Tag Archives: Pharmaceutical

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

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

Did Pfizer CEO Albert Bourla say that one of his goals was to cut world population to 50% by the year 2023?!

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

 

Claim : Pfizer CEO Aims To Cut World Population By 50%!

Anti-vaccination activists are sharing a video that shows Pfizer CEO speaking at the World Economic Forum, saying :

I think that it’s really fulfilling of a dream that we had together with my leadership team when we started in ’19.

The first week we met, in January of ‘19 in California, and set up the goals for the next five years. And one of them was by 2023, we would reduce the number of people in the world by 50%.

I think today, this dream is becoming reality.

Are you shocked? Well, you would be even more shocked by the truth…

 

Truth : Pfizer CEO Does Not Aim To Cut World Population By 50%!

This is yet another example of FAKE NEWS created by anti-vaccination activists to scare people from protecting themselves against COVID-19, and here are the reasons why…

Fact #1 : Video Was Recorded At WEF In May 2022

First, let us establish some basic facts about this video.

  1. The full video shows WEF founder Klaus Schwab having a conversation with Pfizer CEO Albert Bourla
  2. The viral video clip is a 30-second segment that starts at 2:36 minute of the full video.
  3. The video was recorded at the 2022 World Economic Forum Annual Meeting
  4. It was live-streamed on May 25, 2022 at about 2 PM CEST.

Fact #2 : Viral Video Was Edited

What you may not have noticed was that the viral video was edited, to remove the words “that cannot afford our medicines“.

If you watch the full video from the 2:36 minute point, you will see that Pfizer CEO Albert Bourla actually say :

And one of them was by 2023, we would reduce the number of people in the world that cannot afford our medicines by 50%.

By removing that small segment, the edited video makes Albert Bourla appear to say that it was his dream to reduce the world population to 50% by 2023.

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

Fact #3 : Big Pharma Needs More People, Not Fewer

It is frankly really stupid for anti-vaccination activists to claim that Big Pharma wants to reduce the world’s population.

Who do you think they sell their vaccines and medicines to? Aliens???

For Big Pharma to make tons of money, they need the world’s population to expand, not contract.

If they cut down the world’s population by 50%, that’s 50% fewer people to buy their drugs and vaccines.

Fact #4 : World’s Population Has Been Steadily Increasing

Regardless of whatever you may believe that the Pfizer CEO may have said, the fact still remains – the world’s population has not stopped increasing over time.

In fact, the world’s population is projected to hit 8 BILLION people on 15 November 2022!

The claim that Pfizer is achieving its dream of reducing the world’s population by half by 2023 is just ludicrous.

Fact #5 : COVID-19 Vaccines Proven Safe + Effective

COVID-19 vaccines underwent massive clinical trials, and were only approved after they were proven to be safe and effective.

In addition, they were constantly monitored after they received their approvals, which picked up rare side effects after they were administered to billions of people.

Anti-vaccination activists have often claimed that those who received the vaccine would die. Yet, the opposite was true – the vaccines are not only safe, they are effective in protecting people from getting hospitalised or dying from COVID-19.

Even prominent antivaxxer Steve Kirsch is healthy and well, despite being fully-vaccinated against COVID-19!

Read more : Antivax Steve Kirsch Admits He’s Fully-Vaccinated!

Fact #6 : Anti-Vaccine Claims All Proven False

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

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

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

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

 

Please Support My Work!

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

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

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

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

 

Recommended Reading

Go Back To > Fact Check | BusinessTech 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 Lianhua Qingwen More Effective Than Paxlovid?!

Is the Chinese herbal medicine Lianhua Qingwen more effective than the Pfizer Paxlovid antiviral combination?!

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

 

Claim : Lianhua Qingwen Is More Effective Than Paxlovid!

People are sharing a link to a Bloomberg called “Pfizer’s Covid Pill Doesn’t Work For Healthier Patients, Will Focus On Those With higher Risk”, together with this message :

Pfizer scams the world with US$22 billion in sales of Paxlovid to treat Covid.
Now finds that Paxlovid does not work and may cause rebound of disease.
Malaysia has ordered 200,000 doses at a cost of RM500 million –
RM2,500 per dose compared to a few bucks for China’s effective Lian Hwa pills.

 

Truth : Paxlovid Is More Effective Than Lianhua Qingwen!

This is yet another example of FAKE NEWS created by the Chinese 50 Cent Army (wumao, 五毛) as part of their campaign to support Traditional Chinese Medicine (TCM), and here are the reasons why…

Fact #1 : Paxlovid Is Combination Of Two Antiviral Drugs

Pfizer PAXLOVID is an antiviral treatment that consists of two protease inhibitors :

  • two 150 mg tablets of Nirmatrelvir (the new protease inhibitor developed by Pfizer)
  • one 100 mg tablet of Ritonavir (an old antiviral approved in 1996)

Protease inhibitors work by binding to proteolytic enzymes used by the SARS-CoV-2 virus to replicate. This prevents the virus from replicating in the infected cells, stopping the infection and preventing transmission.

Drug combinations like this offer a synergistic effect, above and beyond their individual abilities. In this combination, ritonavir helps to slow down the breakdown of nirmatrelvir, allowing it to remain in the body for a longer period at higher concentrations.

Fact #2 : Paxlovid Was Proven To Work Against COVID-19

Unlike Lianhua Qingwen, Paxlovid underwent and passed an actual randomised double-blind, placebo-controlled clinical trial.

In the EPIC-HR clinical trial, Paxlovid was shown to reduce hospitalisation or death from COVID-19 by 88%, compared to placebo.

That statistically significant result was why the US FDA issued an Emergency Use Authorisation (EUA) for Paxlovid on December 22, 2021.

The EUA allows Paxlovid to be used for the treatment of mild-to-moderate COVID-19 in adults and children 12 years and older, who are at high risk of developing severe COVID-19.

Read more : Did Cornell Name Ivermectin Most Effective Drug vs. Omicron?

Fact #3 : Paxlovid EPIC-HR Trial Involved High-Risk Patients

I should point out that the EPIC-HR trial involved adults who have a high risk of developing severe COVID-19 :

  • 18 years and older with a risk factor for developing severe COVID-19, or
  • 60 years and older, regardless of chronic medical conditions

All these patients also were not vaccinated against COVID-19, which puts them at higher risk of developing severe COVID-19.

Fact #4 : Paxlovid Not Effective In Normal Risk Patients

After successfully proving that Paxlovid worked for patients who are at high risk of developing severe COVID-19, Pfizer tested it on “standard risk patients”.

Their study showed a 51% relative risk reduction of developing severe COVID-19, which was not statistically significant.

That was why Pfizer halted further enrolment in its Paxlovid trial for “standard risk patients”, which are people who do not have co-morbidities – health conditions that put them at risk of developing severe COVID-19.

This “failure” actually shows the value of running clinical tests, before approving any drug. Unlike Paxlovid though, Lianhua Qingwen did not undergo any clinical trial to prove that it can treat or prevent COVID-19.

Fact #5 : Lianhua Qingwen Not Proven To Work Against COVID-19

Lianhua Qingwen (连花清瘟) has been heavily promoted by the Chinese government and the Chinese 50 Cent Army (wumao, 五毛), leading to massive sales in the global Chinese diaspora.

It then gained oversized importance when both Hong Kong and Shanghai distributed boxes of these capsules to help stave off the surge of COVID-19 in both cities.

Yet, the mass distribution of Lianhua Qingwen has done nothing to stop the spread of COVID-19 in both cities.

That’s because, unlike Paxlovid, there never was any evidence that Lianhua Qingwen can treat or prevent COVID-19.

Its main “call to fame” was a small Chinese study conducted early during the pandemic, which showed that it had only a modest effect on symptom recovery :

  • time to recover from fever : 2 days, instead of 3 days
  • time to recover from fatigue : 3 days, instead of 6 days
  • time to recover from coughing : 7 days, instead of 10 days

There was NO DIFFERENCE in the viral load, or the risk of developing severe COVID-19.

In other words – Lianhua Qingwen only helped to reduce symptoms, and was no different from taking over-the-counter drugs like paracetamol.

Read more : Did US NCBI Confirm Lianhua Qingwen Treats COVID-19?

Fact #6 : Lianhua Qingwen Should Not Be Taken To Prevent COVID-19

Official Chinese media outlets like CGTN and China Daily have falsely claimed that that Lianhua Qingwen was “proven effective for the treatment of COVID-19” and that it was “approved to treat [COVID-19] virus”.

However, Lianhua Qingwen cannot prevent COVID-19, and should not be taken on a long-term basis to prevent it, due to potential side effects.

The medicine could cause side effects such as nausea, vomiting, diarrhea and rash.

Fang Bangjiang, doctor from Long Hua Hospital of the Shanghai University of Traditional Chinese Medicine, said that Lianhua Qingwen has complex ingredients and is mainly suitable for COVID-19 patients with mild symptoms of fever and pneumonia but unsuitable for prevention.

Its ingredients will affect the renal system.

Fact #7 : Chinese Official Admits Lianhua Qingwen Cannot Kill Coronavirus

When Chinese Deputy Consul General in Vancouver, Kong Weiwei, was confronted about these claims, he said that people should be “mature enough” to do their own research and understand that Lianhua Qingwen cannot kill the COVID-19 virus :

They’re not babies. We don’t want to be like a nanny telling every one of them that these [Lianhua Qingwen capsules] cannot kill the virus.

Read more : Lianhua Qingwen Finally Tumbles Over Efficacy Concerns!

Fact #8 : Singapore HSA Warns Against Lianhua Qingwen Claims

The Singapore Health Sciences Authority (HSA) continues to warn the public not to believe the many misleading claims made about Lianhua Qingwen’s ability to treat or prevent COVID-19.

To date, there is no scientific evidence from randomised clinical trials to show that any herbal product, including Lianhua Qingwen products, can be used to prevent or treat COVID-19.

All herbal products formulated for common cold and flu, including CPM, should only be used to manage symptoms such as headache, runny or blocked nose, sore throat and cough.

We strongly advise members of the public not to fall prey to unsubstantiated claims or spread unfounded rumours that herbal products can be used to prevent or treat 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 | Science | Tech ARP

 

Support Tech ARP!

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

Pfizer + Moderna Bivalent COVID Vaccines Are Almost Here!

Both Pfizer and Moderna have successfully tested their bivalent COVID-19 vaccines which offer significantly better protection against Omicron and its sub variants!

 

Pfizer + Moderna Bivalent COVID Vaccines Are Almost Here!

Pfizer and Moderna announced, on 25 June and 8 June respectively, that they successfully tested their bivalent COVID-19 vaccines.

The Moderna bivalent COVID-19 vaccine targets both the original SARS-CoV-2 strain, as well as the current Omicron variant. Moderna says it’s their lead candidate for the Fall 2022 booster dose.

Pfizer tested both a bivalent COVID-19 vaccine, as well as a monovalent vaccine that targets the Omicron variant, in two dose levels – the “regular” 30 µg, and a higher 60 µg.

All three mRNA vaccine candidates offered significantly higher neutralising antibody titres against the Omicron variant.

The US FDA and other health regulators are now looking into whether to offer them as a booster dose for the fall season.

 

Pfizer + Moderna Bivalent COVID Vaccines : What We Know So Far…

Moderna Bivalent COVID-19 Vaccine

Designed as a booster dose, the Moderna bivalent COVID-19 vaccine contains the original mRNA-1273 (Spikevax) vaccine and a vaccine candidate targeting the Omicron variant.

The resulting mRNA-1273.214 mix was tested at the standard 50 µg dose, and found to increase the geometric mean title (GMT) against Omicron by approximately 8X above the baseline level (without the booster dose).

Antibody levels dropped after a month, but the new mRNA-1273.214 vaccine candidate still showed significantly higher antibody levels against the Omicron variant, compared to the original Spikevax vaccine.

GMT Levels
(after 1 month)
Bivalent
Candidate
Original
Spikevax
Difference
Ancestral SARS-CoV-2 5977 5649 +5.8%
Omicron Variant 2372 1473 +61.0%

Moderna also said that the new bivalent vaccine candidate has a similar safety profile to its original Spikevax vaccine, when both vaccines were administered as a second booster dose.

Pfizer Bivalent + Monovalent COVID-19 Vaccines

Pfizer and BioNTech tested both an Omicron-specific monovalent vaccine, as well as a bivalent mix like Moderna. They also tested them in both the standard 30 µg dose, and a higher 60 µg dose.

The Omicron-only booster dose offered the strongest immune response against the Omicron variant – 2X to 3X higher than the original COMIRNATY vaccine.

Their bivalent booster dose candidate, on the other hand, offered 1.5X to 2X higher antibody levels against the Omicro variant than the original COMIRNATY vaccine.

However, health authorities are likely to prefer the bivalent version as it will boost protection against the original virus, as well as the Omicron variant at the same time.

Pfizer Vaccine Type GMR
(vs. Omicron)
60 µg Monovalent 3.15
30 µg Monovalent 2.23
60 µg Bivalent 1.97
30 µg Bivalent 1.56
30 µg Original Vaccine Baseline

One month after administration, both monovalent and bivalent Pfizer vaccine candidates offered significantly higher neutralising antibodies against the Omicron BA.1 variant.

Pfizer Vaccine Type GMT
(vs. Omicron)
60 µg Monovalent 19.6X
30 µg Monovalent 13.5X
60 µg Bivalent 10.9X
30 µg Bivalent 9.1X
Without Booster Baseline

Pfizer also Said that both vaccine candidates demonstrated a favourable safety and tolerability profile, similar to the original Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine.

 

Please Support My Work!

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

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

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

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

 

Recommended Reading

Go Back To > Health | BusinessTech 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 Pfizer Vaccine Altering Liver DNA In 6 Hours?!

Did a Swedish study show that the Pfizer COVID-19 vaccine altered the DNA of human liver cells in just 6 hours?!

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

 

Claim : Study Show Pfizer Vaccine Altering Liver DNA In 6 Hours!

The Expose is back again, with yet another “fakexpose” on the Pfizer COVID-19 vaccine. This time, they are recycling a February 2022 fake story that I fact checked earlier.

Here are selected excerpts from their long-winded article. Feel free to skip it, and head to the next section for the facts.

A Swedish study has demonstrated and confirmed that the mRNA in the Pfizer/BioNTech Covid injections infiltrates cells and transcribes its message onto human DNA within 6 hours, altering our own DNA.

The findings come after a previous study published in October 2021 from Sweden found the spike protein enters our cells nuclei and impairs the mechanism cells have to repair damaged DNA.

Read more : Did 800 People Quit Pfizer Vaccine Trial Over Death / Injury?!

 

Truth : Study Did Not Show Pfizer Vaccine Altering Liver DNA In 6 Hours

This is yet another example of vaccine fake news based on the intentional misinterpretation of a single scientific study.

Here is what you really need to know about this Lund University study… and The Expose.

Fact #1 : The Expose Is A Fake News Website

The Expose is notorious for creating and propagating fake news on everything from COVID-19 to vaccines and the Ukraine war.

I investigated several articles they wrote, and they were all found to be completely false, or intentionally misleading.

Everything posted by The Expose must be considered fake news, until proven otherwise.

Fact #2 : Study Did NOT Say Pfizer Vaccine Alters Our DNA

First things first – the Lund University study is called Intracellular Reverse Transcription of Pfizer BioNTech COVID-19 mRNA Vaccine BNT162b2 In Vitro in Human Liver Cell Line, and you can read it in its entirety here.

If you read just the discussion, you will note that the study authors actually pointed out that their study does NOT show that the Pfizer vaccine integrates with the liver cell DNA, or alters it in any way.

At this stage, we do not know if DNA reverse transcribed from BNT162b2 is integrated into the cell genome.

To be clear, the study offers no evidence that the Pfizer COVID-19 vaccine alters our DNA in any way or form.

Fact #3 : It Was A Laboratory Study

I should also point out the obvious fact that this was an in-vitro study – a laboratory study, not a clinical study.

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

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

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

Read more : Study Shows 10X Ivermectin Can’t Prevent Severe COVID-19!

Fact #4 : Study Was Based On Liver Cancer Cells

The casual reader of the Lund University study will not realise that Huh7 (or Huh-7) cells are not ordinary liver cells that you or I have.

Huh7 cells were derived from the liver tumour of a 57 year-old Japanese man, and are special because :

  • they are immortal liver cancer cells that can keep multiplying
  • they are highly-susceptible to Hepatitis C virus (HCV) infection
  • they are genetically different, with an abnormal number of chromosomes (between 55 and 63, normal human cells have 46)

The Huh7 cell line is useful for the study of liver cancer and Hepatitis C, as well as drugs that may combat HCV; but it is important to understand that Huh7 cells are not representative of normal human cells.

Fact #5 : Huh7 Liver Cells Were Cultured In Plates

For a “more physiologically relevant study of viruses“, these Huh7 cells have to be cultured in a NASA-designed 3D Rotating Wall Vessel (RWV) bioreactor.

These RWV bioreactors create 3D aggregates of Huh7 cells that are more “similar in structure and function” to their in vivo counterparts, with “completely altered gene expression and differentiation patterns“.

In other words, these RWV-grown Huh7 cells look and behave differently, more like regular human cells compared to plate-cultured Huh7 cells.

For the record, the Lund University study used plate-cultured Huh7 cells, and not RWV-grown Huh7 cells.

There is nothing wrong with that, but we should keep in mind that these cells are not an ideal representation of human cells.

This is what a 24-cell culture plate looks like

Fact #6 : Normal Human Cells Don’t Produce LINE-1 Enzyme

The scientists chose to use these Huh7 cells because like many cancerous cells, they express (produce) the LINE-1 enzyme.

LINE-1 is a reverse transcriptase that converts mRNA into DNA, so it is not surprising that the study would show it converting mRNA from the Pfizer COVID-19 vaccine into DNA. That is literally what it is meant to do.

Normal human cells have the LINE-1 gene, but it is not expressed. Normal human cells do not produce the LINE-1 enzyme, which is why they could not use regular human cells in this study.

That is also why it is inappropriate to use the Huh7 cell culture to evaluate how mRNA vaccines would actually work or behave in humans.

Fact #7 : Transcribed DNA Did Not Enter Nucleus

The study only looked at whether mRNA from the Pfizer COVID-19 vaccine can be transcribed into DNA by the LINE-1 enzyme.

As the study showed – yes, it can… because that’s what the LINE-1 enzyme does. But the study does not show that the transcribed DNA entered the cell nucleus and altered human DNA.

While that is plausible, it would require another enzyme called integrase, that viruses produce, to move that DNA into the cell nucleus itself.

Without the integrase enzyme, the DNA transcribed by the LINE-1 enzyme will only float outside, and will never integrate with the DNA inside the cell nucleus.

Did Pfizer mRNA Vaccine Combine With DNA In Liver Cells?!

Fact #8 : mRNA Vaccines Do Not Modify Our Genes

An mRNA vaccine only contains a limited number of lipid nanoparticles containing those delicate mRNA instructions. So only a limited number of cells are involved in the vaccination process.

Even if it is somehow possible for the mRNA instructions from the vaccine to enter the cell nucleus and integrate with the DNA inside, it will only affect those cells.

Our cells die and are replaced by new cells all the time, so even if hypothetically the vaccine “infects” and modifies the DNA of a few hundred thousand cells, those cells will eventually die and be replaced by new cells without the modified DNA.

It is simply not possible for mRNA vaccines to modify our genes.

Fact #9 : 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.

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!

Everything posted by The Expose must be regarded as FAKE NEWS, until proven otherwise.

Please help us FIGHT FAKE NEWS by sharing this article out, and supporting 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 > Health | Fact Check | Tech ARP

 

Support Tech ARP!

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

Lianhua Qingwen Finally Tumbles Over Efficacy Concerns!

The Chinese medicine Lianhua Qingwen is finally tumbling over concerns about its efficacy against COVID-19.

Find out why it has apparently fallen out of favour with the Chinese government!

 

Lianhua Qingwen Maker Plunged 10% Over Efficacy Questions

Traditional Chinese medicine company Shijiazhuang Yiling Pharmaceutical saw its shares skyrocket by over 260% since the COVID-19 pandemic started.

Driving its meteoric rise was its Lianhua Qingwen capsules, sales of which eventually accounted for 42% of their revenue.

That came to a halt on Monday, 18 April 2022, when its shares fell by the maximum daily limit of 10%, over questions of Lianhua Qingwen’s efficacy against COVID-19.

On 13 April 2022, Wang Sicong – a Chinese internet influencer, and son of Dalian Wanda Group chairman, Wang Jianlin, posted a video on Weibo questioning the efficacy of Lianhua Qingwen against COVID-19.

He pointed out that the World Health Organisation (WHO) never recommended using Lianhua Qingwen to treat COVID-19. That slashed the market value of Shijiazhuang Yiling Pharmaceutical by $1.05 billion on Friday, 15 April 2022.

Then on Sunday, 17 April 2022, the Chinese health platform Dingxiang Yisheng published an article advising the public not to take it to prevent COVID-19.

That triggered a sell-off that saw its market value plunge by the maximum daily limit of 10% in Shenzhen the next day.

 

Lianhua Qingwen NOT Proven To Work Against COVID-19

Lianhua Qingwen has been heavily promoted by the Chinese government and the Chinese 50 Cent Army (wumao, 五毛), leading to massive sales in the global Chinese diaspora.

It then gained oversized importance when both Hong Kong and Shanghai distributed boxes of these capsules to help stave off the surge of COVID-19 in both cities.

Yet, the mass distribution of Lianhua Qingwen has done nothing to stop the spread of COVID-19 in both cities.

That’s because there never was any evidence that Lianhua Qingwen can treat or prevent COVID-19.

Its main “call to fame” was a small Chinese study conducted early during the pandemic, which showed that it had only a modest effect on symptom recovery :

  • time to recover from fever : 2 days, instead of 3 days
  • time to recover from fatigue : 3 days, instead of 6 days
  • time to recover from coughing : 7 days, instead of 10 days

There was NO DIFFERENCE in the viral load, or the risk of developing severe COVID-19.

Read more : Did US NCBI Confirm Lianhua Qingwen Treats COVID-19?

In other words – Lianhua Qingwen only helped to reduce symptoms, and was no different from taking over-the-counter drugs like paracetamol.

However, it was far more expensive, and had potential side effects from long-term use and counterfeit products capitalising on the hype.

The medicine could cause side effects such as nausea, vomiting, diarrhea and rash.

Fang Bangjiang, doctor from Long Hua Hospital of the Shanghai University of Traditional Chinese Medicine, said that Lianhua Qingwen has complex ingredients and is mainly suitable for COVID-19 patients with mild symptoms of fever and pneumonia but unsuitable for prevention.

Its ingredients will affect the renal system.

Lianhua Qingwen, incidentally, is nothing more than a mix of common herbs :

Forsythia suspensa (Thunb.) Vahl (Weeping Forsythia) Fruit – 27.41mg, Lonicera japonica Thunb. (Japanese Honeysuckle) Flower – 27.41mg, Gypsum Fibrosum – 27.41mg, Isatis indigotica Fort. (Isatis) Root – 27.41mg, Dryopteris crassirhizoma Nakai (Male Fern) Rhizome and Frond Bases – 27.41 mg, Houttuynia cordata Thunb. (Heartleaf Houttuynia) Aerial Part – 27.41 mg, Pogostemon cablin (Blanco) Benth. (Cablin Patchouli) Aerial Part – 9.40mg, Ephedra sinica Stapf (Ephedra) Herbaceous Stem – 9.14mg, Prunus sibirica L. (Bitter Apricot) Ripe Seeds – 9.14 mg, Rhodiola crenulata (Hook. f. et Thomson) H.Ohba (Bigflower Rhodiola) Root and Rhizome – 9.14mg, Glycyrrhiza uralensis Fisch. (Liquorice) Root and Rhizome – 9.14mg, 1-Menthol – 7.50mg, Rheum palmatum L. (Rhubarb) Root and Rhizome – 5.47mg.

None of its ingredients have been proven to cure COVID-19, although poor quality studies have demonstrated that it is effective in reducing fever. Again, you would get the same effect from the much cheaper and easier-to-obtain paracetamol…

And yes, Forsythia was the fake herbal cure promoted by Jude Law’s character – Alan Krumwiede in the medical thriller – Contagion.

Despite longstanding warnings by health authorities like Singapore’s HSA that Lianhua Qingwen cannot treat or prevent COVID-19, it continues to rack up sales amongst the Chinese diaspora globally.

Credit definitely goes towards active Chinese government promotion, and misinformation created and shared by the Chinese wumao and pro-China activists.

There is no scientific evidence from randomised clinical trials to show that any herbal product, including Lianhua Qingwen products, can be used to prevent or treat COVID-19.

Interestingly, official Chinese outlets like Global Times have now published articles about Shijiazhuang Yiling Pharmaceutical’s downfall.

In addition, the Chinese government did not censor Wang Sicong’s Weibo video or the Dingxiang Yisheng article.

That suggests that the Chinese government is looking for someone to blame for their failure to contain the massive outbreak of COVID-19 in Shanghai, and Lianhua Qingwen appears to be the perfect scapegoat for their failing Zero COVID policy.

It is sad, but enlightening, to see that the myth of Lianhua Qingwen is finally being broken only because the Chinese government decided to throw it under the bus.

 

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 > Business | Science | Tech ARP

 

Support Tech ARP!

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

Pfizer Hired 600+ People To Process Vaccine Injury Reports?!

Did Pfizer hire 600+ people to process over 158,000 vaccine injury reports?!

Take a look at the viral claim, and find out what’s really going on!

 

Claim : Pfizer Hired 600+ People To Process Vaccine Injury Reports!

The Children’s Health Defense (CHD) is taking another swing at the Pfizer documents.

This time, they claim to have discovered that Pfizer hired 600 extra full-time employees just to process 158,000 vaccine injury reports!

It’s a long post, so feel free to skip to the next section for the truth…

Pfizer Hired 600+ People to Process Vaccine Injury Reports, Documents Reveal

Pfizer hired about 600 additional full-time employees to process adverse event reports during the three months following the Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) of its COVID-19 vaccine, newly released documents reveal.

According to the documents, Pfizer said, “More are joining each month with an expected total of more than 1,800 additional resources by the end of June 2021.”

 

Truth : Pfizer Hired 600+ People To Process Adverse Event Reports

This is yet another hatchet job by the Children’s Health Defense, and here are the reasons why this is just more anti-vaccination misinformation.

Fact #1 : FDA Released Unredacted Document

First, it is important to set the stage, so to speak.

The FDA has to go through each page, and redact any potentially confidential information, before releasing it under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA).

The document in question was released with some information redacted in the first batch of Pfizer documents released on 17 November 2021.

The FDA then released the same document completely unredacted, as part of 10,000 pages released on 1 April 2022.

This shows that they decided that the redacted information wasn’t confidential after all, and released the entire document. It was not like they “accidentally” released the unredacted document, as some people have suggested.

Fact #2 : There Were Only Three New Pieces Of Information

Next, I should point out that the FDA only redacted three pieces of information in that “bombshell” Pfizer document (highlighted in red) :

  • To date, Pfizer has onboarded approximately 600 additional full time employees (FTEs).
  • More are joining each month with an expected total of more than 1,800 additional resources by the end of June 2021.
  • It is estimated that approximately 126,212,580 doses of BNT162b2 were shipped worldwide from the receipt of the first temporary authorisation for emergency supply on 01 December 2020 through 28 February 2021.

That’s it. Nothing else was redacted in the original release. Not even the 9 pages of 1,291 adverse events of special interest.

Even without the actual figures, you can already tell from the original (redacted) document that Pfizer was increasing manpower to cope with an unexpected amount of adverse event reports.

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

Fact #3 : Nothing Shocking About 600-1800 Extra Employees

CHD is hyping up the fact that Pfizer hired 600 to 1800 extra employees to process the adverse event reports. What exactly is shocking about that?

As Pfizer explained in Page 6, they increased the number of full-time employees to ensure that all adverse events would be expeditiously processed.

What would be really shocking is if Pfizer tried to delay processing these adverse event reports, by refusing to hire more people.

I’m shocked that the CHD was shocked that Pfizer would do the right thing by increasing manpower to expeditiously process these adverse event reports.

Would the CHD really prefer that Pfizer not increase manpower, and slow-walk the adverse event reports? That would be shocking indeed…

Fact #4 : 10K New Pages Were Released

I am also shocked that the CHD was forced to “recycle” this document which was released in the very first batch back in November 2021.

Could they not find anything new to gripe about after digging through the latest batch of 10,000 new pages released by the FDA?

Perhaps actual evidence of Pfizer bribing the FDA with $2.8 million?

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

Fact #5 : Adverse Event Reports Based On Awareness

The CHD claimed that the 158,000 adverse events reported in the Pfizer document is a gross undercount. That opinion is not based on any actual fact.

In fact, the adverse event reports are far more likely to be exaggerated, due to the overwhelming amount of public misinformation on the Internet.

In Page 5 of the document, Pfizer themselves pointed out that “the spontaneous reporting system yields reporting proportions not incidence rate“, and is influenced by “awareness” and “litigation“.

In other words, the high number of adverse event reports is likely due to the overwhelming amount of trepidation (and potentially abuse) driven by public misinformation.

Due to greater “awareness”, more people are reporting adverse events to open reporting systems like VAERS and Yellow Card, even if they are unrelated to the vaccine.

Fact #6 : Adverse Events Are Not Vaccine Injury Reports

As Pfizer noted in Page 6, the large number of adverse event reports (AERs) do not necessarily mean that they are actually caused by the vaccine.

In fact, open reporting systems like VAERS and Yellow Card are notably open to abuse, and false reporting.

That’s why all reported adverse events must be investigated to find out if they are caused by the vaccine (anaphylactic reaction), or not (getting into a car accident).

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

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

In other words – the adverse events in the Pfizer vaccine document are not vaccine injury reports.

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

Fact #7 : Majority Of Adverse Events Were Not Serious

What the CHD does not mention is that the majority of reported adverse events were not serious. In fact, they were what you would expect from ANY vaccination :

  • Headache : 24.1%
  • Fever : 18.2%
  • Fatigue : 17.4%
  • Chills : 13.1%
  • Vaccination site pain : 12.3%
  • Nausea : 12.3%
  • Myalgia (muscle pain) : 11.7%

And that’s before any effort was even made to determine if they were actually caused by the vaccine, and not caused by a concomitant infection or pre-existing disease, for example.

Fact #8 : No New Safety Concerns Despite 158K Adverse Event Reports

The Pfizer document noted after shipping 126 million doses, 42 thousand people reported over 158,000 adverse events in the first 3 months.

Even if we assume that they are all genuine, only 0.033% of people who received the Pfizer vaccine reported at least one adverse event. That’s 1 in 3,000 people.

And yet, despite so many reported adverse events, their investigation showed that the “data do not reveal any novel safety concerns or risks“.

Pfizer could only confirm that anaphylaxis is an important risk of the COMIRNATY vaccine.

In other words – the 158K adverse events were weighed, measured… and found wanting. There was NO NEW SAFETY CONCERN with the vaccine!

Please don’t risk your life, and your family’s lives, on misinformation created and peddled by anti-vaccination organisations like the Children’s Health Defense.

And please help us FIGHT FAKE NEWS by sharing this fact check out!

 

Please Support My Work!

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

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

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

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

 

Recommended Reading

Go Back To > Fact Check | Health | Tech ARP

 

Support Tech ARP!

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

Did Pfizer Pay $2.8 Million Bribe For FDA Vaccine Approval?!

Did Pfizer pay a US$2.8 million bribe to the FDA for the approval of their COVID-19 vaccine?!

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

 

Claim : Pfizer Paid $2.8 Million Bribe For FDA Vaccine Approval!

People are sharing a screenshot of a Pfizer document, calling it evidence that they paid the FDA a US$2.8 million bribe for the approval of their COVID-19 vaccine!

Here’s proof of the $2.8 Million “donation” that Pfizer made to the FDA to get their 💉 approved. Do they really care about your health or is it about money?

$2.8 million bribe payment from Pfizer to FDA for their Bioweapon “approval”. You’re not supposed to know that. Look the other way.
🚨🤟👌
Pfizer was required to declassify the documents …
So now we know that they made a payment of $2.8 million to the FDA for the “approval” of the vaccine against Covid-19
Pfizer/FDA Corruption: 2.8 Million Was Transferred from Pfizer to the FDA for “Priority Licensing” of Comirnaty

 

Truth : Pfizer Did Not Pay $2.8 Million Bribe For FDA Vaccine Approval!

This is yet another piece of anti-vaccination FAKE NEWS based on the Pfizer documents released by the FDA, and here are the reasons why…

Fact #1 : It Was A Cover Letter

First of all, you should read the entire letter in full. You can download the copy provided to PHMPT on 1 March 2022.

You will note that it is a 6-page cover letter for the Rolling Biologics License Application (BLA) request for Priority Review Designation submission.

Fact #2 : Sentence Was Truncated

Instead of posting the entire letter so you can read it, they shared the first page, with a single truncated sentence highlighted.

A wire transfer for $2,875,842.00 was made to the U.S. Department of Treasury (TREAS

If they posted the complete sentence, you would have read that the $2.8 million dollars was for “the user fee for this application“.

No wonder they cut off that part…

Fact #3 : $2.8 Million Was Standard FDA Application Fee, Not Bribe

What these anti-vaccination activists don’t want you to know is that the $2.8 million was not to bribe the FDA into approving their COVID-19 vaccine.

The truth is – Pfizer was paying the standard FDA user fee of $2.8 million for a “human drug application” with clinical data required.

When Pfizer submitted their application in May 2021, the FDA user fee was $2,875,842 – the exact amount stated in their cover letter. That actually increased to $3.1 million in 2022.

On top of that, pharmaceutical companies have to pay an additional Program Fee, which was $336 thousand in 2021, and just under $370 thousand in 2022.

FDA User Fee 2021 2022
Application Fee (With Clinical Data) $2,875,842 $3,117,218
Application Fee (No Clinical Data) $1,437,921 $1,558,609
Program Fee $336,432 $369,413

Fact #4 : $2.8 Million Fee Was Required By Law

The $2.8 million fee was actually required by law, specifically the Prescription Drug User Fee Act (PDUFA), that the US Congress enacted in 1992.

The PDUFA provides that the FDA is entitled to collect the application fee from pharmaceutical companies that submit a New Drug Application (NDA) or Biologics License Application (BLA) application.

PDUFA levies a user fee on certain human drug applications. Under PDUFA, the term human drug application means an application for

  • approval of a new drug submitted under section 505(b) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FD&C Act), or
  • licensure of certain biological products under section 351(a) of the Public Health Service Act (PHS Act).

Each person that submits a human drug application is assessed an application fee as follows:

  •  A human drug application for which clinical data (other than bioavailability or bioequivalence studies) with respect to safety or effectiveness are required for approval is assessed a full application fee.
  •  A human drug application for which clinical data with respect to safety or effectiveness are not required for approval is assessed one-half of a full fee.

Human drug application fees are due when the application is submitted.

Read more : Is Pfizer Delisting Itself On Nasdaq + NYSE?!

Fact #5 : FDA Fee Only Used For Review + Approval

The funds is designated to be used only for the review and approval process of the NDA or BLA applications.

Since it was enacted in 1992, PDUFA funds have allowed the FDA to greatly increase staffing to expedite the time it takes to review each new drug or vaccine.

In fact, the FDA is required to meet certain performance benchmarks, in order to continue collecting these fees.

In other words, Pfizer did not pay the FDA to approve their vaccine. They paid the Congress-mandated fee, to fund the expedited review of their COVID-19 vaccine… just like all other pharmaceutical company applying for FDA approval.

Fact #6 : FDA Fee Had Nothing To Do With Priority Review

Under the Prescription Drug User Act (PDUFA), the FDA has a two-tiered review system – Standard Review and Priority Review.

The payment of the PDUFA user fee does not grant any application a Priority Review designation. All NDA / BLA submissions to the FDA incur the same user application fee.

Pharmaceutical companies can request for priority review, but it is up to the FDA to review and designate whether an application should receive a Standard Review, or a Priority Review.

Fact #7 : Priority Review Based On Need + Urgency

The FDA decides which application gets a Priority Review, based on whether the drug / vaccine could potentially offer “significant improvements in the safety or effectiveness of the treatment, diagnosis, or prevention of serious conditions when compared to standard applications“.

Based on that criteria, the FDA granted the Pfizer COVID-19 vaccine a Priority Review on 16 July 2021 – just over 2 months after they applied for the Priority Review.

This had nothing to do with the payment of the application fee, which was paid in advanced more than two months earlier.

Don’t risk your life, or your family’s lives, on the bad science and misinformation promoted by anti-vaccination activists.

Please help me fight fake news, by sharing this fact check with your family and friends!

 

Please Support My Work!

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

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

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

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

 

Recommended Reading

Go Back To > Health | Fact Check | Tech ARP

 

Support Tech ARP!

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

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

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

Here is what you need to know…

 

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

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

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

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

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

Safety + Side Effects

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

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

Efficacy

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

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

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

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

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

 

Please Support My Work!

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

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

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

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

 

Recommended Reading

Go Back To > Health | Business | Tech ARP

 

Support Tech ARP!

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

Pfizer vs. Sinovac Vaccine : Which Is Better For Your Child?

Now that both the Pfizer and Sinovac vaccines are approved for 5-11 year old kids, some parents are wondering – which is the better vaccine for their child?

Here is a quick summary of both vaccines, as well as their safety and their efficacy against COVID-19!

 

Pfizer vs. Sinovac Child Vaccine : Different From Adult Vaccines?

One of the first questions parents ask me is if the Pfizer and/or Sinovac vaccine for 5-11 year-old children are the same, as the adult vaccines.

The Pfizer vaccine for 5-11 year old children is an improved formulation based on the adult vaccine, while the Sinovac vaccine is exactly the same for both adult and children.

Here is a simple and quick comparison :

Characteristics Pfizer Vaccine
for Kids
Sinovac Vaccine
for Kids
Formulation Improved with Tris buffer
More stable, longer storage
No change
No. of Doses 2 Doses
No change
2 Doses
No change
Dosage 10 micrograms
1/3 of adult dose
3 micrograms
Same as adult dose
Volume 0.2 ml
2/3 of adult vaccine
0.5 ml
Same as adult vaccine
Dose Interval 8 Weeks *
5 weeks longer
4 weeks
Same as adult vaccine

* In some countries only, Pfizer still recommends the original 3-week dose interval

 

Pfizer vs. Sinovac Vaccine : Which Is Better For Your Child?

Pfizer Child Vaccine Efficacy : 90.7%

The Pfizer bridging study showed that their lower-dose paediatric vaccine was 90.7% efficacious in preventing symptomatic COVID-19 infection.

Their study also showed that the Pfizer paediatric vaccine produced high neutralising antibody titres against the Delta (B.1.617.2) variant at 1 month after Dose 2.

One Month
After Dose 2
Geometric Mean Titres
(GMT)
Difference
USA-WA1/2020 (Reference) 365.3 +36.5X
B.1.617.2 (Delta) 294.9 +29.5X
Unvaccinated 10 Baseline

Sinovac Child Vaccine Efficacy : Unknown

Back in October 2021, the Malaysia Ministry of Health (KKM) ran a Phase 3 clinical trial to determine the efficacy of the Sinovac COVID-19 vaccine for children 3-11 years in age.

However, they did not reveal what was the efficacy of the Sinovac COVID-19 vaccine for the 5-11 year old age group, or how it performed against the Omicron variant.

We do know that the adult dose was only 50.4% efficacious in preventing symptomatic COVID-19 from the original SARS-CoV-2 virus, and that it has zero efficacy against the Omicron variant (see link and table below).

It seems very improbable that the same vaccine would impart better efficacy in children, more so against the Delta or Omicron variants.

Read more : What HKU Study Revealed About Pfizer / Sinovac vs. Omicron

COVID-19
Variant
Seropositive Rate MN Titer (GMT)
Pfizer Sinovac Pfizer Sinovac
HKU691 Omicron 20% 0% 5.43 Min.
HKU344-R346K
Omicron
24% 0% 6.42 Min.
Delta 100% 68% 124.7 10.3
Beta 100% 0% 25.7 Min.
Alpha 100% 100% 229.4 21.7

Pfizer Is Definitely Better Than Sinovac For Your Child

Until there are good peer-reviewed Phase 3 results of the Sinovac CoronaVac vaccine for 5-11 year-old children, I believe it is far more prudent to vaccinate your child with the Pfizer COMIRNATY paediatric vaccine.

At least the Pfizer paediatric COVID-19 vaccine has been proven in a Phase 3 trial to be 90.7% efficacious in preventing symptomatic COVID-19 infections in 5-11 year-old children.

It is highly unlikely that even the adult dose of the Sinovac vaccine can impart anything close to its original 50.4% efficacy against the ancestral COVID-19 virus, and it seems very likely to perform poorly against the Delta and Omicron variants.

If you want the best protection for your child, get the new Pfizer vaccine for kids. Only consider the Sinovac vaccine if your child has an adverse reaction to the first dose of the Pfizer vaccine.

Read more : Sinovac Vaccine for 5-11 Yo Kids : What You Need To Know!
Read more : Pfizer COVID-19 Vaccine For Kids : What You Need To Know!

 

Pfizer vs. Sinovac Vaccine : Which Is Safer For Your Child?

This is also another question that many parents are asking. Everyone is worried about COVID-19, but no one wants their child to be “injured” by a vaccine.

There isn’t a straight answer, because safety has to be balanced against the risk of injury from a breakthrough infection – getting COVID-19 despite being vaccinated.

Sinovac Vaccine : Fewer Side Effects But Low Efficacy

The Sinovac vaccine is no doubt a very safe vaccine, with fewer complaints of side effects. Generally, they include pain and swelling at the injection site, fever, headache, nausea, diarrhoea, joint pain, cough, chills, sore throat and runny nose.

While parents will be relieved to hear that, I must point out that this is because the Sinovac vaccine generates a much weaker immune response. Even with an aluminium hydroxide adjuvant to boost the immune response, its efficacy is relatively poor at 50.4% against the original COVID-19 virus.

Pfizer Vaccine : More Side Effects But Much Higher Efficacy

The Pfizer vaccine is also a very safe vaccine, with rare risks of anaphylaxis and myocarditis in young adults and adolescents. The risk is not much higher than with other vaccines, as my table of data from the massive SAFECOVAC study shows :

  • Pfizer : 1 in every 1.11 million doses
  • AstraZeneca : 1 in every 1.43 million doses
  • Sinovac : 1 in every 2 million doses
Age Groups Myocarditis Events
(Per Million Doses)
Pfizer AstraZeneca Sinovac
Overall 0.9 0.7 0.5
Over 30 Years 1.0 NA 0.6
30 Years + Younger 0.87 NA 0.49

We must also remember that myocarditis is a condition that can affect anyone who suffers a viral infection, and is also seen with a COVID-19 infection.

In fact, you are far more likely to get myocarditis from a COVID-19 infection than either the Pfizer or Sinovac vaccine.

Here is my comparison of the myocarditis risk of triple vaccination (two doses + booster) versus a single COVID-19 infection.

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

No matter how you slice and dice the results, it is very clear that the risk of myocarditis is GREATEST with a single COVID-19 infection, than it is with THREE doses of the Pfizer, AstraZeneca or Sinovac vaccines.

If you are worried about your child getting myocarditis, you should definitely protect him/her using the best COVID-19 vaccine you can get, and that would be the Pfizer paediatric vaccine.

 

Please Support My Work!

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

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

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

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

 

Recommended Reading

Go Back To > Health | Tech ARP

 

Support Tech ARP!

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

Why Adverse Events of Special Interest Are NOT Side Effects!

Pfizer looked out for 1,291 Adverse Events of Special Interest after their COVID-19 vaccine was approved and used to vaccinate billions of people around the world.

Find out why these Adverse Events of Special Interest (AESI) are not actual vaccine side effects!

 

Claim : Adverse Events of Special Interest Are Vaccine Side Effects!

People keep sharing a list of 1,291 adverse events in 9 pages of a Pfizer document that was recently released by the FDA.

They are claiming that these are actual side effects of the Pfizer vaccine. Some claimed that this is proof that Pfizer was fully-aware that their vaccine caused those 1,291 side effects.

Some also claimed that these Adverse Events of Special Interest (AESI) are the reason why Pfizer tried to block the release of those documents for 75 years!

Read more : Pfizer Forced To Release 9 Pages Of Vaccine Side Effects?!
Read more : Did Pfizer Vaccine Documents Reveal 1,291 Side Effects?!

 

Truth : Adverse Events of Special Interest Are NOT Vaccine Side Effects!

The truth is those 1,291 adverse events of special interest (AESI) are not side effects of the Pfizer COVID-19 vaccine.

People making these false claims are accidentally misinterpreting OR intentionally misrepresenting what the document said.

And here are the facts you need to know…

Fact #1 : Pfizer Document Was Released Months Ago

These false claims are based on a Pfizer document called “5.3.6 postmarketing experience.pdf“, which the US FDA released to the PHMPT on 17 November 2021.

It apparently took them more than 3 months to read that document, and “discover” the 9 pages of 1,291 adverse events of special interest.

This not only proves that the FDA was right about how much time it takes to read (and redact) 329,000 Pfizer documents, it also shows that the PHMPT does not really need all 329,000 documents within 108 days.

After all, it took anti-vaccination activists almost that long just to read 5 documents! At this rate, it will take them some 16,450 years to read all 329,000 pages related to the Pfizer vaccine approval…

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

Fact #2 : Pfizer Document Did Not Reveal 1,291 Side Effects

The “List of Adverse Events of Special Interest” (AESI) is NOT a list of side effects caused by the Pfizer mRNA vaccine.

Rather, that was a list of 1,291 potential adverse events that Pfizer was specifically looking for when vaccinated people send in their reports through VAERS or the Yellow Card systems.

Think of it as a shopping list of adverse events that Pfizer wanted their post-authorisation safety teams to look out for.

Even if these adverse events did occur, researchers still need to find out if they actually occurred because of the vaccine, or some other causes.

Fact #3 : Adverse Events Are Not Side Effects

I should now point out that adverse events are not 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.

Fact #4 : AESI List Not Specific To Pfizer Vaccine

The Adverse Events of Special Interest list is not specific to the Pfizer mRNA vaccine. It’s actually stated on Page 16 of the document.

The company’s AESI list takes into consideration the lists of AESIs from the following expert groups and regulatory authorities: Brighton Collaboration (SPEAC), ACCESS protocol, US CDC (preliminary list of AESI for VAERS surveillance), MHRA (unpublished guideline).

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.

These AESIs are usually specified before clinical trials even begin, although new ones may be added later. Hence, a generic list is used.

Fact #5 : AESI List Includes Irrelevant Adverse Events

We know that this is a generic AESI list, because it included diseases involving other viruses – Herpes, MERS, Varicella; as well as “exposure to SARS-CoV-2” and other “communicable disease”.

The list also included manufacturing and lab test issues, like “Manufacturing laboratory analytical testing issue, Manufacturing materials issue, Manufacturing production issue“.

Even product supply issues were included – “Product availability issue, Product distribution issue, Product supply issue“.

They are obviously not vaccine side effects, nor related in any way to the performance or safety of the vaccine.

Fact #6 : Pfizer Document Showed No New Safety Concerns

The document actually showed that despite monitoring for 1,291 adverse events of special interest, Pfizer found no new risks from the vaccine.

If you read the Discussion and Summary + Conclusion sections, you will see that the data :

  • did not reveal any “novel safety concerns or risks”
  • support “a favourable benefit risk profile” of the vaccine

In other words – Pfizer looked for “1,291 potential dangers” associated with vaccines in general, and found NO NEW SAFETY CONCERNS / RISKS.

Don’t risk your life or your family’s lives on the bad science and misinformation promoted by anti-vaccination activists.

Please help me fight fake news, by sharing this fact check with your family and friends!

 

Please Support My Work!

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

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

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

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

 

Recommended Reading

Go Back To > Health | Fact Check | Tech ARP

 

Support Tech ARP!

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

Sinovac Vaccine for 5-11 Yo Kids : What You Need To Know!

You can now get the Sinovac CoronaVac vaccine for your 5-11 year-old kids in Malaysia!

Here is what you need to know!

 

Sinovac Vaccine for 5-11 Yo Kids : Approved In Malaysia!

On 3 March 2022, the Malaysia Health Ministry (KKM) gave conditional approval to the Sinovac CoronaVac COVID-19 vaccine for use in 5-11 year-old children.

This makes the Sinovac CoronaVac the second COVID-19 vaccine to be approved in Malaysia for children 5 to 11 years in age, after the Pfizer COMIRNATY vaccine on 6 January 2022.

It is also the second vaccine to be approved for use in the PICKids COVID-19 vaccination programme for children.

Read more : Malaysia Approves Sinovac Covid-19 Vaccine For 5-11 Yo Kids

 

Sinovac Vaccine for 5-11 Yo Kids : What You Need To Know!

Here is what you need to know about the use of the Sinovac vaccine for 5-11 year old kids in the PICKids vaccination programme for children.

When Will PICKids Offer Sinovac Vaccine For Kids?

PICKids started offering the Sinovac vaccine for 5-11 year-old kids starting 7 March 2022.

What Is Sinovac Vaccine For Kids?

The Sinovac vaccine for 5-11 year old kids is the SAME as the Sinovac vaccine for adults.

This is an inactivated virus vaccine – which uses real SARS-CoV-2 viruses that have been killed (deactivated) using β-propiolactone, a sterilising agent.

What Is The Dose For Kids?

The dose is the same for kids, as it is for adults – 600 SU (3 µg) of inactivated SARS-CoV-2 virus ,together with aluminium hydroxide (as adjuvant) in 0.5 ml of phosphate-buffered saline.

Read more : CoronaVac Vaccine by Sinovac – Your Questions Answered!

What Is The Dose Interval

Children 5-11 years in age will receive two doses, with an interval of 4 weeks between each dose.

Where Is The Vaccine Injected?

Just like in adults, the Sinovac vaccine will be injected into the deltoid muscle of the child’s shoulder.

Who Qualifies For Sinovac Vaccine For Kids?

The Malaysia Ministry of Health recommends the Pfizer COMIRNATY vaccine as the COVID-19 vaccine of choice for children 5-11 years in age.

However, they will offer the Sinovac CoronaVac vaccine to :

  • children who cannot receive the Pfizer COMIRNATY vaccine for health reasons
  • children who do not have co-morbidities
  • children whose parents refuse to allow them to be vaccinated with the Pfizer COMIRNATY vaccine

Read more : Pfizer COVID-19 Vaccine For Kids – What You Need To Know!

Who Must NOT Take Sinovac Vaccine For Kids?

Children who are 5-11 years in age must NOT take the Sinovac vaccine if they have :

  • a history of allergy to any ingredient used in the manufacture of the Sinovac vaccine
  • a severe reaction to the first dose of the Sinovac vaccine
  • severe neurological diseases like transverse myelitis, Guillain-Barre syndrome, demyelinating diseases
  • uncontrolled chronic diseases

Is Sinovac Vaccine For Kids Offered For Free?

The Sinovac vaccine is offered for FREE at all COVID-19 Vaccination Centres (PPVs) under the Malaysia Ministry of Health and ProtectHealth.

The Sinovac vaccine is also available in private clinics and hospitals as a paid vaccination option.

Where Is Sinovac Vaccine For Kids Being Offered?

Parents or guardians can register their children for the vaccine through the MySejahtera app. The appointment will be issued through the parent’s / guardian’s MySejahtera app.

Parents or guardians can also bring their children to selected PPVs to walk-in for their COVID-19 vaccination.

Read more : Full List of Walk-In PICKids Vaccine PPVs in Malaysia!

Sinovac Vaccine For Kids Who Received Pfizer Vaccine

Children who experienced a serious reaction to the first dose of the Pfizer vaccine for children, can receive one dose of the Sinovac vaccine as their second dose, 4 weeks after the first dose.

Children Who Miss Their Vaccine Appointment

Children who miss their appointments, or are not able to make it for health or other unforeseen circumstances, can cancel their appointments and book a new one.

Potential Side Effects Of Sinovac Vaccine

Most side effects of the Sinovac vaccine are mild and temporary, with recovery in just a few days without treatment.

They include pain and swelling at the injection site, fever, headache, nausea, diarrhoea, joint pain, cough, chills, sore throat and runny nose.

When Can Infected Children Get Vaccinated?

Children can get vaccinated against COVID-19, after they fully recover from COVID-19 – at least 14 days after they are infected, and have already completed their isolation.

Read more : When Can You Get Vaccinated After COVID-19 Infection?

 

Should You Get Sinovac Vaccine For 5-11 Yo Kids?

This conditional approval of the Sinovac vaccine will be a relief for many parents who have been holding out for an alternative to the Pfizer COMIRNATY vaccine, and spur vaccination rates.

Back in October 2021, the Malaysia Ministry of Health (KKM) ran a Phase 3 clinical trial to determine the efficacy of the Sinovac COVID-19 vaccine for children 3-11 years in age.

However, they did not reveal what was the efficacy of the Sinovac COVID-19 vaccine for the 5-11 year old age group, or how it performed against the Omicron variant.

We do know that the adult dose was only 50.4% efficacious in preventing symptomatic COVID-19 from the original SARS-CoV-2 virus, and that it has zero efficacy against the Omicron variant (see link and table below).

Read more : What HKU Study Revealed About Pfizer / Sinovac vs. Omicron

COVID-19
Variant
Seropositive Rate MN Titer (GMT)
Pfizer Sinovac Pfizer Sinovac
HKU691 Omicron 20% 0% 5.43 Min.
HKU344-R346K
Omicron
24% 0% 6.42 Min.
Delta 100% 68% 124.7 10.3
Beta 100% 0% 25.7 Min.
Alpha 100% 100% 229.4 21.7

It seems very improbable that the same vaccine would impart better efficacy in children, more so against the Delta or Omicron variants.

Until there are good peer-reviewed Phase 3 results of the Sinovac CoronaVac vaccine for 5-11 year-old children, I believe it is far more prudent to vaccinate our children with the Pfizer COMIRNATY paediatric vaccine.

At least the Pfizer paediatric COVID-19 vaccine has been proven in a Phase 3 trial to be 90.7% efficacious in preventing symptomatic COVID-19 infections.

If you want the best protection for your child, get the new Pfizer vaccine for kids. Only consider the Sinovac vaccine if your child has an adverse reaction to the first dose of the Pfizer vaccine.

 

Please Support My Work!

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

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

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

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

 

Recommended Reading

Go Back To > Health | Tech ARP

 

Support Tech ARP!

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

Fact Check : Pfizer Delisting Itself On Nasdaq + NYSE?!

Is Pfizer really delisting itself on the Nasdaq and NYSE?! Was it due to the recent release of their COVID-19 vaccine documents?!

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

 

Claim : Pfizer Is Delisting Itself On Nasdaq + NYSE!

People are excitedly sharing messages and articles claiming that Pfizer is delisting itself on both the Nasdaq and the New York Stock Exchange (NYSE)!

According to these messages and articles, Pfizer is delisting itself in both stock exchanges over the recent release of their COVID-19 vaccine documents with 9 pages that allegedly listed 1,291 side effects.

This example of what’s being shared is long, so feel free to skip to the next section for the facts!

Arena Pharma moved higher after Nasdaq announced a delisting notice for Pfizer Inc, U.S. investment research platform Seeking Alpha reported on March 8.

 

Truth : Pfizer Is NOT Delisting Itself On Nasdaq / NYSE!

This is yet another example of anti-Pfizer, anti-vaccine FAKE NEWS being created and propagated by anti-vaccination activists. Here are the reasons why…

Fact #1 : Pfizer Is Not Delisting Itself On Nasdaq / NYSE

I had already addressed this earlier, when they claimed that the NYSE delisted Pfizer.

Now they are claiming that Pfizer is delisting itself on Nasdaq or NYSE, but that is also complete nonsense.

Anyone who takes just 2 seconds to look at the NYSE or Nasdaq website, or even Google, would realise that Pfizer Inc. (PFE) is still listed on both stock exchanges.

Not only is Pfizer still on Nasdaq and NYSE, its stock price actually went up by 2.17% on 11 March 2022!

Read more : Did NYSE Just Delist Pfizer Over Vaccine Scandal?!

Fact #2 : Pfizer Delisted Its 0.250% Note From NYSE

This new fake news is based on two recent Pfizer announcements. The first is a Form 25 submission that Pfizer filed with the SEC (US Securities and Exchange Commission) on 7 March 2022.

Pfizer submitted that Form 25 to delist its euro-denominated 0.250% notes – basically debt with a payable interest of 0.25% that matured on 7 March 2022.

In short, Pfizer paid off that matured debt with interest, and consequently removed the notes from the NYSE. It’s even stated in the description of their 7 March 2022 SEC filing on the Pfizer website.

Notification filed by National Security Exchange to report the removal from listing and registration of matured, redeemed or retired securities Initial Filing Amendments

The Pfizer common stock (PFE) remains on the NYSE and Nasdaq, and is being actively traded as we speak.

Fact #3 : Companies Can’t Go Private By Simply Delisting

Public-listed companies can go private, but not by simply notifying the stock exchange.

They have to first purchase shares from a majority of the shareholders, before they can even think of going private.

Even if that happens, the process can take four to six months to complete. It doesn’t just happen over a few days, with a simple notification to the stock exchange.

Fact #4 : Pfizer Delisted Arena Pharmaceuticals

The second Pfizer news that this fake story is based on is their delisting of Arena Pharmaceuticals from the Nasdaq Global Select Market.

Pfizer announced that it completed its acquisition of Arena Pharmaceuticals on 11 March 2022, and so Arena’s shares of common stock were delisted that day.

Again, Pfizer was not delisting itself, it was delisting the common stock of its (now) wholly owned subsidiary, Arena Pharmaceuticals.

Fact #3 : G-Times News Is Infamous For Fake News

This fake story appears to be created by G-Times News, a website owned by Guo Media – a company associated with Guo Wengui (also known as Miles Guo) and Steve Bannon.

Guo is an exiled Chinese businessman, and both Guo and Bannon are infamous for creating and spreading misinformation.

Naturally, both Guo and Bannon are often featured in G-Times News coverage. It doesn’t make them prescient, just pretentious.

Please help us fight fake news, by sharing this fact check with your family and friends!

 

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 > Business | Fact Check | Tech ARP

 

Support Tech ARP!

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

Was Pfizer COVID-19 Vaccine Proven To Change Our DNA?!

Did Swedish scientists just prove that the Pfizer COVID-19 vaccine changes our DNA?!

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

 

Claim : Pfizer COVID-19 Vaccine Changes Our DNA!

Anti-vaccination and ivermectin proponents have gone bananas over the new study from the Lund University in Sweden.

They are sharing it as evidence (finally!) of the Pfizer COVIDS-19 vaccine actually integrating with our DNA, and changing our genome, as they had always claimed.

Let that shock and horror sink in for a minute… and then let me explain to you what the facts really are in the next section…

 

Truth : Pfizer COVID-19 Vaccine Did NOT Change DNA At All!

This is yet another example of vaccine fake news based on accidental / intentional misinterpretation of a single scientific study.

Here is what you really need to know about the Lund University study that went viral…

Fact #1 : Study Did NOT Say Pfizer Vaccine Alters Our DNA

First things first – the Lund University study is called Intracellular Reverse Transcription of Pfizer BioNTech COVID-19 mRNA Vaccine BNT162b2 In Vitro in Human Liver Cell Line, and you can read it in its entirety here.

In the study’s Discussion section, the authors actually pointed out that their study does NOT show that the Pfizer vaccine integrates with the liver cell DNA, or alters it in any way.

At this stage, we do not know if DNA reverse transcribed from BNT162b2 is integrated into the cell genome.

To be clear, the study does NOT show that the Pfizer COVID-19 vaccine changes our DNA in any way or form.

Fact #2 : It Was A Laboratory Study

I should also point out the salient fact that it was an in-vitro study – a laboratory study, not a clinical study.

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

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

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

Read more : Study Shows 10X Ivermectin Can’t Prevent Severe COVID-19!

Fact #3 : Study Was Based On Liver Cancer Cells

The casual reader of the Lund University study will not realise that Huh7 (or Huh-7) cells are not ordinary liver cells that you or I have.

Huh7 cells were derived from the liver tumour of a 57 year-old Japanese man, and are special because :

  • they are immortal liver cancer cells that can keep multiplying
  • they are highly-susceptible to Hepatitis C virus (HCV) infection
  • they are genetically different, with an abnormal number of chromosomes (between 55 and 63, normal human cells have 46)

The Huh7 cell line is useful for the study of liver cancer and Hepatitis C, as well as drugs that may combat HCV; but it is important to understand that Huh7 cells are not representative of normal human cells.

Fact #4 : Huh7 Liver Cells Were Cultured In Plates

For a “more physiologically relevant study of viruses“, these Huh7 cells have to be cultured in a NASA-designed 3D Rotating Wall Vessel (RWV) bioreactor.

These RWV bioreactors create 3D aggregates of Huh7 cells that are more “similar in structure and function” to their in vivo counterparts, with “completely altered gene expression and differentiation patterns“.

In other words, these RWV-grown Huh7 cells look and behave differently, more like regular human cells compared to plate-cultured Huh7 cells.

For the record, the Lund University study used plate-cultured Huh7 cells, and not RWV-grown Huh7 cells.

There is nothing wrong with that, but we should keep in mind that these cells are not an ideal representation of human cells.

This is what a 24-cell culture plate looks like

Fact #5 : Normal Human Cells Don’t Produce LINE-1 Enzyme

The scientists chose to use these Huh7 cells because like many cancerous cells, they express (produce) the LINE-1 enzyme.

LINE-1 is a reverse transcriptase that converts mRNA into DNA, so it is not surprising that the study would show it converting mRNA from the Pfizer COVID-19 vaccine into DNA. That is literally what it is meant to do.

Normal human cells have the LINE-1 gene, but it is not expressed. Normal human cells do not produce the LINE-1 enzyme, which is why they could not use regular human cells in this study.

That is also why it is inappropriate to use the Huh7 cell culture to evaluate how mRNA vaccines would actually work or behave in humans.

Fact #6 : Transcribed DNA Did Not Enter Nucleus

The study only looked at whether mRNA from the Pfizer COVID-19 vaccine can be transcribed into DNA by the LINE-1 enzyme.

As the study showed – yes, it can… because that’s what the LINE-1 enzyme does. But the study does not show that the transcribed DNA entered the cell nucleus and changed human DNA.

While that is plausible, it would require another enzyme called integrase, that viruses produce, to move that DNA into the cell nucleus itself.

Without the integrase enzyme, the DNA transcribed by the LINE-1 enzyme will only float outside, and will never integrate with the DNA inside the cell nucleus.

Did Pfizer mRNA Vaccine Combine With DNA In Liver Cells?!

Fact #7 : mRNA Vaccines Do Not Modify Our Genes

An mRNA vaccine only contains a limited number of lipid nanoparticles containing those delicate mRNA instructions. So only a limited number of cells are involved in the vaccination process.

Even if it is somehow possible for the mRNA instructions from the vaccine to enter the cell nucleus and integrate with the DNA inside, it will only affect those cells.

Our cells die and are replaced by new cells all the time, so even if hypothetically the vaccine “infects” and modifies the DNA of a few hundred thousand cells, those cells will eventually die and be replaced by new cells without the modified DNA.

It is simply not possible for mRNA vaccines to modify our genes.

Fact #8 : 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.

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!

Now that you know the truth, please help us fight fake news by SHARING this article out!

 

Please Support My Work!

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

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

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

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

 

Recommended Reading

Go Back To > Health | Fact Check | Tech ARP

 

Support Tech ARP!

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

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

Did recently released Pfizer documents reveal that their COVID-19 vaccine has 1,291 side effects?!

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

 

Claim : Pfizer Vaccine Documents Reveal 1,291 Side Effects!

People are sharing a Children’s Health Defense (CHD) press release, which went viral after it was posted by Yahoo.

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

In a 55,000-page set of documents released on Tuesday, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration’s (FDA’s) Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research (CBER) is for the first time allowing the public to access data Pfizer submitted to FDA from its clinical trials in support of a Covid-19 vaccine license.

This follows U.S. District Judge Mark T. Pittman’s decision on January 6 to deny the request from the FDA to suppress the data for the next 75 years, which the agency claimed was necessary, in part, because of its “limited resources.”

 

Truth : Pfizer Vaccine Documents Did NOT Reveal 1,291 Side Effects!

This is yet another example of vaccine fake news being created and propagated by the Children’s Health Defense (CHD), and here are the reasons why…

Fact #1 : It Was A Children’s Health Defense Article

The “news” that was published on Yahoo News was really an article by Children’s Health Defense (CHD), an organisation well-known for creating and propagating COVID-19 and vaccine misinformation.

Yahoo News irresponsibly posted the statement, without fact checking it first, or clearly pointing out that it was a CHD statement, and not an actual news report.

They have since removed it, but the Yahoo News links and screenshots continue to circulate on social media, lending it credence.

Fact #2 : FDA Did Not Ask To Suppress Data For 75 Years

This is a completely bogus claim, which I fact checked last year. The FDA did not ask to suppress data from the Pfizer mRNA vaccine trial.

That was the “interpretation” of Aaron Siri, the lawyer working for PHMPT (Public Health and Medical Professionals for Transparency) – the group requesting the data that the FDA used to licence the Pfizer COVID-19 vaccine.

The truth is – the FDA had already released more than 12,000 pages of the requested 329,000 pages by end of January 2022, and would have completed the delivery of all documents in about 5.5 years at that rate.

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

Fact #3 : Pfizer Document Was Released In December 2021

The Pfizer document that CHD was referring to is called “CUMULATIVE ANALYSIS OF POST-AUTHORIZATION ADVERSE EVENT REPORTS OF PF-07302048 (BNT162B2) RECEIVED THROUGH 28-FEB-2021“.

This document was released to the PHMPT, which promptly released it publicly on 17 November 2021.

It apparently took Children’s Health Defense more than 3 months to read through those 5 documents, and “discover” the 9 pages listing some 1,291 adverse events of special interest.

It not only proves that the FDA was right about how much time it takes to read these documents, it also shows that the PHMPT does not really need all 329,000 documents within 108 days.

It took the CHD almost that long just to read 5 documents! At this rate, it will take them some 16,450 years to read all 329,000 pages related to the Pfizer vaccine approval…

Read more : Pfizer Forced To Release 9 Pages Of Vaccine Side Effects?!

Fact #4 : Pfizer Document Did Not Reveal 1,291 Side Effects

The “bombshell” Pfizer document lists the adverse event reports, mainly from the US VAERS and UK Yellow Card systems, as part of the post-authorisation safety monitoring requirement.

CHD’s claim that the Pfizer vaccine has 1,291 side effects is based on a “List of Adverse Events of Special Interest” (AESI) on pages 30-38 of the document.

The truth is – that was NOT a list of side effects caused by the Pfizer mRNA vaccine. Rather, that was just a list of adverse events that Pfizer was specifically looking for in the post-vaccination 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, on the same page, that this adverse event evaluation is different (distinct) from the safety evaluation of the 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 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.

Fact #6 : AESI List Not Specific To Pfizer Vaccine

The Adverse Events of Special Interest list is not specific to the Pfizer mRNA vaccine. That was actually made clear on Page 16 of the document.

The company’s AESI list takes into consideration the lists of AESIs from the following expert groups and regulatory authorities: Brighton Collaboration (SPEAC), ACCESS protocol, US CDC (preliminary list of AESI for VAERS surveillance), MHRA (unpublished guideline).

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.

This was a catch-all AESI list that was specified before the Pfizer clinical trial even began.

Fact #7 : AESI List Included Irrelevant Adverse Events

We know that this is a catch-all AESI list, because it included diseases involving other viruses – Herpes, MERS, Varicella; as well as “exposure to SARS-CoV-2” and other “communicable disease”.

The list also included manufacturing and lab test issues, like “Manufacturing laboratory analytical testing issue, Manufacturing materials issue, Manufacturing production issue“.

Even product supply issues were included – “Product availability issue, Product distribution issue, Product supply issue“.

They are obviously not vaccine side effects, nor related in any way to the performance or safety of the vaccine.

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

Fact #8 : Pfizer Document Showed No New Safety Concerns

Instead of reading the document, CHD appeared to have to spent their time counting the number of side effects Pfizer was looking out for.

If they read the Discussion and Summary + Conclusion sections, they would have noted that the data :

  • did not reveal any “novel safety concerns or risks”
  • support “a favourable benefit risk profile” of the vaccine

In other words – the Pfizer document pointed out that despite looking for 1,291 adverse events, they found no new risks from the vaccine.

Don’t risk your life or your family’s lives on the bad science and misinformation promoted by Children’s Health Defense.

Please help me fight fake news, by sharing this fact check with your family and friends!

 

Please Support My Work!

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

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

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

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

 

Recommended Reading

Go Back To > Health | Fact Check | Tech ARP

 

Support Tech ARP!

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

Did Pfizer mRNA Vaccine Combine With DNA In Liver Cells?!

Did scientists prove that the Pfizer mRNA vaccine combined with the DNA of liver cells?!

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

 

Claim : Pfizer mRNA Vaccine Combined With DNA In Liver Cells!

Anti-vaccination and ivermectin proponents have gone bananas over the new study from the Lund University in Sweden.

They are sharing it as evidence (finally!) of the Pfizer mRNA vaccine actually integrating with our DNA, and changing our genome, as they had always claimed.

Let that shock and horror sink in for a minute… and then let me explain to you what the facts really are in the next section…

 

Truth : Pfizer mRNA Vaccine Did NOT Combine With DNA In Liver Cells!

This is yet another example of vaccine fake news based on accidental / intentional misinterpretation of a single scientific study.

Here is what you really need to know about this Lund University study…

Fact #1 : Study Did NOT Say Pfizer Vaccine Alters Our DNA

First things first – the Lund University study is called Intracellular Reverse Transcription of Pfizer BioNTech COVID-19 mRNA Vaccine BNT162b2 In Vitro in Human Liver Cell Line, and you can read it in its entirety here.

If you read just the discussion, you will note that the study authors actually pointed out that their study does NOT show that the Pfizer vaccine integrates with the liver cell DNA, or alters it in any way.

At this stage, we do not know if DNA reverse transcribed from BNT162b2 is integrated into the cell genome.

To be clear, the study offers no evidence that the Pfizer COVID-19 vaccine alters our DNA in any way or form.

Fact #2 : It Was A Laboratory Study

I should also point out the obvious fact that this was an in-vitro study – a laboratory study, not a clinical study.

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

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

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

Read more : Study Shows 10X Ivermectin Can’t Prevent Severe COVID-19!

Fact #3 : Study Was Based On Liver Cancer Cells

The casual reader of the Lund University study will not realise that Huh7 (or Huh-7) cells are not ordinary liver cells that you or I have.

Huh7 cells were derived from the liver tumour of a 57 year-old Japanese man, and are special because :

  • they are immortal liver cancer cells that can keep multiplying
  • they are highly-susceptible to Hepatitis C virus (HCV) infection
  • they are genetically different, with an abnormal number of chromosomes (between 55 and 63, normal human cells have 46)

The Huh7 cell line is useful for the study of liver cancer and Hepatitis C, as well as drugs that may combat HCV; but it is important to understand that Huh7 cells are not representative of normal human cells.

Fact #4 : Huh7 Liver Cells Were Cultured In Plates

For a “more physiologically relevant study of viruses“, these Huh7 cells have to be cultured in a NASA-designed 3D Rotating Wall Vessel (RWV) bioreactor.

These RWV bioreactors create 3D aggregates of Huh7 cells that are more “similar in structure and function” to their in vivo counterparts, with “completely altered gene expression and differentiation patterns“.

In other words, these RWV-grown Huh7 cells look and behave differently, more like regular human cells compared to plate-cultured Huh7 cells.

For the record, the Lund University study used plate-cultured Huh7 cells, and not RWV-grown Huh7 cells.

There is nothing wrong with that, but we should keep in mind that these cells are not an ideal representation of human cells.

This is what a 24-cell culture plate looks like

Fact #5 : Normal Human Cells Don’t Produce LINE-1 Enzyme

The scientists chose to use these Huh7 cells because like many cancerous cells, they express (produce) the LINE-1 enzyme.

LINE-1 is a reverse transcriptase that converts mRNA into DNA, so it is not surprising that the study would show it converting mRNA from the Pfizer COVID-19 vaccine into DNA. That is literally what it is meant to do.

Normal human cells have the LINE-1 gene, but it is not expressed. Normal human cells do not produce the LINE-1 enzyme, which is why they could not use regular human cells in this study.

That is also why it is inappropriate to use the Huh7 cell culture to evaluate how mRNA vaccines would actually work or behave in humans.

Fact #6 : Transcribed DNA Did Not Enter Nucleus

The study only looked at whether mRNA from the Pfizer COVID-19 vaccine can be transcribed into DNA by the LINE-1 enzyme.

As the study showed – yes, it can… because that’s what the LINE-1 enzyme does. But the study does not show that the transcribed DNA entered the cell nucleus and altered human DNA.

While that is plausible, it would require another enzyme called integrase, that viruses produce, to move that DNA into the cell nucleus itself.

Without the integrase enzyme, the DNA transcribed by the LINE-1 enzyme will only float outside, and will never integrate with the DNA inside the cell nucleus.

Did Pfizer mRNA Vaccine Combine With DNA In Liver Cells?!

Fact #7 : mRNA Vaccines Do Not Modify Our Genes

An mRNA vaccine only contains a limited number of lipid nanoparticles containing those delicate mRNA instructions. So only a limited number of cells are involved in the vaccination process.

Even if it is somehow possible for the mRNA instructions from the vaccine to enter the cell nucleus and integrate with the DNA inside, it will only affect those cells.

Our cells die and are replaced by new cells all the time, so even if hypothetically the vaccine “infects” and modifies the DNA of a few hundred thousand cells, those cells will eventually die and be replaced by new cells without the modified DNA.

It is simply not possible for mRNA vaccines to modify our genes.

Fact #8 : 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.

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!

Now that you know the truth, please help us fight fake news by SHARING this article out!

 

Please Support My Work!

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

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

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

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

 

Recommended Reading

Go Back To > Health | Fact Check | Tech ARP

 

Support Tech ARP!

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

Malaysia Approves Pfizer PAXLOVID Antivirals For COVID-19!

Malaysia just approved the Pfizer PAXLOVID antiviral treatment for COVID-19!

Here is what you need to know!

 

Malaysia Approves Pfizer PAXLOVID Antivirals For COVID-19!

On 3 March 2022, the Malaysia Health Ministry (KKM) announced that the 370th Drug Control Authority meeting has agreed to give conditional approval to:

PAXLOVID (PF-07321332 150mg Film-Coated Tablets and Ritonavir 100mg Film-Coated Tablets)

Registrant : Pfizer (Malaysia) Sdn. Bhd.
Manufacturer : Pfizer Manufacturing Deutschland GmbH, Germany and Pfizer Ireland Pharmaceuticals, Ireland
Indication : COVID-19 treatment for adults age 18 years and above who do not require oxygen therapy, and are high-risk for severe COVID-19.

The Health Ministry warns that PAXLOVID is not meant to replace COVID-19 vaccination and public health measures.

 

Pfizer PAXLOVID : What Is It?

Pfizer PAXLOVID is an antiviral treatment that consists of two protease inhibitors :

  • two 150 mg tablets of Nirmatrelvir (the new protease inhibitor developed by Pfizer)
  • one 100 mg tablet of Ritonavir (an old antiviral approved in 1996)

Protease inhibitors work by binding to proteolytic enzymes used by the SARS-CoV-2 virus to replicate. This prevents the virus from replicating in the infected cells, stopping the infection and preventing transmission.

Drug combinations like this offer a synergistic effect, above and beyond their individual abilities. In this combination, ritonavir helps to slow down the breakdown of nirmatrelvir, allowing it to remain in the body for a longer period at higher concentrations.

Read more : Did Cornell Name Ivermectin Most Effective Drug vs. Omicron?

PAXLOVID was first given an Emergency Use Authorisation (EUA) by the US FDA on 22 December 2021, for the treatment of mild to moderate COVID-19 in adults and children 12 years and older.

It is meant to be taken by those who are at high-risk of developing severe COVID-19, and must be taken within 5 days of symptom onset. In addition, PAXLOVID must not be taken for more than 5 consecutive days.

The EPIC-HR trial showed that PAXLOVID is able to reduce the risk of hospitalisation or death from COVID-19 b y 88%, compared to placebo.

Individuals who took PAXLOVID have reported side effects like impaired sense of taste, diarrhoea, high blood pressure and muscle aches.

 

Please Support My Work!

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

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

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

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

 

Recommended Reading

Go Back To > Health | Tech ARP

 

Support Tech ARP!

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

Malaysia Approves Sinovac Covid-19 Vaccine For 5-11 Yo Kids

Malaysia just approved the Sinovac CoronaVac vaccine for 5-11 year-old kids!

Here is what you need to know!

 

Malaysia Approves Sinovac COVID-19 Vaccine For 5-11 Yo Kids!

On 3 March 2022, the Malaysia Health Ministry (KKM) announced that the 370th Drug Control Authority meeting has agreed to give conditional approval to the Sinovac CoronaVac COVID-19 vaccine for use in 5-11 year-old children.

The conditional approval is for CoronaVac Suspension for Injection COVID-19 Vaccine (Vero Cell) manufactured by both Sinovac Life Sciences Co. Ltd. in China, as well as Pharmaniaga Lifescience Sdn. Bhd. in Malaysia.

This makes the Sinovac CoronaVac the second COVID-19 vaccine to be approved in Malaysia for children 5 to 11 years in age, after the Pfizer COMIRNATY vaccine on 6 January 2022.

 

Should You Get Sinovac Vaccine For 5-11 Yo Kids?

This conditional approval will be a relief for many parents who have been holding out for an alternative to the Pfizer COMIRNATY vaccine, and spur vaccination rates.

Back in October 2021, the KKM ran a Phase 3 clinical trial to determine the efficacy of the Sinovac COVID-19 vaccine for children 3-11 years in age.

However, the Malaysia Ministry of Health did not reveal what was the efficacy of the Sinovac COVID-19 vaccine for the 5-11 year old age group, or how it performed against the Omicron variant.

We do know that the adult dose was only 50.4% efficacious in preventing symptomatic COVID-19 from the original SARS-CoV-2 virus, and that it has zero efficacy against the Omicron variant (see link and table below).

Read more : What HKU Study Revealed About Pfizer / Sinovac vs. Omicron

COVID-19
Variant
Seropositive Rate MN Titer (GMT)
Pfizer Sinovac Pfizer Sinovac
HKU691 Omicron 20% 0% 5.43 Min.
HKU344-R346K
Omicron
24% 0% 6.42 Min.
Delta 100% 68% 124.7 10.3
Beta 100% 0% 25.7 Min.
Alpha 100% 100% 229.4 21.7

It seems unlikely that the same vaccine would impart better efficacy in children, more so against the Delta or Omicron variants.

Until there are good peer-reviewed Phase 3 results of the Sinovac CoronaVac vaccine for 5-11 year-old children, I believe it is far more prudent to vaccinate our children with the Pfizer COMIRNATY paediatric vaccine.

At least the Pfizer paediatric COVID-19 vaccine has been proven in a Phase 3 trial to be 90.7% efficacious in preventing symptomatic COVID-19 infections.

I believe KKM will continue to use the superior Pfizer vaccine in the PICKids vaccination program, while allowing hesitant parents to get the Sinovac vaccine for their children through private clinics and hospitals.

This may be the best way forward for everyone.

 

Please Support My Work!

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

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

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

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

 

Recommended Reading

Go Back To > Health | Tech ARP

 

Support Tech ARP!

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

Malaysia Approves COVAXIN Inactivated Virus Vaccine!

Malaysia just approved the COVAXIN inactivated virus vaccine for use against COVID-19!

Here is what you need to know!

 

Malaysia Approves COVAXIN Inactivated Virus Vaccine!

On 10 February 2022, the Malaysia Ministry of Health (KKM) announced that the Drug Control Authority (DCA) has agreed to conditionally approve the COVAXIN vaccine for use against COVID-19!

COVAXIN® (Whole Virion, Inactivated Coronavirus (SARS-CoV-2) Vaccine) Suspension for Intramuscular Injection

  • Registrant : Averroes Pharmaceuticals Sdn. Bhd.
  • Manufacturer : Bharat Biotech International Limited, India

The COVAXIN vaccine is now allowed to be given to individuals 18 years and older in Malaysia.

 

COVAXIN Vaccine : A Quick Primer

Codenamed BBV152, the Bharat COVAXIN vaccine is an inactivated virus vaccine, similar to the Sinovac CoronaVac vaccine.

It is manufactured from actual COVID-19 viruses that were grown in Vero cells, and inactivated using beta-propiolactone. It uses an aluminium-based adjuvant called Alhydroxiquim-II to stimulate the immune response.

COVAXIN is a 2-dose vaccine, with each 5 ml dose given intramuscularly. The second dose is given after an interval of 4 weeks.

Its Phase 3 trial showed that it was 78% effective in preventing symptomatic COVID-19, and 93% effective in preventing severe disease. It was also shown to be 65% effective against the Delta variant.

 

Please Support My Work!

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

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

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

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

 

Recommended Reading

Go Back To > Health | Tech ARP

 

Support Tech ARP!

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

Is Sinovac + Pfizer Combo Less Effective Against Omicron?

Was the combination of Sinovac and Pfizer proven to be less effective against the Omicron variant of COVID-19?

Let’s take a look at the claim, and find out what the facts really are!

 

Claim : Sinovac + Pfizer Combo Proven Less Effective Against Omicron

On 9 February 2022, The Edge posted an article with the title “Combination of Sinovac and Pfizer proven less effective to fight Omicron, says Pharmaniaga“.

The article covers Pharmaniaga’s statement which suggested that a third dose of Sinovac (of which they are the licensed distributor) is better than the Pfizer booster dose.

Let me share the relevant parts of the article, with key segments in bold. It’s a long read, so you can skip to the next section for the facts.

Pharmaniaga Bhd, citing a study conducted by Yale University, said that two doses of Sinovac Covid-19 vaccine with a Pfizer-BioNTech booster dose are less effective and produces a lower immune response against the Omicron variant compared with other strains.

On the other hand, Pharmaniaga, which is the licensed distributor of Sinovac vaccine in Malaysia, highlighted that a separate research by Sinovac Biotech Ltd shows that three doses of Sinovac Covid-19 vaccine produced higher neutralising antibodies in 95% of recipients compared with 3.3% by the second dose against a variant of concern (VOC), including Omicron.

 

Truth : Pfizer Booster Is Superior To Sinovac Booster Against Omicron

I have not read the actual Pharmaniaga statement, because it is still not available on their website.

However, I had earlier written about the Yale University study, and the statement as shared by The Edge appears to misrepresent what the study actually said.

It also appears to ignore what other studies have said about the poor efficacy of the Sinovac vaccine, including their own Phase 3 trial results.

Let’s go through the claims, and see what the facts really are…

Fact #1 : All Vaccines Are Less Effective Against Omicron

Because it has so many mutations, the Omicron variant is more able to escape the antibody protection that vaccines offer. This is true for all COVID-19 vaccines, not just the Pfizer vaccine.

It seems rather disingenuous for Pharmaniaga to point out that the Pfizer booster dose is less effective against Omicron, compared to other variants… when that is the case for all other vaccines, including Sinovac.

Fact #2 : Booster Dose Will Always Raise Antibody Levels

A booster dose is like a refresher course for your immune system. It will always boost antibody levels against COVID-19.

So the “separate research by Sinovac” themselves (instead of a neutral third party) only tells us that their booster dose is doing what other booster doses are doing – increasing antibody levels.

Abuthen? Did you expect a different result?

Fact #3 : What They Didn’t Say Is Interesting…

You can pick up more information if you note what Pharmaniaga did not say, assuming The Edge did not leave out anything pertinent.

For example, Pharmaniaga did not mention how much was the increase in antibody levels. Why not?

Neither did they confirm that the higher level was sufficient to protect against the Omicron variant. Why not?

They also conspicuously did not claim that the Sinovac booster dose is more effective than the Pfizer booster dose against the Omicron variant. Why not?

Fact #4 : Pfizer Booster Greatly Improves Protection

The Yale University study showed that two doses of Sinovac with a Pfizer booster dose gives protection equivalent to two mRNA vaccine doses.

However, the Pharmaniaga statement left out the very pertinent fact of what that actually meant :

  • 10.1X higher NAb levels against ancestral (original) virus : 
  • 6.3X higher NAb levels against Delta variant : 

The study also showed that two doses of Sinovac with a Pfizer booster offered 40% better protection against Omicron than two doses of the mRNA vaccines.

In other words, the Pfizer booster dose greatly improves on the mediocre protection offered by the Sinovac vaccine, but it may not be at par with 3-doses of other vaccines.

Read more : Why Sinovac Recipients May Need Two Pfizer Booster Doses!

Fact #5 : Cross Protection Not Seen With Sinovac Vaccine

According to Pharmaniaga, the Yale University study showed that no cross protection (hybrid immunity) was seen in Sinovac recipients who receive a Pfizer booster dose.

That is absolutely correct, but it does not mean what they think it means.

Professor Iwasaki specifically pointed out, “Prior infection only synergies with the mRNA vax to elevate broadly neutralizing Ab but not with inactivated vax. This may relate to the persistent GC (Germinal Centre) responses in mRNA vax”.

In other words, this synergistic boost in antibody levels from a COVID-19 infection is only seen with mRNA vaccines like the Pfizer COMIRNATY, but not seen with inactivated virus vaccines like the Sinovac vaccine.

Let me put it plainly – the Yale study showed that if you want cross protection (hybrid immunity), you will get it with the Pfizer vaccine, but not with the Sinovac vaccine.

Fact #6 : Pfizer Superior To Sinovac Against Beta, Delta + Omicron

A recent Hong Kong University (HKU) study showed that while the Pfizer vaccine is less effective against Omicron, the Sinovac vaccine is worse.

  • Sinovac vaccine antibodies were completely unable to bind to the Beta and Omicron variants.
  • Sinovac vaccine antibodies were only able to bind to the Delta variant in 68% of individuals.

Read more : Pfizer / Sinovac vs. Omicron : What HKU Study Just Revealed!

COVID-19
Variant
Seropositive Rate
Pfizer Sinovac
Alpha 100% 100%
Beta 100% 0%
Delta 100% 68%
Omicron 20% – 24% 0%

Incidentally, the Yale University study also pointed out that there was NO detectable neutralisation against the Omicron variant in people who received two doses of the Sinovac vaccine.

Even Pharmaniaga themselves inadvertently confirmed it, when their statement mentioned that only 3.3% of people vaccinated with 2 doses of Sinovac had neutralising antibodies against variants including Omicron.

Fact #7 : 3X Sinovac Doses Not Sufficient Against Omicron

A joint study by Hong Kong University (HKU) and the Chinese University of Hong Kong (CUHK) recently showed that 3 doses of the Sinovac vaccine does not provide sufficient protection against Omicron.

  • Three doses of the Pfizer vaccine offer the highest level of protection against Omicron.
  • A Pfizer booster dose given to those who received two Sinovac vaccine doses obtain good protective antibody levels against Omicron.
  • Three doses of the Sinovac vaccine do not provide sufficient protection against the Omicron variant.
  • Antibody levels of three doses of the Sinovac vaccine were roughly equal to two doses of the Pfizer vaccine.

Read more : Pfizer vs. Sinovac : Which Is Better Against Omicron Variant?

Fact #8 : Sinovac Is Least Efficacious COVID-19 Vaccine

The Sinovac CoronaVac is the least efficacious COVID-19 vaccine, barely qualifying for its EUA/EUL with a 50.4% efficacy rate in its Phase 3 trial.

Back when vaccine supply was extremely limited, some protection was better than nothing at all, which is why health authorities deployed the Sinovac vaccine.

Now that we have supplies of better vaccines – Pfizer, AstraZeneca, Sinopharm, etc., there is no longer any reason to settle for the Sinovac CoronaVac.

It is impossible for the Sinovac vaccine to improve its efficacy against the ancestral (original) COVID-19 virus, and it is certainly ludicrous to suggest that a third dose will boost its efficacy from 50.4% to 94%.

Please listen to advice from health authorities, instead of a vaccine manufacturer and/or its distributor.

CITF-B strongly recommends the Pfizer or AstraZeneca booster dose for Sinovac recipients, because they offer better protection.

Sinovac recipients are at the highest risk of a breakthrough infection, because they have the least protection. So make sure you get the best booster dose you can!

 

Please Support My Work!

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

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

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

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

 

Recommended Reading

Go Back To > Health | Fact Check | Tech ARP

 

Support Tech ARP!

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

Fact Check : Panadol / Tylenol Stays In Our Body For 5 Years?

Does Panadol / Tylenol stay in our body for 5 years, destroying our kidneys and liver?

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

 

Claim : Panadol / Tylenol Stays In Our Body For 5 Years!

This viral message has been circulating for more than a decade now, but always gets revived every year or so.

My husband was working in a hospital as an IT engineer, as the hospital is planning to set up a database of its patients and he knows some of the doctors quite well.

The doctors used to tell him that whenever they have a headache, they are not willing to take PANADOL / PARACETAMOL.

There is even a Malay version :

Suami saya bekerja sebagai Jurutera IT di sebuah hospital, di mana pihak hospital sedang menyiapkan pengkalan data untuk pesakitnya. Dia mengenali rapat doktor tersebut.

Doktor memberitahu suami saya, apabila mengalami sakit kepala, mereka sendiri tidak sanggup mengambil Panadol atau Paracetamol. . Sebaliknya, mereka akan mencari ubatan herba Cina atau mencari altenatif lain.

 

Truth : Panadol / Tylenol Does NOT Stay In Our Body For 5 Years!

This is yet another example of medical fake news that people keep sharing on Facebook, WhatsApp, and emails.

Let me tell you what the facts really are…

Fact #1 : They Are Paracetamol / Acetaminophen

Panadol is a GSK (GlaxoSmithKline) trade name for paracetamol, which is also known as acetaminophen in the United States, Canada, Japan, Venezuela and Columbia.

Tylenol is the trade name owned by McNeil, a wholly-owned subsidiary of Johnson & Johnson, for the same drug – paracetamol or acetaminophen.

Due to its longevity and popularity since it was introduced in 1955, the names Panadol and Tylenol have been genericised.

Many people now call all forms of paracetamol / acetaminophen “Panadol” or “Tylenol”, whether it comes from GSK or McNeil or another company. In other words :

Paracetamol = Panadol = Tylenol = Acetaminophen

Fact #2 : They Have A Short Half-Life

Both Panadol and Tylenol have a short half-life of about 2 hours. That’s why we take them up to 4 times a day.

If paracetamol or acetaminophen can stay in our body for 5 years, heck, we would only need take one tablet and it would last for the next few years!

Fact #3 : They Don’t Reduce Your Pain Threshold

Paracetamol or acetaminophen do not reduce your pain threshold. In fact, it INCREASES our pain threshold by reducing nerve-sensitising prostaglandins in the brain and spinal cord.

However, this increase in pain threshold is only temporary, and wears off in a few hours. See Fact #2.

Fact #4 : Doctors Practice Evidence-Based Medicine

The funniest part of the hoax is the claim that doctors refuse to take paracetamol for headaches, and prefer herbal medicine instead. It’s such an unbelievably bold LIE.

Doctors practice evidence-based medicine, and paracetamol / acetaminophen are part of their toolkit – drugs that have been proven to work, at specific dosages for specific purposes.

No doctor worth his/her salt is going to advocate herbal medicine with uncertain effects and properties, over the known effects and properties of paracetamol / acetaminophen.

Fact #5 : They Can Be Toxic, Like Any Other Substance

Paracetamol / acetaminophen (like any other substances) can be toxic when taken in excessive amounts. Even water can be toxic, for the matter.

Overdosing on paracetamol can damage the liver. Excessive amounts of its metabolite, NAPQI, will deplete the liver’s glutathione and damage its cells.

How much do you need to consume to overdose on paracetamol? Usually taking 10 grams at one go – that’s 20 tablets of standard 500 mg paracetamol, or 6 grams or 12 tablets a day.

Alcohol consumption increases the risks of liver damage, so the maximum dose should be cut in half for those who consume alcohol.

Excessive, prolonged use of paracetamol can also cause SICK (small, indented and calcified kidneys). How much is excessive? That’s 300 grams a year – 600 tablets a year, or 50 tablets a month.

Now, how many of us actually consume enough paracetamol to run the risk of liver or kidney damage? Everyone knows the recommended limit is 2 x 500 mg tablets every 6 hours, which is 4 grams per day. Usually, we all make do with just 2 to 4 tablets a day.

The fake news creator is right that we should think twice before popping a pill into our mouths, but we should also think TWICE and VERIFY before forwarding such messages.

Please help fight fake news by SHARING this fact check with your family and friends!

 

Please Support My Work!

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

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

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

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

 

Recommended Reading

Go Back To > Health | Fact CheckTech ARP

 

Support Tech ARP!

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

Ivermectin Has Antiviral Effect vs. Omicron + All Other Strains?

Did Kowa and Kitasato University prove that ivermectin has antiviral effect against the Omicron variant, and all other strains of COVID-19?

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

 

Claim : Ivermectin Has Antiviral Effect vs. Omicron + All Other Strains!

This viral post claims that a Kowa and Kitasato University study just proved that ivermectin has antiviral effect against Omicron and all other mutant strains of COVID-19!

The creators of this viral post also pointed out that this news was written by Reuters. It’s a long post, so feel free to skip to the next section for the facts!

Ivermectin Has ‘Antiviral Effect’ Against Omicron And All Other ‘Mutant Strains’ Of Covid-19

A Japanese pharmaceutical company, Kowa Co, said on Monday that the drug ivermectin has an “antiviral effect” against Omicron and other Covid-19 variants.

Note : I removed the two links in the original message because they lead to fake news websites.

 

Ivermectin Has No Clinical Antiviral Effect vs. Omicron + All Other Strains!

This is yet another piece of fake news created by ivermectin proponent and antivaxxers, and here are the reasons why…

Fact #1 : Reuters Screwed Up

Reuters screwed up their reporting, and ivermectin proponents and antivaxxers quickly made use of that.

Reuters published their piece with the title, “Japan’s Kowa says ivermectin effective against Omicron in phase III trial“.

They compounded their mistake by promoting it as such in Twitter :

Japanese trading and pharmaceutical company Kowa Co Ltd said on Monday anti-parasite drug ivermectin has been found effective for treating the Omicron variant of COVID-19 in a Phase III trial.

The truth is Reuters misrepresented the Kowa press release. Reuters later corrected their story, but the damage was done.

Fact #2 : It Was A Non-Clinical Trial

In their press release, Kowa triumphantly reported that their study with Kitasato University showed that ivermectin has an “antiviral effect” against the Omicron variant.

However, that was a non-clinical trial – a lab study. Basically, they ran “test tube” studies of ivermectin on Omicron samples in the lab.

Just for context, a non-clinical trial (also called pre-clinical trial) is often conducted before actual clinical trials on human volunteers.

That’s because clinical trials are expensive and difficult to conduct, consisting of multiple phases :

  • Phase 1 : To study safety and dosage in healthy volunteers
  • Phase 2 : To study efficacy and side effects in a small group of volunteers with the disease
  • Phase 3 : To demonstrate that the drug has clinical benefits in a large group of volunteers, and look for adverse reactions.
  • Phase 4 : To ensure safety and efficacy after approval by health authorities.

What Kowa did is nowhere close to an actual clinical trial, much less a Phase 3 trial.

Fact #3 : Non-Clinical Results Do Not Mean Clinical Effects

It is important to point out that most successful non-clinical drug tests do not end up delivering safe and/or useful drugs that deliver clinical benefits.

That’s because many drugs that work well in the lab either do not deliver clinical benefits in actual human beings, or only work at doses toxic to human beings, or introduce adverse effects when taken at the required doses.

That is why it is critical for all drugs to undergo clinical trials.

I should also point out that soap and alcohol have both been proven to destroy the SARS-CoV-2 virus in lab tests. But that does not mean drinking or eating soap or alcohol will prevent or cure COVID-19.

Read more : Soap vs Sanitiser : Which Works Better Against COVID-19?

Fact #4 : Kowa Confirmed Reuters’ Mistake

Kowa told Newsweek – “We sincerely apologise for any confusion. The press release announced that ivermectin was effective against [the] Omicron strain on in vitro study (i.e. non-clinical study), not in the clinical study. Presumably the original content was replaced with incorrect information in the process of translation.

Fact #5 : Omicron Variant Is Still A SARS-CoV-2 Virus

The Kowa lab test is nothing special – ivermectin was first shown to work against the SARS-CoV-2 in lab experiments by Monash University back in April 2020.

The only difference was Kowa tested it against the Omicron variant. But because the Omicron variant is still a SARS-CoV-2 virus, it would have the same results as previous lab tests.

In other words – the Kowa lab test and press release were basically marketing fluff. In that respect, they scored big.

Fact #6 : Kowa Is Conducting A Phase 3 Trial

Kowa is conducting a Phase 3 trial of their 3 mg ivermectin tablet called K-237 (ClinicalTrial NCT05056883).

It will involve 1000 volunteers, half of whom will receive 0.3 to 0.4 mg/kg of their K-237 drug, once daily for 3 days.

This Phase 3 trial is not expected to be completed until 31 March 2022. That does not necessarily mean it will be successfully completed on time.

After all, Kitasato University’s own CORVETTE-01 Phase 2 study of ivermectin took a year to recruit just 214 volunteers, and has not even concluded despite kicking off in January 2021.

Read more : Did Japan use ivermectin to successfully control COVID-19?

Fact #7 : I-TECH Study Showed No Clinical Benefit

One of the most recent randomised clinical trials of ivermectin was the I-TECH study involving 490 volunteers.

Like many previous clinical trials, it showed that despite ivermectin demonstrating effectiveness in lab tests, it has no obvious clinical benefits.

Read more : I-TECH Study : Does Ivermectin Work Against COVID-19?

Study Findings Results Significance
Symptom Recovery by Day 5 Very similar Not significant (p=0.77)
Progress to Severe COVID-19 IVM : 21.2%
SOC : 17.3%
SOC : -3.9 points
Not significant (p=0.30)
Time to Severe COVID-19 IVM : 3 days (±2.3)
SOC : 2.9 days
(±1.8)
IVM : +0.1 day
Not significant (p=0.68)
ICU Admission NA Not significant
Mechanical Ventilation NA Not significant
Symptom Recovery NA Not significant
Blood Parameters NA Not significant
Chest X-Ray Resolution NA Not significant
Adverse Events 3X more in IVM group Significant
Mortality NA Not significant (p=0.09)

Fact #8 : Ivermectin Clinical Studies Show No Significant Benefit

Here is a meta-analysis of ivermectin RCTs (randomised control trials), with three fraudulent studies removed – Elgazzar, Okomus and Niaee.

Results towards the left suggest a clinical benefit for ivermectin. For the I-TECH study, they used its most promising result – post-study mortality, but even that did not reach clinical significance (p<0.05)

Taken in totality, the latest meta-analysis show that the clinical effect of ivermectin on COVID-19 patients is NOT SIGNIFICANT enough to warrant its use as a treatment.

Fact #9 : Ivermectin Prophylaxis Is Not Cheap

Ivermectin proponents always claim that Big Pharma is against ivermectin because it’s dirt cheap. Ironically, they are now promoting Kowa, which itself is a member of Big Pharma.

While ivermectin is cheap to make and was cheap to buy earlier, its price has been jacked up by the very people promoting it as a cure for COVID-19.

And unlike vaccines, ivermectin is meant to be taken on a regular basis, even daily or with expensive supplements. The end result – ivermectin protocols are far more expensive than COVID-19 vaccines.

The truth is – there is far more money to be made from ivermectin protocols like I-MASK+, than COVID-19 vaccines.

Don’t believe me? Take out your calculator and do the math yourself.

Read more : Is ivermectin prophylaxis cheap? Here is what it really costs!

 

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!

Full FDA Approval For Moderna Vaccine : What Does It Mean?

Moderna Spikevax is the second COVID-19 vaccine to receive full FDA approval!

Find out what this means, and how it differs from the earlier EUA!

 

Moderna Spikevax Vaccine Receives Full FDA Approval!

On 31 January 2022, the US FDA announced that they approved the second COVID-19 vaccine – the Moderna COVID-19 Vaccine.

It is now allowed to be marketed as the Moderna Spikevax vaccine for the prevention of COVID-19 disease in individuals 18 years of age and older.

The Moderna vaccine continues to be available under the EUA (Emergency Use Authorisation) as a third primary series dose for individuals 18 and older with certain kinds of immunocompromise, and as a single booster dose for individuals 18 years and older.

The full FDA approval was based on updated data from the original clinical trial, with a longer follow-up period. Here are the new findings :

  • the vaccine was 93% effective in preventing COVID-19, and 98% effective in preventing severe disease.
  • most common side effects : pain, redness and swelling at injection site; fatigue, headache, muscle or joint pain, chills, nausea/vomiting, swollen lymph nodes under the arm, and fever.
  • myocarditis / pericarditis risk : highest in males 18-24 years of age, particularly within 7 days of second dose.

Read more : Why COVID-19 Vaccine Efficacy Does Not Matter!

 

Moderna Spikevax Vaccine : Full FDA Approval vs. EUA

The Moderna Spikevax vaccine had been available for use under the EUA (Emergency Use Authorisation) since 18 December 2020.

While antivaxxers claim that this is proof that it is still experimental, that is categorically FALSE.

Vaccines approved under EUA have to undergo the same rigorous FDA approval process. They are just issued earlier, after passing critical safety and efficacy trials, to address an emergency.

The full FDA approval is then given after trial participants are followed up for at least 6 months, and the FDA has more time to increase oversight and inspection of manufacturing facilities.

Read more : Full FDA Approval vs EUA for Vaccines : What’s Different?

 

Full FDA Approval For Moderna Vaccine : What Does It Mean?

Some of the press mistakenly claimed that Spikevax is the “new name” for the vaccine. That’s not true – the name was announced many months ago.

It was just not allowed to be officially marketed to the public as Spikevax until it received the full FDA approval.

The full FDA approval will allow governments and private businesses to enact vaccination mandates as they see fit.

  • the military can mandate vaccinations using Moderna Spikevax for their troops,
  • corporations may require vaccinations for their employees to return to the workplace,
  • businesses may limit shopping or dining privileges to only fully-vaccinated people

Despite receiving full FDA approval, Moderna is required to conduct postmarking studies to further assess the risks of myocarditis and pericarditis in people who received their vaccine.

Moderna has also committed to additional studies, including a pregnancy registry study to evaluate pregnancy and infant outcomes of mothers who received their vaccine during pregnancy.

 

Please Support My Work!

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

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

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

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

 

Recommended Reading

Go Back To > Health + 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 Malaysia Health Ministry Use Expired COVID-19 Vaccines?

Is the Malaysia Health Ministry giving us expired COVID-19 vaccines?

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

 

Claim : Malaysia Health Ministry Is Using Expired COVID-19 Vaccines!

This message is going viral on WhatsApp, claiming that the Malaysia Ministry of Health (KKM) is using EXPIRED COVID-19 vaccines.

A million vaccine shots tossed in Indonesia on short expiry date

Our health ministry and Minister must explain why Indonesia is discarding expired vaccine shots while our Health minister is extending the expired period to six months.

It is known that once a vaccine or any medicine is expired it loses its efficacy and should not be given. But our DG and Health Minister on their own accord without any advice from from the vaccine maker decided to extend the expiry period and give it to our people.

Is Malaysian lives so cheap that expired vaccine can be given to our people without fear that it may have adverse effects on the people.?

 

Truth : Malaysia Is Not Using Expired COVID-19 Vaccines!

This is yet another example of FAKE NEWS circulating on WhatsApp about COVID-19 vaccines.

Malaysia is NOT using expired COVID-19 vaccines, and here are the reasons why…

Fact #1 : Most Expired Vaccines In Indonesia Had Short Shelf Life Left

It is true that more than a million COVID-19 vaccine doses were discarded in Indonesia after they expired. But that was because most of them were donated with just 1-3 months of shelf life left!

On 19 January 2022, Health Minister Budi Gunadi Sadikin told the Indonesian Parliament that about 98% of the 1.1 million doses that were discarded were “donated just 1-3 months away from expiry“.

In other words, it was almost impossible for Indonesia to distribute and use those vaccines before they expired.

Hence, the Indonesian government will be “more selective and only accept doses expiring in three months or longer“.

Fact #2 : COVID-19 Vaccine Shelf Lives Were Too Short

When properly stored, vaccines can last a long time. Most vaccines actually have a shelf life of about three years.

However, vaccine manufacturers have been extraordinarily cautious when it comes to COVID-19 vaccines. Many COVID-19 vaccines ship with shelf lives of only 3 to 6 months!

The key takeaway point is that COVID-19 vaccine shelf lives are extraordinarily short. Many healthcare professionals would call them way too short.

Read more : Why Expiry Date On COVID-19 Vaccine Vial Is NOT Accurate!

Fact #3 : EUA / EUL Vaccines Do NOT Have Fixed Expiry Dates

The US FDA points out that vaccines authorised for emergency use (EUA / EUL) do NOT have fixed expiry dates.

Vaccines authorized for emergency use – as products that are not approved under a biologics license application and are still being studied under investigational new drug applications– do not have fixed expiry dates.

For those doses that are close to expiry, if they are being held under appropriate conditions for ensuring their integrity for use, they can potentially be quarantined to see if data on new stability studies warrant extension of the initial expiry date according to appropriate policies and procedures.

Fact #4 : Vaccine Shelf Life Extension Is Based On Stability Studies

Vaccine manufacturers can conduct stability studies, to prove that their COVID-19 vaccines remain stable and effective over time.

They can then apply to extend the shelf life of COVID-19 vaccines, which is subject to approval by drug regulatory agencies like the US FDA and the UK MHRA

The shelf life of COVID-19 vaccines will only be extended if stability tests prove that they maintain their potency.

Fact #5 : Vaccine Shelf Life Extension Requested By Manufacturers

The fake news claimed that the Malaysia Health Ministry extended vaccine shelf life on their own accord. That’s complete and utter nonsense.

The vaccine manufacturer must apply for a shelf life extension, and provide their stability study results to prove that their COVID-19 vaccine remain stable and potent beyond the requested shelf life extension.

Fact #6 : Many COVID-19 Vaccines Have Extended Shelf Lives

Many COVID-19 vaccines shipped with very short shelf lives, and have since had them extended, some multiple times.

  • Pfizer-BioNTech COMIRNATY : Extended to 9 months since 22 August 2021
  • Moderna Spikevax : Extended  to 9 months since 23 December 2021
  • J&J Janssen : Extended to 4.5 months on 10 June 2021, and then 6 months on 28 July 2021
  • Sinovac : Extended to 12 months
  • SII Covishield : Extended to 9 months in March 2021
  • Bharat Covaxin : Extended to 12 months on 3 November 2021
  • Sputnik V : Extended to 6 months

Read more : Why COVID-19 Vaccine Shelf Life Keeps Getting Extended!

Now that you are aware of the facts, please share this fact check with your family and friends, so they won’t get fooled by this fake news!

 

Please Support My Work!

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

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

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

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

 

Recommended Reading

Go Back To > Health | Fact CheckTech ARP

 

Support Tech ARP!

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

Ronapreve Monoclonal Antibodies Approved In Malaysia!

The Ronapreve monoclonal antibodies from Regeneron have just been approved in Malaysia!

Here is what you need to know…

 

Ronapreve Monoclonal Antibodies Approved In Malaysia!

On 14 December 2021, the Malaysia Drug Control Authority (DCA) agreed to give conditional approval for the use of Ronapreve monoclonal antibodies to treat or prevent COVID-19.

Name : Ronapreve Solution for Injection or Infusion
Registration Holder : Roche (Malaysia) Sdn. Bhd.

Manufacturer : F.Hoffman-La Roche Ltd, Switzerland

Treatment

Ronapreve is indicated for the treatment of COVID-19 in adults and adolescents aged 12 years and older and weighing at least 40 kg who do not require supplemental oxygen for COVID-19 and who are at increased risk of progressing to severe COVID‑19.

Prevention

Ronapreve is indicated for the prevention of COVID-19 in adults and adolescents aged 12 years and older and weighing at least 40 kg who have been exposed or at high risk of exposure to SARS-CoV-2 and who either,

  • have a medical condition making them unlikely to respond to or be protected by vaccination, or
  • are not vaccinated against COVID-19.

 

Ronapreve Monoclonal Antibodies : A Quick Primer!

Developed by Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Ronapreve (also known as REGEN-COV) is a cocktail of two human monoclonal antibodies – casirivimab and imdevimab.

These monoclonal antibodies are essentially lab-manufactured versions of the antibodies that our own immune system creates after we are vaccinated against COVID-19.

Just like antibodies created by most COVID-19 vaccines, both casirivimab and imdevimab target the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein, binding with it to prevent the virus from attaching to our cells.

Hence, it is used early in a COVID-19 infection, preferably right after exposure, especially in unvaccinated or immunocompromised people.

Ronapreve is not a replacement for COVID-19 vaccines, because it only offers temporary protection through artificial antibodies, whereas vaccination teaches our own immune system to create its own antibodies for lasting protection.

Ronapreve is also extremely expensive, reportedly costing 310,000 yen (~RM11,500) in Japan and ₹57,750 (~RM3,200) in India. I have no idea how much it will cost in Malaysia, but it is certainly going to fall between those two extremes!

So, don’t think of relying on Ronapreve. Get vaccinated against COVID-19. Your wallet will thank you!

 

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 > Healthcare | Tech ARP

 

Support Tech ARP!

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

Sinovac Booster Dose : Can You Get It? Should You Take It?

Now that the Sinovac booster dose has been approved, can you get it?

If you can’t get it yet, should you WAIT to get a Sinovac booster dose instead of other vaccines?

Updated @ 2021-11-17 : Added Sinovac booster dose approval and updated advice on a Sinovac booster dose.

Updated @ 2021-11-12 : Added more information on Sinovac vaccine efficacy and advice on a Sinovac booster dose.
Originally published @ 2021-11-10

 

Can You Get The Sinovac Booster Dose?

Malaysia started the COVID-19 vaccine booster dose programme on 13 October 2021, targeting those who received the Pfizer vaccine, before being expanded on 22 October 2021 to those who received the Sinovac vaccine.

Since then, many people have been asking if they can get a booster dose of the Sinovac vaccine instead.

The updated answer is SOON, but not yet.

On 17 November 2021, the Malaysia Drug Control Authority (DCA) approved the Sinovac and AstraZeneca booster doses for homologous vaccination.

That means Sinovac and AstraZeneca booster doses will be given to those who earlier received Sinovac and AstraZeneca vaccines respectively.

However, this does NOT mean the Sinovac booster dose is immediately available.

The COVID-19 Immunisation Task Force – Booster (CITF-B) will be targeting specific groups to receive these booster doses, which will be detailed later.

Right now, the COVID-19 Booster Dose programme in Malaysia continues to use the Pfizer COVID-19 vaccine. Even people vaccinated with Sinovac will receive the Pfizer COVID-19 vaccine as a booster dose.

If you had earlier received the Sinovac vaccine, and are open to receive the Pfizer booster dose, I highly recommend you get yourself on the standby list ASAP.

If CITF-B eventually decides to give only homologous vaccinations for Sinovac, you will lose your chance to get the Pfizer booster dose.

My advice remains the same – don’t wait for the Sinovac booster dose. Get the Pfizer booster dose if it is offered to you.

It is FAR MORE EFFECTIVE, and gives you a big boost in protection, especially if you received the Sinovac vaccine earlier.

Read more : Malaysia’s COVID-19 Booster Dose Policy Explained!

 

Should You Get The Sinovac Booster Dose?

The Malaysia Health Minister, Khairy Jamaluddin, mentioned earlier that people with severe allergies, or who have suffered an allergic reaction to the Pfizer vaccine earlier, may be offered a booster shot of the Sinovac or AstraZeneca vaccine instead.

Now that the Sinovac vaccine has been approved as a booster dose, should you WAIT to get it?

That very much depends on a number of factors.

Are You Allergic To The Pfizer Vaccine?

If you are allergic to the Pfizer vaccine, then you definitely cannot receive a booster dose of the Pfizer or Moderna vaccine.

You will have to get a booster dose of other vaccine types – viral vector vaccines like AstraZeneca or Sputnik V, or inactivated virus vaccines like Sinovac or Sinopharm.

But with so many better vaccine options available out there, Sinovac CoronaVac should be your last choice, not your first.

Read more : Did FDA Panel Reject Pfizer Booster Dose Over Myocarditis?

Are There Better Options?

If you are given the option to switch to Pfizer or AstraZeneca, you should definitely opt for either one over the Sinovac CoronaVac vaccine.

Of all the WHO approved vaccines, Sinovac CoronaVac is the least efficacious COVID-19 vaccine, offering just over 50% efficacy against symptomatic COVID-19.

And that was before it was tested against the highly-infectious Delta variant.

In June 2021, Chinese CDC deputy director Dr. Feng Zijian admitted that their inactivated virus vaccines are “less effective” against the Delta variant.

While Sinovac has tried to push their booster dose as a way to shore up the CoronaVac’s efficacy against the Delta variant, it would be foolish to assume that it offers anything more than a temporary boost in relatively ineffective antibodies.

Even China is moving to use mRNA booster doses for those who received Sinovac and Sinopharm vaccines, with their own mRNA vaccine called ARCoVAX entering mass production soon.

Read more : Are Chinese Vaccines The Most Effective Vs. Delta Variant?

Sinovac / Sinopharm Should Require Three Doses Minimum

On 12 October 2021, WHO experts recommended that those over 60 who received the Sinovac or Sinopharm’s vaccines should be given a third shot.

They notably refrained from calling it a booster dose, suggesting instead that they should be administered as three doses, instead of the recommended two doses, for a primary series vaccine.

This was precisely the same policy adopted by Singapore on 23 October 2021, when their Ministry of Health declared that three doses of the Sinovac vaccine will be REQUIRED for a person to be considered fully-vaccinated.

In other words – two doses isn’t enough to be considered fully-vaccinated for these inactivated virus vaccines.  They have to be taken as three doses MINIMUM.

Even Malaysia’s RECoVaM data show that the Sinovac CoronaVac vaccine is comparatively weak, allowing significantly more breakthrough infections that result in ICU care and deaths.

If you still feel that you prefer to get three Sinovac vaccine doses, instead of using a different vaccine – that’s fine. It is better than not getting a booster shot at all.

The key thing is to GET PROTECTED against COVID-19, by getting fully-vaccinated. If that means three doses of Sinovac, so be it.

My advice remains the same as it did earlier this year. Don’t wait – get the first vaccine (or booster dose) you are offered!

Read more : Why COVID-19 Vaccine Efficacy Does NOT Matter!

 

Please Support My Work!

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

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

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

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

 

Recommended Reading

Go Back To > Health | Tech ARP

 

Support Tech ARP!

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

Are Chinese Vaccines The Most Effective Vs. Delta Variant?

Are Chinese vaccines the most effective vaccines against the Delta variant of COVID-19?

Find out what just went viral, and what the facts really are!

 

Claim : Chinese Vaccines Are The Most Effective Against Delta Variant!

This message has gone viral on WhatsApp, claiming that Chinese vaccines are superior to the Pfizer and Moderna mRNA vaccines, and are in fact, the most effective vaccines against Delta variant!

It is quite long, so just skip to the next section for the FACTS!

Israel DOES NOT use China vaccines at all,
but Israel uses only Moderna+Pfizzer vaccines, and that is why Israel has record number of daily cases now, and the number of daily cases in Israel is now higher than before vaccination started, and the vast majority of Israel people have already been vaccinated .

The reason for the failure to stop virus spread in Israel and also in Singapore,
is because Moderna+Pfizzer vaccines, are NOT EFFECTIVE against the delta variant, and the effectiveness will keep dropping every month.

Both Israel and Singapore made the same mistake, of naively and trusting in full, the USA fake news media claim, that wildly overstate the effectiveness of vaccines like Moderna+Pfizzer vaccines, and the same USA fake news media FALSELY CLAIM that China vaccines are not effective, but in the real world, China vaccines turn out to be the most effective, especially against the Delta variant .

 

Truth : Chinese Vaccines Are Not The Most Effective Vs. Delta Variant

The truth is – Chinese COVID-19 vaccines are decent, but they are hardly the most efficacious vaccines in the market.

And they are definitely NOT the most effective vaccines against the Delta variant.

This is just another piece of Chinese propaganda, and here are the reasons why…

Fact #1 : Israel Showed That Lockdowns Work

In their first wave, Israel declared a national state of emergency on 19 March 2020, and underwent a strict lockdown with travel restrictions.

In their second wave, they announced another set of lockdown measures from July to September 2020, which rapidly cut down the numbers by end of October 2020.

In their third wave, Israel initiated their third nationwide lockdown on 27 December 2020, which they started lifting in March 2021.

Fact #2 : Israel Currently Has Few COVID-19 Restrictions

By June 2021, masking was no longer required even indoors, and there are currently very few restrictions in Israel.

In spite of their high vaccination rate – 61.1% of their population are fully vaccinated – Israel has not achieved herd immunity.

Unfortunately, they got complacent and opened up too early. Coupled with the more transmissible Delta variant, this led to their fourth wave.

Read more : Delta Variant Of COVID-19 Can Infect In Seconds!

Fact #3 : Delta Variant Causes More Breakthrough Infections

We have known since June 2021 that the Delta variant of COVID-19 is partially-resistant to vaccines.

This allows it to cause more breakthrough infections, especially for those who are partially-vaccinated.

This is more of a problem for the AstraZeneca vaccine, and much less for the Pfizer vaccine used in Israel and Singapore.

Read more : Why Delta Variant Causes MORE Breakthrough Infections!

COVID-19
Variant
Pfizer AstraZeneca
1 Dose 2 Doses 1 Dose 2 Doses
Alpha (UK) 50% 93% 50% 66%
Delta (India) 33% 88% 33% 60%

Fact #4 : Vaccines Protect Against Hospitalisation + Death!

While the Delta variant can cause more breakthrough infections, COVID-19 vaccines offer excellent protection against hospitalisation and death.

What this means is the fully-vaccinated people who get infected by COVID-19 will usually experience a mild or even asymptomatic disease.

COVID-19
Variant
Pfizer AstraZeneca
1 Dose 2 Doses 1 Dose 2 Doses
Alpha (UK) 83% 95% 76% 86%
Delta (India) 94% 96% 71% 92%

Fact #5 : Sinovac CoronaVac Is LESS Effective

A large Brazilian preprint study was just released, comparing the efficacy of the Sinovac vaccine against the AstraZeneca vaccine.

This study which involved 60.5 million people confirmed that the Sinovac CoronaVac vaccine was less effective than the AstraZeneca Vaxzevria vaccine.

Even so, I must point out that the Sinovac vaccine offers significant protection against hospitalisation and death that unvaccinated people are at risk of.

Read more : AstraZeneca vs. Sinovac : Efficacy Against Gamma Variant

Protection Against AstraZeneca Sinovac
Infection 70.0% 54.2%
Hospitalisation 86.8% 72.6%
ICU Admission 88.1% 74.2%
Death 90.2% 74.0%

Fact #6 : Sinopharm BIBP Is LESS Effective

A recent study in Bahrain involving 1.24 million participants showed that the Sinopharm BIBP vaccine was less effective than the Pfizer Comirnaty vaccine, especially against the Delta variant.

The study showed that the Pfizer mRNA vaccine was 2.5X better at preventing infection, 10X better at preventing hospitalisation, 28.5X better at avoiding ICU admission and 7.5X better at preventing death.

But I must point out that the Sinopharm vaccine itself does a great job at preventing hospitalisation, ICU admission and death, compared to unvaccinated people.

It is just not as effective as the Pfizer vaccine, especially against the Delta variant.

Cases Per 100K
Per Week
Pfizer Sinopharm Unvaccinated
Infection 136.3 350.5 643.0
Hospitalisation 2.8 28.4 51.1
ICU Admission 0.08 2.29 6.39
Death 0.22 1.64 4.42

Fact #7 : China’s Success Due To Lockdown, Not Vaccines

China successfully kept COVID-19 cases flat since March 2020 through extremely strict lockdowns and preventive measures. This allowed them to avoid multiple waves that have afflicted many countries around the world.

We know that their success had nothing to do with the superiority of Chinese vaccines, because China itself has been busy exporting vaccines instead of using them.

Despite being the first to approve a COVID-19 vaccine (from Sinopharm), China only vaccinated 24 million people (1.6%) by the end of January 2021.

They have since ramped up vaccination, after India’s Delta variant crisis rattled them. But their continued success in preventing another COVID-19 wave has, currently, little to do with their vaccines.

Fact #8 : China To Offer mRNA Booster Dose For Sinovac + Sinopharm Vaccines

In July 2021, Caixin Global reported that China is planning to offer the Pfizer Comirnaty mRNA vaccine as a booster dose for citizens vaccinated with the Sinovac and Sinopharm vaccines.

This decision came after Chinese CDC deputy director Dr. Feng Zijian said that two Chinese COVID-19 vaccines are “less effective” against the Delta variant, compared to other strains.

This is a tacit acknowledgement by the Chinese government that the Sinovac and Sinopharm vaccines are not working well against the Delta variant.

Read more : China To Offer mRNA Booster Dose For Sinovac + Sinopharm!

 

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 | Science | Tech ARP

 

Support Tech ARP!

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

Did GSK Make COVID-19 In Their Wuhan Lab?

Did GSK (GlaxoSmithKline) accidentally make COVID-19 in their Wuhan Institute of Virology laboratory?

Find out what this new viral claim (pun intended!) is all about, and what the FACTS really are!

 

Claim : GSK “Accidentally” Made COVID-19 In Wuhan Lab!

The British multinational pharmaceutical company, GSK (GlaxoSmithKline) is the new COVID-19 villain in town!

People are sharing the viral message below about GSK “accidentally” creating COVID-19 on WhatsApp, and promoting them on TikTok :

This viral message claims to expose their dastardly links to many of the world’s most evil people – Dr. Anthony Fauci, George Soros and of course, Bill Gates!

Check out the viral message below, and read on to find out what the FACTS really are!

THE SNAKES ARE COMING OUT .

The masks begin to fall off ! “The Chinese biological laboratory in Wuhan is owned by GlaxoSmithKline, which (accidentally) owns Pfizer!” (the one who makes the vaccine against the virus which (accidentally) started at the Wuhan Biological Lab and which was (accidentally) funded by Dr. Fauci, who (accidentally) promotes the vaccine ! �

“GlaxoSmithKline is (accidentally) managed by the finance division of Black Rock, which (accidentally) manages the finances of the Open Foundation Company (Soros Foundation), which (accidentally) manages the French AXA !”

Soros (accidentally) owns the German company Winterthur, which (accidentally) built a Chinese laboratory in Wuhan and was bought by the German Allianz, which (coincidentally) has Vanguard as a shareholder, who (coincidentally) is a shareholder of Black Rock, which (coincidentally) controls central banks and manages about a third of global investment capital. “Black Rock” is also (coincidentally) a major shareholder of MICROSOFT, owned by Bill Gates, who (coincidentally) is a shareholder of Pfizer (which – remember ? sells a miracle vaccine) and (coincidentally) is now the first sponsor of the WHO !

Now you understand how a dead bat sold in a wet market in China has infected the WHOLE PLANET !””

Now you know pass it on until whole world knows….

 

50 Cent Army “Accidentally” Wrote Fake Story On GSK Making COVID-19?

This looks suspiciously like another attempt by China’s 50 Cent Army to divert attention from the possibility that the COVID-19 pandemic was a result of a lab leak.

Needless to say, this is completely FAKE NEWS, with a plot so convoluted that people won’t bother checking, and will just accept as true.

The truth is – EVERY SINGLE SENTENCE is a lie! It is as if the writer was paid by the lie… Interesting!

Here are the FACTS! Share them out, so we don’t become the “useful idiots” they think we are!

Fact #1 : GSK Is A Pharmaceutical Company

GSK is a pharmaceutical company. They conduct research into, and manufacture, drugs and vaccines.

There is no reason for them to operate, much less own, a Biosafety Level 4 (BSL-4) laboratory like the Wuhan Institute of Virology.

Almost all BSL-4 facilities are operated by governments or universities, because of the high costs and strict regulations.

The two private BSL-4 labs that we know of are operated by the Merial Animal Health in Pirbright, England and the Texas Biomedical Research Institute in Texas, USA.

Essential features of a NIAID Biosafety Level 4 (BSL-4) laboratory

Fact #2 : GSK Does Not Own Wuhan Institute of Virology

Most research institutes with BSL-4 laboratories are government-owned and -operated.

The Wuhan Institute of Virology (WIV) is no different. It is owned and administered by the Chinese Academy of Sciences (CAS), which reports to the State Council of the People’s Republic of China.

That is why you can see the acronym CAS behind the name Wuhan Institute of Virology emblazoned on the institute’s facade (see picture below).

Fact #3 : Wuhan Institute of Virology Was Established In 1956

The WIV was actually established back in 1956 as the Wuhan Microbiology Laboratory, under CAS.

It was later renamed as the South China Institute of Microbiology in 1961, the Wuhan Microbiology Institute in 1962, and the Microbiology Institute of Hubei Province in 1970.

It finally adopted its current name – the Wuhan Institute of Virology – in June 1978.

For context – China did not initiate their economic reforms – the Opening of China – until December 1978. And the privatisation of state-owned industry did not happen until the late 1980s and 1990s.

So even history shows that it is IMPOSSIBLE for GSK to own the Wuhan Institute of Virology.

Fact #4 : GSK Does Not Own Pfizer

GSK and Pfizer are both publicly-listed multinational pharmaceutical companies, which means that they are both owned by their shareholders, not any one particular conglomerate.

In any case, the claim that GSK owns Pfizer is ludicrous because GSK is much smaller than Pfizer!

With a market capitalisation of about US$95 billion, GSK is much smaller than Pfizer which has a market capitalisation of over US$215 billion!

In fact, GSK is only the tenth largest pharmaceutical company, while Pfizer is the largest pharmaceutical company in the world.

Fact #5 : NIH, Not Dr. Fauci, Gave WIV A Grant

The US National Institutes of Health (NIH) gave the Wuhan Institute of Virology a grant through the non-profit EcoHealth Alliance.

The EcoHealth grant partially funded WIV’s research into bat specimens collected from caves in China, to study their potential for infecting humans.

This funding was given in the aftermath of the 2002-2004 SARS epidemic, which originated from bats.

However, the grant does not involve gain-of-function research by the Wuhan Institute of Virology.

Fact #6 : BlackRock Does Not Manage GSK

BlackRock is the world’s largest asset management company, and they own about 7.5% of GSK shares (as of 29 January 2021).

However, BlackRock does not manage GSK, which has its own board (helmed by Jonathan Symonds) and its own management team (helmed by CEO Emma Walmsley).

Fact #7 : BlackRock Does Not Manage Open Foundation Company

First of all, there is no such thing as the Open Foundation Company. The fake news creator is probably referring to the Open Society Foundations, which was founded by George Soros.

Secondly, the Open Society Foundations is completely owned by George Soros, and is currently the world’s largest PRIVATE funder of charities and NGOs.

The Open Society Foundations is most certainly NOT managed by BlackRock. It is illogical to make this claim because managing OSF does not allow BlackRock to make a profit for their clients.

Fact #8 : Open Society Foundations Does Not Manage AXA

AXA is a publicly-listed French multinational insurance company, obviously with their own management team.

There is simply no logic (never mind evidence!) in claiming that a private grantmaking group is managing a public-listed company.

Fact #10 : Winterthur Was A Swiss Insurance Company

First of all, Winterthur is not a German company, as the fake news creator claimed. Winterthur is a Swiss company.

Secondly, Winterthur is an insurance company, and thus has no business building laboratories anywhere in the world, much less the Wuhan Institute of Virology’s laboratories.

Fact #11 : Winterthur Was Purchased By AXA

Winterthur was purchased by AXA in 2006, and is today known as AXA Switzerland. It was never owned by George Soros.

Fact #12 : Vanguard Is An Investment Management Group

The Vanguard Group is a private investment management company, that manages funds provided by their customers. In fact, they created the first index fund.

Therefore, it is no surprise that they own shares in Allianz, as well as BlackRock. They basically buy into any company that meets their criteria for profit or indexing.

Fact #13 : BlackRock Does Not Control Central Banks

Central banks are national institutions that are controlled by their respective governments, with different regulatory powers and structures.

There is simply no evidence that even a mega asset management company like Black Rock can control a single central bank, much less central banks all over the world.

In fact, BlackRock was hired by the US Federal Reserve in 2020 to help them manage commercial mortgage-backed securities. In other words, they were working under the control of a central bank, not the other way around!

Fact #14 : BlackRock Does Not Manage ⅓ Of Global Capital

It is true that BlackRock manages A LOT of money globally – US$9 trillion, as of 19 April 2021.

However, that is only 9.5% of the global equity market, which grew to US$95 trillion in 2019.

No matter how you slice and dice it, BlackRock does not manage ⅓ of the global market capital.

Fact #15 : Bill Gates Does Not Own Microsoft

Microsoft has been a public-listed company since 1986, so its shareholders are the owners, not Bill Gates.

Bill Gates himself ceased to be its largest individual shareholder since 2014. When he stepped down from the Microsoft board in 2020, he only owned 1.3% of Microsoft shares!

Fact #16 : Pfizer Is A Public-Listed Company

It is no surprise that Bill Gates is a Pfizer shareholder. Pfizer is a public-listed company, which means ANYONE can purchase Pfizer shares and become a Pfizer shareholder!

Fact #17 : WHO Is A UN Agency

The World Health Organisation is a United Nations agency, established on 7 April 1948, and funded by UN member countriesIt was not sponsored by Pfizer now or then.

 

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 | Science | Tech ARP

 

Support Tech ARP!

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

Is Pfizer Making Copy Of Ivermectin To Treat COVID-19?

Is Pfizer making a copy of ivermectin that they can patent as a drug to treat COVID-19?

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

 

Claim : Pfizer Is Making Copy Of Ivermectin To Treat COVID-19!

People are sharing this claim and a Twitter post by Pfizer on WhatsApp… AGAIN, after fake news circulated that Pfizer bought ivermectin factories.

Ivermectin by Pfizer is coming. They know it works. So they have to create a copy to make $. So blatantly obvious who had been censoring this drug. Read the comments.

 

Fact : Pfizer Is NOT Making Copy Of Ivermectin Copy To Treat COVID-19!

Like 99% of the viral news on ivermectin, this is yet another example of FAKE NEWS.

Here are the facts…

Fact #1 : Pfizer Is Not Making A Copy Of Ivermectin

Anyone who clicks on the link in the Pfizer tweet will quickly realise that Pfizer is not making a copy of ivermectin at all.

But the fake news creator is counting on the fact that most people don’t bother to read beyond the viral message, or fact check before sharing.

It is now being recirculated to back up the fake claims that Pfizer bought up ivermectin factories.

Read more : Did Pfizer Buy Up All Production Facilities For Ivermectin?

Fact #2 : Pfizer Is Making Two Protease Inhibitors

Pfizer scientists are working on two SARS-CoV-2 protease inhibitors :

  • PF-07321332, which is orally administered, and
  • PF-07304814, which is intravenously-administered.

They are both not related to ivermectin, which is an anti-parasitic drug derived from the Streptomyces avermitilis bacteria.

Fact #3 : Ivermectin Works Differently From Protease Inhibitors

Ivermectin works differently from protease inhibitors.

Ivermectin works by binding to, and opening, the glutamate-gated chloride channels of nerve and muscle cells, increasing the flow of chloride ions that paralyses the affected tissue.

The Pfizer protease inhibitors work by binding to proteolytic enzymes used by the SARS-CoV-2 virus to replicate. This prevents the virus from replicating in the infected cells, stopping the infection and preventing transmission.

Fact #4 : There Is No Censorship Of Ivermectin

There isn’t any censorship of ivermectin, which is why fake news on ivermectin has been allowed to proliferate on social media.

Not a day goes by when I do not see fake news on ivermectin being shared on Facebook or WhatsApp or Telegram.

Does that look like censorship to you? Or a sad lack of censorship and common sense?

Fact #5 : Ivermectin Not Proven To Work Against COVID-19

Ivermectin has been shown to work against COVID-19 in lab (in vitro) studies, but does NOT improve clinical outcomes or prevent transmission.

That is why the WHO and the vast majority of health authorities around the world DO NOT advocate using ivermectin to prevent or treat COVID-19.

Read more : Latest Ivermectin COVID-19 Study : What Does It Really Say?

Fact #6 : New Drugs Require Approval

It doesn’t make sense for Pfizer to make a patentable copy of ivermectin. Unless it is significantly better than ivermectin, no one will buy their patented copy of ivermectin.

It would also require considerable resources for them to get the new “ivermectin copy” tested and approved.

If ivermectin really works, it would be better for Pfizer to simply produce ivermectin. After all, they no longer need to pay Merck for the patent!

Now, do you see why this is just ridiculously stupid fake news?

Please SHARE this article, to warn your family and friends about this viral fake news!

 

Please Support My Work!

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

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

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

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

 

Recommended Reading

Go Back To > Health | Fact CheckTech ARP

 

Support Tech ARP!

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

Did Pfizer Buy Up All Production Facilities For Ivermectin?

Did Pfizer just buy up all production facilities for ivermectin, to increase prices or to destroy it?

Find out what’s the new viral claim, and what the FACTS really are!

 

Claim : Pfizer Just Bought Up All Production Facilities For Ivermectin!

People are sharing a video of Laura-Lynn & Friends show that was posted on 31 August 2021, with this message :

Breaking: Pfizer just bought all of the production facilities for Ivermectin…

Here is a short clip of Laura-Lynn Tyler Thompson making that claim about 33 minutes into her Passport to Hell video.

And here is my transcript of what she said :

Ivermectin and hydroxychloroquine are sold over-the-counter in Mexico and Costa Rica. Different places in the world – India, Uganda, Africa – they’ve been taking hydroxychloroquine for years, millions of them, decades, and they don’t have a high incidence of COVID-19.

I just heard today, I don’t know if any of you – you guys are so fast – cause I heard it right before I went to air, that Bill Gates has, no no no… it’s Pfizer, Pfizer has purchased the ivermectin organisation or the plants or you know where they create it, or something like that.

I just heard Pfizer has invested in that, uh huh (listening to her earpiece). So that’ll will be interesting – whether they jack the prices up on everything, or destroy it.

 

Truth : Pfizer Did NOT Buy Any Ivermectin Production Facility!

The truth is Pfizer did NOT buy any production facility for ivermectin.

Laura-Lynn Tyler Thompson appears to have made up the story, and here are the reasons why…

Fact #1 : Pfizer Does Not Make Ivermectin At All

First, let me just state it very clearly – Pfizer does not make ivermectin at all.

You can verify this by simply checking the full Pfizer product list.

Pfizer is also NOT making a copy of ivermectin to treat COVID-19.

Read more : Is Pfizer Making Copy Of Ivermectin To Treat COVID-19?

Fact #2 : Pfizer Did Not Buy Any Ivermectin Production Facility

Pfizer is a public-listed company, and would have to disclose any purchase of companies or assets like a factory / production facility to their shareholders.

If you take but 5 seconds to check their public press releases, you can see that Pfizer did not purchase any ivermectin production facility.

For example, Pfizer announced on 23 August 2021 that they purchased Trillium Therapeutics Inc. Just in case you are wondering, Trillium makes cancer treatments, not ivermectin.

Fact #3 : Pfizer Does Not Need To Buy Ivermectin Production Facility

If Pfizer decides to make ivermectin, they don’t need to buy any production facility.

Pfizer has more than 35 manufacturing facilities across 6 continents – most, if not all, of which are capable of churning out ivermectin if they so wish it.

Fact #4 : Hundreds Of Companies Make Ivermectin

Hundreds of pharmaceutical companies and compounding pharmacies manufacture ivermectin globally. India alone has 105 different brands of ivermectin!

It is therefore IMPOSSIBLE for even a big pharmaceutical company like Pfizer to buy up even a fraction of companies making ivermectin.

For Laura’s benefit – there is no such thing as an ivermectin organisation.

Fact #5 : Anyone Can Make Ivermectin

Even if they somehow buy over every single company currently manufacturing ivermectin, they cannot stop new companies from making it!

Ivermectin is an easy and cheap drug to make, and is patent-free. So virtually any small company, even a compounding pharmacy, can make it!

Fact #6 : Hydroxychloroquine Does Not Work Against COVID-19

Despite Laura’s bold claim – hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) has been proven NOT to work against COVID-19.

  • Prophylaxis : HCQ showed little to no effect in preventing COVID-19 in 6 trials with more than 6,000 participants
  • Treatment : HCQ did not reduce mortality or duration of mechanical ventilation in 30 trials with more than 10,000 COVID-19 patients.

The results were so clear-cut that the WHO stopped the hydroxychloroquine arm of the Solidarity Trial in June 2020.

Fact #7 : Ivermectin Not Proven To Work Against COVID-19

Ivermectin has been shown to work against COVID-19 in lab (in vitro) studies, but does NOT improve clinical outcomes or prevent transmission.

That is why the WHO and the vast majority of health authorities around the world DO NOT advocate using ivermectin to prevent or treat COVID-19.

Read more : Latest Ivermectin COVID-19 Study : What Does It Really Say?

Please SHARE this fact check with your family and friends, so they won’t get fooled by Laura-Lynn Tyler Thompson!

 

Please Support My Work!

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

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

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

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

 

Recommended Reading

Go Back To > Health | Fact Check | Tech ARP

 

Support Tech ARP!

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

Scam Alert : Ziverdo Kit To Treat / Prevent COVID-19!

The Ziverdo Kit is being promoted on social media as an easy way to treat or prevent COVID-19

Find out why the Ziverdo Kit is just a SCAM, and warn your family and friends!

Updated @ 2021-08-12 : Added new information on the Ziverdo Kit scam, including its efficacy against Delta variant, and its ties to Professor Thomas Borody.

Originally posted @ 2021-07-10

 

Scam Alert : Ziverdo Kit Against COVID-19!

The Ziverdo Kit is being actively promoted on Twitter, Facebook and WhatsApp, as an easy way to treat or prevent COVID-19.

Here are two Ziverdo Kit advertisements, which suggest that :

  • it is approved by the World Health Organisation (WHO),
  • it can easily treat or prevent COVID-19, and
  • it can protect against the Delta variant too.

 

Ziverdo Kit To Treat COVID-19 : Why It’s A Scam!

People are worried about the surge in new COVID-19 cases and deaths from the Delta variant, which is highly-transmissible and appears to be partially resistant to vaccines.

Unfortunately, scammers are capitalising on our fear to sell fake cures online, and the Ziverdo Kit is one of them.

Here are the FACTS…

Fact #1 : Ziverdo Kit Is Not WHO Approved

Scammers added the WHO logo to their advertisement to suggest that it is approved by the World Health Organisation.

The truth is – the WHO does not approve of ivermectin as a treatment or prevention for COVID-19.

The WHO certainly did not approve the Ziverdo Kit for use against COVID-19.

Fact #2 : WHO Advises That Ivermectin Be Used Only In Clinical Trials

As of 31 March 2021, the World Health Organisation (WHO) advises that ivermectin be used only in COVID-19 clinical trials.

The current evidence on the use of ivermectin to treat COVID-19 patients is inconclusive. Until more data is available, WHO recommends that the drug only be used within clinical trials.

Fact #3 : Ivermectin NOT Proven To Treat / Prevent COVID-19

Ivermectin has only been shown to work against COVID-19 in lab (in vitro) studies, but does NOT appear to improve clinical outcomes or prevent transmission.

That is why the WHO and the vast majority of health authorities around the world DO NOT advocate using ivermectin to prevent or treat COVID-19.

Read more : Latest Ivermectin COVID-19 Study : What Does It Really Say?

Fact #4 : Ziverdo Kit NOT Proven To Treat / Prevent COVID-19

The Ziverdo Kit treatment, which you can see below, has NEVER BEEN TESTED, much less proven to work against COVID-19.

The Ziverdo Kit treatment protocol you see below is simply made up, with no evidence that this combination or protocol does anything to treat or prevent COVID-19.

Fact #5 : Ziverdo Kit Is Different From Professor Borody’s Protocol

Some people are claiming that the Ziverdo Kit is based on Professor Thomas Borody’s “proven ivermectin triple therapy”, but that appears to be false.

The Ziverdo Kit may be inspired by Professor Borody’s ivermectin triple therapy, but uses a completely protocol. The Borody protocol, as per his stalled trial is :

  • Ivermectin on Days 1, 4 and 8
  • Doxycycline x 10 days
  • Zinc x 10 days
  • Vitamin D3 x 10 days
  • Vitamin C x 10 days

As you can tell, this is quite different from the Ziverdo Kit protocol.

In any case, Professor Borody’s ivermectin triple therapy also has not been proven to work against COVID-19.

Read more : Ivermectin Triple Therapy By Professor Borody!

Fact #6 : Ziverdo Kit Does Not Work Against Delta Variant

Ziverdo Kit sellers are starting to claim that it works against the Delta variant of COVID-19.

That’s completely false, because the Ziverdo Kit has not been tested against the Delta variant, much less proven to work against it.

This is unlike the Pfizer and AstraZeneca vaccines, which have been proven to work against the Delta variant.

Read more : UK COVID-19 Vaccines Very Effective Against Delta Variant!

Fact #7 : Ziverdo Kit Is NOT FDA Approved

One of the Ziverdo Kit website claims that “you can be sure that the best would be what the FDA would approve“, suggesting that it is approved by the US FDA.

The truth is the Ziverdo Kit is NOT approved by the US FDA. You can verify this by searching the US FDA database yourself.

The individual drugs may be US FDA approved, but the Ziverdo Kit itself is NOT approved by the FDA.

The FDA certainly does not advocate using Zinc, Ivermectin and Doxycycline against COVID-19 as the Ziverdo Kit website suggests.

Fact #8 : Ziverdo Kit Only Sold By Prescription In India!

The Ziverdo Kit is manufactured by Windlas Biotech in India, and is a Schedule H prescription drug.

It can only be sold with a prescription, and its use must be directed by a physician in India.

It was reportedly distributed in the Indian state of Goa, as part of a COVID-19 Home Isolation Monitoring Kit in October 2020, together with a pulse oximeter, thermometer, paracetamol, vitamins, face masks, hand sanitiser and alcohol wipes.

But otherwise, you need a physician’s prescription to purchase it.

Fact #9 : Ziverdo Kit Online Prices Are Ridiculously Expensive!

Despite their advertisement claiming that it only costs US$10 per treatment, the Ziverdo Kit is really very expensive :

  • 9 strip kit : US$110 (about RM461 / £79 / S$149)
  • 12 strip kit : US$140 (about RM587 / £101 / S$189)
  • 16 strip kit : US$179 (about RM750 / £129 / S$242)
  • 19 strip kit : US$208 (about RM872 / £150 / S$281)
  • 24 strip kit : US$257 (about RM1,077 / £185 / S$347)
  • 32 strip kit : US$335 (about RM1,404 / £241 / S$453)
  • 48 strip kit : US$475 (about RM1,990 / £342 / S$642)

Based on the cheapest option, here is my comparison of its cost versus vaccines that have already been proven to work.

Don’t you think it’s CHEAPER and EASIER to just get vaccinated, instead of popping pills?

Product US Price Difference
Ziverdo Kit $110
to
$475
+12.8x
to
+59.4x
Pfizer Vaccine (2 doses) $39 +4.88x
Moderna Vaccine (2 doses) $30 +3.75x
J&J Vaccine (1 dose) $10 +0.25x
AstraZeneca Vaccine (2 doses) $8 Baseline

Fact #10 : The Ziverdo Kit’s Online Price Is A Scam!

Zinc is a cheap supplement, and both ivermectin and doxycycline are cheap drugs.

Windlas Biotech actually sells the entire kit for only 150 rupees, including all taxes! That is approximately US$2, £1.45, RM 8.40 or S$2.70.

Unfortunately, scammers are selling this Ziverdo Kit online for US$110 to US$475 to gullible, scared people.

How is that not a scam???

 

Why Ziverdo Kit Is A Scam : A Summary

Let me just summarise the reasons why the online sale of Ziverdo Kit is a scam.

  1. It has not have been proven to work against COVID-19.
  2. It has not been tested against the Delta variant of COVID-19, much less proven to work against it.
  3. It is not approved by the World Health Organisation.
  4. It is not approved by the US FDA.
  5. It can only be sold with a prescription.
  6. It is being sold online at ridiculous mark-ups of over 50X!

So please do not fall for the Ziverdo Kit scam. And please warn your family and friends!

 

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!