Tag Archives: EMA

Colombian Health Minister Walks Back Antivax Comments!

Colombian Health Minister Guillermo Alfonso Jaramillo just walked back his “anti-vaccine” comments!

Take a look at what he said, and find out what the facts really are!

 

Claim : Colombian Health Minister Slams COVID Vaccines!

People are sharing a video, which shows the Colombian Health Minister, Guillermo Alfonso Jaramillo, calling the COVID-19 vaccines “experimental”

aussie17 : 🚨🚨🚨🚨🚨💥💥Wow!!
Health Minister of Colombia, Guillermo Alfonso Jaramillo slams experimental vaccine in an astonishing outburst!

————————————
We are playing with the lives of Colombians, we cannot be a factor of experimentation. All of us who are vaccinated today, today, with the exception of those who took Sinovac,

I have three from Sinovac, all the new technology is a technology and all the vaccines entered here without permission, we went and became an experiment.

All Colombians who are vaccinated served for the largest experiment that has been carried out in the entire history of humanity.

We cannot continue experimenting with the Colombian community, much less with the indigenous people, with the blacks and with the poorest of this country, with the peasants.

Recommended : Is WHO Planning To Take Control Of Internet?!

 

Colombian Health Minister Walks Back Antivax Comments!

What you may not realise is that the Colombian Health Minister quickly walked back his “anti-vaccine” comments. Here is what you need to know…

Fact #1 : Viral Video Appears Legitimate

The video appears to be legitimate, and recorded during a political control debate in the First Commission of the Colombian Senate on Tuesday, 28 November 2023.

In that video, Guillermo Alfonso Jaramillo – the Minister of Health and Social Protection of Colombia – claimed that Colombians were vaccinated against COVID-19 as part of the “largest experiment in history”, referring to the approval and use of mRNA vaccines before their full approval by regulatory agencies like the FDA and EMA.

Fact #2 : Guillermo Jaramillo Walked Back His Antivax Comments

After the Minister’s video went viral, organisations like the Association of Epidemiology of Colombia expressed their disagreement with his claims. They pointed out that his comments contradict scientific evidence, and will jeopardise trust in COVID-19 vaccines.

Guillermo Jaramillo then officially responded to the criticism, clarifying that he was only referring to the “experimental phase” that mRNA vaccines went through. He also affirmed his “consistent support for vaccination“, and emphasised the importance of “timely vaccination” and the “completion of vaccination schemes“.

Colombian President Gustavo Pedro also defended the Health Minister, labelling accusations that Jaramillo is “anti-vaccine” as “slander”.

Recommended : New DARPA Docs Confirm COVID-19 Was Created In China?!

Fact #3 : mRNA Vaccines Are No Longer Experimental

mRNA vaccines from Pfizer and Moderna underwent and passed large clinical trials, and received their Emergency Use Authorisations (EUA) in December 2020.

Regardless of what people claim – the mRNA vaccines were no longer experimental, once they received their EUA.

There are some differences between an EUA and a full FDA approval, but the EUA means the vaccines have officially been approved for use by the health regulator.

While Guillermo Jaramillo suggested that the Sinovac vaccine is not “new technology”, it is still a new vaccine that underwent the same clinical trials as the mRNA vaccines. I should point out that the Sinovac vaccine never received EUA or full authorisation from Western health regulators like the US FDA or EMA.

Fact #4 : mRNA Vaccines Received Their Full FDA Approval

In any case, the mRNA vaccines from Pfizer and Moderna received their full FDA approval on 23 August 2021, and 31 January 2022 respectively.

So there is really no reason for anyone to claim that these mRNA vaccines are still experimental. Even if you “believe” that the mRNA vaccines were “experimental” until they received full regulatory approval, we crossed that bridge a long time ago.

To be clear – the mRNA vaccines from Pfizer and Moderna have long ceased to be experimental.

Fact #5 : mRNA Vaccines Proven Safe + Effective

No vaccine or drug is perfectly safe, or perfectly effective. But the mRNA vaccines from Pfizer and Moderna have proven to be safe and effective for the vast majority of people.

Not only did they pass their large clinical trials with flying colours, post-marketing monitoring showed that they remained safe and effective for the vast majority of people after tens of billions of doses have been administered worldwide.

Yes, post-marketing monitoring have shown that the mRNA vaccines can cause rare side effects like myocarditis. But what anti-vaccine activists don’t tell you is that – the risk of developing myocarditis is much higher with COVID-19 infections!

Please help us FIGHT MISINFORMATION by sharing this fact check article out, and please SUPPORT our work!

 

Please Support My Work!

Support my work through a bank transfer /  PayPal / credit card!

Name : Adrian Wong
Bank Transfer : CIMB 7064555917 (Swift Code : CIBBMYKL)
Credit Card / Paypal : https://paypal.me/techarp

Dr. Adrian Wong has been writing about tech and science since 1997, even publishing a book with Prentice Hall called Breaking Through The BIOS Barrier (ISBN 978-0131455368) while in medical school.

He continues to devote countless hours every day writing about tech, medicine and science, in his pursuit of facts in a post-truth world.

 

Recommended Reading

Go Back To > Fact Check | HealthTech ARP

 

Support Tech ARP!

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

Are Residual DNA In mRNA Vaccines Dangerous?!

Are residual DNA impurities in mRNA vaccines dangerous, and can they integrate into our DNA?!

Take a look at the viral claims, and find out what the facts really are!

 

Claim : Residual DNA In mRNA Vaccines Are Dangerous!

Anti-vaccine activists are sharing and/or promoting an article by The Epoch Times, which claimed / suggested that residual DNA in mRNA vaccines are dangerous, and can potentially integrate into our DNA!

Here is an excerpt from that article by The Epoch Times:

Billions of Copies of Residual DNA in a Single Dose of COVID-19 mRNA Vaccine: Preprint

Recommended : Are mRNA Vaccines Contaminated With SV40 DNA?!

 

No Evidence Residual DNA In Vaccines Are Dangerous

Let’s take a closer look at these claims about Residual DNA in vaccines, and find out what the facts really are!

Fact #1 : mRNA Vaccines Were Proven Safe + Effective

First, I should point out that the mRNA vaccines underwent large clinical trials before they received their Emergency Use Authorisation (EUA), and even after that, they continue to be monitored for safety and efficacy.

So health regulators and health authorities are well-aware of how safe and effective the mRNA vaccines are. That’s why new mRNA vaccines continue to be approved by health regulators around the world.

Fact #2 : Residual DNA Is Not New

These papers and articles may suggest that residual DNA is a new kind of contaminant, or one that is only found in mRNA vaccines. Neither are true.

Residual DNA is found in all vaccines and biological products manufactured in any kind of cell. The risk of residual DNA has also been investigated for about 60 years now.

To be clear – residual DNA isn’t new, and it is a byproduct of using cells to produce biologicals, and not part of mRNA vaccine technology.

Recommended : mRNA Vaccines Created Spike Protein In Human Heart?!

Fact #3 : No Evidence Residual DNA Is Dangerous

In the beginning, some studies raised potential safety issues with residual DNA. So, the FDA set an upper limit of just 10 picograms of residual DNA per medicinal dose in 1985.

In 1986, a WHO study group looked into new cell substrates that are being used to produce biological products, and concluded that the risk is negligible when the amount of residual DNA is 100 picograms per dose.

Then 10 years later – the WHO Expert Committee on Biological Standardization (ECBS) increased the limit to 10 nanograms (ng) per purified dose, albeit not for microbial, diploid, or primary cell cultures.

In 1997, the European Medicines Agency (EMA) said that further data of DNA from continuous mammalian cell lines showed that it poses even less risk than previously thought.

Currently, the WHO and US FDA guidelines recommend that residual DNA in vaccines and other biological products should not exceed 10 nanograms (ng) per purified dose, and the DNA fragments should be no greater than 200 bp in length.

Even that limit appears to be out of an abundance of caution, as studies have not shown any actual danger from residual DNA, as they are tiny fragments.

Fact #4 : Residual DNA Is Fragmented Into Tiny Pieces

The production of mRNA vaccines at scale do not use any animal cells, but is done through in vitro transcription (IVT). The enzyme DNase is then used to destroy the DNA template and polymerase used in the reaction, and further filtration can be performed to reduce the amount of DNA fragments.

In other words – the DNA used to produce the mRNA vaccines are broken into tiny pieces, and most of it is filtered out. Think of the remnants as pieces of scrap metal left over from a dismantled chemical factory.

Sure, the workers left a ton of scrap metal pieces behind, but so what? The scrap metal may be an eyesore, but it’s not going to give you cancer, or turn you into Spiderman!

In short – there is no evidence that these tiny fragments of DNA will integrate into your genome, or cause your cells to become cancerous.

Recommended : New Study Proves Pfizer mRNA Vaccine Causes Turbo Cancer?!

Fact #5 : mRNA Vaccines Meet Residual DNA Limits

The David J Speicher et al. preprint (which has not yet peer-reviewed) actually showed that the amount of residual DNA “contamination” was far below FDA regulatory limits.

As Professor David Gorski noted, the study authors found that the residual DNA in the mRNA vaccines was far below regulatory limits, and used a logarithmic scale to make them appear much closer to the limit than they really are:

Basically, by the authors’ own measurements, the amount of DNA/vial fell below the FDA guidance of 10 ng DNA/dose.

Did you also notice the little trick they did? They used a log scale to make the total DNA appear to be much closer to the FDA-recommended limit than it really is.

For instance, in all the Moderna vials, the amount of DNA isn’t half of the recommended limit, it’s less than one-tenth the recommended limit, and, in the case of the ori sequence, well under 1/100 of the limit.

The abstract itself even notes that the authors found DNA at “0.28 – 4.27 ng/dose and 0.22 – 2.43 ng/dose (Pfizer), and 0.01 -0.34 ng/dose and 0.25 – 0.78 ng/dose (Moderna), for ori and spike respectively measured by qPCR.”

So, from McKernan and Rose’s own data, the vial with the very highest concentration of DNA was one Pfizer vial that had less than one-half the maximum DNA amount recommended by the FDA, while the Moderna vial with the most plasmid DNA contamination had less than one-tenth the maximum recommended by the FDA.

In short – even the much touted Speicher preprint itself showed that the amount of residual DNA in mRNA COVID-19 vaccines are far below regulatory limits.

The whole controversy is really much ado about nothing. What a bloody waste of time!

Perhaps that’s why they are repackaging the drama in terms of “billions of copies of residual DNA”, instead of just telling us about the actual quantity they found.

The truth is – there are billions of fragments because the DNA was chopped up pretty damn small to ensure that it would pose no threat. And because the fragments so small, it’s pretty impossible to filter them all out.

Recommended : Did Health Canada Confirm SV40 DNA In Pfizer Vaccine?!

Fact #6 : VAERS Reports Are Unverified

Hilariously, the Speicher et al. preprint suggested that mRNA vaccine vials with higher doses of residual DNA correlated with more adverse reactions, as reported in the Vaccine Adverse Reaction Reports System (VAERS).

As I pointed out many times before, VAERS data is unverified, and notoriously susceptible to abuse, and false reporting. That’s because it’s an open system that anyone – not just doctors, can report anything they want.

In addition, the reports may be duplicated and have not been verified to be related to the vaccine or drug in question. Hence, VAERS specifically warns against using its reports to reach any conclusion about the risks or safety of vaccines / drugs in question.

But that is precisely why anti-vaccination activists love using VAERS data – it’s unverified, and very susceptible to abuse and false reporting.

Fact #7 : Study Showed Fewer Adverse Events With More DNA Fragments!

Even more hilariously, the Speicher et al. preprint actually showed that the detection of more DNA fragments (as determined by Qubit fluorometry) correlated with fewer serious adverse events (SAEs).

In other words – this study has inadvertently “proven” that getting mRNA vaccines with more residual DNA will result in fewer adverse effects!

I meant that only in jest, because the study simply does not prove any correlation. It’s just asinine to even attempt to correlate unverified VAERS reports with quantity of residual DNA fragments in any vaccine.

Recommended : Did EMA Confirm Pfizer Hid SV40 DNA In Vaccine?!

Please help us FIGHT FAKE NEWS by sharing this fact check article out, and please SUPPORT our work!

Protect yourself and your family, by vaccinating against COVID-19 and other preventable diseases!

 

Please Support My Work!

Support my work through a bank transfer /  PayPal / credit card!

Name : Adrian Wong
Bank Transfer : CIMB 7064555917 (Swift Code : CIBBMYKL)
Credit Card / Paypal : https://paypal.me/techarp

Dr. Adrian Wong has been writing about tech and science since 1997, even publishing a book with Prentice Hall called Breaking Through The BIOS Barrier (ISBN 978-0131455368) while in medical school.

He continues to devote countless hours every day writing about tech, medicine and science, in his pursuit of facts in a post-truth world.

 

Recommended Reading

Go Back To > Fact Check | HealthTech 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 EMA Confirm Pfizer Hid SV40 DNA In Vaccine?!

Did the EMA (European Medicines Agency) just confirm that Pfizer hid the presence of SV40 DNA in its mRNA COVID-19 vaccine?!

Take a look at the viral claim, and find out what the facts really are!

 

Claim : EMA Confirmed Pfizer Hid SV40 DNA In Vaccine!

Some people are sharing an article by The Epoch Times, which claimed / suggested that the European Medicines Agency just confirmed that Pfizer “hid” the presence of SV40 (Simian Virus 40) DNA in its mRNA vaccine for COVID-19!

Here is an excerpt from that article by The Epoch Times:

European Regulator Confirms Pfizer Did Not Highlight DNA Sequence in COVID-19 Vaccine

Recommended : Are mRNA Vaccines Contaminated With SV40 DNA?!

 

Truth : EMA Did Not Say Pfizer Hid SV40 DNA In Vaccine!

Let’s take a closer look at what the EMA and Health Canada actually said about the presence of SV40 DNA in the Pfizer mRNA vaccine for COVID-19!

Fact #1 : SV40 Promoter Is Not SV40 Virus

First, I should point out that the SV40 promoter is not the SV40 virus. It is unknown if the writers are aware of the difference, or are simply trying to conflate the two to confuse readers.

What you need to know is that gene enhancers and promoters are DNA sequences that stimulate gene expression, and have long been used in molecular biology. The SV40 promoter is merely a DNA sequence that was derived from the SV40 (Simian Virus 40) virus, and is not the same thing as the SV40 virus.

Think of the SV40 promoter as a genetic tool obtained from the SV40 virus, just like how botulinum toxin is a treatment derived from the bacteria, Clostridium botulinum.

Finding botulinum toxin in a vial of Botox does not mean there is bacteria in that vial. Similarly, finding the SV40 promoter in the Pfizer vaccine does not mean there is SV40 virus in the vaccine.

There is no evidence to indicate the presence of SV40, a virus found in monkey kidneys that can potentially cause cancer in humans, in the formulation of COVID-19 vaccines.

– Alessandro Faia, spokesperson for the European Medicines Agency (EMA)

To be clear – mRNA vaccines do not contain the SV40 virus. And the SV40 promoter is not the same thing as the SV40 virus.

Recommended : Are mRNA Vaccines Contaminated With SV40 DNA?!

Fact #2 : Pfizer Submitted Entire Plasmid DNA Sequence

Both Health Canada and EMA pointed out to The Epoch Times that Pfizer submitted the entire DNA sequence of the plasmid, as part of the approval process, but did not highlight the SV40 promoter sequence because it was a non-functional part of the plasmid.

It is unknown if The Epoch Times forgot / missed what Health Canada or the EMA wrote, or they were trying to confuse readers by insinuating that the SV40 promoter sequence was somehow being hidden from regulators.

EMA : We can confirm that an SV40 sequence is present in the DNA plasmid. The sequence is not directly relevant for plasmid production in E. coli or for the mRNA production process so it is considered to be a non-functional part of the structure of the source plasmid.

While the full DNA sequence of the plasmid starting material was provided in the initial marketing authorisation application for Comirnaty, the applicant did not specifically highlight the SV40 sequence, as it was considered to be a non-functional part of the plasmid. They have since clarified this information in response to questions raised by EMA.

Health Canada : Health Canada expects sponsors to identify any biologically functional DNA sequences within a plasmid (such as an SV40 enhancer) at the time of submission. Although the full DNA sequence of the Pfizer plasmid was provided at the time of initial filing, the sponsor did not specifically identify SV40 sequence. When the presence of the SV40 enhancer was raised publicly by McKernan and Buckhaults, it was possible for Health Canada to confirm the presence of the enhancer based on the plasmid DNA sequence submitted by Pfizer against the published SV40 enhancer sequence.

the residual plasmid DNA is present in the final product as DNA fragments, due to the enzyme digestion step in the downstream process. As such, the original risk benefit analysis that supported the initial approval of the Pfizer vaccine continues to be valid.

Recommended : New Study Proves Pfizer mRNA Vaccine Causes Turbo Cancer?!

Fact #3 : Plasmid DNA Are Broken Down + Removed

The production of mRNA vaccines at scale do not use any animal cells, but is done through in vitro transcription (IVT). The enzyme DNase is then used to destroy the DNA template and polymerase used in the reaction, and further filtration can be performed to reduce the amount of DNA fragments.

Health Canada actually wrote a detailed explanation (archive) of why DNA fragments are expected in mRNA vaccine manufacturing, and why the quantity in the vaccines is not a concern.

Plasmids are an essential starting material for the production of mRNA vaccines. During the downstream process in mRNA vaccine manufacturing, the plasmid DNA is digested with enzymes to small fragments, and further removed to a level of not more than 10 ng/human dose, which is in line with the World Health Organization’s recommendation concerning residual DNA in biological drugs. The DNA is digested with enzymes post-transcription.

The European Medicines Agency (EMA) also concurred, stating that the plasmid is broken down and removed during the manufacturing process:

We would also like to point out that during the manufacturing process, this sequence and other plasmid DNA sequences are broken down and removed. Fragments of the SV40 sequence may only be present as residual impurities at very low levels that are routinely controlled.

The WHO has set a recommended limit of 10 ng of residual DNA per dose.

Recommended : Is FDA Refusing To Release Vaccine Myocarditis Results?!

Fact #4 : McKernan Paper Shows Vaccines Meet Regulatory Limit!

The McKernan et al. preprint (which has not yet peer-reviewed) that fuelled the SV40 promoter DNA in Pfizer vaccine controversy, actually showed that the amount of residual DNA “contamination” was far below regulatory limits.

As Professor David Gorski noted, the study authors found that the residual DNA in the mRNA vaccines was far below regulatory limits, and used a logarithmic scale to make them appear much closer to the limit than they really are:

Basically, by the authors’ own measurements, the amount of DNA/vial fell below the FDA guidance of 10 ng DNA/dose.

Did you also notice the little trick they did? They used a log scale to make the total DNA appear to be much closer to the FDA-recommended limit than it really is.

For instance, in all the Moderna vials, the amount of DNA isn’t half of the recommended limit, it’s less than one-tenth the recommended limit, and, in the case of the ori sequence, well under 1/100 of the limit.

The abstract itself even notes that the authors found DNA at “0.28 – 4.27 ng/dose and 0.22 – 2.43 ng/dose (Pfizer), and 0.01 -0.34 ng/dose and 0.25 – 0.78 ng/dose (Moderna), for ori and spike respectively measured by qPCR.”

So, from McKernan and Rose’s own data, the vial with the very highest concentration of DNA was one Pfizer vial that had less than one-half the maximum DNA amount recommended by the FDA, while the Moderna vial with the most plasmid DNA contamination had less than one-tenth the maximum recommended by the FDA.

In short – even the much touted McKernan preprint itself showed that the amount of residual DNA in mRNA COVID-19 vaccines are far below regulatory limits.

The whole controversy is really much ado about nothing. What a bloody waste of time!

Recommended : Did CDC Say COVID Vaccines Cause AIDS + Cancer?!

Fact #5 : Residual DNA Won’t Integrate Into Our Genome

The presence of residual DNA itself does not mean that they will integrate into our genome. For one thing – these are DNA fragments that have been broken down by the DNase enzyme.

Think of the residual DNA as parts of a factory which were used to build the mRNA vaccine, but dismantled once the vaccine has been manufactured. Sure, the disposal team may have left a couple of bolts and screws lying on the floor, but can they be used to recreate the factory? No.

To be clear – neither the COVID-19 vaccines, not any residual DNA they may contain, can change our genome. On top of that, the vaccines are injected into the muscle, whose cells are “post-mitotic”, which means they are no longer able to change.

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 | HealthTech ARP

 

Support Tech ARP!

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

Are mRNA Vaccines Contaminated With SV40 DNA?!

Are mRNA COVID-19 vaccines from Pfizer and Moderna contaminated with SV40 virus DNA that can cause turbo cancer and other health problems?!

Take a look at the viral claims, and find out what the facts really are!

 

Claim : mRNA Vaccines Are Contaminated With SV40 DNA!

Some people are sharing video clips, messages, and articles which claim that the mRNA COVID-19 vaccines from Pfizer and Moderna are contaminated with SV40 virus DNA that can cause turbo cancer and other health problems!

Jikkyleaks : BOOM 💥💥
Yet another lab confirms therapeutic levels of DNA and SV40 contamination of Pfizer and Moderna “vaccines”

This time, @DJSpeicher & @JesslovesMJK show that the DNA contamination correlates to adverse events (and presumably deaths).

Criminal prosecutions are needed

💙Lyndsey, RN🐭 : Do NOT take Pfizer or Moderna as plasmid dna contamination and SV40 found in the vials that were distributed to the population. BUT the dna and sv40 were not found in the trial vials. HUGE REGULATORY ISSUE THERE FOR YOUR BIG MOMMA AND POP POP!

#VaxInjuries #VaxDeaths

Chuck Callesto : BREAKING REPORT: Pfizer accused of NOT DISCLOSING the presence of the Simian Virus 40 [SV40] DNA sequence in its mRNA COV-D-19 vaccine.

The complete SV40 virus was ELIMINATED from Polio vaccines during the 1950s and 1960s because of concerns about its association with CANCER.

Recommended : Did Health Canada Confirm SV40 DNA In Pfizer Vaccine?!

 

Truth : mRNA Vaccines Are Not Contaminated With SV40 DNA!

This is yet another example of FAKE NEWS created / propagated by anti-vaccine proponents, and here are the reasons why…

Fact #1 : SV40 Promoter Is Not SV40 Virus

First, I should point out that gene promoters are DNA sequences that stimulate gene expression, and have long been used in molecular biology.

The SV40 promoter is a DNA sequence that was derived from the SV40 (Simian Virus 40) virus, and is not the same thing as the SV40 virus DNA. Think of it as a genetic tool obtained from the SV40 virus, just like how botulinum toxin is a treatment derived from the bacteria, Clostridium botulinum.

Finding botulinum toxin in a vial of Botox does not mean there is bacteria in that vial. Similarly, finding the SV40 promoter in the Pfizer vaccine does not mean there is SV40 virus in the vaccine.

According to Professor David Gorski, a professor of surgery and oncology at the Wayne State University School of Medicine, “the SV40 promoter-enhancer is often used in plasmids because it is a very strong promoter that can drive the production of lots of the desired mRNA encoded by the cDNA sequence attached to it.

Fact #2 : SV40 Promoter Is Not Dangerous

Michael Imperiale, a molecular biologist at the University of Michigan Medical School, explained that the SV40 promoter, on its own, can’t cause cancer. The part of SV40 that’s potentially cancer-causing, known as the T-antigen, isn’t present in the vaccine.

Even the scientist whose testimony to the South Carolina Senate has been used to drive this controversy, has come out to dismiss the concerns that the SV40 promoter is dangerous, or can cause cancer:

It’s just the volume knob that drives high level expression of anything put under its control, which in this case is just an antibiotic resistance marker.

The fear about the SV40 sequences is total nonsense. The vaccine is not going to cause cancer. There is no cancer causing gene in the vaccine.

– Phillip Buckhaults, director of the Cancer Genetics Lab at the University of South Carolina

Fact #3 : mRNA Vaccines Are Not Contaminated With SV40 Virus

To be clear – mRNA vaccines do not contain the SV40 virus, because they were manufactured using in vitro transcription (IVT) technology.

The presence of the SV40 virus in some of the polio vaccine manufactured from 1955-1963 occurred because that vaccine was manufactured in monkey kidney cell cultures that were contaminated with the SV40 virus.

Even then, decades later, 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.

There is no evidence to indicate the presence of SV40, a virus found in monkey kidneys that can potentially cause cancer in humans, in the formulation of COVID-19 vaccines.

– Alessandro Faia, spokesperson for the European Medicines Agency (EMA)

Recommended : Is FDA Refusing To Release Vaccine Myocarditis Results?!

Fact #4 : Health Canada + EMA Confirm Residual DNA Meet Regulations

Health Canada actually wrote a detailed explanation (archive) of why DNA fragments are expected in mRNA vaccine manufacturing, and why the quantity in the vaccines is not a concern.

Plasmids are an essential starting material for the production of mRNA vaccines. During the downstream process in mRNA vaccine manufacturing, the plasmid DNA is digested with enzymes to small fragments, and further removed to a level of not more than 10 ng/human dose, which is in line with the World Health Organization’s recommendation concerning residual DNA in biological drugs. The DNA is digested with enzymes post-transcription.

Health Canada was aware of the presence of residual plasmid DNA as a process-related impurity during review and prior to the authorization of the mRNA COVID-19 vaccines. In addition, the release testing data for every COVID-19 vaccine lot released into the Canadian market were reviewed and deemed to meet the requirements approved by Health Canada. Furthermore, different assays assessing the same vaccine property, or even the same assay being performed in different laboratories, may generate different results.

It is important to assess the results using the authorized validated assays performed by the vaccine manufacturers to ensure that the quality of commercial vaccine lots are comparable to lots shown to be safe and efficacious in clinical studies.

The European Medicines Agency (EMA) also concurred, stating that the SV40 sequence is considered “a non-functional part” of the DNA plasmid that was used to manufacture the mRNA vaccines:

We can confirm that an SV40 sequence is present in the DNA plasmid. The sequence is not directly relevant for plasmid production in E. coli or for the mRNA production process so it is considered to be a non-functional part of the structure of the source plasmid.

Specific sequences for the non-infectious parts of SV40 are commonly present in plasmids used for manufacturing of biological active substances. The sequence for non-infectious parts of SV40 is only a small fraction of the entire SV40 sequence.

While the full DNA sequence of the plasmid starting material was provided in the initial marketing authorisation application for Comirnaty, the applicant did not specifically highlight the SV40 sequence, as it was considered to be a non-functional part of the plasmid. They have since clarified this information in response to questions raised by EMA.

We would also like to point out that during the manufacturing process, this sequence and other plasmid DNA sequences are broken down and removed. Fragments of the SV40 sequence may only be present as residual impurities at very low levels that are routinely controlled.

In short – the mRNA vaccines meet regulatory limits for residual DNA. This isn’t new or shocking to Health Canada, or the EMA, or other regulatory agencies.

Recommended : Did CDC Say COVID Vaccines Cause AIDS + Cancer?!

Fact #5 : mRNA Vaccines Meet Residual DNA Limits

The production of mRNA vaccines at scale do not use any animal cells, but is done through in vitro transcription (IVT). The enzyme DNase is then used to destroy the DNA template and polymerase used in the reaction, and further filtration can be performed to reduce the amount of DNA fragments.

In Canada, the limit was set at 10 ng of DNA per dose, which is in line with WHO recommendations. According to Health Canada, the mRNA vaccines all comply with this requirement.

The David J Speicher et al. preprint (which has not yet peer-reviewed) actually showed that the amount of residual DNA “contamination” was far below FDA regulatory limits.

As Professor David Gorski noted, the study authors found that the residual DNA in the mRNA vaccines was far below regulatory limits, and used a logarithmic scale to make them appear much closer to the limit than they really are:

Basically, by the authors’ own measurements, the amount of DNA/vial fell below the FDA guidance of 10 ng DNA/dose.

Did you also notice the little trick they did? They used a log scale to make the total DNA appear to be much closer to the FDA-recommended limit than it really is.

For instance, in all the Moderna vials, the amount of DNA isn’t half of the recommended limit, it’s less than one-tenth the recommended limit, and, in the case of the ori sequence, well under 1/100 of the limit.

The abstract itself even notes that the authors found DNA at “0.28 – 4.27 ng/dose and 0.22 – 2.43 ng/dose (Pfizer), and 0.01 -0.34 ng/dose and 0.25 – 0.78 ng/dose (Moderna), for ori and spike respectively measured by qPCR.”

So, from McKernan and Rose’s own data, the vial with the very highest concentration of DNA was one Pfizer vial that had less than one-half the maximum DNA amount recommended by the FDA, while the Moderna vial with the most plasmid DNA contamination had less than one-tenth the maximum recommended by the FDA.

In short – even the much touted Speicher preprint itself showed that the amount of residual DNA in mRNA COVID-19 vaccines are far below regulatory limits.

The whole controversy is really much ado about nothing. What a bloody waste of time!

Recommended : New Study Proves Pfizer mRNA Vaccine Causes Turbo Cancer?!

Fact #6 : Residual DNA Won’t Integrate Into Our Genome

The presence of residual DNA itself does not mean that they will integrate into our genome. For one thing – these are DNA fragments that have been broken down by the DNase enzyme.

Think of them as parts of a factory which were used to build the mRNA vaccine, but dismantled once the vaccine has been manufactured. Sure, the disposal team may have left a couple of bolts and screws lying on the floor, but can they be used to recreate the factory? No.

To be clear – neither the COVID-19 vaccines, not any residual DNA they may contain, can change our genome. On top of that, the vaccines are injected into the muscle, whose cells are “post-mitotic”, which means they are no longer able to change.

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 | HealthTech ARP

 

Support Tech ARP!

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

Why Mislav Kolakušić called WHO terrorist organisation!

Mislav Kolakusic – a Member of the European Parliament, just called WHO a terrorist organisation!

Find out why Kolakusic called WHO a terrorist organisation, and what the facts really are!

 

Mislav Kolakusic : WHO Is A Terrorist Organisation!

People are sharing video clips on Twitter, Instagram, YouTube and TikTok which shows Mislav Kolakusic – a Member of the European Parliament (MEP) calling the WHO (World Health Organisation) a terrorist organisation.

The Gateway Pundit also posted an article on Mislav Kolakusic declaring the WHO as a terrorist organisation, which are being shared by anti-vaccination activists and conspiracy theorists.

The MEP said that while voicing his opposition to an upcoming agreement which would allegedly give WHO the “sole authority to declare pandemics and acquire vaccines and drugs”. Here is a transcript of his video.

I would like to briefly make the people aware of the upcoming danger for humanity.

The World Health Organization wants all countries to sign an agreement on handing over the authority to declare a pandemic, procure vaccines, and drugs.

Recommended : Why International COVID Summit III Criticised Vaccine!

 

Truth : Mislav Kolakusic Is Wrong, WHO Is Not Terrorist Organisation

This is yet another example of MISINFORMATION created and spread by politicians and/or conspiracy theorists / anti-vaccination activists, and here are the reasons why…

Fact #1 : It Was Not A Deep Fake Video

First, let me just point out that this is not a deep fake video. Mislav Kolakusic (Mislav Kolakušić) did indeed call for the WHO to be declared a terrorist organisation.

That video came from his official press conference which he posted on his Twitter account on May 22, 2023. It has been viewed by over 1.1 million people to date.

Fact #2 : Mislav Kolakusic Is A Controversial Politician

Mislav Kolakusic was elected as a Croatian independent Member of the European Parliament (MEP) in May 2019. Since then, he has been a controversial politician.

In January 2022, he compared COVID-19 vaccine mandates with capital punishment, claiming that tens of thousands of people died from vaccines citing data from the European Medicines Agency (EMA). In response, the EMA said that the cited EudraVigilance data was a public, self-reporting system (like VAERS) which require investigation to prove a causal link. Even more damning, the EudraVigilance data did not report deaths, contradicting Kolakusic’s claims.

In March 2022, Kolakusic criticised Canada’s response to vaccine mandate protests, saying that Canada now resembled more like a “dictatorship of the worst kind”.

In October 2022, Kolakusic claimed that there was a lack of disclosure of vaccine ingredients, saying, “no one in the world, except maybe 2 or 3 people, knows what it contains”, and called it “the biggest corruption scandal in the history of mankind”. However, we do know what COVID-19 vaccines contain, and there has not been any evidence of any corruption scandal surrounding any COVID-19 vaccine so far.

Fact #3 : No Evidence WHO Lied About COVID-19 / Vaccines

There is no evidence that the WHO lied about the COVID-19 pandemic or the COVID-19 vaccines. The truth is:

  • SARS-CoV-2 was a new coronavirus when it was discovered in Wuhan, China, in December 2019, and
  • the COVID-19 vaccines are effective at preventing deaths and hospitalisation.

In fact, the world has reopened up after many people were vaccinated against COVID-19, preventing massive waves of hospitalisations and deaths.

Mislav Kolakusic notably did not offer any evidence that the WHO lied, when he called for it to be labelled as a terrorist organisation.

Recommended : Did US Intentionally Release COVID Virus In Wuhan?!

Fact #4 : WHO Agreement Was Initiated By World Leaders

Mislav Kolakusic’s claims are based on a WHO agreement which started with not with WHO itself, but its member states, which wanted to amend the existing International Health Regulations to strengthen the world’s preparedness against future global pandemics.

The International Health Regulations (IHR) were first adopted by member states in 1969, empowering the WHO to monitor global diseases. Those regulations have since been revised over the years, including in 2005 – after the SARS outbreak.

On 1 December 2021, world leaders agreed to kickstart the process to draft and negotiate an agreement or convention to “strengthen pandemic prevention, preparedness and response“.

Fact #5 : Recommendations Came From WHO Member States

The proposed recommendations came from WHO member states, and not WHO itself. Among the more than 200 recommendations on how to better prepare for the next pandemic were:

  • sharing of data and genomic sequences on emerging viruses
  • a plan for equitable vaccine distribution
  • a ban on wildlife markets
  • incentives for reporting new viruses or variants

Fact #6 : Some Countries Don’t Want A Binding Agreement

The European Union has proposed that the changes be adopted as a new treaty, which would be binding. This is perhaps what Mislav Kolakusic was so agitated about, but this was an EU proposal, not a WHO proposal.

The United States, on the other hand, has opposed a binding treaty. India and Brazil are similarly reluctant about adopting a treaty.

The EU proposed the treaty and is its biggest backer, with support from Britain, Indonesia, Kenya and others.

The United States will take part in the talks but has opposed a binding treaty. India and Brazil have also voiced reservations.

With so many member countries involved, securing agreement is likely to be tricky.

Recommended : Is Biden Admin signing over US sovereignty to WHO?!

Fact #7 : No Country Is Signing Over Its Sovereignty To WHO

The zero draft (PDF download) of the proposed WHO agreement on preparing for future pandemics even addresses the issue of national sovereignty on Article 4 (3):

3. Sovereignty – States have, in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations and the principles of international law, the sovereign right to determine and manage their approach to public health, notably pandemic prevention, preparedness, response and recovery of health systems, pursuant to their own policies and legislation, provided that activities within their jurisdiction or control do not cause damage to their peoples and other countries. Sovereignty also covers the rights of States over their biological resources.

Anyone who read the zero draft can clearly see that even the “draft” has clarified that no country is signing over its national sovereignty to the WHO.

Fact #8 : WHO DG Dismissed Sovereignty Claim In May 2022

On May 17, 2022, WHO Director-General Dr. Tedros Ghebreyesus dismissed the claim that countries signing up for this new agreement would be giving up their sovereignty.

The accord process is led by Member States with their own Intergovernmental Negotiating Body (called INB), representing all regions of the world. The INB has now started a two-year process that includes global public hearings with all stakeholders. This represents the world’s opportunity to plan together, detect pathogens quicker, share data broadly and collectively respond more effectively to the next diseases X or known pathogens.

Unfortunately, there has been a small minority of groups making misleading statements and purposefully distorting facts.

I want to be crystal clear. WHO’s agenda is public, open and transparent. WHO stands strongly for individual rights. We passionately support everyone’s right to health and we will do everything we can to ensure that that right is realized.

The first ever World Health Assembly, which took place soon after the WHO Constitution entered into force in 1948, was a watershed event in global public health. And like the proposed pandemic preparedness accord, this did not mean WHO usurped nations’ sovereignty; in fact it strengthened countries’ ability to fight diseases together.

WHO is an expression of Member States’ own sovereignty and WHO is entirely what the sovereign 194 Member States want WHO to be.

Every year, these sovereign governments come together at the World Health Assembly to set the health agenda for the world. Individually we can’t beat pandemics; our best chance is together.

Please help us fight fake news – SHARE this article, and 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 | HealthTech 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 Thailand Vow To Nullify Pfizer Vaccine Contracts?!

Did Thailand vow to be the first country to declare the Pfizer COVID-19 vaccine contracts “null and void”?!

Take a look at the viral claims, and find out what the facts really are!

 

Claim : Thailand Vow To Declare Pfizer Vaccine Contracts Null + Void!

A video of Professor Sucharit Bhakdi has gone viral on Twitter, claiming that Thailand is preparing to declare the Pfizer vaccine contracts null and void!

Top Thai authorities including advisors to the King have been in discussions with Prof. Sucharit Bhakdi and are prepared to see to it that the Pfizer contracts are declared null and void!!

Thai Government Vows to be “First Country” to Declare Pfizer Contracts “Null” After Princess Drops of Heart Attack, Dr. Bhakdi Presents “Fraud”

Read more : Did Project Veritas Show Pfizer Mutating COVID-19?!

 

No Evidence Thailand Vowed To Nullify Pfizer Vaccine Contracts!

There is really NO EVIDENCE that Thailand has vowed to be the first country in the world to declare the Pfizer vaccine contracts as null and void!

Fact #1 : The Video Was Edited To Remove Context

Like the second viral video, this video clip appears to be edited to remove some context. I confirmed that by watching and comparing the video clip to the full interview of Sucharit Bhakdi by Pascal Najadi.

It looks like the person who edited the video wanted to remove references to the fact that Bhakdi was talking to Thai activists and not Thai officials.

Here are my rough transcripts from the first video clip, with the removed parts highlighted in bold.

Let me tell you the wonderful thing that happened when we decided to go back to Thailand for a holiday, which was badly needed. This was the beginning of January this year. There are Thai activists in Thailand with whom we have been connected over the past year.

They said, if you come to Thailand… uh, I’m still a Thai by the way… I’m Thai-German… we will connect you with the authorities and advisors to the highest authorities in Thailand, and this is what happened.

So I have the opportunity, the first opportunity in three years, to talk to the top advisors of a government in any country.

And it was very, very impressive, because I laid out to them that this whole COVID-19 agenda is a fake, and why it is a fake, and I was able to lay out for them the proof that the COVID vaccinations were based on fraud.

The person who edited the video, also appears to be trying to scrub out the part where Bhakdi was referring to safety pharmacological studies in 2021 and 2022.

The EMA – European Medical Agencies – was asked again and again and again to reveal whether BioNTech Pfizer had ever performed any safety pharmacological study in 2021 and 2022, and the answer is available to us and to you.

The official answer submitted on the 18th of October of 2022. 18th of October, which we have at our disposal, the EMA declared officially that safety pharmacological studies were never performed. Never. And they were never deemed necessary. So now we have it.

It also appears that the first video was scrubbed to remove the part where Bhakdi stated that it was not the mRNA that was the problem, but the lipid packaging that protected it.

The person who edited the video also removed the part where Bhakdi said that the Thais were Googling information on the Pfizer-BioNTech contract. This would have alerted any viewer that Bhakdi was talking about Thai activists, and not Thai officials who would not need to Google such information.

[/su_note]

And when I told the Thais this, you know guys, they jumped up, they jumped up in the roof. And so they said Thailand is going to join Switzerland. Thailand is going to join Switzerland and show the world how to go, because the contract to buy millions of doses of that damn vaccine that is deadly, known to be deadly.

Not because of the mRNA, but just because of the lipids that are packaging the mRNA, that is enough to kill people. Not even the spike protein is necessary. You just have to take the packaging, and that it in itself is deadly. And that it in itself will cause anyone, will force anyone to say that nothing that is packaged in this deadly package can be safe. If the package itself is deadly, then you don’t have to ask what is in the package.

And then they said alright, and they were Googling and said, the contract was signed in Thailand with Pfizer-BioNTech and in this case, it was based on fraud because there were no safety studies and therefore, and it is now known that, this package is not safe. It is immaterial what is in in the package. It is not safe, because of the packaging.

And so they said to me – we will see to it that Thailand is the first country in the world that is going to declare this contract null, and nullify the contract. Which means that Pfizer BioNTech is going to have to pay back those billions to Thailand, with which Thailand will recompensate those peoples [sic] that have lost their existence.

Read more : Is Pfizer In Trouble Over Thai Princess Vaccine Injury?!

Fact #2 : No Evidence Bhakdi Spoke To Thai Officials

As mentioned above, the viral video clip appears to have been edited to remove references to Thai activists, likely to convey the perception that Sucharit Bhakdi was speaking to Thai officials.

If you watch the full video or read the extended transcript above, Sucharit Bhakdi does not actually claim to have met any Thai official, never mind advisors to the royal family. He appears to have only met Thai activists who claimed that they can “connect” him with the authorities.

Fact #3 : No Evidence Thai Officials Plan To Nullify Pfizer Contracts

The full video, and the extended transcript above, shows that Sucharit Bhakdi appears to have spoken only with Thai activists, not Thai officials.

Therefore, there is no evidence Thailand is actually planning to nullify the Pfizer vaccine contracts. In fact, Bhakdi himself called for people to “start a movement” to “file a case against Pfizer-BioNTech“.

That would not be necessary if the Thai government is already planning to nullify the Pfizer vaccine contracts.

And if we are able in Thailand to start a movement to say, file a case against Pfizer-BioNTech that they pay for the damage they have done, let’s make it.

Read more : Did Thai Princess Bajrakitiyabha Collapse From Vaccine?!

Fact #4 : Use Of Pfizer Vaccine Minimal In Thailand

It is odd that Sucharit Bhakdi is so focused on the Pfizer vaccine when the Moderna vaccine uses a similar mRNA and lipid nanoparticle delivery technology.

In any case, the use of Pfizer and Moderna mRNA vaccines in Thailand is minimal. This is partly because the mainstay of the Thai COVID-19 vaccination programme was the AstraZeneca vaccine, that was eventually manufactured by Siam Bioscience (owned by King Vajiralongkorn himself).

But due to supply issues, Thailand imported and used large amounts of the Sinovac CoronaVac vaccine, and eventually the Sinopharm BIBP vaccine.

mRNA vaccines from Pfizer and Moderna only make up 5.7% of the COVID-19 vaccines delivered to the Thai government.

Vaccine Brand Doses Ordered Doses Delivered
Sinovac 31.1 million 26.52 million
AstraZeneca 61 million 25.5 million
Sinopharm 15 million 15 million
Pfizer 30 million 3.5 million
Moderna 13 million 560,200

Fact #5 : Pfizer COVID-19 Vaccine Safety Was Evaluated In 2020

I should also touch on the claim that the safety of the Pfizer COVID-19 vaccine was never tested.

Pfizer actually conducted their Phase 1/2 trial in 2020, testing the first participants on May 5, 2020, and posting the first date on August 20, 2020. That was followed up by the large Phase 3 trial, whose study was peer-reviewed and published in the New England Medical Journal in December 2020.

In other words, safety studies were carried out on the Pfizer vaccine in 2020, but not in 2021 or 2022 because it was the same vaccine.

It appears that the the first viral video was edited to removed the part about the EMA being asked whether Pfizer performed the safety tests in 2021 and 2022,  to convey the false perception that Pfizer never conducted safety tests at all.

The EMA – European Medical Agencies – was asked again and again and again to reveal whether BioNTech Pfizer had ever performed any safety pharmacological study in 2021 and 2022, and the answer is available to us and to you.

The official answer submitted on the 18th of October of 2022. 18th of October, which we have at our disposal, the EMA declared officially that safety pharmacological studies were never performed. Never. And they were never deemed necessary. So now we have 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.

 

Recommended Reading

Go Back To > Fact Check | HealthTech ARP

 

Support Tech ARP!

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

Why Leaked Data Did Not Show Pfizer Vaccine Would Kill!

Did leaked data show that Pfizer knew that its COVID-19 vaccine would kill people who took it?!

Take a look at the viral claim, and find out what the facts really are!

 

Claim : Leaked Data Show Pfizer Knew Vaccine Would Kill!

People have been sharing a photo of The Irish Light newspaper, which claims that leaked data showed that Pfizer knew that its COVID-19 vaccine would kill people who took it!

It’s a long article, so feel free to skip to the next section for the facts!

Pfizer knew their vaccine would kill

Leaked data shows shocking number of fatalities and side effects now officially associated with covid shots

Recommended : Died Suddenly Movie : More Vaccine Lies Exposed!

 

Truth : Leaked Data Did Not Show Pfizer Vaccine Is Dangerous!

This is yet another example of FAKE NEWS created and propagated by anti-vaccination activists, and here are the reasons why!

Fact #1 : The Irish Light Is An Anti-Vaccination Newspaper

While many anti-vaccination activists are promoting the article as coming from an Irish newspaper, The Irish Light is a self-printed newspaper that was launched in August 2021 by two former journalists turned COVID conspiracy theorists – Gemma O’Doherty and John Waters.

Gemma O’Doherty previously worked for the Irish Independent newspaper, while John Waters used to work for The Irish Times.

Unlike regular newspapers which delivers news content, The Irish Light focuses on questioning the effectiveness of vaccines, the COVID pandemic, and other far-right ideas.

Fact #2 : EMA Cyberattack Occurred In January 2021

The Irish Light published their article called “Pfizer knew their vaccine would kill” in April 2022, as part of their 10th issue.

However, the cyber attack on the European Medicines Agency (EMA) it referred to occurred more than a year ago – in January 2021.

Fact #3 : EMA-Pfizer Data Was Leaked To Journalists + Dark Web

More than 40 MB of data was stolen in the EMA cyberattack and released on the dark web, and leaked to several journalists, including from The BMJ and academics worldwide.

The leaked data consisted of confidential documents on the Pfizer BNT162b2 vaccine candidate (later known as the Pfizer-BioNTech COMIRNATY COVID-19 vaccine), which included “internal / confidential email correspondence from November, relating to evaluation processes for COVID-19 vaccines“.

Recommended : Did Pfizer Vaccine Documents Reveal 1,291 Side Effects?!

Fact #4 : Leaked Documents Was About Quality Of Early Vaccine Batches

The BMJ reviewed the leaked documents, and found that they showed that regulators at the EMA had concerns about the quality of some early commercial batches of the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine.

An email dated 23 November 2020 showed that a high-ranking EMA official complained that Pfizer was not producing its COVID-19 vaccines to the expected specifications.

Specifically, the level of intact mRNA dropped from about 78% in the clinical batches to 55% in the proposed commercial batches. Nothing in the leaked documents referred to safety issues, or side effects.

Fact #5 : Leaked EMA-Pfizer Data Was Tampered Before Release

On 15 January 2021, the European Medicines Agency (EMA) announced that their investigation showed that some of the leaked data was tampered by the hackers before being released.

Some of the correspondence has been manipulated by the perpetrators prior to publication in a way which could undermine trust in vaccines.

The BMJ was criticised for reviewing the leaked documents without first verifying their authenticity and accuracy.

EMA states that the information was partially doctored, and that the perpetrators selected and aggregated data from different users and added additional headings.

It is unclear to us why a respected journal chose to present unverifiable information, in the process damaging an institution that has worked for 25 years in a transparent and successful manner.

Recommended : Does Pfizer CEO aim to cut world population by 50%?

Fact #6 : Leaked Documents Showed EMA Regulation At Work

While anti-vaccination activists framed the leak as evidence of collusion between EMA and Pfizer, they actually show that EMA regulators were doing their jobs.

EMA did not cover up the quality issue, but filed two “major objections” with Pfizer, together with a host of other questions it wanted Pfizer to address.

On 25 November 2020, one of the leaked emails showed that Pfizer had already brought up the level of mRNA in their COVID-19 vaccine lots.

The latest lots indicate that % intact RNA are back at around 70-75%, which leaves us cautiously optimistic that additional data could address the issue.

Ultimately, the EMA authorised the vaccine on 21 December 2020, nothing that “the quality of this medicinal product, submitted in the emergency context of the current (covid-19) pandemic, is considered to be sufficiently consistent and acceptable.

Fact #7 : FDA Never Agreed To Withhold Pfizer Documents For 75 Years

The claim that the US FDA earlier agreed to withhold documents on the Pfizer vaccine for 75 years was debunked months earlier – in December 2021.

The US FDA never asked or agreed to withhold Pfizer COVID-19 vaccine documents for 75 years. That was merely the “interpretation” of Aaron Siri – the lawyer for PHMPT (Public Health and Medical Professionals for Transparency) – the group requesting the data that the FDA used to licence the Pfizer COVID-19 vaccine.

Read more : Did FDA Ask For 75 Years To Release Pfizer Vaccine Data?!

Fact #8 : Pfizer Documents Did Not Reveal Thousands Of Side Effects

The claim that the Pfizer COVID-19 vaccine documents revealed that it had thousands of side effects was debunked in March 2022.

The Pfizer document was publicly released on 17 November 2021, but it took antivaxxers more than 3 months to “discover” the list of 1,291 adverse events of special interest (AESI).

However, the AESI list was not a list of vaccine side effects. It was a list of “adverse events” that must be reported for further investigation.

It was also a generic list, which includes irrelevant adverse events like manufacturing and lab test issues, and even product availability and supply issues, as well as other diseases like MERS and chickenpox.

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 | HealthTech ARP

 

Support Tech ARP!

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

Were COVID-19 Vaccines Recalled After 40K Deaths?!

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.

 

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.

That is merely a fantasy conjured up by anti-vaccination activists, just like how they fantasised in August 2021 that Germany put all COVID-19 vaccines on hold!

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).

Read more : Did Italian Court Rule Vaccine Mandate As Unconstitutional?!

Fact #5 : Pharmacovigilance Data Is Unverified

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!

Read more : Here’s How Antivaxxers Create Fake News Using VAERS!

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!

Red more : Do mRNA Vaccines Cause Invasion Of Killer Lymphocytes?!

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.

Read more : Did Study Show Pfizer Vaccine Altering Liver DNA In 6 Hours?!

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.

Read more : Did Hackers Release Pfizer + Moderna Vaccine Death Data?!

Fact #12 : Anti-Vaccine Claims All Proven False

This is yet another example of anti-vaccination activists twisting the facts to deceive you into believing that vaccines are dangerous.

So far, their COVID-19 vaccine claims have proven to be false… at every instance!

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.

 

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!

Is Monkeypox Outbreak From Lab Strain Made In Ukraine?!

Is the current monkeypox outbreak from a lab strain made in Ukraine?!

Take a look at the viral claim, and find out what the facts really are!

 

Claim : Monkeypox Outbreak Is From Lab Strain Made In Ukraine!

People are sharing tweets by a Dr. Benjamin Braddock who claimed that the 2022 monkeypox outbreak is from a “third lab strain” made by the US in Ukraine!

ECDC source tells me that the preliminary analysis of monkeypox indicates that it is “a third lab strain with unknown characteristics” and that there is chatter about this being somehow related to Moscow’s charges against U.S. biological activities in Ukraine.

A Russian-Chinese joint task force has been tasked with establishing: where it originated, whether it is detectable in research conducted by the US in Ukraine, Georgia; whether there is a link to biological research conducted by the US on smallpox in Ukraine.

Main ECDC focus right now is on buying up as much of BN’s vaccine as possible. “They’re buying before they know whether it is even effective against this strain of monkeypox. I wouldn’t be surprised if they skipped testing it’s efficacy altogether.”

 

Truth : Monkeypox Outbreak Is Not From Lab Strain Made In Ukraine!

This is yet another example of FAKE NEWS being created and shared by people on social media, and here are the reasons why…

Fact #1 : There Is No Third Lab Strain

The monkeypox virus has two clades, based on where they were commonly found – Congo Basin (Central Africa), and West Africa.

There is no such thing as a third lab strain or species or clade of the monkeypox virus.

Fact #2 : Strain Is A Subset Of Species

While it is impossible to prove what does not exist (Bertrand Russell’s teapot analogy), the claim that there is “a third lab strain” shows that the person creating the fake news does not know the difference between strain, species and clade.

In virology, a clade is technically a group of species that arose from a common ancestor, of which each species may give rise to different strains (sub-species).

Credit : Galaxy Advanced Microbial Diagnostics

If there is a new strain, it would not have been called “a third lab strain”. It would have just been called a new strain.

The introduction of the word “third” implies that the fake news creator believes that clade = strain, which is completely false.

Obviously, the fake news creator does not know much about virology, and is very unlikely to be working at the ECDC.

Fact #3 : 2022 Monkeypox Outbreak From West African Clade

Neither the European Centre for Diseases Prevention and Control (ECDC) or other health authorities like the US CDC has announced the discovery of a new strain or clade of the monkeypox virus.

In fact, the World Health Organisation (WHO) stated on 21 May 2022, that all cases in the 2022 monkeypox outbreaks have been confirmed to involve the “West African clade“.

Fact #4 : No Evidence Current Virus Was Lab Made

Again, it is impossible to prove what does not exist – that the current monkeypox virus was not made in the lab. However, all the evidence points to a natural source of this virus.

Not only is the 2022 monkeypox virus is from an existing clade, genomic sequencing also indicated that this current virus was a close match of the monkeypox virus that were “exported” from Nigeria to the United Kingdom, Israel and Singapore in 2018 and 2019.

In other words – all of the evidence so far point us to a natural variant of an existing monkeypox virus that had already caused several outbreaks in the past.

Read more : Monkeypox Outbreak In 20 Countries : Is It A New Pandemic?

Fact #5 : US Does Not Have Biological Labs In Ukraine

Braddock is repeating the oft-debunked false claim that the US has biological labs in Ukraine.

The truth is – they are Ukrainian biological laboratories, some of which receive financial and other support from the US, the European Union and the World Health Organisation (WHO).

This is not unique to Ukraine – biological labs in many countries receive similar support from the US, EU and the WHO.

Fact #6 : US Sponsored Biological Threat Reduction In Ukraine

US sponsorship of biological labs in former Soviet Union countries like Ukraine go back decades, and is centred around the Biological Threat Reduction Program.

As the name implies, the program aims to train and equip the partner nation to detect and prevent the threat of infectious diseases, whether they are deliberate, accidental or natural.

The program aims to counter biological threats in a partner country, at the source, before the threat can reach the homeland of impact U.S. Armed Forces or allies.

The program also prevents proliferation by cooperating with partner countries to eliminate their biological weapons, associated materials, and production facilities.

Fact #7 : Biological Labs Are Essential To All Countries

Biological labs do not conduct biological warfare research, because that is banned in 183 countries under the Biological Weapons Convention (BWC).

Instead, they are on the forefront of a country’s biosecurity defences, and are absolutely essential in developing tests and cures (including vaccines) for new and emerging diseases, like the SARS-CoV-2 virus that causes COVID-19.

In fact, both Russia and China have a number of biological labs, including the famous Wuhan Institute of Virology, which is located right at the epicentre of the first COVID-19 outbreak.

It is therefore misleading for anyone to demonise biological labs. After all, they are ESSENTIAL to every country’s national security, including their own.

Read more : Does US Have Biological Warfare Labs In South Korea?!

Fact #8 : There Is No Russian-Chinese Task Force

Braddock claimed that a Russian-Chinese task force was formed to find out where the monkeypox outbreaks originated, or whether it is “detectable in research conducted by the US in Ukraine / Georgia”.

Again, it is impossible to prove what does not exist, but we know that this is a false claim because :

  • Braddock offered no evidence for the formation of such a Russian-Chinese task force.
  • The 2022 monkeypox outbreak did not affect either Russia or China, so they have no access to any samples.
  • The US did not conduct any biological research in Ukraine or Georgia.
  • Smallpox is closely related to monkeypox, but is a completely different virus.

A Russian-Chinese joint task force has been tasked with establishing: where it originated, whether it is detectable in research conducted by the US in Ukraine, Georgia; whether there is a link to biological research conducted by the US on smallpox in Ukraine.

Fact #9 : JYNNEOS Was Tested Against Monkeypox

The monkeypox and smallpox viruses are so closely related that the smallpox vaccine has been used for years to protect against monkeypox and other orthopoxviruses.

The earlier ACAM2000 smallpox vaccine has been largely replaced by the JYNNEOS vaccine (also called Imvamune / Imvanex), which was proven to be at least 85% effective in preventing monkeypox.

In fact, it was licensed in 2019 by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the European Medicines Agency (EMA) for the prevention of both smallpox and monkeypox.

And again, the monkeypox virus causing the 2022 outbreak is a close match of the Western Africa clade monkeypox virus that caused the 2018 and 2019 outbreaks.

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 > Science | Fact CheckTech ARP

 

Support Tech ARP!

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

Sinovac / Sinopharm Recipients To Get Second Booster Dose!

Sinovac and Sinopharm recipients will be allowed to get a second booster dose!

Here is what you need to know…

 

Sinovac / Sinopharm Recipients To Get Second Booster Dose!

On 14 April 2022, the Malaysia Ministry of Health announced that they will offer a second booster dose to high-risk individuals, to improve their protection against COVID-19!

In addition, they will also offer recipients of the Sinovac or Sinopharm vaccines the opportunity to get a second booster dose.

The second booster dose will be the Pfizer COMIRNATY vaccine, and it will be given at least 1 month after the first booster dose for Sinovac / SInopharm recipients.

This second booster dose is optional, and is not compulsory. Your vaccination status will not change, whether you take the second booster dose or not.

However, it will facilitate overseas travel for Sinovac and Sinopharm recipients because many countries do not recognise either vaccines.

Read more : Second Booster Dose Offered To High-Risk Individuals!

 

Should Sinovac / Sinopharm Recipients Get Second Booster Dose?

If you are a Sinovac or Sinopharm recipient and need to travel overseas, you should definitely get the second booster dose.

Both vaccines have been EUA-qualified by the WHO. However, quite a number of countries do not recognise the Sinovac or Sinopharm vaccines, due to their lower efficacy.

The massive RECoVaM study, for example, showed that the Sinovac vaccine’s limited efficacy quickly waned after just 2 months. And that wasn’t even against the highly-contagious Omicron variant.

Even Sinovac recipients who receive a Pfizer booster dose may not obtain sufficient protection against the Omicron variant. A recent Yale University study showed that Sinovac vaccine recipients will require TWO Pfizer booster doses, to adequately protect against the Omicron variant.

So if you have the opportunity to get the second booster dose, take it. Even if the country you intend to visit recognises the Sinovac / Sinopharm vaccine, you will better protect yourself against COVID-19 by getting the second booster dose.

 

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 > Health | TravelTech ARP

 

Support Tech ARP!

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

Will COVID-19 Vaccine Void Your Life Insurance?!

Dr. Peterson Pierre has gone viral with his claim that getting the COVID-19 vaccine will void your life insurance.

Take a look at his claims, and find out what the facts really are!

 

Dr. Pierre : COVID-19 Vaccine Will Void Your Life Insurance!

People are sharing a video of Dr. Peterson Pierre, claiming that getting the COVID-19 vaccine will void your life insurance.

He quotes a court case in France, and claims that the American Council of Life Insurers (ACLI) said that life insurance policies may deny payment for people who die from COVID-19 vaccines.

Here is a transcript of his video for your reference. But feel free to skip to the next section for the facts…

So in France, there was an elderly, wealthy businessman who got a life insurance for millions of dollars. He got the COVID-19 vaccine and he died.

 

Truth : COVID-19 Vaccine Will NOT Void Your Life Insurance!

This is yet another example of anti-vaccination FAKE VIDEOS that anti-vaccination activists are concocting to mislead people about the safety of the COVID-19 vaccines, and here are the reasons why…

Fact #1 : AFLDS Creates + Spreads COVID-19 Misinformation

Dr. Pierre identifies himself as a doctor with the AFLDS – America’s Frontline Doctors.

AFLDS is a right-wing American political organisation that is well-known for creating and propagating COVID-19 misinformation.

Everything associated with AFLDS should never be trusted, until proven true. Yes, they are that bad.

Fact #2 : The Story Was Made Up

I traced the provenance of this story from a Greek website, to a right-wing, anti-vaccination German website, which claimed that the story was originally published by the family’s lawyer, Carlo Alberto Brusa, on his Facebook page.

However, Brusa’s Facebook page has ZERO post about any court case, going all the way back to 27 December 2020 – when COVID-19 vaccinations first kicked off in France.

As far as anyone can tell – this story was completely FABRICATED.

Fact #3 : There Was No Such Case In France

There are several articles and videos – all referencing the Greek or German website, which leads us back to Brusa. And yet, there is ZERO evidence :

  • that a French millionaire actually died from his COVID-19 vaccination.
  • that any insurance company refused to pay a life insurance policy, because the insured died from COVID-19 vaccination.
  • that any French court ruled that a death from vaccination is considered a suicide.
  • of any case or court document regarding the case

If a French court did indeed rule that dying from a COVID-19 vaccine is considered a suicide, it would have been HUGE NEWS with major legal implications, and covered worldwide!

These articles were first posted in January 2022, and more than 2 months later, no one else covered it except for a few small anti-vaccination websites?

That’s because it never happened.

Fact #4 : COVID-19 Vaccines Are Not Experimental

Dr. Pierre falsely claimed that the COVID-19 vaccines are experimental.

COVID-19 vaccines are no longer experimental, after they receive either an emergency use authorisation or full approval from a health authority like the US FDA or EMA.

That only happens if they successfully complete their Phase 3 trials, and undergo a stringent review process. So it is not possible to use an experimental vaccine for mass vaccination.

I should also point out that the Pfizer vaccine received its full FDA approval on 23 August 2021, while the Moderna vaccine received its full FDA Approval on 31 January 2022.

The European Medicines Agency (EMA) also renewed the authorisation for these vaccines :

  • Moderna Spikevax : 4 October 2021
  • Pfizer COMIRNATY : 3 November 2021
  • AstraZeneca Vaxzevria : 9 November 2021
  • Johnson & Johnson Janssen : 3 January 2022

So none of those COVID-19 vaccines are experimental. They have all passed their clinical tests, and have been approved.

Read more : What’s The Difference Between EUA vs Full FDA Approval?

Fact #5 : COVID-19 Vaccines Proven Safe

The COVID-19 vaccines were proven safe and effective in the massive Phase 2/3 trials that involved hundreds of thousands of volunteers.

These COVID-19 vaccine clinical trials are much larger than the usual clinical trials for new drugs or vaccines.

On top of that, they continue to undergo post-marketing surveillance, to catch very rare side effects like myocarditis (risk of less than 1 in million).

With so much clinical data, there is no way any insurance company or court can say that the vaccines are dangerous, or experimental.

Read more : What’s The Difference Between Full FDA Approval vs. EUA?
Read more : Vaccine Myocarditis Risk Less Than 1 In Million!

Fact #6 : COVID-19 Vaccine Will Not Affect Life Insurance

Dr. Pierre also falsely claimed that the American Life Insurance Council said that “life insurance policies may deny payment if you die from the COVID-19 vaccine because they are experimental drugs.”

First of all, there is no American Life Insurance Council. There is only the American Council of Life Insurers (ACLI).

Secondly, the ACLI had earlier posted two statements refuting this ridiculous claim.

ACLI Statement Of 12 March 2021

A social media post appears to be behind the spread of entirely false information, suggesting a COVID-19 vaccine could be a factor a life insurer considers in the claims-paying process. 

The fact is that life insurers do not consider whether or not a policyholder has received a COVID vaccine when deciding whether to pay a claim. 

Life insurance policy contracts are very clear on how policies work, and what cause, if any, might lead to the denial of a benefit. A vaccine for COVID-19 is not one of them. 

Policyholders should rest assured that nothing has changed in the claims-paying process as a result of COVID-19 vaccinations. 

Policyholders should reach out to their life insurers, agents or financial professionals for their COVID-related questions. They will be happy to help.

ACLI Statement Of 16 September 2021

We said it before and, unfortunately, we must say it again because misinformation about life insurance claims and the COVID-19 vaccine continues to spread.

Policyholders should rest assured that nothing has changed in the claims-paying process as a result of COVID-19 vaccinations. Life insurance policies are very clear on how they work, and what cause, if any, might lead to the denial of a claim. A policyholder’s decision to receive or not receive a vaccine for COVID-19 is not one of them. Nothing has changed in life insurers’ claims paying process.  

Policyholders should reach out to their life insurance companies, agents or financial professionals for their COVID-related questions. They will be happy to help.

In other words, insurance companies in the United States will not deny payment of a life insurance in the event someone dies from a COVID-19 vaccine.

These statements were posted MONTHS ago… so Dr. Pierre knowingly misled you about what the ACLI said. So I have to ask Dr. Pierre – why do you lie?

Fact #7 : It’s The Same In France + Around The World

Just in case you are wondering – insurance companies in France and around the world do NOT :

  • consider COVID-19 vaccines “experimental”
  • deny payment in the event someone dies from a COVID-19 vaccine

Insurance companies and associations worldwide have stated that COVID-19 vaccinations do NOT impact life insurance claims.

They also do not call deaths from getting a COVID-19 vaccine “suicide”.

Insurance Control and Resolution Authority of France (ACPR)

The conditions of the death of the insured have no effect on the payment to the beneficiary of the sums paid on a life insurance contract.

Exclusion clauses are provided for contractually… In practice, the risks targeted by the exclusions are not very diversified and, to our knowledge, no contract contains clauses which would make it possible to exclude as a cause of death, the aftermath and consequences of vaccination, or more generally of taking medical treatment, on the prescription of a doctor.

Canadian Life and Health Insurance Association (CLHIA)

Contrary to misinformation being shared online, receiving a COVID-19 vaccine will have no effect on the ability to obtain coverage or benefits from life insurance or supplementary health insurance.

The CLHIA is aware of misinformation that is being spread through social media claiming that individuals who get the vaccine will not be able to get life insurance or may be denied their disability or life insurance benefits. These claims are incorrect and have no basis in fact whatsoever.

Association of British Insurers (ABI)

There are some claims being made that having the Covid-19 vaccine will impact your life insurance cover. This is false.

Receiving a vaccination against Covid-19 will not impact your insurance cover, be it life insurance, private medical insurance or other forms of insurance.

Financial Services Council of Australia (FSC)

 The Financial Services Council (FSC) is today reassuring Australians that taking a COVID-19 vaccine will not invalidate life insurance policies despite false rumours suggesting otherwise. 

FSC CEO Sally Loane said the false rumours, which have been circulating on social media, incorrectly suggest the COVID-19 vaccine is an “experimental medical treatment” and therefore having the vaccine is a “self-inflicted injury” which could void life insurance policies. 

“To be clear – the COVID-19 vaccine is not experimental treatment. Receiving approved treatment from a qualified medical professional at an approved medical facility is not a self-inflicted injury,” Ms Loane said. 

“One of the main reasons why people hold life insurance policies is to provide peace of mind for themselves and their families. The FSC would like to reassure Australians that when they get vaccinated, their life insurance will be there for them, completely unaffected. 

“This scare mongering is wrong, it is entirely inappropriate and it needs to stop immediately.”

Now that you know the facts, please help to fight fake news – SHARE this article out!

And please protect yourself, and your family, by vaccinating them 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 | 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 French Court Rule Millionaire’s Vaccine Death As Suicide?!

Did a court in France rule that a millionaire’s death from the COVID-19 vaccine is considered a suicide?!

Take a look at the viral claim, and find out what the facts really are!

 

Claim : French Court Ruled Millionaire’s Vaccine Death As Suicide!

People are sharing videos and articles claiming that a French court recently ruled that a millionaire’s death from the COVID-19 vaccine is considered a suicide!

Apparently, the French businessman insured his life for millions of euros, but when he died from his COVID-19 vaccination, the insurance company refused to pay up, claiming that he died from taking an experimental vaccine.

So his family sued, and the French court allegedly ruled in favour of the insurance company, stating that the deceased knew about the side effects of the experimental vaccine. Therefore, his death is, in fact, a suicide.

Here is the example that everyone has been sharing, or quoting in videos. It’s very long, so feel free to skip to the next section for the facts.

In France, the court equated vaccination with suicide, taking the side of an insurance company that refused to pay money to the family of an insured millionaire who died from vaccination.

The case caused a huge resonance in society. An elderly businessman who died from vaccination, which was officially confirmed, insured his life for several million. However, after his death, the relatives were left with nothing, writes Unser Mitteleuropa.

 

Truth : French Court Did NOT Rule Millionaire’s Vaccine Death As Suicide!

This is yet another example of anti-vaccination FAKE NEWS that anti-vaccination activists are concocting to mislead people about the safety of the COVID-19 vaccines, and here are the reasons why…

Fact #1 : It Was Based On A Single German Article

I traced the provenance of this fake story to a right-wing, anti-vaccination German website called Unser Mitteleuropa, literally Our Central Europe.

It claimed that the story was published by the family’s lawyer, Carlo Alberto Brusa, on his Facebook page. However, Unser Mitteleuropa did not provide any link to that story, or any actual court documents.

I scrolled through Brusa’s Facebook page all the way back to 27 December 2020 – when COVID-19 vaccinations first kicked off in France – and could not find a single reference to any court case he might have been working on.

There was no post about any French court calling his client’s vaccine death “a suicide”. Only a ton of posts and videos for his anti-lockdown, anti-vaccination Reaction 19 movement.

Fact #2 : There Is No Such Case In France

As far as I can tell – this entire story is completely made-up. Completely fabricated.

  • No French millionaire actually died from his COVID-19 vaccination.
  • No insurance company refused to pay life insurance because of death from vaccination.
  • No French court ruled that a death from vaccine is considered a suicide.
  • There is no document of such a case, except for two unrelated letters (see Fact #3)

None of these articles or videos mentioned the name of the dead millionaire, the insurance company, or the which court or judge presided over the case.

If a French court did indeed rule that dying from a COVID-19 vaccine is considered a suicide, it would have been HUGE NEWS, and covered world-wide!

Unser Mitteleuropa first posted their article on 12 January 2022, and more than 2 months later, no one else covered it except for a few small anti-vaccination websites?

That’s because it never happened.

Fact #3 : Life Insurance Letters Unrelated To Case

Instead of actual court documents proving that the French court indeed ruled that the (non-existent) man’s death from (non-existent) vaccine death was “a suicide”, the article shared two completely unrelated letters from German insurance companies.

In the first, Techniker Krankenkasse said that any potential side effects from the COVID-19 vaccine are not covered by their health insurance (this is not life insurance), as the vaccination is provided by the state authorities and so, any side effects would be covered by the state authorities.

In the second letter, Die Haftpfichtkasse wrote that their accident insurance (again, not life insurance) does not cover any potential side effects from COVID-19 vaccination. It is, after all, an accident insurance policy.

Fact #4 : COVID-19 Vaccines Are Not Experimental

These fake stories are based on the claim that COVID-19 vaccines are experimental, which is completely bogus.

COVID-19 vaccines are no longer experimental, after they receive either an emergency use authorisation or full approval from a health authority like the US FDA or EMA.

That only happens if they successfully complete their Phase 3 trials, and undergo a stringent review process. So it is not possible to use an experimental vaccine for mass vaccination.

I should also point out that the Pfizer vaccine received its full FDA approval on 23 August 2021, while the Moderna vaccine received its full FDA Approval on 31 January 2022.

The European Medicines Agency (EMA) also renewed the authorisation for these vaccines :

  • Moderna Spikevax : 4 October 2021
  • Pfizer COMIRNATY : 3 November 2021
  • AstraZeneca Vaxzevria : 9 November 2021
  • Johnson & Johnson Janssen : 3 January 2022

So none of those COVID-19 vaccines are experimental. They have all passed their clinical tests, and have been approved.

Fact #5 : COVID-19 Vaccines Proven Safe

The COVID-19 vaccines were proven safe and effective in the massive Phase 2/3 trials that involved hundreds of thousands of volunteers.

These COVID-19 vaccine clinical trials are much larger than the usual clinical trials for new drugs or vaccines.

On top of that, they continue to undergo post-marketing surveillance, to catch the very rare side effects like myocarditis (risk of less than 1 in million).

With so much clinical data, there is no way any insurance company or court can say that the vaccines are dangerous, or experimental.

Read more : What’s The Difference Between Full FDA Approval vs. EUA?
Read more : Vaccine Myocarditis Risk Less Than 1 In Million!

Fact #6 : COVID-19 Vaccination Does Not Affect Life Insurance

COVID-19 vaccination does not affect life insurance payment.

The Insurance Control and Resolution Authority of France (ACPR) said that, “the conditions of the death of the insured have no effect on the payment to the beneficiary of the sums paid on a life insurance contract.

There are only two possibilities for the denial of a life insurance claim :

  • if the insured commits suicide, or
  • if the beneficiary is convicted of voluntarily causing the death of the insured.

The ACPR also clarified this issue to French newspaper Libération, stating :

Exclusion clauses are provided for contractually… In practice, the risks targeted by the exclusions are not very diversified and, to our knowledge, no contract contains clauses which would make it possible to exclude as a cause of death, the aftermath and consequences of vaccination, or more generally of taking medical treatment, on the prescription of a doctor.

In other words, insurance companies in France cannot deny payment of a life insurance in the event someone dies from any vaccination, or medical treatment.

Fact #7 : Insurance Companies Are Not Denying Life Insurance Claims

Insurance companies and associations have stated that COVID-19 vaccinations do NOT impact life insurance claims. They have never called deaths from getting a COVID-19 vaccine “suicide”.

Canadian Life and Health Insurance Association (CLHIA)

Contrary to misinformation being shared online, receiving a COVID-19 vaccine will have no effect on the ability to obtain coverage or benefits from life insurance or supplementary health insurance.

The CLHIA is aware of misinformation that is being spread through social media claiming that individuals who get the vaccine will not be able to get life insurance or may be denied their disability or life insurance benefits. These claims are incorrect and have no basis in fact whatsoever.

American Council of Life Insurers (ACLI)

Insurance companies pay death benefits on policies, when the insured dies, regardless of the cause of death, except in very narrow and limited circumstances.

Life insurance policy contracts are very clear on how policies work, and what cause, if any, might lead to the denial of a benefit. A vaccine for COVID-19 is not one of them.

Manulife

The COVID-19 vaccination in no way negatively impacts your current insurance policies or valid Group Benefits coverage, nor does it factor into new insurance applications you may apply for with us.

Allianz

Your Allianz life insurance policy does not contain a specific policy exclusion for COVID-19.

However, there is an exclusion which may apply if your claim relates to overseas travel. By this we mean, we will not pay any benefits to the extent a claim arises because you didn’t follow advice issued by the government relating to an overseas location.

Now that you know the facts, please help to fight fake news – SHARE this article out!

And please protect yourself, and your family, by vaccinating them 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 | Business | 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!

Moderna COVID-19 Vaccine Safe + Works For Kids Under 6!

The lower dose Moderna paediatric COVID-19 vaccine was just proven to be safe and effective for kids 6 months to under 6 years of age!

Here is what you need to know…

 

Moderna COVID-19 Vaccine Safe + Works For Kids Under 6!

On 23 March 2022, Moderna announced the interim results of the Phase 2/3 KidCOVE study, which looked at the safety and efficacy of their paediatric vaccine in children 6 months to under 6 years of age.

The interim results showed that their lower-dose paediatric vaccine delivered a “robust neutralising antibody response” with a “favourable safety profile”.

Based on these interim results, Moderna will ask regulators like the US FDA and the European Medicines Agency (EMA) to authorise this lower-dose paediatric vaccine for use by kids 6 months to under 6 years in age.

 

Moderna COVID-19 Vaccine For Kids Under 6 : The Interim Results

The KidCOVE trial is a randomized, observer-blind, placebo-controlled study (RCT) designed to evaluate the safety and efficacy of the lower-dose Moderna vaccine for use by kids 6 months to under 6 years in age.

The study involved approximately 11,700 children in the US and Canada, of which two groups received the vaccine :

  • 2 to under 6 years in age : 4,200 kids
  • 6 months to under 2 years in age : 2,500 kids

The paediatric Moderna vaccine comprised of two doses of 25 μg (micrograms), which is a quarter of the adult dose (100 μg), and half the dose for 6-11 year old children (50 μg).

The KidCOVE study (NCT04796896) was conducted in collaboration with the US National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID), and the Biomedical Advanced Research and Development Authority (BARDA).

Safety + Side Effects

  • Majority of adverse events* were mild or moderate
  • Adverse events were more frequently reported after Dose 2
  • Fever greater than 38°C was seen in 17% of the under-2 group, and 14.6% in the older group
  • The study was not paused for any safety issues.
  • No new safety concerns were identified.
  • No deaths, myocarditis / pericarditis, or multi-system inflammatory syndrome in children (MIS-C) were reported

* Adverse events are not necessarily side effects of the vaccine.

Efficacy

The Omicron variant predominated during the KidCOVE study, and its ability to escape vaccine protection was confirmed.

The Moderna vaccine efficacy (against symptomatic infection) was reduced against Omicron, which is consistent with what was seen with the adult vaccine.

However, the vaccine was shown to protect against severe disease, hospitalisation and death./

  • Two 25 μg doses provided similar immunogenicity to two adult doses of 100 μg.
  • Efficacy vs symptomatic infection by Omicron (under 2) : 43.7%
  • Efficacy vs symptomatic infection by Omicron (2 to under 6) : 37.5%
  • Majority of Omicron cases were mild.
  • No child in both vaccine groups developed severe COVID-19.
  • No child in both vaccine groups were hospitalised for COVID-19.
  • No child in both vaccine groups died from COVID-19.

Moderna will continue to monitor all participants for 12 months after their second injection to assess long-term protection and safety.

 

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 > Health | Business | 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!

Is EU Cancelling COVID-19 Vaccination In October 2021?

Is the EU planning to cancel COVID-19 vaccination in October, after approving FIVE therapies for the coronavirus?

Take a look at the viral claim, and find out what the FACTS really are!

 

Is EU Cancelling COVID-19 Vaccination In October 2021?

This article has gone viral on WhatsApp, claiming that the EU (European Union) is going to cancel COVID-19 vaccination in October, after approving FIVE therapies for the coronavirus!

It also claims that ivermectin has been scientifically recognised as an effective treatment and prophylaxis of COVID-19 by the Pasteur Institute.

It’s a long article, so just skip to the next section for the facts!

DISTRIBUTE TO EVERYONE who does not want to be “vaccinated”. All vaccines will no longer be justified from 20.10.2021: verified information. The European Union has approved (https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/fr/ip_21_3299) 5 therapies that will be available in all hospitals in the Member States for the treatment of Covid.

These therapies have been approved by a decree of the European Council (European Parliament) and will be in force from 1/10, so they will be distributed little by little around 20/10. Vaccines were approved on a “temporary experimental basis”. But since the decree will oblige to prescribe these 5 new drugs, the use of the vaccine will cease.

 

Truth : EU Is NOT Cancelling COVID-19 Vaccination At All!

This is yet another FAKE STORY written by anti-vaxxers in their bid to discourage people from protecting themselves with the COVID-19 vaccines.

Here are the FACTS…

Fact #1 : The EU Press Release Is Available In English

It is instructive to note that the fake article offers a link to the EU press release in French, even though there is an English version.

Whoever wrote the fake article intentionally gave you the French press release, so you won’t be able to read it and discover that it’s just fake news.

Fact #2 : They Are Potential Treatments For COVID-19

If you read the EU press release in English, you will realise that what the viral article claimed is COMPLETELY FALSE.

Published on 29 June 2021, the press release only announced that the EU had identified the first five therapeutics that have “a high potential” to be approved later.

Nowhere in the press release was it stated that ANY of the five therapeutics was even approved.

Fact #3 : The EU Has Not Approved Them

The EU press release stated that these five therapeutics had a high potential to be among the three new COVID-19 therapeutics to receive authorisation by October 2021

  • the immunosuppressant, baricitinib
  • the monoclonal antibody combination of bamlanivimab and etesevimab
  • the monoclonal antibody combination of casirivimab and imdevimab
  • the monoclonal antibody, regdanvimab
  • the monoclonal antibody, sotrovimab

However, the EU has NOT approved any of those five therapeutics for use against COVID-19, of 24 September 2021.

There was no “decree of the European Council” that approved any of these therapeutics, and that’s not how treatments are approved in Europe.

So the five therapeutics above are unlikely to be in use in October 2021, contrary to what the fake article claimed.

Read more : EU Digital COVID Certificate – A Comedy Of Errors!

Fact #4 : Approval Does Not Mean Obligation

Even if any of those five therapeutics are eventually approved by the EU for use against COVID-19, there is NO OBLIGATION to administer them.

It is left to the treating doctor to decide whether to prescribe it to the patient, or not. The patient can, of course, choose to accept or refuse the treatment.

Fact #5 : COVID-19 Vaccines Will Remain In Use

Even if new treatments can be found for COVID-19, vaccines will remain in use as the first line of defence.

That’s because they PREVENT people from getting COVID-19, thereby negating the need for hospitalisation and treatment.

Therapeutics are also MORE expensive than vaccines, even without accounting for the manpower (doctors and nurses) and hospitalisation costs!

COVID-19 vaccines will remain in use in the European Union, irrespective of how many COVID-19 treatments are eventually approved.

Fact #6 : COVID-19 Vaccines Are NOT Experimental

Once the COVID-19 vaccines successfully completed their clinical trials and received their EUA, they were NO LONGER EXPERIMENTAL.

The conditions to receive the EUA is similar to that of a full approval. The only real difference is the post-study follow-up :

  • EUA : At least half of the participants in the studies must be followed for at least two months after vaccination.
  • Full FDA Approval : All of the participants in the studies must be followed for at least six months.

The EU has never called the COVID-19 vaccines “experimental and provisional”. That’s yet another lie in the fake story.

Read more : What’s The Difference Between Full FDA Approval vs EUA?

Fact #7 : Ivermectin Was NEVER Approved For Use Against COVID-19

The fake story claimed that ivermectin was just “re-approved”. That’s completely FALSE.

Ivermectin was NEVER approved by any major health authority, including the WHO, CDC, FDA, EMA or the TGA, for use against COVID-19. Never mind getting “re-approved”…

Fact #8 : Pasteur Institute Study Was Conducted On Hamsters!

The Pasteur Institute press release and the published study are both in English.

However, the fake story creator shared a link to the French biography of a French antivaxxer – Dominique Rueff instead, to mislead you.

That’s because the Pasteur Institute study DID NOT actually recognise ivermectin as an effective drug against COVID-19 in humans…

  • The study was conducted on hamsters, not humans
  • Ivermectin reduced inflammation in the respiratory tract of hamsters, with reduced symptoms.
  • Ivermectin reduced risk of loss of smell in hamsters.
  • Ivermectin did NOT have any impact on the viral replication of SARS-CoV-2.

The chief author of the study, Guilherme Dias de Melo said, “Surprisingly, we observed that treatment with ivermectin did not reduce viral replication; the models that received treatment had similar quantities of viral load in the nasal cavity and the lungs as those that did not receive treatment. Our results reveal that ivermectin has an immunomodulatory effect rather than an antiviral effect.”

Therefore, the Guilherme said that, “these data provide crucial evidence to support clinical trials in humans“.

In other words, the Pasteur Institute is only advocating for clinical trials in humans, not the use of ivermectin against COVID-19 in humans.

Antivaxxers are not interested in the truth, or even your lives. These human viruses are only interested in spreading lies and misinformation about vaccines.

Please SHARE this fact check with your family and friends, and protect yourself and your family – get vaccinated 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 > HealthFact CheckTech ARP

 

Support Tech ARP!

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

Ivermectin Can Prevent / Cure COVID-19? Not So Fast!

Recently, CIVDAC went viral with their claims on social media that Ivermectin can prevent or cure COVID-19.

Find out why it has gone viral, and what the FACTS currently are!

 

CIVDAC : Ivermectin Can Prevent / Cure COVID-19!

CIVDAC – COALITION on INTEGRITY of VACCINES & DRUGS AGAINST COVID-19 – recently went viral when they shared a statement on social media claiming that Ivermectin can prevent or cure COVID-19.

Take a look at what people have been sharing on WhatsApp and Facebook, or scroll down to a fact check of their claims.

11 May 2021

Media Statement on Life-Saving IVERMECTIN against Covid-19

By COALITION on INTEGRITY of VACCINES & DRUGS AGAINST COVID-19 (CIVDAC)
–          Dato’ Nadzim Johan, Chairman of CIVDAC
–          Brigadier General (Rtd) Dato’ Mohd Arshad Raji, Persatuan Patriot Kebangsaan (PATRIOT)
–          Dr Abd Kadir Warsi Mohamed, Persatuan Pengguna Islam Malaysia (PPIM)
–          Retired Commissioner of Police Dato’ Shabudin Abdul Wahab, Covid Research Centre (Asian Heritage Museum Group)
–          Tunku Azwil Tunku Abd Razak, Gabungan NGO Islam (GNI)

We would like to express our sincere gratitude to Tan Sri Dr Rais Yatim, President of the Senate, for his full support, based on SCIENCE & DATA, on the use of well-proven Asian Wonder Drug called IVERMECTIN, both as a treatment for all Covid-19 patients and for the public to use it for prophylaxis against Covid-19, as outlined in the Open Letter dated 9 May 2021, to the Director General of Health, Malaysia, by Captain (Rtd) Dr Wong Ang Peng of PATRIOT.

IVERMECTIN was discovered in 1975 by Japanese scientist Satoshi Omura who won a Nobel Prize for Medicine in 2015. It has been used Safely and Successful for over 40 years with 4 billion people, mostly in the Third World, for all kinds of tropical diseases. It has been proven, based on SCIENCE & DATA, to be Super-Effective, Super-Safe, Super-Cheap & Super Easy-to-Administer (oral tablet) against all mutated variants of Covid-19.

There is No need for anyone to die from Covid-19, if only he/she is given IVERMECTIN. All the deaths from Covid-19 in Malaysia and around the world could have been avoided if all Covid-19 patients were given IVERMECTIN from the onset of their illness.

This is the clear message, based on SCIENCE & DATA, from independent and renowned world-class Covid-19 experts such as Dr Pierre Kory & Dr Paul Marik from US-based Front Line Covid-19 Critical Care (FLCCC) Alliance, Dr Tess Lawrie and Dr Andrew Hill,. They have no vested interest whatsoever and are only concerned about saving lives and ending the pandemic in a sustainable manner.

 

Ivermectin Can Prevent / Cure COVID-19? Not So Fast!

Back in January 2021, we had already fact-checked claims that Ivermectin can prevent or cure COVID-19.

At that time, there was a small promising study that showed Ivermectin may reduce the severity of COVID-19, but not cure or prevent it.

However, nothing much has changed since then. There has been no large scale study that proves that Ivermectin can cure, or prevent COVID-19.

Let’s debunk CIVDAC’s preposterous claims about Ivermectin :

Fact #1 : mRNA Vaccines Are Not Gene Therapy

The mRNA vaccine technology used in the Pfizer mRNA vaccine is NOT gene therapy.

Because it uses mRNA which doesn’t even enter the cell nucleus, it does not change our genes. It is certainly not gene therapy as CIVDAC claims.

So it is hilarious to see them quote a MedlinePlus article on gene therapy, when it is not even relevant.

Fact #2 : mRNA Vaccines Have Been Proven To Prevent COVID-19

It is false to claim that mRNA vaccines “cannot prevent COVID-19 infection”.

Phase 3 clinical trials of both mRNA vaccines from Pfizer and Moderna have shown that they are 94-95% efficacious against symptomatic COVID-19.

You can download and read their FDA briefing documents here :

Fact #3 : No Evidence Ivermectin Works Against COVID-19

It is also false to claim that Ivermectin works against COVID-19, much less that it works better than mRNA vaccines.

While mRNA vaccines have been proven in clinical trials involving tens of thousands of people, ivermectin has not been proven in the same way.

In fact, the evidence (as you will see below) is mixed. And the dosage required for a therapeutic effect may be so high, it could be toxic to humans.

Fact #4 : No Court Order Case Recovered From COVID-19 Using Ivermectin

CIVDAC claimed that there are numerous cases where families of critically-ill COVID-19 patients got court orders to administer ivermectin and “in all these cases, the patients recovered fully“.

The most notable case in the US involved Nurije Fype whose daughter Desareta sued Elmhurst Hospital to administer ivermectin. She finally received a court order to have a doctor administer ivermectin every day from 3 May 2021 onwards.

After 13 days of ivermectin treatment, her daughter reported on 17 May 2021 that she is still “recovering”. That certainly does not sound like she has fully recovered from COVID-19 using ivermectin.

A South African court order also forced the South African Health Products Regulatory Authority (SAHPRA) to allow the use of Ivermectin against COVID-19.

However, there is no evidence that the use of ivermectin in South Africa through this court order resulted in a full recovery from COVID-19.

 

What Do Health Authorities Say About Ivermectin Against COVID-19?

WHO On Using Ivermectin Against COVID-19

On 31 March 2021, the WHO posted an advisory on Ivermectin, recommending that it be only used in clinical trials.

An independent, international panel of experts reviewed pooled data from 16 randomised controlled trials, and determined that the evidence on whether ivermectin reduced death and hospitalisation is of “very low certainty“.

Therefore, the panel cannot recommend the use of Ivermectin outside of clinical trials.

NIH On Using Ivermectin Against COVID-19

The US NIH looked at using Ivermectin against COVID-19, noting that it was shown to inhibit SARS-CoV-2 in cell cultures.

However, they also pointed out that the plasma concentrations needed to inhibit the virus would require doses up to 100X higher than those approved for use in humans!

Therefore, the NIH says that there is insufficient data to recommend for the use of ivermectin in the treatment of COVID-19.

FDA On Using Ivermectin Against COVID-19

On 5 March 2021, the US FDA warned against taking Ivermectin to treat COVID-19, after receiving “multiple reports of patients who… had been hospitalised after self-medicating with ivermectin intended for horses“.

They pointed out that ivermectin can interfere with other medications like blood thinners, and an overdose can cause medical problems, even coma and death.

They also warned people that ivermectin meant for animals are highly concentrated and have vastly different doses than those meant for humans. Taking them can put your lives at risk.

EMA On Using Ivermectin Against COVID-19

On 22 March 2021, the European Medicines Agency (EMA) advised against the use of ivermectin for the prevention and treatment of COVID-19 outside of randomised clinical trials.

They pointed out that the clinical studies of ivermectin so far were varied, with “some studies showing no benefit and others reporting a potential benefit”.

They also pointed out that for concentrations of ivermectin to be effective in the lungs, much higher doses than authorised would be needed. Hence, toxicity at such doses cannot be excluded.

KKM On Using Ivermectin Against COVID-19

On 16 May 2021, the Malaysia Ministry of Health (KKM) issued a response to claims that Ivermectin can prevent COVID-19 deaths.

They pointed out that a January 2021 placebo-controlled randomised trial involving 24 non-severe COVID-19 patients did not show any reduction in the proportion of PCR positivity after 7 days of taking 400 mcg/kg of Ivermectin per day.

They also shared that in March 2021, the Journal of American Medical Association (JAMA) published a randomised-controlled trial involving 476 adults with mild COVID-19 who were given a 5-day course of Ivermectin. There was no significant improvement in symptom resolution time.

They have initiated a randomised clinical trial (NMRR-21-155-58433) of their own to evaluate the efficacy and safety of Ivermectin in high-risk COVID-19 patients.

But until then, KKM is “not yet able to endorse Ivermectin to prevent or treat COVID-19 illness”.

 

Help Support My Work!

If you would like to support my work, you can do so via bank transfer /  PayPal / credit card.

Name : Adrian Wong

Credit Card / Paypal : https://paypal.me/techarp
Bank Transfer : CIMB 7064555917 (Swift Code : CIBBMYKL)

Thank you in advanced! ❤️

 

Recommended Reading

Go Back To > Health | Fact CheckTech ARP

 

Support Tech ARP!

If you like our work, you can help support us by visiting our sponsors, participating in the Tech ARP Forums, or even donating to our fund. Any help you can render is greatly appreciated!