Tag Archives: Research

Did RFK Jr Conspiracy Theories Turn Out To Be True?!

Did 5 conspiracy theories promoted by RFK Jr turn out to be true?! Take a look at the viral claims, and find out what the facts really are!

 

Claim : RFK Jr Conspiracy Theories Turned Out To Be True!

People are sharing a post by The Vigilant Fox (archive), which claims / suggests that five conspiracy theorists promoted by Robert F. Kennedy (RFK Jr.) turned out to be true! The Vigilant Fox also posted this on X (formerly known as Twitter):

RFK Jr. Hits Back at Chris Cuomo After Being Labeled a ‘Conspiracy Theorist’

“Tell me a theory that you think I got wrong. Show me facts.”

Kennedy then listed a series of “conspiracy theories” that ended up being true:

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

 

Which RFK Jr Conspiracy Theories Turned Out To Be True?

Let’s take a look at those five conspiracy theories promoted by RFK Jr, and find out if they indeed turned out to be true!

Claim #1 : Glyphosate Causes non-Hodgkin’s Lymphoma
Verdict : Still Uncertain

Glyphosate, a widely-used herbicide, has been the subject of many studies and lawsuits, over claims that it can potentially cause cancer, particularly non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma.

As the City of Hope cancer centre pointed out, it has still not be scientifically proven that glyphosate causes non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma, even though the courts have seen fit to dole out billions of dollars in damages.

In 2019, researchers at University of Washington concluded that using glyphosate increases the risk of non-Hodgkin lymphoma by 41 percent. However, the preponderance of research worldwide has found no connection to glyphosate and cancer risk. And most of the world’s health agencies agree. For instance:

Notably, Bayer settled the majority of current and future lawsuits over Roundup – Monsanto’s glyphosate product, for $10 billion, without admitting that glyphosate causes cancer. In fact, Roundup and other glyphosate herbicides are still sold all over the world today!

The World Health Organization’s International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC), however, stated in 2015 that glyphosate is “probably carcinogenic to humans.” CNN reported that hundreds of patients with non-Hodgkin lymphoma started suing the manufacturers of glyphosate herbicides after IARC made its announcement.

In other words – glyphosate has not yet been proven to cause non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma. The research is currently still not definitive.

Recommended : FDA Now Allows Experiments On People Without Consent?!

Claim #2 : COVID-19 Vaccines Would Not Prevent Transmission
Verdict : False

Let me start by pointing out that COVID-19 vaccines were never required to prevent transmission. The main purpose of the COVID-19 vaccines was to prevent death and severe disease (and hospitalisation) from COVID-19, not to block transmission.

Hence, the end points for COVID-19 vaccine clinical trials did not include blocking transmission, although scientists and healthcare professionals were hoping that the vaccines would significantly block transmission.

After vaccinations started in 2021, researchers found that the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine, for example, was significantly reducing the transmission of the SARS-CoV-2 virus.

UK study : New data from Addenbrooke’s Hospital in Cambridge suggests that a single dose of the Pfizer BioNTech vaccine can reduce by 75% the number of asymptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infections. This implies that the vaccine could significantly reduce the risk of transmission of the virus from people who are asymptomatic, as well as protecting others from getting ill.

Israeli study : These results suggest that BNT162b2 is moderately to highly effective in reducing infectivity, via preventing infection and through reducing viral shedding.

While the vaccines’ effectiveness against infection and transmission waned with each new variant (research), they still continue to provide protection, not only against death and hospitalisation from COVID-19, but also infection and transmission.

In fact, a September 2023 systematic review of existing research show that COVID-19 vaccines reduce transmission of the SARS-CoV-2 virus, regardless of variant:

Overall, study results showed the effectiveness of COVID-19 vaccination against SARS-CoV-2 transmission (range 16–95%), regardless of vaccine type or number of doses.

The effect was apparent, but less pronounced against omicron (range 24–95% for pre-omicron variants versus 16–31% for omicron).

Results from viral load studies were supportive, showing SARS-CoV-2 infections in vaccinated individuals had higher Ct values, suggesting lower viral load, compared to infections among the unvaccinated.

In short – the RFK Jr. conspiracy theory that COVID-19 vaccines do not block transmission at all has been disproven time and time again.

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

Claim #3A : COVID Lockdowns Were Very Harmful To Children
Verdict : Partially True

This isn’t a conspiracy theory, but more of an opinion by RFK Jr., as no one actually disputed even back then that COVID-19 lockdowns would be detrimental to everyone, not just children. After all, human beings evolved to be social animals, and are biologically-driven to seek out the company of others.

The lockdowns were only implemented because the authorities wanted to stop the spread of COVID-19, and determined that the benefits far outweighed the risks. While children were judged to be least affected by COVID-19, they cannot be left out of a lockdown, because they can transmit the virus to vulnerable members of their own family.

While it is indisputable that the lockdowns can have a negative impact on children, the claim that the lockdowns were “very dangerous” to children isn’t borne out in actual studies.

2021 Spanish study : Children, in general, showed high resilience and capability to adapt to new situations. Sleeping problems were reported in more than half of the children (54%) and adolescents (59%), and these were strongly associated with less time doing sports and spending more than 5 h per day using electronic devices. Parents perceived their children to gain weight (41%), be more irritable and anxious (63%) and sadder (46%).

2022 Chart Review : Many children developed educational, social, emotional, and behavioral gaps during LD, and they lost skills to deal with everyday problems due to social isolation. It is important to follow the long-term impact of the lockdowns and social isolation.

In short, while more children experience mental health issues during the lockdown, other children were able to cope with the changes.

Also important to note – the lockdowns helped to prevent vulnerable people – both adults and children, from dying from COVID-19. While mental health issues can be detrimental, it can be treated or mitigated, whereas death cannot.

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

Claim #3B : COVID Lockdowns Would Damage Economy
Verdict : True

Well, thank you, Captain Obvious. No one ever said that COVID-19 lockdowns would not damage the economy. RFK Jr. might as well have said that it gets wet when it rains.

To be clear – everyone knows that lockdowns will damage the economy. That’s indisputable when businesses are forced to close, and people are required to stay at home. The lockdowns were only implemented to save lives, by blocking the transmission of the SARS-CoV-2 virus, until vaccines and treatments could be developed.

Claim #3C : COVID Lockdowns Would Not Block Transmission
Verdict : False

The claim by RFK Jr. and other people that lockdowns would not block the transmission of viral infections is false. The concept of a quarantine and the wider lockdown is centuries-old, and have proven to be effective in curbing the spread of disease.

More recently, the SARS outbreak in 2002, which killed over 800 people, was contained by blocking all human-to-human transmission through syndromic surveillance, strict isolation of patients and quarantine of their contacts, and lockdowns (community quarantine).

Even though the far more extensive COVID-19 lockdowns did not stop its global spread, they helped to reduce transmission and reduce the impact on healthcare services, until effective vaccines become available:

Even if our public health measures are not able to fully contain the spread of COVID-19 because of the virus characteristics, they will still be effective in delaying the onset of widespread community transmission, reducing peak incidence and its impact on public services, and decreasing the overall attack rate.

In addition, minimising the size of the outbreak or suppressing its peak can reduce global deaths by providing health systems with the opportunity to scale up and respond, and to slow down the global spread until effective vaccines become available.

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

Claim #4A : Face Masks Won’t Block Transmission
Verdict : False

People like RFK Jr. who claim the face masks don’t work often refer to the 2023 Cochrane report which stated that, “wearing masks in the community probably makes little or no difference to the outcome of influenza‐like illness“.

However, they fail to point out that the same report urged caution, and pointed out that there was “a high risk of bias in the trials, variation in outcome measurement, and relatively low adherence with the interventions during the studies hampers drawing firm conclusions“.

Cochrane officially said that the report was inconclusive, and the editor-in-chief of the Cochrane Library, Karla Soares-Weiser, called reports saying that “masks don’t work” as an “inaccurate and misleading interpretation“.

It would be accurate to say that the review examined whether interventions to promote mask-wearing help to slow the spread of respiratory viruses, and that the results were inconclusive.

In addition, Michael D. Brown, who serves on the Cochrane editorial board pointed out that the review could not arrive at a firm conclusion because “there were not enough high-quality randomised trials where participants adhered to mask-wearing rules.

Other studies, like this 2020 Japanese study, show that wearing a properly-fitted face mask will greatly reduce the amount of inhaled virus droplets / aerosols, compared to not wearing a face mask at all.

  • Cotton face mask : 20% to 40% reduction
  • Surgical mask : 47% to 50% reduction
  • N95 mask : 80% to 90% reduction

They also show that infected people wearing face masks can block transmission, by reducing the amount of virus droplets / aerosols being expelled into the environment.

Our airborne simulation experiments showed that cotton masks, surgical masks, and N95 masks had a protective effect with respect to the transmission of infective droplets/aerosols and that the protective efficiency was higher when masks were worn by the virus spreader.

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

Claim #4B : Face Masks Do More Harm Than Good
Verdict : False

There is no evidence that face masks do more harm than good, as RFK Jr. claimed or suggested. In fact, healthcare professionals have been wearing face masks to protect their patients and themselves since they were invented in the late nineteenth century.

Their effectiveness was greatly improved by Malaysian Chinese epidemiologist Dr. Wu Lien-teh, who developed a face mask with layers of gauze and cotton that would protect both the wearer, and other people.

The modern surgical mask as we know it was developed in the 1960s, and has been in use since then. In the 1990s, Taiwanese-American scientist Peter Tsai would invent the electrocharged fibre that would make the N95 mask possible.

To be clear – face masks do not do more harm than good, no matter how many times people like RFK Jr. repeat such claims.

Claim #5 : Social Distancing Not Based On Science
Verdict : Partially True

The claim that Dr. Anthony Fauci admitted that social distancing is not based on science isn’t actually accurate.

In his closed-door congressional testimony, Dr. Fauci said that the US federal social distancing guidance that people keep six feet of social distance “sort of just appeared”. He didn’t actually say that social distancing did not work. He only said that the six feet guidance was not backed up by an actual study.

When the US government first issued its guidance on social distancing, there were no studies on how far the COVID-19 virus can disperse from an infected person and remain infective. The six feet recommendation was based on early assessments that COVID-19 spread by droplets. Later, this was found not to be accurate, as COVID-19 could also spread by aerosols, therefore extending beyond the six feet guidance.

In short – social distancing can help reduce transmission. The further away you are from an infected person, the less likely you will inhale significant amounts of viral particles. What was not based on science back in 2020 was the six-feet recommendation. If we know what we know today – people would have to socially-distance way beyond six feet.

Now, isn’t it fortunate that we now have effective COVID-19 vaccines, and can do away with social distancing?

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!

Do emails show Ralph Baric created COVID-19 spike protein?!

Did emails released under FOIA show that Ralph Baric created the COVID-19 spike protein in 2018?! Take a look at the viral claims, and find out what the facts really are!

 

Claim : Emails Show Ralph Baric Created COVID-19 Spike Protein!

Conspiracists and anti-vaccine activists are excitedly sharing FOIA-released emails, which purportedly shows that Ralph Baric created the COVID-19 spike protein in 2018!

Kim Dotcom : American scientist Ralph Baric developed the spike protein that was inserted into Covid-19 and he worked with the Wuhan lab where the virus was created. Covid-19 was made in America and funded by the US Govt. Where’s the media? Where’s the outrage? Where’s the criminal tribunal?

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

 

Truth : Emails Do Not Show Ralph Baric Created COVID-19 Spike Protein!

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

Fact #1 : Emails Were Referring To SARS Virus

Let me start by pointing out that the March 2018 emails released under the FOIA (Freedom of Information Act) were only referring to the SARS virus (now known as SARS-CoV-1).

The SARS-CoV-1 was the virus that caused the 2002-2004 SARS outbreak, and is different from SARS-CoV-2, which caused the COVID-19 pandemic more than 15 years later!

They are related but different coronaviruses, just like how a Tesla Model S and a BMW Z4 are both cars, but they are different cars, with different designs, engines and performance.

Fact #2 : All Coronaviruses Have Spike Proteins

I should point out that the spike protein isn’t a special feature of the SARS-CoV-2 coronavirus that causes COVID-19. Such spike proteins are actually a feature of all coronaviruses!

In fact, the name “coronavirus” is derived from the Latin word, corona, which means “crown” or “wreath” – a reference to its “crown” of spike proteins. To be clear – all coronaviruses have spike proteins on their cell surfaces.

So scientists doing research on coronaviruses would inevitably be working with spike proteins. It doesn’t mean that they were working to create the SARS-CoV-2.

Recommended : Does FDA Document Prove COVID Vaccine Shedding Is Real?!

Fact #3 : SARS Spike Protein Different From COVID-19 Spike Protein

I should also point out that the SARS spike protein is different from the COVID-19 spike protein. Not only are they physically different, they utilise different mechanisms to bind with the human ACE2 receptor.

This was extensively elucidated in a Chinese research paper by Yixin Xie et. al., that was published in the journal Frontiers in Molecular Bioscience on 9 December 2020.

The results demonstrate that SARS-CoV and SARS-CoV-2 S proteins are both attractive to ACE2 by electrostatic forces even at different distances. However, the residues contributing to the electrostatic features are quite different due to the mutations between SARS-CoV S protein and SARS-CoV-2 S protein.

Such differences are analyzed comprehensively. Compared to SARS-CoV, the SARS-CoV-2 binds with ACE2 using a more robust strategy:

  • The electric field line related residues are distributed quite differently, which results in a more robust binding strategy of SARS-CoV-2.
  • Also, SARS-CoV-2 has a higher electric field line density than that of SARS-CoV, which indicates stronger interaction between SARS-CoV-2 and ACE2, compared to that of SARS-CoV.
  • Key residues involved in salt bridges and hydrogen bonds are identified in this study, which may help the future drug design against COVID-19.

In short – the COVID-19 coronavirus does not use the same spike protein as the SARS coronavirus that Ralph Baric was working on.

Recommended : Does COVID Vaccinated Blood Clot In Just 3 Minutes?!

Structural differences in salt bridge residues of spike proteins Left (A) : SARS coronavirus Right (B) : COVID-19 coronavirus

Fact #3 : There Is Nothing Nefarious In March 2018 Emails

If you go through the emails, you will notice that there is nothing nefarious. Certainly, they do not show Ralph Baric saying or suggesting that he created the COVID-19 spike protein.

To make it easier for you to understand, I rearranged the emails in the right order, and highlighted the key parts in bold. The emails involve four people – Ralph Baric, Toni Baric, Peter Daszak, and Tonie Rocke, and you can read the originals here (PDF):

Peter Daszak : Toni – this is info from Ralph Baric on the nanoparticle work he’s been involved in…

Tonie Rocke : Hi Ralph: I have a couple of questions about the SARS-CoV spike glycoproteins you are developing with respect to the DARPA grant we are collaborating on.

Do you have time for a call sometime tomorrow? I have unfortunately contracted the flu so I am working from home for a few days. I’d be happy to call you if you can provide me a time and number.

Many thanks! – Tonie

As you can see, the emails basically show Tonie Rocke asking to speak to Ralph Baric about his work on the SARS virus spike protein.

At no point did it show them discussing how to insert the SARS spike protein into the COVID-19 coronavirus, or anything along those lines.

Recommended : The Spikeopathy Vaccine Spike Protein Scare Explained!

Fact #4 : Ralph Baric Did Not Test Spike Protein On Bats

The March 2018 emails show Tonie Rocke asking about how those proteins can be “delivered to bats”, and what has been attempted so far.

There is no indication from those emails that Ralph Baric actually successfully “delivered” those spike proteins to bats. In fact, a March 15, 2018 email show Ralph Baric stating that he has no bat colony, and no way to actually conduct the experiment.

Hi Tonie, I was definitely planning on testing whatever I could in mice, nanoparticles no problem but my understanding was that RCN doesn’t work well in mice. I have no bat colony, no way for me to do the experiment – which I definitely think needs to be done or we have no credibility. My understanding [is that] another bat colony exists in China, but not sure who is doing what.

As you can see, the emails clearly show that Ralph Baric was not testing the SARS (not COVID-19) spike protein on bats, he hadn’t even started testing it on mice!

Fact #5 : Ralph Baric Called For COVID-19 Origins Investigation

It is somewhat ironic to claim that Ralph Baric might be responsible for creating the SARS-CoV-2 virus, because he joined other scientists in signing a 2021 open letter demanding a thorough investigation into the origins of the COVID-19 coronavirus.

While he remains sure whether SARS-CoV-2 was created by a spillover event, or a lab leak, he found fault with a joint investigation by the WHO and the Chinese government, which dismissed the chance of a lab leak as “extremely unlikely”.

Ralph Baric felt that such a conclusion was premature, given the lack of conclusive data and China’s more relaxed laboratory standards.

He pointed out to TIME in a July 2023 article that while the US restricts gain-of-function (GoF) work with dangerous pathogens to labs that are rated at a minimum of BSL-3 (like his lab), “the regulations in China are such that you can work with SARS-like bat coronaviruses in BSL-2 [Biosafety level 2] labs,” which require fewer safety features.

So Ralph Baric himself believes that a laboratory leak could still be a possibility. Would someone who purportedly created SARS-CoV-2 be so eager to call for greater scrutiny of that possibility???

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

 

Please Support My Work!

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

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

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

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

 

Recommended Reading

Go Back To > Fact Check | ScienceTech ARP

 

Support Tech ARP!

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

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

Did the US try to send 7,000 Drosophila insects into China to destroy their crops?! Take a look at viral claims, and find out what the facts really are!

Updated @ 2024-03-23 : Updated for new release
Originally posted @ 2023-04-19

 

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

People are sharing a video of a Chinese news report about Chinese custom officials 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 such messages :

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 !
🤬🤬🤬

The video showed China 🇨🇳 Port Custom, checked a luggage claimed to contain clothing. But when scanned through & upon suspicion, Custom Officers opened up the bag. They found there were more than 60 bottles containing the larvae of Drosophila, some 7k of it. If these bottles of larvae Drosophila were successfully smuggled into China & the matured Drosophila spread throughout the whole China. It will destroy all the fruits plantation/orchards. The matured ones multiplies & spread very fast. The luggage is from USA 🇺🇸. The acts of inhumanity in infecting & destroying China 🇨🇳 food chain. Evilness knows no boundries.

Recommended : China Unveils New Incentives For Wumao + CCP Uncles!

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.

Recommended : Was US Military Caught Stealing Tents From China?!

 

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.

Recommended : Did This American Harass Chinese Female Tourists?!

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.

Recommended : Did Xi Jinping Divorce His Wife To Serve China?!

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.

Recommended : China Caught Lab Workers Paid To Spread Covid-19?!

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 people’s 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.

Recommended : Did Four Taiwan F-16 Fighters Just Defect To China?!

Fact #10 : This Is Just 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). Here is just the latest dozen I fact-checked:

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!

Is Japan going to ban vaccinated blood donation?!

Is Japan proposing to ban vaccinated people from donating their ‘tainted blood’?! Take a look at the viral claim, and find out what the facts really are!

 

Claim : Japan Is Going To Ban Vaccinated Blood Donation!

People are sharing an article (archive) by The People’s Voice (formerly NewsPunch), which claimed that Japan is proposing to ban vaccinated people from donating their ‘tainted blood’!

Japan To Ban Vaccinated People From Donating ‘Tainted Blood’

Recommended : Are COVID-19 Vaccinated Blood Transfusions Dangerous?!

 

Truth : Japan Is Not Going To Ban Vaccinated Blood Donation!

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

Fact #1 : Japan Is Not Going To Ban Vaccinated Blood Donation

Let me start by pointing out that Japan has not proposed banning vaccinated people from donating their blood, because it’s apparently ‘tainted’. There was no such announcement by the Japanese government.

If that actually occurred, it would have been reported worldwide. Yet there has been no legitimate news report of such a proposal. That’s because it never happened.

Fact #2 : The People’s Voice Provided No Evidence

Not surprisingly, The People’s Voice article never provided any evidence that Japan is proposing to ban vaccinated people from donating their blood, or that the Japanese government considers the blood of vaccinated people to be dangerous.

Fact #3 : Pre-Print Paper Offers No Actual Evidence

These claims are based on a pre-print paper by Ueda et. al. that has not even undergone the most basic, first step of the scientific review process – peer-review.

It is also a literature review that appears to heavily feature debunked articles like the infamous Spikeopathy paper by Peter Parry et. al., and the equally infamous AESI paper by Joseph Fraiman et. al., as well as papers by Stephanie Seneff and Peter McCullough, amongst other controversial people.

As far as I can tell – the paper provided no actual evidence that COVID-19 vaccinated blood is dangerous, especially when it relies on debunked articles (example | example). Even its title suggests that it was only listing “concerns” and not actual “proof”.

Recommended : Does COVID Vaccinated Blood Clot In Just 3 Minutes?!

Fact #4 : Blood Of Vaccinated People Is Safe For Transfusion

After people baselessly claimed that vaccinated blood is dangerous, the American Red Cross, the Association for the Advancement of Blood & Biotherapies, and America’s Blood Centers, issued a joint statement to refute those claims:

Amid ongoing misinformation about COVID-19 vaccinations and blood donation, America’s Blood Centers, the Association for the Advancement of Blood & Biotherapies (AABB), and the American Red Cross reiterate the safety of America’s blood supply and assure the public that vaccines do not pose a risk to patients receiving blood transfusions.

Blood donations from individuals who have received a COVID-19 vaccine approved or authorized for use in the U.S. are safe for transfusion. Similar to other vaccines such as those for measles, mumps or influenza, COVID-19 vaccines are designed to generate an immune response to help protect an individual from illness, but vaccine components themselves do not replicate through blood transfusions or alter a blood recipients’ DNA.

In summary, there is no scientific evidence that demonstrates adverse outcomes from the transfusions of blood products collected from vaccinated donors and, therefore, no medical reason to distinguish or separate blood donations from individuals who have received a COVID-19 vaccination.

On multiple occasions, the Food and Drug Administration has confirmed that there is no evidence to support concerns related to the safety of blood donated by vaccinated individuals.

All Americans, including both blood donors and blood recipients, should feel confident that receiving a blood transfusion is safe. COVID-19 vaccines do not replicate, and all blood donations offer the same life-saving therapeutic benefits, regardless of the vaccination status of the donor.

Recommended : Is Red Cross Rejecting COVID Vaccinated Blood?!

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

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

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

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

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

 

Please Support My Work!

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

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

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

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

 

Recommended Reading

Go Back To > Fact Check | HealthTech ARP

 

Support Tech ARP!

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

Are COVID-19 Vaccinated Blood Transfusions Dangerous?!

Did Japanese researchers warn that COVID-19 vaccinated blood transfusions are dangerous?! Take a look at the viral claim, and find out what the facts really are!

 

Claim : COVID-19 Vaccinated Blood Transfusions Are Dangerous!

People are sharing an article (archive) by The Expose (formerly Daily Expose), which claims that an official study just showed that COVID-19 vaccines cause VAIDS (Vaccine-Induced Acquired Immunodeficiency Syndrome) in children! Here is an excerpt:

Japanese researchers warn about the risks of blood transfusions from covid vaccinated people

Recommended : Did Japan Study Prove Vaccinated Blood Is Dangerous?!

 

Truth : COVID-19 Vaccinated Blood Transfusions Are Not Dangerous!

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

Fact #1 : It’s A Pre-Print Article That Was Not Peer-Reviewed

Let me start by pointing out that the paper (PDF) by Ueda et. al. is a pre-print that has not been peer-reviewed – the first step in any scientific review process!

In other words – no one should draw any conclusion from this paper, when it has not even passed pre-publication peer review, never mind post-publication verification and criticism by other scientists.

Fact #2 : Ueda Et. Al. Is A Narrative Review Paper

I should also point out that the Ueda et. al. paper is just a “narrative review” or a “literature review”, which basically offers an overview of existing research, and its quality would be highly dependent on the research papers it features.

Unfortunately, it appears to feature even debunked articles like the infamous Spikeopathy paper by Peter Parry et. al., and the equally infamous AESI paper by Joseph Fraiman et. al., as well as papers by Stephanie Seneff and Peter McCullough, amongst other controversial people.

Fact #3 : Paper Does Not Prove Vaccinated Blood Transfusion Is Dangerous

As far as I can tell – the paper provided no actual evidence that the transfusion of COVID-19 vaccinated blood is dangerous, especially when it relies on debunked articles (example | example). Even its title suggests that it is only listing “concerns” and not actual “proof”.

The article’s emphasis on the spike protein appears to ignore the fact that vaccine spike proteins are created on cell surfaces and vaccines do not multiply, while COVID-19 infections produce far more spike proteins because the virus multiplies, and those viral particles (and their spike proteins) can freely travel in the blood!

In addition – the spike protein isn’t exclusive to COVID-19, and is a feature of all coronaviruses, including that that cause the common flu! If such spike proteins are toxic, then practically blood from every human being (who has ever had the common flu or other coronavirus infections) would be toxic.

Recommended : Does COVID Vaccinated Blood Clot In Just 3 Minutes?!

Fact #4 : Red Cross Says Vaccinated Blood Safe For Transfusion

After recent claims that blood donors were being rejected or deferred because they were COVID-vaccinated, the American Red Cross responded that it follows FDA regulations and protocols, and that vaccinated blood are safe for transfusions.

Donations from those who have been vaccinated for COVID-19 are safe for transfusion. Similar to other vaccines such as measles, mumps or influenza, the COVID-19 vaccine is designed to generate an immune response to help protect an individual from illness. The vaccine components themselves are not found within the blood stream.

Fact #5 : Blood Of Vaccinated People Is Safe For Transfusion

It isn’t just the Red Cross that claims that the blood of COVID-19 vaccinated people are safe for transfusions. Other organisations like the Association for the Advancement of Blood & Biotherapies and America’s Blood Centers issued a joint statement with the American Red Cross on this very issue:

Amid ongoing misinformation about COVID-19 vaccinations and blood donation, America’s Blood Centers, the Association for the Advancement of Blood & Biotherapies (AABB), and the American Red Cross reiterate the safety of America’s blood supply and assure the public that vaccines do not pose a risk to patients receiving blood transfusions.

Blood donations from individuals who have received a COVID-19 vaccine approved or authorized for use in the U.S. are safe for transfusion. Similar to other vaccines such as those for measles, mumps or influenza, COVID-19 vaccines are designed to generate an immune response to help protect an individual from illness, but vaccine components themselves do not replicate through blood transfusions or alter a blood recipients’ DNA.

In summary, there is no scientific evidence that demonstrates adverse outcomes from the transfusions of blood products collected from vaccinated donors and, therefore, no medical reason to distinguish or separate blood donations from individuals who have received a COVID-19 vaccination.

On multiple occasions, the Food and Drug Administration has confirmed that there is no evidence to support concerns related to the safety of blood donated by vaccinated individuals.

All Americans, including both blood donors and blood recipients, should feel confident that receiving a blood transfusion is safe. COVID-19 vaccines do not replicate, and all blood donations offer the same life-saving therapeutic benefits, regardless of the vaccination status of the donor.

Recommended : Is Red Cross Rejecting COVID Vaccinated Blood?!

Fact #6 : The Expose Is A Notorious Fake News Website

Like Real Raw News and NewsPunch, Daily Expose is a website that capitalises on making shocking but fake or misleading stories to generate page views and money. It was later rebranded as The Expose.

Founded in November 2020 by Jonathan Allen-Walker – a mechanic from Lincolnshire, The Expose / Daily Expose is infamous for publishing COVID-19 and vaccine misinformation.

Its articles have been regularly debunked as fake news or misinformation, so you should NEVER share anything from Daily Expose / The Expose. Here are some of its stories that I personally debunked earlier:

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

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

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

 

Please Support My Work!

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

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

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

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

 

Recommended Reading

Go Back To > Fact Check | HealthTech ARP

 

Support Tech ARP!

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

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

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

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Recommended : Is Red Cross Rejecting COVID Vaccinated Blood?!

 

Truth : CDC Did Not Redact Its mRNA Myocarditis Study!

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

Fact #1 : It Was CDC Document, Not Study

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Fact #3 : CDC Study Was Already Published Publicly!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Fact #6 : COVID-19 Myocarditis Is More Common

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

Please Support My Work!

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

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

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

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

 

Recommended Reading

Go Back To > Fact Check | HealthTech ARP

 

Support Tech ARP!

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

Did Japan Study Prove Vaccinated Blood Is Dangerous?!

Did a new study from Japan prove that vaccinated blood is dangerous?! Take a look at the viral claims, and find out what the facts really are!

 

Claim : Japan Study Proves mRNA Vaccinated Blood Is Dangerous!

People are sharing links to a new study from Japan, while claiming / suggesting that it proves that mRNA vaccinated blood is dangerous, and mRNA vaccination should be stopped!

Adam Gaertner : Vaccinated blood is poisonous and contaminated.

New study from Japan 🇯🇵:

“… we call the attention of medical professionals to the various risks associated with blood transfusions using blood products derived from […] genetic vaccine recipients.”

Recommended : Is Red Cross Rejecting COVID Vaccinated Blood?!

 

Truth : Japan Study Did Not Prove Vaccinated Blood Is Dangerous!

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

Fact #1 : It’s A Pre-Print Article That Was Not Peer-Reviewed

Let me start by pointing out that the paper in question is a pre-print that has not been peer-reviewed – the first step in any scientific review process!

In other words – no one should draw any conclusion from this paper, when it has not even passed pre-publication peer review, never mind post-publication verification and criticism by other scientists.

You can download and read the paper by Ueda et. al. called Concerns regarding Transfusions of Blood Products Derived from Genetic Vaccine Recipients and Proposals for Specific Measures here – PDF.

Fact #2 : It Was A Narrative Review Paper

I should also point out that the Ueda et. al. paper is just a “narrative review” or a “literature review”, which basically offers an overview of existing research, and its quality would be highly dependent on the research papers it features.

Unfortunately, it appears to feature even debunked articles like the infamous Spikeopathy paper by Peter Parry et. al., and the equally infamous AESI paper by Joseph Fraiman et. al., as well as papers by Stephanie Seneff and Peter McCullough, amongst other controversial people.

Fact #3 : Paper Does Not Prove Vaccinated Blood Is Dangerous

As far as I can tell – the paper provided no actual evidence that vaccinated blood is dangerous, especially when it relies on debunked articles (example | example). Even its title suggests that it is only listing “concerns” and not actual “proof”.

The article’s emphasis on the spike protein appears to ignore the fact that vaccine spike proteins are created on cell surfaces and vaccines do not multiply, while COVID-19 infections produce far more spike proteins because the virus multiplies, and those viral particles (and their spike proteins) can freely travel in the blood!

In addition – the spike protein isn’t exclusive to COVID-19, and is a feature of all coronaviruses, including that that cause the common flu! If such spike proteins are toxic, then practically blood from every human being (who has ever had the common flu or other coronavirus infections) would be toxic.

Recommended : Does COVID Vaccinated Blood Clot In Just 3 Minutes?!

Fact #4 : Red Cross Says Vaccinated Blood Safe For Transfusion

After recent claims that blood donors were being rejected or deferred because they were COVID-vaccinated, the American Red Cross responded that it follows FDA regulations and protocols, and that vaccinated blood are safe for transfusions.

Donations from those who have been vaccinated for COVID-19 are safe for transfusion. Similar to other vaccines such as measles, mumps or influenza, the COVID-19 vaccine is designed to generate an immune response to help protect an individual from illness. The vaccine components themselves are not found within the blood stream.

Fact #5 : Blood Of Vaccinated People Is Safe For Transfusion

It isn’t just the Red Cross that claims that the blood of COVID-19 vaccinated people are safe for transfusions. Other organisations like the Association for the Advancement of Blood & Biotherapies and America’s Blood Centers issued a joint statement with the American Red Cross on this very issue:

Amid ongoing misinformation about COVID-19 vaccinations and blood donation, America’s Blood Centers, the Association for the Advancement of Blood & Biotherapies (AABB), and the American Red Cross reiterate the safety of America’s blood supply and assure the public that vaccines do not pose a risk to patients receiving blood transfusions.

Blood donations from individuals who have received a COVID-19 vaccine approved or authorized for use in the U.S. are safe for transfusion. Similar to other vaccines such as those for measles, mumps or influenza, COVID-19 vaccines are designed to generate an immune response to help protect an individual from illness, but vaccine components themselves do not replicate through blood transfusions or alter a blood recipients’ DNA.

In summary, there is no scientific evidence that demonstrates adverse outcomes from the transfusions of blood products collected from vaccinated donors and, therefore, no medical reason to distinguish or separate blood donations from individuals who have received a COVID-19 vaccination.

On multiple occasions, the Food and Drug Administration has confirmed that there is no evidence to support concerns related to the safety of blood donated by vaccinated individuals.

All Americans, including both blood donors and blood recipients, should feel confident that receiving a blood transfusion is safe. COVID-19 vaccines do not replicate, and all blood donations offer the same life-saving therapeutic benefits, regardless of the vaccination status of the donor.

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

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

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

 

Please Support My Work!

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

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

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

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

 

Recommended Reading

Go Back To > Fact Check | HealthTech ARP

 

Support Tech ARP!

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

Did Scientists Discover Alien DNA In mRNA Vaccines?!

Did Spanish scientists discover alien DNA in the mRNA vaccines for COVID-19?! Take a look at the viral claim, and find out what the facts really are!

 

Claim : Scientists Discovered Alien DNA In mRNA Vaccines!

People are sharing an article (archive) by The People’s Voice (formerly NewsPunch), which claimed or suggested that Spanish scientists discovered alien DNA in the mRNA vaccines for COVID-19!

Scientists Discover ‘Alien DNA’ Hidden in Blood of Vaccinated People

Recommended : Blood Smear Video Proves Vaccinated Have Mutated?!

 

Truth : Scientists Did Not Discover Alien DNA In mRNA Vaccines!

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

Fact #1 : They Are Old Claims From 2021/2022

Let me start by pointing out that The People’s Voice did not provide any link to shocking study by Ricardo Delgado from Project La Quinta in Spain. However, we know this isn’t new, because the Project La Quinta report only has two reports on the mRNA vaccines.

  • an interim report that Professor Dr. Campra Madrid issued on 28 June 2021, while the final report was issued on 2 November 2021.
  • a report by Ricardo Delgado Martín posted on 14 January 2022.

So why is The People’s Voice promoting a story that appears to be more than 2 years old??? Why didn’t it point out that this is a really old story???

Fact #2 : Reports Said Nothing About Alien DNA / Eggs

The People’s Voice article claimed that Ricardo Delgado and his team found alien DNA hidden in the blood of vaccinated people and/or eggs hatching when the Pfizer mRNA vaccine is placed in a reptile incubator.

That’s utter nonsense, because both reports did not mention anything about alien DNA and/or eggs hatching. They only claimed to have found graphene and/or possible microtechnology in the Pfizer vaccine.

Fact #3 : Pfizer mRNA Vaccine Don’t Contain Alien DNA / Eggs

To be clear – there is no evidence the Pfizer mRNA vaccine contains alien DNA or eggs of any kind, unless they were somehow introduced as contaminants, or sabotage.

In fact, neither Ricardo Delgado Martin, not Professor Dr. Pablo Campra Madrid, found alien DNA in the blood of vaccinated people, or alien or reptilian eggs hatching in the Pfizer mRNA vaccine.

They appeared to have only performed optical microscopy of what they claimed were Pfizer mRNA vaccine samples, with or without a Raman spectrometer. Such methods cannot prove the existence of graphene oxide, alien DNA, or alien eggs.

Even Campra Madrid himself acknowledged in his report that the “microscope doesn’t provide conclusive evidence” and that the analysis was based on “a single, limited sample” of unknown origin and traceability.

Recommended : Does COVID Vaccinated Blood Clot In Just 3 Minutes?!

Fact #4 : University of Almería Disavowed Report

The People’s Voice article claimed that “scientists at an elite research unit in Spain” made the discovery. Well, it appears to be only one scientist – Pablo Campra Madrid, a professor of the University of Almería (UAL).

However, Campra Madrid stated that the report was not issued on behalf of the University of Almería (UAL) – in Page 23 of the interim report. Fortunately too, because his university disavowed his report.

On 2 July 2021 – more than 2.5 years ago! – the University of Almería issued a statement on X (formerly Twitter), describing it as an “unofficial report by a university professor about an analysis of a sample of unknown origin with a total lack of traceability“. It also said that it was a “report that this university neither subscribes to nor shares, as the report itself warns.

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

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

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

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

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

 

Please Support My Work!

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

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

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

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

 

Recommended Reading

Go Back To > Fact Check | HealthTech ARP

 

Support Tech ARP!

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

Did British Study Confirm 1 Billion People Now Have VAIDS?!

Did a British study confirm that over 1 billion people now have VAIDS from the mRNA COVID-19 vaccine?! Take a look at the viral claim, and find out what the facts really are!

 

Claim : British Study Confirmed 1 Billion People Now Have VAIDS!

People are sharing an article (archive) by The People’s Voice (formerly NewsPunch), which claimed that a British study confirmed that over 1 billion people now have VAIDS (Vaccine Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome) from the mRNA COVID-19 vaccine!

British Gov’t Bombshell: ‘One Billion Vaccinated People Now Have VAIDS’

Recommended : Did Study Show COVID Vaccines Cause VAIDS In Children?!

 

Truth : British Study Did Not Confirm 1 Billion People Have VAIDS!

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

Fact #1 : Vaccine AIDS Does Not Exist

Let me start by pointing out that there is no medical disease called Vaccine AIDS or VAIDS – Vaccine-Induced Acquired Immunodeficiency Syndrome. It appears to be something made-up by anti-vaccination activists to scare people.

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

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

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

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

Fact #2 : British Study Does Not Even Mention VAIDS!

Curiously, The People’s Voice article does not link to the British study (N1-methylpseudouridylation of mRNA causes +1 ribosomal frameshifting), which you can read here.

Perhaps it’s because anyone who even skims through the study will quickly realise that it does not mention anything about VAIDS (Vaccine-Induced Acquired Immunity Deficiency Syndrome). That’s not a surprise because VAIDS does not even exist!

So why would anyone claim that this study showed that mRNA vaccines cause Vaccine AIDS or VAIDS?!

Recommended : Majority Of Long COVID Patients Were Vaccinated?!

Fact #3 : Study Did Not Say 25% Of Vaccinated Are Now Suffering

The People’s Voice article claimed that the British scientists said that “at least 25% of the fully vaxxed population are now suffering extreme immune responses to the toxic chemicals found in the Covid shots”.

That’s not true – the British researchers did not say that 25% of vaccinated people are now suffering from extreme immune responses to the mRNA COVID-19 vaccines.

For one thing – it was ⅓, not 25% of the 21 vaccinated people in the study who developed “off-target proteins” caused by ‘slips’ along the mRNA sequence. On top of that, the researchers clearly pointed out that those “off-target proteins” did not produce any ill effects:

In collaboration with researchers at the Universities of Kent, Oxford and Liverpool, the MRC Toxicology Unit team tested for evidence of the production of ‘off-target’ proteins in people who received the mRNA Pfizer vaccine against COVID-19.

They found an unintended immune response occurred in one third of the 21 patients in the study who were vaccinated – but with no ill-effects, in keeping with the extensive safety data available on these COVID-19 vaccines.

To be clear – the British study did not conclude that any vaccinated person was harmed by the “off-target proteins” that can be produced by the current Pfizer mRNA vaccine.

Fact #4 : No Evidence mRNA Vaccines Cause Altered Cytokine Response

The People’s Voice article referred to another study which supposedly showed that a “sharp decrease in immunity following vaccination is caused by altered cytokine response“. That is not true either.

I actually wrote about that study, and what anti-vaccine activists have been writing about it in a separate article, Did Study Show COVID Vaccines Cause VAIDS In Children?!

Here’s the gist – the study also did not mention anything about VAIDS, and was only conducted on blood samples. The children participating in that study did not report any side effect or disease from their COVID-19 vaccinations.

Recommended : Are Residual DNA In mRNA Vaccines Dangerous?!

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

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

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

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

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

 

Please Support My Work!

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

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

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

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

 

Recommended Reading

Go Back To > Fact Check | HealthTech ARP

 

Support Tech ARP!

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

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

Did a new study find that Long COVID patients all received the mRNA vaccine for COVID-19?! Take a look at the viral claim, and find out what the facts really are!

 

Claim : Study Found Long COVID Patients All Received mRNA Vaccine!

People are sharing an article (archive) by The People’s Voice (formerly NewsPunch), which claimed or suggested that a new study found that Long COVID patients all received the mRNA vaccine for COVID-19!

Official Study Finds All Patients With Long COVID Had Received mRNA Vaccine

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

 

Truth : Study Did Not Find Long COVID Patients All Received mRNA Vaccine!

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

Fact #1 : mRNA Vaccines Were Not Mentioned In Study

Let me start by pointing out that the study in question never even mentioned mRNA vaccines. In fact, the word “mRNA” does not appear in the paper at all!

You can read the paper in full, and look for yourself – Long-COVID Prevalence and Its Association with Health Outcomes in the Post-Vaccine and Antiviral-Availability Era by Ramida Jangnin et. al.

So why would anyone claim that this study showed that all patients with Long COVID received the mRNA vaccine???

Fact #2 : Thailand Used A Mix Of Vaccines

On top of that, Thailand uses a mix of COVID-19 vaccines – a majority of which were the Oxford-AstraZeneca, and CoronaVac vaccines, both of which are not mRNA vaccines.

So it is more likely that not that the majority of patients in that study did not receive the mRNA vaccine.

Fact #3 : It Was An Observational Study By Telephone

I should also point out that it was an observational study. Observational studies like this cannot prove causality. Perhaps that’s why the study authors themselves pointed out that further prospective research is needed to establish any causality.

However, given the observational nature of our study, further prospective research is needed to establish causal relationships, and longitudinal studies are advised to track the evolution of long-COVID symptoms over time. 

To be clear – you cannot use observational studies like this as evidence of causality. This study does not show that COVID-19 vaccines cannot prevent Long COVID. Neither does it show that COVID-19 vaccines increase the risk of Long COVID.

You can read more about this in my earlier fact checking of The Epoch Health’s article on the same study.

Recommended : Majority Of Long COVID Patients Were Vaccinated?!

Fact #4 : Study Did Not Look At Vaccine Effect On Long COVID

I should also point out that this Thai study was not actually designed to look at the effect of mRNA COVID-19 vaccination on Long COVID.

Not only did it not have a control group of unvaccinated people, almost all of its participants received both COVID-19 vaccinations and antiviral treatment!

In fact, the study did not mention whether anyone was unvaccinated. So it is highly likely that all its participants were at least either fully-vaccinated, or had antiviral treatment!

The cohort consisted of 390 participants… Among them, 96.7% (n = 377) were vaccinated, and 98.2% (n = 383) underwent antiviral treatment.

So how do we know if the Long COVID was caused by the COVID-19 infection itself, the COVID-19 vaccines, or the antiviral treatment? We don’t, because this observational study was never designed to elicit such information in the first place!

Fact #5 : Almost All Study Participants Were Vaccinated!

I should stress yet again, that almost all of the participants (94.8%) in this Thai study were fully vaccinated:

  • 40.5% received two doses of the COVID-19 vaccine, while
  • 54.3% received two doses, and a booster dose.

This is important because such a study would inevitably show that people who were vaccinated can suffer from Long COVID. That doesn’t mean that the vaccines cause Long COVID.

If the same study was conducted on only male patients, it would show that only men had Long COVID. Would that mean that only men get Long COVID? Of course, not. That is only the perception that you may get if the study was conducted on only men.

Recommended : Are Residual DNA In mRNA Vaccines Dangerous?!

Fact #6 : Studies Do Not Link Long COVID To Vaccines

The People’s Voice article included a list of studies it claimed or suggested show a link between Long COVID and mRNA (or other types of COVID-19) vaccines. That’s not accurate:

The February 2024 report by the CDC did not link Long COVID to vaccination. In fact, the CDC report pointed out that “information about COVID-19 vaccination … is not included in this report“.

The February 2023 study published in the Journal of Medical Virology only looked at levels of spike proteins and viral RNA in COVID-19 patients. It did not mention anything about vaccines, or link Long COVID to vaccination.

The August 2023 study published in the International Journal of Infectious Diseases only showed that that the risk of Long COVID was higher with the wild-type SARS-CoV-2, compared to the Alpha, Delta and Omicron variants. It did not show a link between COVID-19 vaccines and Long COVID.

The 2023 study in the European Review for Medical and Pharmacological Sciences only identified viral spike protein in one COVID-19 patient, and vaccine spike protein in two patients after COVID-19 vaccination, out of 81 Long COVID patients. It did not show a link between the Long COVID and vaccination.

The December 2022 study in PLoS One did not conclude that receiving COVID-19 vaccines was a predictor of long COVID, calling it “an observational paradox” and a “collider bias” due to their study only looking at patients who received hospital care. I wrote an extensive article on this earlier, after The Epoch Times (again?!) covered it as “a new study“.

Recommended : Are Vaccinated People Developing Full Blown AIDS?!

Fact #7 : Studies Have Shown Vaccines Reduce Long COVID Risk

Many prior studies, involving millions of people – both vaccinated and unvaccinated, have concluded that COVID-19 vaccines reduce the risk of Long COVID.

A March 2024 study published in The Lancet, involving over 20 million people in the UK, Spain and Estonia, concluded that “vaccination against COVID-19 consistently reduced the risk of long COVID symptoms, which highlights the importance of vaccination to prevent persistent COVID-19 symptoms, particularly in adults“.

A February 2024 study published in Nature Communications, involving 1.1 million patients in Hong Kong, provided “real-world evidence supporting the effectiveness of COVID-19 vaccines in reducing the risk of long-term health consequences of SARS-CoV-2 infection and its persistence following infection“.

A March 2023 meta-analysis of 17 different studies on the effects of vaccines on Long COVID concluded that:

The evidence presented herein recommends SARS-CoV-2 vaccination for the prevention of long COVID in breakthrough cases. Furthermore, evidence does not support that SARS-CoV-2 vaccination exacerbates long COVID symptoms. Thus, most patients with long COVID should be vaccinated for SARS-CoV-2.

As you can see – much larger studies have already shown that COVID-19 vaccines not only do not increase the risk of Long COVID, getting vaccinated will actually reduce your risk of getting Long COVID should you get infected.

Hence, it is no surprise that the US CDC has pointed out that “Vaccination offers protection against the prolonged effects of #COVID19“.

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

Fact #8 : The People’s Voice Is Known For Fake News

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

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

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

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

 

Please Support My Work!

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

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

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

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

 

Recommended Reading

Go Back To > Fact Check | HealthTech ARP

 

Support Tech ARP!

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

Majority Of Long COVID Patients Were Vaccinated?!

Did a new study just show that majority of Long COVID patients were vaccinated?! Take a look at the viral claim, and find out what the facts really are!

 

Claim : Majority Of Long COVID Patients Were Vaccinated!

People are sharing an Epoch Times article, which claims that a study just found that majority of Long COVID patients were vaccinated!

Here is an excerpt from the Epoch Times article, which people are using to suggest or imply that the COVID-19 vaccines are either useless, or increase the risk of developing Long COVID.

Study Finds Majority of Patients With Long COVID Were Vaccinated

Mass vaccination and available antiviral treatments have not prevented vaccinated individuals from experiencing lingering COVID-19 symptoms.

Recommended : Did New Study Show Vaccines Causes Long COVID?!

 

Truth : Vaccines Reduce Risk Of Long COVID!

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

Fact #1 : It Was An Observational Study By Telephone

Let me start by pointing out that the study in question was an observational study that was conducted by telephone. You can read the paper in full – Long-COVID Prevalence and Its Association with Health Outcomes in the Post-Vaccine and Antiviral-Availability Era by Ramida Jangnin et. al.

This is important because it appears that the 390 patients were not clinically diagnosed with Long COVID. Rather, they were diagnosed with COVID-19, and the researchers interviewed them by “telephone every three months for a period of one year“.

In short – the reliability of the Long COVID diagnosis is highly dependent on what the patients reported, or are willing to tell the researchers. In addition, the list of physical and mental symptoms the researchers looked at are not exclusive to Long COVID, and may be manifestations of pre-existing or unrelated ailments:

  • physical : fatigue, cough, sore throat, rhinorrhea (runny nose)
  • mental : attention deficit, sleep disturbance, depression, post-traumatic stress disorder

Observational studies like this cannot prove causality. Perhaps that’s why the study authors themselves pointed out that further prospective research is needed to establish any causality.

However, given the observational nature of our study, further prospective research is needed to establish causal relationships, and longitudinal studies are advised to track the evolution of long-COVID symptoms over time. 

To be clear – you cannot use observational studies like this as evidence of causality. This study does not show that COVID-19 vaccines cannot prevent Long COVID. Neither does it show that COVID-19 vaccines increase the risk of Long COVID.

Recommended : Does FDA Document Prove COVID Vaccine Shedding Is Real?!

Fact #2 : Study Did Not Look At Vaccine Effect On Long COVID

I should also point out that this Thai study was not actually designed to look at the effect of COVID-19 vaccination alone on Long COVID.

Not only did it not have a control group of unvaccinated people, almost all of its participants received both COVID-19 vaccinations and antiviral treatment!

In fact, the study did not mention whether anyone was unvaccinated. So it is highly likely that all its participants were at least either fully-vaccinated, or had antiviral treatment!

The cohort consisted of 390 participants… Among them, 96.7% (n = 377) were vaccinated, and 98.2% (n = 383) underwent antiviral treatment.

So how do we know if the Long COVID was caused by the COVID-19 infection itself, the COVID-19 vaccines, or the antiviral treatment? We don’t, because this observational study was never designed to elicit such information in the first place!

Fact #3 : Almost All Study Participants Were Vaccinated!

I should stress yet again, that almost all of the participants (94.8%) in this Thai study were fully vaccinated:

  • 40.5% received two doses of the COVID-19 vaccine, while
  • 54.3% received two doses, and a booster dose.

This is important because such a study would inevitably show that people who were vaccinated can suffer from Long COVID. That doesn’t mean that the vaccines cause Long COVID.

If the same study was conducted on only male patients, it would show that only men had Long COVID. Would that mean that only men get Long COVID? Of course, not. That is only the perception that you may get if the study was conducted on only men.

Recommended : Are Residual DNA In mRNA Vaccines Dangerous?!

Fact #4 : Studies Do Not Link Long COVID To Vaccines

The Epoch Times article included a list of studies it claimed or suggested show a link between Long COVID and vaccination. That’s not accurate:

The February 2024 report by the CDC did not link Long COVID to vaccination. In fact, the CDC report pointed out that “information about COVID-19 vaccination … is not included in this report“.

The February 2023 study published in the Journal of Medical Virology only looked at levels of spike proteins and viral RNA in COVID-19 patients. It did not mention anything about vaccines, or link Long COVID to vaccination.

The August 2023 study published in the International Journal of Infectious Diseases only showed that that the risk of Long COVID was higher with the wild-type SARS-CoV-2, compared to the Alpha, Delta and Omicron variants. It did not show a link between COVID-19 vaccines and Long COVID.

The 2023 study in the European Review for Medical and Pharmacological Sciences only identified viral spike protein in one COVID-19 patient, and vaccine spike protein in two patients after COVID-19 vaccination, out of 81 Long COVID patients. It did not show a link between the Long COVID and vaccination.

The December 2022 study in PLoS One did not conclude that receiving COVID-19 vaccines was a predictor of long COVID, calling it “an observational paradox” and a “collider bias” due to their study only looking at patients who received hospital care. I wrote an extensive article on this earlier, after The Epoch Times (again?!) covered it as “a new study“.

Recommended : Are Vaccinated People Developing Full Blown AIDS?!

Fact #5 : Studies Have Shown Vaccines Reduce Long COVID Risk

Many prior studies, involving millions of people – both vaccinated and unvaccinated, have concluded that COVID-19 vaccines reduce the risk of Long COVID.

A March 2024 study published in The Lancet, involving over 20 million people in the UK, Spain and Estonia, concluded that “vaccination against COVID-19 consistently reduced the risk of long COVID symptoms, which highlights the importance of vaccination to prevent persistent COVID-19 symptoms, particularly in adults“.

A February 2024 study published in Nature Communications, involving 1.1 million patients in Hong Kong, provided “real-world evidence supporting the effectiveness of COVID-19 vaccines in reducing the risk of long-term health consequences of SARS-CoV-2 infection and its persistence following infection“.

A March 2023 meta-analysis of 17 different studies on the effects of vaccines on Long COVID concluded that:

The evidence presented herein recommends SARS-CoV-2 vaccination for the prevention of long COVID in breakthrough cases. Furthermore, evidence does not support that SARS-CoV-2 vaccination exacerbates long COVID symptoms. Thus, most patients with long COVID should be vaccinated for SARS-CoV-2.

As you can see – much larger studies have already shown that COVID-19 vaccines not only do not increase the risk of Long COVID, getting vaccinated will actually reduce your risk of getting Long COVID should you get infected.

Hence, it is no surprise that the US CDC has pointed out that “Vaccination offers protection against the prolonged effects of #COVID19“.

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

Fact #6 : The Epoch Times Is Known For Misinformation

The Epoch Times, a media company associated with the Falun Gong religious movement, is known for promoting conspiracy theories and misinformation. Here are some Epoch Times articles that I have fact checked in the past:

I would highly recommend that you do not believe, or share, any articles published or promoted by The Epoch Times, without first verifying their accuracy and the facts.

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

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

 

Please Support My Work!

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

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

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

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

 

Recommended Reading

Go Back To > Fact Check | HealthTech ARP

 

Support Tech ARP!

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

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

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

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

 

Cureus Publishes Controversial COVID-19 Vaccines Paper!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

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

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

Dear authors, 

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

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

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

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

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

The authors disagree with this retraction.

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

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

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

 

Please Support My Work!

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

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

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

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

 

Recommended Reading

Go Back To > Fact Check | HealthTech ARP

 

Support Tech ARP!

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

Did WHO Warn Everyone Will Have Cancer Within 20 Years?!

Did the WHO just warn that everyone will have cancer within the next 20 years?! Take a look at the viral claim, and find out what the facts really are!

 

Claim : WHO Warns Everyone Will Have Cancer Within 20 Years!

People are sharing an article (archive) by The People’s Voice (formerly NewsPunch), which claimed that the WHO just warned that everyone will have cancer within the next 20 years!

WHO Warns Everybody Will Have Cancer Within Next 20 Years

Recommended : Does Red Cross Test COVID-Vaccinated Blood Donations?

 

Truth : WHO Did Not Warn Everyone Will Have Cancer Within 20 Years!

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

Fact #1 : WHO Did Not Warn Everyone Will Have Cancer Within 20 Years

Let me start by pointing out that the World Health Organization (WHO) did not warn that “nearly every human on Earth will be diagnosed with cancer” within the next 20 years.

If the WHO actually issued such a warning, it would have been mentioned in a report or press release, and reported worldwide by the mainstream media. Yet, there was no such WHO report or press release, and zero coverage in the press.

That’s because it never happened – the WHO never issued a warning that nearly everyone on Earth will get diagnosed with cancer within the next 20 years.

Fact #2 : 2022 To 2050 Is 28 Years 

The People’s Voice article claimed or suggested that WHO warned that “everybody will have cancer within next 20 years”, and quotes a new WHO report which talked about the projected difference in cancer cases in 2050 versus 2022.

That’s not 20 years, or even 30 years. 2022 to 2050 is 28 years. If they cannot even get the math right – it’s just simple arithmetic, you have to wonder – what else they got wrong?

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

Fact #3 : Only 8% Population Projected To Get Cancer

The WHO only issued a press release (PDF) stating that “over 35 million new cases are predicted in 2050”, which is a 77% increase from the estimated 20 million cases in 2022. In other words, there will be an estimated average of 770 million new cancer cases in the next 28 years.

There are over 8 billion people today, with 9.7 billion people projected in 2050. In short, even if those projections come true, less than 8% of the world population would have cancer by 2050.

That’s startling figure indeed, but in no way is that “nearly every human on Earth”, as The People’s Voice article claimed or suggested.

Fact #4 : The People’s Voice Is Known For Fake News

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

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

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

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

 

Please Support My Work!

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

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

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

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

 

Recommended Reading

Go Back To > Fact Check | HealthTech ARP

 

Support Tech ARP!

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

Did Britain Secretly Euthanise Elderly To Boost COVID Deaths?!

Did the British government secretly euthanise elderly hospital patients to boost COVID-19 deaths?!

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

 

Claim : Britain Secretly Euthanised Elderly To Boost COVID Deaths!

People are sharing an article (archive) by The People’s Voice (formerly NewsPunch), which claims or suggests that a new study showed that the British government secretly euthanised elderly hospital patients to boost COVID-19 deaths!

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

New Study: British Gov’t Secretly Euthanized Elderly Hospital Patients To Boost ‘Covid Deaths’

Recommended : Midazolam Murders: Were deaths falsely blamed on COVID-19?!

 

Truth : Britain Did Not Euthanised Elderly To Boost COVID Deaths!

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

Fact #1 : Paper Was Preprint Article

Let me start by pointing out that the paper that are being quoted is an article called Excess Deaths in the United Kingdom: Midazolam and Euthanasia in the COVID-19 Pandemic by Wilson Sy – an investment analyst.

This article does not appear to have undergone peer review. It’s listed as a preprint on ResearchGate, and was accepted for publication in Medical & Clinical Research (which charges $3,916 for each paper) in less than a week:

Submitted : 20 Jan 2024
Accepted : 25 Jan 2024

While that does not mean its findings are necessarily wrong, such preprint papers should not be relied upon as “established information”. It very much needs to be investigated, analysed, and verified.

Even the peer-review process is merely the first step in the scientific review process, which would be followed by replication, verification, and criticism by other researchers.

Fact #2 : Paper Does Not Show Deaths Caused By Midazolam

You might expect that the paper would at least show evidence for tens of thousands of deaths that were caused by Midazolam. Unfortunately, it shows nothing of the sort.

Did it look at death certificates or medical records to determine that those deaths were caused by Midazolam, and not COVID-19? No, that would be far too much work…

All it appears to do is try and prove some kind of correlation between excess deaths and the number of Midazolam injections in the United Kingdom. And when it could not show a correlation, it adjusted the chart temporally by one month, and voilà! that looks like correlation!

The only problem is – Midazolam is a short-acting drug, with a half-life of just 1.5 to 2.5 hours. It cannot possibly kill someone one month after injection!

Not only does this paper not show that any of the deaths were actually caused by Midazolam, it does not even show any correlation between Midazolam usage and excess deaths in the UK!

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

Fact #3 : Midazolam Is Used To Sedate Patients

Midazolam is infamous for being used to execute people sentenced to death, as well as an end-of-life medication. However, it has far more common and less morbid uses.

Midazolam is a short-acting benzodiazepine that is frequently used to sedate patients before they undergo surgeries, as well as medical /dental procedures. It is also used to treat prolonged seizures, or sedate agitated patients.

It is not surprising that Midazolam usage should spike during the COVID-19 pandemic, as it  is one of the two most commonly-used drugs used to sedate patients in the ICU. It is also used to sedate patients before they are intubated and placed on mechanical ventilation.

Many of us may forget, but many ICUs were overwhelmed with patients who had to be intubated and placed on mechanical ventilation during the COVID-19 pandemic. In fact, many hospital wards (and even parking lots!) were converted into temporary ICUs to accommodate the surge of patients requiring mechanical ventilation.

In fact, if you think about it – it makes sense for excess deaths to spike days, weeks, or months, after a spike in Midazolam usage. It would suggest that people were dying after receiving Midazolam while critically ill in the ICU, or being intubated for mechanical ventilation.

Fact #4 : Many Deaths From COVID-19 Were Confirmed

Just over 73,000 people died from COVID-19 in the United Kingdom in 2020, with the vast majority – 94.6% confirmed as “deaths due to COVID-19”.

Deaths listed as “Confirmed COVID-19” were confirmed through tests, while deaths that were clinically determined to be caused by COVID-19 were listed as “Suspected COVID-19” if no test was available at that time, or the test result was not conclusive (source).

Regardless of whether you believe that Midazolam had any hand in these deaths, one thing is for sure – the vast majority of these deaths were confirmed to have been caused by COVID-19.

Recommended : Are Vaccinated People Developing Full Blown AIDS?!

Fact #5 : Many Critially-Ill COVID-19 Patients Died

During the COVID-19 pandemic, many critically-ill patients had to be intubated and placed on mechanical ventilation as they could no longer breathe on their own. Midazolam is used to sedate such critically-ill patients, so its use would go up with the number of critically-ill patients being treated in the ICU, or placed on mechanical ventilation.

Unfortunately, a large percentage of patients on ventilator died, with some hospitals reporting mortality rates of 50% to 97%. An early report on the mortality of patients on ventilator at three hospitals in Georgia showed that approximately 30% of patients dying after being ventilated, and another 8.5% remaining on ventilation.

Just because many of those patients died while in the ICU or on mechanical ventilation does not mean that those machines, or the oxygen they provided, caused their deaths. It certainly does not mean that the Midazolam they received for sedation killed them.

Fact #6 : Euthanasia Is Illegal In United Kingdom

Finally, I should point out that both euthanasia and assisted suicide are illegal throughout the United Kingdom, and can be prosecuted as murder or manslaughter.

Doctors in the UK can only assist their patients in hastening their deaths by withholding treatment and reducing pain, and even then, only when they feel that “death is only a few days away”.

Recommended : Did Bill Gates Tremble With Fear In mRNA Vaccine Interview?!

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

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

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

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

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

 

Please Support My Work!

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

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

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

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

 

Recommended Reading

Go Back To > Fact Check | HealthTech ARP

 

Support Tech ARP!

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

Midazolam Murders: Were deaths falsely blamed on COVID-19?!

Were tens of thousands of deaths in the UK caused by Midazolam falsely blamed on COVID-19?!

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

 

Claim : UK Deaths From Midazolam Were Falsely Blamed On COVID-19!

People are sharing links to a new paper, which claims / suggests that tens of thousands of deaths caused by Midazolam were falsely blamed on COVID-19!

أبو عمّار (Maajid Nawaz) : The CRIME OF THE CENTURY: Midazolam Murders – Euthanizing The Elderly

“If the data is correct, the only conclusion is that tens of thousands of elderly ENGLISH were MURDERED with an INJECTION of the end-of-life drug MIDAZOLAM.”

Recommended : Did Britain Secretly Euthanise Elderly To Boost COVID Deaths?!

 

UK Deaths From Midazolam Were Not Falsely Blamed On COVID-19!

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

Fact #1 : Paper Was Preprint Article

Let me start by pointing out that the paper that are being quoted is an article called Excess Deaths in the United Kingdom: Midazolam and Euthanasia in the COVID-19 Pandemic by Wilson Sy – an investment analyst.

This article does not appear to have undergone peer review. It’s listed as a preprint on ResearchGate, and was accepted for publication in Medical & Clinical Research (which charges $3,916 for each paper) in less than a week:

Submitted : 20 Jan 2024
Accepted : 25 Jan 2024

While that does not mean its findings are necessarily wrong, such preprint papers should not be relied upon as “established information”. It very much needs to be investigated, analysed, and verified.

Even the peer-review process is merely the first step in the scientific review process, which would be followed by replication, verification, and criticism by other researchers.

Fact #2 : Paper Does Not Show Deaths Caused By Midazolam

You might expect that the paper would at least show evidence for tens of thousands of deaths that were caused by Midazolam. Unfortunately, it shows nothing of the sort.

Did it look at death certificates or medical records to determine that those deaths were caused by Midazolam, and not COVID-19? No, that would be far too much work…

All it appears to do is try and prove some kind of correlation between excess deaths and the number of Midazolam injections in the United Kingdom. And when it could not show a correlation, it adjusted the chart temporally by one month, and voilà! that looks like correlation!

The only problem is – Midazolam is a short-acting drug, with a half-life of just 1.5 to 2.5 hours. It cannot possibly kill someone one month after injection!

Not only does this paper not show that any of the deaths were actually caused by Midazolam, it does not even show any correlation between Midazolam usage and excess deaths in the UK!

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

Fact #3 : Midazolam Is Used To Sedate Patients

Midazolam is infamous for being used to execute people sentenced to death, as well as an end-of-life medication. However, it has far more common and less morbid uses.

Midazolam is a short-acting benzodiazepine that is frequently used to sedate patients before they undergo surgeries, as well as medical /dental procedures. It is also used to treat prolonged seizures, or sedate agitated patients.

It is not surprising that Midazolam usage should spike during the COVID-19 pandemic, as it  is one of the two most commonly-used drugs used to sedate patients in the ICU. It is also used to sedate patients before they are intubated and placed on mechanical ventilation.

Many of us may forget, but many ICUs were overwhelmed with patients who had to be intubated and placed on mechanical ventilation during the COVID-19 pandemic. In fact, many hospital wards (and even parking lots!) were converted into temporary ICUs to accommodate the surge of patients requiring mechanical ventilation.

In fact, if you think about it – it makes sense for excess deaths to spike days, weeks, or months, after a spike in Midazolam usage. It would suggest that people were dying after receiving Midazolam while critically ill in the ICU, or being intubated for mechanical ventilation.

Fact #4 : Many Deaths From COVID-19 Were Confirmed

Just over 73,000 people died from COVID-19 in the United Kingdom in 2020, with the vast majority – 94.6% confirmed as “deaths due to COVID-19”.

Deaths listed as “Confirmed COVID-19” were confirmed through tests, while deaths that were clinically determined to be caused by COVID-19 were listed as “Suspected COVID-19” if no test was available at that time, or the test result was not conclusive (source).

Regardless of whether you believe that Midazolam had any hand in these deaths, one thing is for sure – the vast majority of these deaths were confirmed to have been caused by COVID-19.

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

Fact #5 : Many Critially-Ill COVID-19 Patients Died

During the COVID-19 pandemic, many critically-ill patients had to be intubated and placed on mechanical ventilation as they could no longer breathe on their own. Midazolam is used to sedate such critically-ill patients, so its use would go up with the number of critically-ill patients being treated in the ICU, or placed on mechanical ventilation.

Unfortunately, a large percentage of patients on ventilator died, with some hospitals reporting mortality rates of 50% to 97%. An early report on the mortality of patients on ventilator at three hospitals in Georgia showed that approximately 30% of patients dying after being ventilated, and another 8.5% remaining on ventilation.

Just because many of those patients died while in the ICU or on mechanical ventilation does not mean that those machines, or the oxygen they provided, caused their deaths. It certainly does not mean that the Midazolam they received for sedation killed them.

Fact #6 : Euthanasia Is Illegal In United Kingdom

Finally, I should point out that both euthanasia and assisted suicide are illegal throughout the United Kingdom, and can be prosecuted as murder or manslaughter.

Doctors in the UK can only assist their patients in hastening their deaths by withholding treatment and reducing pain, and even then, only when they feel that “death is only a few days away”.

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

 

Please Support My Work!

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

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

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

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

 

Recommended Reading

Go Back To > Fact Check | HealthTech ARP

 

Support Tech ARP!

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

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

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

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

 

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

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

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

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

Recommended : Are Residual DNA In mRNA Vaccines Dangerous?!

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Fact #3 : Paper Regurgitates Long-Debunked Claims

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

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

COVID-19 Vaccine Clinical Trials Were Too Short?!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Low Absolute Risk Shows No Need To Vaccinate?!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

mRNA Vaccines Do Not Prevent Transmission?!

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

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

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

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

mRNA Vaccines Have A Lot Of AESIs?!

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

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

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

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

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

Lots Of Deaths + Hospitalisation Were Reported?!

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

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

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

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

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

Autopsy Reports Show Deaths Caused By Vaccines?!

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

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

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

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

Recommended : Did mRNA Vaccines Trigger Severe Nerve Damage?!

mRNA Vaccines Are Contaminated By DNA?!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

Please Support My Work!

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

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

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

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

 

Recommended Reading

Go Back To > Fact Check | HealthTech ARP

 

Support Tech ARP!

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

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

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

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

 

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

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

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

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

 

Truth : CDC Has Evidence Vaccines Reduce Spread + Variants!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Fact #3 : FOIA Is Not For Basic Science Questions

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

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

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

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

Dear Mr. Stieber:

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

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

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

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

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

Recommended : Are Vaccinated People Developing Full Blown AIDS?!

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

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

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

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

Fact #5 : CDC Does Not Conduct Fundamental Research

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

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

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

Recommended : Are Residual DNA In mRNA Vaccines Dangerous?!

Fact #6 : This Is An Old Story

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

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

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

Can COVID-19 vaccines cause variants?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

Please Support My Work!

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

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

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

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

 

Recommended Reading

Go Back To > Fact Check | HealthTech ARP

 

Support Tech ARP!

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

Did Scientists Call For Global mRNA Vaccine Moratorium?!

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

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

 

Claim : Scientists Call For mRNA Vaccine Moratorium!

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

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

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

Recommended : Are Residual DNA In mRNA Vaccines Dangerous?!

 

Scientists Call For mRNA Vaccine Moratorium : My Fact Check

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Fact #2 : It Regurgitates Long-Debunked Claims

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

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

COVID-19 Vaccine Clinical Trials Were Too Short?!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Low Absolute Risk Shows No Need To Vaccinate?!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

mRNA Vaccines Do Not Prevent Transmission?!

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

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

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

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

mRNA Vaccines Have A Lot Of AESIs?!

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

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

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

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

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

Lots Of Deaths + Hospitalisation Were Reported?!

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

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

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

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

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

Autopsy Reports Show Deaths Caused By Vaccines?!

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

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

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

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

Recommended : Did mRNA Vaccines Trigger Severe Nerve Damage?!

mRNA Vaccines Are Contaminated By DNA?!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

Please Support My Work!

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

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

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

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

 

Recommended Reading

Go Back To > Fact Check | HealthTech ARP

 

Support Tech ARP!

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

FDA Now Allows Experiments On People Without Consent?!

Does the FDA now allow medical experiments on people without their knowledge or informed consent?!

Take a look at the viral claim by US Presidential candidate Robert F. Kennedy Jr., and find out what the facts really are!

 

Claim : FDA Now Allows Experiments On People Without Consent!

People are sharing a series of posts (here, here, here, and here) on X (formerly Twitter) by Robert F. Kennedy Jr., who claimed or suggested that the FDA just issued a new ruling allowing clinical trials to be conducted on people without their knowledge or informed consent!

New FDA ruling exempts clinical trials with “minimal risk” from informed consent. That means that researchers can experiment on you without your knowledge or permission, so long as they claim that what they are testing is “safe.”

This is a direct violation of the Nuremberg Code.

Can you think of any therapy that all the experts agreed was perfectly safe, but turned out not to be?

This opens the door for testing of new “medicines” via the water supply or aerosolized spraying. It wouldn’t be the first time. To name one example of many, the U.S. army tested germ warfare dispersion in the NYC subway in 1966.

Recommended : Did FDA change law to allow medical research without consent?!

 

Truth : FDA Has Long Allowed Some Experiments On People Without Consent!

This is yet another example of MISINFORMATION created / spread by Robert F. Kennedy Jr., and here are the reasons why…

Fact #1 : Medical Research Without Consent Was Permitted Since 1991

Let me just start by pointing out that the the FDA has permitted “minimal risk” medical research without informed consent since 18 June 1991, when the Common Rule was issued (Federal Register archive PDF).

At that time, the Common Rule had four criteria for the waiver or alteration of informed consent for minimal risk research. It was then revised on 19 January 2017, to add a fifth criteria – “[i]f the research involves using identifiable private information or identifiable biospecimens, the research could not practicably be carried out without using such information or biospecimens in an identifiable format”.

So the claim by Robert F. Kennedy Jr. that it was a recent 21 December 2023 FDA ruling (PDF) called “Institutional Review Board Waiver or Alteration of Informed Consent for Minimal Risk Clinical Investigations” that exempts “minimal risk” clinical trials from informed consent is false.

This was specifically mentioned in Section III A. of the FDA ruling, so it is odd that Robert F. Kennedy Jr. would make such a claim.

Fact #2 : Final FDA Rule Has Strict Limits

The new FDA rule basically allows Institutional Review Boards (IRBs) to decide on the waiver or alteration of informed consent for “certain minimal risk clinical investigations”.

FDA is issuing this final rule to permit an IRB waiver or alteration of informed consent in limited circumstances, consistent with the Cures Act. We believe that this rule will both safeguard the rights, safety, and welfare of human subjects and enable minimal risk clinical investigations that may facilitate medical advances and promote public health.

To be clear – the FDA is not simply waiving the need for informed consent where researchers can simply “claim that what they are testing is safe“. Such medical research have to be approved by an Institutional Review Board (IRB).

Recommended : Did FDA just admit Pfizer vaccine has Graphene Oxide?!

Fact #3 : Informed Consent Waiver Only Permitted For Minimal Risk

In addition, I should point out that IRBs are only allowed to grant or alter informed consent waivers for research that meet FDA’s definition of “minimal risk”:

“Minimal risk” means that the probability and magnitude of harm or discomfort anticipated in the research are not greater in and of themselves than those ordinarily encountered in daily life or during the performance of routine physical or psychological examinations or tests.

In short – the new FDA rule strictly limits the waiver or alteration of informed consent only to “minimal risk” research in which the subjects are not exposed to harm or discomfort that they would not normally experience in their daily life, or routine examinations.

It would therefore not be possible to get IRB approval for the “testing of new medicines via the water supply or aerolized spraying” as Robert F. Kennedy Jr. suggested.

Fact #4 : FDA Amended Its Rules To Comply With Law

The FDA isn’t simply creating this new rule for fun. It was more or less compelled to do so by the 21st Century Cures Act (Cures Act), which was was signed into law by President Barack Obama on 16 December 2016.

Amongst its provisions were Section 3024, which specifically amended sections 505(i)(4) and 520(g)(3) of the FD&C Act (21 U.S.C. 355(i)(4) and 360j(g)(3)) to “provide FDA with the authority to permit an exception from informed consent requirements when the proposed clinical testing poses no more than minimal risk to the human subject and includes appropriate safeguards to protect the rights, safety, and welfare of the human subject”.

In addition, Section 3023 of the Cures Act directs the Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) to “harmonize differences between the HHS Human Subject Regulations and the FDA Human Subject Regulations,” to the extent practicable and consistent with other statutory provisions.

In short – the US FDA was only issuing its final ruling based on the Cures Act, which was enacted by Congress and signed into law by President Obama.

Recommended : Did US FDA Just Ban Pfizer + Moderna Vaccines?!

Fact #5 : FDA Amendment Was Open For Public Comment

It is odd that concerned citizens like Robert F. Kennedy Jr. are only now complaining about the FDA rule amendment, when it was open for public comment years ago!

The FDA issued the proposed rule changes in the Federal Register of 15 November 2018, and asked the public to submit any electronic or written comments to the proposed rule changes by 15 January 2019.

In the end, the FDA received fewer than 50 comment letters from the academia, Institutional Review Boards (IRBs), public advocacy groups, industry, trade organizations, public health organizations, individuals, and other organizations.

Where were these concerned citizens when the FDA asked for their comments, before making its decision on the final rule?

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

 

Please Support My Work!

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

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

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

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

 

Recommended Reading

Go Back To > Fact Check | ScienceTech ARP

 

Support Tech ARP!

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

COVID-19 mRNA Vaccines Lessons Learned Fact Check!

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

 

COVID-19 mRNA Vaccines: Lessons Learned??

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

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

Recommended : Are Residual DNA In mRNA Vaccines Dangerous?!

 

COVID-19 mRNA Vaccines Lessons Learned : My Fact Check

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

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

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

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

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

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

Fact #2 : It Regurgitates Long-Debunked Claims

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

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

COVID-19 Vaccine Clinical Trials Were Too Short?!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Low Absolute Risk Shows No Need To Vaccinate?!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Recommended : Hybrid Immunity Better Than Natural / Vaccine Immunity!

mRNA Vaccines Do Not Prevent Transmission?!

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

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

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

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

mRNA Vaccines Have A Lot Of AESIs?!

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

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

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

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

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

Lots Of Deaths + Hospitalisation Were Reported?!

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

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

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

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

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

Autopsy Reports Show Deaths Caused By Vaccines?!

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

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

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

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

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

mRNA Vaccines Are Contaminated By DNA?!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

Please Support My Work!

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

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

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

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

 

Recommended Reading

Go Back To > Fact Check | HealthTech ARP

 

Support Tech ARP!

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

Did FDA change law to allow medical research without consent?!

Did the US FDA just quietly amend the 21st Century Cures Act to allow medical research without consent?!

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

 

Claim : FDA Changed Law To Allow Medical Research Without Consent!

People are sharing an article (archive) by The People’s Voice (formerly NewsPunch), which claims that the US FDA just quietly amended the 21st Century Cures Act to allow medical research without consent!

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

FDA Just Quietly, Deceitfully Changed Law To Allow ‘Medical Research Without Consent’

Recommended : Did FDA just admit Pfizer vaccine has Graphene Oxide?!

 

Truth : FDA Did Not Change Law To Allow Medical Research Without Consent!

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

Fact #1 : FDA Did Not Change Any Law

The People’s Voice article claimed that the US FDA just amended the 21st Century Cures Act to allow “medical research without consent” in certain situations. That’s simply not true, and is easily proven false.

All you have to do is read the FDA’s final ruling on the “Institutional Review Board Waiver or Alteration of Informed Consent for Minimal Risk Clinical Investigations“.

As the summary at the top explained, the FDA was amending its own regulations (not any law), to implement a provision of the 21st Century Cures Act (Cures Act).

The Food and Drug Administration (FDA, the Agency, or we) is issuing a final rule to amend its regulations to implement a provision of the 21st Century Cures Act (Cures Act).

The People’s Voice article provided the same link, so it is certainly aware of what it actually said.

Fact #2 : Congress Enacts Laws, Not Agencies

For the benefit of people who are not aware of how laws are enacted or amended in the United States, I should point out that Congress is the legislative branch of the US government.

Established by Article 1 of the US Constitution, the Legislative Branch consists of the House of Representatives, and the Senate. Together, they are known as the United States Congress.

Only the US Congress that has the power to enact and/or amend laws in the United States of America. Not the executive branch, or the judicial branch. Certainly not government agencies like the FDA, which fall under the executive branch.

Recommended : Did WHO Unveil Global Police Force With Arrest Powers?!

Fact #3 : Cures Act Permitted FDA Amendment In 2016

The 21st Century Cures Act (Cures Act) was signed into law by then President Barack Obama on 16 December 2016.

Amongst its provisions were Section 3024, which specifically amended sections 505(i)(4) and 520(g)(3) of the FD&C Act (21 U.S.C. 355(i)(4) and 360j(g)(3)) to “provide FDA with the authority to permit an exception from informed consent requirements when the proposed clinical testing poses no more than minimal risk to the human subject and includes appropriate safeguards to protect the rights, safety, and welfare of the human subject”.

In addition, Section 3023 of the Cures Act directs the Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) to “harmonize differences between the HHS Human Subject Regulations and the FDA Human Subject Regulations,” to the extent practicable and consistent with other statutory provisions.

In short – the US FDA was only issuing its final ruling based on the Cures Act, which was enacted by Congress and signed into law by the President.

Fact #4 : Medical Research Without Consent Was Permitted Since 1991

What The People’s Voice article does not point out is that minimal risk medical research without informed consent has been permitted since 18 June 1991, when the Common Rule was issued (Federal Register archive PDF).

At that time, the Common Rule had four criteria for the waiver or alteration of informed consent for minimal risk research. It was revised on 19 January 2017, to add a fifth criteria – “[i]f the research involves using identifiable private information or identifiable biospecimens, the research could not practicably be carried out without using such information or biospecimens in an identifiable format”.

Recommended : Are Residual DNA In mRNA Vaccines Dangerous?!

Fact #5 : FDA Amendment Was Open For Public Comment

The People’s Voice article suggested that the FDA “quietly” made those amendments out of sight and public discourse. That’s simply not true.

The FDA issued the proposed rule changes in the Federal Register of 15 November 2018, and asked the public to submit any electronic or written comments to the proposed rule changes by 15 January 2019.

In the end, the FDA received fewer than 50 comment letters from the academia, Institutional Review Boards (IRBs), public advocacy groups, industry, trade organizations, public health organizations, individuals, and other organizations.

Fact #6 : Amendment Does Not Affect Informed Consent For Vaccinations

The People’s Voice article suggested that the removal of consent for minimal risk medical research may eventually spill over to allowing people to be injected without informed consent. That’s simply not true.

Not only was the FDA ruling an amendment of existing rules which have permitted minimal risk without informed consent since 1991, it has nothing to do with informed consent for medical treatments and/or vaccinations.

The FDA final ruling cannot be used to void the need for informed consent for any medical treatment and/or injections of drugs and vaccines. The People’s Voice article certainly offered no evidence to back up its claims or suggestions.

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

Please Support My Work!

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

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

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

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

 

Recommended Reading

Go Back To > Fact Check | ScienceTech ARP

 

Support Tech ARP!

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

Pfizer Vaccine Causes Autism? Rats Are Not Mini Humans!

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

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

 

Claim : Study Suggests Pfizer mRNA Vaccine May Cause Autism!

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

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

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

Fact #1 : mRNA Vaccines Are Not Gene Therapies

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

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

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

Fact #2 : Bridging Studies Do Not Require Long Trials

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Fact #4 : It Was An Animal Study

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

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

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

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

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

Fact #5 : Pfizer Vaccine Dose Was Extremely High

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Fact #7 : Authors Warned Against Drawing Conclusions

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

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

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

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

 

Please Support My Work!

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

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

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

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

 

Recommended Reading

Go Back To > Fact Check | HealthTech ARP

 

Support Tech ARP!

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

Did Autopsies Show COVID-19 Vaccines Caused Deaths?!

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

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

 

Claim : Autopsies Show COVID-19 Vaccines Caused Deaths!

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

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

Autopsies Show COVID-19 Vaccines Likely Caused Deaths: Study

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

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

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

Fact #2 : Researchers Did Not Conduct Those Autopsies

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

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

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

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

Recommended : Did mRNA Vaccines Trigger Severe Nerve Damage?!

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

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

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

Fact #4 : Vaccine Myocarditis Seen Mostly In Young Males

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

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

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

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

Fact #5 : Myocarditis Also Occurs Naturally

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

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

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

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

Fact #6 : COVID-19 Myocarditis Is More Common

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

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

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

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

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

Recommended : Are Residual DNA In mRNA Vaccines Dangerous?!

Fact #8 : Vaccine Benefits Far Outweighs The Risks

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

Please Support My Work!

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

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

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

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

 

Recommended Reading

Go Back To > Fact Check | HealthTech ARP

 

Support Tech ARP!

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

Did China Just Develop 100% Lethal COVID Virus?!

Did scientists in China just develop a new COVID virus that is 100% lethal to “humanised” mice?!

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

 

Claim : China Just Developed 100% Lethal COVID Virus!

People are sharing articles with alarming headlines that claim or suggest that scientists in China just developed a new COVID virus that is 100% lethal to “humanised” mice!

China Develops New Covid Strain With 100% Mortality In Humanised Mice

Chinese lab crafts mutant COVID-19 strain with 100% kill rate in ‘humanized’ mice

Chinese scientists ‘create’ a mutant coronavirus strain that attacks the BRAIN and has a 100% kill rate in mice

China continues experiments with ‘lethal’ COVID strain

China toys with deadly new COVID strain: When will the madness end?

As such, some people are claiming on social media that Chinese scientists were creating bioweapons or Disease X through Gain-of-Function experiments:

DiedSuddenly : New study shows that a new lab created disease out of China (Disease X) has a 100% fatality rate in humanized mice by infecting the nervous system.

Recommended : New DARPA Docs Confirm COVID-19 Was Created In China?!

 

Truth : China Did Not Develop New COVID Virus!

Let’s take a look at the study, and find out why scientists in China did not actually developed a new lethal COVID strain!

Fact #1 : Chinese Study Has Not Been Peer-Reviewed

First, I should also point out that the Chinese study, which was conducted by Lai Wei et. al. has not been peer-reviewed – the first step or many in the scientific review process.

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

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

Fact #2 : COVID-19 Means Coronavirus Disease 2019

I should also point out that COVID-19 is short for Coronavirus Disease 2019, and it refers to the disease, not the virus. COVID-19 is not the name of the virus, which is called SARS-CoV-2.

Even though there are many diseases caused by coronaviruses, there is only one disease named under this convention, which is COVID-19, and it is caused by the SARS-CoV-2 virus. So it would be wrong to refer to other coronaviruses, or the diseases that they cause, as COVID.

Fact #3 : Chinese Study Was Done On GX_P2V Virus

The Chinese study did not perform any research on the COVID-19 coronavirus called SARS-CoV-2. Instead, it was conducted on a mutated variant of GX_P2V, which is a pangolin coronavirus.

As they had never studied this GX_P2V mutant variant, the Chinese scientists decided to clone and test its pathogenicity in hACE2 mice.

Recommended : Jeffrey Epstein List : Watch Out For Fake Lists!

Fact #4 : The GX_P2V Virus Mutated In Cell Culture

Right at the beginning, the study authors pointed out that they did not “create” the GX_P2V virus. Instead, it spontaneously mutated when the original GX/2017 virus was cultured in 2017.

  • A coronavirus related to SARS-CoV-2 was identified prior to the COVID-19 pandemic in 2017. Hence, it was called GX/2017.
  • The virus was cultured in 2017, and the isolate was called GX_P2V.
  • The GX_P2V virus isolate was found to infect both golden hamsters and hACE2 mice (transgenic mice that express the human ACE2 receptor), although it did not appear to cause disease.
  • It was later discovered that the virus mutated while it was cultured into a mutant that had 104 nucleotides deleted at the 3′-UTR site. This mutated variant was named as GX_P2V(short_3UTR).

From what was written in the paper, the Chinese scientists were not conducting Gain-of-Function (GoF) experiments. The GX_P2V coronavirus mutated on its own while being cultured.

The scientists even pointed out in their paper that coronaviruses have a “propensity” to “undergo rapid adaptive mutation in cell culture”. They were merely testing this mutant that was discovered earlier, but they did not test before.

Fact #5 : Type Of hACE2 Mice Used May Affect Results

hACE2 mice are transgenic mice that were developed to express the human ACE2 (Angiotensin-converting enzyme 2) receptor. Multiple hACE2 mice models have been created (example), expressing the human ACE2 in different tissues.

The Lai Wei et. al. study used the hACE2 mouse model from Beijing SpePharm Biotechnology Company, which was created using the random integration technology.

As the authors noted, the company has not published any papers on its mouse model, but their results suggest that the human ACE2 may be “highly expressed” in the brain of this particular hACE2 mouse model. If so, that could explain why the infection caused death through brain infection.

The authors also noted that these hACE2 mice had “abnormal physiology”, with “relatively reduced serum triglyceride, cholesterol, and lipase levels”.

Recommended : Did US Biolabs In Ukraine Create COVID-19 Virus?!

Fact #6 : An Earlier Study Contradicted Their Findings

The study authors pointed out that their report was the “first” to show that a pangolin coronavirus can cause 100% mortality in hACE2 mice. They also pointed out that their results were “inconsistent” with that of the earlier Zhengli Shi et. al. study.

The Zhengli Shi et. al. study (source), which tested the GX_P2V(short_3UTR) mutant variant, found that it caused lung infections without severe disease in two different hACE2 mouse models.

Our findings are evidently inconsistent with those of Zhengli Shi et al. (5), who tested the virulence of GX_P2V in two different hACE2 mouse models.

The authors cautioned that there may be differences between their GX_P2V(short_3UTR) mutant variants as they may have mutated further during their respective laboratory cultures.

Again, this does not mean that both teams were conducting Gain-of-Function (GoF) modification of the pangolin coronaviruses. They were testing a variant of the GX_P2V pangolin coronavirus that spontaneously mutated through cell culture adaptation.

But these contradictory findings of the GX_P2V(short_3UTR) mutant means there is more work to be done. For certain, the Lai Wei et. al. study would need to be peer-reviewed, and verified through replication.

In short – more research is needed, and no, Chinese scientists did not just create a bioweapon…

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 > Health | Fact CheckTech ARP

 

Support Tech ARP!

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

Baidu Denies ERNIE Bot Link To Chinese Military Research!

Baidu just denied any link between its ERNIE Bot generative AI service, and a Chinese military AI!

 

SCMP : Baidu ERNIE Bot Linked To Chinese Military!

On 12 January 2024, the South China Morning Post (SCMP) reported that a research laboratory under the Strategic Support Force cyberwarfare division of the People’s Liberation Army “forged a physical link” between its AI system, and large language models in China, specifically the Baidu ERNIE Bot, and the iFLYTEK Spark.

According to SCMP, the project was detailed in a peer-reviewed paper published in the December 2023 issue of the Chinese academic journal, Command Control & Simulation. It also reported this as the first time the Chinese military has publicly confirmed its use of commercial large language models.

According to scientists involved in the project, a research laboratory with the People’s Liberation Army’s (PLA) Strategic Support Force, which oversees the Chinese military’s space, cyber, intelligence and electronic warfare, has forged a physical link between its AI system and Baidu’s Ernie and iFlyTek’s Spark, which are large language models similar to ChatGPT.

The military AI can convert vast amounts of sensor data and information reported by frontline units into descriptive language or images and relay them to the commercial models. After they confirm they understand, the military AI automatically generates prompts for deeper exchange on various tasks such as combat simulations. The entire process is completely free of human involvement.

The paper by Sun Yifeng and his team from the PLA’s Information Engineering University, discussed how they fed military AI data on the 2011 US military intervention in Libya to large language models like the Baidu ERNIE Bot, and after several rounds of dialogue, they were able to predict the US military’s combat strategy.

In the paper, Sun’s team discussed one of their experiments that simulated a US military invasion of Libya in 2011. The military AI provided information about the weapons and deployment of both armies to the large language models. After several rounds of dialogue, the models successfully predicted the next move of the US military.

After the publication of that story, Baidu’s shares fell by more than 11.5%, amidst fears that such a direct link to the Chinese military would result in US sanctions, not unlike what happened to HUAWEI.

Recommended : Were Chinese Missiles Really Filled With Water?!

 

Baidu Denies ERNIE Bot Link To Chinese Military Research!

Initially, Baidu only stated that it has no knowledge of the research project:

We have no knowledge of the research project, and if our large language model was used, it would have been the version that is publicly available online

However, after its stock price fell, Baidu issued a stronger denial on 15 January 2024.

Baidu stated that it did not have any “business collaboration” with Sun Yifeng’s team, or the PLA’s Information Engineering University, and stated that if ERNIE Bot was used in that research, it would have been the publicly-available version.

ERNIE Bot is available to and used by the general public.

The academic paper, published by scholars at a Chinese university, described how the authors built prompts and received responses from LLMs, using the functions available to any user interacting with generative AI tools.

Baidu has not engaged in any business collaboration or provided any tailored service to authors of the academic paper or any institutions with which they are affiliated.

Baidu also sated that SCMP has since “clarified and corrected” its report.

The South China Morning Post, the first media outlet that reported on this academic paper, has clarified and corrected its original media report.

SCMP removed its reference to a physical link between Ernie Bot and any Chinese military AI system, amending it t o say that the PLA laboratory tested its AI system system on Baidu Ernie and iFLYTEK Spark.

 

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.

[/su_note]

 

Recommended Reading

Go Back To > Business | ComputerTech ARP

 

Support Tech ARP!

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

Did New Study Show Pfizer mRNA Vaccine Causes Autism?!

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

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

 

Claim : Study Shows Pfizer mRNA Vaccine Causes Autism!

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

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

Supported by behavioral tests & autopsies detecting changes in brain!

The study suggests plausible mechanisms!

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

Recommended : Are Residual DNA In mRNA Vaccines Dangerous?!

 

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

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

Fact #1 : It Was An Animal Study

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

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

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

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

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

Fact #2 : Pfizer Vaccine Dose Was Extremely High

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Fact #4 : Authors Warned Against Drawing Conclusions

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

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

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

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

 

Please Support My Work!

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

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

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

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

 

Recommended Reading

Go Back To > Fact Check | HealthTech ARP

 

Support Tech ARP!

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

Did Norway Study Show mRNA Vaccine Danger In Children?!

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

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

 

Claim : Norway Study Shows mRNA Vaccine Danger In Children!

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

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

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

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

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

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

Fact #2 : It Was A Retrospective Cohort Study

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

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

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

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

Fact #3 : Risk Of Adverse Events Were Low

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

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

Recommended : Did mRNA Vaccines Trigger Severe Nerve Damage?!

Fact #4 : Lymphadenopathy Was Most Common Event

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

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

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

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

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

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

Fact #5 : Study Found No Vaccine Link To Deaths

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

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

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

Fact #6 : Study Found No Vaccine Link To Arrhythmia 

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

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

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

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

Fact #7 : Study Confirmed Existing mRNA Vaccine Risks

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

Please Support My Work!

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

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

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

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

 

Recommended Reading

Go Back To > Fact Check | HealthTech ARP

 

Support Tech ARP!

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

Is Australia Building mRNA Vaccine Cardiac Arrest Registry?!

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

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

 

Claim : Australia Is Building mRNA Vaccine Cardiac Arrest Registry!

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

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

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

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

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Fact #4 : US CARES Registry Started In 2004

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

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

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

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

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

 

Please Support My Work!

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

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

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

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

 

Recommended Reading

Go Back To > Fact Check | HealthTech ARP

 

Support Tech ARP!

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