Tag Archives: Peter McCullough

Did Japan study show explosion of mRNA cancer deaths?!

Did a new study show that mRNA vaccines are behind the explosion of cancer deaths in Japan?! Take a look at the viral claim, and find out what the facts really are!

 

Claim : Japan study shows explosion of mRNA cancer deaths!

People are claiming or suggesting that a new study shows that mRNA vaccines are behind the explosion of cancer deaths in Japan!

Alex Jones : New Japanese Study Suggests mRNA Vaccines Behind Explosion of Cancer Cases in Japan during the Pandemic. I suggest the sun is yellow…

Recommended : Did Japan Declare Emergency Over mRNA Vaccine Cancers?!

 

Truth : Japan study does not show explosion of mRNA cancer deaths!

This appears to be another example of fake news by anti-vaccine activists, and here are the reasons why…

Fact #1 : Japan Continues To Support COVID-19 Vaccination

Let me start by quickly pointing out that Japan continues to support vaccination against COVID-19. In fact, its Health Ministry has officially designated the COVID-19 vaccine (translated archive) as a routine vaccination:

Starting from 2024, the new coronavirus vaccine will be considered a routine vaccination, and people aged 65 and over will be eligible for the vaccination.

The schedule for routine vaccinations is to be conducted once every fall and winter, based on data on the status of infectious diseases and the effectiveness of vaccines.

The type of COVID-19 vaccine (strain contained in the vaccine) used for routine vaccinations will be reviewed annually for the time being.

I should also point out that COVID-19 vaccinations continue to be supported by virtually every country in the world. That would not be the case if the COVID-19 vaccines have been proven to cause or accelerate cancer.

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

These claims appear to be based on a Japanese study by Miki Gibo et. al. called “Increased Age-Adjusted Cancer Mortality After the Third mRNA-Lipid Nanoparticle Vaccine Dose During the COVID-19 Pandemic in Japan” (PDF).

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

In fact, the authors themselves admitted at the end of their paper that their findings have “not been clinically validated“, and that “further studies” are warranted.

Here are some reasons why this paper does not show a rise in cancer deaths in Japan and/or that they were caused by mRNA vaccines:

COVID-19 Vaccination Status Was Not Established

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

Further analytical statistics study by vaccination status is needed.

Japanese government data showed that as of April 2024, 80.4% received at least one dose, 79.5% received at least two doses, while just 67% received all three doses of the COVID-19 vaccine. In other words – about ⅓ of the people in the study do not meet the definition of receiving the third dose of the COVID-19 vaccine!

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

Japan Used A Mix Of COVID-19 Vaccines

Japan also used a mix of COVID-19 vaccines, not just mRNA vaccines. The study did not filter out those who received non-mRNA vaccines, so how can anyone use its analysis to tie any excess deaths to the mRNA vaccines???

There Was No Control Group

The study also lacked a control group – unvaccinated people. So how can anyone use its analysis to link any excess deaths to COVID-19 vaccines?

For all we know – the excess deaths may be attributed to unvaccinated cancer patients dying from COVID-19! After all, cancer patients are more likely to die from COVID-19 than healthy people.

Cancer Deaths Have Been Rising For Years

The study appears to focus only on three years – 2020, 2021, and 2022. However, if you look further back, you will see that deaths from cancer have been rising for years, as Professor Marc Veldhoen pointed out!

The greatest surge actually occurred between 2014 and 1995, before increasing at a slower rate. Then cancer deaths started picking up from 2019 – before the COVID-19 pandemic, and before mRNA vaccines were approved.

Recommended : Did study find Long COVID patients all received mRNA vaccine?!

Japan Has An Aging Population

Professor Veldhoen also pointed out that Japan has an ageing population, with over 30% of its people aged 65 years and older, while over 10% are 80 years and older.

This could easily explain the increase in cancer rates, as well as cancer deaths. Elderly people are less likely to survive cancer, after all.

Cancer Is Leading Cause Of Death In Japan

I should also point out that cancer has been the leading cause of death in Japan since 1981 (source), accounting for ⅓ of total deaths.

In fact, this 2023 study projects that cancer cases will rise by 13.1% from 2020 to 2050, based on data collected from 1975 to 2019.

Obviously, this increase in cancer cases has nothing to do with COVID-19 vaccines, because they were only approved at the end of 2020.

Fact #4 : Turbo Cancer Does Not Exist

Finally, there is no such thing as “turbo cancer”, and after billions of doses have been administered worldwide in the past 3 years – there is still no evidence that any COVID-19 vaccine can cause cancer, or make cancer go “turbo”.

The US National Cancer Institute also clearly states that there is no evidence that any COVID-19 vaccines cause cancer, lead to recurrence, or lead to disease progression. It also pointedly stated that COVID-19 vaccines do not change your DNA.

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

 

Please Support My Work!

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

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

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

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

 

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 CDC redact all 148 pages of its mRNA myocarditis study?!

Did the CDC redact all 148 pages of its MOVING study on myocarditis after mRNA COVID-19 vaccination?! Take a look at the viral claims, and find out what the facts really are!

 

Claim : CDC Redacted All 148 Pages Of mRNA Myocarditis Study!

People are claiming or suggesting that the CDC released its 148-page MOVING vaccine myocarditis study with 100% of its pages redacted!

The Vigilant Fox / Vigilant News : CDC Releases Paper on Myocarditis After COVID Vaccination, and EVERY WORD Is Redacted

“148 pages. The entire thing is redacted. What good does a study do if there’s nothing there?”

There’s obviously something very damning that they’re trying to hide.

Robert F. Kennedy Jr : The level of arrogance and contempt for the public in releasing a 100% redacted document is staggering. The CDC is thumbing their nose at the Freedom of Information Act.

Without transparency, there is no such thing as democracy. When I’m President, the CDC won’t get to decide what the public can see. Everything will be out in the open, and you won’t need a FOIA request to read any taxpayer-funded data.

Recommended : Is Red Cross Rejecting COVID Vaccinated Blood?!

 

Truth : CDC Did Not Redact Its mRNA Myocarditis Study!

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

Fact #1 : It Was CDC Document, Not Study

Let me start by pointing out that the 148-page “study” was not a study, but a document released by the CDC to The Epoch Times after its Freedom of Information Act request for “information about the CDC’s MOVING project”.

Even Zachary Stieber of The Epoch Times, who posted the document (PDF), did not label it as a study. He stated that it was a FOIA-released document on the CDC’s long-term study on myocarditis after COVID-19 vaccination:

Seeing some confusion about this document: It’s a CDC document sent to us in response to a Freedom of Information Act request and is fully redacted. The request asked for information about the CDC’s MOVING project.

There is no indication that the documents contained any actual CDC study. So why would anyone claim that this 148-page document was a CDC myocarditis study???

Fact #2 : Document Was Redacted Under (b)(5) Privilege

Whenever a US government agency redacts a document, it has to label the redaction so the recipient has an idea why the information was redacted.

I went through the entire 148-page CDC document, and noticed that they were all redacted under the (b)(5) privilege. The (b)(5) redaction applies only to “inter-agency” or “intra-agency” letters or memorandums that “would not be available by law” to anyone except those that are “in litigation” with the agencies.

Exemption 5, 5 U.S.C. § 552(b)(5), applies to “inter-agency or intra-agency memorandums or letters that would not be available by law to a party other than an agency in litigation with the agency,” which has been interpreted to incorporate civil litigation privileges.

(A privilege is a legal rule that protects communications within certain relationships from compelled disclosure in a court proceeding.) 

In other words – there is nothing nefarious about the redactions, and they do not conceal any study.

The redacted pages were simply letters or memorandum that would not be made available by law, except to those who have sued the CDC, or the agency / agencies involved in those letters or memorandums.

They may, for example, contain personal information of the study participants, or other confidential information that the CDC is not permitted to release by law, except in cases of litigation.

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

Fact #3 : CDC Study Was Already Published Publicly!

There is also no indication that the CDC is attempting to cover up the findings of its MOVING (Myocarditis outcomes after mRNA COVID-19 vaccination) study. After all, the CDC already published its initial study in The Lancet, on 21 September 2022more than 1.5 years ago!

Even Zachary Stieber acknowledged that, and provided the same link to the MOVING study in The Lancet. He also pointed out that the CDC told The Epoch Times in January 2024 that it planned to submit another paper with updated findings for peer review.

The CDC plans to submit another paper on updated findings from the project for peer review, a spokesperson told us in January.

To be clear – the CDC published its first study more than 1.5 years ago on the results from its MOVING project on monitoring myocarditis outcomes after mRNA COVID-19 vaccination.

And when its updated MOVING study paper is peer-reviewed and published, it will also be available for public consumption. What exactly is being covered up here???

Fact #4 : Most mRNA Myocarditis Cases Recovered After 90 Days

According to the CDC study that was published in September 2022, its MOVING project collected data on 519 young people who developed myocarditis after mRNA COVID-19 vaccination.

It found that most individuals recovered from myocarditis after 90 days, with normal or back-to-baseline:

  • troponin levels : 91%
  • echocardiograms : 94%
  • electrocardiograms : 77%
  • exercise stress testing : 90%
  • ambulatory rhythm monitoring : 90%

On top of that, the study concluded that “the quality of life measures were comparable to those in pre-pandemic and early pandemic populations of a similar age“.

Recommended : SAFECOVAC : Ultra-Low Myocarditis Risk From Vaccines!

Fact #5 : There Are Many Studies On Post-Vaccination Myocarditis

Claims that the CDC is attempting to hide its data by redacting documents is also not logical, because other organisations and research teams have already published multiple studies on post-vaccination myocarditis and/or pericarditis. For example:

  • Myopericarditis following COVID-19 vaccination and non-COVID-19 vaccination: a systematic review and meta-analysis (link) by Ryan Ruiyang Ling et. al.
  • Myocarditis and Pericarditis after COVID-19 mRNA Vaccines (PDF) by Public Health Ontario
  • Systematic review and meta-analysis of myocarditis and pericarditis in adolescents following COVID-19 BNT162b2 vaccination (link) by Patrick D.M.C. Katoto et. al.
  • SARS-CoV-2 Vaccination and Myocarditis in a Nordic Cohort Study of 23 Million Residents (link) by Øystein Karlstad et. al.
  • Clinical outcomes of myocarditis after SARS-CoV-2 mRNA vaccination in four Nordic countries: population based cohort study (link) by Anders Busby et. al.

Not only are these studies publicly available, they confirm CDC findings that post-vaccination myocarditis is rare, and most patients recovered within 90 days.

Fact #6 : COVID-19 Myocarditis Is More Common

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

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

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

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

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

Recommended : Did study find Long COVID patients all received mRNA 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!

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

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

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

 

Cureus Publishes Controversial COVID-19 Vaccines Paper!

Anti-vaccine activists have been excitedly sharing what they call a “peer-reviewed” paper on the lessons learned about COVID-19 mRNA vaccines, while calling for the mRNA COVID-19 vaccines to be removed.

The paper in question is called “COVID-19 mRNA Vaccines: Lessons Learned from the Registrational Trials and Global Vaccination Campaign” by Mead et. al. which includes anti-vaccine activists like Jessica Rose, Steve Kirsch, and Peter McCullough.

While it is being heralded as something new, the paper appears to be nothing more than a regurgitation of long-debunked claims about mRNA COVID-19 vaccines. Unfortunately, it received a patina of legitimacy when it was published in the journal Cureus, with anti-vaccine activists gleefully pointing out that it was a “peer-reviewed” paper.

What many people don’t realise is that Cureus uses “an unusually fast” peer-review process of just “a few days”, and relies heavily on “post-publication peer review”, as its Editor in Chief John R. Adler explained to Retraction Watch in 2015:

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

In other words – the pre-publication peer review appears to be superficial, and Cureus relies on the scientific community to peer-review the papers after publication. All that “post-publication” criticism appear to have resulted in its decision to (finally) retract this controversial article.

Recommended : COVID-19 mRNA Vaccines Lessons Learned Fact Check!

 

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

On 19 February 2024, one of the article’s co-authors – Steve Kirsch, revealed (archive) that Cureus has decided to retract the article, citing a number of concerns.

Dear authors, 

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

The list of concerns in the Cureus letter is frankly, too short. In my earlier article, I already listed a number of other concerns with the article:

  • unsubstantiated claims that the COVID-19 vaccine clinical trials were too short
  • unsubstantiated claims that mRNA vaccines for COVID-19 were not proven safe or effective
  • misleading emphasis on absolute risk (AR) versus relative risk (RR) in understanding vaccine efficacy
  • misleading emphasis on unverified adverse events that were reported after vaccination.
  • unsubstantiated claims that 74% of deaths were “judged to have been caused by the COVID-19 mRNA products”

In any case, Cureus officially retracted this “peer-reviewed” article on 26 February 2024, with this statement:

The Editors-in-Chief have retracted this article. Following publication, concerns were raised regarding a number of claims made in this article. Upon further review, the Editors-in-Chief found that the conclusions of this narrative review are considered to be unreliable due to the concerns with the validity of some of the cited references that support the conclusions and a misrepresentation of the cited references and available data.

The authors disagree with this retraction.

One can’t help but wonder if this incident might persuade Cureus to spend a wee bit more time and effort on its peer-review process… or better still, don’t allow such articles to be labelled as “peer-reviewed” until they have at least passed proper, legitimate peer-review.

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

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

 

Please Support My Work!

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

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

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

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

 

Recommended Reading

Go Back To > Fact Check | 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 vaccines kill 14X more people than they saved?!

Did a study just show that COVID-19 vaccines killed 14x more people than they saved?!

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

 

Claim : COVID Vaccines Kill 14X More People Than They Saved!

People are sharing an article (archive) by The People’s Voice (formerly NewsPunch), which claims that a study just showed that COVID-19 vaccines killed 14x more people than they saved!

Here is an excerpt from the long, and (intentionally?) rambling article. Feel free to skip to the next section for the facts!

Peer-Reviewed Study Finds Covid Vaccines Killed 14x More People Than They Saved

Recommended : Are Residual DNA In mRNA Vaccines Dangerous?!

 

Truth : COVID Vaccines Did Not Kill 14X More People Than They Saved!

This is yet another example of fake news created / promoted by The People’s Voice, and here are the reasons why…

Fact #1 : Study Did Not Show 14X More People Died From Vaccines

Let me just start by pointing out that the study, which is called “COVID-19 mRNA Vaccines: Lessons Learned from the Registrational Trials and Global Vaccination Campaign” by Mead et. al. (archive), did not show that the COVID vaccines killed 14X more people than they saved.

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

The People’s Voice article took great pains to point out that the paper was “peer-reviewed”, probably to suggest that it should be taken seriously. That’s not exactly accurate.

Even though this paper was marked as “peer-reviewed”, the peer review process at Cureus is “unusually fast” at just a few days. That’s because the journal Cureus relies on “post-publication peer review“, as its Editor in Chief John R. Adler explained to Retraction Watch in 2015:

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

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

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

Recommended : Pfizer Vaccine Causes Autism? Rats Are Not Mini Humans!

Fact #3 : Paper Regurgitates Long-Debunked Claims

The paper in question is a literature review, and was penned by notable anti-vaccine activists like Jessica Rose, Steve Kirsch, and Peter McCullough. You may note that some of the authors are not even scientists or were trained in medicine.

While it is being heralded as something new, the paper appears to be nothing more than a regurgitation of long-debunked claims about mRNA COVID-19 vaccines. It certainly offers no evidence to back up their claim for a vaccine moratorium. Let’s just take a look at a few:

COVID-19 Vaccine Clinical Trials Were Too Short?!

The paper claimed that no vaccine was permitted for market release without a testing period of at least four years, using the mumps vaccine by Merck as example. That’s not true.

The Mumpsvax (Jeryl Lynn strain) vaccine was developed and approved in a record four years, but its testing did not last four years. The mumps vaccine clinical trial in 1966 (abstract) only lasted 6 months.

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

Vaccination was carried out in November 1966, every tenth child receiving a placebo preparation. Serum specimens were obtained at the time of vaccination and 4 weeks later from 556 children representing a cross-section of the total group of participants.

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

There is no requirement by health authorities that testing or assessing any vaccine should last 10 years. The typical vaccine development time of 10-15 years is not a reflection of how much time a clinical trial needs to run, but rather the time it “generally” takes to create a vaccine, gather resources, get approvals, run clinical trials, process the data, file for approval, etc.

COVID-19 vaccines were so quickly developed because scientists all over the world collaborated on the effort, while governments funded their development, and fast-tracked their clinical trials and manufacturing preparations.

The speedy development of COVID-19 vaccines was also enabled by new vaccine platforms using mRNA or DNA technologies, in which genetic information from the new virus only needed to be “plugged in” to produce a new vaccine.

More importantly – the paper provided no evidence that the accelerated development of COVID-19 vaccines has actually resulted in unsafe vaccines.

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

mRNA COVID-19 Vaccines Were Not Proven Safe / Effective?

The Mead et. al. paper claimed or suggested that the clinical trials did not show that the mRNA COVID-19 vaccines were safe or effective because too few people in the unvaccinated (placebo) group died from COVID-19.

Well, not only is that a “misunderstanding” of the clinical trial results (see the next section), many studies have been conducted into the safety and efficacy of the mRNA vaccines for COVID-19 since they were deployed.

Those real world studies (example, example, example) consistently showed that the mRNA vaccines for COVID-19 are safe and effective.

Low Absolute Risk Shows No Need To Vaccinate?!

The Mead et. al. paper repeats the old trope that the low absolute risk (AR) seen in the mRNA vaccine clinical trials mean there is no need for anyone to get vaccinated. That’s simply not true, and is a (deliberate?) misunderstanding of statistical calculations.

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

Let’s say a study enrolled 20,000 patients into the control group and 20,000 in the vaccine group. In that study, 200 people in the control group got sick and 0 people in the vaccine group got sick.

Even though the vaccine efficacy would be a whopping 100%, the ARR would show that vaccines reduce the absolute risk by just 1% (200/20,000= 1%).

For the ARR to increase to 20% in our example study with a vaccine with 100% efficacy, 4,000 of the 20,000 people in the control group would have to get sick (4,000/20,000= 20%).

Hence, the Relative Risk Reduction (RRR) is used instead to determine a vaccine’s efficacy, because it tells us how much risk is reduced in the vaccinated group, compared to the unvaccinated control group.

To be clear – the clinical trials and post-vaccination monitoring and studies have clearly shown that mRNA COVID-19 vaccines are effective in preventing severe disease and deaths from COVID-19.

Recommended : Did Norway Study Show mRNA Vaccine Danger In Children?!

mRNA Vaccines Do Not Prevent Transmission?!

The Mead et. al. paper claimed that the CDC said that “COVID-19 products would stop transmission”, but in the end “COVID-19 mRNA products do not prevent transmission or infection”. Well, that’s not really true.

For one thing – the CDC never said that COVID-19 vaccines would stop transmission. In fact, the CDC article the paper linked to only said that the vaccines appear to reduce (not stop) transmission:

… a growing body of evidence suggests that COVID-19 vaccines also reduce asymptomatic infection and transmission.

To be clear – the COVID-19 vaccines were primarily designed to reduce or prevent severe disease and death, which is why transmission for not an endpoint for their clinical trials. It would have been a nice bonus to block transmission completely, but partially reducing transmission is not too bad.

mRNA Vaccines Have A Lot Of AESIs?!

The Mead et. al. paper warns us about the many Adverse Events of Special Interest (AESI) reported after COVID-19 vaccinations. The problem is – those AESI are not actual vaccine side effects!

The AESI list for the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine for example has 9 pages of 1,291 adverse events, but that is not a list of the mRNA vaccine side effects. It is a list of “adverse events” that Pfizer must look for during the post-vaccination monitoring period. Not only are these “adverse events” not specific to the Pfizer mRNA vaccine, they include:

  • diseases like Herpes, MERS, Varicella, and other “communicable disease”,
  • exposure to SARS-CoV-2,
  • manufacturing and lab test issues, and even…
  • product availability and supply issues!

Needless to say – those adverse events are not vaccine side effects, or are any indication of vaccine performance or safety in any way.

Recommended : Do COVID-19 Vaccines Increase Risk Of Long COVID?!

Lots Of Deaths + Hospitalisation Were Reported?!

The Mead et. al. paper also claimed that two large drug safety reporting systems in the US and Europe have over 7.8 million reports of adverse events, with “death, hospitalisations, and life-threatening reactions”. It is probably referring to VAERS and EudraVigilance.

The thing is – VAERS / Yellow Card / EudraVigilance data are all unverified, and may contain duplicated information. That’s why they are all prefaced with warnings like:

  • they may contain duplicated information and/or reports
  • the reported event may be caused by an illness, like a COVID-19 infection for example,
  • the reported event may be caused by a different drug taken by the patient at the same time
  • they have not been assessed by health authorities to ascertain if it’s even “biologically plausible”

In addition, open systems like VAERS, or the UK Yellow Card system, are very susceptible to abuse because they allow anyone from anywhere to post anything they want, without evidence or verification.

Anti-vaccination activists can, for example, key in unlimited numbers of adverse reaction reports, even if they never received a single dose of the COVID-19 vaccine!

Autopsy Reports Show Deaths Caused By Vaccines?!

The Mead et. al. paper claimed that “autopsy studies” showed that 74% of deaths were “judged to have been caused by the COVID-19 mRNA products”.

The problem is – the study it referred to was a preprint by one of its own authors – Peter McCullough, that was removed by The Lancet for violating its “screening criteria”.

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

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

Recommended : Did mRNA Vaccines Trigger Severe Nerve Damage?!

mRNA Vaccines Are Contaminated By DNA?!

The paper suggested that the mRNA vaccines are contaminated with DNA “orders of magnitude higher than the EMA’s limit”.

The truth is – residual DNA is found in all biological products manufactured using cells, and has not shown any health risk after being studied for many decades.

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

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

The paper also warned about the Simian Virus 40 (SV40) promoter found in samples of the Pfizer mRNA vaccine. Why? Because it warns – the SV40 virus “induces lymphomas, brain tumors, and other malignancies in laboratory animals”.

First of all – after decades of studies, there is still no conclusive evidence that the SV40 virus can cause cancers in humans. However, out of an abundance of caution, the SV40 virus is considered to potentially cause cancer in humans.

In any case, the SV40 promoter is a DNA sequence that is often used to manufacture mRNA, and is not dangerous. It certainly poses no cancer risk, because the part of the SV40 that can potentially cause cancer – the T-antigen, is not present in the SV40 promoter, or the Pfizer mRNA vaccine.

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

 

Please Support My Work!

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

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

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

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

 

Recommended Reading

Go Back To > Fact Check | 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 Scientists Call For Global mRNA Vaccine Moratorium?!

Did scientists call for a global moratorium on the mRNA vaccine, after finding high rates of serious post-injection injuries?!

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

 

Claim : Scientists Call For mRNA Vaccine Moratorium!

The Children’s Health Defense (CHD) activist group, which is chaired by Robert F. Kennedy Jr., just posted an article claiming that scientists have called for a global moratorium on the mRNA vaccine, after finding high rates of serious post-injection injuries!

Here is an excerpt from the CHD article (archive) with my emphasis in bold.

Scientists Call for Global Moratorium on mRNA Vaccines, Immediate Removal From Childhood Schedule

Recommended : Are Residual DNA In mRNA Vaccines Dangerous?!

 

Scientists Call For mRNA Vaccine Moratorium : My Fact Check

The CHD story appears to suggest that scientists are calling for a global moratorium on the mRNA vaccine because it’s dangerous. However, it’s really more like the same bunch of anti-vaccine activists repeating long-debunked claims about the mRNA vaccine, and calling (yet again) for a moratorium.

Here are the reasons why the vast majority of scientists and health authorities are ignoring them, and why you too should ignore their repeated calls for an mRNA vaccine moratorium:

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

The Children’s Health Defense (CHD) article repeatedly points out that the paper was “peer-reviewed”, probably to suggest that it should be taken seriously. That’s not exactly accurate.

Even though this paper was marked as “peer-reviewed”, the peer review process at Cureus is “unusually fast” at just a few days. That’s because the journal Cureus relies on “post-publication peer review“, as its Editor in Chief John R. Adler explained to Retraction Watch in 2015:

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

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

Fact #2 : It Regurgitates Long-Debunked Claims

The paper in question is a literature review called “COVID-19 mRNA Vaccines: Lessons Learned from the Registrational Trials and Global Vaccination Campaign” by Mead et. al. (archive), which includes anti-vaccine activists like Jessica Rose, Steve Kirsch, and Peter McCullough.

While it is being heralded as something new, the paper appears to be nothing more than a regurgitation of long-debunked claims about mRNA COVID-19 vaccines. It certainly offers no evidence to back up their claim for a vaccine moratorium. Let’s just take a look at a few:

COVID-19 Vaccine Clinical Trials Were Too Short?!

The paper claimed that no vaccine was permitted for market release without a testing period of at least four years, using the mumps vaccine by Merck as example. That’s not true.

The Mumpsvax (Jeryl Lynn strain) vaccine was developed and approved in a record four years, but its testing did not last four years. The mumps vaccine clinical trial in 1966 (abstract) only lasted 6 months.

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

Vaccination was carried out in November 1966, every tenth child receiving a placebo preparation. Serum specimens were obtained at the time of vaccination and 4 weeks later from 556 children representing a cross-section of the total group of participants.

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

There is no requirement by health authorities that testing or assessing any vaccine should last 10 years. The typical vaccine development time of 10-15 years is not a reflection of how much time a clinical trial needs to run, but rather the time it “generally” takes to create a vaccine, gather resources, get approvals, run clinical trials, process the data, file for approval, etc.

COVID-19 vaccines were so quickly developed because scientists all over the world collaborated on the effort, while governments funded their development, and fast-tracked their clinical trials and manufacturing preparations.

The speedy development of COVID-19 vaccines was also enabled by new vaccine platforms using mRNA or DNA technologies, in which genetic information from the new virus only needed to be “plugged in” to produce a new vaccine.

More importantly – the paper provided no evidence that the accelerated development of COVID-19 vaccines has actually resulted in unsafe vaccines.

Recommended : Pfizer Vaccine Causes Autism? Rats Are Not Mini Humans!

mRNA COVID-19 Vaccines Were Not Proven Safe / Effective?

The Mead et. al. paper claimed or suggested that the clinical trials did not show that the mRNA COVID-19 vaccines were safe or effective because too few people in the unvaccinated (placebo) group died from COVID-19.

Well, not only is that a “misunderstanding” of the clinical trial results (see the next section), many studies have been conducted into the safety and efficacy of the mRNA vaccines for COVID-19 since they were deployed.

Those real world studies (example, example, example) consistently showed that the mRNA vaccines for COVID-19 are safe and effective.

Low Absolute Risk Shows No Need To Vaccinate?!

The Mead et. al. paper repeats the old trope that the low absolute risk (AR) seen in the mRNA vaccine clinical trials mean there is no need for anyone to get vaccinated. That’s simply not true, and is a (deliberate?) misunderstanding of statistical calculations.

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

Let’s say a study enrolled 20,000 patients into the control group and 20,000 in the vaccine group. In that study, 200 people in the control group got sick and 0 people in the vaccine group got sick.

Even though the vaccine efficacy would be a whopping 100%, the ARR would show that vaccines reduce the absolute risk by just 1% (200/20,000= 1%).

For the ARR to increase to 20% in our example study with a vaccine with 100% efficacy, 4,000 of the 20,000 people in the control group would have to get sick (4,000/20,000= 20%).

Hence, the Relative Risk Reduction (RRR) is used instead to determine a vaccine’s efficacy, because it tells us how much risk is reduced in the vaccinated group, compared to the unvaccinated control group.

To be clear – the clinical trials and post-vaccination monitoring and studies have clearly shown that mRNA COVID-19 vaccines are effective in preventing severe disease and deaths from COVID-19.

Recommended : Did Norway Study Show mRNA Vaccine Danger In Children?!

mRNA Vaccines Do Not Prevent Transmission?!

The Mead et. al. paper claimed that the CDC said that “COVID-19 products would stop transmission”, but in the end “COVID-19 mRNA products do not prevent transmission or infection”. Well, that’s not really true.

For one thing – the CDC never said that COVID-19 vaccines would stop transmission. In fact, the CDC article the paper linked to only said that the vaccines appear to reduce (not stop) transmission:

… a growing body of evidence suggests that COVID-19 vaccines also reduce asymptomatic infection and transmission.

To be clear – the COVID-19 vaccines were primarily designed to reduce or prevent severe disease and death, which is why transmission for not an endpoint for their clinical trials. It would have been a nice bonus to block transmission completely, but partially reducing transmission is not too bad.

mRNA Vaccines Have A Lot Of AESIs?!

The Mead et. al. paper warns us about the many Adverse Events of Special Interest (AESI) reported after COVID-19 vaccinations. The problem is – those AESI are not actual vaccine side effects!

The AESI list for the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine for example has 9 pages of 1,291 adverse events, but that is not a list of the mRNA vaccine side effects. It is a list of “adverse events” that Pfizer must look for during the post-vaccination monitoring period. Not only are these “adverse events” not specific to the Pfizer mRNA vaccine, they include:

  • diseases like Herpes, MERS, Varicella, and other “communicable disease”,
  • exposure to SARS-CoV-2,
  • manufacturing and lab test issues, and even…
  • product availability and supply issues!

Needless to say – those adverse events are not vaccine side effects, or are any indication of vaccine performance or safety in any way.

Recommended : Do COVID-19 Vaccines Increase Risk Of Long COVID?!

Lots Of Deaths + Hospitalisation Were Reported?!

The Mead et. al. paper also claimed that two large drug safety reporting systems in the US and Europe have over 7.8 million reports of adverse events, with “death, hospitalisations, and life-threatening reactions”. It is probably referring to VAERS and EudraVigilance.

The thing is – VAERS / Yellow Card / EudraVigilance data are all unverified, and may contain duplicated information. That’s why they are all prefaced with warnings like:

  • they may contain duplicated information and/or reports
  • the reported event may be caused by an illness, like a COVID-19 infection for example,
  • the reported event may be caused by a different drug taken by the patient at the same time
  • they have not been assessed by health authorities to ascertain if it’s even “biologically plausible”

In addition, open systems like VAERS, or the UK Yellow Card system, are very susceptible to abuse because they allow anyone from anywhere to post anything they want, without evidence or verification.

Anti-vaccination activists can, for example, key in unlimited numbers of adverse reaction reports, even if they never received a single dose of the COVID-19 vaccine!

Autopsy Reports Show Deaths Caused By Vaccines?!

The Mead et. al. paper claimed that “autopsy studies” showed that 74% of deaths were “judged to have been caused by the COVID-19 mRNA products”.

The problem is – the study it referred to was a preprint by one of its own authors – Peter McCullough, that was removed by The Lancet for violating its “screening criteria”.

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

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

Recommended : Did mRNA Vaccines Trigger Severe Nerve Damage?!

mRNA Vaccines Are Contaminated By DNA?!

The paper suggested that the mRNA vaccines are contaminated with DNA “orders of magnitude higher than the EMA’s limit”.

The truth is – residual DNA is found in all biological products manufactured using cells, and has not shown any health risk after being studied for many decades.

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

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

The paper also warned about the Simian Virus 40 (SV40) promoter found in samples of the Pfizer mRNA vaccine. Why? Because it warns – the SV40 virus “induces lymphomas, brain tumors, and other malignancies in laboratory animals”.

First of all – after decades of studies, there is still no conclusive evidence that the SV40 virus can cause cancers in humans. However, out of an abundance of caution, the SV40 virus is considered to potentially cause cancer in humans.

In any case, the SV40 promoter is a DNA sequence that is often used to manufacture mRNA, and is not dangerous. It certainly poses no cancer risk, because the part of the SV40 that can potentially cause cancer – the T-antigen, is not present in the SV40 promoter, or the Pfizer mRNA vaccine.

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

 

Please Support My Work!

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

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

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

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

 

Recommended Reading

Go Back To > Fact Check | 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!

COVID-19 mRNA Vaccines Lessons Learned Fact Check!

Let’s take a look at the recent “peer-reviewed” study on the lessons learned about COVID-19 mRNA vaccines, and find out what the facts really are!

 

COVID-19 mRNA Vaccines: Lessons Learned??

Some people are excitedly sharing a “peer-reviewed” study on the lessons learned about COVID-19 mRNA vaccines, while calling for the mRNA COVID-19 vaccines to be removed.

Mary Talley Bowden MD : Peer-reviewed article published in @CureusInc : COVID shots must be pulled off the market. If you are a physician or politician, now is the time to be on the right side of history.

Recommended : Are Residual DNA In mRNA Vaccines Dangerous?!

 

COVID-19 mRNA Vaccines Lessons Learned : My Fact Check

Let’s go through the “peer-reviewed” study on the lessons learned about COVID-19 mRNA vaccines, and see what the facts really are!

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

Let me start by pointing out that the journal Cureus relies on “post-publication peer review”.  Even though this paper was marked as “peer-reviewed”, it was an “unusually fast” peer review.

Cureus uses “an unusually fast” peer-review process of just “a few days”, and relies heavily on “post-publication peer review”, as its Editor in Chief John R. Adler explained to Retraction Watch in 2015:

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

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

Fact #2 : It Regurgitates Long-Debunked Claims

The paper in question is called “COVID-19 mRNA Vaccines: Lessons Learned from the Registrational Trials and Global Vaccination Campaign” by Mead et. al. which includes anti-vaccine activists like Jessica Rose, Steve Kirsch, and Peter McCullough.

While it is being heralded as something new, the paper appears to be nothing more than a regurgitation of long-debunked claims about mRNA COVID-19 vaccines. Let’s just take a look at a few:

COVID-19 Vaccine Clinical Trials Were Too Short?!

The paper claimed that no vaccine was permitted for market release without a testing period of at least four years, using the mumps vaccine by Merck as example. That’s not true.

The Mumpsvax (Jeryl Lynn strain) vaccine was developed and approved in a record four years, but its testing did not last four years. The mumps vaccine clinical trial in 1966 (abstract) only lasted 6 months.

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

Vaccination was carried out in November 1966, every tenth child receiving a placebo preparation. Serum specimens were obtained at the time of vaccination and 4 weeks later from 556 children representing a cross-section of the total group of participants.

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

There is no requirement by health authorities that testing or assessing any vaccine should last 10 years. The typical vaccine development time of 10-15 years is not a reflection of how much time a clinical trial needs to run, but rather the time it “generally” takes to create a vaccine, gather resources, get approvals, run clinical trials, process the data, file for approval, etc.

COVID-19 vaccines were so quickly developed because scientists all over the world collaborated on the effort, while governments funded their development, and fast-tracked their clinical trials and manufacturing preparations.

The speedy development of COVID-19 vaccines was also enabled by new vaccine platforms using mRNA or DNA technologies, in which genetic information from the new virus only needed to be “plugged in” to produce a new vaccine.

More importantly – the paper provided no evidence that the accelerated development of COVID-19 vaccines has actually resulted in unsafe vaccines.

Recommended : Did COVID-19 Vaccines Cause 17 Million Deaths?!

mRNA COVID-19 Vaccines Were Not Proven Safe / Effective?

The Mead et. al. paper claimed or suggested that the clinical trials did not show that the mRNA COVID-19 vaccines were safe or effective because too few people in the unvaccinated (placebo) group died from COVID-19.

Well, not only is that a “misunderstanding” of the clinical trial results (see the next section), many studies have been conducted into the safety and efficacy of the mRNA vaccines for COVID-19 since they were deployed.

Those real world studies (example, example, example) consistently showed that the mRNA vaccines for COVID-19 are safe and effective.

Low Absolute Risk Shows No Need To Vaccinate?!

The Mead et. al. paper repeats the old trope that the low absolute risk (AR) seen in the mRNA vaccine clinical trials mean there is no need for anyone to get vaccinated. That’s simply not true, and is a (deliberate?) misunderstanding of statistical calculations.

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

Let’s say a study enrolled 20,000 patients into the control group and 20,000 in the vaccine group. In that study, 200 people in the control group got sick and 0 people in the vaccine group got sick.

Even though the vaccine efficacy would be a whopping 100%, the ARR would show that vaccines reduce the absolute risk by just 1% (200/20,000= 1%).

For the ARR to increase to 20% in our example study with a vaccine with 100% efficacy, 4,000 of the 20,000 people in the control group would have to get sick (4,000/20,000= 20%).

Hence, the Relative Risk Reduction (RRR) is used instead to determine a vaccine’s efficacy, because it tells us how much risk is reduced in the vaccinated group, compared to the unvaccinated control group.

To be clear – the clinical trials and post-vaccination monitoring and studies have clearly shown that mRNA COVID-19 vaccines are effective in preventing severe disease and deaths from COVID-19.

Recommended : Hybrid Immunity Better Than Natural / Vaccine Immunity!

mRNA Vaccines Do Not Prevent Transmission?!

The Mead et. al. paper claimed that the CDC said that “COVID-19 products would stop transmission”, but in the end “COVID-19 mRNA products do not prevent transmission or infection”. Well, that’s not really true.

For one thing – the CDC never said that COVID-19 vaccines would stop transmission. In fact, the CDC article the paper linked to only said that the vaccines appear to reduce (not stop) transmission:

… a growing body of evidence suggests that COVID-19 vaccines also reduce asymptomatic infection and transmission.

To be clear – the COVID-19 vaccines were primarily designed to reduce or prevent severe disease and death, which is why transmission for not an endpoint for their clinical trials. It would have been a nice bonus to block transmission completely, but partially reducing transmission is not too bad.

mRNA Vaccines Have A Lot Of AESIs?!

The Mead et. al. paper warns us about the many Adverse Events of Special Interest (AESI) reported after COVID-19 vaccinations. The problem is – those AESI are not actual vaccine side effects!

The AESI list for the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine for example has 9 pages of 1,291 adverse events, but that is not a list of the mRNA vaccine side effects. It is a list of “adverse events” that Pfizer must look for during the post-vaccination monitoring period. Not only are these “adverse events” not specific to the Pfizer mRNA vaccine, they include:

  • diseases like Herpes, MERS, Varicella, and other “communicable disease”,
  • exposure to SARS-CoV-2,
  • manufacturing and lab test issues, and even…
  • product availability and supply issues!

Needless to say – those adverse events are not vaccine side effects, or are any indication of vaccine performance or safety in any way.

Recommended : COVID-19 Vaccine Causes Turbo Skin Cancer – Melanoma?!

Lots Of Deaths + Hospitalisation Were Reported?!

The Mead et. al. paper also claimed that two large drug safety reporting systems in the US and Europe have over 7.8 million reports of adverse events, with “death, hospitalisations, and life-threatening reactions”. It is probably referring to VAERS and EudraVigilance.

The thing is – VAERS / Yellow Card / EudraVigilance data are all unverified, and may contain duplicated information. That’s why they are all prefaced with warnings like:

  • they may contain duplicated information and/or reports
  • the reported event may be caused by an illness, like a COVID-19 infection for example,
  • the reported event may be caused by a different drug taken by the patient at the same time
  • they have not been assessed by health authorities to ascertain if it’s even “biologically plausible”

In addition, open systems like VAERS, or the UK Yellow Card system, are very susceptible to abuse because they allow anyone from anywhere to post anything they want, without evidence or verification.

Anti-vaccination activists can, for example, key in unlimited numbers of adverse reaction reports, even if they never received a single dose of the COVID-19 vaccine!

Autopsy Reports Show Deaths Caused By Vaccines?!

The Mead et. al. paper claimed that “autopsy studies” showed that 74% of deaths were “judged to have been caused by the COVID-19 mRNA products”.

The problem is – the study it referred to was a preprint by one of its own authors – Peter McCullough, that was removed by The Lancet for violating its “screening criteria”.

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

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

Recommended : Did CDC Alter Death Certificates To Remove Vaccine Deaths?!

mRNA Vaccines Are Contaminated By DNA?!

The paper suggested that the mRNA vaccines are contaminated with DNA “orders of magnitude higher than the EMA’s limit”.

The truth is – residual DNA is found in all biological products manufactured using cells, and has not shown any health risk after being studied for many decades.

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

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

The paper also warned about the Simian Virus 40 (SV40) promoter found in samples of the Pfizer mRNA vaccine. Why? Because it warns – the SV40 virus “induces lymphomas, brain tumors, and other malignancies in laboratory animals”.

First of all – after decades of studies, there is still no conclusive evidence that the SV40 virus can cause cancers in humans. However, out of an abundance of caution, the SV40 virus is considered to potentially cause cancer in humans.

In any case, the SV40 promoter is a DNA sequence that is often used to manufacture mRNA, and is not dangerous. It certainly poses no cancer risk, because the part of the SV40 that can potentially cause cancer – the T-antigen, is not present in the SV40 promoter, or the Pfizer mRNA vaccine.

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

 

Please Support My Work!

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

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

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

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

 

Recommended Reading

Go Back To > Fact Check | 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 Vaccinated People Developing Full Blown AIDS?!

Did a top doctor just admit that vaccinated people are developing full blown AIDS?!

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

 

Claim : Vaccinated People Are Developing Full Blown AIDS!

People are sharing an article (archive) by The People’s Voice (formerly NewsPunch), which claimed that a top doctor just admitted that vaccinated people are developing full blown AIDS!

Top Doctor Blows The Whistle, Admits Vaccinated People Are Developing Full Blown AIDS

Recommended : Dr. Peter McCullough Has (Finally) Been Decertified!

 

Truth : Vaccinated People Are Not Developing Full Blown AIDS!

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

Fact #1 : COVID-19 Vaccines Do Not Cause AIDS

This is silly, but let me just start by pointing out that there is no medical disease called VAIDS – Vaccine-Induced Acquired Immunodeficiency Syndrome. It appears to be something made-up by anti-vaccination activists to scare people.

AIDS is caused by the Human Immunodeficiency Virus (HIV). Nothing else causes AIDS. Certainly no vaccine, not even the COVID-19 vaccine, causes AIDS.

Robert Charles Gallo – one of the two scientists who independently discovered that the human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) was responsible for AIDS, said in response to the 2021 claim by Brazilian President Jair Bolsonaro that COVID-19 vaccines cause AIDS:

[I]t’s hard to believe anyone would claim that the covid-19 vaccine causes AIDS. We know what causes AIDS.

I don’t know what your president said. So I don’t want to be too critical. But it is obvious that neither the covid-19 vaccine nor any other vaccine causes AIDS.

Fact #2 : HIV Is Different From SARS-CoV-2

Just to be clear, the Human Immunodeficiency Virus (HIV) is a completely different virus from SARS-CoV-2 – the coronavirus that causes COVID-19.

HIV viruses are single-stranded retroviruses from the Lentivirus genus, and are transmitted through sexual contact, or transfer of blood and bodily fluids.

SARS-CoV-2 is a single-stranded coronavirus from the Betacoronavirus genus, and is airborne, mainly transmitted through respiratory droplets and aerosols.

There is no conceivable way for COVID-19 vaccines, or even COVID-19 infections, to cause AIDS…. or to create a new form of AIDS. That’s utter nonsense.

Recommended : Did Top Docs Just Warn UK Parliament About Deadly Vaccines?!

Fact #3 : Vaccine Candidate Gave False Positive HIV Results

It is odd that Peter McCullough should bring up the VAIDS claim, when it was debunked more than 3 years ago! This vaccine AIDS claim was based on news in 2020 that the Australian COVID-19 vaccine produced false positive HIV results.

In early 2020, the University of Queensland (UQ) and Australian biotech company CSL, worked on a COVID-19 vaccine based on UQ’s proprietary “molecular clamp” technology. The UQ molecular clamp basically used an 80 amino-acid fragment from a HIV virus protein to stabilise the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein.

While the Phase 1 trial results were promising, they also showed an unexpected problem – the HIV protein fragment was generating antibodies that were resulting in false positive HIV tests.

Fact #4 : Vaccine Candidate Did Not Cause AIDS

To be clear – the UQ-CSL vaccine candidate did not infect anyone with HIV, or cause AIDS. The vaccine was merely causing HIV tests to return false positive results, as UQ explained:

There is no possibility the vaccine causes infection, and routine follow up tests confirmed there is no HIV virus present.

Why would anyone continue to claim that COVID-19 vaccines cause full blown AIDS???

Fact #5 : Vaccine Candidate Did Not Cause Immunodeficiency

The Australian COVID-19 vaccine candidate also did not cause immunodeficiency, as claimed.

In fact, the UQ-CSL team continued its Phase 1 clinical trial, as the false positive HIV results did not present any health risk to the participants.

The Phase 1 trial will continue, where further analysis of the data will show how long the antibodies persist, with studies so far showing that levels are already falling. The University of Queensland plans to submit the full data for peer review publication.

Why would anyone claim that COVID-19 vaccines cause immunodeficiency??? Where is the evidence???

Recommended : Peter McCullough Testified To EU Parliament On Vaccine Safety?!

Fact #5 : Australian Vaccine Candidate Was Abandoned

For the Australian vaccine candidate to move forward, there were two possible paths:

  • UQ and CSL could re-engineer their vaccine candidate, but that would take another year or so, or
  • HIV testing procedures would need to significantly changed.

After consulting the Australian government, CSL and UQ announced that they would not proceed to further develop their COVID-19 vaccine candidate on 11 December 2020.

… [f]ollowing consultation with the Australian Government, CSL will not progress the vaccine candidate to Phase 2/3 clinical trials.

With advice from experts, CSL and UQ have worked through the implications that this issue presents to rolling out the vaccine into broad populations. It is generally agreed that significant changes would need to be made to well-established HIV testing procedures in the healthcare setting to accommodate rollout of this vaccine. Therefore, CSL and the Australian  Government have agreed vaccine development will not proceed to Phase 2/3 trials.

In other words – the Australian COVID-19 vaccine that produced false positive HIV results was never approved for use. It did not receive any Emergency Use Authorisation. Heck, it did not even proceed to the Phase 2/3 clinical trials!

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

Fact #6 : The People’s Voice Is Known For Publishing Fake News

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

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

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

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

 

Please Support My Work!

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

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

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

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

 

Recommended Reading

Go Back To > Fact Check | ScienceTech 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!

Do COVID-19 Vaccines Increase Risk Of Long COVID?!

Do COVID-19 vaccines really increase the risk of long COVID symptoms?!

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

 

Claim : COVID-19 Vaccines Increase Risk Of Long COVID!

The Children’s Health Defense (CHD) activist group, which is chaired by Robert F. Kennedy Jr., just posted an article suggesting that a study has shown that people who received two doses of a COVID-19 vaccine may be more likely to get long COVID symptoms than people who received one or no dose at all.

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

Two Doses of COVID Vaccine May Increase Risk of Long COVID Symptoms

Recommended : Are Residual DNA In mRNA Vaccines Dangerous?!

 

Truth : COVID-19 Vaccines Do Not Increase Risk Of Long COVID!

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

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

Let me start by pointing out that the Arjun et. al. study mentioned in the CHD article is more than a year old, being published in PLOS ONE in December 2022. You can read it in full here.

Why would the Children’s Health Defense dig up this study from 2022, when several newer studies showed that COVID-19 vaccines significantly reduced the risk of long COVID?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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 long COVID symptoms:

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

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

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

Interestingly, this CHD article came just after Scientific American posted its article on how several new studies show how getting multiple COVID-19 vaccine doses “dramatically lowers long COVID risk“.

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

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

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

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 Top Docs Just Warn UK Parliament About Deadly Vaccines?!

Did top doctors just warn the UK Parliament about the deadly COVID-19 vaccines, asking for them to be removed from market?!

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

 

Claim : Top Docs Just Warned UK Parliament About Deadly Vaccines!

People are sharing an article by The People’s Voice (formerly NewsPunch), claiming / suggesting that it shows top doctors warning the UK Parliament about the deadly COVID-19 vaccines, and asking for them to be removed from market!

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

Top Doctors Plead For Deadly Covid Jabs To Be Removed From Market In Address To UK Parliament

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

 

Truth : Most Of UK Parliament Declined To Join Their Event!

This appears to be yet another MISLEADING article by The People’s Voice, and here are the reasons why…

Fact #1 : It Was Not UK Parliament Event

Let me start by pointing out that the session COVID-19 vaccines was a small, private event hosted by British MP Andrew Bridgen in a rented room of the Portcullis House.

To raise funds, the U.K. Parliament has allowed companies and individuals to rent certain rooms for private events since January 2014. The session on COVID-19 vaccines was held in the Wilson Room, in Portcullis House, which is part of the Parliamentary estate, but not part of the Houses of Parliament.

On top of that, the meeting / event/ address / debate was short – lasting just 2 hours, from 5 PM to 7 PM.

To be clear – it was not an official UK Parliament event. It was just a private event held in a small, rented room in Portcullis House. On top of that, they were not even allowed to livestream or record the event!

In short – the speakers at that event were only “testifying” to the few attendees in the room, not to the U.K. Parliament… unless it was by telepathy?

Fact #2 : It Was A Small Private Event

Even though the private COVID-19 vaccines event was hosted by UK MP Andrew Bridgen, it appeared that he had trouble getting his fellow MPs to attend. In fact, Andrew Bridgen had to ask the public to write to their MPs to ask (beg?) them to attend that meeting!

The choice of The Wilson Room also suggests that Andrew Bridgen did not expect many to attend. The Wilson Room appears to be a small meeting room, with a maximum capacity of 12-16 delegates, with sitting room for another 30 or so people.

Although Steve Kirsch claimed that some 12-16 MPs, other people said that the MPs only popped in for a few minutes. For example, MP Desmond Swayne left “disapprovingly” after the first 5 minutes, and just two minutes into David Martin’s presentation.

For context, the United Kingdom has 650 Members of Parliament in the House of Commons, and 784 members in the House of Lords.

This appears to be a much smaller, UK version of the International COVID Summit III, which claimed to be an official EU Parliament event (it was not).

Recommended : Why International COVID Summit III Criticised Vaccine!

Fact #3 : Most UK MPs Did Not Attend

Prime Minister Rishi Sunak, for one, not only declined to attend, he pointed out (archive) that the COVID-19 vaccines are safe and effective.

Firstly, whilst I am unable to attend the debate, the arrival of safe, effective and medically approved vaccines brought about a dramatic shift in our fight against Covid-19, not only in the UK but across the globe. I am incredibly proud of the strong role the UK played internationally in producing a viable vaccine, and also the incredible speed at which the NHS rolled it out domestically.

The Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA) followed rigorous procedures to ensure the vaccines met the necessary high standards in safety and efficacy.

The MHRA is one of the most respected regulators in the world and the World Health Organisation not only backed its approach, but also commended its work.

As I have alluded to previously, any Covid-19 vaccine that is approved must go through rigorous clinical trials and safety checks. Millions of people have been given a Covid-19 vaccine and reports of serious side effects, such as allergic reactions, have been very rare.

Data has shown that the vast majority of reported side effects are mild and in line with most types of vaccine, including the seasonal flu vaccine. The MHRA continues to monitor potential side effects of all vaccines in the UK. Routine safety monitoring and analysis of the approved Covid-19 vaccines by the MHRA shows that the safety of these vaccines remains as high as expected from the clinical trial data that supported the approvals.

Thank you again for taking the time to contact me.

Cat Smith, the Member of Parliament for Lancaster and Fleetwood, also declined to attend, noting that the overwhelming evidence that the COVID-19 vaccine is safe, and MPs would be legitimising the debate by participating:

Thank you for your emails regarding excess deaths and next week’s debate in Parliament.

The overwhelming evidence demonstrates that the COVID-19 vaccine is safe for the overwhelming majority so no I will not be legitimising this debate by participating in it.

Recommended : Did David Martin Testify To UK Parliament On COVID-19?!

Fact #4 : COVID-19 Vaccines Proven Safe + Effective

Regardless of what the 7 “experts or top doctors” may have said during that short 2-hour private meeting in The Wilson Room of the Portcullis House, they cannot refute the overwhelming evidence that COVID-19 vaccines have proven to be safe and effective for the vast majority of people who took them.

Tens of billions of doses have already been administered over the past 3 years, and verified cases of serious side effects and deaths have been few and far in between. In fact, the risk of developing myocarditis after a COVID-19 infection, for example, was shown to be hundreds of times higher than with multiple doses of the vaccines.

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

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

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

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

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

 

Please Support My Work!

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

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

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

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

 

Recommended Reading

Go Back To > Fact Check | ScienceTech 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!

Peter McCullough Testified To EU Parliament On Vaccine Safety?!

Did Dr. Peter McCullough testify to the EU Parliament on COVID-19 vaccine safety on 13 September 2023?!

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

Updated @ 2023-10-06 : Added a link, and other small changes.
Originally posted @ 2023-09-18

 

Peter McCullough Testified To EU Parliament On Vaccine Safety?!

People are sharing Twitter (X) and Rumble videos of Dr. Peter McCullough, claiming that he testified about the dangers of COVID-19 vaccines to the EU Parliament on 13 September 2023:

Blake 🔮 : Must Watch: Dr. Peter McCullough Calls For Complete Stop To All COVID Injections – Not Safe For Human Use (9/13/23):

@P_McCulloughMD testifies in the European Parliament to end all COVID vaccinations.

“I submit to you the COVID-19 vaccines and all of their progeny & future boosters are not safe for human use.”

World Council for Health (WCH) : In a session focused on the @WHO, Dr Peter McCullough (@P_McCulloughMD) delivered a powerful speech to the EU Parliament ahead of his upcoming WCH event in Bath, UK with Dr Tess Lawrie on Tuesday.

William Sumner Scott : The EU decided to allow Dr. Peter McCullough to make his presentation of the dangers of the covid – 19 vaccines. Bottom line, do not take any more of them.

America Out Lout : Dr. McCullough delivered a speech to the European Union Parliament on September 13, 2023, in a session dedicated to the World Health Organization and Pandemic response.

Recommended : COVID vaccines have 1000X death rate than safe limit?!

 

Peter McCullough Testified At EU Parliament : What I Discovered

Don’t be surprised if you did not see any EU Parliament announcement about banning COVID-19 vaccines, after Dr. Peter McCullough’s damning testimony to them.

Such a tremendous testimony should have made international news, shouldn’t it? After doing some research, this was what I discovered…

Fact #1 : Hearing Was About New WHO Proposed Rules

Like me, you probably thought that the EU Parliament invited Dr. Peter McCullough to testify about the safety of COVID-19 vaccines.

However, the event was actually billed as an “Expert hearing with Q&A” on “Health & Democracy under WHO’s new proposed rules“.

The new WHO rules they are referring to are really proposed amendments to the International Health Regulations (IHR) that WHO member states themselves have drafted and negotiated since December 2021.

Fact #2 : It Was Not An Official European Parliament Event

If you check the European Parliament website, you will not find this event listed at all. You also won’t find it in the European Parliament’s list of official events for September 2023:

Hearings : A committee is permitted to organise a hearing with experts, where this is considered essential to its work on a particular subject. No hearings were held in August or September 2023.

Workshops : Workshops are organised by the policy departments and enable members to put questions to and exchange views with experts on subjects associated with parliamentary business or subjects of current interest. No workshops were held in September 2023.

Other Events : All other public events organised as part of committee activities involving external speakers or experts. Only one event was scheduled for September 2023 – the 13th meeting of the Joint Parliamentary Scrutiny Group on Europe on 20 September 2023.

As far as I can tell – the Health & Democracy under WHO’s new proposed rules event was not an official European Parliament event. It appears to consist of allotted time for the speakers to speak to the attendees and a livestream from within a European Parliament room, similar to the earlier International COVID Summit III.

Perhaps that was ultimately the purpose of this event – to give those speakers the patina of European Parliamentary approval? Perhaps that was all they wanted.

Recommended : Why International COVID Summit III Criticised Vaccine!

Fact #3 : The Event Was Held At De Madariaga S7 Room

It took some digging, but I managed to trace the location of this event. It was not held in the grand plenary hall where the 705 Members of the European Parliament meet, of course.

Rather, the Health & Democracy under WHO’s new proposed rules event took place from 2:30 PM until 4:30 PM at the S7 room in the Salvador de Madariaga (SDM) building.

This is a different, secondary building across the river from the main Louise Weiss building, with many rooms available for MEPs to use.

This appears to be a smaller version of the earlier International COVID Summit III event.

Fact #4 : Event Was Hosted By ECR + ID Parliamentary Groups

The Health & Democracy under WHO’s new proposed rules event appears to be sponsored or hosted by several European Parliament Members from the ECR (European Conservatives and Reformists), and the Identity and Democracy (ID) groups.

  • MEP Christine Anderson, Identity and Democracy – Germany
  • MEP Mislav Kolakušić, Non-attached Member of the European Parliament – Croatia
  • MEP Ivan Vilibor Sinčić, Non-attached Member of the European Parliament – Croatia
  • MEP Cristian Terheş, European Conservatives and Reformists – Romania
  • MEP Virginie Joron, Identity and Democracy – France

That explains how this event was held within the European Parliament building, even though it was not an official or sanctioned event. This is similar to the earlier International COVID Summit III event.

Obviously, speaking to those five MEPs do not constitute speaking to the European Parliament itself, since 700 other MEPs were not in the room, and it wasn’t even an official event!

On top of that, the event banner shows that they were not there as official representatives of the European Parliament, but as “hosting MEPs”…

Recommended : Did US + UK Create COVID-19 As Bioweapon?!

Fact #4 : European Parliament Had Plenary Session At That Time

While it may appear that Dr. Peter McCullough and the other people at the event were speaking to the European Parliament itself, the truth is – the European Parliament was in the midst of a 4-day plenary session from 11-14 September 2023.

At the same time that Dr. McCullough was giving his “testimony” in the S7 room in the Salvador de Madariaga building across the river, the European Parliament itself was in the grand plenary hall in the Louise Weiss building for issues (itinerary) like:

  • Topical debate (Rule 162) – Reviewing the protection status of wolves and other large carnivores in the EU
  • Presentation by the Council of its position on the draft general budget – 2024 financial year
  • Report on the proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council establishing a framework for ensuring a secure and sustainable supply of critical raw materials and amending Regulations (EU) 168/2013, (EU) 2018/858, 2018/1724 and (EU) 2019/1020
  • Opening of negotiations of an agreement with the United States of America on strengthening international supply chains of critical minerals
  • Report with recommendations to the Commission on amending the proposed mechanism to resolve legal and administrative obstacles in a cross-border context

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

Fact #5 : All Hosting MEPs Attended Plenary Session!

The Health & Democracy under WHO’s new proposed rules event was hosted by five MEPs. However, the video does not actually show them present in the McCullough testimony video.

When I checked the attendance register, I was surprised to see that all five MEPs attended the plenary session on 13 September 2023 at the Louise Weiss building across the river!

  • Christine Anderson
  • Mislav Kolakušić
  • Ivan Vilibor Sinčić
  • Cristian Terheş
  • Virginie Joron

It is possible that those five MEPs may have taken time off from the plenary session to drop by the unofficial event they hosted – a roundtrip would take 30-40 minutes by car.

But there is currently no evidence that I can find to show that those MEPs were actually present during Peter McCullough’s testimony.

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

 

Please Support My Work!

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

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

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

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

 

Recommended Reading

Go Back To > Fact Check | ScienceTech ARP

 

Support Tech ARP!

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

Dr. Peter McCullough Has (Finally) Been Decertified!

Dr. Peter McCullough has finally been decertified, after two years of spouting misinformation about COVID-19 and vaccines!

 

Dr. Peter McCullough Has (Finally) Been Decertified!

Tech millionaire and anti-vaccination activist, Steve Kirsch (who is ironically fully-vaccinated himself!), just revealed that his antivax buddy, Dr. Peter McCullough has just been decertified!

Finally, after two years of spouting misinformation about COVID-19 and vaccines, Dr. Peter McCullough was stripped of his board certifications in Internal Medicine and Cardiology!

Peter McCullough had earlier been terminated as the Editor-In-Chief of Cardiorenal Medicine, and Reviews in Cardiovascular Medicine in March 2022. But when he was stripped of his board certifications, he went crying to his pal, Steve Kirsch:

I was terminated as the Editor-In-Chief of Cardiorenal Medicine and Reviews in Cardiovascular Medicine after years of service and rising impact factors. There was no phone call, no board meeting, no due process. Just e-mails or certified letters. Powerful dark forces are working in academic medicine to expunge any resistance to the vax.

Yesterday I was stripped of my board certifications in Internal Medicine and Cardiology after decades of perfect clinical performance, board scores, and hundreds of peer reviewed publications.

None of this will stop until there is a “needle in every arm.”

According to McCullough, the American Board of Internal Medicine said that his primary offences were:

  1. Understating the risk COVID-19 death for people under the age of 50.
  2. Overstating the risk of death from COVID-19 vaccines.

I would have said better late than never, but that would be like being fine with letting a serial murderer carry on slicing and dicing his victims for two years.

And the truth is – there is already a needle in every arm that is willing to accept facts, and the protection offered by the COVID-19 vaccines.

Yet the sky hasn’t fallen, except for Dr. Peter McCullough… extremely belated, but still welcome nevertheless.

Read more : Why Dr. Pierre Kory Got COVID-19 Despite Taking Ivermectin!

 

Dr. Peter McCullough : His Lies That Cost Lives

It is impossible to know how much damage Dr. Peter McCullough wrought with his lies, but he definitely cost many people their lives, or those of their loved ones.

McCullough has made so many false claims about COVID-19 and the vaccines, that it would be impossible to cover all of them, so here’s just a selection of his “best hits”:

  • He falsely claimed that the COVID-19 pandemic was planned many years ago at a 2017 Johns Hopkins University symposium.
  • He falsely claimed that there’s no scientific reason for healthy people under 50 to get the vaccine.
  • He falsely claimed that people who develop COVID-19 have “complete and durable immunity”, and that there is no benefit in vaccinating someone who recovered from COVID-19.
  • He falsely claimed that over 50,000 Americans died from the COVID-19 vaccine during his Texas Senate testimony in March 2021.
  • He falsely claimed that there is a “low degree, if any of asymptomatic spread” of COVID-19.
  • He promoted the use of hydroxychloroquine to treat COVID-19.
  • He falsely claimed that the COVID-19 vaccines are experimental.
  • He falsely claimed that the Emergency Use Authorisation is new and has never been used before.
  • He falsely claimed that there was a global recall of the COVID-19 vaccines.
  • He falsely claimed that face masks don’t work.

Just four months ago, Dr. Peter McCullough falsely testified to a Texas Senate Committee on Health & Human Services, that the COVID-19 vaccines were recalled after over 40,000 deaths were reported.

In my fact check, I pointed out the many mistakes (lies?) Dr. McCullough made in his testimony. He may sound authoritative to the public, but he’s really “full of shit”.

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

When you look at just the short list above, you have to wonder – why didn’t they strip his board certifications earlier?

It wouldn’t stop him from posting misinformation, but it would have blunted the effectiveness of his misinformation, by stripping him of the credibility his board certifications offer him.

In fact, that’s the reason why McCullough kept claiming to be the Vice Chief of Internal Medicine at Baylor University Medical Center, amongst other titles, MONTHS after he was “let go”.

In the end, Baylor Scott & White Health had to sue him for $1 million in damages, and file a restraining order to stop him from associating himself with their medical facilities.

Dr. Peter McCullough has long lost the respect of the medical fraternity because they know that he has been putting people’s lives at risk with his misinformation, literally breaking the Hippocratic oath.

But the public doesn’t know that. They believe his misinformation because he frames himself as a medical authority with board certifications.

Stripping him of his board certifications will not stop him from posting more misinformation, but it sure as heck will clip his credibility.

 

Please Support My Work!

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

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

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

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

 

Recommended Reading

Go Back To > Science | Fact ChecksTech ARP

 

Support Tech ARP!

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

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

Have COVID-19 vaccines been recalled after over 40,000 deaths were reported in major safety databases?! Take a look at the viral claims, and find out what the facts really are!

 

Claim : COVID-19 Vaccines Were Recalled After 40K Deaths!

People are sharing a video of Dr. Peter McCullough testifying to a Senate Committee on Health & Human Services, as evidence that COVID-19 vaccines have been recalled after 40,000 deaths!

It is often shared with comments like this :

50 deaths is the threshold for a vaccine recall.

40,000 #COVID19 #VaccineDeaths and no recall.

Ask yourself, why is this the first in history?

The video shows Dr. Peter McCullough making a number of claims. Here is my transcript. It’s long so feel free to skip to the next section for the facts…

This month, the World Council for Health, which represents 70 bodies worldwide, has called for a global recall of all vaccines, because worldwide 40,000 deaths that these safety databases across the world… 40,000 in the big ones – VAERS, the Yellow Card System, the VigiSafe [sic] and Eudrys [sic] system. 40,000 deaths with the vaccines.

 

Truth : COVID-19 Vaccines Are Safe + Were Not Recalled!

This is yet another example of FAKE NEWS created by anti-vaccination activists, including Dr. Peter McCullough himself, and here are the reasons why…

Fact #1 : It Was A Texas Senate Hearing

First, let us understand the context behind the viral video.

It was a partial clip from a 10.5 hour long interim hearing on public health data and the COVID-19 pandemic response held by the Texas Senate Health and Human Services Committee on June 27, 2022.

The Texas Senate hearing was just political theatre, in which the Republicans brought in fringe doctors or scientists like Peter McCullough and Robert Malone to, well, tell their lies.

I will now go through the McCullough clip (which starts at about 8:05:00), and show you why he has not changed his lying ways…

Fact #2 : No COVID-19 Vaccines Were Recalled

Just to be clear – no COVID-19 vaccines were recalled, either by health authorities or the manufacturers themselves.

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

Fact #3 : WCH Called For Vaccine Recall Since Sept. 2021

Despite its name – the World Council for Health (WCH) is really just another anti-vaccination organisation, filled with the usual suspects.

Just to be clear – it has no authority whatsoever. The WCH is nothing more than an antivaxxer club.

The WCH was launched on September 23, 2021 with the expressed purpose of calling for “an Immediate Stop to the Covid-19 Experimental Vaccines“. They also issued a Cease and Desist declaration, claiming that “Covid-19 vaccinations are dangerous and unsafe for human use“.

So Peter McCullough falsely claimed that WCH called for a vaccine recall “this month”. It has been calling for a vaccine recall from the very first day it was established. That is really its sole purpose – to stop COVID-19 vaccinations.

Fact #4 : VigiSafe + Eudrys Do Not Exist

Peter McCullough referred to the VigiSafe and Eudrys vaccine safety databases, but they do not exist.

Perhaps he meant the WHO VigiBase / VigiAccess database, and the EudraVigilance system run by the European Medicines Agency (EMA).

Recommended : Did Italian Court Rule Vaccine Mandate As Unconstitutional?!

Fact #5 : Pharmacovigilance Data Is Unverified

It is hilarious that Peter McCullough still insists on using pharmacovigilance data from VAERS, the Yellow Card system, etc. as evidence.

Anyone who even bothers to read the highlighted WARNINGS on those websites would have understood that their data and reports cannot be considered evidence of any kind, because:

  • they may contain duplicated information and/or reports
  • the reported event may be caused by an illness, like a COVID-19 infection for example,
  • the reported event may be caused by a different drug taken by the patient at the same time
  • they have not been assessed by health authorities to ascertain if it’s even “biologically plausible”

In addition, open systems like VAERS, or the UK Yellow Card system, are very susceptible to abuse because they allow anyone from anywhere to post anything they want, without evidence or verification.

Anti-vaccination activists can, for example, key in unlimited numbers of adverse reaction reports, even if they never received a single dose of the COVID-19 vaccine!

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

Fact #6 : 40,000 Deaths Not Proven To Be Caused By Vaccines

Using pharmacovigilance data to claim that the COVID-19 vaccines caused 40,000 deaths is disinformation – false information deliberately created to deceive you.

Peter McCullough has no evidence that the 40,000 deaths reported in pharmacovigilance data were actually caused by COVID-19 vaccines.

Making an adverse reaction report is no different from making a police report. If you make a police report, it is registered in the system. However, that doesn’t mean a crime was actually committed. The police will have to investigate and determine if you were lying / mistaken, or there was indeed a crime.

Similarly, these adverse reaction reports are just reports. They must first be investigated, in order to determine if they are really side effects of the vaccine, or completely unrelated.

Fact #7 : There Is No 50 Death Threshold For Vaccine Withdrawal

There is no such thing as a 50 death threshold for a vaccine withdrawal.

Vaccines are often recalled for non-lethal reasons. In fact, they are most often recalled in batches by their manufacturers after quality control tests showed some irregularities in certain batches.

Health authorities like the US FDA also monitor vaccines continuously and determine if there is a safety concern that warrants a withdrawal. They do not have to wait for 50 people to die first. That’s just absurd!

Sometimes vaccines are also recalled due to “low vaccine potency or strength”. In such cases, people who received them would need to get an extra dose!

Recommended : Do mRNA Vaccines Cause Invasion Of Killer Lymphocytes?!

Fact #8 : There Were Only 43 Omicron Cases On Dec. 10, 2021

It is interesting that Peter McCullough would talk about Omicron cases six months in the past.

But if you dig a little deeper, you will realise that he chose to talk about Omicron cases on December 10, 2021 because it was the first CDC report on Omicron cases in the United States.

At that time, there were only 43 known Omicron cases in the United States. Even though it showed that 79% were fully-vaccinated, that is misleading due to the low number of cases.

Fact #9 : Vaccinated People Have Mild Symptoms, Fewer Deaths

What he does not tell you is that most fully-vaccinated people experience mild symptoms even if they were infected with the Omicron variant.

He also does not tell you that COVID-19 deaths for fully-vaccinated people remain low, even as surges increased deaths for unvaccinated people, regardless of variant.

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

Fact #10 : Vaccines Were Meant To Prevent Hospitalisation + Death

Peter McCullough falsely claimed that the 79% result was “prima facie evidence” that the COVID-19 vaccines failed to work against the Omicron variant.

The COVID-19 vaccines are not force fields – they cannot block infections. They were designed to prevent symptomatic infections, severe disease and death by training your own immune system to defend itself against the ancestral SARS-CoV-2 virus.

The Omicron variant causes more breakthrough infections, but the COVID-19 vaccines continue to protect against severe disease leading to hospitalisations, and death from the Omicron variant.

The truth is – the COVID-19 vaccines still work well against the Omicron variants. They may not prevent infections, but they will ensure you have milder symptoms, and greatly reduce your risk of severe disease and death.

Fact #11 : Booster Doses Increase Protection Against Omicron

What Peter McCullough does not mention is the fact that you can improve your protection against the Omicron variant by getting a booster dose (or two).

A January 2022 study by the CDC showed that getting a third dose of any mRNA vaccine increases protection against both the Delta and Omicron variants.

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

Fact #12 : Anti-Vaccine Claims Keep Being Proven False

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

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

And please protect yourself, and your family, by vaccinating against COVID-19!

 

Please Support My Work!

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

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

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

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

 

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!