating to our fund. Thank you!

Did Japan study show explosion of mRNA cancer deaths?!

Leave a reply

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…

Concerned Citizen : 🚨🌎💉 Japanese Cancer Research

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.

Show less

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).

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 #3 : Study Does Not Show Cancer Deaths From mRNA Vaccines

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

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 Used A Mix Of COVID-19 Vaccines

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.

Japan Has An Aging Population

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

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.

Recommended Reading

Go Back To > Fact Check | Health | Tech ARP

Support Tech ARP!

Please support us by visiting our sponsors, participating in the Tech ARP Forums, or donating to our fund. Thank you!

Cureus Retracts “Peer-Reviewed” COVID-19 Vaccines Paper!

Leave a reply

It took them a while, but Cureus finally retracted the controversial “peer-reviewed” article on the lessons learned about COVID-19 mRNA vaccines!

Take a look at the controversial article, and find out what Cureus decided to retract it!

Cureus Publishes Controversial COVID-19 Vaccines Paper!

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:

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.

Cureus Finally Retracts “Peer-Reviewed” COVID-19 Vaccines Paper!

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.

Dear authors,

I hope this email finds you well. I write regarding your article recently published in Cureus entitled, ‘COVID-19 mRNA Vaccines: Lessons Learned from the Registrational Trials and Global Vaccination Campaign’.

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

Show less

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.

You can read more about those claims in my fact check article – COVID-19 mRNA Vaccines Lessons Learned Fact Check!

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.

Recommended Reading

Go Back To > Fact Check | Health | Tech ARP

Support Tech ARP!

Please support us by visiting our sponsors, participating in the Tech ARP Forums, or donating to our fund. Thank you!

Did COVID vaccines kill 14X more people than they saved?!

Leave a reply

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.”

Show less

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:

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 #3 : Paper Regurgitates Long-Debunked Claims

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.

mRNA Vaccines Do Not Prevent Transmission?!

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.

Lots Of Deaths + Hospitalisation Were Reported?!

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.

mRNA Vaccines Are Contaminated By DNA?!

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.

In any case, the amount of residual DNA in mRNA vaccines were found to be far below regulatory limits.

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.

Recommended Reading

Go Back To > Fact Check | Health | Tech ARP

Support Tech ARP!

Please support us by visiting our sponsors, participating in the Tech ARP Forums, or donating to our fund. Thank you!

Did Scientists Call For Global mRNA Vaccine Moratorium?!

Leave a reply

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).

Show less

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.

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.

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.

This paper gives the results of a large field trial of the vaccine conducted among schoolchildren in North Carolina.

During the 180 days of post-vaccination surveillance, 56 cases of mumps were reported among the study population and 69 cases among non-participants.

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?

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 Absolute Risk Reduction (ARR) will “always appear low” because it depends very much on the “event rate”. As the Meedan Health Desk explained:

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%).

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.

mRNA Vaccines Do Not Prevent Transmission?!

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.

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!

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.

Lots Of Deaths + Hospitalisation Were Reported?!

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”

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”.

Not only was that study just a “review” of autopsy reports, many of the cases had other far more likely causes of death.

mRNA Vaccines Are Contaminated By DNA?!

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.

In any case, the amount of residual DNA in mRNA vaccines were found to be far below regulatory limits.

Pfizer Vaccine Has DNA From SV40 Virus That Causes Cancer?!

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.

Recommended Reading

Go Back To > Fact Check | Health | Tech ARP

Support Tech ARP!

Please support us by visiting our sponsors, participating in the Tech ARP Forums, or donating to our fund. Thank you!

COVID-19 mRNA Vaccines Lessons Learned Fact Check!

Leave a reply

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.”

Show less

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:

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

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.

This paper gives the results of a large field trial of the vaccine conducted among schoolchildren in North Carolina.

During the 180 days of post-vaccination surveillance, 56 cases of mumps were reported among the study population and 69 cases among non-participants.

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?

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 Absolute Risk Reduction (ARR) will “always appear low” because it depends very much on the “event rate”. As the Meedan Health Desk explained:

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%).

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.

mRNA Vaccines Do Not Prevent Transmission?!

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.

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!

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.

Lots Of Deaths + Hospitalisation Were Reported?!

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”

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”.

Not only was that study just a “review” of autopsy reports, many of the cases had other far more likely causes of death.

mRNA Vaccines Are Contaminated By DNA?!

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.

In any case, the amount of residual DNA in mRNA vaccines were found to be far below regulatory limits.

Pfizer Vaccine Has DNA From SV40 Virus That Causes Cancer?!

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.

Recommended Reading

Go Back To > Fact Check | Health | Tech ARP

Support Tech ARP!

Please support us by visiting our sponsors, participating in the Tech ARP Forums, or donating to our fund. Thank you!