Tag Archives: Pfizer

Does FDA Document Prove COVID Vaccine Shedding Is Real?!

Did an FDA document just prove that COVID-19 vaccine shedding is real?! Take a look at the viral claim, and find out what the facts really are!

 

Claim : FDA Doc Proves COVID Vaccine Shedding Is Real!

People are sharing articles (archive | archive) by Natural News and Infowars, which claimed or suggested that an FDA document just proved that COVID-19 vaccine shedding is real!

Here is an excerpt from those articles. Feel free to skip to the next section for the facts!

PROOF: Documents from FDA, Pfizer show that COVID “vaccine” shedding is REAL

Recommended : Are Residual DNA In mRNA Vaccines Dangerous?!

 

Truth : FDA Doc Does Not Prove COVID Vaccine Shedding Is Real!

This is yet another example of anti-vaccine fake news, and here are the reasons why…

Fact #1 : The FDA Document Is From 2015

Let me start by pointing out that the FDA document in question is almost 9 years old, being originally published in August 2015.

In other words –  it was published 4 years before the COVID-19 pandemic, and 5 years before the first COVID-19 vaccines were approved.

Fact #2 : FDA Document Does Not Apply To COVID-19 Vaccines!

The FDA document was an industry guidance paper (PDF) called Design and Analysis of Shedding Studies for Virus or Bacteria-based Gene Therapy and Oncolytic Products.

The title itself is clear – it only refers to “Virus or Bacteria-based Gene Therapy and Oncolytic Products“.

COVID-19 vaccines are not gene therapy (gene modification) products, and they are not oncolytic (cancer killing) products either. So the FDA document does not apply to them!

Fact #3 : Shedding Only Occurs With Live Attenuated Virus Vaccines

Vaccine shedding actually refers to viral shedding, which can only (potentially) occur with live attenuated virus vaccines. Such vaccines alters the virus to make it weakened or even harmless, but still “live”.

There are no COVID-19 vaccines that are based on the live attenuated SARS-CoV-2 virus. Therefore, vaccine shedding cannot possibly occur with any COVID-19 vaccine currently-approved by the WHO.

All currently-approved COVID-19 vaccines are based on other vaccine technologies like inactivated virus (killed virus), viral vector (using a different virus), mRNA (using mRNA instructions), or subunit vaccines (using isolated viral proteins).

To be clear – mRNA vaccines from Pfizer-BioNTech and Moderna, highlighted in the Natural News and Infowars articles, do not cause vaccine shedding.

Recommended : Did McDonald’s Lose Toxic Meat Legal Battle With Jamie Oliver?!

Fact #4 : Viruses Multiply, Vaccines Won’t

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

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

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

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

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

Fact #5 : Natural News Is Known For Fake News

Natural News is a far-right, anti-vaccination conspiracy theory and fake news website that is known for publishing / promoting pseudoscience, disinformation, and far-right extremism.

Writing in the journal Vaccine, Anna Kata identified Natural News as one of numerous websites spreading “irresponsible health information”. According to John Banks, Natural News founder Mike Adams uses “pseudoscience to sell his lies” and is “seen as generally a quack and a shill by science bloggers.”

Dr. David Gorski called Natural News “one of the most wretched hives of scum and quackery on the Internet,” and the most “blatant purveyor of the worst kind of quackery and paranoid anti-physician and anti-medicine conspiracy theories anywhere on the Internet”.

Its articles have been regularly debunked as fake news, so you should never share anything from Natural News.  Here are some of its fake stories that I fact checked earlier:

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

 

Please Support My Work!

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

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

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

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

 

Recommended Reading

Go Back To > Fact Check | HealthTech ARP

 

Support Tech ARP!

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

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!

Red Cross begins deferring COVID-vaccinated blood donors?!

Did the American Red Cross just begin to defer blood donors who had the COVID-19 vaccine?!

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

 

Claim : Red Cross Begins Deferring COVID-Vaccinated Blood Donors!

People are sharing an article (archive) by The People’s Voice (formerly NewsPunch), which claimed or suggested that the WHO Director-General just order governments to eliminate independent media, before the arrival of Disease X!

American Red Cross Begins Deferring Blood Donors Who Had Covid Vaccine

Recommended : Is Red Cross Rejecting COVID Vaccinated Blood?!

 

Truth : Red Cross Did Not Begin Deferring COVID-Vaccinated Blood Donors!

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

Fact #1 : Red Cross Deferment Isn’t New

Let me start by pointing out that this deferment by the American Red Cross isn’t new. It actually dates back to at least 28 July 2021 (archive), which is more than 2.5 years ago!

Q: Are individuals who received a COVID-19 vaccine eligible to give blood, platelets and plasma?

A: Yes, you can donate blood after getting a COVID-19 vaccine, as long as you are symptom-free and feeling well at the time of the donation. Please come prepared to share the manufacturer name of the vaccine you received. If you do not know the name of the vaccine manufacturer, we request you wait two weeks to donate after vaccination, out of precaution.

The fact that some people are only realising this now isn’t shocking. What’s shocking is that some people would actually claim that the Red Cross is only “now” asking blood donors if they ever received the COVID-19 vaccine.

Fact #2 : Red Cross Has No Problem With mRNA Vaccines

The People’s Voice article claimed or suggested that the American Red Cross if asking blood donors if “they ever received the Covid mRNA vaccine“. That’s not true.

The American Red Cross only asks that if you received the COVID-19 vaccine to share “the manufacturer name” to determine if you need to “wait two weeks… after vaccination” to donate your blood.

In fact, the American Red Cross specifically pointed out that donors who received mRNA-based vaccines from Pfizer and Moderna do not need to wait to donate their blood.

There is no deferral time for eligible blood donors who are vaccinated with an inactivated or RNA based COVID-19 vaccine manufactured by AstraZeneca, Janssen/J&J, Moderna, Novavax, or Pfizer.

To be clear – the American Red Cross has never said that mRNA vaccines were dangerous, and donors who received it would need to defer giving blood.

Recommended : Is Bill Gates Planning To Kill Billions Using Turbo AIDS?!

Fact #3 : Red Cross Only Wants To Defer Live Attenuated Vaccine

The truth is Red Cross is only asking blood donors who received a “live attenuated COVID-19 vaccine” to wait two weeks before giving blood.

But guess what – no live attenuated COVID-19 vaccine has ever been approved anywhere in the world, as of 21 February 2024!

It appears that the Red Cross initiated this decision as far back as July 2021, out of an abundance of caution – because some donors may be a participant in a clinical trial involving a live attenuated COVID-19 vaccine, and kept it as a forward-looking requirement, when such COVID-19 vaccine is ever approved.

Eligible blood donors who received a live attenuated COVID-19 vaccine or do not know what type of COVID-19 vaccine they received must wait two weeks before giving blood.

Even that deferral isn’t set in stone, as it appears that the Red Cross will still accept blood donations from donors who are “symptom free and feeling well at the time of donation”:

In most cases, there is no deferral time for individuals who received a COVID-19 vaccine as long as they are symptom free and feeling well at the time of donation.

Recommended : Did Autopsies Show COVID-19 Vaccines Caused Deaths?!

Fact #5 : Red Cross Is Helping To Vaccinated People

Interestingly, the American Red Cross points out that while they are not a healthcare provider that administers COVID-19 vaccinations in the United States, its teams are helping to vaccinated US service members overseas!

The Red Cross, as an organization, is not a healthcare provider and is not administering COVID-19 vaccinations in the U.S. However, Red Cross volunteers who are medical professionals may work with local authorities to help give vaccinations if their state licenses permit them to do so. In addition, Red Cross teams are currently helping to vaccinate U.S. service members on bases around the world.

Yet again, it shows that the Red Cross does not have an issue with COVID-19 vaccinations. So why would anyone suggest otherwise???

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

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

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

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

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

 

Please Support My Work!

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

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

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

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

 

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!

Is Red Cross Rejecting COVID Vaccinated Blood?!

Is the American Red Cross rejecting blood from people who were vaccinated with COVID-19 vaccines?!

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

 

Claim : Red Cross May Be Rejecting COVID Vaccinated Blood!

Some people are claiming or suggesting on X (formerly Twitter) that Red Cross may be rejecting blood from people who were vaccinated with COVID-19 vaccines!

Alex Jones : COVID Vaxxed May Be Ineligible To Give Blood, Says Red Cross

Recommended : Did WEF Pass Law To Criminalise Criticism Of mRNA?!

 

Truth : Red Cross Is Not Rejecting COVID Vaccinated Blood!

This is yet another example of fake news circulating on X (formerly Twitter), and here are the reasons why…

Fact #1 : This Eligibility Requirement Isn’t New

Let me start by pointing out that this eligibility requirement isn’t new. The American Red Cross posted about this in a Q&A (archive) on 28 July 2021. That’s 2.5 years ago!

The fact that some people are only realising this now isn’t shocking. What’s shocking is that they are actually making a fuss about it.

Fact #2 : Red Cross Isn’t Rejecting Any COVID Vaccinated Blood

I should also point out that the American Red Cross has not, and is not, rejecting any blood from people who were vaccinated with the COVID-19 vaccine.

This was stated clearly in their July 2021 Q&A on COVID-19 vaccines and blood, platelet, or plasma donation eligibility.

Q: Are individuals who received a COVID-19 vaccine eligible to give blood, platelets and plasma?

A: Yes, you can donate blood after getting a COVID-19 vaccine, as long as you are symptom-free and feeling well at the time of the donation. Please come prepared to share the manufacturer name of the vaccine you received. If you do not know the name of the vaccine manufacturer, we request you wait two weeks to donate after vaccination, out of precaution.

Recommended : Did Alexei Navalny Die Suddenly From Vaccine SADS?!

Fact #3 : Red Cross Only Defers Some Blood Donations

The truth is Red Cross is only asking blood donors who received a “live attenuated COVID-19 vaccine” to wait two weeks before giving blood.

But guess what – no live attenuated COVID-19 vaccine has ever been approved anywhere in the world, as of 21 February 2024!

It appears that the Red Cross initiated this decision as far back as July 2021, out of an abundance of caution – because some donors may be a participant in a clinical trial involving a live attenuated COVID-19 vaccine, and kept it as a forward-looking requirement, when such COVID-19 vaccine is ever approved.

Eligible blood donors who received a live attenuated COVID-19 vaccine or do not know what type of COVID-19 vaccine they received must wait two weeks before giving blood.

Even that deferral isn’t set in stone, as it appears that the Red Cross will still accept blood donations from donors who are “symptom free and feeling well at the time of donation”:

In most cases, there is no deferral time for individuals who received a COVID-19 vaccine as long as they are symptom free and feeling well at the time of donation.

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

Fact #4 : There’s No Deferral For Inactivated / RNA / mRNA Vaccines

In any case, all of the approved COVID-19 vaccines in the United States, and the AstraZeneca COVID-19 vaccines, do not require any deferral, because they are based on the inactivated or RNA and mRNA vaccine technologies:

There is no deferral time for eligible blood donors who are vaccinated with an inactivated or RNA based COVID-19 vaccine manufactured by AstraZeneca, Janssen/J&J, Moderna, Novavax, or Pfizer.

So why would anyone throw a (pretend?) hissy fit about something that has zero effect on blood donors in the United States?

Fact #6 : Red Cross Is Helping To Vaccinated People

Interestingly, the American Red Cross points out that while they are not a healthcare provider that administers COVID-19 vaccinations in the United States, its teams are helping to vaccinated US service members overseas!

The Red Cross, as an organization, is not a healthcare provider and is not administering COVID-19 vaccinations in the U.S. However, Red Cross volunteers who are medical professionals may work with local authorities to help give vaccinations if their state licenses permit them to do so. In addition, Red Cross teams are currently helping to vaccinate U.S. service members on bases around the world.

Yet again, it shows that the Red Cross does not have an issue with COVID-19 vaccinations. So why would anyone suggest otherwise???

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 WEF Pass Law To Criminalise Criticism Of mRNA?!

Did the WEF just pass a new law to criminalise criticism of mRNA technology?! Take a look at the viral claim, and find out what the facts really are!

 

Claim : WEF Passed Law To Criminalise Criticism Of mRNA!

People are sharing an article (archive) by The People’s Voice (formerly NewsPunch), which claimed or suggested that France just passed a new law to jail people for opposing mRNA vaccines!

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

WEF Passes New Law To Criminalize Criticism of mRNA

Recommended : Did France Pass Law To Jail Opposition To mRNA Vaccines?!

 

Truth : WEF Did Not Pass Law To Criminalise Criticism Of mRNA!

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

Fact #1 : WEF Cannot Pass Any Law

Let me just start by pointing out that the World Economic Forum (WEF) cannot pass any law in any country. It is merely an international non-governmental organisation (NGO) that focuses on public-private sector collaboration.

The WEF has no power over world leaders, beyond its lobbying and influencing efforts. The WEF may be an influential lobbying organisation, but it cannot pass laws in any country.

Fact #2 : Only French National Assembly Passed Article 4

The controversial bill that has gotten anti-vaccine activists so riled up is called The Bill To Strengthen The Fight Against Sectarian Excesses And Improve The Support Of Victims. You can read the bill as it was presented to the Senate on 15 November 2023.

What particularly incensed them was Article 4 of that bill, which many are calling “Article Pfizer“. It failed the first vote on Tuesday, 13 February, but passed in the National Assembly with a vote of 116 to 108 on Wednesday, 14 February 2024.

To be clear – Article 4 was not passed by the French government, but by the National Assembly of the French Parliament. The full bill, which is not yet the law, was also passed by the National Assembly, and not the WEF, or the French government.

Fact #3 : WEF Screenshot Is Fake

The cover image used by The People’s Voice article has a screenshot which purportedly shows the World Economic Forum (WEF) posting on X (formerly Twitter) that:

mRNA deniers are dangerous – and must be imprisoned!

That is most definitely a fake screenshot, because there is no such post on X by the World Economic Forum. Yet again, The People’s Voice article provided no evidence that such a post ever existed, or that the WEF just passed a law to criminalise criticism of mRNA technology.

Recommended : Has Canada Begun Euthanising Vaccine-Injured Citizens?!

Fact #4 : French Bill Does Not Involve mRNA Vaccines

Regardless of what one may think of the new French bill or its Article 4, it does not have anything to do with the criticism of mRNA vaccines in France.

To the best of my knowledge – mRNA vaccines were not even mentioned once in the entire bill, or Article 4 itself! In fact, none of those who claimed that mRNA vaccines are involved ever provided any evidence they were mentioned in the bill!

If that’s true, you have to wonder – why do some people claim that the French bill, or its Article 4, would imprison anyone who criticises or refuses to accept mRNA vaccines???

Fact #5 : Article 4 Targets Health Disinformation

As the La Chaîne parlementaire (LCP) explained, Article 4 of the bill made it a crime to incite the “abandonment of care” in France.

Specifically dedicated to therapeutic-type excesses, this Article 4 creates a new crime aimed at punishing “the provocation to abandon or refrain from following medical-therapeutic or prophylactic treatment“, as well as “the provocation to adopt practices presented as having a therapeutic or prophylactic purpose“, when these incentives may be “particularly serious” for physical or mental health.

In other words – Article 4 of this French bill makes it a crime to convince or encourage people not to accept reasonable medical treatment or prophylactic treatments (like vaccines), or to undertake treatments that can cause serious physical or mental harm.

Why would anyone want to continue letting unscrupulous people promote fake cures, or mislead people about proven medical treatments and prophylactics???

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

Fact #6 : French Bill Targets Self-Declared “Gurus”

As LCP explained in a separate article, the overall bill targets “sectarian excesses in the digital space and the new gurus 2.0“, pointing out that the COVID-19 pandemic enabled many of these “gurus” to take advantage of social networks to promote sectarian excesses:

The text also stresses that “the health crisis has been an ideal ground for these new sectarian excesses. New forms of “gurus” or self-proclaimed master thinkers act online, taking advantage of the vitality of social networks to federate real communities around them.”

In other words – if the bill passes and becomes law, it only endangers self-proclaimed “gurus” and cults that use social media and the Internet to snare their victims.

There does not seem to be any provision in the law to fine or imprison people in France who criticise mRNA vaccines, or pharmaceutical companies like Pfizer.

Fact #7 : Article 4 Was Amended Before Passage

According to LCP, Article 4 was amended after it first failed to pass, to include these amendments:

  • a crime would not be committed when proof of the free and informed consent of the person is provided”
  • whistleblowers of such crimes would be protected as “the information reported or disclosed by the whistleblower under the conditions provided for in Article 6” of the aforementioned law “does not constitute a provocation

In other words, these gurus would not be guilty of any crime if the people they convince to go against proven medical treatments acknowledge that they provided their free and informed consent.

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

Fact #8 : French Bill Isn’t Law Yet

While many people claim that the bill or its Article 4 were passed into law, that is simply not true. As of 20 February 2024, this bill, and its Article 4, has not become law in France.

After the amended Article 4 passed on 13 February, the entire bill passed in the National Assembly the next day – on 14 February 2024, with an overwhelming 151 to 73 vote. Even so, that does not make the bill a law yet.

For one thing – that was only the first reading in the National Assembly. The bill now goes to the Senate for its approval or amendments, before returning to the National Assembly for its second reading if there are any amendments.

Only after the final bill is approved by both houses, can it then be sent to the President of France for his signature. Assuming there is no request for a constitutional review, the bill only becomes law once the French President signs it, and the Prime Minister countersigns it, and it is sent to the Journal Officiel for publication.

Fact #9 : The People’s Voice Is Known For Fake News

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

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

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

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

 

Please Support My Work!

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

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

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

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

 

Recommended Reading

Go Back To > Fact Check | Law + CrimeTech 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 France Pass Law To Jail Opposition To mRNA Vaccines?!

Did France just pass a new law to jail people for opposing mRNA vaccines?! Take a look at the viral claim, and find out what the facts really are!

 

Claim : France Passed Law To Jail Opposition To mRNA Vaccines!

People are sharing an article (archive) by The People’s Voice (formerly NewsPunch), which claimed or suggested that France just passed a new law to jail people for opposing mRNA vaccines!

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

France: Opposition To mRNA Injections Carries Penalty Of Up To 3 Years In Jail

Recommended : Did France Pass “Article Pfizer” Law To Ban mRNA Criticism?!

 

Truth : France Did Not Pass Law To Jail Opposition To mRNA Vaccines!

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

Fact #1 : Only National Assembly Passed Article 4

Let me start by pointing out that the controversial bill that has gotten anti-vaccine activists so riled up is called The Bill To Strengthen The Fight Against Sectarian Excesses And Improve The Support Of Victims. You can read the bill as it was presented to the Senate on 15 November 2023.

What particularly incensed them was Article 4 of that bill, which many are calling “Article Pfizer“. It failed the first vote on Tuesday, 13 February, but passed in the National Assembly with a vote of 116 to 108 on Wednesday, 14 February 2024.

Fact #2 : French Bill Does Not Involve mRNA Vaccines

Regardless of what one may think of the new French bill or its Article 4, it does not have anything to do with the criticism of mRNA vaccines in France.

To the best of my knowledge – mRNA vaccines were not even mentioned once in the entire bill, or Article 4 itself! In fact, none of those who claimed that mRNA vaccines are involved ever provided any evidence they were mentioned in the bill!

If that’s true, you have to wonder – why do some people claim that the French bill, or its Article 4, would imprison anyone who criticises or refuses to accept mRNA vaccines???

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

Fact #3 : Article 4 Targets Health Disinformation

As the La Chaîne parlementaire (LCP) explained, Article 4 of the bill made it a crime to incite the “abandonment of care” in France.

Specifically dedicated to therapeutic-type excesses, this Article 4 creates a new crime aimed at punishing “the provocation to abandon or refrain from following medical-therapeutic or prophylactic treatment“, as well as “the provocation to adopt practices presented as having a therapeutic or prophylactic purpose“, when these incentives may be “particularly serious” for physical or mental health.

In other words – Article 4 of this French bill makes it a crime to convince or encourage people not to accept reasonable medical treatment or prophylactic treatments (like vaccines), or to undertake treatments that can cause serious physical or mental harm.

Why would anyone want to continue letting unscrupulous people promote fake cures, or mislead people about proven medical treatments and prophylactics???

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

Fact #4 : French Bill Targets Self-Declared “Gurus”

As LCP explained in a separate article, the overall bill targets “sectarian excesses in the digital space and the new gurus 2.0“, pointing out that the COVID-19 pandemic enabled many of these “gurus” to take advantage of social networks to promote sectarian excesses:

The text also stresses that “the health crisis has been an ideal ground for these new sectarian excesses. New forms of “gurus” or self-proclaimed master thinkers act online, taking advantage of the vitality of social networks to federate real communities around them.”

In other words – if the bill passes and becomes law, it only endangers self-proclaimed “gurus” and cults that use social media and the Internet to snare their victims.

There does not seem to be any provision in the law to fine or imprison people in France who criticise mRNA vaccines, or pharmaceutical companies like Pfizer.

Fact #5 : Article 4 Was Amended Before Passage

According to LCP, Article 4 was amended after it first failed to pass, to include these amendments:

  • a crime would not be committed when proof of the free and informed consent of the person is provided”
  • whistleblowers of such crimes would be protected as “the information reported or disclosed by the whistleblower under the conditions provided for in Article 6” of the aforementioned law “does not constitute a provocation

In other words, these gurus would not be guilty of any crime if the people they convince to go against proven medical treatments acknowledge that they provided their free and informed consent.

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

Fact #6 : French Bill Isn’t Law Yet

While many people claim that the bill or its Article 4 were passed into law, that is simply not true. As of 20 February 2024, this bill, and its Article 4, has not become law in France.

After the amended Article 4 passed on 13 February, the entire bill passed in the National Assembly the next day – on 14 February 2024, with an overwhelming 151 to 73 vote. Even so, that does not make the bill a law yet.

For one thing – that was only the first reading in the National Assembly. The bill now goes to the Senate for its approval or amendments, before returning to the National Assembly for its second reading if there are any amendments.

Only after the final bill is approved by both houses, can it then be sent to the President of France for his signature. Assuming there is no request for a constitutional review, the bill only becomes law once the French President signs it, and the Prime Minister countersigns it, and it is sent to the Journal Officiel for publication.

Fact #7 : The People’s Voice Is Known For Fake News

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

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

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

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

Please 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 | Law + CrimeTech 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 France Pass “Article Pfizer” Law To Ban mRNA Criticism?!

Did France just pass a new “Article Pfizer” law to ban and criminalise any criticism of mRNA vaccines?!

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

 

Claim : France Passed “Article Pfizer” Law To Ban mRNA Criticism!

People are sharing articles and/or a screenshot on X (formerly Twitter), which appears to show that France just passed a new “Article Pfizer” law to ban and criminalise any criticism of mRNA vaccines!

Dr. Kat Lindley : France: any criticism of mRNA platform punishable with up to 3 years imprisonment and 45,000 euros.

“Article 4 is central to the new law, which was first deleted but then reinstated. This creates a new criminal offense and criminalizes the “ request to stop or refrain from therapeutic or prophylactic medical treatment” as well as “the request to use practices that are presented as therapeutic or prophylactic ”. This means that any resistance to mRNA treatment (and other corporate medical methods) can be criminalized in the future.”

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

 

Truth : France Did Not Pass “Article Pfizer” Law To Ban mRNA Criticism!

This is yet another example of fake news circulating on X (formerly Twitter), and here are the reasons why…

Fact #1 : French National Assembly Passed Article 4 On 14 February 2024

Let me start by pointing out that the controversial bill that has gotten anti-vaccine activists so riled up is called The Bill To Strengthen The Fight Against Sectarian Excesses And Improve The Support Of Victims. You can read the bill as it was presented to the Senate on 15 November 2023.

What particularly incensed them was Article 4 of that bill, which many are calling “Article Pfizer“. It failed the first vote on Tuesday, 13 February, but passed in the National Assembly with a vote of 116 to 108 on Wednesday, 14 February 2024.

Fact #2 : French Bill Does Not Involve Pfizer / mRNA

Regardless of what one may think of the new French bill or its Article 4, it does not have anything to do with Pfizer or the criticism of mRNA vaccines in France.

To the best of my knowledge – neither Pfizer nor mRNA vaccines were mentioned even once in the entire bill, or Article 4 itself! In fact, none of those who claimed that Pfizer and mRNA vaccines are involved ever provided any evidence they were mentioned in the bill!

If that’s true, you have to wonder – why do some people claim that the French bill, or its Article 4, would fine or imprison anyone who criticises or refuses to accept mRNA vaccines???

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

Fact #3 : Article 4 Targets Health Disinformation

As the La Chaîne parlementaire (LCP) explained, Article 4 of the bill made it a crime to incite the “abandonment of care” in France.

Specifically dedicated to therapeutic-type excesses, this Article 4 creates a new crime aimed at punishing “the provocation to abandon or refrain from following medical-therapeutic or prophylactic treatment“, as well as “the provocation to adopt practices presented as having a therapeutic or prophylactic purpose“, when these incentives may be “particularly serious” for physical or mental health.

In other words – Article 4 of this French bill makes it a crime to convince or encourage people not to accept reasonable medical treatment or prophylactic treatments (like vaccines), or to undertake treatments that can cause serious physical or mental harm.

Why would anyone want to continue letting unscrupulous people promote fake cures, or mislead people about proven medical treatments and prophylactics???

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

Fact #4 : French Bill Targets Self-Declared “Gurus”

As LCP explained in a separate article, the overall bill targets “sectarian excesses in the digital space and the new gurus 2.0“, pointing out that the COVID-19 pandemic enabled many of these “gurus” to take advantage of social networks to promote sectarian excesses:

The text also stresses that “the health crisis has been an ideal ground for these new sectarian excesses. New forms of “gurus” or self-proclaimed master thinkers act online, taking advantage of the vitality of social networks to federate real communities around them.”

In other words – if the bill passes and becomes law, it only endangers self-proclaimed “gurus” and cults that use social media and the Internet to snare their victims.

There does not seem to be any provision in the law to fine or imprison people in France who criticise mRNA vaccines, or pharmaceutical companies like Pfizer.

Fact #5 : Article 4 Was Amended Before Passage

According to LCP, Article 4 was amended after it first failed to pass, to include these amendments:

  • a crime would not be committed when proof of the free and informed consent of the person is provided”
  • whistleblowers of such crimes would be protected as “the information reported or disclosed by the whistleblower under the conditions provided for in Article 6” of the aforementioned law “does not constitute a provocation

In other words, these gurus would not be guilty of any crime if the people they convince to go against proven medical treatments acknowledge that they provided their free and informed consent.

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

Fact #6 : French Bill Isn’t Law Yet

While many people claim that the bill or its Article 4 were passed into law, that is simply not true. As of 16 February 2024, this bill, and its Article 4, has not become law in France.

After the amended Article 4 passed on 13 February, the entire bill passed in the National Assembly the next day – on 14 February 2024, with an overwhelming 151 to 73 vote. Even so, that does not make the bill a law yet.

For one thing – that was only the first reading in the National Assembly. The bill now goes to the Senate for its approval or amendments, before returning to the National Assembly for its second reading if there are any amendments.

Only after the final bill is approved by both houses, can it then be sent to the President of France for his signature. Assuming there is no request for a constitutional review, the bill only becomes law once the French President signs it, and the Prime Minister countersigns it, and it is sent to the Journal Officiel for publication.

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!

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

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

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

 

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

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

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

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

 

Truth : CDC Has Evidence Vaccines Reduce Spread + Variants!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Fact #3 : FOIA Is Not For Basic Science Questions

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

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

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

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

Dear Mr. Stieber:

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

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

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

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

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

Recommended : Are Vaccinated People Developing Full Blown AIDS?!

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

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

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

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

Fact #5 : CDC Does Not Conduct Fundamental Research

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

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

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

Recommended : Are Residual DNA In mRNA Vaccines Dangerous?!

Fact #6 : This Is An Old Story

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

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

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

Can COVID-19 vaccines cause variants?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

Please Support My Work!

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

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

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

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

 

Recommended Reading

Go Back To > Fact Check | HealthTech ARP

 

Support Tech ARP!

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

Did Bill Gates Just Admit To Committing Planetary Genocide?!

Did Bill Gates just admit to committing planetary genocide in an interview with USA Today?!

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

 

Claim : Bill Gates Just Admits To Committing Planetary Genocide!

People are sharing a video clip on X (formerly Twitter), while claiming or suggesting that Bill Gates just admitted to committing planetary genocide in an interview with USA Today!

Liz Churchill : “We just need to mess around with all of the Nano-lipid Particles to make more vaccines”. -Bill Gates admitting to committing Planetary Genocide.

Arrest this Monster.

Recommended : Is Bill Gates Planning To Kill Billions Using Turbo AIDS?!

 

Truth : Bill Gates Did Not Admit To Committing Planetary Genocide!

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

Fact #1 : USA Today Video Is Over Two Years Old!

Let me start by pointing out that the USA Today interview that people are sharing isn’t new. Heck, it’s more than two years old!

USA Today published that interview on 27 January 2021, with the title – Bill Gates predicts mRNA will be a game changer for vaccines over next 5 years.

Fact #2 : Bill Gates Did Not Admit To Committing Genocide

Bill Gates is, no doubt, a very popular bogeyman for conspiracy theorists and anti-vaccine activists. But this claim is just silly, and makes them look like absolute idiots.

The USA Today video does not show Bill Gates admitting to committing genocide of any kind, neither the planetary variety or just the local stuff. Anyone can see that.

Those making these claims that “Bill Gates admitting to committing Planetary Genocide” offered no evidence to back them up. The video is actually proof that Bill Gates did no such thing.

In the interview, Bill Gates was predicting the mRNA vaccine platform’s potential to treat or eradicate many other diseases. At no point in time did he ever admit to committing genocide… of any kind.

Recommended : Will Microsoft Disable Your Computer If You Share Fake News?!

Fact #3 : mRNA Vaccines Proven Safe + Effective

Tens of billions of doses of mRNA vaccines for COVID-19 have been administered worldwide over the last 3 years, and have been proven in multiple studies to be safe and effective. Here are just some examples:

In fact, the very fact that the world has been able to reopen completely after the COVID-19 pandemic is a testament to the safety and efficacy of the COVID-19 vaccines, which include mRNA vaccines from Pfizer, BioNTech and Moderna.

Fact #4 : This Is Just Fake News About Bill Gates

This is ultimately just more fake news being created / spread about Bill Gates. Here are some other recent examples:

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 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!

Did Pfizer Call mRNA Vaccines Deadliest Drug In History?!

Did Pfizer just admit that the mRNA COVID-19 vaccines are the deadliest drug in history?! Take a look at the viral claim, and find out what the facts really are!

 

Claim : Pfizer Calls mRNA Vaccines Deadliest Drug In History!

People are sharing an article (archive) by The People’s Voice (formerly NewsPunch), which claims that Pfizer just admitted that the mRNA COVID-19 vaccines are the deadliest drug in history!

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

Covid Vaccines Are Officially Deadliest Drug In History and Nobody Is Allowed to Talk About It

Recommended : Did WEF Just Admit Disease X Will Be Leaked In 2025?!

 

Truth : Pfizer Did Not Call mRNA Vaccines Deadliest Drug In History!

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

Fact #1 : Pfizer Did Not Call mRNA Vaccines Deadliest Drug In History

This is really silly, but let me start by pointing out that Pfizer never said / admitted / called the mRNA COVID-19 vaccines the deadliest drug in history.

The People’s Voice article certainly offered no evidence to back up its “fact checked” claim. Did it include a link to a Pfizer statement? A quote by Pfizer CEO Albert Bourla whose visage featured prominently in their video cover?

Nope. Zilch. Nada. Not a single shred of evidence that Pfizer ever called the mRNA vaccines the “deadliest drug in history”.

Fact #2 : FDA Released Pfizer Documents

The People’s Voice article claimed that Pfizer released documents “admitting the unprecedented carnage caused by their product”. That’s not true – Pfizer did not release any documents.

It was the US FDA that was releasing those Pfizer documents under a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request by the PHMPT (Public Health and Medical Professionals for Transparency) group.

Fact #3 : FDA Released Pfizer 5.3.6 Document In 2021

The People’s Voice article claimed that the Pfizer 5.3.6 document was “dropped on April Fools Day 2022”, but that’s not exactly true either.

The Pfizer 5.3.6 Postmarketing Experience document was first released by the FDA to the PHMPT (Public Health and Medical Professionals for Transparency) group, with three small pieces of information redacted on 17 November 2021.

The FDA later decided that the redacted information were not confidential after all, and reissued the same document in full on 1 April 2022. You can read more about this here.

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

Fact #4 : Pfizer 5.3.6 Deaths + Injuries Were Not Vaccine-Linked

The People’s Voice video pointed out that the Pfizer 5.3.6 document appears to list 42,086 injuries, and 1,223 deaths. That’s not accurate.

The deaths and injuries listed in the Pfizer 5.3.6 document were not linked to the mRNA vaccine, because it was based on the “List of Adverse Events of Special Interest” (AESI).

This AESI list is not a list of side effects caused by the Pfizer mRNA COVID-19 vaccine. Rather, it is a list of adverse events that Pfizer must look for post-vaccination case reports. As the Pfizer document noted on Page 16 (with my emphasis in bold) :

The AESI terms are incorporated into a TME list and include events of interest due to their association with severe COVID-19 and events of interest for vaccines in general.

Pfizer also pointed out that this adverse event evaluation is different (distinct) from the safety evaluation of its COVID-19 vaccine.

This is distinct from safety signal evaluations which are conducted and included, as appropriate, in the Summary Monthly Safety Reports submitted regularly to the FDA and other Health Authorities.

Claiming that these are vaccine side effects is like pointing to a list of prosecutable crimes in a legislation, and calling it a list of crimes the government actually committed. That’s how stupid it really is.

Fact #5 : Adverse Events Are Not Side Effects

I should now point out that adverse events are not necessarily side effects. Adverse events are “unfavourable” or “unintended” events that happen after vaccination or taking a drug, like having an anaphylactic reaction or getting into a car accident.

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

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

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

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

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!

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!

Bill Gates Invested In BioNTech Because COVID Was Coming?!

Did Bill Gates invest in BioNTech two months before COVID-19 was announced, because he was forewarned, or planned the pandemic?!

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

 

Claim : Bill Gates Invested In BioNTech Because COVID Was Coming!

People are sharing a post on X (formerly Twitter) by PeterSweden (archive), which appears to suggest that Bill Gates invested in BioNTech because COVID-19 was coming. Here is an excerpt:

I recently discovered something very weird. Bill Gates invested a whopping $55 MILLION in BioNTech that made the Pfizer mRNA injection. You will never believe the date that this happened…

This led some people to conclude or suggest that Bill Gates must have been forewarned, or even planned the pandemic himself! For example:

Thunder26 : It’s not a coincidence. It was all planned People who pulled the strings made a fortune out of this “pandemic”

Recommended : Is Bill Gates Planning To Kill Billions Using Turbo AIDS?!

 

Truth : Bill Gates Did Not Invest In BioNTech Because COVID Was Coming!

Let’s take a look at those claims, and find out what the facts really are…

Fact #1 : Investment Was Made By Gates Foundation

Let me start by pointing out that Bill Gates did not invest $55 million in BioNTech. It was the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation (BMGF). You know, the world’s second largest charitable foundation?

While Bill Gates may be its most public face, the BMGF is governed by a board of trustees, with a CEO and five independent experts, and advised by a Scientific Advisory Committee.

Fact #2 : Agreement Was Signed In August 2019

Both BioNTech and the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation announced the investment (here and here) on 4 September 2019. However, the investment agreement between the two parties was signed 5 days earlier, on 30 August 2019, as filed with the SEC.

This may seem like a small point, but a mistake here, a mistake there, and you end up with complete bollocks.

I should also point out that such large investments would have taken weeks, if not months, for both parties to negotiate, and their lawyers and boards to vet and approve.

Fact #3 : Investment Was Limited To HIV + TB Vaccines

The BioNTech press release made it clear that the BMGF investment was a partnership to “develop preclinical vaccine and immunotherapy candidates” for HIV and tuberculosis.

This was not mere PR. There was actually a legal agreement between the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, and BioNTech SE, restricting what the funds can be used for.

This agreement on the “Strategic Relationship between the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation and BioNTech SE“, which was also filed with the SEC on 30 August 2019, clearly stated that BioNTech will complete work packages on the Initial HIV SOW (Scope of Work) and the Initial TB Project SOW.

It also stated that “Additional Projects will not be funded by the Foundation Investment except in the limited circumstances following a determination that it is futile to continue with a workplan as set forth in the TB Project Statement of Work or HIV Project Statement of Work.

In other words – the $55 million BMGF investment was limited to the development of HIV and TV vaccines and immunotherapies.

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

Fact #4 : $55 Million Is Chump Change For BMGF

As the world’s second-largest charitable foundation, the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation hold some $69 billion worth of assets. On top of that, it has given away some 7 billion dollars to fight disease and poverty.

In short – a $55 million investment is chump change. If Bill Gates was forewarned about COVID-19, and somehow knew that BioNTech’s mRNA vaccine technology would be a winner in the upcoming pandemic, he would have invested BILLIONS, not just a paltry $55 million.

Imagine if Bill Gates invested $10 billion into BioNTech, instead of just $55 million. The BMGF would be $100 billion richer, not just 0.55 billion richer. Ah, what a lousy businessman!

Fact #5 : BMGF To Grant Additional $45 Million

The BioNTech press release pointed that the total funding could reach $100 million, but oddly enough – the viral post failed to point that out. Why?

Possibly, that’s because the investment agreement stated that if BioNTech achieved its HIV and tuberculosis project milestones, the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation would provide additional grants of up to $45 million!

Now, if the BMGF only invested in BioNTech to make money, why would it provide $45 million in grants when it can simply purchase $110 million of equity at one go?

Imagine if Bill Gates invested $110 million into BioNTech instead of just $55 million, he would have earned $1.1 billion, instead of “just $550 million” as claimed by the viral post. Ah, you silly, silly man…

Recommended : Was Bill Gates Destroyed In ABC News Interview?!

Fact #6 : China Only Revealed COVID-19 In December 2019

Finally, the viral post claimed that we first heard about the novel coronavirus that would be known as SARS-CoV-2 in November 2019. That’s not true.

While later reports suggested that SARS-CoV-2 was circulating in Wuhan in October and November, the public was only made aware of the new coronavirus on the very last day of 2019.

On 30 December 2019, the Wuhan Municipal Health Commission sent a hard-copy of guidelines on fighting “a possible outbreak of infectious pneumonia” to its affiliate institutions. It was only on 31 December that the Commission publicly announced the pneumonia outbreak in Wuhan, which was picked up by the WHO office in China and international news media.

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!

Pfizer Vaccine Causes Autism? Rats Are Not Mini Humans!

Did a new Turkish study suggest that giving the Pfizer COVID-19 vaccine to pregnant women may cause autism in their children?!

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

 

Claim : Study Suggests Pfizer mRNA Vaccine May Cause Autism!

The Children’s Health Defense (CHD) activist group, which is chaired by Robert F. Kennedy Jr., just posted an article suggesting that a new Turkish study suggests that giving the Pfizer COVID-19 vaccine to pregnant women may cause autism in their children!

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

Pfizer’s COVID Vaccine Caused Autism-Like Behaviors in Offspring of Rats Vaccinated During Pregnancy

COVID-19 mRNA gene therapies (“vaccines”) were likely the first injectable medicines recommended for pregnant women based on just 11 weeks of testing — even though according to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, the average time required to test a drug for safety is eight-and-a-half years.

Now, a Turkish study in Neurochemical Research, by Mumin Alper Erdogan et al., suggests administering the mRNA vaccines to pregnant women may cause neurodevelopmental harm to their children.

Recommended : Did New Study Show Pfizer mRNA Vaccine Causes Autism?!

 

Truth : Study Did Not Suggest Pfizer mRNA Vaccine Causes Autism!

Let’s take a closer look at the study from Turkey, and find out what the facts really are!

Fact #1 : mRNA Vaccines Are Not Gene Therapies

Let me just start by pointing out that the first sentence in the CHD article is factually wrong – mRNA vaccines are not gene therapies. It’s really peculiar for anyone to make such a claim.

mRNA vaccines do not enter the cell nucleus, and do not modify our cell DNA. There is no danger of “genomic integration”. The mRNA is also transitory – being broken down by the cell after some time.

Gene therapies, on the other hand, are designed to make permanent changes to a patient’s DNA, by adding a functional copy of a gene, disabling a gene, or activating an existing gene.

Fact #2 : Bridging Studies Do Not Require Long Trials

I also find it odd that the article took pains to point out that the mRNA vaccines for pregnant women were approved after “just 11 weeks of testing”. Does the CHD have any evidence that this is insufficient time to determine the vaccines’ safety and efficacy in pregnant women?

It is interesting that the article failed to mention that the 11-week trial involved more than 35,000 individuals who received the Pfizer or Moderna mNRA vaccine during or shortly before pregnancy, making it the largest trial (at that time) on the safety of COVID-19 vaccines in pregnant women.

I should point out that that wasn’t a full-blown Phase 3 clinical trial, which both Pfizer and Moderna mRNA vaccines had already passed with flying colours months earlier. That was a bridging study, which does not require long trials. So any suggestion or insinuation that they should take the “average time” of 8.5 years is nonsensical.

In any case, the COVID-19 vaccines continue to be monitored for safety and efficacy long after their approvals. If any COVID-19 vaccine was found to have a bad side effect, its approval would be rescinded.

Fact #3 : Study Never Suggested mRNA Vaccines Cause Autism In Humans

I should point out that the Turkish study never suggested that mRNA vaccines given to pregnant women may cause neurodevelopmental harm to their children. The authors stated this clearly. More on this in the next section.

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

Fact #4 : It Was An Animal Study

The paper from Turkey by Mumim Alper Erdogan et. al., which is called Prenatal Exposure to COVID-19 mRNA Vaccine BNT162b2 Induces Autism-Like Behaviors in Male Neonatal Rats: Insights into WNT and BDNF Signaling Perturbations, is available for public access (archive).

As the title points out – the Turkish study was conducted on rats, specifically Wistar rats. Therefore, the results obviously do not necessarily translate to actual human beings.

While rats are mammals too, they are not miniature human beings, and respond differently to chemicals, drugs, and yes, vaccines too. Therefore, the results of any animal study should not be used to draw any conclusions about human beings. The authors themselves pointed this out:

… it’s vital to note these insights come primarily from animal studies, limiting their direct applicability to humans. Further human clinical research is required to confirm these findings.

It’s imperative to recognize the limitations of our research, given that it relies on animal models. Caution should be exercised in generalizing these results to humans.

Fact #5 : Pfizer Vaccine Dose Was Extremely High

To conduct their experiments, the Turkish researchers impregnated 15 female Wistar rats, splitting them into two groups – 7 receiving a saline solution (control group), and 8 receiving the Pfizer mRNA vaccine. However, it does not appear that the rats were given the appropriate dosage of the Pfizer vaccine.

Human adults receive 30 μg of the Pfizer vaccine in each dose. Given that the average female adult weight is 77.5 kg / 170.8 pounds (per CDC), and the average Wistar rat in that experiment weighed about 220 grams, each female rat should have received only 0.085 μg – 1/352th of the human dose.

Instead, each female Wistar rat was injected with 30 μg of the Pfizer mRNA vaccine – equivalent to 10,560 μg in human dosage, or 352 vaccine doses in one shot. This was the same problem we saw with an earlier Belgian study on the Pfizer vaccine causing turbo cancer.

This decision to use such a high dose of the Pfizer vaccine (in relative terms) makes the experiment a poor reflection of actual vaccine safety in human beings. Anything taken at such high doses would likely be toxic. Even water, when taken in large amounts, is toxic to humans.

Recommended : Why Study Didn’t Prove Pfizer Vaccine Causes Turbo Cancer!

Fact #6 : Study Did Not Test COVID-19 Infection

The study suggested in its introduction that the spike protein – whether produced by “natural viral infection” or “post vaccination” may potentially cause “neurodevelopmental disorders, including autism”.

There are theoretical postulates suggesting that the biosynthesis of the spike protein, either through natural viral infection or post-vaccination, could induce neuroinflammation and elicit alterations in synaptic plasticity [5, 6]. These proposed changes might exert effects on brain development and have potential contributions to neurodevelopmental disorders, including autism [7].

Unfortunately, the study did not test that hypothesis by testing to see if COVID-19 infection also causes similar changes in the progeny of pregnant Wistar rats. So it is impossible to know if it was a component in the Pfizer vaccine, or the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein, that caused those changes in the rat babies.

Think about it – if it was really the spike protein that caused those changes, then the benefits of vaccination would still outweigh the risks. After all, COVID-19 vaccines only create a limited number of spike protein analogues to trigger the immune system into learning how to create antibodies against the SARS-CoV-2 virus.

On the other hand, the actual COVID-19 infection will create an unlimited number of SARS-CoV-2 viruses – each covered with spike proteins! The longer the COVID-19 infection persists, the more cells are infected to produce more SARS-CoV-2 viruses… and yes, more spike proteins!

Fact #7 : Authors Warned Against Drawing Conclusions

I should end by pointing out that the authors of this study themselves warned against drawing any conclusions about whether the Pfizer vaccine causes autism in human beings.

It’s imperative to recognize the limitations of our research, given that it relies on animal models. Caution should be exercised in generalizing these results to humans. Further rigorous clinical studies are required to confirm these observations in human populations and to ascertain the exact mechanisms at play.

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

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

 

Please Support My Work!

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

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

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

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

 

Recommended Reading

Go Back To > Fact Check | HealthTech ARP

 

Support Tech ARP!

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

Did 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!

Can Foreign DNA In mRNA Vaccines Change Our DNA?!

Can foreign DNA enter our cells through mRNA vaccines, and change our DNA and humanity forever?!

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

 

Claim : Foreign DNA In mRNA Vaccines Can Change Our DNA!

People are sharing a video clip of Tucker Carlson interviewing Florida Surgeon General Joseph Ladapo, which claims or suggestions that foreign DNA can enter our cells through the mRNA vaccines and change our DNA and humanity forever!

Tucker Carlson : Could foreign DNA enter your cells through the mRNA COVID vax and change your DNA — and humanity itself — forever? Sounds nutty. It’s not. “Absolutely that could happen,” says Dr. Joseph Ladapo, the surgeon general of Florida. A shocking conversation.

Recommended : Can Pfizer COVID-19 Vaccine Change Our DNA?!

 

Truth : Foreign DNA In mRNA Vaccines Cannot Change Our DNA!

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

Fact #1 : Ladapo Claims Were Refuted By FDA Earlier

First, I should point out that Joseph Ladapo’s claims about foreign DNA fragments changing our DNA have already been refuted by the US Food & Drug Administration (FDA) on 14 December 2023 (PDF).

Here’s a quick summary of what Dr. Peter Marks, Director of the FDA’s Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research replied to Ladapo’s claims:

  1. After a “thorough assessment of the entire manufacturing process, FDA is confident in the quality, safety, and effectiveness of the COVID-19 vaccines“.
  2. No safety concerns regarding “residual DNA” were identified after over a billion doses of mRNA vaccines being administered.
  3. Animal studies using the mRNA vaccine with residual DNA demonstrated “no evidence for genotoxicity from the vaccine“.
  4. Pharmacovigilance data from hundreds of millions of vaccinated people also showed “no evidence” of genotoxicity from the mRNA vaccines.
  5. Reproductive toxicology studies to test the possible integration of residual DNA fragments in reproductive cells found “no concerns” with the mRNA COVID-19 vaccines.

As you can see, the FDA had already addressed Ladapo’s claims about testing the mRNA vaccines for DNA integration.

The FDA reply (PDF) was also succinct – just two pages long, and did not divert to irrelevant topics like “what time the sun sets in China” or “their third cousin’s Bar Mitzvah” as Ladapo claims in the Tucker Carlson interview.

So the question you should be asking is – why is Joseph Ladapo still flogging these claims, when the FDA has clearly stated that tests were conducted on mRNA vaccines, and have shown them to be safe and effective, and that they do not pose any DNA integration (genotoxicity) risks?

Recommended : Are mRNA Vaccines Contaminated With SV40 DNA?!

Fact #2 : FDA Guidelines Were For DNA Vaccines

In the Tucker Carlson interview, Ladapo claimed or suggested that the FDA did not mention its own guidance on DNA contamination. That’s not true.

The FDA letter to Ladapo (PDF) actually addressed his claims, pointing out that the guidance (PDF) only applied to DNA vaccines, not mRNA vaccines. Even the name clearly states that the guidance was meant for DNA vaccines.

In your letter, you raise questions, citing to the 2007 Guidance for Industry: Considerations for Plasmid DNA Vaccines for Infectious Disease Indications. This guidance was developed for DNA vaccines themselves, not for DNA as a contaminant in other vaccines, and is not applicable to the mRNA COVID-19 vaccines.

DNA vaccines work by introducing a DNA sequence into the cell nucleus, so DNA contamination would be a real concern. In contrast, mRNA vaccines do not enter the cell nucleus, so DNA contamination isn’t a real concern.

It is unknown if Ladapo understands the difference between DNA and mRNA vaccines. But it’s clear that the FDA already informed him that the guidance he quoted was not relevant.

It’s like a bit like quoting the manual for a motorcycle as “evidence” that his diesel truck only needs two wheels, instead of four. So why does he still persist in mentioning the FDA guidance?

Recommended : Are Residual DNA In mRNA Vaccines Dangerous?!

Fact #3 : Smaller Fragments Are Harder To Filter

Ladapo claims that there are billions to hundreds of billions of foreign DNA fragments in each dose of the mRNA vaccine. That sounds scary, doesn’t it? The truth is – it’s really a red herring.

The DNA fragments in mRNA vaccines are produced as a result of its manufacturing process using a DNA template. After the DNA template creates the mRNA vaccine, DNAse is used to break down the residual DNA into tiny fragments.

Focusing on the number of these DNA fragments is also wrong, as you want the DNAse enzyme to really do a good job and cut up the residual DNA into tiny pieces. Naturally, the more you cut DNA up into smaller fragments, you get more (but smaller) fragments. It is consequently harder to filter these smaller fragments out, but the smaller they are, the less likely they are biologically active.

Think of residual DNA as parts of the mRNA factory that was dismantled once the vaccine was manufactured. If you chop it up real good, you get nothing more than small pieces of scrap metal. Sure, the disposal team may have left a couple of bolts and screws lying on the floor, but can they be used to recreate the factory? No.

Fact #4 : mRNA Vaccines Meet DNA Fragment Limit

Instead of focusing on the “number” of DNA fragments, it makes much more sense to focus on the “total weight” of residual DNA, and the “size” of those fragments.

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

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

In its December 2023 reply (PDF), the FDA actually pointed out to Ladapo that the amount of residual DNA fragments was less than 1/1000 the amount of mRNA in each vaccine dose.

The specification for the COVID-19 mRNA vaccines for residual DNA following DNAse treatment results in the presence of DNA fragments at a quantity that is less than three orders of magnitude lower than the quantity of the RNA dose by weight.

This has been determined (and continues to be determined during production of lots) with a validated quantitative PCR assay.

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

Fact #5 : DNA Fragments Can’t Integrate With Our Genome

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

These DNA fragments can only enter the cell nucleus if there is an enzyme called integrase, is not present in any COVID-19 vaccine. So they simply cannot enter the cell nucleus, never mind integrate with DNA.

On top of that, the mRNA vaccines are injected into the muscle, whose cells are “post-mitotic”, which means they are no longer able to change.

Fact #6 : Viruses Integrate With Cell DNA

Viruses like SARS-CoV-2 and HIV-1 (diagram below) integrate their genes with the host cell DNA, to hijack the cell and use it to produce copies of itself.

You can see how a typical RNA virus would infect a host cell, convert its RNA into DNA which is moved into the cell nucleus using the integrase enzyme.

Recommended : Did New Study Show Pfizer mRNA Vaccine Causes Autism?!

HIV-1 virus cell infection, credit : Günther Witzany

Once inside, the viral DNA integrates with the host cell DNA, which gets transcribed into instructions for the cell to produce copies of the virus.

This is the same way how the SARS-CoV-2 virus infects our cells, to produce copies of itself to infect even more cells.

If you are truly worried about anything modifying your cell’s DNA, you should try to avoid viral infections like COVID-19. Better still – vaccinate yourself, and get protected against COVID-19!

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 New Study Show Pfizer mRNA Vaccine Causes Autism?!

Did a new study from Turkey show that the Pfizer mRNA vaccine causes autism?!

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

 

Claim : Study Shows Pfizer mRNA Vaccine Causes Autism!

People are sharing articles and screenshots, claiming or suggesting that a new study from Turkey just showed that the Pfizer mRNA vaccine has been shown to cause autism in newborn rats:

Retsev Levi : Jaw dropping published study, showing in controlled experiment on rats, autism-like effect, specific to males that their mothers were vaccinated prenatally with Pfizer mRNA vaccine!

Supported by behavioral tests & autopsies detecting changes in brain!

The study suggests plausible mechanisms!

Just imagine the attacks that the poor authors will get from the pharma shills!

Recommended : Are Residual DNA In mRNA Vaccines Dangerous?!

 

Truth : Study Does Not Show Pfizer mRNA Vaccine Causes Autism!

Let’s take a closer look at the study from Turkey, and find out what the facts really are!

Fact #1 : It Was An Animal Study

The paper from Turkey by Mumim Alper Erdogan et. al., which is called Prenatal Exposure to COVID-19 mRNA Vaccine BNT162b2 Induces Autism-Like Behaviors in Male Neonatal Rats: Insights into WNT and BDNF Signaling Perturbations, is available for public access (archive).

As the title points out – the Turkish study was conducted on rats, specifically Wistar rats. Therefore, the results obviously do not necessarily translate to actual human beings.

While rats are mammals too, they are not miniature human beings, and respond differently to chemicals, drugs, and yes, vaccines too. Therefore, the results of any animal study should not be used to draw any conclusions about human beings. The authors themselves pointed this out:

… it’s vital to note these insights come primarily from animal studies, limiting their direct applicability to humans. Further human clinical research is required to confirm these findings.

It’s imperative to recognize the limitations of our research, given that it relies on animal models. Caution should be exercised in generalizing these results to humans.

Fact #2 : Pfizer Vaccine Dose Was Extremely High

To conduct their experiments, the Turkish researchers impregnated 15 female Wistar rats, splitting them into two groups – 7 receiving a saline solution (control group), and 8 receiving the Pfizer mRNA vaccine. However, it does not appear that the rats were given the appropriate dosage of the Pfizer vaccine.

Human adults receive 30 μg of the Pfizer vaccine in each dose. Given that the average female adult weight is 77.5 kg / 170.8 pounds (per CDC), and the average Wistar rat in that experiment weighed about 220 grams, each female rat should have received only 0.085 μg – 1/352th of the human dose.

Instead, each female Wistar rat was injected with 30 μg of the Pfizer mRNA vaccine – equivalent to 10,560 μg in human dosage, or 352 vaccine doses in one shot. This was the same problem we saw with an earlier Belgian study on the Pfizer vaccine causing turbo cancer.

This decision to use such a high dose of the Pfizer vaccine (in relative terms) makes the experiment a poor reflection of actual vaccine safety in human beings. Anything taken at such high doses would likely be toxic. Even water, when taken in large amounts, is toxic to humans.

Recommended : Why Study Didn’t Prove Pfizer Vaccine Causes Turbo Cancer!

Fact #3 : Study Did Not Test COVID-19 Infection

The study suggested in its introduction that the spike protein – whether produced by “natural viral infection” or “post vaccination” may potentially cause “neurodevelopmental disorders, including autism”.

There are theoretical postulates suggesting that the biosynthesis of the spike protein, either through natural viral infection or post-vaccination, could induce neuroinflammation and elicit alterations in synaptic plasticity [5, 6]. These proposed changes might exert effects on brain development and have potential contributions to neurodevelopmental disorders, including autism [7].

Unfortunately, the study did not test that hypothesis by testing to see if COVID-19 infection also causes similar changes in the progeny of pregnant Wistar rats. So it is impossible to know if it was a component in the Pfizer vaccine, or the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein, that caused those changes in the rat babies.

Think about it – if it was really the spike protein that caused those changes, then the benefits of vaccination would still outweigh the risks. After all, COVID-19 vaccines only create a limited number of spike protein analogues to trigger the immune system into learning how to create antibodies against the SARS-CoV-2 virus.

On the other hand, the actual COVID-19 infection will create an unlimited number of SARS-CoV-2 viruses – each covered with spike proteins! The longer the COVID-19 infection persists, the more cells are infected to produce more SARS-CoV-2 viruses… and yes, more spike proteins!

Fact #4 : Authors Warned Against Drawing Conclusions

I should end by pointing out that the authors of this study themselves warned against drawing any conclusions about whether the Pfizer vaccine causes autism in human beings.

It’s imperative to recognize the limitations of our research, given that it relies on animal models. Caution should be exercised in generalizing these results to humans. Further rigorous clinical studies are required to confirm these observations in human populations and to ascertain the exact mechanisms at play.

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

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

 

Please Support My Work!

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

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

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

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

 

Recommended Reading

Go Back To > Fact Check | HealthTech ARP

 

Support Tech ARP!

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

Do DNA Fragments In mRNA Vaccines Cause Cancer?!

Are DNA fragments in mRNA vaccines dangerous, and can they cause cancer?!

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

 

Claim : DNA Fragments In mRNA Vaccines Can Cause Cancer!

People are sharing video clips and articles about Florida Surgeon General Joseph Ladapo calling for a halt to mRNA vaccines as they can possibly cause cancer.

Circulating on WhatsApp, with Fox 35 video clip attached : Florida Surgeon General calls for halt to COVID-19 vaccine, citing possible cancer risks

Recommended : Are Residual DNA In mRNA Vaccines Dangerous?!

 

No Evidence DNA Fragments In mRNA Vaccines Cause Cancer!

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

Fact #1 : Claims Were Made By Joseph Ladapo

First, I should point out that these videos and articles are based on a 3 January 2024 bulletin sent by the Florida Department of Health, in which its Surgeon General Joseph A. Ladapo called for a halt in the use of mRNA COVID-19 vaccines over concerns that they could cause cancer.

The Surgeon General outlined concerns regarding nucleic acid contaminants in the approved Pfizer and Moderna COVID-19 mRNA vaccines, particularly in the presence of lipid nanoparticle complexes, and Simian Virus 40 (SV40) promoter/enhancer DNA. Lipid nanoparticles are an efficient vehicle for delivery of the mRNA in the COVID-19 vaccines into human cells and may therefore be an equally efficient vehicle for delivering contaminant DNA into human cells. The presence of SV40 promoter/enhancer DNA may also pose a unique and heightened risk of DNA integration into human cells.

Fact #2 : SV40 Promoter Does Not Cause Cancer

Many people are attempting to link the SV40 promoter to the Simian Virus 40, which was suspected to potentially cause cancer in humans after it was found to have contaminated some polio vaccines manufactured from 1955 to 1963.

Decades later, there is still no conclusive evidence that the SV40 virus can cause cancers in humans. However, out of an abundance of caution, the SV40 virus is considered to potentially cause cancer in humans.

Even so, the SV40 promoter is just a DNA fragment from the SV40 virus, that is now used as a genetic tool. It is similar to how botulinum toxin is a treatment derived from the bacteria, Clostridium botulinum. The SV40 promoter itself cannot cause cancer, because it does not include the SV40 virus portion that can potentially cause cancer – the T-antigen.

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

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

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

Recommended : Are mRNA Vaccines Contaminated With SV40 DNA?!

Fact #3 : DNA Fragments Not Limited To mRNA Vaccines

So many articles have been written about the residual DNA fragments in mRNA vaccines that one may think that it’s exclusive to the mRNA vaccine technology. That’s not true.

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

To be clear – residual DNA isn’t new or exclusive to mRNA vaccine technology. It is a byproduct of using biological cells to produce biological products.

Fact #4 : DNA Fragments Shown To Be Harmless

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Fact #5 : DNA Fragments Can’t Integrate With Our Genome

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

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

In addition, these DNA fragments can only enter the cell nucleus if there is an enzyme called integrase, is not present in any COVID-19 vaccine. So they simply cannot enter the cell nucleus, never mind integrate with DNA.

On top of that, the mRNA vaccines are injected into the muscle, whose cells are “post-mitotic”, which means they are no longer able to change.

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

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

 

Please Support My Work!

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

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

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

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

 

Recommended Reading

Go Back To > Fact Check | HealthTech ARP

 

Support Tech ARP!

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

Did Norway Study Show mRNA Vaccine Danger In Children?!

Did a study from Norway just show that the mRNA COVID-19 vaccine can cause serious side effects in children?!

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

 

Claim : Norway Study Shows mRNA Vaccine Danger In Children!

The Children’s Health Defense (CHD) activist group, which is chaired by Robert F. Kennedy Jr., just posted an article suggesting that a new study in Norway shows that mRNA COVID-19 vaccines can cause severe side effects in children!

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

Two COVID Shots Raise Risk of Anaphylaxis, Heart Issues in Older Adolescents

A Norwegian study found a low but significant risk of serious side effects among adolescents a short time following a second COVID-19 vaccination. The tenfold higher risk for anaphylaxis was the most concerning outcome, but the researchers also found swollen lymph nodes and heart issues.

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

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

Fact #2 : It Was A Retrospective Cohort Study

The CHD article took pains to claim twice that the researchers “enrolled” almost half a million adolescents in Norway in that study. If that’s true, it would have been a massive and costly undertaking.

Researchers led by German Tapia, Ph.D., a postdoctoral epidemiologist at NIPH, enrolled 496,432 adolescents …

By enrolling a large number of subjects and applying different observational time periods, Tapia et al. not only captured all available data but purposely subjected their data to a high level of statistical scrutiny.

But according to the study authors themselves, they did not actually enrol any participants. Rather, they used existing data from the Norwegian Emergency Preparedness Register for COVID-19 (Beredt C19).

Fact #3 : Risk Of Adverse Events Were Low

While the CHD article, and a similar article by The Epoch Times, appear to suggest that the Norway study has shown that the mRNA COVID-19 vaccine can cause severe adverse events or side effects in children, it actually suggested the opposite.

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

Recommended : Did mRNA Vaccines Trigger Severe Nerve Damage?!

Fact #4 : Lymphadenopathy Was Most Common Event

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

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

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

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

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

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

Fact #5 : Study Found No Vaccine Link To Deaths

I found it interesting that the CHD article did not point out that the Norwegian study found no evidence of any deaths linked to the mRNA vaccine, even though it had a large sample size of almost half a million children:

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

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

Fact #6 : Study Found No Vaccine Link To Arrhythmia 

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

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

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

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

Fact #7 : Study Confirmed Existing mRNA Vaccine Risks

The large Norwegian study merely confirms what we already know about mRNA vaccine risks – it can cause rare side effects like anaphylaxis right after vaccination, or pericarditis / myocarditis within 7 days of receiving the vaccine.

These are known risks of the mRNA vaccines for COVID-19, from both Pfizer-BioNTech and Moderna. However, the benefits of COVID-19 vaccination still far outweighs these rare risk factors.

In fact, anaphylaxis can be dealt with immediately (which is why you are asked to wait 30 minutes after vaccination), while vaccine pericarditis / myocarditis are generally milder (and much rarer) than pericarditis / myocarditis from COVID-19 infections.

Fact #8 : Study Did Not Compare Risk To COVID-19 Infection

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

Please Support My Work!

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

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

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

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

 

Recommended Reading

Go Back To > Fact Check | HealthTech ARP

 

Support Tech ARP!

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

Is Australia Building mRNA Vaccine Cardiac Arrest Registry?!

Is Australia building the world’s largest sudden cardiac arrest registry to solve the mystery of mRNA COVID-19 vaccine sudden cardiac deaths?!

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

 

Claim : Australia Is Building mRNA Vaccine Cardiac Arrest Registry!

People are sharing a post on X (formerly Twitter), which claims or suggests that Australia is building the world’s largest sudden cardiac arrest registry to solve the mystery of mRNA COVID-19 vaccine sudden cardiac deaths!

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

William Makis MD : Australia is building World’s Largest Sudden Cardiac Arrest Registry to solve the “mystery” of COVID-19 mRNA Vaccine Sudden Cardiac Deaths

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

 

Truth : Australia Sudden Cardiac Registry Not Related To mRNA Vaccine!

This appears to be yet another example of FAKE NEWS circulating on X (formerly Twitter), and here are the reasons why…

Fact #1 : Australia Cardiac Arrest Deaths Unchanged For 40 Years

According to the 9News article that was the basis for this claim, more than 25,000 Australians experience a cardiac arrest every year. What the viral post does not mention is that this has been going on for many years, and certainly long before COVID-19 vaccines were approved.

In fact, the incidence of cardiac arrest deaths has remained “largely unchanged in the past 40 yearsaccording to the End Unexplained Cardiac Death (EndUCD) organisation:

The UCD under 50 death rate has remained largely unchanged in the past 40 years.

Cardiovascular deaths have declined dramatically fro Australians over the age of 50, driven by the message of healthy lifestyle, diet and exercise. Unfortunately these factors do not provide protection against UCD under 50.

Fact #2 : Australia Cardiac Arrest Deaths Not Attributed To mRNA Vaccines

The same 9News article pointed out that doctors have been unable to determine the cause of up to 40% of these sudden cardiac arrests. However, it never once mentioned mRNA vaccines as a cause.

In fact, the 9News article shared the story of Bryan Maris who died suddenly in his sleep from a cardiac arrest. His sudden cardiac arrest death was not attributed to the mRNA vaccine, but was attributed to a genetic condition called Brugada syndrome, which can cause fast, irregular heartbeats.

His wife, Jessica Maris, said that a simple electrocardiogram at the right time could have saved her husband’s life. Their son, Jack, also had Brugada’s syndrome, which was detected in a screening after his father died:

Jack has been identified as having Brugada thanks to the screening that took place because of Bryan; I would’ve loved to have identified Bryan; and not needed to have had a sudden cardiac arrest in the family to be able to identify when a family member is at risk of sudden cardiac arrest

Recommended : Are Soccer Players Keeling Over From COVID-19 Vaccine?!

Fact #3 : CODEX-SD Isn’t First Australian Cardiac Arrest Registry

The CODEX-SD Registry may be the world’s largest cardiac arrest registry, but it isn’t the first cardiac arrest registry in Australia.

The EndUCD Registry started operation in 2019before the COVID-19 pandemic, and about two years before the first mRNA vaccine for COVID-19 was ever approved!

That’s because many Australians have been suffering from cardiac arrests every year, long before mRNA vaccines were invented.

Fact #4 : US CARES Registry Started In 2004

Unexplained sudden cardiac arrest deaths have long afflicted people all over the world, long before any mRNA vaccine for COVID-19 was ever invented, never mind approved.

In fact, the US CDC and the Department of Emergency Medicine at Emory University established the Cardiac Arrest Registry to Enhance Survival (CARES) in 2004, as a way to better improve the survival of cardiac arrest victims.

The truth is – sudden cardiac arrest isn’t something new. It has been killing people long before COVID-19 vaccines were invented.

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 mRNA Vaccine Creator Develop Bell’s Palsy?!

Did mRNA vaccine creator, Ozlem Tureci, just develop Bell’s palsy after getting vaccinated against COVID-19?! Find out what the facts really are!

Updated @ 2024-01-12 : Added more information on Bell’s palsy and Justin Bieber
Originally posted @ 2024-01-11

 

Claim : mRNA Vaccine Creator Has Bell’s Palsy!

People are sharing an article (archive) by The People’s Voice (formerly NewsPunch) and The Daily Sceptic (archive), claiming or suggesting that the co-creator of the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine creator, Ozlem Tureci, is suffering from Bell’s palsy after getting vaccinated against COVID-19.

The People’s Voice even alleges in its article that there was a media blackout. Here’s an excerpt:

mRNA Vaccine Creator Has Developed Full-Blown Facial Paralysis – Media Blackout

Here is an excerpt from The Daily Sceptic. Please skip to the next section for the facts.

BioNTech-Pfizer Vaccine Creator Obviously Suffers From Bell’s Palsy – But No One Talks About It

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

BioNTech founders – Uğur Şahin and Özlem Türeci

 

No Evidence mRNA Vaccine Creator Has Bell’s Palsy!

This appears to be yet another example of FAKE NEWS, and here are the reasons why…

Fact #1 : Bell’s Palsy Not Commonly Seen With COVID-19 Vaccines

Bell’s palsy is not commonly seen with COVID-19 vaccines. In fact, it is not even officially listed as a COVID-19 vaccine side effect.

Studies (example) have shown that the post-vaccination incidence of Bell’s palsy is about the same as that of the baseline incidence.

  • Baseline : 25 cases per 100,000 population per year
  • Post-vaccination : 25.3 cases per 100,000 population per year

When people point out that four people in the Pfizer clinical trial developed Bell’s palsy, they conveniently leave out the fact that with the large sample size, roughly four people were expected to develop Bell’s palsy even without vaccination. So the incidence of Bell’s palsy in the Pfizer clinical trial was within normal incidence.

Fact #2 : Ozlem Tureci Does Not Appear To Have Bell’s Palsy!

Frankly, it is a terrible idea to remotely diagnose any medical condition. But as far as I can see, Dr. Ozlem Tureci does not appear to have Bell’s palsy.

Bell’s palsy presents as the sudden muscle weakness or paralysis on one side of the face. If Ozlem has Bell’s palsy, she won’t just have a drooping eyelid. She will have facial paralysis on the left side of her face – the left side of her mouth would also droop with a loss of the nasolabial fold, and she would not be able to close her eyes.

If you watch the videos which show her with a drooping eyelid, you can see that she’s speaking normally, and the corner of her mouth isn’t drooping to the left. There is also a visible nasolabial fold on the left side. All indications that she does not have Bell’s palsy.

Instead, Ozlem Tureci just appears to have ptosis – the drooping of her left eyelid. This is common in older people.

Fact #3 : Ozlem Had Drooping Eyelid Before mRNA Vaccine Approval

Dr. Ozlem Tureci was seen sporting a ptosis before the Pfizer-BioNTech mRNA vaccine for COVID-19 was ever approved for use in December 2020.

When The New York Times published its story on Dr. Özlem and her partner-husband, Dr. Uğur Şahin, on 10 November 2020, the marquee photo showed her with a pronounced ptosis – drooping of her left eyelid.

Yet, you can clearly see that her mouth was not drooping on the left side, and she still had a prominent nasolabial fold on the left side of her face.

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

Fact #4 : Ozlem Had Drooping Eyelid As Early As 2016

Just in case you are wondering if she might have secretly tested the BioNTech mRNA vaccine on herself, she already had that ptosis more than 3 years before the COVID-19 pandemic started, and more than 4 years before the Pfizer-BioNTech mRNA vaccine was approved.

On 29 August 2016, the Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung newspaper published a video on Dr. Özlem Türeci and Dr. Uğur Şahin developing customised cancer treatments.

In that video, you can clearly see that Dr. Ozlem already had a visible ptosis. But again, she was able to speak clearly, her mouth did not droop on the left side, and she had a visible nasolabial fold on the left.

Fact #5 : Bell’s Palsy Is Temporary

While the symptoms of Bell’s palsy are similar to that of a stroke, it isn’t a serious condition. Neither is it debilitating as some have suggested or claimed.

Bell’s palsy is also temporary – most people recover within 3 weeks, even without treatment. A small percentage will take 3-6 months to recover. Patients are generally treated with corticosteroids to speed recovery.

Even if Dr. Ozlem had Bell’s palsy at any point in time, it would have resolved by itself or with treatment, within a few months. As she appears to have a drooping left eyelid for at least 7.5 years now, her ptosis is most definitely not from Bell’s palsy.

Fact #6 : Justin Bieber Did Not Have Bell’s Palsy

Some people appear to be (intentionally?) conflating Ramsay Hunt Syndrome with Bell’s palsy. They have suggested or claimed that Justin Bieber was another victim of Bell’s palsy from COVID-19 vaccination. That’s simply not true.

Justin Bieber had Ramsay Hunt Syndrome, not Bell’s palsy. On top of that, he explained in June 2022 that his facial paralysis was caused by a viral infection.

I have this syndrome called Ramsay Hunt syndrome and it is from this virus that attacks the nerve in my ear and my facial nerves and has caused my face to have paralysis.

As you can see this eye is not blinking. I can’t smile on this side of my face; this nostril will not move. So there’s full paralysis on this side of my face.

Recommended : Did Justin Bieber Get Facial Paralysis From COVID Vaccine?!

Fact #7 : 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:

The Daily Sceptic is also known for publishing misinformation. You should never share anything they post, until you have verified them to be true and accurate.

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!

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

Do mRNA vaccines have a severe adverse event rate of 1 in 800 vaccinated people?! Take a look at the viral claim, and find out what the facts really are!

Updated @ 2024-01-07 : Updated after these claims went viral again
Originally posted @ 2923-10-08

 

Claim : mRNA Vaccines Have 1-in-800 Severe Adverse Event Rate!

People are sharing a Twitter (X) post by Leading Report, which suggests that a landmark paper has shown that mRNA vaccines have severe adverse event rates, and is therefore dangerous and should be pulled from the market.

BRAKING: Landmark paper shows the COVID vaccine has a 1/800 severe adverse event rate; in comparison, the swine flu vaccine was pulled from the market for 1/100,000.

This study was also mentioned in a video (example) featuring Bret Weinstein and Tucker Carlson that is circulating on X (formerly Twitter) in January 2024.

17 million deaths from the Covid vaccine? That’s like the death toll of a global war!

– Yes, absolutely, this is a great tragedy of history, it’s of that proportion.

@TuckerCarlson speaks with @BretWeinstein

Recommended : Is Australia Opportunistically Vaccinating People Under Sedation?!

 

Truth : mRNA Vaccines Were Not Proven Dangerous!

This is yet another example of FAKE NEWS about the mRNA vaccines, and here are the reasons why…

Fact #1 : The Study Was Published In September 2022

First, let me just point out that the study in question isn’t new. It was actually published in the journal Vaccine on September 22, 2022, and you can read the full version here.

This study was even mentioned earlier by Dr. Aseem Malhotra in an interview with Joe Rogan several months ago, which you can read here. Perhaps that’s why Leading Report labelled the news as “BRAKING”, instead of “BREAKING”?

Here is an excerpt from the Fraiman, et. al. study:

Serious adverse events of special interest following mRNA COVID-19 vaccination in randomized trials in adults

Fact #2 : The Study Looked At Reported AESI, Not Side Effects

The Fraiman et. al. study looked at Adverse Events of Special Interest (AESI) reported in the original Phase 3 trials of the Pfizer and Moderna mRNA vaccines from 2020. It’s short, so I’m reproducing the results here for your convenience:

Pfizer and Moderna mRNA COVID-19 vaccines were associated with an excess risk of serious adverse events of special interest of 10.1 and 15.1 per 10,000 vaccinated over placebo baselines of 17.6 and 42.2 (95 % CI -0.4 to 20.6 and -3.6 to 33.8), respectively.

As you can see, the Fraiman et. al. study looked at “serious adverse events“, not side effects.

Recommended : Do mRNA Vaccines Increase Risk Of Death + Injuries?!

Fact #3 : Adverse Events Are Not Necessarily Side Effects

I should now point out that Adverse Events of Special Interest (AESI) are not necessarily vaccine side effects. That’s why they are called “adverse events“, and not “side effects“.

Adverse events are “unfavourable” or “unintended” events that happen after vaccination or taking a drug, – which may or may not be caused by the vaccine / drug – like having an anaphylactic reaction, or getting into a car accident.

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

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

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

Fact #4 : Brighton AESI List Is More Specific

Unlike the much wider AESI list of 1,291 adverse events used by Pfizer, the priority AESI list from the Brighton Collaboration is much more specific. You can download the December 2020 version here (PDF).

While the Brighton Collaboration AESI list is more specific, it includes adverse events that may not be related to the vaccine itself. As stated at the top of its Executive Summary on Page 4, the AESI list was created based on:

  • known association with immunization or a specific vaccine platform;
  • theoretical association based on animal models;
  • occurrence during wild-type disease as a result of viral replication and/or immunopathogenesis.

As noted in Fact #3, these adverse events are not necessarily vaccine side effects. Again, that’s why they are called “adverse events”, and not “side effects”.

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

Fact #5 : The Study Used An Expanded Brighton AESI List

At first glance, one may be forgiven for thinking that the Fraiman et. al. study used the more specific Brighton Collaboration AESI list.

However, they actually expanded the Brighton list with 29 additional adverse events that the Brighton Collaboration rejected because they were “known to have been reported but not in sufficient numbers to merit inclusion on the AESI list“.

The 29 additional adverse events (see Page 8) that Brighton Collaboration declined to include in the priority list, but the authors added anyway include adverse events like:

  • abscess, alopecia, conjunctivitis, mania, psychosis
  • breast milk, ectopic pregnancy, pregnancy, neonatal diagnoses, foetal diagnoses
  • host-specific diagnoses not related to pregnancy : geriatric, HIV

You can clearly see why the Brighton Collaboration refused to include many of those adverse events – they were most definitely not related to COVID-19 vaccine side effects!

In other words – the Fraiman et. al. study was skewed by the inclusion of 29 additional adverse events that were expressly rejected by the Brighton Collaboration.

Fact #6 : Study Did Not Prove mRNA Vaccines Are Dangerous

While Leading Report suggested in its post that the Fraiman et. al. study showed that the mRNA COVID-19 vaccines are 125X more dangerous than the swine flu vaccine that was withdrawn from the market, that is not the case at all.

The study offered ZERO EVIDENCE that the mRNA vaccines increased the risk of death or hospitalisation or injury. Neither did it show that the risks of getting the mRNA vaccines exceeded its benefits.

There is already a lot of data on actual, proven COVID-19 vaccine side effects, after more than 20 months of vaccinations (from December 2020 until September 2022). If they wanted to prove that the mRNA vaccines are dangerous, they could have reanalysed the original Phase 3 trial data using proven serious side effects, not serious adverse events.

Unfortunately, they chose to use adverse events instead of side effects, and ended up proving nothing in their study. What a waste of time.

More than a year after this study was published, not only have the mRNA vaccines not been withdrawn from the market, improved versions of the mRNA vaccines against COVID-19 have been approved! That would hardly be the case, if this was really a landmark study, would it?

Please help us fight fake news – SHARE this article, and 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 mRNA Vaccines Trigger Severe Nerve Damage?!

Was the mRNA vaccines just shown to trigger severe nerve damage, including multiple sclerosis?!

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

 

Claim : mRNA Vaccines Trigger Severe Nerve Damage!

The Children’s Health Defense (CHD) activist group, which is chaired by Robert F. Kennedy Jr., just posted an article suggesting that Brazilian researchers uncovered two cases of serious nerve damage in patients who received mRNA COVID-19 vaccines.

This was what was posted on the CHD page on X (formerly Twitter):

Children’s Health Defense : 🚨 COVID vaccine triggers nerve damage, MS

Brazilian researchers have uncovered two cases of serious nerve damage in patients who received mRNA COVID-19 vaccines.

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

COVID vaccine triggers nerve damage, MS

Recommended : Are Residual DNA In mRNA Vaccines Dangerous?!

 

No Evidence mRNA Vaccines Trigger Nerve Damage!

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

Fact #1 : It Was A Case Presentation

Let me start by pointing out that the Brazilian paper in question was a case presentation submitted to Neuroimmunology Reports, called Multiple Sclerosis and Optic Neuritis triggered by COVID-19 mRNA by Moretti, Fabiani, et. al.

You can read it in full here.

Fact #2 : Paper Did Not Conclude mRNA Vaccines Cause Nerve Damage

If you read the conclusion, you will note that the authors never actually concluded that mRNA vaccines causes nerve damage. The authors only pointed out that such cases should be reported, and that “more studies are still needed”. Here is the relevant quote from the paper, with my emphasis underlined.

Diseases or symptoms triggered or linked to this new vaccine technology must be reported and studied, contributing to worldwide databases.

More studies are still needed on the association between neurological complications and the vaccine against COVID-19. Long-term monitoring is needed if the vaccine can cause or trigger neurological disorders.

Fact #3 : Paper Says Vaccine Benefits Outweigh The Risks

Anyone who reads the conclusion will also realise that the authors actually pointed out that the benefits of vaccinating against COVID-19 outweigh the risks. On top of that, they said that no neurological condition is an absolute contraindication for vaccinating against COVID-19.

Overall, the benefits of vaccination outweigh the risks of neurological complications, and, to date, no neurological condition is an absolute contraindication for vaccination against COVID-19.

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

Fact #4 : AstraZeneca Vaccine Is A Virus Vector Vaccine

With all due respect to the authors, the editors and the peer-reviewers, I should point out that the first case report does not involve any mRNA vaccine.

The first case involved the Oxford-AstraZeneca COVID-19 vaccine, which is a virus vector vaccine. It is not an mRNA vaccine.

ChAdOx1 was not the vaccine’s name either. Rather, ChAdOx1 was the name of the modified chimpanzee adenovirus the Oxford-AstraZeneca used as its vector.

Fact #5 : First Patient Already Had Multiple Sclerosis

What may not be obvious, but was mentioned in the paper, was that the first patient – who received the AstraZeneca vaccine, already had multiple sclerosis (MS).

The authors pointed out that she already met the 2017 McDonald’s criteria for multiple sclerosis. That meant that this patient had prior MRI-detected lesions, or oligoclonal bans in the spinal fluid, or prior clinical symptoms of MS.

This is because a key requirement for the diagnosis of MS is Dissemination In Time (DIT) – there must be evidence of damage, at different times, and to different parts, of the central nervous system (source).

In fact, the authors pointed out that the COVID-19 vaccination only triggered the symptoms, but did not actually cause multiple sclerosis. Here’s the relevant quote, with my emphasis underlined.

The female patient met the McDonald’s (2017) criteria for multiple sclerosis, and the vaccine only triggered the symptoms.

I should point out that multiple sclerosis patients often suffer such relapses of symptoms that are triggered by anything from viral infections to stress. Certain vaccinations involving live viruses or bacteria can also trigger a relapse.

Since the AstraZeneca COVID-19 vaccine (Vaxzevria) uses a modified chimpanzee virus, it is plausible that it may trigger symptoms in multiple sclerosis patients.

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

Fact #6 : Multiple Sclerosis Can Cause Optic Neuritis

The second patient in the Brazilian case presentation developed optic neuritis – inflammation of the optic nerve. Optic neuritis is most commonly seen in multiple sclerosis patients.

Even though this 8 year-old boy is not known to have multiple sclerosis, the authors noted that a brain MRI showed three small acute hypertension lesions in his brain. Such brain lesions developing in multiple places over time (Dissemination in Time, DIT) are highly suggestive of multiple sclerosis, as per the McDonald criteria.

In other words – it is possible that this patient may also have multiple sclerosis that may not have been previously diagnosed, whose symptoms was triggered by the vaccine – just like in the first case.

Fact #7 : COVID-19 Infection Can Cause Optic Neuritis

I should also point out that past COVID-19 infections can cause optic neuritis. In fact, this January 2022 case study published in the Indian Journal of Ophthalmology detailed three patients who developed optic neuritis weeks or months after recovering from mild COVID-19 infections.

The authors noted that in those three patients, demyelinating lesions were identified in two cases, while the third case was found with serum anti-myelin antibodies.

  • Patient 1 suddenly lost vision in his left eye two weeks after recovering from mild COVID-19.
  • Patient 2 lost vision in his left eye six months after recovering from mild COVID-19.
  • Patient 3 lost vision in his left eye twice, two weeks after recovering from mild COVID-19, and then again four weeks later.

All three patients recovered their vision, but as you can see – COVID-19 infections can potentially cause optic neuritis long after recovery. It is plausible that the second patient in the Brazilian case presentation may have had a prior COVID-19 infection (before his vaccination).

That is why we cannot draw conclusions from any of these case reports / presentations. They all need to be investigated to determine their actual cause.

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

Fact #8 : Both Patients Recovered

It is also important to note that neither patients mentioned in this Brazilian case presentation died.

The first patient recovered partially after treatment with methylprednisolone, and was discharged with the treatment of dimethyl fumarate.

The second patient was also treated with methylprednisolone, and experienced a complete recovery, with no further treatment.

Methylprednisolone is often used in symptomatic attacks of multiple sclerosis. Dimethyl fumarate is also a treatment of multiple sclerosis.

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

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

 

Please Support My Work!

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

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

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

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

 

Recommended Reading

Go Back To > Fact Check | HealthTech ARP

 

Support Tech ARP!

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

Did Norway Study Show mRNA Vaccine Risk In Children?!

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

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

 

Claim : Norway Study Shows mRNA Vaccine Risk In Children!

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

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

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

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

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

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

Fact #2 : Risk Of Adverse Events Were Low

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

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

Fact #3 : Lymphadenopathy Was Most Common Event

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

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

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

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

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

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

Recommended : Did mRNA Vaccines Trigger Severe Nerve Damage?!

Fact #4 : Study Found No Vaccine Link To Deaths

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

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

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

Fact #5 : Study Found No Vaccine Link To Arrhythmia 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

Please Support My Work!

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

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

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

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

 

Recommended Reading

Go Back To > Fact Check | HealthTech ARP

 

Support Tech ARP!

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

Did Study Show COVID-19 Vaccines Can Worsen Cancer?!

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

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

 

Claim : COVID-19 Vaccines Can Potentially Worse Cancer!

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

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

COVID-19 Vaccines Can Potentially Worsen Cancer: Review

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

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

 

No Evidence COVID-19 Vaccines Can Potentially Worse Cancer!

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

Fact #1 : It Was A Literature Review

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Fact #4 : All Coronaviruses Have Spike Proteins

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

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

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

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

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

Fact #5 : Viruses Multiply, Vaccines Won’t

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

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

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

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

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

Recommended : The Spikeopathy Vaccine Spike Protein Scare Explained!

Fact #6 : VAERS Reports Are Unverified

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

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

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

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

Fact #7 : Vaccine Lymphopenia Was Transient

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

Please Support My Work!

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

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

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

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

 

Recommended Reading

Go Back To > Fact Check | HealthTech ARP

 

Support Tech ARP!

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

Did Australian Study Show Spike In Vaccine Excess Deaths?!

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

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

 

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

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

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

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

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

Recommended : Hybrid Immunity Better Than Natural / Vaccine Immunity!

 

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

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

Fact #1 : The Article Was Not Peer-Reviewed

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

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

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

Fact #2 : WAVSS + DAEN Reports Are Unverified

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

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

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

DAEN

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

WAVSS

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

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

An AEFI may be due to:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Fact #6 : Viruses Inject Genetic Code Into Our Cells

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Recommended : The Spikeopathy Vaccine Spike Protein Scare Explained!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

Please Support My Work!

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

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

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

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

 

Recommended Reading

Go Back To > Fact Check | HealthTech ARP

 

Support Tech ARP!

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

Do mRNA Vaccines Increase Risk Of Illnesses In Children?!

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

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

 

Claim : mRNA Vaccines Increase Risk Of Illnesses In Children!

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

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

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

Study analyzed data from clinical trials.

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

 

No Evidence mRNA Vaccines Increase Risk Of Illnesses In Children!

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

Fact #1 : Study Is Unreviewed Preprint

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

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

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

Fact #2 : Study Was A Meta-Analysis

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

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

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

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

Fact #3 : Adverse Events Are Not Necessarily Side Effects

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

Please Support My Work!

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

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

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

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

 

Recommended Reading

Go Back To > Fact Check | HealthTech ARP

 

Support Tech ARP!

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

Bill Gates mRNA Vaccine Approved With Zero Safety Data?!

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

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

 

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

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

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

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

Recommended : Are mRNA Vaccines Contaminated With SV40 DNA?!

 

Truth : No Bill Gates mRNA Vaccine Was Approved!

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

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

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

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

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

Fact #2 : GHIT Fund Targets Drugs For Developing Countries

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

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

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

Recommended : Is Interpol Investigating Bill Gates For Murder?!

Fact #3 : Daiichi Sankyo Vaccine Was Tested

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

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

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

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

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

Fact #4 : DAICHIRONA Is An mRNA Vaccine

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

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

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

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

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

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

<