Tag Archives: Research

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

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

Have COVID-19 vaccines been recalled after over 40,000 deaths were reported in major safety databases?!

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

 

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

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

It is often shared with comments like this :

50 deaths is the threshold for a vaccine recall.

40,000 #COVID19 #VaccineDeaths and no recall.

Ask yourself, why is this the first in history?

The video shows Dr. Peter McCullough making a number of claims. Here is my transcript.

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

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

 

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

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

Fact #1 : It Was A Texas Senate Hearing

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

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

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

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

Fact #2 : No COVID-19 Vaccines Were Recalled

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

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

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

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

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

The WCH was launched on September 23, 2021 with the expressed purpose of calling for “an Immediate Stop to the Covid-19 Experimental Vaccines“.

They also issued a Cease and Desist declaration, claiming that “Covid-19 vaccinations are dangerous and unsafe for human use“.

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

Fact #4 : VigiSafe + Eudrys Do Not Exist

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

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

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

Fact #5 : Pharmacovigilance Data Is Unverified

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Fact #11 : Booster Doses Increase Protection Against Omicron

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

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

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

Fact #12 : Anti-Vaccine Claims All Proven False

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

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

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

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

 

Please Support My Work!

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

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

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

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

 

Recommended Reading

Go Back To > Fact Check | Health | Tech ARP

 

Support Tech ARP!

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

Did US Send 7000 Insects To Destroy Crops In China?!

Did the US try to send 7,000 insects into China to destroy their crops?!

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

 

Claim : US Sent 7,000 Insects To Destroy Crops In China!

People are sharing a video of a Chinese news report about Chinese custom official discovering 66 containers of some 7,000 insects in a parcel shipped from the US.

They allege that this is evidence of American sabotage – that the US sent those insects to destroy crops in China. The video is often shared with this message :

China customs found 7000 insects sent from the USA. Out to destroy crops in China.

An evil country on the way down trying to pull others down too with sickening and rather despicable tactics !
🤬🤬🤬

In addition to claiming that these insects are dangerous to crops, some pro-CCP or Chinese-sponsored websites are promoting the claim that these insects had their genes edited to become “more infectious”, like a “super mosquito”.

They also point out that each of these insects can reproduce every 10 days, laying 400 eggs in their lifetime to quickly produce a swarm that will destroy fruits in China, by corrupting them with bacteria and fungi.

 

Truth : US Did Not Send 7,000 Insects To Destroy Crops In China!

This is yet another example of FAKE NEWS created by the Chinese 50 Cent Army (wumao, 五毛), and shared by pro-CCP netizens and websites, and here are the reasons why…

Fact #1 : The Incident Happened In July 2022

First, let us establish what we know about this case.

Sometime in early July 2022, Qingdao customs officers examined a package sent from the United States. Its declaration form claimed that the parcel contained clothes.

When they opened it up, they found two pieces of clothes inside, with 66 sealed tubes containing eggs, larvae, pupae and adult insects.

After analysing them, Qingdao custom officers estimated that the 66 tubes contained roughly 7,000 fruit flies, specifically of the species Drosophila melanogaster.

Fact #2 : Drosophila megalogaster Is Present Worldwide

Drosophila melanogaster is known as the common fruit fly, which is commonly present across the world. Yes, this fruit fly is already present in China.

Despite originating in Africa – it is now present on all continents across the world, including islands.

Fact #3 : Drosophila megalogaster Can Lay Up To 2,000 Eggs

The Chinese media promoting this story can’t even get their facts right, claiming that these fruit flies lay up to 400 eggs in their lifetime.

Drosophila melanogaster females are far more productive than that – they can lay up to 100 eggs a day, and up to 2,000 eggs in a lifetime.

Fact #4 : Drosophila megalogaster Do Not Cause Fruits To Rot

Drosophila melanogaster is not an economic pest, even though no one welcomes them in their home.

It is often confused with Tephritidae – a different family of insects that are also called fruit flies, some of which are economic pests that destroy fruits.

Unlike Tephritidae fruit flies, Drosophila melanogaster do not destroy fruits. They are attracted to fruit that is already rotting, but do not cause fruits to rot.

The claims that the US sent Drosophila melanogaster fruit flies to destroy crops in China is nonsense.

Fact #5 : Drosophila megalogaster Is Commonly Used For Research

Drosophila melanogaster fruit flies are very popular in scientific research, for many reasons :

  • they are easy and cheap to care for, requiring little equipment and space
  • they have a rapid life cycle of 10 days, allowing several generations to be studied in a few weeks
  • each female can produce many offspring, laying up to 2,000 eggs in its lifetime
  • they have simple genetics, with only four pairs of chromosomes
  • their genome was completely sequenced and published in the year 2000

Scientists do not mention this as a reason for using Drosophila melanogaster, but I think it is important to note that it is not a pest, so accidental release of these fruit flies would not pose any danger of any form or kind.

Fact #6 : Drosophila megalogaster Is Commonly Shipped Worldwide

Because it is a model organism for research, Drosophila melanogaster is bred and shipped internationally to researchers worldwide.

The College of Agriculture and Life Science at Cornell University, for example, breeds and sells Drosophila melanogaster fruit flies, which they ship internationally including China.

Fact #7 : 2021 Seized Shipment Was Meant For Chinese Research Institute

This wasn’t the first time China seized live Drosophila melanogaster fruit flies in such tubes.

In June 2021, Chinese custom officials found 58 tubes containing more than 1,000 of these fruit flies in an imported parcel addressed to a Chinese research institute.

They seized the parcel because its contents were not declared, and it lacked an import permit.

Fact #8 : China Requires Quarantine For Live Insects

China forbids live insects from being mailed or carried into the country, without special quarantine or approval.

However, quarantine is a problem for Drosophila melanogaster because it has such a short lifespan of just 50 days.

Hence, it is possible that Chinese researchers are trying to circumvent the quarantine by importing live Drosophila melanogaster fruit flies, without an import permit which would require quarantine.

It is also possible that these fruit flies are being imported as a live food source for their pet fish, frogs and other animals.

Fact #9 : Cornell University Warned About Chinese Import Permit

Cornell University specifically warned Chinese researchers trying to purchase these fruit flies that :

As of November 1, 2014, we can only offer free replacements for shipments of live flies to China that were accompanied by an import permit.

That suggests that they lost shipments to China in the past, because they lacked import permits.

Fact #10 : This Is Chinese Propaganda

This is really nothing more than yet another example of Chinese propaganda created by the infamous Chinese 50 Cent Army (wumao, 五毛).

All of the wumao articles that I looked at so far have proven to be false… at every instance. So please watch out for such false claims.

Please help us fight fake news – SHARE this article, and SUPPORT our work!

 

Please Support My Work!

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

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

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

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

 

Recommended Reading

Go Back To > Fact Check | 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!

Can Bak Kut Teh Herbal Soup Cause Liver Damage?!

Can a herbal soup like Bak Kut Teh cause liver damage, as alleged by an Australian study?!

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

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

Why Study Does Not Show Bak Kut Teh Causing Liver Damage

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

Fact #1 : Study Was Conducted By Australian Scientists

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

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

Fact #2 : It Was A Laboratory Study

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Fact #5 : They Tested Four Soup Bases

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

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

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

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

Fact #6 : Soup Concentration Was Unspecified

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

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

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

Fact #7 : Soups Were Prepared In 5 Minutes

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

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

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

Fact #8 : They Tested Using HepG2 Liver Cancer Cells

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Fact #10 : They Did Not Test Drug Interactions

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

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

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

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

 

Please Support My Work!

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

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

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

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

 

Recommended Reading

Go Back To > Fact Check | 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!

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!

Can 4th Vaccine Jab Shut Down Our Immune System?!

Did the mainstream media just admit that the 4th vaccine jab can shut down our immune system?!

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

 

Claim : 4th Vaccine Jab Can Shut Down Our Immune System!

Anti-vaccination activists are excitedly sharing this Good Morning America (GMA) video, claiming that the mainstream media has now admitted that the 4th vaccine jab can shut down our immune system!

For your convenience, here is my transcript of the relevant part of the video (at around 1:05) :

People who have high antibody levels… there is the potential – I want to underscore the potential, we haven’t seen any evidence of this immune phenomenon known as tolerance, where if you already have high antibody levels, and you get another booster that your immune system can start to say, well, what am I needed for, and can kind of start to shut down.

 

Truth : No Vaccine / Booster Jab Can Shut Down Our Immune System!

This is yet another example of FAKE NEWS created by anti-vaccination activists to scare people into not protecting themselves against COVID-19.

Let me share with you the FACTS, and tell you WHY this is just fake news…

Fact #1 : Jennifer Ashton Was A Guest On GMA

First, let me establish some context of the video. It was a Good Morning America (GMA) video, in which Dr. Jennifer Lee Garflen Ashton was a guest.

She is a board-certified obstetrician and gynaecologist, who is also ABC News chief medical correspondent. You will see that stated on the chyron at about 0:08 of the video.

Fact #2 : Video Was On Antibody Surge From 4th Vaccine Dose

The GMA segment was discussing the May 9, 2022 study published in the Lancet, showing that the 4th vaccine dose (a second booster dose) delivered a large surge of antibodies.

Fact #3 : Video Was Recorded On May 10, 2022

The video is actually pretty old, being recorded two months ago – on May 10, 2022.

It was only in July 2022 that anti-vaccination activists stumbled on what Dr. Jennifer Ashton said in that video.

Fact #4 : Tolerance Does NOT Shut Down Immune System

When Dr. Ashton said that your immune system “can kind of start to shut down“, she was referring to your immune system ignoring the vaccine, not that it would actually shut down your immune system.

This phenomenon is known as immune tolerance or immunotolerance, which she also mentioned in the video. It happens when your own immune system no longer reacts to the allergen (like peanut or a vaccine).

If you develop a tolerance to the vaccine, your immune system does not shut down. The vaccine simply does not trigger the immune system to produce additional antibodies. It just goes, “Who cares???”

Fact #5 : Dr. Ashton Said There Was No Evidence Of Tolerance

In the video, Dr. Ashton stated very clearly that “we haven’t seen any evidence of this immune phenomenon known as tolerance“.

She was only mentioning tolerance to explain why the CDC is being cautious and recommending the 4th vaccine dose – a second booster dose – only for 50 years and older, or those who are immunocompromised.

Unfortunately, anti-vaccination activists are twisting her words to convey the false narrative that the 4th vaccine dose can shut down our immune system.

Fact #6 : COV-BOOST Study Showed No Evidence Of Tolerance

The study the GMA video was discussing looked at whether the fourth dose, which is a second booster dose, would deliver a good boost of antibodies, or trigger tolerance and therefore produce little to no additional antibodies.

This study was based on the COV-BOOST trial – a multicentre, blinded, randomised controlled trial (RCT) of third doses, in which there was a sub-study of a fourth dose.

The study, which was peer-reviewed and published in the Lancet, showed that there was no immune tolerance to the 4th vaccine dose.

In fact, it showed that the 4th vaccine dose induced a significant boost in antibody levels, especially for the elderly – those who are 70 years and older.

14 Days After
4th Dose
Less than
70 Years Old
70 Years Old
+ Above
vs. Day 28 after 3rd Dose +37% +68%
vs. Day 0 after 4th Dose +745% +1239%

Fact #7 : 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 | 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!

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

Did 800 people quit the Pfizer COVID-19 vaccine trial, because they died or were injured by the vaccine?!

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

 

Claim : 800 People Quit Pfizer Trial Over Vaccine Death / Injury!

The Expose is back again, with yet another “expose” on the Pfizer documents.

This time, they claim that a confidential Pfizer document that the FDA was “forced” to publish by court order, revealed that 800 people never completed Phase 1 of the Pfizer COVID-19 vaccine clinical trial, because they either died, suffered a serious adverse event, or withdrew their consent.

Here are excerpts from their article, which is long-winded, so please skip to the next section for the facts!

Pfizer Documents reveal at least 800 people never finished the COVID Vaccine Trial due to Death, Injury or Withdrawn Consent

One of the confidential Pfizer documents that the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has been forced to publish by court order reveals that approximately 800 people never completed the phase 1 Pfizer Covid-19 vaccine clinical trial in the USA due to either losing their life, suffering a serious adverse event or suddenly withdrawing their consent.

 

Truth : 800 People Did Not Quit Pfizer Trial Over Vaccine Death / Injury!

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

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 : FDA Was Not Forced To Release Pfizer Documents

The Expose falsely claimed that the FDA was forced by a court order to publish / release documents on the Pfizer COVID-19 vaccine clinical trials.

The truth is – the group, PHMPT (Public Health and Medical Professionals for Transparency), asked the FDA to send them the Pfizer documents under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA).

The FDA duly processed and released the first batch of Pfizer documents on November 17, 2021; and released the PHMPT’s priority list by January 31, 2022.

However, the PHMPT was not satisfied with the speed at which the FDA was processing and releasing the documents, so they sued the FDA to force them to deliver 329,000 Pfizer documents in 108 days.

In short – the FDA was already releasing the Pfizer documents. The lawsuit was merely to force them to speed up the process.

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

Fact #3 : No One Withdrew From Phase 1 Trial

The Expose falsely claimed that the Pfizer document showed that about 800 people quit Phase 1 of the Pfizer COVID-19 vaccine clinical trial.

The document that The Expose was referring to is called 125742_S1_M5_5351_c4591001 fa interim discontinued patients.pdf.

It appears that they didn’t read the document properly. The document clearly stated, in the first two pages no less, that no subject withdrew from Phase 1 of the clinical trial.

No subject meets the reporting criteria.

Fact #4 : There Were Only 42 People In Phase 1

It is hilarious that The Expose would (falsely) claim that about 800 people withdrew from the Phase 1, when only 42 people participated in Phase 1 of the Pfizer clinical trial!

You can confirm this in the December 2020 Pfizer VRBPAC document), which even gave their breakdown :

  • Phase 1 of Study C4591001 : 24 received the vaccine, 6 received the placebo
  • Phase 1/2 of Study BNT162-01 : 12 received the vaccine

Where did the other 700+ people come from?

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

Fact #5 : Only 1 Person Withdrew From Phase 2 Trial

Only one person withdrew from Phase 2 of the Pfizer COVID-19 vaccine clinical trial.

That person withdrew because an adverse event was discovered – he/she had stomach cancer, specifically a gastric adenocarcinoma.

Just to be clear, especially for the geniuses at The Expose, you cannot get stomach cancer from any vaccine.

Fact #6 : Adverse Events Are Not Vaccine Side Effects

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

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.

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

Fact #7 : Adverse Events Not Specific To Pfizer Vaccine

In any clinical trial, scientists look out for common adverse events that may affect the study, or suggest a potential side effect.

The list of adverse events is not specific to the Pfizer vaccine, and was specified before clinical trials even began.

Many of the adverse events mentioned in the document are definitely not caused by the Pfizer vaccine :

  • alcohol poisoning
  • cerebral infarction
  • pulmonary embolism
  • transient ischaemic attack
  • atherosclerotic disease
  • coronary artery occlusion
  • Parkinsonism
  • congestive heart failure

Fact #8 : AESI List Includes Irrelevant Adverse Events

The list of adverse events used in the Pfizer clinical trial 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.

Nevertheless, those “irrelevant” adverse events affects the study. Therefore, subjects with such adverse events will generally be eliminated from the study.

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

Fact #9 : Many Withdrew From Study For Innocuous Reasons

The Expose falsely claimed that the FDA was desperate to hide this document because it showed that hundreds of people refused to continue in Phase 1 of the Pfizer trial.

Not only did the FDA not try to hide any document for 75 years, no one actually quit Phase 1 of the Pfizer trial.

The Pfizer document has 579 cases of Withdrawal By Subject, and many of them listed innocuous reasons :

  • busy work schedule / new job
  • family situation / personal reasons
  • moved to another town / state / country
  • wants to start a family
  • transportation issues

In the end, the Pfizer COVID-19 vaccine clinical trial enrolled over 43,600 participants.

While 579 cases of withdrawals may sound like a lot, it’s less than 1.5% of the 43,600 people that actually participated in the study.

In other words, for every person who withdrew from the study, 75 other people stayed in the study.

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 > Fact CheckScienceTech 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 Hundreds Of Athletes Die Of COVID-19 Vaccine Effects?!

Did hundreds of athletes die of COVID-19 vaccine side effects, shortly after getting vaccinated?!

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

 

Claim : Hundreds Of Athletes Died Of COVID-19 Vaccine Effects!

For many months now, the Good Sciencing website has been claiming that hundreds of athletes have died of COVID-19 vaccine side effects.

They compiled a list of athletes who died, and created a chart to prove that their deaths must be caused by the COVID-19 vaccine.

It is definitely not normal for so many mainly young athletes to suffer from cardiac arrests or to die while playing their sport, but this year it is happening. Many of these heart issues and deaths come shortly after they got a COVID vaccine. While it is possible this can happen to people who did not get a COVID vaccine, the sheer numbers clearly point to the only obvious cause.

The so-called health professionals running the COVID vaccine programs around the world keep repeating that “the COVID vaccine is a normal vaccine and it is safe and effective.”

 

Truth : Hundreds Of Athletes Did NOT Die Of COVID-19 Vaccine Effects!

This is yet another example of FAKE NEWS created by anti-vaccination activists to scare people from protecting themselves with the COVID-19 vaccines.

The truth is – hundreds of athletes did not die from COVID-19 vaccine side effects, and here are the reasons why…

Fact #1 : Their Vaccination Status Are Unknown

Before anyone can come analyse this issue, one must first collect good data. The problem is Good Sciencing doesn’t have good data.

Specifically, they do NOT actually know if the athletes in their database were even vaccinated!

If they are not even sure those athletes were vaccinated, how can they be sure their injuries or deaths were due to the vaccine???

But instead of doing any actual research, they gave themselves a waiver by claiming that everyone from the clubs, sponsors and even the players are hiding that information.

Wow, what an easy way out! Everyone must be lying, therefore they must all be vaccinated! What bullshit.

Fact #2 : They Did Not Establish Causation

Good Sciencing believes that their chart shows a direct correlation between COVID-19 vaccinations (which began for most countries in early 2021) and the deaths of athletes.

The problem is – correlation does not imply causation. For example, if you get pregnant after getting the COVID-19 vaccine, does it mean that the vaccine made you pregnant? Of course, not.

Good Sciencing never offered proof that the deaths or injuries were caused by the vaccine. They only claimed that the athletes must have died or got injured by the vaccine, because they were so young and fit.

Fact #3 : Many Athletes Die Unexpectedly

Good Sciencing suggests that it is rather rate for young and fit athletes to die suddenly. That’s really nonsense.

Let’s take a look at the Maron study they used as evidence. The chart from that study shows a progressive rise in sudden death reports of 6% per year, from 1980 to 2006.

Good Sciencing does not show you this chart, because it shows that sudden deaths in young and fit athletes more than quadrupled from 1980 to 2006!

This puts paid to their claim that such a rise in sudden death must be due to the COVID-19 vaccine, which obviously did not exist back then.

Fact #4 : They Compared US Athletes vs. World

Good Sciencing claimed that over 680 athletes died in 17 months, compared to 1866 athletes in 27 years (324 months) of the Maron study.

But what they don’t tell you is that they were comparing athlete sudden deaths WORLDWIDE against the Maron study, which only looked at athlete sudden deaths in the United States.

Do they realise how stupid that is? The population of the United States in 2006 was 298 million, whereas the worldwide population right now is 7.9 billion.

No, they are not stupid. They are just dishonest. They skewed their data 26.5X in their favour, by comparing US deaths from the past to worldwide deaths today.

Fact #5 : Athletes Were Under Lockdown

Good Sciencing also (intentionally?) forgot to point out that the Maron study showed that 82% of those sudden deaths occurred with physical exertion during competition or training.

This is an important point, because most athletes were not competing or playing in the early months of 2021, due to COVID-19 lockdowns and restrictions.

Those COVID-19 restrictions started to taper off as vaccination numbers rose, and sports tournaments and games started up towards the latter half of 2021.

The resumption of strenuous sporting activities would explain the increase in athlete sudden deaths throughout 2021.

That is certainly far more plausible than blaming the COVID-19 vaccine without even knowing if they were vaccinated in the first place!

Fact #6 : They Included Chronic Diseases

Good Sciencing intentionally skewed their data by including deaths from chronic diseases like cancer and chronic heart conditions.

Here is a selection of athletes whose deaths / conditions they are blaming on the COVID-19 vaccine, despite being of chronic conditions that would be started long before the vaccine was developed.

  • Danielle Kang : Golfer who was diagnosed with a tumour on her spine, which has not been determined to be malignant or benign.
  • Alex Rodrigo Dias da Costa : Footballer who underwent a quadruple bypass heart surgery to clear blocked coronary arteries.
  • Justin Hardy : Basketball player who died from stomach cancer.
  • Bobby Hill : Australian football player who was diagnosed with testicular cancer.
  • Lazar LaPenna : 10 year-old boy (who isn’t an athlete!) who suffered from epilepsy, and died after going into seizures.

Amazingly, they even included athletes who suffered from COVID-19 injuries! I’m surprised they didn’t include athletes who died from car accidents!

Fact #7 : They Included The Elderly Too!

While Good Sciencing claimed that it is not normal for “young athletes” to suffer from cardiac arrests or die while playing their sport, they didn’t hesitate to include the elderly to skew their data!

Here is a selection of “not so young” athletes they used in their data…

  • Peter Matera : 53 year-old former Australian footballer who had a cardiac arrest while chopping wood
  • Michele Bortignon : 51 year-old rally driver who had a cardiac arrest while driving.
  • Franco Del C Pendant : 58 year-old cyclist who had a cardiac arrest while cycling.
  • David Shaffer : 59 year-old football coach who collapsed from a heart condition while driving.
  • Unnamed 60 year-old cyclist (not even an athlete!) who died while cycling.
  • Another unnamed 65 year-old cyclist (not even an athlete) who died while cycling.

Fact #8 : They Included Suicides!

Astoundingly, Good Sciencing included people who died from suicide in their data!

  • Lauren Bernette : 20 year-old softball player
  • Sarah Shulze : 21 year-old track and cross-country runner
  • Jordan Michelle : 29 year-old rugby player
  • Olivia Podmore : 24 year-old cyclist
  • Cameron Burell : 27 year-old sprinter
  • Albert Linder : 25 year-old weightlifter

In one case, where the person committed suicide by self-inflicted gunshot, this was their reason for adding him to their database of athletes killed by the vaccine :

Was he vaxxed and if so, did he know his career was over?

Fact #9 : Good Sciencing Is Known For Fake News

Good Sciencing is known for creating and disseminating fake news about COVID-19 vaccines.

Everything posted by Good Sciencing (also called Real Science) must be regarded as FAKE NEWS, until proven otherwise.

Please help us fight fake news websites like Good Sciencing – SHARE this fact check out!

And please support our work!

 

Please Support My Work!

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

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

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

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

 

Recommended Reading

Go Back To > Science | Fact CheckTech ARP

 

Support Tech ARP!

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

Is Monkeypox Outbreak From Lab Strain Made In Ukraine?!

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

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

 

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

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

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

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

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

 

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

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

Fact #1 : There Is No Third Lab Strain

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

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

Fact #2 : Strain Is A Subset Of Species

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

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

Credit : Galaxy Advanced Microbial Diagnostics

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

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

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

Fact #3 : 2022 Monkeypox Outbreak From West African Clade

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

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

Fact #4 : No Evidence Current Virus Was Lab Made

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Fact #6 : US Sponsored Biological Threat Reduction In Ukraine

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

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

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

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

Fact #7 : Biological Labs Are Essential To All Countries

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Fact #9 : JYNNEOS Was Tested Against Monkeypox

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

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

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

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

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

 

Please Support My Work!

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

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

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

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

 

Recommended Reading

Go Back To > Science | Fact CheckTech ARP

 

Support Tech ARP!

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

Did US Pay For COVID-19 Research Before It Even Existed?!

Did the US government pay for COVID-19 research in Ukraine, before the coronavirus even existed?!

Take a look at the viral claim and find out if it’s evidence the US created COVID-19!

 

Claim : US Paid For COVID-19 Research Before It Even Existed!

The Expose UK is claiming that the US government paid for COVID-19 research in Ukraine, 3 months before the coronavirus even existed!

People have been sharing that claim on social media, including Facebook, Twitter and WhatsApp. Here are excerpts from The Expose :

The world first started to hear about a novel coronavirus in early January 2020, with reports of an alleged new pneumonia like illness spreading across Wuhan, China. However, the world did not actually know of Covid-19 until February 2020, because it was not until the 11th of that month that the World Health Organisation officially named the novel coronavirus disease as Covid-19.

So with this being the official truth, why does United States Government data show that the U.S. Department of Defense (DOD) awarded a contract on the 12th November 2019 to Labyrinth Global Health INC. for ‘COVID-19 Research’, at least one month before the alleged emergence of the novel coronavirus, and three months before it was officially dubbed Covid-19?

The shocking findings however, do not end there. The contract awarded in November 2019 for ‘COVID-19 Research’ was not only instructed to take place in Ukraine, it was in fact part of a much larger contract for a ‘Biological threat reduction program in Ukraine’

Perhaps explaining why Labyrinth Global Health has been collaborating with Peter Daszak’s EcoHealth Alliance, and Ernest Wolfe’s Metabiota since its formation in 2017.

 

Truth : US Did Not Pay For COVID-19 Research Before It Existed!

This is yet more FAKE NEWS from the notorious fake news website, The Expose, and here are the reasons why…

Fact #1 : The Expose Is Notorious 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 : China Publicly Announced Outbreak On 31 December 2019

The world first knew about the new coronavirus on the last day of 2019, not early January 2020 as The Expose claimed.

The Wuhan Municipal Health Commission in China first reported a cluster of pneumonia from a novel coronavirus publicly on 31 December 2019.

That’s why the WHO eventually called the disease, COVID-19, which stood for Coronavirus Disease 2019.

If Chinese authorities announced the outbreak just one day later, it would have been known as COVID-20.

If The Expose cannot even get this simple fact right, what hope do you have that they are right about anything else?

Read more : Did US Refuse WHO Investigation Of Fort Detrick For COVID-19 Source?!

Fact #3 : COVID-19 Name Was Announced On 11 February 2020

The WHO only issued the official names for the new coronavirus (SARS-CoV-2), and the disease it caused (COVID-19) on 11 February 2020.

Before COVID-19, the naming conventions were completely different. The preceding disease caused by SARS-CoV-1 was known as Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome (SARS), and not COVID-02 (because it started in 2002)

So how is it possible for the US Department of Defense or their contractor, Black & Veatch to issue a subcontract to Labyrinth Global Health for “COVID-19 Research”?

That is only possible if the subcontract was modified after the COVID-19 name was established on 11 February 2020.

Fact #4 : DOD Subcontract Was Modified Twice In 2020

The contract that The Expose was talking about exists, but it is interesting that they did not include a direct link, but here it is, so you can check it out yourself. I also included a screenshot below.

It was a $369,511 subcontract given to Labyrinth Global Health Incorporated, by Black & Veatch Special Projects Corporation that started on 12 November 2019.

The US Defense Threat Reduction Agency (DTRA) had contracted with Black & Veatch to support Ukraine’s biological detection and diagnostic capabilities by providing them with equipment, supplies and training.

After the COVID-19 pandemic hit, they modified the contract twice to provide COVID-19 support to Ukraine – in April and June of 2020. The modification dates were merely not listed in the USASpending.gov page.

The DTRA explained it all in an email to Lead Stories :

No, DOD did not award a contract in 2019 for COVID-19 research. In this case, DTRA’s contractor modified a task order in 10 June 2020 to assist Ukraine in responding to the COVID-19 pandemic, many months after the pandemic had begun. However, the date in the database reflects the original date the Master Servicing Agreement was entered into the system.

Read more : Was COVID-19 Virus Created By US Biolabs In Ukraine?!

Fact #5 : Timeline Shows No Discrepancy

To make it easier for you to understand, here is a simplified timeline of what actually happened :

2019

  • October 2 : DTRA signed the Master Servicing Agreement (MSA) with Black & Veatch for training support to Ukraine
  • November 12 : The MSA was submitted to the system on 12 November 2019 (as shown in the screenshot below).
  • December 31 : China publicly announced novel coronavirus outbreak in Wuhan.

2020

  • February 11 : WHO issued official names of SARS-CoV-2 for the virus, and COVID-19 for the disease.
  • March 3 : First case of COVID-19 was confirmed in Chernivtsi Oblast, Ukraine.
  • April 25 : MSA was modified to provide COVID-19 pandemic support to Ukraine. *
  • June 12 : MSA was modified again, to provide COVID-19 pandemic support to Ukraine. *

* The modified task order directed the servicing contractor, Labyrinth Global Health Inc., to provide “high-level subject matter expert mentorship support” on “laboratory diagnosis, biological safety and laboratory emergency response” in Ukraine.

As you can see, there is no discrepancy in the timeline. The changes in the task order occurred only after COVID-19 spread to Ukraine in March 2020.

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 > Fact Check | ScienceTech ARP

 

Support Tech ARP!

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

Did 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!

vivo Tokyo Mobile Imaging R&D Centre : An Inside Look!

vivo just shared an inside look of their Tokyo mobile imaging R&D centre!

Find out how their Tokyo R&D centre helps vivo create smartphones with better photo and video capabilities!

 

vivo Tokyo Mobile Imaging R&D Centre : A Quick History

Back in 2017, the smartphone market was growing rapidly with intense competition amongst the many brands. It was then that vivo decided to differentiate itself from the pack by establishing a global R&D initiative.

The vision behind vivo’s strategy was to leverage valuable expert resources in different parts of the world to conduct different R&D work.

One of the steps they took was to establish the vivo Tokyo R&D centre to focus on mobile imaging technologies.

vivo chose Tokyo for its mobile imaging R&D centre because there is already a robust and mature imaging industry in Japan, with over 100 years of development history.

The first vivo Tokyo R&D centre was established in Shimbashi back in 2019, and when the team grew, they shifted to Gochome, Chuo-ku in the central area of Tokyo.

This new R&D centre not only works on mobile imaging technologies like the signature vivo gimbal smartphone camera, but also more niche areas like car cameras, sports cameras, and even industrial cameras.

 

vivo Tokyo Mobile Imaging R&D Centre : An Inside Look!

Coordinating R&D centres in different parts of the world has its challenges. For instance, prototypes need to fit into products manufactured in China during the transition from R&D to mass production.

This requires continuous testing and improvement during the R&D process, which is time-consuming because of the physical distance between Japan and China.

In addition, Japan and China follow different hardware specifications, which is why the vivo Tokyo centre uses locally unique resources for their R&D projects.

The geographical barrier also makes it hard for R&D centres in different parts of the world to gain the latest insights into consumer demand in different markets. Hence, vivo R&D teams across the world exchange valuable insights through online discussions.

The planning and product team in China will first analyse the future trends of smartphone imaging based on user feedback, before sharing their insights with the Tokyo R&D team.

Currently, the vivo team believes that “miniaturised and integrated” will be a major direction for imaging hardware development in the future.

Camera lenses now are generally assembled. In future, they might all be integrated into one piece, with sensors that are more sensitive and faster.

This is based on customer feedback that they favour high resolution imaging, but also prefer a smaller lens module.

If the vivo Tokyo R&D team can accomplish that contradictory goal, it will lead to a superior photography and videography experience in a more compact smartphone!

 

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 > Mobile | 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!

Do mRNA COVID-19 Vaccines Increase Heart Disease Risk?

Do mRNA COVID-19 vaccines increase the risk of heart disease, as published in the medical journal, Circulation?

Take a look at what the abstract claims, and what the facts really are!

 

Claim : mRNA COVID-19 Vaccines Increase Heart Disease Risk!

Last month, an abstract published in the medical journal, Circulation, went viral after it claimed to have proven that mRNA COVID-19 vaccines increase the risk of heart disease.

The abstract was dramatically titled “Mrna COVID Vaccines Dramatically Increase Endothelial Inflammatory Markers and ACS Risk as Measured by the PULS Cardiac Test: a Warning“.

Using the PULS Cardiac Test, a group headed by Steven R. Gundry claimed that the mRNA COVID-19 vaccines increased the 5-year risk of acute coronary syndrome (ACS) from 11% to a shocking 25%!

These changes resulted in an increase of the PULS score from 11% 5 yr ACS risk to 25% 5 yr ACS risk. At the time of this report, these changes persist for at least 2.5 months post second dose of vac.

We conclude that the mRNA vacs dramatically increase inflammation on the endothelium and T cell infiltration of cardiac muscle and may account for the observations of increased thrombosis, cardiomyopathy, and other vascular events following vaccination.

 

Truth : mRNA COVID-19 Vaccines Do NOT Increase Heart Disease Risk!

Antivaxxers have been touting this study as a stake into the heart of mRNA vaccines – a study that definitively proves that mRNA COVID-19 vaccines cause heart disease, and should be stopped at all costs.

The truth is – this is yet another attempt to mislead the public on the safety of mRNA vaccines. mRNA COVID-19 do NOT increase heart disease risk, and here are the facts…

Fact #1 : It Was An Abstract, Not A Peer-Reviewed Study

The article was an abstract (Abstract 10712), not a peer-reviewed study.

An abstract is meant to be a short factual summary of an actual study, describing its context, methods, results and conclusions.

However, the author – Steven R. Gundry – did not provide the actual study, so it is impossible for anyone to confirm that his results are even accurate, much less peer-review it.

Fact #2 : AHA Published An Expression Of Concern

Circulation is a reputable medical journal, published by Lippincourt Williams & Wilkins for the American Heart Association.

However, that does not mean that everything published in Circulation is peer-reviewed and/or endorsed by the American Heart Association.

In fact, right after the article was published, the journal published an Expression of Concern, noting (with our emphasis) :

Soon after publication of the above abstract in Circulation, it was brought to the American Heart Association Committee on Scientific Sessions Program’s attention that there are potential errors in the abstract.

Specifically, there are several typographical errors, there is no data in the abstract regarding myocardial T-cell infiltration, there are no statistical analyses for significance provided, and the author is not clear that only anecdotal data was used.

We are publishing this Expression of Concern until a suitable correction is published to indicate that the abstract in its current version may not be reliable.

 

Fact #3 : AHA Asked For Abstract Correction

According to Retraction Watch, the Director of National Science Media Relations at the American Heart Association stated that the author was given a deadline to issue his correction :

A correction from the research author has been requested and is due to the American Heart Association by 6:00 pm ET, Friday, Dec. 3, 2021. The author’s corrections will undergo review before publication.

Fact #4 : PULs Test Does Not Directly Assess Cardiac Health

The PULs (Protein Unstable Lesion Signature) test is a proprietary blood test developed by GD Biosciences Inc. that claims to detect and diagnose early-stage heart disease in asymptomatic patients.

It does this by looking for plasma levels of 9 proteins that are allegedly the biomarkers of endothelial (blood vessel) damage. So the PULs test does not actually tell us anything about the condition of the patient’s heart.

It only infers the risk of a plaque forming in the blood vessels, that could potentially detach or rupture and lead to a heart attack.

Fact #5 : Measurement Units + 6 PULs Test Results Missing!

While the PULs test looks at 9 protein levels, Dr. Gundry only mentioned three of them. What happened to the other six protein levels?

Did Dr. Gundry forget about them? Or did their results go against the abstract’s dramatic conclusions? How did Circulation let Dr. Gundry post an abstract with ⅓ of the data?

Incredibly, Circulation also allowed Dr. Gundry to publish test results that were devoid of measurement units. Were they measured in mg/dL or pg/ml or PLUs units? Who knows?

No matter how you slice and dice this abstract, no one can come to any conclusion with just ⅓ of the PULs test results that lack even measurement units.

Fact #6 : PULs Test Not Used In Mainstream Cardiology

The PULs test is not used in mainstream cardiology, and its use is limited even in the few countries where it is offered.

For example, in the UK, it is only provided through a single medical practice that appears to be focused on “natural health”. Similarly, it is only available in India through a single provider.

Dr. Lander Foquet, an infectious disease scientist, pointed out that the PULs test was promoted heavily by the abstract author, and is “not something used by a real cardiologist”.

Fact #7 : Dr. Gundry Was Pitching Quercetin

This was not mentioned in the printed Circulation abstract, but presented to the meeting attendees.

In his slide, Results An [sic] Conclusions, Dr. Gundry recommended the use of low-dose aspirin and/or Quercetin to “treat” this increased risk of heart disease from the mRNA vaccines.

Despite the dramatic claim that mRNA vaccines greatly increase inflammation of the heart, his recommended use of a supplement suggests that he doesn’t even believe it’s particularly dangerous.

I should point out that his recommended treatment is based on ZERO EVIDENCE.

Dr. Gundry did not explain why he recommended either “treatment”. Neither did he provide any evidence to back them up.

Credit : Dr. Lander Foquet

Fact #8 : Dr. Gundry Sells Supplements

It should also be noted that Dr. Gundry sells a plethora of dietary supplements under his own brand name – Gundry MD.

There is nothing wrong with creating and selling your own dietary supplements, of course.

But many people would consider that to be a potential conflict of interest that should have been mentioned in the abstract’s disclosure. Dr. Gundry reported no conflict of interest.

Fact #9 : mRNA Vaccine Cardiac Risk Limited To Myocarditis / Pericarditis

Post-marketing monitoring of the Pfizer and Moderna COVID-19 vaccines have revealed that these mRNA vaccines introduce a small risk of myocarditis and pericarditis in young males.

However, there is NO EVIDENCE that mRNA vaccines cause increased risk of heart disease other than the aforementioned myocarditis / pericarditis risk.

Billions of doses of mRNA vaccines from Pfizer and Moderna have already been administered worldwide in the past 12 months.

If the Gundry abstract is correct, we should have seen MILLIONS of people keeling over from heart attacks in the last year or so. That is obviously not the case at all.

 

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!

Will COVID-19 Turn Breastmilk Yellow With Antibodies? 🤔

Will getting infected by COVID-19 turn your breastmilk yellow with antibodies? 🤔

Find out what happened, and what the facts really are!

 

Claim : COVID-19 Turns Breastmilk Yellow With Antibodies!

A mother, who apparently was infected with COVID-19, shared a photo of her frozen breastmilk, saying….

Breastmilk is truly amazing! This was my milk just a few weeks before I had Covid (right). The other milk (left) is filled with my antibodies to protect my babies.

It naturally went viral, with mothers sharing it as evidence of the power of breastmilk.

Some even suggested that scientists should look at using such yellow breastmilk as a treatment for COVID-19 patients.

 

Will COVID-19 Turn Breastmilk Yellow With Antibodies? The Facts…

As amazing as breastmilk may be, and as much as we encourage breastfeeding, it’s not right to make such claims. Here are the reasons why…

Fact #1 : There Has Been NO Research On Colour Change

There has been ZERO research on breastmilk changing colour because of a COVID-19 infection, so no one can definitively say either way.

Fact #2 : Breastmilk Changes Colour In A Single Feeding

Breastmilk colour actually changes during a feed. This may not seem obvious to breastfeeding mothers, but those who express their milk will notice the change.

The foremilk (left), which looks white and watery, is what flows out first when your baby starts feeding. It has a higher water and lactose content.

The hindmilk (right), which looks thicker and yellowish, is what flows out later. It has higher fat content.

It’s not that your breast makes different milk at different times. It makes only one kind of milk.

It’s just that the more watery part of the milk flows easier down the ducts, than the thicker fats that tend to stick to the milk secreting cells and moves slower down the ducts.

So the picture that the mother posted may be nothing more than normal colour changes in the milk – literals, hind milk versus fore milk.

Here is a picture of fore milk (left) and hind milk (right) from the same mother in a single pumping session.

Fact #3 : Breastmilk Can Change Colour With Diet / Medication / Supplement

In addition to natural changes in the body, breastmilk can also change colour with diet and/or medication / supplements.

Foremilk can look white or even bluish, while hindmilk can look creamy white or yellow.

Breastmilk can turn green, if you eat a lot of vegetables or certain herbs or supplements, or green-coloured drinks like Gatorade.

Beets and orange- or red-coloured drinks, can turn your milk pink, orange or even red in colour!

If your breastmilk looks brown (rust-coloured) or dark orange, it just means there is some blood in it. It may also get blood-tinged if you have cracked nipples.

Infographic Credit : VeryWell

Fact #4 : A Small Study Found COVID-19 Antibodies In Breastmilk

A small study of 15 mothers who contracted and recovered from COVID-19 found significant secretory Immunoglobulin A (sIgA) and some IgG antibodies in 12 of their breastmilk samples (80%), but not for IgM.

This is a preprint, which has not been peer-reviewed, and a very small study. Therefore, it only suggests that further research is warranted.

It also does NOT suggest that the detected antibodies have any protective effect on the child. That requires… yes, MORE RESEARCH!

Fact #5 : Scientists Are Looking At Breastmilk Transmission Of COVID-19

Scientists are concerned that the SARS-CoV-2 virus can also be transmitted from the mother to the child through breastmilk, so they did a living systematic review of mothers with COVID-19.

A total of 46 mother-infant dyads were selected for the study, in which all mothers were COVID-19 positive, but only 13 of their infants tested positive.

Photo Credit : Healthline

When their breastmilk samples were tested, 3 came back positive for SARS-CoV-2 particles, while the other 43 were negative.

Of the 3 mothers whose breastmilk had SARS-CoV-2 particles, only one infant tested positive for COVID-19. However, it was impossible to know how the infant was infected – through breastmilk, respiratory droplets from the mother, or even another infected close contact.

It is important to note that this does NOT mean SARS-CoV-2 can be transmitted through breastmilk. It merely means more research is required!

The fact that the other two infants did not contract COVID-19 from their mothers also is not proof that breastmilk protects against SARS-CoV-2. It merely means, yes – MORE RESEARCH is needed!

 

Recommended Reading

Go Back To > Fact Checks | ScienceHome

 

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!

Why Futurewei, HUAWEI R&D Arm, Cut Ties With HQ!

Reuters just reported that HUAWEI’s US research and development arm, Futurewei Technologies, separated its operations from its corporate parent after the HUAWEI Trump ban kicked in.

Here is a look at what happened, and why Futurewei cut ties with HUAWEI.

 

What Is Futurewei?

Futurewei Technologies is HUAWEI’s US-based research and development company.

With offices in Silicon Valley, Seattle, Chicago and Dallas, it employs hundreds of people, and has deep ties with US universities.

Thanks to its research partnerships and grant programs with at least 50 US universities, Futurewei now has over 2,100 patents in telecommunications, 5G, video and camera technologies.

 

What Did Futurewei Do?

After HUAWEI and its 68 global affiliates were placed on the US Entity List, Futurewei moved to separate its operations from HUAWEI :

  • banning HUAWEI employees from its officers
  • moved Futurewei employees to a new IT system
  • forbidden Futurewei employees from using the HUAWEI name or logo in communications

However, Futurewei remains a fully-owned subsidiary of HUAWEI Technologies.

Recommended : The HUAWEI Trump Ban – Everything You Need To Know!

 

Why Did Futurewei Cut Ties With HUAWEI?

There are a few reasons why Futurewei cut ties with its own parent company, HUAWEI :

[adrotate group=”2″]
  1. As a US company, it is forbidden by the HUAWEI Trump ban to export technology to its own parent company. So there is no longer an advantage to maintain official ties.
  2. Most importantly, it helps Futurewei maintain research partnerships with US universities.

The University of California-Berkeley suspended funding, but allows its researchers to continue working with Futurewei employees who are US citizens or legal permanent residents.

Stanford “paused” new funding agreements with Futurewei in December 2018, but continues to work with Futurewei under existing research agreements.

Recommended : HUAWEI Legal Motion Too Late, But China Has A Trump Card!

 

Recommended Reading

Go Back To > Business | CybersecurityHome

 

Support Tech ARP!

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


Malaysians Are Digital Frontrunners In Telenor Survey

Kuala Lumpur, 20 June 2016Digi today announced a study released by Telenor Group’s research arm, Telenor Research, which shows Malaysians being overall digital frontrunners, leading internet communication within Telenor’s global footprint when paralleled to other nation’s young internet-users. While digital services gain strong popularity around the world, Malaysians are also influential in the daily use of mobile devices for a wide range of internet activities, from browsing to playing online games.

 

Digital Frontrunners

The Telenor Group study was carried out in Q4 2015 on a sample of 5,600 people in Malaysia, Thailand, Pakistan, Serbia, Hungary, Sweden and Norway, aged 16-35 years old, who use internet on their mobile phones – a demographic Telenor identifies as ‘Digital Frontrunners.’ The way these users apply internet on their mobiles, gives indications as to how the wider demographic in the respective countries will adopt mobile internet in the years ahead.

“It is crucial to have surveys like this one looking at ‘Digital Frontrunners’ who can help forecast future industry trends,” said Bjørn Taale, Head of Research, Telenor Research. “Not only is this information beneficial in planning our digital services, it is also interesting to see the resemblance between nations as diverse as Thailand, Hungary, Pakistan or Norway. Just when we think that two nations may be following the same evolution, local nuances show that we are as unique as we are similar.”

 

Messaging Apps Most Important in Malaysia

The survey found that a resounding 62% of respondents in Malaysia consider mobile apps the most ‘important’ communication service available to them on a mobile phone. This was in stark contrast to all other surveyed markets which consider mobile voice services to be the most important. Only 19% of Malaysian agreed voice calls to be the most essential.

Supporting this finding is Malaysian’s high daily use of internet communications at approximately 85%, and low daily use of telecommunications services at roughly 65%— the highest and lowest indicators respectively across all surveyed markets. Messaging apps are noted as the preferred internet communication service for being in touch with others, with 80% using this on a daily basis.

The rising popularity of messaging apps in Malaysia is equally reflected in most of the surveyed countries, although there are variances. More than half of the respondents in all surveyed countries said they use messaging apps several times a day. Only two nations noted less than 50% usage, including Sweden at 44% and Pakistan at a notable 29%.

For one-to-one communications on mobiles via the internet, Malaysians can’t get enough of WhatsApp with only a small 3% of those surveyed saying they use it less than once a month. However, other countries vary, with Thais opting for LINE, Pakistanis equally choosing WhatsApp, Serbians employing Viber and Swedes preferring email. Overall, Facebook remained uniformly strong across all the surveyed countries in addition to their cited top preferences.

[adrotate banner=”5″]

 

Malaysia Embraces New and Traditional Uses of Mobile Internet

Second to messaging apps, Malaysian frontrunners use daily to several times per day traditional mobile voice (56%) and SMS services (49%) on their phones, trailed by newer internet voice communications (34%) and video calls (28%).

Notwithstanding the ‘daily’ use of SMS communications services for Malaysians has dramatically declined from 88% in 2012 to 73% in 2014 and finally 49% in 2015, among those surveyed for this study. Reflecting the same pattern is the daily social media posting in Malaysia, which went from 48% in 2012, peaked at 58% in 2014 and then dropped in 2015 to 42%. Malaysians’ use of internet voice and video calls followed similar peaks in 2014, indicating the country’s frontrunners use may be linked to early adoption when new technologies first launch.

Overall, Asia leads in adoption of new mobile internet services. This is underscored by Malaysian respondents who cited some of the highest percentage of weekly usage across the surveyed markets in map services (50%) and playing games (68%).

“Given our presence across diverse regions in Asia and Europe, we need to listen to our customers and evolve alongside them. If we find that that millennial Malaysian’s cherish their messaging applications or online shopping is a passion for young Thais, then it’s our job as the leading regional digital service provider to track that and meet their needs,” concluded Taale.

 

Support Tech ARP!

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