Tag Archives: Epoch Times

CDC has no proof COVID-19 vaccines reduce spread + variants?!

Does the CDC really have no evidence that COVID-19 vaccines reduce the spread of the virus, and help prevent new variants from emerging?!

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

 

Claim : CDC Has No Proof Vaccines Reduce Spread + Variants!

People are sharing a post on X (formerly Twitter) by Zachary Stieber of The Epoch Times, which claims or suggests that the CDC has no evidence that COVID-19 vaccines reduce the spread of the virus, and help prevent new variants from emerging.

Zachary Stieber : CDC says no records supporting COVID statement that “high vaccination coverage in a population reduces the spread of the virus and helps prevent new variants from emerging.”

Recommended : Did Scientists Call For Global mRNA Vaccine Moratorium?!

 

Truth : CDC Has Evidence Vaccines Reduce Spread + Variants!

Let’s take a look at what’s going on with this startling “new claim”, and find out what the facts really are!

Fact #1 : FOIA Is Only For Non-Public Information

Let me start by pointing out that the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) allows members of the public to request for documents that are not publicly available from US federal agencies (source).

Every US federal agency has a FOIA office that will process each request, which may include redacting sensitive or protected information if necessary. But if the information requested is already in the public domain, no such documents would be made available through a FOIA request.

Before making a request, first see if the information is already publicly available. You can find a lot of useful information on a range of topics on each agency’s website.

If the information you want is not publicly available, you can submit a FOIA request to the agency’s FOIA Office. The request simply must be in writing and reasonably describe the records you seek.

As you can see, it would be quite silly to submit a FOIA request for documents that are already available publicly… unless what you want is a letter from the agency stating it failed to locate any such documents?

Fact #2 : CDC Could Not Find Any Non-Public Documents

The CDC response to Zachary Stieber’s FOIA request is not an admission that it has no evidence or proof to back up its claim that high vaccination rates will reduce the spread of the virus, and help prevent new variants from emerging.

Rather, the CDC FOIA office appears to be informing Stieber that it could not find any non-public documents that it would be required to process under the Freedom of Information Act. In other words – all available information is in the public domain.

Recommended : Did Pfizer Call mRNA Vaccines Deadliest Drug In History?!

Fact #3 : FOIA Is Not For Basic Science Questions

The Freedom of Information Act is meant to provide transparency to US citizens through the full or partial disclosure of “previously unreleased or uncirculated information“. It is not meant for people to ask basic science questions.

You can’t use FOIA requests, for example, to ask for records from the CDC on how vaccines reduce the spread of a virus, or how vaccines can help prevent new virus variants from emerging. These are basic virology knowledge that are already available publicly!

Those who want to ask those questions should take up a course, or read some books on virology; not submit FOIA requests on such basic virology questions from the CDC. Of course, they would have no “unreleased” information on such basic topics!

It is therefore no surprise that the CDC FOIA office pointed out to Stieber that he was asking an academic question about the basics of virology.

Dear Mr. Stieber:

This letter is in response to your Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (CDC/ATSDR) Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request of May 12, 2022, for:

Please provide documents supporting the CDC’s statement that “High vaccination coverage in a population reduces the spread of the virus and helps prevent new variants from emerging.
https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/vaccines/facts.html.

A search of our records failed to reveal any documents pertaining to your request. Specifically, the EOC apprises as follows:

We do not have records related to this request, as the request puts forth what is really an academic question about the basics of virology.

You can literally picture the eye roll and face palm of the unfortunate CDC staffer processing this peculiar request.

Recommended : Are Vaccinated People Developing Full Blown AIDS?!

Fact #4 : Studies Have Shown Vaccines Reduce Spread + Variants

The CDC reply also pointed out to Stieber that many studies have already shown that vaccines reduce infections and the spread of the virus; and that reducing infections mean there are fewer opportunities for the virus to replicate and mutate into new variants.

Many studies have been done concluding that viral infection and spread is lower among highly vaccinated populations. If infection and therefore replication are reduced, there are fewer opportunities for the virus to make errors during replication that might be selected for during infection, which is what leads to the emergence of new variants.

Too bad the CDC did not include a list of basic virology books to demonstrate how long ago such basic questions have been answered by science, and taught to medical students and allied health professionals.

Fact #5 : CDC Does Not Conduct Fundamental Research

The same CDC letter also points out to Stieber that it does not generally conduct such fundamental scientific research, and only applies fundamental research towards public health policies. Hence, it would have no documents to offer in response to his FOIA request.

CDC does not generally conduct research into such fundamentals, but rather applies fundamental research to public health.

As noted on its official Vaccine Effectiveness Studies page, the CDC collaborates with public health partners that actually conduct those studies, which it then uses to provide its advisories.

Recommended : Are Residual DNA In mRNA Vaccines Dangerous?!

Fact #6 : This Is An Old Story

Frankly, this story about CDC not having any records to back up its claims that “High vaccination coverage in a population reduces the spread of the virus and helps prevent new variants from emerging” isn’t new.

The Informed Consent Action Network (ICAN) – which has been labelled as one of the main anti-vaccination groups in the United States, posted a story about it on 10 May 2022. So it is interesting to see this being resurrected almost two years later. No new material?

Even ICAN was late to the party, because I pinpointed the first time the CDC made that claim to 4 October 2021. This was right after the CDC approved the first Pfizer vaccine booster dose in September 2021 for people 65 years and older, long-term care facility residents, and people with certain underlying conditions.

Can COVID-19 vaccines cause variants?

No. COVID-19 vaccines do not create or cause variants of the virus that causes COVID-19.

New variants of a virus happen because the virus that causes COVID-19 constantly changes through a natural ongoing process of mutation (change). Even before the COVID-19 vaccines, there were several variants of the virus. Looking ahead, variants are expected to continue to emerge as the virus continues to change.

COVID-19 vaccines can help prevent new variants from emerging. As it spreads, the virus has more opportunities to change. High vaccination coverage in a population reduces the spread of the virus and helps prevent new variants from emerging.

As you can see, the CDC already explained (back in October 2021!) how vaccines reduce new variants from emerging – by reducing infections in the population.

This is publicly available information. You don’t even need to submit a FOIA request!

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!

Did Autopsies Show COVID-19 Vaccines Caused Deaths?!

Did autopsies just show COVID-19 vaccines likely causing deaths in 100% of vaccine myocarditis cases?!

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

 

Claim : Autopsies Show COVID-19 Vaccines Caused Deaths!

People are sharing an article by The Epoch Times which claims or suggests that autopsies just showed COVID-19 vaccines likely causing deaths in 100% of vaccine myocarditis cases!

Here are excerpts from the long, rambling article. Please skip to the next section for the facts!

Autopsies Show COVID-19 Vaccines Likely Caused Deaths: Study

Twenty-eight deaths with cardiovascular involvement outlined in medical literature were likely caused by COVID-19 vaccination, according to a new study.

Recommended : Do mRNA vaccines have 1 in 800 severe adverse event rate?!

 

Truth : Autopsies Did Not Show COVID-19 Vaccines Caused Deaths!

This is yet another example of FAKE NEWS created or promoted by anti-vaccine activists, and here are the reasons why…

Fact #1 : An Earlier Version Was Removed By The Lancet

Let me start by pointing out that this study appears to be an “updated” version of an earlier study which was uploaded to Preprints with The Lancet in July 2023.

That earlier study was never published by The Lancet, but was removed because its conclusion was not supported by the methodology, and violated its screening criteria.

This preprint has been removed by Preprints with The Lancet because the study’s conclusions are not supported by the study methodology. Preprints with The Lancet reserves the right to remove a paper that has been posted if we determine that it has violated our screening criteria.

Fact #2 : Researchers Did Not Conduct Those Autopsies

To be clear – both studies were basically document reviews. None of the researchers in both studies actually conducted any of the autopsies. This was what the researchers did in the “improved” Hulscher et. al. study (archive):

  • search for autopsy reports involving COVID-19 vaccination-induced myocarditis
  • filter the 1,691 studies they found to just 14 papers covering 28 autopsies
  • three of the authors (Peter McCullough, Roger Hodkinson, and William Makis) then “independently” reviewed the autopsy reports and determined the “causality” of each case

According to Brian Ward, professor of experimental medicine at McGill University, that likely meant the three of them went through the autopsy reports in separate rooms.

The way they use the word ‘independently’ here simply means that each of the biased individuals sat in a separate room to reach a personal conclusion before sharing their (largely pre-determined) classifications with each other.

Recommended : Did mRNA Vaccines Trigger Severe Nerve Damage?!

Fact #3 : Many Cases Had Other Likely Causes Of Death

Interestingly, if you go through the summary of those 28 autopsy reports, you will quickly see that some of those cases had other likely causes of death:

Nushida Case 1 : This 14 year-old female had Multisystem Inflammatory Syndrome (MIS) – a serious condition caused by COVID-19.

Fact #4 : Vaccine Myocarditis Seen Mostly In Young Males

Myocarditis and pericarditis are known but rare side effects of COVID-19 vaccines. It is mostly seen in adolescent and young male adults, and usually within 7 days of receiving the second dose of the COVID-19 vaccine, according to the US CDC.

It is therefore perplexing that this study suggested that quite a number of very elderly patients died from myocarditis caused by the vaccine. It seems more likely that they developed myocarditis from other causes, or died from other causes.

Mörz Case 1 : 76 year-old man who also had encephalitis.

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

Fact #5 : Myocarditis Also Occurs Naturally

I should also point out that myocarditis occurs naturally, usually though viral infections (like flu or the common cold), as well as infections by bacteria, fungus, or parasites.

COVID-19 infections aside, the “baseline” of myocarditis in the general population pre-COVID ranged b between 1 to 10 cases per 100,000 individuals per year (source). Of that, about 2.5% of the non-COVID-19 myocarditis will result in death (source).

In other words, we should expect about 375,000 cases of myocarditis worldwide, with approximately 9,375 deaths per year, in the pre-COVID years.

So is it not possible that some of those 28 deaths mentioned by the Hulscher et. al. study may be due to other non-vaccine causes of myocarditis?

Fact #6 : COVID-19 Myocarditis Is More Common

What the study may not tell you is that COVID-19 is known to cause myocarditis. In fact, the CDC reported in September 2021 that COVID-19 patients have nearly 16X the risk of developing myocarditis:

During March 2020–January 2021, patients with COVID-19 had nearly 16 times the risk for myocarditis compared with patients who did not have COVID-19, and risk varied by sex and age.

The findings in this report underscore the importance of implementing evidence-based COVID-19 prevention strategies, including vaccination, to reduce the public health impact of COVID-19 and its associated complications.

The risk of dying from COVID-19 myocarditis (13.54% of cases) is also almost 5X higher than non-COVID-19 myocarditis (2.88% of cases), according to a 2022 German study.

If you are worried about dying from myocarditis, well, you should certainly want to avoid getting a COVID-19 infection!

Recommended : Are Residual DNA In mRNA Vaccines Dangerous?!

Fact #8 : Vaccine Benefits Far Outweighs The Risks

Even if we take all those 28 myocarditis cases mentioned in the Hulscher et. al. study at face value, the benefits of COVID-19 vaccination still far outweighs the risk of dying from vaccine myocarditis.

Vaccine myocarditis is rare – the study could only find 28 cases that satisfied its criteria, while myocarditis from COVID-19 infections are far more common.

People suffering from COVID-19 are also almost 5X more likely to die from myocarditis, than people suffering from non-COVID myocarditis (source).

So if you are really worried about myocarditis, or dying from myocarditis, you should definitely get vaccinated against COVID-19!

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

Don’t forget to protect yourself, and your family, by vaccinating against COVID-19!

 

Please Support My Work!

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

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

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

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

 

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 New Study Show Vaccines Causes Long COVID?!

Did a new study just show that COVID-19 vaccines dramatically increase the risk of getting long COVID?!

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

 

Claim : Vaccines Greatly Increase Risk Of Long COVID!

People are sharing a video by The Epoch Times which claims or suggests that a new study just showed that COVID-19 vaccines dramatically increase the risk of getting long COVID!

The Epoch Times : COVID vaccines linked to “Long Covid”.

According to a new study just published on the NIH website: being vaccinated with 2 shots of the Covid vaccine dramatically increases a person’s chance of getting Long Covid.

Recommended : Do mRNA vaccines have 1 in 800 severe adverse event rate?!

 

Truth : Vaccines Do Not Increase Risk Of Long COVID!

This is yet another example of FAKE NEWS created or promoted by anti-vaccine activists, and here are the reasons why…

Fact #1 : Arjun et. al. Study Was Published In 2022

Let me start by pointing out that the M. C. Arjun et. al. study mentioned in the Epoch Times videos is not new, as alleged.

The Arjun et. al. study is actually more than a year old, being published in PLOS ONE on 20 December 2022. You can read it in full here, and verify the date of publication.

Why would The Epoch Times dig up this study from 2022, when several newer studies showed that COVID-19 vaccines significantly reduced the risk of developing long COVID?

Fact #2 : Study Did Not Conclude Vaccines Increase Long COVID Risk

While the Arjun et. al. study results show that receiving two doses of a COVID-19 vaccine was a predictor of long COVID, the authors did not reach the conclusion, calling it “an observational paradox” that might be explained by vaccination patients more likely to survive COVID-19 infections.

This collider bias, they pointed out, was to be expected since their sample only included patients with access to hospital care. In fact, their study showed that patients who received hospital care were associated with a higher risk of developing long COVID symptoms!

An observational paradox in our study was that the participants who took two doses of COVID-19 vaccination had higher odds of developing Long COVID. It could be due to better survival in vaccinated individuals who may continue to exhibit symptoms of COVID-19 disease.

We could not find any interaction effect of COVID-19 vaccination and acute COVID-19 severity on causing Long COVID.

This association might have also arisen due to Collider bias [40]. The Collider bias might have operated in this case since the sample included only COVID-19 positive tested patients who accessed the hospital (healthcare workers included) making the sample inherently biased to derive such conclusions.

They also pointed out that other studies have shown that COVID-19 vaccination reduced long COVID risks. So why would anyone use their paper to draw a completely different conclusion?

Recommended : Did mRNA Vaccines Trigger Severe Nerve Damage?!

Fact #3 : Other Factors Were Far More Significant

If you read the Arjun et. al. study, you will notice (see results) that it actually found that other factors were more strongly associated with a higher risk of developing long COVID:

  • suffering from 1 to 4 symptoms of COVID-19
  • suffering from 5 or more symptoms of COVID-19
  • developing severe or critical COVID-19
  • being admitted to a hospital

In other words – you are more likely to get long COVID, if you experience moderate or severe COVID-19. Which means the benefits of vaccination still outweighs the risks.

Fact #4 : Newer Studies Show Vaccines Greatly Reduce Long COVID Risk

Curiously, this sudden interest in the old the Arjun et. al. study came just after Scientific American posted its article on how several new studies show how getting multiple COVID-19 vaccine doses “dramatically lowers long COVID risk“.

A growing consensus is emerging that receiving multiple doses of the COVID vaccine before an initial infection can dramatically reduce the risk of long-term symptoms. Although the studies disagree on the exact amount of protection, they show a clear trend: the more shots in your arm before your first bout with COVID, the less likely you are to get long COVID.

One meta-analysis of 24 studies published in October, for example, found that people who’d had three doses of the COVID vaccine were 68.7 percent less likely to develop long COVID compared with those who were unvaccinated.

In short – newer studies show that COVID-19 vaccines not only protect against long COVID, the protection increases with each additional dose!

Therefore, if you are worried about long COVID, you should definitely be up-to-date on your COVID-19 vaccinations!

Recommended : Are Residual DNA In mRNA Vaccines Dangerous?!

Fact #5 : Long COVID More Common In Unvaccinated People

According to Scientific American, the prevalence of long COVID is significantly greater in unvaccinated people, compared to people who had two or more doses of the COVID-19 vaccines.

  • Unvaccinated : 11%
  • Fully-vaccinated : 5%

Again, it clearly shows that COVID-19 vaccines have a significant protective effect against long COVID.

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

Don’t forget to protect yourself, and your family, by vaccinating against COVID-19!

 

Please Support My Work!

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

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

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

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

 

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 COVID-19 Vaccines Cause 17 Million Deaths?!

Did researchers discover that COVID-19 vaccines were “causally linked” to 17 million deaths?!

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

Updated @ 2024-01-09 : Refreshed for the revival of this claim on social media
Originally posted @ 2023-10-03

 

Claim : COVID-19 Vaccines Caused 17 Million Deaths!

People are sharing an article by The Epoch Times which claims or suggests that COVID-19 vaccines did not save lives, but instead, resulted in 17 million deaths in 17 countries!

Here is an excerpt of The Epoch Times article. Feel free to skip to the next section for the facts:

Researchers Find COVID Vaccines Causally Linked to Increased Mortality, Estimate 17 Million Deaths

Recommended : Did FDA + CDC Hide Data On Failing COVID Vaccines?!

 

Truth : COVID-19 Vaccines Did Not Cause 17 Million Deaths!

In this article, I will go through some of their points, and show you what the facts really are!

Fact #1 : It Was A Self-Published Report

First, let’s start by pointing out that the paper in question (PDF download) is not a published scientific report, but a self-published report by Correlation Research in the Public Interest.

As far as we can tell, it has not been submitted to any scientific or medical journal for publication. Even if a scientific report has not been peer-reviewed, it would be available as a pre-print.

Fact #2 : It Has Not Been Peer-Reviewed

There is also no indication that this report has undergone even the basic peer review process. In fact, The Epoch Times confirmed this at the end of their very long article.

It’s important to note the scientific report has not yet been peer-reviewed. Articles that are ultimately accepted by peer review are often revised prior to publication, indicating potential for improvement.

In other words – subject matter experts have yet to inspect their data and findings, never mind verify and authenticate them. Perhaps this should have been mentioned right from the start?

Fact #3 : World Mortality Dataset Covers 103-124 Countries

The World Mortality Dataset (WMD) is a public database maintained by two researchers – Ariel Kaplinsky and Dmitry Kobak, that has been tracking the mortality rates of 103 countries since January 2021. They later expanded their data to cover 124 countries.

It is peculiar that Correlation Research in the Public Interest would focus only on 17 countries, out of 103-124 countries in the World Mortality Dataset. Why not look at ALL countries covered by the WMD data?

Recommended : Did Japan Order Investigation Of COVID-19 Vaccine Deaths?!

Fact #4 : There Was No Causal Link To Vaccines

The World Mortality Dataset is a big and critical tool for tracking all cause mortality for many countries around the world. However, it is ultimately just a database of all-cause mortality.

There is no way it can be used to demonstrate the causality of any particular cause of death. After all, it only tracks all-cause mortality! It doesn’t differentiate between death from a car accident or a fall, from death from COVID-19, or death from a vaccine injury.

Hence, if you go through the long Correlation Research report (180 pages!!), you don’t see an actual causal link between those spikes in deaths, and COVID-19 vaccines (or any other potential cause of death).

Fact #5 : Eurostat Data Shows Vaccination Reduced Excess Mortality

Perhaps the reason why the European countries were left out of this Correlation Research report is because the Eurostat data showed a strong correlation between high COVID-19 vaccination rates and low excess mortality.

In this chart provided by @dobssi, you can see that the 2021 excess mortality is much lower in countries with high vaccination rates, than countries with low vaccination rates.

Interestingly, two of those highly-vaccinated countries are Australia and New Zealand, both of which had low excess mortality rates in 2021.

The Eurostats data appear to show that Australia has only a small spike in excess death, while New Zealand actually had LOWER excess deaths after vaccinating its population. Imagine that…

Recommended : Why Adverse Events of Special Interest Are NOT Side Effects!

Fact #6 : Those Countries Have Seasons

The report claim to look at 17 equatorial and Southern Hemisphere countries because they have “no summer and winter seasons”, so there won’t be “seasonal variations” in their mortality patterns.

But the truth is – countries in equatorial and southern hemispheres have at least two seasons, instead of four seasons typically seen in the Northern Hemisphere.

Take Thailand, for example – a tropical country that evokes images of sandy beaches and warm weather. Well, Thailand actually has three seasons:

  • a wet season that runs from May to October,
  • a cool season that runs from November to February, and
  • a hot season that runs from March May

Its capital, Bangkok, itself experiences wide variations in temperature throughout the year – from as low as 21°C in the winter, to as high as 37°C in the summer.

And how exactly does proximity to the equator affect the SARS-CoV-2 virus or the COVID-19 vaccine??

Fact #7 : Those Countries Have Different Vaccination Rates

It is hard to understand why those 17 countries were chosen out of 103-124 countries in the World Mortality Dataset. Especially when they have different vaccination rates.

Yes, the report states that these countries comprise 9.1% of the global population and 10.3% of all COVID-19 vaccine injections. That gives us the impression that they are all highly-vaccinated countries.

That’s really not the case. These countries have very different vaccination rates, ranging from 44% to 97%!

Country 1 Dose ≥ 2 Doses
Argentina 14% 77%
Australia 2% 95%
Bolivia 60%
Brazil 6% 82%
Chile 2% 90%
Colombia 12% 72%
Ecuador 85%
Malaysia 2% 84%
New Zealand 1% 95%
Paraguay 56%
Peru 6% 83%
Philippines 79%
Singapore 1% 92%
South Africa 46%
Suriname 3% 44%
Thailand 5% 78%
Uruguay 5% 83%

If they did not select those countries for their high vaccination rate, then why choose those countries and not the dozens of other countries located near the equator?

Why not pick large countries like Indonesia or India? Why not pick small countries like Brunei or Maldives? Why pick South Africa when there are many other African countries much closer to the equator?

Did they cherry-pick those countries because their data fitted the narrative, or was it something else?

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

Fact #8 : World Mortality Dataset Study Identified COVID-19 As Cause

The two researchers who maintained the World Mortality Dataset (WMD) actually published a peer-reviewed study in the eLife journal, on 30 June 2021.

Unlike this Correlation Research report, this was an actual peer-reviewed study, published in a journal and the NIH National Library of Medicine. It was also written by the two people who knows the WMD database best – the very people maintaining and updating it!

Both Ariel Kaplinsky and Dmitry Kobak used their WMD data to look at the impact of COVID-19 on the all-cause mortality from 103 countries, and here was what they found:

We found that in several worst-affected countries (Peru, Ecuador, Bolivia, Mexico) the excess mortality was above 50% of the expected annual mortality (Peru, Ecuador, Bolivia, Mexico) or above 400 excess deaths per 100,000 population (Peru, Bulgaria, North Macedonia, Serbia). At the same time, in several other countries (e.g. Australia and New Zealand) mortality during the pandemic was below the usual level, presumably due to social distancing measures decreasing the non-COVID infectious mortality

Summing up the excess mortality estimates across all countries in our dataset gives 4.0 million excess deaths. In contrast, summing up the official COVID-19 death counts gives 2.9 million deaths, corresponding to the global undercount ratio of 1.4.

In other words – many people were likely being killed by COVID-19 infections, which appear to be undercounted by some 40%.

To be clear – their data do not show COVID-19 vaccines causing those deaths, never mind 17 million deaths!

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!

Did Norway Study Show mRNA Vaccine Risk In Children?!

Did a new study from Norway show that mRNA COVID-19 vaccines cause severe adverse events in children?!

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

 

Claim : Norway Study Shows mRNA Vaccine Risk In Children!

People are sharing an Epoch Times article which suggests that a new study in Norway show that mRNA COVID-19 vaccines cause severe adverse events in children!

Here is an excerpt from the Epoch Times article which is long (archive). Please feel free to skip to the next section for the facts!

COVID-19 Vaccines Linked to Increased Risk of Swollen Lymph Nodes in Children: Study

Pfizer and Moderna COVID-19 vaccines associated with higher risk of lymphadenopathy, researchers find.

Recommended : Do mRNA Vaccines Increase Risk Of Illnesses In Children?!

 

Truth : Norway Study Shows Limited mRNA Vaccine Risk In Children!

Let’s take a closer look at the various claims in the Epoch Times article, and the study it referred to, and find out what the facts really are!

Fact #1 : It Was A Pre-Print On medRxiv

Let me start by pointing out that the study, which was conducted by researchers in Norway, has not been peer-reviewed – the first step or many in the scientific review process.

Hence, it has not been published in a journal, but in medRxiv – a preprint server operated by the Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory (CSHL). You can read the paper in full here – PDF.

While that does not mean its findings are wrong, such preprint papers should “not be considered for clinical application, nor relied upon for news reporting as established information“, as per CSHL.

Fact #2 : Risk Of Adverse Events Were Low

While the Epoch Times article, and comments of people sharing it, may suggest that the Norway study has shown that the mRNA COVID-19 vaccines were causing severe adverse events in children, it actually suggests the opposite.

The Norway study actually concluded that the number of adverse events, and any “statistically significant associations” were “generally low“. While it did identify “some exceptions”, the study authors did not say that they were conclusive. They only said that they should be further monitored.

Fact #3 : Lymphadenopathy Was Most Common Event

The Norway study identified lymphadenopathy as the most common “post-vaccination event”. However, lymphadenopathy isn’t as scary as it sounds.

Lymphadenopathy refers to enlarged or swollen lymph nodes that can appear for any number of reasons, most commonly an infection. Hence, it often appears in anyone – children or adults – who are suffering from infections. In fact, the study noted that lymphadenopathy was seen in both vaccinated and unvaccinated children:

Lymphadenopathy Cases Incidence
Vaccinated 651
out of 494,138
120
per 100,000 person-years
Unvaccinated 152
out of 493,360
103
per 100,000 person-years

According to a 2023 study (archive) published in the journal Vaccines, study results suggest that post-vaccination lymphadenopathy is caused by a “strong vaccine immune response“, possibly through the “B cell germinal centre response” after vaccination.

The study results also show that vaccine-induced lymphadenopathy is self-limiting, generally resolving by itself between 10 days to two months. In other words – lymphadenopathy seen after COVID-19 vaccination shows a robust response to the vaccine, and is not something to worry about.

Arguably, the biggest issue identified by the Vaccines study authors was in distinguishing such “reactive lymph nodes” from “metastatic lymph node enlargement” in patients who are already suffering from cancer.

Recommended : Did mRNA Vaccines Trigger Severe Nerve Damage?!

Fact #4 : Study Found No Vaccine Link To Deaths

I found it interesting that the Epoch Health article did not mention anything about deaths. The Norway study actually noted that it found no evidence of any deaths linked to COVID-19 vaccines:

We found no statistically significant associations with all-cause mortality within 28 days. Events were
very rare.

No Norwegian adolescents were registered with vaccine-associated death (International
Statistical Classification of Diseases and Related Health Problems, Tenth Revision [ICD-10] code
U12.9) during follow-up.

Fact #5 : Study Found No Vaccine Link To Arrhythmia 

Interestingly, this Norway study also found no link between COVID-19 vaccines and heart arrhythmia, even though it noted that myocarditis may potentially cause arrhythmia.

Myocarditis may lead to arrhythmia, but we observed no vaccine-arrhythmia association.

mRNA vaccines are known to cause myocarditis and pericarditis in children and young adults, generally in males. However, they have been shown to be milder and far less common than myocarditis and pericarditis caused by COVID-19 infections.

Recommended : SAFECOVAC : Vaccine Myocarditis Risk Less Than 1 In Million!

Fact #6 : Study Did Not Compare Risk To COVID-19 Infection

Finally, I should point out that this Norway study only compared adverse events reported for vaccinated and unvaccinated children. It did not compare the risk of adverse events against COVID-19 infections.

To properly weigh the benefits against the risks of COVID-19 vaccination in children, any potential vaccine side effect should be compared to those from COVID-19 infections.

For example, the massive SAFECOVAC study showed that the risk of getting myocarditis from a COVID-19 infection is hundreds of times higher, compared to getting vaccinated against COVID-19!

Myocarditis
Risk
Per Million
People
vs
Sinovac
vs
AstraZeneca
vs
Pfizer
COVID-19 450 +300x +214x +167x
3x Pfizer 2.7 +1.8x +1.3x Baseline
3x AstraZeneca 2.1 +1.4x Baseline -0.2x
3x Sinovac 1.5 Baseline -0.3x -0.4x

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

Don’t forget to protect yourself, and your family, by vaccinating against COVID-19!

 

Please Support My Work!

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

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

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

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

 

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 Study Show COVID-19 Vaccines Can Worsen Cancer?!

Did a new study show that COVID-19 vaccines can worsen cancer?!

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

 

Claim : COVID-19 Vaccines Can Potentially Worse Cancer!

People are sharing an Epoch Times article which suggests that researchers found many factors linking COVID-19 vaccines to the worsening of cancer.

Here is an excerpt from the Epoch Times article which is long (archive). Please feel free to skip to the next section for the facts!

COVID-19 Vaccines Can Potentially Worsen Cancer: Review

Researchers found many factors within COVID-19 vaccinations that predisposed cancer patients towards a worsening of their condition.

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

 

No Evidence COVID-19 Vaccines Can Potentially Worse Cancer!

Let’s take a closer look at the various claims in the Epoch Times article, and the study it referred to, and find out what the facts really are!

Fact #1 : It Was A Literature Review

Let me start by pointing out that the study in question was a literature review by Raquel Valdez Angues, and Yolanda Perea Bustos, and can be read in full here (archive).

In other words – the article basically offers an overview of existing research, and therefore, its quality is highly dependent on the research papers it uses.

Fact #2 : Cureus Relies On Post-Publication Peer Review

Even though this paper was marked as “peer-reviewed”, it should be noted that Cureus uses a very fast peer-review process of just “a few days”, and relies heavily on “post-publication peer review”.

As its Editor in Chief John R. Adler explained to Retraction Watch in 2015:

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

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

Fact #3 : Article Did Not Prove Vaccine Link To Cancer

Regardless of whether it was adequately peer-reviewed or not, the Angues and Bustos article itself did not actually prove any link between COVID-19 vaccines and cancer.

The authors themselves referred to “the Multi-Hit Hypothesis“. In science, a hypothesis is not a conclusion, but a proposed explanation that has to be tested to determine if it can be replicated.

Even as a literature review, the paper does not provide any actual evidence that such a hypothesis has ever been replicated by any study. So claims that its authors “found many factors” in COVID-19 vaccines that “predisposed cancer patients towards a worsening of their condition” is misleading, if not outright false.

There is nothing in the article to show such a link. Perhaps that’s why no other researcher has cited this article as of this time.

Recommended : Do mRNA Vaccines Increase Risk Of Illnesses In Children?!

Fact #4 : All Coronaviruses Have Spike Proteins

The key argument that COVID-19 vaccines cause cancer appears to revolve around the idea that the spike protein they produce “have the potential” to create an environment “favorable to cancer progression and/or reactivation of DCCs (dormant cancer cells)”.

Well, if that’s true, then everyone who was ever infected with COVID-19 will risk developing cancer, because the SARS-CoV-2 is completely covered with spike proteins!

In fact, everyone who has ever been infected with any coronavirus, not just SARS-CoV-2, will risk developing cancer because … ALL coronaviruses have spike proteins!

The spike proteins are literally the defining feature of a coronavirus. In fact, the name “coronavirus” is derived from the Latin word, corona, which means “crown” or “wreath” – a reference to its “crown” of spike proteins.

If coronavirus spike proteins can truly cause cancer, we would have seen people developing cancer after a coronavirus infection since time immemorial. Not just during this COVID-19 pandemic.

Fact #5 : Viruses Multiply, Vaccines Won’t

I should also point out that if the spike protein is so dangerous, then it is even more important to get vaccinated against COVID-19. After all, viruses multiply, while the vaccines won’t!

Even if we simply look at the mRNA vaccines alone, they contain a limited number of mRNA instructions that encode for the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein. The mRNA instructions enter a limited number of cells, which then produce and display those spike proteins on their surfaces, to trigger our immune system.

If you are infected by the actual SARS-CoV-2 virus though, it quickly hijacks your cells to produce millions of copies – each covered with spike proteins, which then infect even more cells, in an ever-expanding chain reaction.

Until your immune system learns to stop and defeat the SARS-CoV-2 virus, it will keep producing millions and millions of viruses that will circulate through your body, delivering those nasty spike proteins everywhere.

So if you are really worried about the spike protein, you should really get vaccinated against COVID-19!

Recommended : The Spikeopathy Vaccine Spike Protein Scare Explained!

Fact #6 : VAERS Reports Are Unverified

The article referred to the “growing evidence and safety reports filed to the Vaccine Adverse Effects Report System (VAERS) suggesting that some cancer patients experienced disease exacerbation or recurrence following COVID-19 vaccination“.

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

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

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

Fact #7 : Vaccine Lymphopenia Was Transient

The article also appears to make a big deal out of lymphopenia caused by COVID-19 vaccines. What it fails to mention is that the lymphopenia (drop in blood lymphocytes) was transient (temporary), and mainly seen with the first dose of the Pfizer mRNA vaccine.

By Day 6-8, the lymphocyte levels were back in normal range (source). The drop in lymphocytes was also much smaller with the second dose. None of those who experienced the transient lymphopenia in the Pfizer clinical study had any clinical findings.

What it also failed to mention is that the transient drops in lymphocyte count was expected, because RNA vaccines are known to induce Type I interferon, which is associated with the transient migration (not destruction) of lymphocytes into the tissues (source).

In short – there is zero evidence that a temporary drop in blood lymphocytes because they temporarily migrated into the tissues leads to cancer. In fact, it can be argued that with the risk is potentially lower with more lymphocytes in the tissues.

Fact #8 : mRNA Vaccines Do Not Integrate Into Our DNA

The article laughably suggests that “parts of the SARS-CoV-2 genome” might miraculously “undergo reverse-transcription” and be genomically integrated into our cells.

For one thing – mRNA do not require reverse transcription, and are simply used by the ribosomes of our cells to produce proteins. mRNA also cannot enter the cell nucleus, so there is no danger of “genomic integration”. Only viruses like the SARS-CoV-2 virus can integrate their genome into our cell DNA.

Furthermore, normal human cells do not produce the LINE-1 reverse transcriptase enzyme, so it is simply not possible for the mRNA to undergo reverse transcription. Even if that somehow happens, the transcribed DNA cannot enter the cell nucleus without another enzyme called integrase, which is produced by viruses but not normal human cells.

Finally, mRNA-based COVID-19 vaccines contain only mRNA instructions for the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein. Even if they somehow miraculously integrate into the cell DNA, they can at most only produce the spike protein, nothing more.

If you are truly worried about anything modifying your cell’s DNA, you should try to avoid viral infections like COVID-19.

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

Don’t forget to protect yourself, and your family, by vaccinating against COVID-19!

 

Please Support My Work!

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

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

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

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

 

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 Australian Study Show Spike In Vaccine Excess Deaths?!

Did a new Australian study show a spike in excess deaths from the gene-based COVID-19 vaccine?!

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

 

Claim : Gene-Based COVID-19 Vaccine Linked To Spike In Excess Deaths!

People are sharing an Epoch Health article which claims or suggests that an Australian study by Peter Rhodes and Peter Parry (of the Spikeopathy fame) show a link between “gene-based COVID-19 vaccines” and a “spike in excess deaths”.

Here is an excerpt from the Epoch Health article which is long (archive). Please feel free to skip to the next section for the facts!

Australian Researchers Call for Pause on Gene-Based COVID-19 Vaccines Amid Spike in Excess Deaths

In one region of Australia, there were 23 times more adverse reactions from COVID-19 vaccines than all other vaccines combined.

Recommended : Hybrid Immunity Better Than Natural / Vaccine Immunity!

 

Truth : mRNA COVID-19 Vaccine Not Linked To Spike In Excess Deaths!

Let’s take a closer look at the various claims in the Epoch Health article, and the Australian study, and find out what the facts really are!

Fact #1 : The Article Was Not Peer-Reviewed

Let me start by pointing out that the Peter Rhodes and Peter Parry article can be read in full here (archive).

Its innocuous title – Gene-based COVID-19 vaccines: Australian perspectives in a corporate and global context – does not hint at a vaccine link to excess deaths.

According to Epoch Times / Epoch Health themselves, this paper has not peer-reviewed before its publication in the January 2024 issue of Pathology.

Fact #2 : WAVSS + DAEN Reports Are Unverified

Even though the Epoch Health article suggests that the “authorities” are “reporting high levels of adverse events”, it appears that the Peter Rhodes and Peter Parry article was referring to deaths reported to the Western Australian Vaccine Safety Surveillance (WAVSS) system, and the Database of Adverse Event Notifications (DAEN) system in Australia. There are two big problems with that.

First, adverse events reported to both vaccine safety surveillance systems are not necessarily vaccine side effects. Adverse events are “unfavourable” or “unintended” events that happen after vaccination or taking a drug, like having an anaphylactic reaction or getting into a car accident.

Secondly – both WAVSS and DAEN have explicitly pointed out that those adverse event reports are unverified and have to be investigated to determine if they are even related to the vaccines:

DAEN

  • Inclusion in the DAEN – medicines does not mean that the details of the event have been confirmed, or that the event has been determined to be related to a medicine or a vaccine.‌
  • We encourage people to report suspected side effects (also known as adverse events), even when it is not clear that a medicine or vaccine was the cause. These suspected side effects are listed in the DAEN – medicines and reflect the observations of the person who reported the event.
  • The TGA uses adverse event data, together with other scientific information, to identify and investigate potential safety issues for medicines and vaccines.

WAVSS

An adverse event following immunisation (AEFI) is an unwanted or unexpected event occurring after the administration of a vaccine.

Such an event may be caused by the vaccine or occur by chance after vaccination (that is, it would have occurred regardless of vaccination).

An AEFI may be due to:

  • A person’s response to a vaccine
  • AEFIs also include conditions that may occur following the incorrect handling or administration of a vaccine
  • Coincidence, ie. it would have occurred regardless of vaccination

To be clear – there is no evidence that all of those deaths reported to both vaccine safety surveillance systems have been tied to the COVID-19 vaccines. In fact, the TGA has only determined that 14 of those 983 deaths were linked to any COVID-19 vaccine.

Recommended : Do mRNA Vaccines Increase Risk Of Illnesses In Children?!

Fact #3 : COVID-19 Vaccines Use Spike Protein As Antigen

The Peter Rhodes and Peter Parry article appears to be singling out “Gene-based mRNA and viral vector DNA” vaccines as the cause of excess deaths in Australia, because they are “novel” and “experimental”, where as “traditional [vaccine] technologies” use “viral antigens”.

The truth is – all COVID-19 vaccines, regardless of their underpinning technologies, use the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein as the antigen to trigger our immune system to learn how to defend itself against an actual COVID-19 infection.

Fact #4 : mRNA + Viral Vector COVID-19 Vaccines Are No Longer Experimental

The Peter Rhodes and Peter Parry article appears to claim that the mRNA and viral vector vaccines are still experimental, because their clinical trial work was “incomplete” because they lack a placebo arm.

The truth is – COVID-19 vaccines are no longer experimental after they receive their Emergency Use Authorisation (EUA) or full approval.

  • The Pfizer COMIRNATY mRNA vaccine received its EUA on 11 December 2020, and full FDA approval on 23 August 2021.
  • The Moderna Spikevax mRNA vaccine received it EUA on 18 December 2020, and full FDA approval on 31 January 2022.
  • The AstraZeneca viral vector COVID-19 vaccine received its EUA from the UK on 30 December 2020, and from the WHO on 15 February 2021.

To be clear – these COVID-19 vaccines were no longer experimental by the time they were approved. Even after approval by various regulatory agencies across the globe, they continue to be monitored for safety and efficacy.

Fact #5 : Placebo-Controlled Trials Are Sometimes Considered Unethical

I should point out that placebo-controlled trials are generally considered to be unethical whenever there are effective and safe treatments / vaccines. That’s because people on the placebo arm will be placed at risk of death or injury.

For example, in 1954, over 420,000 young children participated in the inactivated polio vaccine trial with 200,000 given a placebo of salt water. At the end of that placebo-controlled trial, 16 children in the placebo group died from polio while another 34 were paralysed.

The decision to “drop” the placebo arm in COVID-19 vaccine trials wasn’t something exceptional, or done as a “special favour” to “special interests”. Back in 2014, a WHO expert panel was convened to address this issue, and they issued their recommendations on the use of placebo controls in vaccine trials.

Recommended : Do COVID-19 Vaccines Cause Long-Term Heart Damage?!

Fact #6 : Viruses Inject Genetic Code Into Our Cells

The Peter Rhodes and Peter Parry article warns about the risk of “genetic code” from mRNA and viral vector vaccines entering our cells:

Genetic code must enter human cells and undergo translation before intended active outcomes unfold. Unintended consequences are thus possible, as recent reviews attest.

The first source of that claim was Spikeopathy – a poorly-cited article (cited by 4 so far) by Peter Parry himself (and other contributors), which I fact checked earlier. It was just a “literature review” which made use of some opinion articles. Even when it cited proper research, its interpretation appears to be misleading.

The second source referenced for this claim is a similarly poorly-cited article (archive, also cited by 4 so far) which argues for a new term called “Post-COVID-19 vaccination syndrome (PCVS)”. However, that second source only suggested that injecting mRNA vaccines into the veins (which is not the correct way) can cause myocarditis, while injecting virus vector vaccines into blood (also not the correct way) can cause “thrombocytopenia and coagulopathy”.

The truth is – the translation of mRNA instructions into proteins, or DNA instructions into mRNA and then into proteins, is a normal process that is undertaken by all of our cells all the time. That is how our cells make proteins!

What the article fails to mention is that viruses like the SARS-CoV-2 coronavirus inject their own genetic code to hijack our cells into producing copies of themselves, which are then released to infect even more cells, in an ever expanding chain reaction.

Unlike viruses though, vaccines do not multiply. So, if you are worried about foreign genetic code being injected into your cells, then you should get vaccinated, so the circulating antibodies the vaccine produces can block the COVID-19 virus from infecting your cells!

Recommended : The Spikeopathy Vaccine Spike Protein Scare Explained!

Fact #7 : COVID-19 Vaccines Prevent Death + Hospitalisation

The COVID-19 vaccines were primarily designed to prevent death and hospitalisation, not transmission. That’s why the endpoints of all COVID-19 vaccine trials were their safety and efficacy against death and hospitalisation from severe COVID-19.

Regardless of what politicians and other people may say, blocking transmission was always meant to be a nice bonus if it occurred, but never the endpoint of any COVID-19 vaccine. That’s because the first slew of COVID-19 vaccines were meant to be injected, and the antibodies they produce would circulate in the blood, and would not be able to “block” transmission of virions (the complete virus particle) in the respiratory tract.

In fact, the COVID-19 vaccines were also not designed to block infections. If you look up any COVID-19 vaccine trial, you will notice that one of their endpoints was preventing “symptomatic infections”. That’s because vaccinated people may test positive from swab tests that detect the presence of viruses (virions) in their respiratory tract, but they may not be symptomatic because circulating antibodies (from the vaccine) are blocking the COVID-19 infection from spreading and causing symptoms.

So arguing that the COVID-19 vaccines are a “failure” because they do not “prevent infection or transmission” would be wrong and misleading. They prevent death and hospitalisation from severe COVID-19.

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

Don’t forget to protect yourself, and your family, by vaccinating against COVID-19!

 

Please Support My Work!

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

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

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

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

 

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!

Do mRNA Vaccines Increase Risk Of Illnesses In Children?!

Did a new study just show that mRNA vaccines increase the risk of severe illnesses in children?!

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

 

Claim : mRNA Vaccines Increase Risk Of Illnesses In Children!

Anti-vaccine activists are sharing an article by The Epoch Times, as evidence that the “unprecedented surges” in cardiac arrest cases in Victoria is somehow linked to COVID-19 vaccines!

Here is an excerpt from that article by The Epoch Times. It is long, so please feel free to skip to the next section for the facts.

Children Vaccinated in Messenger RNA COVID-19 Trials at Higher Risk of Certain Illnesses: Study

Study analyzed data from clinical trials.

Recommended : Young Athletes At High Risk Of Sudden Cardiac Arrest!

 

No Evidence mRNA Vaccines Increase Risk Of Illnesses In Children!

Let’s take a look at the “shocking” study, and find out what the facts really are!

Fact #1 : Study Is Unreviewed Preprint

First, I should point out that the study in question is called “Overall Health Effects of mRNA COVID-19 Vaccines in Children and Adolescents: A Systemic Review and Meta-Analysis” by Hoffmann et. al. which you can read here.

This study was posted on December 7, 2023, in medRxiv as a preprint. That means it has not undergone the initial peer-review process, never mind verification or criticism by other researchers after publication in a reputable journal.

To be clear – this paper has not been peer-reviewed. It has also not been published in any medical journal. It was only posted by the author/funder to the medRxiv preprint server.

Fact #2 : Study Was A Meta-Analysis

I should also point out that the study was a meta-analysis conducted on 6 out of 64 randomised controlled trials the authors evaluated. Meta-analysis can be a useful tool to elicit a more precise estimate of an effect, but any bias in the selection of studies, or its analysis, can lead to a misleading conclusion.

For example, the authors assessed 64 of 1,199 studies, but only selected six studies. Why they selected those 6 studies, and not the remaining 58, was not stated. That does not mean that the six studies selected were not the right ones. We just don’t know why they were selected, but not the others. Would the meta-analysis come to a different conclusion if the other 58 studies were included? Wouldn’t you like to know?

On top of that, the study was unable to distinguish between “overall and infectious severe AEs” because the selected studies lacked details. Interestingly, this meta-analysis showed that the risk of severe AEs was lower for younger children, even while it was higher for older children. Does that mean the COVID-19 vaccines actually protect younger children?

Recommended : Do COVID-19 Vaccines Cause Long-Term Heart Damage?!

Fact #3 : Adverse Events Are Not Necessarily Side Effects

The study looked at Adverse Events of Special Interest (AESI) that were “adapted” from the Brighton Collaboration – the list of which was not provided. So we don’t really know if those AESIs are really relevant.

After all – Adverse Events of Special Interest are not side effects of the COVID-19 vaccines, as I pointed out earlier.

Adverse events are “unfavourable” or “unintended” events that happen after vaccination or taking a drug, like having an anaphylactic reaction or getting into a car accident.

All reported adverse events have to be investigated to find out if they are related (anaphylactic reaction) or not (getting into a car accident) to the vaccine or drug that was taken.

Even if an adverse event was “possibly caused” by the vaccine, it must still be confirmed that the vaccine directly caused it, because an anaphylactic reaction (for example) can also occur from a bee sting, or an existing peanut allergy.

Only once an adverse event is confirmed to be caused by the vaccine, is it then a vaccine side effect. Otherwise, it is merely an adverse event, not a side effect.

Fact #4 : COVID-19 Vaccines Do Not Increase Risk Of RSV

The claim that children who receive the COVID-19 vaccines are more susceptible to infectious diseases like the Respiratory Syncytial Virus (RSV) have been circulating since 2022. However, there is absolutely no evidence that COVID-19 vaccinations increase the risk of any child getting RSV infections.

There’s no data whatsoever to prove or to show that Covid vaccination makes kids more susceptible to RSV.

If that were true — that Covid vaccination puts you at higher risk of infection — then we would have seen this impact a long time ago on all age groups, but we didn’t.

– Alon Vaisman, infectious disease expert with University Health Network, Toronto

There’s no data whatsoever to prove or to show that Covid vaccination makes kids more susceptible to RSV.

If that were true — that Covid vaccination puts you at higher risk of infection — then we would have seen this impact a long time ago on all age groups, but we didn’t.

– Anthony Bryne, respiratory infection researcher and physician at St. Vincent’s Hospital

It just happens to be a coincidence. RSV is going around right now. You’re not going to increase the risk of your child getting RSV by getting them immunized.

–  Dr. Mary Ottolini, M.D. – chair of paediatrics for the Barbara Bush Children’s Hospital

Please help us FIGHT MISINFORMATION 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!

Bill Gates mRNA Vaccine Approved With Zero Safety Data?!

Was a new self-amplifying mRNA COVID-19 vaccine funded by Bill Gates just approved with zero safety data?!

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

 

Claim : Bill Gates mRNA Vaccine Approved With Zero Safety Data!

People are sharing an article by The People’s Voice (formerly NewsPunch), suggesting or claiming that a new self-amplifying mRNA COVID-19 vaccine funded by Bill Gates was just approved with zero safety data!

Here is an excerpt from the article (archive), which is really long. Feel free to skip to the next section for the facts!

Bill Gates ‘Self-Amplifying mRNA’ COVID Shot Approved For Public Use With Zero Safety Data

Recommended : Are mRNA Vaccines Contaminated With SV40 DNA?!

 

Truth : No Bill Gates mRNA Vaccine Was Approved!

This is yet another example of FAKE NEWS created by The People’s Voice, and here are the reasons why…

Fact #1 : No Evidence Bill Gates Funded Daiichi-Sankyo Vaccine

Let me just start by pointing out that the new COVID-19 vaccine in question was developed by Daiichi-Sankyo, and is called DAICHIRONA for Intramuscular Injection (DS-5670).

The Daiichi Sankyo DS-5670 vaccine was developed through the “Vaccine Development Project”, which is funded by the Japan Agency for Medical Research and development (AMED), as well as the “Urgent Improvement Project for Vaccine Manufacturing Systems” supported by the Japanese Ministry of Health, Labour and Welfare (MHLW).

There is no evidence that Bill Gates personally funded the development of this vaccine. There is certainly no evidence he owns this COVID-19 vaccine.

Fact #2 : GHIT Fund Targets Drugs For Developing Countries

The link provided in The People’s Voice article does not show Bill Gates funding the Daiichi Sankyo vaccine. It actually links to a Daiichi Sankyo page on the GHIT (Global Health Innovative Technology) Fund that it created in April 2013.

The Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation supports the GHIT Fund, together with the government of Japan, and five Japanese pharmaceutical companies. The GHIT Fund, however, is targeted at developing drugs for combating infectious diseases in developing countries like Chagas disease and malaria.

The GHIT fund has nothing to do with COVID-19 vaccines. The funding by the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation would therefore have nothing to do with the development of the Daiichi Sankyo DAICHIRONA vaccine.

Recommended : Is Interpol Investigating Bill Gates For Murder?!

Fact #3 : Daiichi Sankyo Vaccine Was Tested

The claim that the Daiichi Sankyo mRNA vaccine for COVID-19 was approved without testing is without merit, and evidence. The article certainly provided no evidence the DAICHIRONA vaccine was approved without testing.

A quick search would show Daiichi Sankyo researchers published the results from their Phase 2 clinical study on 31 August 2023, in the journal Vaccine. The study was also registered with the Japan Registry of Clinical Trials with the Trial ID of jRCT2071210086.

On 15 November 2022, Daiichi Sankyo announced that it successfully complete the Phase 1/2/3 trial of its DS-5670 mRNA vaccine (PDF), involving 5,000 Japanese adults and senior citizens. It applied for vaccine approval in January 2023, and received it on 2 August 2023 (PDF).

On 7 September 2023, Daiichi Sankyo announced (PDF) that it successfully completed the Phase 3 trial of the improved DS-5670 bivalent vaccine that began in May 2023 (PDF). That was the basis for its supplemental New Drug Application (sNDA) on the same day (PDF), which was approved on 28 November 2023 (PDF).

In short – the original and improved bivalent Daiichi Sankyo vaccines underwent and passed clinical trials like other COVID-19 vaccines.

Fact #4 : DAICHIRONA Is An mRNA Vaccine

The People’s Voice appears to believe that the Daiichi Sankyo DAICHIRONA vaccine for COVID-19 is a “self-amplifying mRNA vaccine”. That cannot be further from the truth.

The Daiichi Sankyo vaccine, which was formerly known as DS-5670 or DS-5670A, is an mRNA vaccine like the Pfizer-BioNTech COMIRNATY and Moderna Spikevax vaccines.

It does not “self-replicate” or “self-amplify” as claimed. It merely delivers the mRNA instructions to the cell, which then produces the spike protein to display on its surface.

The quote about “self-amplifying mRNA” appears to be lifted off an unrelated article (archive) by The Epoch Times on “self-amplifying RNA vaccines” that might be coming in the future.

However, mRNA (messenger RNA) is different from RNA, and The Epoch Times article was referring to the “next-generation of RNA-based” vaccines.

Recommended : Is Bill Gates Facing Life Behind Bars For Child Rape?!

Fact #5 : The People’s Voice Is Known For Publishing Fake News

The People’s Voice is the new name / brand for NewsPunch, which possibly changed its name because its brand has been so thoroughly discredited after posting numerous shocking but fake stories.

Founded as Your News Wire in 2014, it was rebranded as NewsPunch in November 2018, before becoming The People’s Voice. A 2017 BuzzFeed report identified NewsPunch as the second-largest source of popular fake news on Facebook that year.

Its articles have been regularly debunked as fake news, so you should NEVER share anything from NewsPunch / The People’s Voice.  Here are some of its fake stories that I fact checked earlier:

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

 

Please Support My Work!

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

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

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

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

 

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!

Victoria Cardiac Arrest Surge Linked To COVID Vaccines?!

Are the “unprecedented surges” in cardiac arrest cases in Victoria linked to COVID-19 vaccines?

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

 

Claim : Cardiac Arrest Surge In Victoria Linked To COVID Vaccines!

Anti-vaccine activists are sharing an article by The Epoch Times, as evidence that the “unprecedented surges” in cardiac arrest cases in Victoria is somehow linked to COVID-19 vaccines!

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

Unprecedented Surges in Cardiac Arrest Cases in Victoria, Australia: Exploring the Potential Vaccine Link

Recommended : Young Athletes At High Risk Of Sudden Cardiac Arrest!

 

Cardiac Arrest Surge In Victoria Not Linked To COVID Vaccines!

Let’s take a look at the surges in cardiac arrest cases in Victoria, and find out why they are not linked to COVID-19 vaccines!

Fact #1 : Myocarditis Is Not Cardiac Arrest

First, I should point out that myocarditis is not the same thing as a cardiac arrest. Both conditions affect the heart, but they are completely different heart problems.

Myocarditis is the inflammation of the heart muscle, and is a side effect of COVID-19 infections, and a rare side effect of mRNA vaccines. People with myocarditis may not have any symptoms, or may present with chest pain, shortness of breath, and/or palpitations.

Cardiac arrest, on the other hand, is an electrical problem that causes the heart to stop beating completely. People who suffer a cardiac arrest will collapse immediately and lose consciousness, as we have seen with many young athletes like Christian Eriksen, as well as children like Jackson Mohr.

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

Fact #2 : Victoria Report Does Not Link Vaccines To Cardiac Arrest

The Epoch Times article is based on the Victorian Ambulance Cardiac Arrest Registry 2020-2021 Annual Report (PDF).

If you look at the report, you will realise that it does not link COVID-19 vaccines to the increase in cardiac arrest. In fact, the word “vaccine” does not appear to feature in the report at all. In fact, the reported data does not even include COVID-19 vaccination status.

So I’m not sure why anyone would link this report on sudden cardiac arrest cases in Victoria, Australia, to COVID-19 vaccines. Nothing in the report would suggest such a link.

Fact #3 : Cardiac Arrest Cases Rising Over Past Decade

The report also pointed out that the incidence of out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA) cases has been steadily rising over the past decade.

This clearly shows that the increase has nothing to do with COVID-19 vaccination, which only began in February 2021 in Australia.

This chart also shows that there was no “spike” in the incidence of cardiac arrest cases in Victoria. There is just an increasing trend over the past 10 years.

Recommended : Do UK Gov Data Show Cancer Deaths From Vaccine?!

Fact #4 : Not All Cases Were Cardiac-Related

On top of that, almost ⅓ of the adult cardiac arrest cases were not cardiac-related. They were caused by trauma (car crashes, falls, shooting / stabbing), respiratory, overdose/poisoning, terminal illness, or hanging and other causes.

In children, only 14% were cardiac-related. The vast majority – 86% of cardiac arrest cases – were caused by respiratory arrests, drowning and trauma.

So how is it possible for anyone to conclude or even suggest that these cardiac arrest cases were somehow linked to COVID-19 vaccines?

Fact #5 : Vaccines Not Linked To Cardiac Arrest

It is odd that the article would suggest in its title that there might be a link between the surge in cardiac arrest cases in Victoria, with the COVID-19 vaccines.

I should point out that there is no evidence that any COVID-19 vaccine causes cardiac arrest.  In fact, an August 2023 study that was published in the British Journal of Sports Medicine showed “no evidence for an increase in sudden cardiac arrest or an increase in myocarditis in athletes after COVID-19 vaccination“:

We analyzed all of the studies we could find. Including one from Australia that included more than four million people. There researchers found that neither the rates of sudden cardiac arrest nor the rates of myocarditis as cause for cardiac arrest increased after vaccination. Myocarditis occurs most often in young people, especially in men

Fact #6 : COVID-19 Infections Linked To Myocarditis

What the article may not tell you is that COVID-19 infections are known to cause myocarditis. A September 2021 report by the CDC pointed out that COVID-19 patients have nearly 16X the risk of developing myocarditis:

During March 2020–January 2021, patients with COVID-19 had nearly 16 times the risk for myocarditis compared with patients who did not have COVID-19, and risk varied by sex and age.

The findings in this report underscore the importance of implementing evidence-based COVID-19 prevention strategies, including vaccination, to reduce the public health impact of COVID-19 and its associated complications.

Fact #7 : Myocarditis Is Not Common Cause Of Sudden Cardiac Arrest

It is also odd that the article lede would be about the “causal relationship between vaccines and myocarditis”, followed by the claim that myocarditis is a common cause of sudden cardiac arrest in young individuals.

For one thing – myocarditis is not a common cause of sudden cardiac arrest in young individuals. An August 2019 study published in the Forensic Sciences Research journal detailed how autopsies revealed that myocarditis was present only in 6% of people who died from sudden cardiac death.

The most common cause of sudden cardiac death is actually coronary artery disease, which accounts for up to 80% of all deaths. Cardiomyopathies due to obesity, alcoholism, and fibrosis, as well as genetic channelopathies account for most of the remaining causes.

Please help us FIGHT MISINFORMATION 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!

Can Bak Kut Teh Herbal Soup Cause Liver Damage?!

Did an Australian study show that Bak Kut Teh herbal soup can cause liver damage?!

Take a look at what the study showed, and what the facts really are!

Updated @ 2023-11-24 : Refreshed after claims went viral again
Originally posted @ 2022-07-15

 

Study : Bak Kut Teh Herbal Soup Can Cause Liver Damage!

Australian scientists caused a ruckus in 2022 when their study alleged that the Asian herbal soup called Bak Kut Teh can cause liver damage.

The media excitedly jumped on it, with alarming titles to draw attention (and drive traffic?) :

Adelaide Now : Adelaide forensic expert issues safety warning over liver failure soup

ABC : Bak kut teh herbal soup may cause liver damage and interact with medication, study finds

Medical Xpress : Popular Malaysian soup can cause liver damage when mixed with medication

The Epoch Times : University Professor Warns of Risks Caused by Popular Chinese Soup

Says : Australian Researchers Find Bak Kut Teh Can Cause Liver Damage When Taken With Medicine

Recommended : Viral Video Proves Japanese Food Is Radioactive?!

 

Truth : Study Does Not Show Bak Kut Teh Causing Liver Damage!

Despite the alarming titles, there is no need to panic… because the study does NOT show the herbal soup causing any liver damage.

Here is a quick summary for those who just need to know the basics :

  1. It was a laboratory study, which means the results may not translate into actual effect in a living human being.
  2. What we eat is digested and broken down, so our body absorbs the nutrients and not the actual food. Hence, the study does not accurately replicate what happens in our body.
  3. They didn’t test bak kut teh… they only tested four soup bases used to make bak kut teh.
  4. The soup concentrations were unspecified, so it is unknown if the doses are equivalent to what our livers are subjected to after a meal.
  5. They did not test drug interactions, so it is amazing how so many media outlets claimed that the study showed that bak kut teh may interact with medication!

In short, this study does not show that bak kut teh causes liver damage. Neither does it show bak kut teh causing drug interactions of any kind.

I understand Professor Byard’s concerns about the “unknown” contents of these soup base preparations. Certain traditional Chinese medicine (TCM) and Chinese herbal medicine (CHM) have been associated with acute liver failure.

However, that isn’t so much a “bak kut teh” problem, but rather a problem with traditional Chinese medicine or Chinese herbal medicine.

For those who are interested in the details, please scroll down to the next section.

 

Why Study Does Not Show Bak Kut Teh Causing Liver Damage

Let’s start with the basics, and work our way through the Australian study.

Fact #1 : Study Was Conducted By Australian Scientists

First, the study was conducted by University of Adelaide and University of Melbourne scientists – Susan M. Britza, Rachael Farrington, Ian F. Musgrave, Craig Aboltins and Roger W. Byard.

It was published in the journal Forensic Science, Medicine and Pathology, and you can read the study here.

Fact #2 : It Was A Laboratory Study

It is important to note that this was an in-vitro study – a laboratory study, not a clinical study.

In-vitro studies are important, but they cannot be extrapolated to make any conclusion about what actually happens in a human body.

For example, in-vitro studies have shown that hydroxychloroquine and ivermectin have an inhibitory effect on the SARS-CoV-2 virus; but once tested in actual human beings – they were shown to have no clinical benefit.

In other words – what happens in a test tube, may not happen in an actual human being.

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

Fact #3 : What We Eat Is Not What Our Body Absorbs

There is one big problem with doing in-vitro tests on food – what we eat is not what our body absorbs.

Food gets digested, and broken down into nutrients that are absorbed in our intestines. Even simple sugar gets broken down into glucose, fructose, galactose, maltose, sucrose, etc.

So soaking liver cells in a bak kut teh soup would most definitely not reflect what our liver cells actually experience after a bak kut teh meal.

In short, this study does not replicate what happens in our liver when we eat bak kut teh.

Fact #4 : There Are Many Types Of Bak Kut Teh

Bak Kut Teh is not so much a “herbal soup” as it is a pork soup dish. The name “bak kut teh” literally means “meat bone tea” in the Hokkien dialect, but there is no tea in it.

It is usually just a dish of pork ribs simmered for hours in a broth of common herbs and spices like star anise, cinnamon, cloves, dong quai, fennel seeds and garlic.

But there are many variants of bak kut teh. In Malaysia and Singapore where bak kut teh is most popular, there are at least four main “styles” :

  • Teochew style : light in colour, with more pepper and garlic
  • Hokkien style : darker and more fragrant, thanks to a variety of herbs and soy sauce
  • Cantonese style : includes medicinal herbs for a stronger flavoured soup
  • Klang style : a thick and sticky gravy, like a stew

On top of that, there are also chicken and beef versions of bak kut teh. Muslims, for example, love the chicken version, which is colloquially called chi kut teh, chi being short for chicken.

And the Malaysian town of Melaka serves a delicious beef bak kut teh, which is based on a unique black pepper soup with red fermented bean curd.

Fact #5 : They Tested Four Soup Bases

The Australian team were somewhat aware of the wide variety of bak kut teh soup bases. They tested four varieties :

  • Formulation 1 : Dried hawthorn
  • Formulation 2 : Goji berries, ginseng, bark, and dried mushrooms
  • Formulation 3 : Polygonatum odoratum, ligusticum chuanxiong, codonopsis pilosula, cinnamomum cassia, angelica sinensis, illicium verum, piper nigrum, and Eugenia caryophyllata
  • Formulation 4 : Spices, pepper and salt

It is important to note that instead of preparing bak kut teh like you and I would – with meat, vegetables, bean curd slices, etc., the researchers tested soups that were created only using the ingredients listed above.

In short, they did not actually test bak kut teh… they tested soups made from the ingredients above.

Fact #6 : Soup Concentration Was Unspecified

To prepare the four soups for testing, researchers added a sachet of each soup mix to boiling water (of unspecified quantity) for 5 minutes.

The concentration of each soup base was unspecified. They only listed the dilution factor. As such, it is quite impossible to draw any sort of conclusion from the results.

As any toxicologist will tell you – the dose makes the poison. This is why the concentration of any substance is critical in any study. Even water and oxygen – essential to human life to be sure – is toxic at high doses.

Fact #7 : Soups Were Prepared In 5 Minutes

It is important to point out that the soups the researchers used were prepared in just 5 minutes. Bak kut teh is usually prepared by simmering the meat in the soup for hours.

It would have been a good idea to prepare the soup bases like real bak kut teh soup, because boiling the soup for several hours could potentially break down toxins present in its ingredients.

In fact, it would have been better for the researchers to just buy real bak kut teh, instead of resorting to their soup bases prepared in just 5 minutes.

Fact #8 : They Tested Using HepG2 Liver Cancer Cells

It is also important to note that the researchers tested the soup bases by adding them to HepG2 cell cultures, not normal liver cells.

HepG2 is a hepatoblastoma (a type of liver cancer) cell line that was obtained from a 15 year-old boy suffering from liver cancer in 1975.

Now, there is nothing wrong with that – HepG2 is commonly used to test cytotoxicity of substances. Still, it must still be pointed out that HepG2 is not the same thing as normal liver cells.

In-vitro studies based on these cells should not be used to draw any conclusion, only used to drive further research.

Differences HepG2 Cells Normal Liver Cells
Cell Size 12-19 µm 15 µm
Cell Shape Polygonal Cube
Nuclei Single large nuclei
with 3-7 nucleoli
Two or more nuclei
Mitochondrial Content Low High
Smooth Endoplasmic Reticulum Poorly Developed High
No. of Chromosomes 50-60 46
DNA Content 7.5 pg ~6 pg
Genome Stability Unstable Stable

Fact #9 : Spices, Pepper + Salt Did Worst In Their Tests

What I found most interesting in their results was the fact that the most “toxic” soup was Formulation 4, which consisted of nothing more than spices, pepper and salt.

Formulation 4 showed the most significant toxicity to the HepG2 cell line with approximately 83% cell death before dilution (p < 0.0001) and persistent toxicity even with dilution 1:10 (15% ± 3.7, p = 0.023) and 1:1000 (14% ± 3.8, p = 0.024)

Well, that’s gonna worry fans of Kentucky Fried Chicken, which boasts 11 herbs and spices, including pepper and salt!

Jokes aside, this result suggest that common spices, pepper and salt are more toxic to HepG2 liver cells than the more fanciful bak kut teh preparations!

Fact #10 : They Did Not Test Drug Interactions

I’m not sure how this study touches on drug interaction, since they didn’t test the soup bases with common hepatotoxic drugs like paracetamol to see if there is a synergistic effect.

No matter how you slice and dice this study’s results, they tell us nothing about any possible interaction with other herbs / drugs.

Yet so many media outlets made the startling claim that the study showed that bak kut teh may interact with medication! Nowhere in the study does it say that!

It appears that most of these journalists probably did not even bother to read the study, and perhaps only paraphrased what other people were writing.

 

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!

Hybrid Immunity Beats Natural / Vaccine Immunity Alone!

Did an Estonian study just prove that natural immunity is better than vaccine immunity?!

Take a look at the viral claims, and find out why hybrid immunity offers even better protection!

 

Claim : Natural Immunity Is Better Than Vaccine Immunity!

Anti-vaccine activists are sharing and/or promoting an article by The Epoch Times, as evidence that natural immunity is better than vaccine immunity!

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

Natural Immunity Better Than Protection From COVID-19 Vaccination: Study

Recommended : Are Residual DNA In mRNA Vaccines Dangerous?!

 

Hybrid Immunity Is Better Than Natural / Vaccine Immunity!

Let’s take a closer look at these claims about natural immunity being better than vaccine immunity, and show you why hybrid immunity is even better!

Fact #1 : Study Looked At Hybrid Immunity Too

First, I should point out that the Estonian study by Uusküla et. al. (link) did not just look at natural immunity vs. vaccine immunity against COVID-19.

It also looked at hybrid immunity, which is protection gained from a combination of COVID-19 vaccination, and a prior COVID-19 infection.

Fact #2 : Hybrid Immunity Was Superior To Natural Immunity

The Uusküla et. al. study showed that hybrid immunity was the best – offering much greater protection against infection and hospitalisation than natural immunity.

During the Delta-dominated period, hybrid immunity offered greater protection against new and severe infections than natural immunity. This effect was not sustained during the Omicron period. Irrespective of the infection-causing variant, the protective effect of hybrid immunity in preventing infection progression to severe COVID-19 significantly exceeded that of natural immunity (although the absolute numbers of hospitalizations in the hybrid immunity subcohort were small).

If there is only one lesson to be taken away from this study – it is that hybrid immunity – a combination of vaccine immunity, and immunity from a prior infection – offers the best protection against COVID-19.

Fact #3 : Vaccine Immunity Did Protect Against Infection

The Uusküla et. al. study also showed that vaccine immunity did protect against COVID-19 infections, albeit not as effectively as natural immunity or hybrid immunity.

Unfortunately, the study did not provide a chart to show the effectiveness of natural, vaccine, and hybrid immunity against hospitalisation. It only provided three charts to show their effectiveness against infection.

To make it easier for you to understand, I combined the three charts into one, and coloured them, so you can better see the difference in protection offered.

As you can clearly see – vaccine immunity did indeed protect against COVID-19 infections. It just wasn’t as effective as natural immunity, or hybrid immunity.

What is clear though is that vaccine immunity helped to boost natural immunity, imparting the best possible protection through hybrid immunity.

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

Fact #4 : Natural Immunity Was Less Effective With Omicron

The Uusküla et. al. study showed that natural immunity generally offers longer-lasting protection against infection and hospitalisation than vaccine immunity. However, that protection isn’t foolproof or always better than vaccine immunity.

The study also showed that people with natural immunity had a 25% increased risk of getting infected during the Omicron period! In comparison, vaccinated people only had a 13% increased risk of getting infected during the same period.

But guess what – hybrid immunity offers the best immunity against COVID-19, with only one case of hospitalisation noted by the study:

Hospitalization due to COVID-19 was extremely rare among those with hybrid immunity (no cases during the Delta period and one case during the Omicron period).

Fact #5 : Natural Immunity Is Not Without Risks

While the Estonian study did show that natural immunity offers superior protection against future COVID-19 infections, it is not without risks.

After all, to gain natural immunity, one must first get infected with COVID-19, and risk getting hospitalised or dying from severe COVID-19.

Early in the pandemic, the case fatality rate for COVID-19 was incredibly high – between 1.7% to 39% (Feb-March 2020). That has fallen to 0.3% in July-August 2020, as the newer COVID-19 variants have evolved to be less virulent.

Those who insisted on gaining immunity through a “natural” COVID-19 infection during the study period would have to accept a significant risk of developing severe COVID-19, and even dying from it. It is only after surviving a COVID-19 infection, do you get that “natural immunity”.

In contrast, vaccine immunity teaches your own immune system to learn how to identify the COVID-19 coronavirus, and build up defences against an infection. That way – you have a better chance of beating off a COVID-19 infection. On top of that – once you beat off a COVID-19 infection after being vaccinated, you gain superior hybrid immunity!

Please help us FIGHT MISINFORMATION 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!

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!

1 In 4 Americans Know Someone Who Died From Vaccine?!

Do 1 in 4 Americans really know someone who died from the COVID-19 vaccine?!

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

 

Claim : 1 In 4 Americans Know Someone Who Died From Vaccine!

Some people are sharing an article by The Epoch Times, which claimed / suggested that a poll found that 1 in 4 Americans know someone who actually died from the COVID-19 vaccine!

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

Poll: 1 in 4 Americans Know Someone Who Died From COVID Vaccine

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

 

Truth : 1 In 4 Americans Do Not Know Someone Who Died From Vaccine!

Let’s take a closer look at the Rasmussen poll, and find out why this is just fear-mongering…

Fact #1 : COVID-19 Vaccines Were Proven Safe + Effective

First, I should point out that the COVID-19 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 COVID-19 vaccines are. That’s why new COVID-19 vaccines continue to be approved by health regulators around the world.

Fact #2 : Millions Of Americans Did Not Die From Vaccine

Let me also point out the ludicrous suggestion that tens of millions of Americans died from the COVID-19 vaccines.

If one in four Americans really knew someone who died from the COVID-19 vaccine, that would mean no fewer than 83 million people have died in the US! Or 41-42 million, if we assume that half the people who died are known to the same people who participated in the poll.

Either way – it would have been a major catastrophe that would have not only devastated families across America, it would have crippled the economy and literally brought everything to a standstill.

Yet – all that did not happen, because millions of Americans did not die from the COVID-19 vaccines. In fact, the United States and other countries around the world were able to reopen completely because people were vaccinated against COVID-19.

The vaccines did not prevent infections (they were not designed to do that), but they prevented severe illness and deaths from COVID-19 infections. That’s why hospitals and their ICUs were no longer filled with COVID-19 patients gasping for breath.

Recommended : Are mRNA Vaccines Contaminated With SV40 DNA?!

Fact #3 : Polls Are For Opinions, Not Facts

Polls are useful for gauging opinions on a variety of subjects. However, polls are completely useless as a tool to “determine facts”, and dangerous if they are used to convey a misleading perception of the facts.

The Rasmussen poll is utterly useless in determining whether people actually died from the COVID-19 vaccines. So I’m not sure what’s the point of conducting the poll. It’s no different from asking people whether they believe that the earth is round or flat. #eyeroll

The facts remain the same, regardless of what the Rasmussen polls say – the COVID-19 vaccines have not killed tens of millions of Americans.

Fact #4 : Rasmussen Poll Shows Danger Of Misinformation

The only thing the Rasmussen poll on 1 in 4 Americans believing that they know someone who died from COVID-19 vaccines shows is the danger of anti-vaccine misinformation.

The Rasmussen poll shows that many people believe that the COVID-19 vaccines are dangerous. Not because it’s the truth, but because of the deluge of misinformation online.

The truth is – billions of doses of COVID-19 vaccines of various types have been administered worldwide, with some people receiving four or more doses. There is no evidence that they are causing widespread health problems, never mind killing millions of people who received them.

Anti-vaccine activists have been claiming for almost 3 years now that the COVID-19 vaccines are killing people. But because millions of people have not actually died from the COVID-19 vaccines, they have to resort to blaming suicides and accidents on the vaccines!

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!

Study Show Hydroxychloroquine Lowers COVID-19 Deaths?!

Did a new study just show that hydroxychloroquine lowers COVID-19 deaths?!

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

 

Claim : Study Shows Hydroxychloroquine Lowers COVID-19 Deaths!

Some people are sharing an article by The Epoch Times, which claimed / suggested that a new study showed that hydroxychloroquine is associated with lower COVID-19 deaths. Here is an excerpt from that article by The Epoch Times:

Hydroxychloroquine Associated With Lower COVID-19 Mortality: Study

People who received hydroxychloroquine were less likely to die than those who did not, according to a new study.

Recommended : Did Mayo Clinic Admit Hydroxychloroquine Can Treat Covid?!

 

Truth : Study Does Not Show Hydroxychloroquine Lowers COVID-19 Deaths!

Let’s take a closer look at the new French study, and find out why it does not show that hydroxychloroquine really lowers COVID-19 deaths!

Fact #1 : Only First Study Was Withdrawn

First, I should point out that The Epoch Times article appears to be conflating two different studies of the same database of COVID-19 patients in France.

  1. Early Treatment with Hydroxychloroquine and Azithromycin: A ‘Real-World’ Monocentric Retrospective Cohort Study of 30,423 COVID-19 Patients
    by Matthieu Million et. al. (archive link)
    Preprint posted on 4 April 2023
    Withdrawn on 7 June 2023
  2. Outcomes after early treatment with hydroxychloroquine and azithromycin: An analysis of a database of 30,423 COVID-19 patients
    by Philippe Brouqui et. al. (archive link)
    Article posted on 30 October 2023

The first study was not peer-reviewed and was withdrawn by its authors who said that it should not be cited as reference for the project. The second study is by a different set of authors (with some from the first study), but was not withdrawn.

The authors have withdrawn this manuscript because analytic strategies for this project have changed. Therefore, the authors do not wish this work to be cited as reference for the project.

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

Fact #2 : Study Looked At All Cause Mortality

Despite claims that the French study showed that hydroxychloroquine was “associated” with lower COVID-19 mortality (deaths), that was not what the study actually showed.

Instead of looking at COVID-19 deaths (mortality), the study authors chose to look at “all-cause mortality”. This is odd, because they had access to their medical records and pharmacy files, and a wealth of information including :

  • age range and gender
  • whether the patient was treated as outpatient / inpatient, or had ICU treatment
  • whether the patient received HCQ (hydroxychloroquine), AZ (azithromycin), or IVM (ivermectin)
  • COVID-19 virus variant
  • time of death
  • vaccination status
  • co-morbidities like obesity, diabetes, high blood pressure, asthma, cancer, etc.

Why did this study look at “all-cause mortality” instead of “COVID-19 mortality”? Are we interested in whether hydroxychloroquine can cure COVID-19, or are we trying to see if it can cure common causes of death?

I’m sure it would be interesting to know that hydroxychloroquine may potentially be an elixir of immortality against common causes of death like heart disease, cancer, sepsis, stroke, accidents.

But the study, as it stands, does not tell us anything about hydroxychloroquine lowering the risk of COVID-19 deaths.

Recommended : Are mRNA Vaccines Contaminated With SV40 DNA?!

Fact #3 : Study Only Looked At First Six Weeks

For some reason, the study authors chose to only look at all-cause mortality within the first six weeks of a COVID-19 diagnosis.

Why six weeks? Do COVID-19 infections magically disappear after that? Not that we know of…

Why set a cut-off point at all? Why not just look at whether the patient survived COVID-19 with hydroxychloroquine, ivermectin or regular treatment, period?

Fact #4 : RCTs Show Hydroxychloroquine Don’t Work

The study itself also pointed out that major randomised controlled trials (RCTs) like the RECOVERY and SOLIDARITY trials show that hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) does not reduce mortality in COVID-19 patients.

It attempts to dismiss both trials as “late treatment trials” as randomisation occurred upon hospital admission, and that they used very high doses of HCQ – four times higher than the “recommended dose”.

The problem is – the French study does not itself show that their patients were receiving HCQ much earlier, or that they were even receiving the “recommended dose” of 600 mg.

There is no recommended dose of hydroxychloroquine for COVID-19. Its use in the RCT and French studies were “off-label”. So I really have no idea where this 600 mg dose is based on. The study authors did not appear to justify the use of this 600 mg “recommended dose”.

Even though the study claims that all 30K+ patients took 600 mg of HCQ per day, there is really no way to be sure of that because it was a retrospective study, and not a randomised controlled trial. In fact, there’s no way to know if they even took the drugs regularly, if at all.

Fact #5 : Study Shows Ivermectin Don’t Work

Interestingly, the French study actually showed that ivermectin slightly increased the risk of dying from ALL-CAUSES of death. I wonder why the study authors did not point that out…

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!

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!

Did Health Canada Confirm SV40 DNA In Pfizer Vaccine?!

Did Health Canada just confirm the presence of SV40 DNA in the Pfizer mRNA vaccine for COVID-19?!

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

 

Claim : Health Canada Confirmed SV40 DNA In Pfizer Vaccine!

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

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.

Health Canada CONFIRMS Undisclosed Presence of DNA Sequence in Pfizer Shot. -The Epoch TImes

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

EXCLUSIVE: Health Canada Confirms Undisclosed Presence of DNA Sequence in Pfizer Shot

Recommended : New study shows Cardiac Side Effects of mRNA Vaccines?!

 

Truth : Health Canada Only Confirmed SV40 Enhancer Sequence In Pfizer Vaccine!

Let’s take a closer look at what Health Canada 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 gene enhancers and 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 in the vaccine. To be clear – mRNA vaccines do not contain the SV40 virus:

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)

Fact #2 : Pfizer DNA Plasmid Won’t Integrate With Genome

In response to The Epoch Times‘ question about SV40 plasmids integrating into the genome, Health Canada explained why that is simply not possible (archive):

The Pfizer DNA plasmid used to produce the COVID-19 vaccine is distinct from DNA adenovirus vectors in sequence and biological functions.

Furthermore, the Pfizer plasmid does not contain sequences corresponding to SV40 proteins studied in the paper cited. Therefore, the integration mechanisms described are not applicable.

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

Fact #3 : Health Canada Confirms mRNA Vaccines Meet Regulatory Limit

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.

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

Fact #4 : McKernan Study Is In Dispute

The Epoch Times had earlier written about the McKernan et al. preprint (which has not yet peer-reviewed that fuelled the SV40 promoter DNA in Pfizer vaccine controversy.

The problem though was – the study tested vials of “unknown provenance” which were sent to the authors “anonymously in the mail without cold packs“. Even though they claimed that the vials were “unopened”, it was impossible to know if they were tampered with.

In addition, qualifying residual DNA levels is based on measurements relative to RNA levels. Because the vials were not kept cold, their contents would certainly have been degraded. Since RNA is less stable than DNA and would degrade far more under such conditions, it would likely have resulted in abnormal DNA-RNA levels by the time the tests were conducted.

Finally, the McKernan preprint itself showed that the amount of residual DNA in mRNA COVID-19 vaccines are far below regulatory limits. So it was really much ado about nothing!

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

Fact #5 : SV40 Promoter Does Not Cause Cancer

The Epoch Times article suggested that there is a risk of the SV40 promoter causing cancer. That has been refuted by scientists:

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

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.

– Michael Imperiale, molecular biologist at the University of Michigan Medical School

Fact #6 : 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.

It was the use of an incorrect DNase stock that resulted in a batch of Pfizer vaccines having more residual DNA than usual – 815 ng of DNA per mL of RNA. Other than that one batch, all other batches had at most – 211 ng of DNA per mL of RNA, which was below the “commercial acceptance criterion” of the European Medicines Agency of ≤330 ng of DNA / per mg of RNA.

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.

Here is the takeaway – any mRNA vaccine that does not meet regulatory limits would not be allowed to be used.

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

Fact #7 : 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 was 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!

mRNA Vaccines Created Spike Protein In Human Heart?!

Did a new German study show mRNA vaccines creating spike proteins in human heart cells, causing heart abnormalities?!

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

 

Claim : mRNA Vaccines Created Spike Protein In Human Heart!

Some people are sharing articles by American Faith and Epoch Health, which claim / suggest that a new German study found that mRNA COVID-19 vaccines created spike proteins in human heart cells. resulting in heart abnormalities.

Steve Kirsch : Wait a second. I thought these vaccines were safe and effective? Why are they attacking heart cells?

Chief Nerd : New research out of Germany observing rat and human heart cells shows that within 48 hours of vaccination, the COVID-19 mRNA vaccines form spike proteins. Spike proteins, made from the mRNA instructions inside the vaccines, were detected in the heart cells. While both Pfizer and Moderna vaccines caused cell abnormalities, the two induced different anomalies.

Here’s an excerpt from the American Faith article:

American Faith : COVID-19 Vaccine Research Shows Spike Protein Forming in Heart Cells

Here’s an excerpt from the Epoch Health article:

Epoch Health : mRNA COVID Vaccines Form Spike Protein in Heart Cells, but Cause Different Anomalies

Recommended : New study shows Cardiac Side Effects of mRNA Vaccines?!

 

Truth : Study Showed mRNA Vaccine Effect On Rat Heart Cells!

Let’s take a look at what we know about this new study, and see what the facts really are!

Fact #1 : Study Was Peer-Reviewed

First, I should point out that this is a peer-reviewed study that was published in a reputable journal – the British Journal of Pharmacology. So it’s not like the “Belgian study” that allegedly showed that the Pfizer mRNA vaccine causes turbo cancer.

That said – the pre-publication peer review is only the first step in scientific review process. After its publication, it is still subject to post-publication peer review, including verification and further research by other scientists.

Fact #2 : Study Is Not Available Publicly

I should also point out that the study itself is hidden behind a paywall, with only a brief abstract available publicly. This is important because without knowing the details, it is simply impossible to know the accuracy or significance of this study. As they say – the devil is in the details.

Fortunately, it appears that Dr. Ralf B. Lukner MD PhD has access to the study itself, and has provided some important insights into this study. So this fact check will rely on both his insights, and what’s available publicly.

Fact #3 : Study Was Conducted On Rat Heart Cells

According to the public abstract of the study, it was conducted on isolated rat cardiomyocytes (RCm) over a 72 hour period.

Basically, the study did not involve any human beings or even live animals. Instead, it used single heart muscle cells from a rat.

Even though both American Faith and Epoch Health claimed that the study involved human heart cells, the abstract itself did not mention any human heart cells being used.

In real life, the COVID-19 vaccines are injected into the deltoid muscle of a human being, and not into the heart of a rat. In real life, heart muscle cells also do not soak in a bath of hyper-concentrated  COVID-19 vaccine for 3 days.

So it is important to understand that this is not at all representative of what actually happens in a human being, or even a live rat…

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

Fact #4 : Study Used Very High Vaccine Doses

According to Dr. Lukner, the study used very high doses of the Pfizer and Moderna mRNA vaccines:

  • Pfizer : 1 μg/mL
  • Moderna : 10 μg/mL

In contrast, human beings – which have 36 trillion more cells, only receive 30 μg of the Pfizer vaccine, or 100 μg of the Moderna vaccine.

By my estimate, the doses used in this study are far beyond what any human being will ever receive in a million lifetimes:

  • Pfizer : 1.2 trillion vaccine doses
  • Moderna : 3.6 trillion vaccine doses

As any scientist can tell you – the dose makes the poison. At sufficiently high doses, all chemicals – including water and oxygen – can be toxic.

Fact #5 : It Was A Laboratory Study

I should also point out the salient fact that it was a laboratory study (also known as an in vitro study), not a clinical study.

In-vitro studies are important, but they cannot be extrapolated to make any conclusion about what actually happens in a human body.

For example, laboratory studies showed that hydroxychloroquine and ivermectin have an inhibitory effect on the SARS-CoV-2 virus; but once tested in actual human beings – they were shown to have no clinical benefit.

In other words – what happens in a laboratory, may not happen in an actual human being.

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

Fact #6 : Nothing Happened Until Spike Proteins Were Created

Interestingly, the study authors pointed out that both Pfizer and Moderna mRNA vaccines did not affect the rat heart muscle cells in any way, until they started producing the spike protein after 48 hours of soaking in a bath of vaccine.

Assuming that this can be replicated by other scientists, this suggests a couple of things:

  • the rat heart muscle cells are not affected by the presence of the mRNA vaccine itself
  • the rat heart muscle cells only “malfunctioned” after they created the spike proteins

Is it therefore possible that the rat heart muscle cells might be malfunctioning because they were overwhelmed by the extremely high vaccine doses into excessively creating the spike proteins, instead of performing their normal functions?

Is it also possible that the spike proteins caused morphological changes (shape, size, texture, etc.) that disrupted the rat heart muscle cells’ ability to contract properly?

Needless to say – MORE research is needed before any conclusion can be made about the mRNA vaccine’s cardiotoxic effects in rats, never mind any potential cardiotoxic effects in actual human beings.

Fact #7 : COVID-19 Infections Produce Far More Spike Proteins!

It is important to point out that unlike the SARS-CoV-2 virus, COVID-19 vaccines do not multiply and can only induce a limited number of cells to produce the spike protein. And again – the vaccines are injected into the arm, and not the heart.

The SARS-CoV-2 virus, on the other hand, will spread through the body, creating spike proteins in a multitude of cells. If the spike proteins are the problem, which this study suggests, then a COVID-19 infection poses a far greater threat than the COVID-19 vaccine.

Recommended : Do COVID-19 Vaccines DOUBLE Heart Disease Risk?

Fact #8 : COVID-19 Infections Cause Heart Problems

Finally, I should point out that COVID-19 infections are known to cause heart problems, even in people who recover.

The SARS-CoV-2 virus does not only cause myocarditis, it can also damage heart muscle tissue directly. COVID-19 infections have also been shown to cause serious ventricular arrhythmias, and even inflame the coronary arteries.

The mRNA vaccines for COVID-19 are already known to cause pericarditis and myocarditis in young males, but this is a relatively rare cardiac side effect and generally milder than if caused by COVID-19 infections.

That’s why health authorities across the world continue to advocate getting the COVID-19 vaccines. After all – the risk of getting myocarditis from multiple doses of the vaccines are much lower than the risk of getting myocarditis from a single COVID-19 infection!

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

Don’t forget to protect yourself, and your family, by vaccinating against COVID-19!

 

Please Support My Work!

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

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

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

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

 

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!

FDA Refused To Release Vaccine Myocarditis Results?!

Did the FDA refuse to release results from studies investigating subclinical myocarditis caused by the Moderna COVID-19 vaccine?!

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

 

Claim : FDA Refused To Release Vaccine Myocarditis Results!

People are sharing an article by The Epoch Times which claims or suggests that the US FDA is refusing to release results from studies investigating subclinical myocarditis caused by the Moderna COVID-19 vaccine!

Here is an excerpt of The Epoch Times article. Feel free to skip to the next section for the facts:

FDA Has Results of Subclinical Myocarditis Studies, but Won’t Release Them Yet

Recommended : Did FDA + CDC Hide Data On Failing COVID Vaccines?!

 

No Evidence FDA Refused To Release Vaccine Myocarditis Results

In this article, I will go through some of their points, and show you what the facts really are!

Fact #1 : Moderna Studies Started In 2020-2021

First, let me start by pointing out that the three Moderna studies mentioned in The Epoch Times article did not begin in 2022. Rather, they started in 2020 / 2021:

Fact #2 : FDA Did Not Order Those Studies In 2022

The Epoch Times article claimed that “FDA officials in January 2022 directed Moderna to run three prospective studies on subclinical myocarditis“, and provided this FDA document (PDF download as evidence.

If you actually look at the FDA document, titled Summary Basis for Regulatory Action, you’ll realise that it tells a completely different story:

  • it stated that the Review Committee recommended the approval of the Moderna SPIKEVAX mRNA vaccine for COVID-19
  • it mentioned the P203, P204, and P301 studies which were already running by then.
  • it stated that Moderna requested the deferment of three paediatric studies, including P203 and P204.
  • it stated that the FDA approved Moderna’s request to defer the paediatric studies in December 2021.

To address requirements of the Pediatric Research Equity Act, the Applicant submitted a request for deferral of the following studies in pediatric individuals ˂18 years of age because the mRNA-1273 vaccine would be ready for approval for use in adults before such studies could be completed. The deferred studies are:

  • Deferred pediatric study P203 to evaluate the safety and effectiveness of mRNA-1273 vaccine in children 12 years through 17 years of age
  • Deferred pediatric study P204 to evaluate the safety and effectiveness of mRNA-1273 vaccine in children 6 months to <12 years of age
  • Deferred pediatric study to evaluate the safety and effectiveness of mRNA-1273 vaccine in infants <6 months of age

The deferral request and pediatric plans were accepted without revisions by the FDA Pediatric Review Committee on December 14, 2021.

To be clear – the P203, P204, and P301 studies were already running in 2021 – long before the FDA released that PDF.

Recommended : Did Japan Order Investigation Of COVID-19 Vaccine Deaths?!

Fact #3 : FDA Has PMR/PMC Website

The FDA requires manufacturers of certain drug products (including vaccines) to conduct postmarket studies and clinical trials to assess for possible serious risks associated with those drugs / vaccines.

Referred to as postmarket requirements (PMRs) and postmarket commitments (PMCs), these studies are conducted after the approval of the drugs / vaccines.

You can actually look up PMR / PMC studies on the FDA website (link). Here are the results of the three Moderna trials mentioned in the article:

  • mRNA-1273-P203 : Final report submitted to FDA on 13 January 2023
  • mRNA-1273-P204 : Study is ongoing
  • mRNA-1273-P301 : Study is ongoing

Fact #4 : PMR / PMC Report May Be Requested

Even though the FDA regularly releases information about PMR / PMC studies, it does not release the actual data or results. This is not just for COVID-19 vaccines. This policy extends to all PMR / PMC studies.

As an FDA spokesperson explained to The Epoch Times, those reports may be requested through a FOIA (Freedom of Information Act) request.

The FDA doesn’t post PMR/PMC study reports. They may be requested under FOIA.

You may wondering why the FDA cannot publicly release PMR / PMC study results. That’s because those documents may contain classified information, personal information, confidential business details, or even trade secrets.

Anyone can make a FOIA request for these reports, but the FDA must first go through the reports, and redact information that are exempt from disclosure under FOIA, before they can be released.

Recommended : Why Adverse Events of Special Interest Are NOT Side Effects!

Fact #5 : FOIA Delays Due To Excessive Requests

Ironically, a key reason why the FDA cannot expedite FOIA requests for those three Moderna studies is because it was compelled by US District Judge Mark Pittman to expedite the processing of some 329,000 pages of documents requested by PHMPT looking into the Pfizer COVID-19 vaccine!

That decision came after the PHMPT demanded that the FDA release all those documents within 108 days. Now that the FDA is compelled to focus on processing those documents, it has far less resources to process other FOIA requests.

Fact #6 : No Evidence Of Vaccine Subclinical Myocarditis

While the article appears to suggest that the Moderna P203 study results may prove that the Moderna mRNA vaccine causes subclinical myocarditis, it offers no proof of that. The article only points out that:

  • Moderna submitted its final report on the P203 study to the FDA
  • The Epoch Times requested for the Moderna report
  • The FDA told The Epoch Times to file an FOIA request
  • The Epoch Times filed its FOIA request in July 2023
  • The Epoch Times has not received the report as of 11 October 2023

Jessica Adams, who requested the P301 study results in July 2023, was told by the FDA that it would take “at least two years” for her to receive the results.

The Epoch Times article actually mentioned this, so there is no reason to believe that its P203 request made in the same month would be released anytime soon.

To be clear – there is not even a hint of smoke, because none of them actually have access to any of the three Moderna study results – two of which are still ongoing!

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!

Did FDA + CDC Hide Data On Failing COVID Vaccines?!

Did the FDA and CDC hide data that show the COVID-19 vaccines failing as early as January 2021?!

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

 

Claim : FDA + CDC Hid Data On Failing COVID-19 Vaccines!

People are sharing an article by The Epoch Times which claim or suggest that FDA and/or CDC hid data that show the COVID-19 vaccines failing as early as January 2021!

Here is an excerpt of The Epoch Times article. Feel free to skip to the next section for the facts:

FDA, CDC Hid Data on Spike in COVID Cases Among the Vaccinated: Documents

Recommended : Died Suddenly : Anti-Vaccination Movie Lies Exposed!

 

No Evidence FDA + CDC Hid Data On Failing COVID-19 Vaccines!

In this article, I will go through some of their claims, and show you what the facts really are!

Fact #1 : Humetrix Study Was Commissioned By US DOD

First, let’s start by pointing out that the Humetrix study in question was commissioned by JAIC – the US Department of Defense Joint Artificial Intelligence Center. This was stated explicitly in an email by Humetrix President and CEO, Bettina Experton, to the FDA:

This study has been conducted by my company under contract with the DoD JAIC (Joint Artificial Intelligence Center) since March 2020, when we were t asked to analyze Medicare claim data to monitor, map and conduct Covid-19 predictive analytics for the military.

What this means is – the data belonged to the US Department of Defense, not Humetrix, the FDA, or the CDC.

Fact #2 : Humetrix Published Study Results In December 2022

It seems odd to accuse the US FDA and CDC of hiding data from the Humetrix study, when Humetrix publicly published its results in the open-access journal, Biology in December 2022.

The study is called “Enhanced Vaccine Effectiveness during the Delta Phase of the COVID-19 Pandemic in the Medicare Population Supports a Multilayered Prevention Approach“.

Fact #3 : No Evidence CDC / FDA Hid Humetrix Study

There is no evidence that the FDA or CDC hid the Humetrix study or its data. The Epoch Times article did not offer any evidence, beyond pointing out that the Humetrix analysis was “not presented” during a meeting to approve the booster dose.

Ironically, the same article pointed out that the CDC presented data from its COVID-NET data that showed falling vaccine effectiveness in the elderly against the Delta variant. So why should the CDC / FDA try to “hide” the Humetrix data?

Is it not possible that the CDC preferred to rely on its own data? Or perhaps, the CDC decided that the COVID-NET data was compelling enough, it did not need to supplement with the similar data from the Humetrix study?

Recommended : Why Adverse Events of Special Interest Are NOT Side Effects!

Fact #4 : Vaccines Were Not Meant To Prevent Infection

While many anti-vaccine activists harp on the fact that COVID-19 vaccines fail to prevent transmission or breakthrough infections, the truth is – the vaccines were designed to prevent severe disease and deaths from COVID-19.

It would be nice if they can significantly block transmission, or breakthrough infections, but those were never the endpoints in any COVID-19 vaccine trial. If you look back at the vaccine trial results, they were only looking at protection against “symptomatic infection“, “severe disease“, and “death“.

COVID-19 Vaccine Protection Against
Symptomatic
Infection
Severe
Disease
Death
Pfizer Comirnaty 95.0% 100% 100%
Gamaleya Sputnik V 91.6% 100% 100%
Moderna mRNA-1273 94.1% 100% 100%
AstraZeneca AZD1222 62% ~ 90% 100% 100%
Sinopharm BBIBP-CorV 79% ~ 86% 90% 100%
Sinovac Biotech 50.65% 83.7% 100%
J&J Janssen COVID-19 66.0% 85% 100%
CanSino Biologics 65.7% 90.98% 100%

Therefore, their constant harping of the “inability” or “failure” of COVID-19 vaccines to block transmission, or completely prevent infections, is a red herring. That was never the goal of these vaccines.

Even if you are fully-vaccinated, you can continue to get breakthrough infections, and that’s fine. The key thing is vaccines help to prevent severe disease and death COVID-19 infections.

Fact #5 : Humetrix Study Looked At Delta Variant

It is also important to note that the Humerix study looked at the Delta variant, as its title stated clearly – Effectiveness of mRNA COVID-19 Vaccines Against the Delta Variant Among 6M Medicare Beneficiaries 65 Years and Older.

The original COVID-19 vaccines were designed to target the original (ancestral) SARS-CoVo-2 virus. The Delta variant did not exist at that time.

The Humerix study did not address or disparage the effectiveness of the vaccines against the original SARS-CoV-2 virus that they were originally meant to target. It was looking to see if the original mRNA vaccine could also protect against the Delta variant.

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

Fact #5 : Reduced Protection vs. Delta Variant Spurs Need For Booster Dose

The Humerix study, at that time, was presented to the FDA for its use in the consideration whether to approve the booster dose looked at the effectiveness of the Pfizer and Moderna mRNA vaccines against the new (at that time) Delta variant.

Because it showed reduced vaccine effectiveness against infections and hospitalisations, that would actually support the approval of a booster dose to boost protection against COVID-19.

If the Humetrix study actually showed the original mRNA vaccines’ strong protection against the Delta variant, the FDA and/or CDC might not feel the need to approve or support a booster dose at that time.

This was actually mentioned in the Executive Summary of the Humetrix presentation on Page 2:

Salus breakthrough hospitalization risk model can be applied to prioritize the over 65 population for booster vaccine

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

Don’t forget to protect yourself, and your family, by vaccinating against COVID-19!

 

Please Support My Work!

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

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

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

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

 

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 Moderna Try To Cover Up Vaccine Deaths?!

Do newly-released clinical trial documents show that Moderna tried to cover up deaths caused by its COVID-19 vaccine?!

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

Updated @ 2023-08-08 : Updated with some additional information.
Originally posted @ 2023-07-25

 

Claim : Moderna Tried To Cover Up Vaccine Deaths!

People are sharing articles by The Epoch Times and Children Health Defense which claim or suggest that newly-released clinical trial documents show that Moderna covered up deaths caused by its COVID-19 vaccine!

Here is an excerpt of The Epoch Times article. Feel free to skip to the next section for the facts:

‘Serious Doubt’ About COVID-19 Vaccine Safety After Forced Release of 15,000 Pages of Clinical Trial Data: Legal NGO

And here is an excerpt of Children Health Defense article. Feel free to skip to the next section for the facts:

Exclusive: Clinical Trial Documents Suggest Moderna Skimped on Autopsies, Discounted Serious Injuries — Did FDA Know?

Recommended : Died Suddenly : Anti-Vaccination Movie Lies Exposed!

 

No Evidence Moderna Tried To Cover Up Vaccine Deaths!

In this article, I will go through some of their claims, and show you what the facts really are!

Fact #1 : Adverse Events Are Not Necessarily Vaccine Side Effects

First, let’s start with the fact that adverse events are not necessarily vaccine side effects.

Like with Pfizer, Moderna has to monitor for these adverse events, which are “unfavourable” or “unintended” events that happen after vaccination or taking a drug, like having an anaphylactic reaction or getting into a car accident.

All reported adverse events have to be investigated to find out if they are related (anaphylactic reaction) or not (getting into a car accident) to the vaccine or drug that was taken.

Even if an adverse event was “possibly caused” by the vaccine, it must still be confirmed that the vaccine directly caused it, because an anaphylactic reaction (for example) can also occur from a bee sting, or an existing peanut allergy.

Only once an adverse event is confirmed to be caused by the vaccine, is it then a vaccine side effect. Otherwise, it is merely an adverse event, not a side effect.

Fact #2 : Moderna Sponsored Trial, But Did Not Run It

It is important to point out that Moderna only sponsored and created the protocol (PDF download) for the Phase 3 clinical trial of its mRNA-1273 vaccine candidate for COVID-19. Moderna itself did not conduct the mRNA-1273 vaccine trial.

The Moderna mRNA-1273 Phase 3 clinical trial was conducted by CoVPN investigators funded by the Biomedical Advanced Research and Development Authority (BARDA) of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services’ Office of the Assistant Secretary for Preparedness and Response and NIAID.

Moderna is leading the trial as the regulatory sponsor and is providing the investigational vaccine for the trial. The Biomedical Advanced Research and Development Authority (BARDA) of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services’ Office of the Assistant Secretary for Preparedness and Response and NIAID are providing funding support for the trial.

The NIH Coronavirus Prevention Network (CoVPN) will participate in conducting the trial. The network brings together expertise from existing NIAID-supported clinical research networks. The mRNA-1273 vaccine candidate will be tested at approximately 89 clinical research sites in the United States, 24 of which are part of the CoVPN.

Hana M. El Sahly, M.D., principal investigator of the NIAID-funded Infectious Diseases Clinical Research Consortium site at Baylor College of Medicine in Houston; Lindsey R. Baden, M.D., principal investigator of the NIAID-funded Harvard HIV Vaccine Clinical Trials Unit at Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston; and Brandon Essink, M.D., principal investigator and medical director of Meridian Clinical Research, will serve as co-principal investigators for the Phase 3 trial of mRNA-1273.

Recommended : Why Adverse Events of Special Interest Are NOT Side Effects!

Fact #3 : Moderna Does Not Conduct Autopsies

Defending the Republic (DTR) – the NGO that obtained and released the Moderna documents highlighted that only two autopsies were performed even though 16 people died during the clinical trial.

Just to be clear – Moderna itself did not conduct the clinical trial. Therefore, it does not have any say on whether an autopsy should or should not be conducted.

In fact, it is likely that the attending doctors / hospitals were the ones deciding whether to conduct the autopsies, while study authors only collected the data. That’s why many of the deaths were listed with Unknown autopsies. If the study authors were the ones conducting the autopsies (and refusing to do so), they would have listed them as None.

As I will show you below, there is no evidence that the study authors deliberately refused to conduct autopsies or investigate suspicious deaths in the Moderna vaccine clinical trial.

Fact #4 : Half The Deaths Were On Placebo

Many of these articles pointed out that sixteen people who received the Moderna vaccine died. What they did not tell you is that sixteen other people who received the placebo also died. In other words, a total of 32 people died during the clinical trial – half received the vaccine, and half received the placebo.

While that sounds like a lot – I should point out that the Moderna mRNA-1273 Phase 3 clinical trial involved 30,420 volunteers, and ran for approximately 3 months.

The mortality rate in the US for 2021 was 879.7 per 100,000 people, so for those three months, we should expect 89 people to die out of those 30,420 participants. Yet only 32 people died. There is simply no evidence in the clinical trial’s data to show an increase in deaths from the Moderna vaccine.

Fact #4 : Subject US3292023 Died From Heart Failure

In its summary, DTR highlighted some of those suspicious deaths that lack an autopsy. Sounds suspicious, right? Not really, if you actually look at the Moderna documents.

The first case was Subject US3292023 – an 80 year-old White male who died on 23 January 2021 due to an Adverse Event, and his autopsy status was listed as None.

If you search through the Moderna document (PDF download), you will see that this sequence of reports:

  • He had history of significant cardiac disease and diabetes.
  • He received Dose 1 on 4 August 2020, and Dose 2 on 1 September 2020.
  • He reported no adverse effects from both vaccinations.
  • He suffered from diabetic ketoacidosis (serious complication from his existing diabetes) on 26 October 2020.
  • He suffered from End Stage Congestive Heart Failure on 23 January 2023.

I’m sure you can see why there was absolutely no need for anyone to conduct an autopsy on this man.

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

Fact #5 : Subject US3472001 Likely Died From Heart Attack

The second case was Subject US3472001 – a 70 year-old White male who died on 27 November 2020 due to an Adverse Event, and his autopsy status was listed as Unknown.

If you search through the Moderna document (PDF download), you will see that this sequence of reports:

  • He had history of significant cardiac disease and severe obesity.
  • He received Dose 1 on 31 August 2020, and Dose 2 on 1 October 2020.
  • He reported no adverse effects from both vaccinations.
  • He tested positive for Hepatitis C on 29 September 2020.
  • He suffered from a sudden fatal event, likely myocardial infarction on 27 November 2020.

It is unknown if an autopsy was conducted, but with a history of significant cardiac disease and severe obesity, it would not be surprising if the doctor / hospital did not bother to conduct an autopsy, especially during a pandemic that was straining doctors and hospital facilities.

Fact #6 : Subject US3512042 Died From Cardiac Arrest

The third case is Subject US3512042 – a 78 year-old White male who died on 1 September 2020 due to an Adverse Event, and his autopsy status was listed as Unknown.

If you search through the Moderna document (PDF download), you will see that this sequence of reports:

  • He received Dose 1 on 12 August 2020, but never received a second dose.
  • On 30 August 2020, he reported nausea and malaise.
  • On 31 August 2020, he vomited three times.
  • On 1 September 2020, he suffered from cardiopulmonary arrest and died.

It is unknown if an autopsy was conducted, but it is not uncommon for a 78 year-old man to die from cardiopulmonary arrest.

Fact #7 : Subject US3622169 Died From Metastatic Liver Cancer

The fourth case was Subject US3622169 – a 56 year-old White male who died on 21 January 2021 due to an Adverse Event, and his autopsy status was listed as Unknown.

If you search through the Moderna document (PDF download), you will see that this sequence of reports:

  • He had history of severe obesity and diabetes.
  • He received Dose 1 on 9 September 2020, and Dose 2 on 7 October 2020.
  • On 29 November 2020, he reported worsening dyspnea (breathing difficulties) with nasal congestion.
  • On 6 December 2020, he was diagnosed with pneumonia.
  • On 30 December 2020, he was diagnosed with metastatic hepatocellular carcinoma (metastatic liver cancer).
  • On 16 January 2021, he suffered sepsis and his metastatic liver cancer worsened, and he ultimately died on 21 January 2021.

Needless to say, there was simply no need to perform an autopsy, after confirming his metastatic liver cancer diagnosis.

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

Fact #8 : Subject US37012010 Died From COVID-19

The fifth case was Subject US3702010 – a 74 year-old Hispanic male who died on 25 February 2021 due to an Adverse Event, and his autopsy status was listed as Unknown.

If you search through the Moderna document (PDF download), you will see that this sequence of reports:

  • He had history of liver disease and HIV infection.
  • He received Dose 1 on 4 September 2020. He never received a second dose.
  • He complained of nausea issues on the same day, which resolved.
  • He complained of fatigue and pain of the injection site on 5 September 2020, which resolved.
  • He complained of fatigue again on 11 September 2020, which resolved.
  • He complained of lower abdominal pain on 23 October 2020, which resolved.
  • He got infected with COVID-19 on 1 January 2021, with diagnosis confirmed on 5 January 2021
  • On his last follow-up 175 days after his first dose, he was still suffering from COVID-19
  • He died from COVID-19 on 25 February 2021

I’m sure you can see why there was absolutely no need for anyone to conduct an autopsy on this man.

Fact #9 : Subject US3752173 Died From Heart Attack

The sixth case was Subject US3752173 – a 77 year-old American Indian / Alaskan native male who died on 1 November 2020 due to an Adverse Event, and his autopsy status was listed as None.

If you search through the Moderna document (PDF download), you will see that this sequence of reports:

  • He received Dose 1 on 20 August 2020, and Dose 2 on 18 September 2020.
  • He did not report any adverse events from both Moderna vaccine injections.
  • He suffered a myocardial infarction (heart attack) on 1 November 2020, and died from it.

Again, you can see why there was absolutely no need for anyone to conduct an autopsy on this man.

Fact #10 : Subject US3862141 Died From Cardiac Arrest

The seventh case was Subject US3862141 – a 72 year-old Asian male who died on 9 March 2021 due to an Adverse Event, and his autopsy status was listed as Unknown.

If you search through the Moderna document (PDF download), you will see that this sequence of reports:

  • He received Dose 1 on 8 September 2020, and Dose 2 on 6 October 2020.
  • He did not report any adverse effects from both vaccinations.
  • On 9 March 2021, he suffered from cardiopulmonary arrest and died.

It is unknown if an autopsy was conducted, but it is not uncommon for a 72 year-old man to die from cardiopulmonary arrest.

Recommended : Do COVID-19 Vaccines DOUBLE Heart Attack Risk?!

Fact #11 : Subject US3872318 Died From Suicide

The eighth case was Subject US3872318 – a 62 year-old White male who died on 16 September 2020 due to an Adverse Event, and his autopsy status was listed as None.

If you search through the Moderna document (PDF download), you will see that this sequence of reports:

  • He received Dose 1 on 27 August 2020, but never received a second dose.
  • He did not report any adverse effects from the first vaccination.
  • On 16 September 2020, he died after committing suicide.

Needless to say – an autopsy was completely unnecessary in this case.

Fact #12 : Subject US3872496 Died From Unknown Cause

The ninth case was Subject US3872496 – a 61 year-old Native Hawaiian / Pacific Islander male who died on 17 December 2020 due to an Adverse Event, and his autopsy status was listed as Unknown.

If you search through the Moderna document (PDF download), you will see that this sequence of reports:

  • He had history of severe obesity and diabetes.
  • He received Dose 1 on 9 September 2020, and Dose 2 on 9 October 2020.
  • He did not report any adverse effects from both vaccinations.
  • On 17 December 2020, he died but the details behind his death is unknown.

It is unknown how the man died, and unknown if an autopsy was conducted.

Fact #13 : Subject US3912024 Died From Organ Failure

The tenth case was Subject US3912024 – a 72 year-old White male who died on 22 November 2020 due to an Adverse Event, and his autopsy status was listed as None.

If you search through the Moderna document (PDF download), you will see that this sequence of reports:

  • He received Dose 1 on 28 August 2020, and Dose 2 on 24 September 2020.
  • On 31 October 2020, he was diagnosed with obstructing nephrolithiasis (kidney stones blocking the flow of urine).
  • On 3 November 2020, he was diagnosed with thrombocytopenia (low platelets), as well as acute renal failure, Klebsiella-complicated pyelonephritis (kidney infection), and atelectasis (collapse) of the lower lobes of both lungs.
  • On 8 November 2020, he was found to have ascites (intra-abdominal fluid), anasarca (severe, generalised accumulation of fluid in the interstitial space), and a perforated duodenal ulcer with bleeding.
  • On 15 November 2020, he was diagnosed with anaemia.
  • On 18 November 2020, the collapse of his lungs worsened and he developed pleural effusion (accumulation of fluid in the pleural cavity) as well.
  • On 20 November 2020, he died from multi-system organ failure and acute hypoxic respiratory failure.

Needless to say – an autopsy was also completely unnecessary in this case.

Recommended : Did Switzerland Just Stop All COVID-19 Vaccinations?!

Fact #14 : Subject US3932197 Died From Unknown Cause

The eleventh case was Subject US3932197 – a 37 year-old Black female who died on 13 March 2021 due to an Adverse Event, and her autopsy status was listed as None.

If you search through the Moderna document (PDF download), you will see that this sequence of reports:

  • She received Dose 1 on 26 September 2020, and Dose 2 on 27 October 2020.
  • On 13 March 2021, she died, but her cause of death was unknown.

In this case, an autopsy might be warranted. However, that is impossible to determine, because we do not know the circumstances behind her death – she could have died from any number of causes – an accident, suicide, a fall, a surgical procedure, an infection, etc.

Fact #15 : Subject US3962094 Died From Suicide

The twelfth case was Subject US3962094 – a 56 year-old White female who died on 15 October 2020 due to an Adverse Event, and her autopsy status was listed as None.

If you search through the Moderna document (PDF download), you will see that this sequence of reports:

  • She had history of severe obesity.
  • She received Dose 1 on 9 September 2020, but never received a second dose.
  • On 12 September 2020, she was diagnosed with high triglycerides
  • On 7 October 2020, she suffered from acid reflux.
  • On 15 October 2020, she fell and died from head trauma.

Needless to say – an autopsy was also completely unnecessary in this case.

Fact #16 : Subject US3972010 Is Pending Autopsy

The thirteenth case was Subject US3972010 – a 27 year-old Black male who died on 8 January 2021 due to an Adverse Event, and his autopsy status was listed as Unknown.

If you search through the Moderna document (PDF download), you will see that this sequence of reports:

  • He received Dose 1 on 24 August 2020, and Dose 2 on 21 September 2020.
  • He did not report any adverse effects from both vaccinations.
  • On 8 January 2021, he died but the details behind his death is unknown, pending an autopsy.

It is unknown how the man died, but in this case, an autopsy was conducted.

Recommended : Did Moderna CEO Know Pandemic Was Coming?!

Fact #17 : Subject US3972045 Likely Died From Heart Disease

The last case was Subject US3972045 – a 62 year-old White male who died on 3 December 2020 due to an Adverse Event, and his autopsy status was listed as Unknown.

If you search through the Moderna document (PDF download), you will see that this sequence of reports:

  • He had history of diabetes.
  • He received Dose 1 on 27 August 2020, and Dose 2 on 24 September 2020.
  • He did not report any adverse effects from both vaccinations.
  • On 21 October 2021, he was diagnosed with diabetic gastroparesis – delayed stomach emptying due to diabetes.
  • On 3 December 2020, he died from a suspected coronary artery disease – a complication of his diabetes mellitus.

It is unknown if an autopsy was conducted, but it is not uncommon for a 62 year-old man to die from heart disease.

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

Don’t forget to protect yourself, and your family, by vaccinating against COVID-19!

 

Please Support My Work!

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

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

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

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

 

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!

Stevens-Johnson Syndrome From Vaccine Risk Explained!

Should you be alarmed about a reported 7X increase in Stevens-Johnson Syndrome / toxic epidermal necrolysis from COVID-19 and the vaccine?!

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

 

Claim : Alarming 7X Increase In Stevens-Johnson Syndrome Linked To COVID-19 And Vaccine!

People are sharing an Epoch Times article, claiming that it is evidence that the COVID-19 vaccine can cause the dangerous Stevens-Johnson Syndrome (SJS) or toxic epidermal necrolysis (TEN)!

Here is an excerpt of the Epoch Times article. Feel free to skip to the next section for the facts:

‘Alarming’ Sevenfold Increase in Steven-Johnson Syndrome Linked to COVID-19 and Vaccine

A sudden increase in Stevens-Johnson syndrome (SJS)—a rare and potentially fatal skin disorder—may be triggered by COVID-19, increased vaccination rates, or a lowered threshold caused by vaccines or previous infection, according to a large case series recently published in Burns.

Recommended : Died Suddenly : Anti-Vaccination Movie Lies Exposed!

 

Stevens-Johnson Syndrome May Be Linked To COVID-19 And Vaccine

In this article, I will go through the Epoch Times article, and share with you what the facts really are!

Fact #1 : Stevens-Johnson Syndrome Is An Immune System Disorder

First, let’s start with a quick overview of Stevens-Johnson Syndrome (SJS), and toxic epidermal necrolysis (TEN).

Both SJS and TEN are severe skin reactions caused by the body’s own immune system. They are classified as part of the same disease spectrum, with SJS being less severe (<10% body surface affected) and TEN being the most severe form (>30% body surface affected).

SJS / TEN usually occurs as a reaction to new medication or infection, with genetic factors making some people more vulnerable than others. It progresses fairly quickly:

  1. It usually starts with a fever, sore throat, cough and burning eyes for the first 1-3 days
  2. Then you may feel widespread skin pain, and a red or purple rash develops and spreads
  3. You will start to get blisters on your skin, and the ulcers of the mucous membranes of the mouth, nose, eyes, and genitals
  4. The affected areas of your skin will start to blister, and eventually peel off

However, recovery takes much longer – skin regrowth takes 2-3 weeks, and full recovery often takes several months.

SJS has a mortality rate of about 5%, but TEN which has greater skin involvement has a mortality rate of 30% to 40%. So this is indeed a very serious disorder.

Fact #2 : Case Report Only Identified Possible Associations

The Epoch Times article is based on a case report published online in the journal Burns, called The seven-fold rise in incidence of Stevens-Johnson syndrome & toxic epidermal necrolysis: Associations with COVID-19 and the vaccine.

It is currently listed as an Uncorrected Proof, which means it still needs to be “proof-read and corrected by the author(s)”. But I personally don’t see anything troubling in the article – it is a case report and discussion on the 7X increase in SJS / TEN cases the authors saw in their hospital.

However, I should point out that this case report only refers to SJS / TEN cases seen in one hospital – the Concord Repatriation General Hospital in Sydney, Australia. That does not mean there is something wrong with the case report. It only means that this is one case report. More research is required before any association can be made.

The authors specifically pointed out that their study only identified three “theories” and “possible associations” for future research to look into:

This study identifies possible associations between COVID, the vaccine and the development of SJS/TEN.

We propose three theories for this seven-fold increase in case number; a virus induced, a vaccine induced and a threshold lowering pathway.

We advise future research investigates the impact viruses such as SARS-COV-2 have on immune mediated diseases such as SJS/TEN.

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

Fact #3 : COVID-19 / Vaccine-Related SJS Only Increased By 2.67X

As Stevens-Johnson Syndrome is triggered by a new medication or infection, it is definitely possible for a COVID-19 infection, or vaccine, to cause it. However, it is important to note that SJS / TEN develops soon after the person gets infected, or receives the medication / vaccine.

That’s why the study authors look specifically at just 8 cases (out of 14) where the patients recently had a COVID-19 infection, or received a COVID-19 vaccine. The other 6 cases were not mentioned because they were likely caused by something else.

Because only those 8 cases were deemed to be potentially associated with COVID-19 or the vaccine, the actual increase over the baseline average of 3 cases for that hospital was 2.67x higher than normal, not 7X.

Fact #4 : SJS Risk Appears Higher For COVID-19 Infections

When we look at the breakdown of the eight patients whose SJS / TEN could have been caused by either COVID-19 infection or vaccine:

  • five patients had COVID-19 in the preceding month
  • three patients received a COVID-19 vaccine in the preceding month

Even if we assume that the SJS / TEN of all eight patients were indeed caused by COVID-19 or the vaccine, the results suggest that you are 33% more likely to get SJS / TEN with a COVID-19 infection, than with a COVID-19 vaccine.

  • COVID-19 infection : 2.67X risk over baseline
  • COVID-19 vaccine : 2X risk over baseline

Fact #5 : SJS / TENS Risk Is Still Very Low

Whether the risk of developing Stevens-Johnson Syndrome from a COVID-19 vaccine increases by 7X or just 2X, the risk is still very low.

By the end of 2022, New South Wales vaccinated over 6.5 million people. Taking into account that just three SJS / TENS cases were linked to the COVID-19 vaccine that year, the risk is only about 1 in 2.17 million!

Even if you assume that all 14 SJS / TEN cases (instead of just 3) were caused by the vaccine, that works out to just 1 in 464,286 vaccinated people. Still very rare.

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

Fact #6 : Unvaccinated People Have Developed SJS / TENS

The Epoch Times article took pains to point out that “Not a single case of SJS/TEN was reported in an unvaccinated individual.” That’s not surprising because 95% of New South Wales residents were fully-vaccinated by that point in time!

It would be wrong to believe that being unvaccinated means your risk of developing SJS / TEN is zero. Before COVID-19 vaccines were administered, doctors have already reported cases of Stevens-Johnson syndrome in unvaccinated COVID-19 patients:

And I should point out that before the COVID-19 pandemic, the incidence for people who never got infected or vaccinated was:

  • Stevens-Johnson syndrome : 1.6 cases per million people per year
  • Toxic epidermal necrolysis : 9.2 cases per million people per year

In other words, New South Wales alone would normally see about 13 cases of SJS, and 75 cases of TENS per year, before the COVID-19 pandemic and the vaccine!

Fact #7 : Risk Of SJS / TENS Much Higher With COVID-19 Infection

A December 2022 review looked at 34 published cases of SJS and TEN developing after COVID-19 infection and vaccination – 12 cases after vaccination, and 22 cases after infection.

Based on their review of the multiple case reports, their tally shows that the risk of getting SJS / TEN from a COVID-19 infection is 4-10X higher than the risk of getting it from any COVID-19 vaccine!

Fact #8 : Underreporting Of SJS / TEN Is Very Unlikely

While the Australian study never once mentioned VAERS (which is an American reporting system), the Epoch Times article took pains to claim that “historically, VAERS has been shown to report fewer than 1 percent of actual vaccine adverse events, which means other cases of SJS/TEN may have occurred but were unreported.

That “less than 1 percent” claim was based on a very old 2011 report (PDF download) on improving vaccine adverse event reporting to VAERS, based on data collected from June 2006 to October 2009. Needless to say – VAERS has improved significantly in the last 14 years!

More importantly, Stevens-Johnson syndrome is such a severe and traumatising event for both doctor and patient, it is extremely unlikely to go unreported or under-reported.

Many people will probably not bother to report adverse events like muscle ache or a fever after getting the COVID-19 vaccine, but you can be sure they will rush to the hospital once their skin starts peeling off!

Fact #9 : The Epoch Times Appears To Be Promoting This

Interestingly, the Urchin Tracking Module (UTM) parameters at the end of some of these links suggest that The Epoch Times may be promoting the article through certain partners. For example:

The Chief Nerd
utm_source = partner

utm_campaign = TheChiefNerd

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!

Did Elton John Ban US Over Anti-Grooming Laws?!

Did Elton John stop performing in the United States due to its anti-grooming laws?!

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

 

Claim : Elton John Bans US Over Anti-Grooming Laws!

People are sharing an Epoch Times article, as evidence that Elton John singled out anti-grooming laws as the reason why he will no longer perform in the United States.

Dr. Anastasia Maria Loupis : Elton John Singles Out Anti-Grooming Laws as Why He’s Done Performing in the US. Lol. Bye.

Laurence Fox : Elton John Singles Out Anti-Grooming Laws as Why He’s Done Performing in the US.

If he walks like a groomer, talks like a groomer, adopts two boys and parades them around with husband and lover-s in tow, he is a… #TinyGroomer

Recommended : Did These Famous People Mock God And Die?!

 

Truth : Elton John Did Not Ban US Over Anti-Grooming Laws!

This is yet another example of FAKE NEWS created about the LGBTQIA community, and here are the reasons why…

Fact #1 : Elton John Does Not Want Another US Residency

Let me just start by pointing out that Elton John never said that he will no longer perform in the United States, after his farewell tour ends.

In his interview with Radio Times, what Elton John said was that he still plans to continue performing after his three-year Farewell Yellow Brick Road tour ends. He was interested in a residency – playing at a single venue, but not in the United States of America.

I said when I announced the farewell tour that maybe I would do a residency like Kate Bush did at Hammersmith [in 2014]. But not in America. I will not do it in America.

But that’s in the long term. I don’t want to think about the stage – I’ve been on it since I was 17.

In other words, Elton John does not intend to go back for a third Las Vegas residency. As his husband and manager, David Furnish explained:

Will Elton return as a live performer? I hope so! It’s in his blood…

I know for a fact he will not be touring in any capacity. What you’re going to see is the possibility of a special one-off or a small residency in one venue for a limited period of time.

I don’t think it will be Las Vegas. Elton feels he’s done the best he can in Las Vegas. He mounted two hugely successful residencies there.

When you’re an artist and something’s in your blood, you don’t want to shut the door completely.

Fact #2 : Elton John Dislikes Violence + Discrimination In America

Elton John has been outspoken about what he dislikes about America – violence and discriminatory laws. However, he has never been against any anti-grooming law, as claimed.

It is odd that the Epoch Times article cut off part of Elton John’s quote, where the 76 year-old singer pointed out the discriminatory law in Florida where a doctor can refuse to treat a gay patient.

Here was what Elton John said in full, with the part that was cut out in the Epoch Times article in bold:

It’s all going pear-shaped in America. There’s violence, [discriminatory] laws enacted in Florida, which are disgraceful. There’s a law now that, if you visit a doctor in Florida, they can refuse to treat you if you’re gay, which I find just unbelievable.

We seem to be going backwards. And that spreads. It’s like a virus that the LGBTQ+ movement is suffering.

It’s amazing how the narrative changes when such a large part of what Elton John said was cut out. Perhaps that was precisely why it was cut out…

Recommended : Did Beyonce Flash Her Fans At Paris Concert?!

Fact #3 : HB 1557 Is The Anti-Grooming Bill

The Epoch Times article then talks about House Bill 1557 (HB 1557 : Parental Rights in Education), which regulates public schools in Florida.

This is the so-called “Anti-Grooming Bill“, which prohibits public schools from discussing or teaching students about sexual orientation or gender identity, from kindergarten up to grade three.

Presumably, Florida lawmakers believe that teaching children about gender identity and sexual orientation is how children are groomed into accepting sexual abuse. As Christina Pushaw – the press secretary of Florida Governor Ron DeSantis, explained:

The bill that liberals inaccurately call “Don’t Say Gay” would be more accurately described as an Anti-Grooming Bill.

If you’re against the Anti-Grooming Bill, you are probably a groomer or at least you don’t denounce the grooming of 4-8 year old children.

Fact #4 : Elton John Referred To SB 1580, Not HB 1557

Elton John never mentioned any Florida law concerning children, education, or public schools in his interview with Radio Times.

He only referred to a completely different Florida law – SB 1580 : Protections of Medical Conscience Bill, which allows healthcare providers and insurers to deny patient care based on religious, moral or ethical beliefs.

This SB 1580 law has absolutely nothing to do with children or their education, which is covered by the completely different HB 1557 law (see above).

So why did The Epoch Times bring up HB 1557 (the so-called Anti-Grooming Bill), which Elton John never mentioned in his interview? Misunderstanding? Misdirection? Misinterpretation? Misinformation?

But if Elton John did not bring up HB 1557, then how can anyone claim that he singled out “anti-grooming laws” as the reason why he will no longer perform in the US?

Fact #5 : Elton John Wanted To Spend More Time With His Family

Even more oddly, The Epoch Times article ended by pointing out that Elton John does not want to do a residency in the United States because he wanted to spend more time with his husband and children in Britain!

This completely contradicts the same article’s earlier claim that Elton John is refusing to perform in the US because of its “anti-grooming laws”! It is as if the article was written by two different people, or an AI chatbot!

In any case, the last sentence in The Epoch Time article completely refutes the premise of its title and earlier claim:

According to representatives for John, his reason for that is the same one behind his decision to stop touring—that he wants to spend more time with his husband and children in Britain.

If you are into soccer, this is what is known as an “own goal”…

Recommended : Did Lady Gaga Just Lose 300K Fans Over Pfizer Ad?!

Fact #6 : This Is Just Epoch Times Misinformation

The Epoch Times, which is affiliated with the Falun Gong religious movement, is notorious for pushing out conspiracy theories and misinformation. Here are just some of their “work” that I fact checked:

Fact #7 : The Epoch Times Appears To Be Promoting It

Interestingly, the Urchin Tracking Module (UTM) parameters at the end of some of these links suggest that The Epoch Times may be promoting the article through certain partners. For example:

Dr. Anastasia Maria Loupis
utm_source = partner
utm_campaign = DrLoupis

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 | CelebrityTech ARP

 

Support Tech ARP!

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

Fact Check : Sasha Latypova Vax Claims On Epoch TV

Pharma insider Sasha Latypova claimed on Epoch TV that the COVID-19 pandemic was a military operation that allowed dangerous vaccines to be given to people!

Let’s take a look at her claims, and find out what the facts really are!

 

What Sasha Latypova Claimed On Epoch TV

People are sharing a Twitter video by Jan Jekielek on Epoch TV, which highlights the opinions of a “pharma insider” called Sasha Latypova. Here is a transcript of the video:

American Though Leaders : PHARMA INSIDER SPEAKS OUT

Jan Jekielek also posted this claim in his Twitter post promoting the Epoch TV video:

Databases such as VAERS, Yellow Card, & EudraVigiliance showed huge numbers of adverse events shortly after the COVID vaccine was rolled out, yet the gov’t denied it & “continues denying to this day,” argues @sasha_latypova.

Recommended : Did four SIA pilots die suddenly from vaccine in May?!

 

My Fact Check Of Sasha Latypova Claims On Epoch TV

This is yet another example of FAKE NEWS about the COVID-19 pandemic and the COVID-19 vaccines, and here are the reasons why…

Fact #1 : Sasha Latypova Did Not Work For Big Pharma

Since Sasha Latypova is being promoted as a pharma insider / whistleblower, I wondered which Big Pharma company she worked for. However, according to her own LinkedIn profile, she never worked in one?

1997 – 1999 : Graduated with MBA from The Tuck School of Business at Dartmouth

March 2006 – October 2016 : Co-Founder and Executive VP of iCardiac Technologies, Inc.

December 2014 to present : Co-Founder, Executive VP and Director of Clerio Vision, Inc.

As far as I can tell – Sasha Latypova does not have any medical training, or experience with vaccines. It also looks like she never worked for any of the Big Pharma companies. How does that make her a “pharma insider” or a “pharma whistleblower”?

Fact #2 : COVID-19 Pandemic Was Not A Military Operation

Sasha Latypova claimed on Epoch TV that the COVID-19 pandemic was really a military operation, but offered no evidence.

The scientific community is still uncertain whether the initial COVID-19 outbreak occurred because of an accidental release in a Chinese laboratory, or happened naturally through close contact with an infected animal.

But there is ZERO evidence that it was intentionally released in Wuhan in a US military operation, as promoted by pro-CCP netizens and the Chinese 50 Cent Army (wumao, 五毛) .

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

Fact #3 : VAERS / Yellow Card / EudraVigilance Data Are Unverified

Sasha Latypova is repeating the old debunked claim that the VAERS / Yellow Card / EudraVigilance data show that the COVID-19 vaccines have many more adverse events than all other vaccines combined.

The truth is – VAERS / Yellow Card / EudraVigilance data are all unverified, and may contain duplicated information. That’s why they are all prefaced with warnings like:

  • they may contain duplicated information and/or reports
  • the reported event may be caused by an illness, like a COVID-19 infection for example,
  • the reported event may be caused by a different drug taken by the patient at the same time
  • they have not been assessed by health authorities to ascertain if it’s even “biologically plausible”

In addition, open systems like VAERS, or the UK Yellow Card system, are very susceptible to abuse because they allow anyone from anywhere to post anything they want, without evidence or verification.

Anti-vaccination activists can, for example, key in unlimited numbers of adverse reaction reports, even if they never received a single dose of the COVID-19 vaccine!

Fact #4 : US Government Did Not Commandeer Big Pharma

The US government did not commandeer pharmaceutical companies to produce COVID-19 vaccines. Sasha Latypova did not offer any evidence to back up that claim, or explain what she meant.

But if she was referring to Operation Warp Speed (OWS), that was a public-private partnership to accelerate the development, manufacturing and distribution of COVID-19 vaccines, therapeutics and diagnostics.

The US government did not commandeer any pharmaceutical company to produce vaccines. Its role was limited, primarily, to funding vaccine companies to a tune of some $11 billion. But it was not mandatory. Pfizer – a major COVID-19 vaccine manufacturer, declined to participate in Operation Warp Speed.

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

Fact #5 : COVID-19 Vaccines Were Compliant + Approved

Sasha Latypova claimed that the pharmaceutical companies were producing non-compliant injectables, probably referring to the COVID-19 vaccines.

That would not be accurate, as the COVID-19 vaccines underwent large clinical trials and were proven to be safe and effective, before receiving their Emergency Use Authorisation. Hence, all approved COVID-19 vaccines are compliant with FDA or other regulatory bodies.

Even after mass vaccinations began, the approved COVID-19 vaccines continued to be monitored for months, and eventually received their full FDA approvals.

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

 

Please Support My Work!

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

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

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

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

 

Recommended Reading

Go Back To > Fact Check | Health | Tech ARP

 

Support Tech ARP!

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

Is Biden Admin signing over US sovereignty to WHO?!

Is the Biden Administration negotiating to sign over US sovereignty to the World Health Organization (WHO)?!

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

 

Claim : Biden Admin Is Going To Sign Over US Sovereignty To WHO!

People are sharing an article by The Epoch Times, which claims that the Biden Administration is negotiating a deal to give WHO authority over US pandemic policies!

Here is an excerpt of the very long article, so please feel free to skip to the next section for the facts!

The Biden administration is preparing to sign up the United States to a “legally binding” accord with the World Health Organization (WHO) that would give the Geneva-based United Nations health agency the authority to dictate America’s policies during a pandemic.

Despite widespread criticism of the WHO’s response to the COVID pandemic, U.S. Health and Human Services Secretary Xavier Becerra joined with WHO Director-General Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus in September 2022 to announce “the U.S.-WHO Strategic Dialogue.” Together, they developed a “platform to maximize the longstanding U.S.–WHO partnership, and to protect and promote the health of all people around the globe, including the American people.”

 

Truth : Biden Admin Is NOT Going To Sign Over US Sovereignty To WHO!

This is yet another example of FAKE NEWS about the Biden Administration, and the WHO, and here are the reasons why…

Fact #1 : WHO Member States Want To Better Prepare For Future Pandemics

This claim is based on WHO member state discussions in 2022, to amend 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 #2 : 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 #3 : Biden Administration Does Not Want A Binding Agreement

The European Union proposed that the changes be adopted in the form of a new treaty, a measure backed by Britain, Indonesia and Kenya, among other countries.

Despite what people are claiming on social media, the United States 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 : Did Joe Biden Fire Over 200 Marines For Not Taking Vaccine?!

Fact #4 : Future WHO Agreement May Not Be Binding

The zero draft of the proposed WHO agreement on preparing for future pandemics was released on 1 February 2023, and was the focus of the article by The Epoch Times.

If you download and read the zero draft, you will realise that the WHO is still calling it a “convention, agreement, or other international instruments“, clearly showing that member countries have not decided whether they want it to be binding or otherwise.

In the third point noted on the very first page of the draft, it was even pointed out that this is just a draft that is being used for “commencing negotiations“, and that “nothing is agreed until everything is agreed“.

 The INB (Intergovernmental Negotiating Body) further agreed that the zero draft would be considered at its fourth meeting as a basis for commencing negotiations at that meeting, it being understood that the zero draft will be without prejudice to the position of any delegation and following the principle that “nothing is agreed until everything is agreed”. 

So it is ludicrous for anyone who read the first page of the zero draft to claim that the Biden Administration is planning to sign away US sovereignty to the WHO.

Fact #5 : Zero Draft Specifically Addressed Sovereignty

The zero draft 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.

Recommended : Did WHO Boss Dr. Tedros Refuse COVID-19 Vaccine?!

Fact #6 : 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.

Fact #6 : WHO Treaty Cannot Bypass US Senate Ratification

The claim that the Biden Administration is using the WHO treaty to bypass US senate ratification is nonsense.

The US Constitution gives the Senate the sole power to approve, by a two-thirds vote or more, all international treaties (binding agreements) negotiated by the executive branch.

[The President] shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur;

In other words, the Biden Administration can negotiate any agreement it wants with other WHO member countries, but it must still seek ratification by the two-thirds of the US Senate.

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!

Kaden Clymer : 6-Foot Blood Clot NOT From Vaccine!

Did high school athlete Kaden Clymer get a career-ending 6 foot long blood clot in his leg from the COVID-19 vaccine?!

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

 

Claim : Kaden Clymer Got 6-Foot Blood Clot From Vaccine!

Anti-vaccination activists, including the Gateway Pundit and Epoch Times websites, are promoting the story about a high school athlete called Kaden Clymer who was forced to end his football career after doctors found a 6 foot long clot in his leg.

They are claiming or suggesting that the super-long blood clot came from COVID-19 vaccines :

Think the stories of “unusual” blood clots is just wild “conspiracy theories”? Most of these examples die, but meet Kaden Clymer, a high school football player who, although his football playing days are over, lived through it

This is a heartbreaking story which begs a very big question. Could you please follow up w/ Kaden & ask him if he received the covid injection, when, which, batch/lot; whether his drs are looking into that & if he has filed a VAERS report? We need brave journalists to ‘go there’

My friend and colleague Meredith McBride, M.D., is a vascular surgeon. In her long and successful career in medicine she has never seen anything like this before. This is new, Dr. McBride posted on social media. “This is not normal.”

We know from a new peer-reviewed article that 94 percent of the blood of people who had COVID-19 vaccines and a subsequent illness displayed unusual clotting formations. You can read that science article here. Or read my Epoch Times article, with Dr. Joe Wang, about that article here.

 

Truth : Kaden Clymer Did Not Get Blood Clot From Vaccine!

It’s becoming a tradition for anti-vaccination activists to immediately blame all athlete deaths or injuries on the COVID-19 vaccine.

This is yet another example of FAKE NEWS created and propagated by anti-vaccination activists, and here are the reasons why… and the current facts that we know so far.

Fact #1 : Kaden Clymer Has Inferior Vena Cava Atresia

On August 1, 2022, Kaden Clymer had severe pain in his back and legs. When his father took him to the Toledo Children’s Hospital emergency room, his calves were swollen by about 4 inches.

Doctors confirmed that he had blood clots in both legs, and surgeons later removed about 6 feet of blood clots from both of his legs.

It was then that doctors confirmed that Kaden was suffering from a rare condition called Inferior Vena Cava Atresia (IVCA) – in which there is a complete or partial absence of the inferior vena cava blood vessel.

It would be truly shocking if any vascular surgeon never heard of IVCA, and actually thinks “this is new“. Such surgeons would do well to read about this 2015 IVCA case, for example.

Fact #2 : Inferior Vena Cava Atresia Causes Blood Clots

While not directly life-threatening, IVCA greatly increases the risk of developing blood clots that cause intense pain and swelling of the legs. These blood clots can also cause pulmonary embolism, if pieces break off and travel to the lungs.

That is why Kaden Clymer now receives daily injections of blood thinners, as his mother shared:

He gets shots in his stomach every day, twice a day, which is not something fun. I don’t enjoy giving them to him and I know he doesn’t like getting them. Yet, he does it with a smile and we appreciate that. It could’ve been so much worse.

In short, his blood clots had NOTHING to do with the COVID-19 vaccine.

Fact #3 : Kaden Clymer Was Not Vaccinated + Never Had COVID-19

Kaden’s sister, McKayla, spoke out against those claims, stating that he was never vaccinated against COVID-19, and he never contracted COVID-19.

She also confirmed that Kaden was born without the Inferior Vena Cava (IVC), and that was the cause of his blood clots :

Kaden clymer is my brother. He was never vaccinated or had Covid. You can’t argue with facts. Kaden was born without his ivc vein which caused his bloodclots.

Fact #4 : Gateway Pundit + Epoch Times Spread Fake News

Both the Gateway Pundit and Epoch Times are notorious for creating and spreading FAKE NEWS about COVID-19 and vaccines.

Everything they post should be considered FALSE, until proven otherwise. Here are some of their articles that I debunked in the past :

Fact #5 : COVID-19 Vaccines Proven Safe + Effective

COVID-19 vaccines underwent massive clinical trials, and were only approved after they were proven to be safe and effective.

In addition, they were constantly monitored after they received their approvals, which picked up rare side effects after they were administered to billions of people.

Anti-vaccination activists have often claimed that those who received the vaccine would die. Yet, the opposite was true – the vaccines are not only safe, they are effective in protecting people from getting hospitalised or dying from COVID-19.

Even prominent antivaxxer Steve Kirsch is healthy and well, despite being fully-vaccinated against COVID-19!

Read more : Antivax Steve Kirsch Admits He’s Fully-Vaccinated!

Fact #6 : Claims Of Athletes Dying From COVID-19 Vaccine Proven False

This is yet another example of anti-vaccination activists abusing athlete deaths / injuries to create and propagate FAKE NEWS about the safety and efficacy of COVID-19 vaccines.

So far, claims of athlete deaths / injuries due to the COVID-19 vaccine have been proven false at every instance.

Will these anti-vaccination activists apologise for lying to you? Nope! They will just move on to the next athlete tragedy…

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!

Pfizer Hired 1,800 To Process 158K Vaccine Reports?!

A Pfizer document showed that they hired 600 to 1,800 extra staff to process over 158,000 vaccine adverse event reports!

Find out if it’s really something to worry about!

 

Pfizer Hired 600 To 1,800 Staff To Process 158K Vaccine Reports?

The Epoch Times joined Children’s Health Defense (CHD) in “revisiting” the bombshell Pfizer document with the infamous 9 pages of adverse events.

This time, they claim to have discovered that Pfizer hired 600 to 1,800 extra full-time employees just to process 158,000 vaccine adverse event reports!

It’s a long post, so feel free to skip to the next section for the truth…

Pfizer Hired 600 Employees Due To ‘Large Increase of Adverse Event Reports’

Pfizer hired 600 employees in the months after its COVID-19 vaccine was authorized in the United States due to the “large increase” of reports of side effects linked to the vaccine, according to a document prepared by the company.

Pfizer has “taken a multiple actions to help alleviate the large increase of adverse event reports,” according to the document. “This includes significant technology enhancements, and process and workflow solutions, as well as increasing the number of data entry and case processing colleagues.”

 

Pfizer Hired 1,800 To Process 158K Vaccine Reports! Should We Worry?

The Epoch Times tries to frame their coverage as somewhat neutral, but it’s not only somewhat inaccurate, it’s also misleading.

Let’s take a look at the facts…

Fact #1 : FDA Released Document On 17 November 2021

The Epoch Times claimed that the “document was not made public until the Public Health and Medical Professionals for Transparency sued the FDA“.

That’s factually untrue, as the FDA released that particular document on 17 November 2021, in the very first batch of documents released to PHMPT.

Notably, this document was amongst five batches of documents the FDA released to the PHMPT before the court ruling.

Fact #2 : FDA Could Have Delivered Documents Within 6 Years

All FOIA requests to the FDA are processed by their Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research (CBER) – a small department with just ten employees, of which only seven people are trained to process FOIA requests.

The FDA has to process 400 other pending requests, not just the PHMPT. So it has a long-standing policy to process FOIA requests in 500-page blocks.

The FDA asked PHMPT to narrow their request by specifying records they don’t require, so they can focus on processing the important documents they need.

The PHMPT, however, insisted that the FDA process and deliver ALL documents related to the approval of the Pfizer COVID-19 vaccine – some 329,000 pages!

Their ridiculous request, which included irrelevant documents, would therefore take 75 years IF one assumes that the FDA is capable of only 500 pages a month.

But see – the FDA actually said that they process in blocks of 500 pages, not 500 pages a month. In fact, they were able to deliver 12,000 pages in January 2022 alone.

On average, they were processing close to 5,000 pages per month for the PHMPT, which would mean that they could have finished delivering all 329,000 pages in 5.5 years.

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

Fact #3 : There Were Only Three New Pieces Of Information

Next, I should point out that the FDA only redacted three pieces of information in that “bombshell” Pfizer document (highlighted in red) :

  • To date, Pfizer has onboarded approximately 600 additional full time employees (FTEs).
  • More are joining each month with an expected total of more than 1,800 additional resources by the end of June 2021.
  • It is estimated that approximately 126,212,580 doses of BNT162b2 were shipped worldwide from the receipt of the first temporary authorisation for emergency supply on 01 December 2020 through 28 February 2021.

That’s it. Nothing else was redacted in the original release. Not even the 9 pages of 1,291 adverse events of special interest.

Even without the actual figures, you can already tell from the original (redacted) document that Pfizer was increasing manpower to cope with an unexpected amount of adverse event reports.

Fact #4 : Nothing Shocking Hiring 1800 Extra Employees

The Epoch Times seem to think that it’s shocking that Pfizer hired 600 to 1800 extra employees to process the adverse event reports. What exactly is shocking about that?

As Pfizer explained in Page 6, they increased the number of full-time employees to ensure that all adverse events would be expeditiously processed.

What would be really shocking is if Pfizer tried to delay processing these adverse event reports, by refusing to hire more people.

I’m shocked that The Epoch Times was shocked that Pfizer would do the right thing by increasing manpower to expeditiously process these adverse event reports.

Would the CHD really prefer that Pfizer not increase manpower, and slow-walk the adverse event reports? That would be shocking indeed…

Fact #5 : More Shots, More Publicity = More Adverse Events

The Epoch Times stated that adverse event reports to VAERS “spiked since the vaccines were first cleared“, demonstrating their shocking ignorance after more than a year of public vaccinations.

The number of reported adverse events increases with the number of vaccine doses administered, and with the amount of publicity about potential side effects.

In fact, the adverse event reports are far more likely to be exaggerated, due to the overwhelming amount of public misinformation on the Internet.

In Page 5 of the document, Pfizer themselves pointed out that “the spontaneous reporting system yields reporting proportions not incidence rate“, and is influenced by “awareness” and “litigation“.

In other words, the high number of adverse event reports is likely due to the overwhelming amount of trepidation (and potentially abuse) driven by public misinformation.

Due to greater “awareness”, more people are reporting adverse events to open reporting systems like VAERS and Yellow Card, even if they are unrelated to the vaccine.

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

Fact #6 : 42,000 Adverse Event Reports Are Not Shocking

While Pfizer may have been caught off-guard by the number of reported adverse events, having 42,000 people reporting some sort of adverse event to open reporting systems isn’t shocking.

The same Pfizer document pointed out that 126 million doses were delivered. Even if just half were administered, that would mean that only 0.068% of vaccine recipients reported any adverse event.

Because vaccines, by nature, trigger our immune system to react to antigens and produce antibodies, they cause side effects like fever, muscle ache, headache, etc. in almost everyone.

You would expect millions of people to report them as as adverse events. But only 42,086 people actually did.

Even if we assume all of those 42,086 reports were genuine, and not falsely reported, that’s hardly shocking.

Fact #7 : Adverse Events Are Not Vaccine Side Effects

As Pfizer noted in Page 6, the large number of adverse event reports (AERs) do not necessarily mean that they are actually caused by the vaccine.

In fact, open reporting systems like VAERS and Yellow Card are notably open to abuse, and false reporting.

That’s why all reported adverse events must be investigated to find out if they are caused by the vaccine (anaphylactic reaction), or not (getting into a car accident).

Even if an adverse event could “potentially” be caused by the vaccine, it must still be confirmed that the vaccine directly caused it, because an anaphylactic reaction (for example) can also occur from a bee sting, or an existing peanut allergy.

Only once an adverse event is confirmed to be caused by the vaccine, is it then a vaccine side effect. Otherwise, it is merely an adverse event, not a side effect.

In other words – the adverse events in the Pfizer vaccine document are not vaccine side effects, until proven otherwise.

Read more : Why Adverse Events of Special Interest Are NOT Side Effects!

Fact #8 : Majority Of Adverse Events Were Not Serious

What the Epoch Times did not mention is that the majority of reported adverse events were not serious. In fact, they were what you would expect from ANY vaccination :

  • Headache : 24.1%
  • Fever : 18.2%
  • Fatigue : 17.4%
  • Chills : 13.1%
  • Vaccination site pain : 12.3%
  • Nausea : 12.3%
  • Myalgia (muscle pain) : 11.7%

And that’s before any effort was even made to determine if they were actually caused by the vaccine, and not caused by a concomitant infection or pre-existing disease, for example.

Fact #9 : No New Safety Concerns Despite 158K Adverse Event Reports

Despite 42,086 people reporting over 158 thousand adverse events, Pfizer’s investigation showed that the “data do not reveal any novel safety concerns or risks“.

Pfizer could only confirm that anaphylaxis is an important risk of the COMIRNATY vaccine.

In other words – the 158K adverse events were weighed, measured… and found wanting. There was NO NEW SAFETY CONCERN with the vaccine!

The Epoch Times is correct in pointing out that heart inflammation, blood clots and anaphylaxis have been linked to COVID-19 vaccines, but interestingly, did not mention that :

  • those risks apply to different vaccines
  • those risks differ according to age groups
  • those risks are rare
  • those risks can be mitigated or treated
  • those risks are far MORE COMMON with COVID-19 infections

Fact #10 : 10K New Pages Were Released

What’s really shocking is that both The Epoch Times and the CHD had to “recycle” this document which was released in the very first batch back in November 2021.

Could they not find anything new to gripe about after digging through the latest batch of 10,000 new pages released by the FDA?

Perhaps actual evidence of Pfizer bribing the FDA with $2.8 million?

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

Please don’t risk your life, and your family’s lives, on misinformation created and peddled by The Epoch Times.

And please help us FIGHT FAKE NEWS by sharing this fact check out!

 

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!