Tag Archives: Robert F. Kennedy Jr.

Did Dr. Anthony Fauci kill 330K children in illegal experiments?!

Did Dr. Anthony Fauci kill 330K children in illegal experiments and dump their bodies in mass graves?! Take a look at the viral claim, and find out what the facts really are!

Claim : Dr. Anthony Fauci killed 330K children in illegal experiments!

People are sharing an article (archive) by The People’s Voice (formerly NewsPunch), which claimed or suggested that Dr. Anthony Fauci killed 330K children in illegal experiments, and dumped their bodies in mass graves!

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

RFK Jr: Fauci Must Be Prosecuted For 330K Murders, As Mass Graves Found Outside NYC

The mass graves of thousands of vulnerable children killed in illegal experiments by Dr. Anthony Fauci will used as evidence against Dr. Anthony Fauci when he is charged with crimes against humanity according to Robert F. Kennedy Jr.

RFK Jr. discusses how Fauci forced people infected with AIDS to take his deadly drug AZT which ended up killing north of 330,000 people.

In 1992, under the direction of Dr. Fauci, the NIAID funded drug trials on supposedly HIV positive children. I say “supposedly” because we now know that many of the children were not actually infected with HIV.

These children, most of whom were orphans, tested positive via “faulty” or some say “rigged” PCR tests administered through New York’s Child Welfare Department, who then handed the children over to Fauci, no questions asked, for the deadly experiments.

The nurses administering the drugs were lied to by Fauci who explicitly told them that all adverse side effects they witnessed in the children were being caused by the HIV infection and not the drugs.

Fauci was hell-bent on seeing this depraved experiment through to its conclusion and the proof of his psychopathic ambition can be seen in the mass graves found by investigators in New York.

When the children resisted Fauci’s deadly drugs, they were brought to Columbia Presbyterian Hospital where plastic tubes were surgically inserted into their stomachs.

When the children died of the deadly drugs, their bodies were simply tossed into a large unmarked mass grave in Hawthorne, New York — a large pit with AstroTurf thrown over it.

Years later Vera Sharav told Robert F. Kennedy Jr. that Fauci “just brushed all those dead babies under the rug. They were collateral damage in his career ambitions.”

She said that at least 80 children died from Fauci’s drug torture chamber in the Manhattan foster home alone.

In the documentary, a BBC investigative reporter describes finding the mass graves. She said: “I found the mass graves at Gate of Heaven cemetery in Hawthorne, New York…. I couldn’t believe my eyes. It was a very large pit with AstroTurf thrown over it…. Under it one could see dozens of plain wooden coffins … there may have been 100 of them.”

The New York City Administration of Child Services commissioned a four-year investigation of Fauci’s Dr. Mengele–style “experiments” and found that eighty of the 532 children who participated in Fauci’s “clinical trials” died and twenty-five died while enrolled in a medication trial.

Show less

Truth : Dr. Anthony Fauci did not kill 330K children in illegal experiments!

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

No mass graves of children were found in NYC

Let me start by pointing out that no mass graves of 330,000 children were discovered in New York.

If any mass grave was found in NYC, whether it contained adults or children, it would have been reported widely by media outlets all over the world, and resulted in universal outrage, and sparked criminal investigations.

Yet, there has been no media coverage, no outrage on social media, no criminal investigation. Nada. Zilch. That’s because no mass grave containing 330,000 children were found in New York!

Unsurprisingly, The People’s Voice article did not provide any evidence to back up its claims.

Only 532 children participated in HIV drug trial

The People’s Voice article title and lede suggests that thousands of children were killed in “illegal experiments” conducted by Dr. Anthony Fauci.

However, the 330,000 figure was only mentioned by Robert F. Kennedy Jr. who quoted that as an estimate of people (not children) infected with AIDS who died after taking the HIV drug, AZT (Azidothymidine).

There is no evidence 330,000 children died from any HIV drug trial, never mind buried in mass graves in Hawthorne, New York. In fact, The People’s Voice article later mentioned that only “532 children” participated in the HIV drug trials!

Claims were debunked years ago

These claims originate from an article called “The House That AIDS Built” that was written and posted in 2004 by Liam Scheff, and was the basis for the BBC documentary called “Guinea Pig Kids“.

The report, which does not mention Dr. Anthony Fauci, claimed that children were given lethal HIV drugs and forcibly separated from their parents.

However, the allegations were investigated by the Vera Institute of Justice, and found to be false. In its 2009 report (PDF), Vera found that there was little to no evidence to support those allegations. Here’s a quote:

Vera reviewers found little or no evidence in the information examined for some of the concerns that prompted Children’s Services to initiate this study.

Many children—inside and outside of foster care and clinical trials—died because of complications of HIV/AIDS during the late 1980s and 1990s. Eighty of the 532 children who participated in clinical trials or observational studies died while in foster care; 25 of them died while enrolled in a medication trial. Vera medical staff did not find, however, that any child’s death was caused directly by clinical trial medication.

While some of the children enrolled in the HIV drug trials suffered side effects, the doctors monitoring them adjusted their treatments to minimise those side effects.

The child welfare files contained information indicating that some children experienced serious toxicities, or side effects, from trial medications, such as reduced liver function or severe anemia. These toxicities were consistent with toxicities described in published articles about the trials. Vera reviewers found many instances where a physician made adjustments to a child’s treatment in light of these problems as required by the clinical trial protocol.

To be clear – Vera found that no children died as a direct result of taking the HIV drug, AZT.

BBC apologised for Guinea Pig Kids documentary

In October 2007, the BBC apologised for producing and airing the documentary, Guinea Pig Kids, that was based on the debunked article on HIV drug trials.

The BBC has produced thousands of hours of current affairs programming since 2004. This was a blip, which is why it’s been taken so seriously.

The BBC also admitted that the filmmaker falsely tried to “create an association between the [clinical] trials and a loss of parental rights“, and it also acknowledged that the film was biased towards the views of HIV “denialists“.

The BBC head of editorial complaints Fraser Steel also apologised on behalf of the BBC:

I hope you will accept my apologies, on behalf of the BBC, for the deficiencies we found in the programme and the associated website material

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 think twice about sharing 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!

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 | Health | Tech ARP

Support Tech ARP!

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

Are 3 doses of Pfizer COVID-19 vaccine safe for babies?

Leave a reply

The CDC just recommended 3 doses of the Pfizer COVID-19 vaccine for babies 6 months and older – is that safe? Here is what you need to know…

Are 3 doses of Pfizer COVID-19 vaccine safe for babies?

The Children’s Health Defense, which is chaired by Robert F. Kennedy Jr., just posted an article (archive) which claims or suggests that it might not be safe for babies to receive 3 doses of the Pfizer COVID-19 vaccine because it’s unlicensed for children under 12.

There Are No Licensed COVID Vaccines for Kids Under 12 — But CDC Wants Babies to Get 3 Pfizer Shots by Age 9 Months

According to the latest CDC guidance, 9-month-old babies must receive multiple doses of an unlicensed mRNA COVID-19 vaccine to be considered “up to date” with their COVID-19 vaccination.

Nine-month-old babies must receive multiple doses of an unlicensed mRNA COVID-19 vaccine to be considered “up to date” with their COVID-19 vaccination, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).

The CDC’s updated guidance, issued Aug. 30, states that children — as young as 6 months old — should get either two doses of the 2024-2025 Moderna vaccine or three doses of the 2024-2025 Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine.

If getting the new Pfizer shot, the baby is supposed to receive the first dose at 6 months, the second dose three weeks later and the third dose at least eight weeks after the second dose — meaning, that by 9 months old, babies are supposed to have received three Pfizer shots.

Children’s Health Defense (CHD) CEO Mary Holland told The Defender, “The earlier COVID shots have been proven unsafe and ineffective. Now we’re asked to believe that newer versions are miraculously safe and effective?”

“This is an insult to people’s intelligence,” she said, “I pray that parents will have the good sense to say no to these dangerous and unnecessary shots for babies.”

As of July 28, 37,814 deaths following COVID-19 vaccination had been reported to VAERS, the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System, run by the FDA and CDC.

Show less

It has since been shared and promoted as evidence that the Pfizer COVID-19 vaccine is dangerous for babies.

Robert F. Kennedy Jr. : The CDC recommends THREE Pfizer Covid shots for babies by age 9 months. These shots are unsafe and ineffective, especially over the long term. And babies are at near-zero risk from Covid. So whose benefit is the CDC serving here?

Liz Churchill : This is murder.

Mary Talley Bowden : All babies are expected to get 3 C0VID shots before their 1st birthday.

Eliminating mandates is not enough.
All risk, no benefit.
Profits over safety.
Any other product would have been pulled off the market a long time ago.

Show less

CDC : 3 doses of Pfizer COVID-19 vaccine are safe + effective for babies

In this article, I will go through some of their points, and show you what the facts really are!

Fact #1 : FDA authorised Pfizer COVID-19 vaccines for babies

First, let’s start by pointing out that the US FDA just authorised the latest, updated Pfizer COVID-19 vaccine, including for babies 6 months or older:

Unvaccinated individuals 6 months through 4 years of age are eligible to receive three doses of the updated, authorized Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 Vaccine or two doses of the updated, authorized Moderna COVID-19 Vaccine.

Individuals 6 months through 4 years of age who have previously been vaccinated against COVID-19 are eligible to receive one or two doses of the updated, authorized Moderna or Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccines (timing and number of doses to administer depends on the previous COVID-19 vaccine received).

In other words – there is nothing wrong with the CDC’s recommendation that the babies as young as 6 months old should receive 3 doses of the Pfizer COVID-19 vaccine.

Fact #2 : FDA authorised two COVID-19 vaccines for babies

In fact, the US FDA actually authorised two COVID-19 vaccines for babies 6 months and older (archive):

Moderna COVID-19 Vaccine (2024-2025 Formula) for individuals 6 months through 11 years of age
Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 Vaccine (2024-2025 Formula) for individuals 6 months through 11 years of age

So why is Children’s Health Defense article focusing only on the Pfizer COVID-19 vaccine? After all, the Moderna COVID-19 vaccine is also based on a similar mRNA platform.

Does this mean that Children’s Health Defense believes only the Pfizer COVID-19 vaccine is dangerous for babies, but not the Moderna COVID-19 vaccine? Why only Pfizer, but not Moderna – they didn’t say.

In that case, well, just go ahead and opt for the Moderna COVID-19 vaccine! Problem solved for people who are hesitant about the Pfizer COVID-19 vaccine for babies.

Fact #3 : EUA undergoes same approval process

In case you are wondering – the Pfizer COVID-19 vaccine has full FDA approval for children and adults who are 12 years and older, and is authorised for emergency use in children between 6 months and 11 years of age.

This does not mean that the Pfizer COVID-19 vaccine is dangerous or ineffective in children. After all, both EUA and full FDA approval undergo the same approval process, with this major difference in post-study follow-up:

EUA : At least half of the participants in the studies must be followed for at least two months after vaccination.
Full FDA Approval : All of the participants in the studies must be followed for at least six months.

In addition, full FDA approval requires more details on manufacturing plans and processes, as well as extra time for FDA to conduct oversight and inspections of manufacturing facilities.

You can read more about the differences between full FDA approval, and Emergency Use Authorisation (EUA) here.

Fact #4 : Pfizer COVID-19 vaccine was proven safe + effective for babies

As the Mayo Clinic points out, both the Pfizer and Moderna COVID-19 vaccines were tested to confirm their safety and effectiveness in children aged 6 months and older:

To find out the effectiveness of the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine for children ages 6 months through 4 and the Moderna COVID-19 vaccine for children ages 6 months through 17 years old, the FDA looked at the immune responses of children in these age groups after they were fully vaccinated.

The FDA compared those responses to the immune responses of young adults who’d been given higher doses of the same mRNA vaccine.

As with the other vaccines, side effects were recorded. Some of the children were monitored for safety for at least two months after being fully vaccinated.

So it would be false to suggest that the Pfizer or Moderna COVID-19 vaccine was never tested in babies as young as 6 months old.

Fact #5 : VAERS reports are unverified

The Children’s Health Defense article said that there were “37,814 deaths following COVID-19 vaccination had been reported to VAERS, the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System, run by the FDA and CDC.”

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

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

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

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 | Health | Tech ARP

Support Tech ARP!

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

Is Trump’s team planning to arrest elites for chemtrail crimes?!

Leave a reply

Is the Trump transition team planning to arrest elites for chemtrail crimes?! Take a look at the viral claim, and find out what the facts really are!

Claim : Trump team is planning to arrest elites for chemtrail crimes!

People are sharing an article (archive) by The People’s Voice (formerly NewsPunch), which claims or suggests that the Trump transition team is planning to arrest elites for chemtrail crimes!

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

Trump Insider: Arrest Warrants Ready for Elites Spraying ‘Genocidal’ Chemtrails

In a groundbreaking development, the Trump transition team are preparing to authorize officials to arrest elite figures allegedly involved in the covert operation of spraying chemtrails to manipulate weather patterns, control populations, and disperse harmful toxins, including aluminium and barium.

These high-level arrests are set to target those at the top who have orchestrated these activities, rather than the operational staff unaware of the full scope of their actions.

On Monday, Robert F. Kennedy Jr. sent shock waves through the corridors of power in D.C. and Davos when he promised to stop the government’s clandestine chemtrails operations poisoning Americans and citizens of other nations.

According to a Trump campaign team member, evidence is being gathered, arrest warrants prepared, and prosecutors readied to bring down the criminal cartel that has been using stratospheric spraying operations to advance their agenda of contamination and control:

Did you catch that? They are determined to go after those at the top, not the operational staff who may or may not be aware of the crimes they are involved in perpetrating.

It all began going wrong for the mainstream media when Kennedy Jr responded a video on X that featured footage of chemtrails planes and a voice over detailing secrets about the pilots who fly these machines.

As Kennedy Jr explained, chemtrails are not a conspiracy theory, they are a conspiracy crime, and as part of the Trump administration he will ensure that the perpetrators are exposed and bought to justice.

Show less

Truth : Trump team is not planning to arrest elites for chemtrail crimes!

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

Fact #1 : Trump campaign did not announce plans for chemtrail crimes

Let me start by simply pointing out that the Trump campaign did not announce any plans to arrest anyone for “chemtrail crimes”. That’s probably because there isn’t any actual law against chemtrails in the first place!

If the Trump campaign ever mentioned anything about arresting people for chemtrail crimes, it would have been reported widely, and mocked by scientists and people all over the world.

Of course, none of that ever happened. There was no legitimate media reporting, no mockery or howls of laughter on social media, nothing. Zilch. That’s because it was all made up.

Unsurprisingly, The People’s Voice article did not provide any actual evidence the Trump campaign is preparing to arrest people for “chemtrail crimes”.

Fact #2 : Chemtrails do not exist

The term “chemtrails” refers to the belief that condensation trails (contrails) left in the sky by high-flying aircraft are actually chemical or biological agents being deliberately spread for various nefarious purposes.

The truth is – chemtrails do not exist. The white trails you see behind airplanes flying at high altitudes are contrails – trails of water vapour from aircraft engines that condenses into ice crystals in the extremely cold air.

In fact, these contrails have been seen since aircraft were able to fly at high altitudes, and were prominent during World War 2, when contrails were often seen during high-altitude bombing missions.

On top of that, it would require many tens of thousands of people in the aviation industry to work in perfect unison to cover up an industry-wide conspiracy to spray people with chemicals or biological agents like mpox. In truth – such a conspiracy would have been exposed within hours, if not days.

Unsurprisingly, The People’s Voice article did not provide any evidence that chemtrails exist, much less are an actual crime that people can get arrested for, never mind evidence that the Trump campaign plans to arrest people for “chemtrail crimes”.

Fact #3 : 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.

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 | Politics | 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!

Robert F. Kennedy Jr. called chemtrails a crime – is he right?

Leave a reply

Robert F. Kennedy Jr. has just vowed to stop the crime of chemtrails! Take a look at what chemtrails are all about, and find out what the facts really are!

Robert F. Kennedy Jr. vows to stop the crime of chemtrails!

Robert F. Kennedy Jr. vowed to stop the crime of chemtrails, in response to a video on X (formerly Twitter), which purportedly shows a whistleblower pilot speaking about chemtrails.

Here is an excerpt of the article, which is long and (intentionally?) confusing, so feel free to skip to the next part for the facts!

Concerned Citizen : “I call them tanker terminators – we are paid more than any other pilot”

Chemtrail Pilot Whistleblower.

I’m convinced the majority of them are remotely operated – the tech obviously exists & there’s way too many.

Robert F. Kennedy Jr. : We are going to stop this crime.

This came after RFK Jr. suspended his US Presidential aspirations for a role in Donald Trump’s campaign. Donald Trump also said, on Sunday, that RFK Jr. would tackle health issues in a potential future Trump Administration.

His response suggests that a potential Trump Administration will “stop” that crime. Over 3 million people saw his reply, at the time I wrote this article.

Why Robert F. Kennedy Jr. is wrong about chemtrails!

In this article, I will go through some of the key claims about chemtrails, and share with you what the facts really are!

Fact #1 : Chemtrails do not exist

Chemtrail conspiracists believe that governments or corporations are using chemtrails to make people sick, control the population, test biological or chemical weapons, or change the weather.

The truth is – chemtrails do not exist. The white trails you see behind airplanes flying at high altitudes are contrails – short for condensation trails.

Contrails are usually trails of water vapour from aircraft engines that can condense into ice crystals inextremely cold air. Such engine contrails generally form at high altitudes – usually above 8,000 metres (26,000 feet), where the air temperature is below −36.5 °C (−34 °F), but can also form at lower altitudes if the air is cool and moist.

Contrails can also be triggered by changes in the air pressure over the wing surface, or in wingtip vortices. They can also form at the tips of rotating propellers. Such contrails are usually seen at low altitudes, particularly when the ambient humidity is high.

For example, you can see contrails forming at the tips of this Curtiss P-40 Warhawk’s propellers. Obviously, this antique warbird isn’t being used to spray chemicals or toxins through its propellers!

Fact #2 : Contrails can last a long time

According to atmospheric scientists, such contrails can dissipate after a short time, or persist for a long time – it all depends on the atmospheric conditions the plane is flying through.

If the air is very dry, contrails will not form, or will be short-lasting. But if the air is humid and cold, the water vapour will immediately condense into ice particles, which can persist for a long time.

Conspiracists insist that contrails persist for a long time in the sky because they contain chemicals or toxins that are used to control people’s minds, or make them sick. But that wouldn’t make sense, because those chemicals or toxins are persisting in the air for hours, instead of dispersing to affect people below.

Real villains who actually fund chemtrail missions will want the chemicals or toxins to quickly disperse to both avoid detection, and to rapidly affect the people below. They wouldn’t want the chemicals or toxins to stay impotently for hours high in the sky.

After all, letting the chemicals or toxins stay in the sky for a long time will let people on the ground get away from the danger zone, get under shelter, or put on protective gear – defeating the nefarious plan.

Interestingly, many of these chemtrail conspiracists do not run away, get under shelter, or put on protective gear whenever they see what they call “chemtrails”. Instead, they take photos and videos to post on social media. You have to wonder – is that what people normally do when they are being gassed???

Fact #3 : It’s silly to spray chemicals so high in the sky

It is also silly for any nefarious government or corporation to spray chemicals or toxins or mind control drugs so high in the sky.

Wind speeds increase with altitude. At normal flight altitude, the wind can actually reach speeds of 200 km/h or more. So anything that is sprayed at such a high altitude will get blown to a completely different area.

That’s why crop-dusters fly close to the ground – to ensure that the pesticide or herbicide only hits the targeted area, and not get blown elsewhere. Similarly, the US Air Force and US Army used low-flying aircraft, helicopters, and even armoured personnel carriers (APC) to spray Agent Orange during the Vietnam War.

On top of that, chemicals or toxins released at such high altitudes will get diluted as it disperses into the air. By the time it reaches the ground (if it ever does), it would be in really low concentrations. That’s the same reason why aircraft are allowed to dump fuel to reduce weight in emergency situations – tons of jet fuel can be dumped at high altitude because it will dissipate before reaching the ground.

Fact #4 : Contrails existed decades before chemtrail conspiracy

The chemtrail conspiracy only started in the late 1990s, after the US Air Force published a 1996 report about weather modification. However, such contrails were seen for decades before the first conspiracist even thought of the concept.

Large, long-lasting contrails have been seen since aircraft were able to fly at high altitudes, and were prominent during World War 2, when contrails were often seen during high-altitude bombing missions.

Flight crews on such high-altitude bombing missions have personally seen those contrails forming from their own aircraft, as well as aircraft around them. So have people on the ground.

Fact #5 : Contrails form over uninhabited areas too

Contrails are seen forming even when the aircraft is flying over open oceans and uninhabited areas.

Why would any nefarious government or corporation spray chemicals or biological agents over oceans and uninhabited areas? Surely they don’t plan to control the minds of fishes, or wildlife?

Fact #6 : It would be impossible to cover up such a conspiracy

Any large-scale program to spray chemicals or toxins using high-altitude aircraft would be impossible to conceal.

It would require many tens of thousands of people in the aviation industry to work in perfect unison to cover up an industry-wide conspiracy to spray people with chemicals or biological agents. Not only would the pilots and engineers be willing participants, it would require airlines to sacrifice space, weight and money on their flights to load those chemicals or biological agents.

Thousands more would also need to manufacture, store and transport those chemicals and biological agents, while thousands more people working at airports will need to assist in the storage and loading of those chemicals and biological agents.

It is inconceivable that so many people would be such willing participants in any program that would harm other people, including their family and friends. In truth – such a conspiracy would have been exposed within hours, if not days.

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 | Health | Tech ARP

Support Tech ARP!

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

Did 125-country study show vaccines killed 17 million people?!

Leave a reply

Did a new 125-country study show that COVID-19 vaccines killed 17 million people, while pandemic measures caused another 30.9 million deaths?! Take a look at the viral claim, and find out what the facts really are!

Claim : 125-country study shows vaccines killed 17 million people!

People are sharing an article (archive) by Children’s Health Defense, which claims or suggests that a new 125-country study show that COVID-19 vaccines not only killed 17 million people, pandemic measures caused another 30.9 million deaths!

Here is an excerpt of the article, which is long and (intentionally?) confusing, so feel free to skip to the next part for the facts!

Vaccines Caused 17 Million Deaths During Pandemic Plus 4 More Takeaways From Largest Excess Mortality Study to Date

A years-long investigation by Canadian researchers into excess mortality during the COVID-19 pandemic found that patterns of excess death globally could not be explained by a pandemic respiratory virus. Here are the data and logic behind some of the key findings.

A major investigation by Canadian researchers into excess mortality during the COVID-19 pandemic found that patterns of excess death globally could not be explained by a pandemic respiratory virus, The Defender reported last week.

Instead, the authors concluded the major causes of death globally stemmed from the public health establishment’s response, including lockdowns, harmful medical interventions and the COVID-19 vaccines.

The study by researchers from the nonprofit Correlation Research in the Public Interest analyzed excess mortality in 125 countries — about 35% of the global population — during the COVID-19 pandemic, beginning with the March 11, 2020, World Health Organization (WHO) pandemic declaration and ending on May 5, 2023, when the WHO declared the pandemic over.

The investigation concluded that “nothing special would have occurred in terms of mortality had a pandemic not been declared and had the declaration not been acted upon.”

The 521-page analysis — by Denis Rancourt, Ph.D., former physics professor and lead scientist for 23 years at the University of Ottawa, Correlation’s president Joseph Hickey, Ph.D., and Christian Linard, Ph.D., from the University of Quebec at Trois-Rivières — was published July 19.

Five takeaways from largest pandemic excess mortality study to date

1. Vaccines caused approximately 17 million deaths and vaccine toxicity increased with age and number of doses.

2. Pandemic interventions led to about 30.9 million deaths globally and vaccines didn’t prevent any deaths.

3. Many deaths were linked to respiratory viruses that could have been treated, but treatment was withheld.

4. There was essentially no excess mortality before the WHO declared a pandemic.

5. An ‘elegant’ methodology for analyzing all-cause and excess mortality.

Show less

Truth : 125-country study did not show vaccines killed 17 million people!

In this article, I will go through some of their points, and show you what the facts really are!

Fact #1 : It Appears To Be A “Refreshed” Self-Published Report

First, let’s start by pointing out that the paper in question (archive) is not a published scientific report. It is just another self-published report by Correlation Research in the Public Interest.

Also, the study does not appear to be new. Rather, it appears to be a “refreshed” version of their September 2023 report, which also claimed that COVID-19 vaccines killed 17 million people.

Fact #2 : It Has Not Been Peer-Reviewed

Like their previous report, there is no indication that this “refreshed” report has undergone even the basic peer review process.

In other words – subject matter experts have yet to inspect their data and findings, never mind verify and authenticate them. Interestingly, Children’s Health Defense failed to point this out in its very long article. Oops? Perhaps this should have been mentioned, no?

Fact #3 : There Was No Causal Link To Vaccines

The World Mortality Dataset is a big and critical tool for tracking all cause mortality for many countries around the world. However, it is ultimately just a database of all-cause mortality.

There is no way it can be used to demonstrate the causality of any particular cause of death. After all, it only tracks all-cause mortality! It doesn’t differentiate between death from a car accident or a fall, from death from COVID-19, or death from a vaccine injury.

So there is simply no way for anyone to use the World Mortality Dataset to determine the cause of any excess mortality. That would be like using data on all deaths from traffic accidents to claim that excess deaths were somehow caused by the use of electric vehicles. Doesn’t make sense? PRECISELY!

Perhaps that’s why the refreshed report is an insane 521 pages long – almost 3x longer than the previous report with its already crazy 180 pages. It’s like they were trying to mask their lack of conclusive data with nonsensical verbiage…

Fact #4 : World Mortality Dataset Study Identified COVID-19 As Cause

The two researchers who maintained the World Mortality Dataset (WMD) actually published a peer-reviewed study in the eLife journal, on 30 June 2021.

Unlike this “refreshed” Correlation Research report, this was an actual peer-reviewed study, published in a journal and the NIH National Library of Medicine. It was also written by the two people who knows the WMD database best – the very people maintaining and updating it!

Both Ariel Kaplinsky and Dmitry Kobak used their WMD data to look at the impact of COVID-19 on the all-cause mortality from 103 countries, and here was what they found:

We found that in several worst-affected countries (Peru, Ecuador, Bolivia, Mexico) the excess mortality was above 50% of the expected annual mortality (Peru, Ecuador, Bolivia, Mexico) or above 400 excess deaths per 100,000 population (Peru, Bulgaria, North Macedonia, Serbia). At the same time, in several other countries (e.g. Australia and New Zealand) mortality during the pandemic was below the usual level, presumably due to social distancing measures decreasing the non-COVID infectious mortality

Summing up the excess mortality estimates across all countries in our dataset gives 4.0 million excess deaths. In contrast, summing up the official COVID-19 death counts gives 2.9 million deaths, corresponding to the global undercount ratio of 1.4.

In other words – many people were likely being killed by COVID-19 infections, which appear to be undercounted by some 40%.

To be clear – their data do not show COVID-19 vaccines causing those deaths, never mind 17 million deaths!

Fact #5 : Correlation Does Not Imply Causation

It is also important to point out that just because there is a spike in excess deaths during the COVID-19 pandemic, it does not mean that the COVID-19 vaccines, or pandemic measures (like requiring face masks to be worn, or lockdowns) taken by various governments, were the cause.

For example, if you get pregnant after getting an mRNA vaccination, does it mean that the vaccine made you pregnant? Of course, not. It’s the same silly argument being made with the results of this South Korean study.

How can anyone establish any “causal relationship” between the spike in excess deaths during the COVID-19 pandemic and the mRNA vaccines based on these results? No one can, and that is why this ridiculously long report is just utter nonsense.

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 | Health | Tech ARP

Support Tech ARP!

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

Did RFK Jr Expose NIH Kickbacks From Moderna Vaccine?!

Leave a reply

Did RFK Jr. just expose the massive kickbacks the NIH gets from the Moderna mRNA vaccine?! Take a look at the viral claim, and find out what the facts really are!

Claim : RFK Jr. Exposed NIH Kickbacks From Moderna Vaccine!

People are sharing a video clip from a Dr. Phil interview, in which Robert F. Kennedy Jr. (RFK Jr) claimed or suggested that the NIH is getting kickbacks worth billions of dollars from the Moderna mRNA vaccine!

The Vigilant Fox / Erin Elizabeth / jamiemcintyre :

Dr. Phil Outraged as RFK Jr. Exposes NIH Kickbacks from Moderna Vaccine

Not only does the NIH own half of the Moderna shots, raking in billions of dollars, but 4 to 6 high-level deputies under Fauci pocket a staggering $150,000 a year forever from it.

https://www.techarp.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/07/RFK-Jr-NIH-kickbacks-from-Moderna-vaccine-video-small.mp4?_=1

Truth : RFK Jr. Did Not Expose NIH Kickbacks From Moderna Vaccine!

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

Fact #1 : NIH Is Not Getting Kickbacks From Moderna

Let me start by pointing out that the NIH isn’t getting kickbacks from the Moderna COVID-19 vaccine. Unsurprisingly, Robert F. Kennedy Jr. never provided any actual evidence to back up his claims.

The truth is – the NIH is merely asserting its intellectual property rights to licence technologies used in the creation of the Moderna mRNA vaccine for COVID-19. This is no different from how commercial companies licence out their technologies for other companies to use in their own products.

As Axios pointed out way back in June 2020, the National Institutes of Health (NIH) often invents basic scientific technologies that it licences out to pharmaceutical companies. As the NIH Director then, Dr. Francis Collins said in May 2020, “We do have some particular stake in the intellectual property” behind the Moderna COVID-19 vaccine.

Moderna ultimately licensed two technologies developed at the NIH for use in its mRNA vaccine for COVID-19. By the end of 2021, seven other pharmaceutical companies (including BioNTech) also paid royalties for using the same techniques in their COVID-19 vaccines.

This isn’t a kickback / bribery. It is basic common sense to licence NIH technologies to commercial companies, instead of letting them use them for free! What exactly is wrong with that?

Does RFK Jr. prefer that the NIH let Moderna use those technologies for free??? Why should Moderna not pay NIH for the work done by its researchers???

Fact #2 : US Government + Taxpayers Benefit From Moderna Vaccine!

It is ludicrous to claim or suggest that the NIH is receiving kickbacks from Moderna, because those patents that NIH licences out belong to the US government. The NIH also explained this in its statement three years ago:

NIAID scientists created stabilized coronavirus spike proteins for the development of vaccines against coronaviruses, including SARS-CoV-2. Recognizing the importance of these novel immunogens, NIAID has sought patents to preserve the government’s rights to these inventions and to provide incentive for commercial partners to invest the capital and resources needed to advance their development, commercialization, and public use as vaccines.

NIAID has adopted a non-exclusive licensing approach for these patent rights in order to allow multiple vaccine developers to utilize these immunogens in their proprietary vaccine platforms. The mRNA vaccine candidate resulting from NIAID’s collaboration with Moderna, embodied in the material transferred to UNC, is an example of this approach: the stabilized spike protein developed by NIAID investigators is expressed from Moderna’s proprietary mRNA vaccine platform. Responsibility for obtaining regulatory approval of the mRNA vaccine candidate, a product produced and formulated by Moderna, rests with Moderna.

Federal employees listed as inventors on these patent applications assigned their rights to the US government. Accordingly, should the USPTO and other national patent authorities grant the patents, the US government will hold ownership interest in the patents.

Show less

The US government owns those patents, and not the individual inventors working at the NIH. After all, the research was funded by the US federal government. Ultimately, the US government and taxpayers benefit from the licensing of NIH technologies to Moderna.

Fact #3 : NIH Inventors Benefit From Their Hard Work

This isn’t the first time Robert F. Kennedy Jr. claimed that top NIH officials are being paid $150,000 a year for life for the Moderna mRNA vaccine against COVID-19. Back in March 2021, RFK Jr. made similar claims in a NewsGuard interview.

The Moderna vaccine—his agency owns half, but six of the top guys who work for him own pieces of that patent, so they will each get $150,000 a year for life for every patent that they own.

However, he never provided any evidence – then or now, that Dr. Anthony Fauci, or any top NIH official, are actually receiving $150,000 per year from the Moderna mRNA vaccine patents.

The truth is – the $150,000 per year figure is the official limit on royalty that any scientist may receive from all inventions while working at the NIH. As NIAID spokesperson Jennifer Routh explained in February 2021:

[In NIH licensing agreements,] the first $2,000 of royalties received under a license go to the inventor, and then at least 15 percent thereafter per year are shared with the inventors as a group under that license. Inventors are capped at $150,000 per year per person from all licenses. Very few NIH inventors receive that amount.”

In other words – even if an NIH scientist invents ten groundbreaking drug that makes BILLIONS each for the NIH, he/she is only entitled to $150,000 per year for all ten drugs.

While it is plausible that the six NIH scientists listed in the two patents used by Moderna and other pharmaceutical companies may receive $150,000 per year, there is still no evidence that they actually received that much.

But to be clear – the only people getting this royalty money are the scientists whose names are listed in the patent applications, and simply “top NIH officials”.

Fact #5 : Patent Protection Only Lasts 20 Years

In the video, Robert F. Kennedy Jr. claimed that NIH officials would receive $150,000 per year forever – not only during their lifetime but also their children’s.

That is rather absurd as patent protection generally lasts only 20 years in the United States. There won’t be a need to licence for any pharmaceutical companies to licence those two patents from the NIAID / NIH for future mRNA vaccines after patent protection expires 20 years later.

In other words – those inventors in NIH can only expect to receive royalty payments for a maximum of 20 years, not forever…

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 | Health | Tech ARP

Support Tech ARP!

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

Dr. Fauci + NIH officials earn $150K yearly from mRNA vaccine?!

Leave a reply

Are Dr. Anthony Fauci and top NIH officials getting $150K per year in Big Pharma kickbacks from the Moderna mRNA vaccine?! Take a look at the viral claims, and find out what the facts really are!

Claim : Dr. Fauci + NIH Officials Make $150 Yearly From mRNA Vaccine!

People are sharing a video clip from a Dr. Phil interview, in which Robert F. Kennedy Jr. (RFK Jr) claimed or suggested that Dr. Anthony Fauci and top NIH officials are getting $150,000 per year in Big Pharma kickbacks from the Moderna mRNA vaccine!

Kat A : RFK jr stuns Dr Phil with the level of kickbacks Fauci and the NIH get on the Moderna vaccine.

Not only does the NIH own half of that vaccine, several high level officials under Fauci collect $150000 a year forever as long as that MRNA technology is on the market.

A topic banned from discussion on MSM!

Canada Free Press : RFK jr stuns Dr Phil with the level of kickbacks Fauci and the NIH get on the Moderna vaccine

Proud MAGA! -Lynch : RFK Jr Left Dr. Phil Stunned With the Amount of Kickbacks Fauci and NIH Get From the Moderna Vaccine

Show less

https://www.techarp.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/06/RFK-Jr-Dr-Phil-on-Fauci-and-NIH-kickbacks-video.mp4?_=2

Truth : Dr. Fauci + NIH Officials Do Not Make $150 Yearly From mRNA Vaccine!

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

Fact #1 : FDA Does Not Get Payments For Vaccine Approval

Let me start by pointing out that the US FDA does not get payments for approving vaccines.

In the video, Robert F. Kennedy Jr. appears to repeat what his running mate, Nicole Shanahan recently suggested – that the FDA is approving “poorly-tested” vaccines because it’s partly funded by pharmaceutical companies.

That’s simply not true. As I explained in my earlier article, the US Congress passed the Prescription Drug User Fee Act in 1992, which requires pharmaceutical companies to pay the US FDA for the time and cost of reviewing the drugs and vaccines for regulatory approval.

The user fee that the FDA charges has no effect on its review process, as those standards are “written into law” and the FDA has to follow those standards, “regardless of the source of funding”.

As long as the FDA meets the review timeline goals, it receives the user fee even if it denies approval for the new drug / vaccine / medical device. So the user fee has no bearing on its approval process.

Fact #2 : FDA Is Different From NIH

In the video, Robert F. Kennedy Jr. appears to confuse the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA), with the US National Institutes of Health (NIH).

When Dr. Phil asked him to confirm his claim that the FDA has been “bought off by Big Pharma”, RFK Jr. appears to have confused the FDA (which is a regulatory agency) with the NIH, which is responsible for biomedical and public health research.

Dr. Phil : The government regulators have been bought off by Big Pharma. I think that’s what you’re saying when you say that this entanglement has occurred. You said agency employees are actually getting royalties, getting payments on vaccines and drugs that they approve. Is that true?

RFK Jr : Yes, there’s a couple of things happening. With FDA, about 50% of the FDA’s budget comes from regulated industries, mainly the pharmaceutical industries. Mainly, you have agency capture on steroids. The principle objective of the FDA today is to serve the market interest of pharmaceutical companies.

For example, the Moderna vaccine. NIH owns half of that vaccine – 50%, so the billions of dollars that the vaccine makes, half of that goes to NIH, the agency. But there is [sic] also individuals, at least four and maybe six, individuals who work for NIH, who are high-level deputies under Anthony Fauci, who get to collect $150,000 a year forever, not just for their lives, but their children’s. So long as that mRNA technology is on the market, they are going to be making money from. That is a conflict.

To be clear – the FDA regulates food, drugs, and medical devices, but it does not receive royalties as it does not conduct research. On the other hand, the NIH conducts research and receives royalties for the technologies it develops, but it does not review or approve new drugs or vaccines.

If Robert F. Kennedy Jr. cannot differentiate between the FDA and the NIH, how much stock should we put into his wild claims???

Fact #3 : NIH Owns Patents Licensed By Moderna

Moderna licensed two technologies developed at the NIH for use in its mRNA vaccine for COVID-19. Those patents are owned by the US government, and not the individual inventors working at the NIH.

Moderna reported in its financial reports that it paid a “catch-up royalty payment of $400 million to the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases“, which is one of the NIH’s 27 institutes and centres, but this payment is also split between NIH, Dartmouth College, and the Scripps Research Institute.

By the end of 2021, seven other pharmaceutical companies (including BioNTech) also paid those same three institutions for using the same techniques in their COVID-19 vaccines.

Moderna also revealed in its financial report, that it would also pay the NIAID “low single-digit royalties on future net sales, a minimum annual royalty payment, and certain contingent development, regulatory and commercial milestone payments“.

Fact #4 : Anthony Fauci Is Not Named In mRNA-Related Patents

Six NIAID scientists are listed as inventors on those two patent applications licensed by Moderna for its mRNA vaccine. They would profit financially from the Moderna mRNA vaccine, as the Federal Technology Act of 1986 requires government agencies that licence inventions to share some of the royalty money with those inventors.

However, Dr. Anthony Fauci is not one of those six NIAID scientists named on the two patent applications. Dr. Anthony Fauci holds six patents, but none are related to mRNA, and all six patents predate the COVID-19 pandemic.

Therefore, claims or suggestions that Dr. Anthony Fauci financially benefitted from the two NIH patents used in the Moderna mRNA vaccine appear to be completely untrue.

Fact #5 : Patent Protection Only Lasts 20 Years

In the video, Robert F. Kennedy Jr. claimed that NIH officials would receive $150,000 per year forever – not only during their lifetime but also their children’s.

In other words – those inventors in NIH can only expect to receive royalty payments for a maximum of 20 years, not forever…

Fact #6 : NIH Inventor Royalty Is Limited To $150,000 Per Year

The Moderna vaccine—his agency owns half, but six of the top guys who work for him own pieces of that patent, so they will each get $150,000 a year for life for every patent that they own.

However, he never provided any evidence – then or now, that Dr. Anthony Fauci, or any top NIH official are actually receiving $150,000 per year from the Moderna mRNA vaccine patents.

In other words – even if an NIH scientist invents ten groundbreaking drug that makes BILLIONS each for the NIH, he/she is only entitled to $150,000 per year for all ten drugs.

While it is plausible that the six NIH scientists listed in the two patents used by Moderna and other pharmaceutical companies may receive $150,000 per year, there is still no actual evidence that they actually received that much.

But to be clear – the only people getting this royalty money are the scientists whose names are listed in the patent applications, and simply “top NIH officials”.

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 | Health | Tech ARP

Support Tech ARP!

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

Vaccines poorly-tested because FDA is funded by Big Pharma?!

Leave a reply

Are vaccines poorly-tested because the US FDA is partly funded by Big Pharma?!

Take a look at the latest controversial claim by Vice Presidential candidate Nicole Shanahan, and find out what the facts really are!

Nicole Shanahan : Vaccines Poorly-Tested Because FDA Is Funded By Big Pharma!

Vice Presidential candidate, and Robert F. Kennedy Jr.‘s running mate, Nicole Shanahan just claimed or suggested (archive) that vaccines are poorly tested because the US FDA is partly funded by pharmaceutical companies!

Our only protection from poorly tested vaccines is our regulatory agencies like the FDA. Yet, 46% of the FDA’s total operating budget is funded by pharmaceutical companies. This is what is meant by AGENCY CAPTURE.

A Kennedy-Shanahan administration will end the rampant conflicts of interest in the regulation of the medicines and vaccines we need. We can reverse the explosion of chronic diseases in our population by demanding that drugs and vaccines undergo proper, long-term testing. We will make manufacturers responsible for the damage caused by their products, so they are again incentivized to make them as safe as possible.

Truth : Vaccines Are Properly Tested Even Though FDA Is Funded By Big Pharma!

This is unfortunately more misinformation by the Vice Presidential candidate, and Robert F. Kennedy Jr.‘s running mate, and here are the reasons why…

Fact #1 : Vaccines Are Not Poorly Tested

Let me start by pointing out that there is no evidence that the FDA ever approved any “poorly-tested” vaccine. Nicole Shanahan certainly provided no evidence that the FDA has ever done that, although the insinuation appears to be that there is “rampant conflicts of interest” due to “AGENCY CAPTURE”.

Even the COVID-19 vaccines, which were accused of being “rushed”, underwent massive clinical trials, and were only approved after they were shown to be safe and effective. To date, there has been no evidence that those clinical trials were compromised in any way by the pharmaceutical industry’s funding of the US FDA.

Fact #2 : FDA User Fees Improve Efficiency

In her post, Nicole Shanahan shared a screenshot of an article titled Why is the FDA Funded in Part by the Companies It Regulates?, but oddly enough did not provide a direct link to the article itself.

Perhaps that’s because the May 2021 article by C. Michael White of the UConn School of Pharmacy explained how user fees have helped to improve efficiency at the US FDA.

Because of the additional funding generated by user fees and performance measures that the FDA has to meet, the FDA is quicker and more willing to discuss what it wants to see in an application with manufacturers. It also offers clearer guidance for manufacturers.

The author also pointed out that FDA user fees are “a viable way to shift some of the financial burden to manufacturers who stand to make money from the approval and sale of drugs in the lucrative U.S. market.”

Fact #3 : User Fees Don’t Affect Regulations

The user fees that the US FDA charges go towards paying people and other related costs of assessing and either approving or denying new drugs, vaccines, and medical devices.

They don’t affect its review process, as the FDA explained in its article that has been around since October 2022:

For products where premarket review is required, there are standards for FDA product review that are written into law and that the agency follows regardless of the source of funding. The FDA’s work, high standards, and decisions are guided by science and focused on protecting and promoting the public health.

Importantly, there is no direct connection between a fee paid to submit an application and the review outcome for that application. The fees are not a “fee-for-service” payment. Rather, the user fees, including application fees, are authorized by Congress to help the FDA fund payroll and related costs to deliver on program goals.

User fees provide the FDA with supplemental resources for reviewing product applications based on the scientific and clinical evidence, and for conducting related activities.

While the agency strives to meet the review timeline goals established as a part of the user fee program agreements, the timeline does not force the FDA to decide on a product application before the agency’s work is complete. If additional work is necessary, the FDA continues working past the applicable goal date. The user fee performance goals anticipate this may happen and do not count on meeting the timeline 100% of the time.

Arguably, user fees help FDA improve its review of new drugs and vaccines, not the other way around.

Fact #4 : There Are Other Regulatory Agencies

I should point out that even if the US FDA is somehow compromised by its funding by pharmaceutical companies, there are other regulatory agencies in other countries like the European Medicines Agency (EMA), Health Canada, the Australian Therapeutic Goods Administration (TGA), the Japanese Ministry of Health, Labour, and Welfare (MHLW), etc.

Vaccines that are approved by the US FDA are only approved for use in the United States. They still need to undergo assessment by each country’s regulatory agency. All those foreign regulatory agencies are not funded by the pharmaceutical industry, and therefore, provide a kind of verification for the regulatory work done by the US FDA.

Fact #5 : FDA User Fees Are Used For Specific Purposes

FDA also pointed out that it is required by law to spend user fees only on specific activities:

The FDA is required by law to spend user fee funds only on specified activities. For example, human prescription drug user fee funds can only be used for activities specified in the law, which include monitoring of research, review of human drug applications and post-market safety activities.

Similarly, medical device user fee funds can only be used for activities specified in the law, which include monitoring of research, review of device applications, and a defined set of post-market activities.  

In short – FDA user fees are used to fund its critical regulatory and review activities, which would otherwise by paid for by taxpayers, instead of pharmaceutical companies.

Fact #6 : FDA User Fees Are Reauthorised By Congress

The user fees came about after the FDA was too slow in studying and approving experimental HIV drugs during the height of the AIDS crisis in the 1980s and early 1990s.

The US Congress then passed the Prescription Drug User Fee Act in 1992, which was signed into law by President George H.W. Bush. Since then, it has to be reauthorised every five years by Congress, before being signed into law by the President of the United States.

So even if the Kennedy-Shanahan administration does come to pass (which appears to be highly unlikely), it is highly unlikely that Congress would agree to provide additional funding to make up for the shortfall should user fees be eliminated.

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 | Health | Tech ARP

Support Tech ARP!

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

Did Elon Musk say US voting machines are designed for fraud?!

Leave a reply

Did Elon Musk say that US voting machines are designed to allow fraud?! Take a look at the viral claim, and find out what the facts really are!

Claim : Elon Musk Said US Voting Machines Are Designed For Fraud!

People are sharing an article (archive) by The People’s Voice (formerly NewsPunch), which claimed that Elon Musk said that US voting machines are designed to allow fraud!

Here is an excerpt of the article. Feel free to skip to the next section for the facts!

Elon Musk Sounds the Alarm: “U.S. Voting Machines Are Designed To Allow Fraud”

Elon Musk has called for the banning of all electronic voting machines in America, warning that they are designed to allow rampant fraud to take place by bad faith actors.

Posting on the X platform, Musk responded to a post from RFK. Jr., who himself was weighing on the recent rampant fraud that took place during Puerto Rico’s primary elections.

Kennedy posted:

Puerto Rico’s primary elections just experienced hundreds of voting irregularities related to electronic voting machines, according to the Associated Press. Luckily, there was a paper trail so the problem was identified and vote tallies corrected. What happens in jurisdictions where there is no paper trail? US citizens need to know that every one of their votes were counted, and that their elections cannot be hacked. We need to return to paper ballots to avoid electronic interference with elections. My administration will require paper ballots and we will guarantee honest and fair elections.

Musk said he agreed with this sentiment. “We should eliminate electronic voting machines,” he wrote. “The risk of being hacked by humans or AI, while small, is still too high.”

As long reported by The Gateway Pundit, electronic voting machines are one of the many methods that Democrats and their electoral allies have used to steal elections. The most notable example of this was in 2020, when machines played an important part in swinging the election to Joe Biden.

This is not the first time that Musk, who has a following of nearly 188 million people, has warned about the risks to America’s electoral system. Last month, he reposted a video urging whistleblowers to come forward to report irregularities ahead of the 2024 presidential election.

Show less

Truth : Elon Musk Did Not Say US Voting Machines Are Designed For Fraud!

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

Fact #1 : Elon Musk Did Not Say US Voting Machines Are Designed For Fraud!

First, let me just point out that Elon Musk never said that US voting machines are designed to allow fraud.

If he actually made such a controversial and explosive claim, it would have been extensively reported by the mainstream media. Needless to say – that never happened, because Elon Musk never said anything to that effect.

Needless to say, The People’s Voice article provided no evidence that Elon Musk said that US voting machines are designed to allowed fraud.

In fact, beyond mentioning it in its title and lede, the rest of the article never mentioned anything about Elon Musk saying that US voting machines are designed to allow fraud.

Fact #2 : Elon Musk Only Spoke Out Against Electronic Voting Machines

In response to a Robert F. Kennedy Jr’s post about voting irregularities involving electronic voting machines in Puerto Rico, Elon Musk only stated that “electronic voting machines” should be eliminated due to the risk of being hacked:

We should eliminate electronic voting machines. The risk of being hacked by humans or AI, while small, is still too high.

As you can see, Elon Musk never said that US voting machines (which are still based on paper ballots) are designed to allow fraud. So why would The People’s Voice article claim otherwise???

Fact #3 : Puerto Rico Uses Paper Ballots

I should also point out that Puerto Rico does not use electronic voting machines that record the votes directly, called Direct Recording Electronic (DRE) systems.

Puerto Rico uses paper ballots, that are marked either by hand or assistive marking devices called Ballot Marking Devices (BMDs). The paper ballots are then tabulated by hand-fed optical scanning machines.

In fact, the voting discrepancies were not actually due to the machines used, but the software used to calculate the vote totals.

The problem stemmed from a software issue that caused machines supplied by Dominion Voting Systems to incorrectly calculate vote totals, said Jessika Padilla Rivera, the commission’s interim president.

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.

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 | Politics | 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!

John Barnett Autopsy Confirms Suicide, Conspiracists Wrong!

Leave a reply

Conspiracists were just proven wrong (again!) when the autopsy of John Barnett showed that the Boeing whistleblower did indeed commit suicide!

Claim : John Barnett Did Not Commit Suicide!

Right after news broke that John Barnett was found dead in his truck outside a Holiday Inn in Charleston, some people immediately suggested that the Boeing whistleblower might have been assassinated to prevent his testimony against the aerospace giant.

Robert F. Kennedy Jr : John Barnett worked for Boeing for 32 years. The company worked to destroy his life after he exposed safety concerns. I’m proud that my sister Rory worked to tell his story in her award winning documentary Downfall: The Case Against Boeing. Boeing killed 346 people out of greed. Let’s hope there is a genuine investigation of John Barnett’s “suicide.”

Megatron : ⚡ 🇺🇲 Video emerges of dead Boeing whistleblower John Barnett discussing Boeing’s inadequate safety measures for airplanes.

This is one of the reasons why they decided to “Suicide” him.

Champagne Joshi : Boeing whistleblower John Barnett predicted he might end up dead and that a story could surface that he killed himself according to a close family friend.

“I know that he did not commit suicide,” said Jennifer, a friend of Barnett’s. “There’s no way.”

Owen Gregorian : ‘If anything happens, it’s not suicide’: Boeing whistleblower’s prediction before death

A close family friend of John Barnett said he predicted he might wind up dead and that a story could surface that he killed himself.

But at the time, he told her not to believe it.

“I know that he did not commit suicide,” said Jennifer, a friend of Barnett’s. “There’s no way.”

Show less

Truth : John Barnett Was Alone When He Committed Suicide!

Here is what you need to know about John Barnett’s unfortunate death, and why he committed suicide, and was not assassinated…

Fact #1 : John Barnett Committed Suicide

On Friday, 17 May 2024, both the Charleston Police Department and the Charleston County Coroner’s Office separately concluded their extensive investigations, and both issued reports that concluded that John Barnett committed suicide.

John Barnett had been in Charleston, South Carolina, to give his testimony against his former employer – the embattled aerospace giant, Boeing, when he was found dead from a gunshot wound in his truck, in the parking lot of his hotel, a Holiday Inn. He was 62 years old when he died.

The reports released by the police and the coroner, included nearly 100 pages of incident reports, a 911 recording from the hotel worker who found Barnett, and a photo of the note that Barnett left behind. Ultimately, it has been confirmed that John Barnett committed suicide, and he was alone in his truck:

investigators found him alone and locked inside his truck, with the key fob in his pants pocket,
there was no sign of forced entry, or a physical struggle,
his phone and hotel key card showed no suspicious activity,
his truck was undisturbed until the discovery of his body the next morning,
the ballistics report showed that the bullet was “fired by the firearm located in the victim’s hand”, and
the silver Smith and Wesson handgun was registered to Barnett, and legally purchased in 2000,

The report from Charleston County Coroner Bobbi Jo O’Neal read, “All findings were consistent with a self-inflicted gunshot wound“, and concluded that the manner of death is best deemed “suicide“.

Fact #2 : John Barnett Left A Suicide Note

The police investigation also revealed that a notebook with Barnett’s fingerprints were found next to him, together with “what amounts to a suicide note”, and that only his fingerprints were found on the suicide note.

Comprehensive fingerprint analysis confirmed Mr. Barnett’s fingerprints on the notebook. Three prints were inconclusive due to insufficient detail for identification. All fingerprints on the page containing the note were identified as Mr. Barnett’s.

The police also shared a photo of the handwritten suicide note, with a jumble of thoughts written in three different orientations:

I can’t do this any longer!!! Enough!! Boeing!!! Family & friends I love you all

And I wasn’t stoned when I wrote this… really!

Trump 2024

American come together or die!! I pray the motherfucker that destroyed my life pay!!! I pray Boeing pays!!!

Bury me face down so Boeing and their lying ass leaders can kiss my ass

To my family and friends, I found my purpose! I’m at peace! I love you more

P.S. The entire system for whistleblowers protection is fucked up too!!

Fact #3 : John Barnett Was Alone When He Committed Suicide

Conspiracists have been claiming or suggesting that John Barnett was somehow assassinated to prevent his testimony against Boeing, never mind the fact that his testimony is already on the record.

Fortunately, investigators were able to recover surveillance footage which showed that John Barnett was alone when he committed suicide:

On March 8, Barnett entered the Holiday Inn alone at 7:26 PM, and went to his room at 7:36 PM, and left the building by himself at 8:37 PM.
His Dodge Ram was seen backing into a parking lot at 8:45 PM, and remained stationary throughout the night, and into the morning of March 9.
No one else entered or exited the truck, and no one approached the truck, in the surveillance footage.
The truck’s brake lights blinked on and off at around 7:20 AM on March 9. A Holiday Inn worker told police officers he heard a “pop” sound that morning, but didn’t think anything of it.

Mr. Barnett’s vehicle was captured on video reversing into a parking space at 8:45 p.m., where it remained stationary until it was discovered by officers the following morning. Throughout the night, there was no video evidence of anyone interacting with the vehicle, entering it, or the vehicle leaving its parking spot.

John Barnett’s attorneys called him at around 9 AM. When he didn’t answer, they called the hotel and asked for a welfare check. Hotel employees searched the hotel and parking lot, which was when they found Barnett dead in his truck, which was locked.

Thanks to the surveillance footage, the investigators can conclusively prove that John Barnett committed suicide, and was not “assassinated” by Boeing, or the Deep State, the New World Order, the Illuminati, or the bogeyman of the day.

Fact #4 : John Barnett Had Mental Health Challenges

The Charleston County Coroner’s Office looked at John Barnett’s medical records, and interviewed his family members, attorneys, and people connected to him.

Its report described how John Bartnett was under chronic stress because of the whistleblower case, and that he was suffering from anxiety and post-traumatic stress disorder, while grieving the 2022 death of his wife.

Regardless of what he may have told his family and friends earlier, the preponderance of evidence show that John Barnett took his own life.

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 | Crime | 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!

Nicole Shanahan is wrong about VAERS + vaccine injury payouts!

Leave a reply

Vice Presidential candidate Nicole Shanahan just spouted nonsense about VAERS and vaccine injury compensation! Take a look at her viral claims, and find out what the facts really are!

Nicole Shanahan : VAERS Is Organisation That Determines Vaccine Injury!

Vice Presidential candidate, and Robert F. Kennedy Jr.‘s running mate, Nicole Shanahan just claimed (archive) that VAERS is the organization that determines if someone was injured by a vaccine, and can be compensated.

In the United States, VAERS is the body that determines if someone injured by a vaccine can be compensated. Here’s the dirty truth: Tax payers cover all expenses for this (all legal fees and the payout), not the pharmaceutical company actually responsible for the injury.

That means these companies can make you sick, get paid huge profits from selling the injections, and the taxpayers are the ones on the hook for their mistakes. As the Covid vaccine is proven to be responsible for more and more injuries, this scheme promises to take our country even further into debt.

The correct course of action is to return to standard tort liability for all vaccine developers. It is the right thing for our country, for our budget, and is even in the best interest of the vaccine developers who will be held to a higher standard in safety.

Nicole Shanahan made those comments in response to a PeterSweden post about AstraZeneca facing $255 million in compensation for admitting that its COVID-19 vaccines can cause blood clots.

When told that she was wrong, Shanahan chose not to apologise for the mistake and post a correction. Instead, she doubled down (archive), insisting that VAERS is an organisation that defines vaccine injuries that can be compensated:

Seeing people want more information – GREAT! VAERS is an organization that defines what injuries can be compensated – yes it is a database. The payout, and the lawyers who represent the injured are paid by taxpayers via a sister organization VICP.

Truth : VAERS Is Not Organisation That Determines Vaccine Injury!

It is unfortunate that someone running to be Vice President of the United States not only responded to a known peddler of fake news, she appeared to be agreeing with him.

As the running mate of Robert F. Kennedy Jr., who is notoriously anti-vaccine, Nicole Ann Shanahan may be trying to impress him, or his supporters – many of whom espouse the same anti-vaccine rhetoric and opinions.

However, in doing so, she demonstrated her profound lack of knowledge. Here is what Nicole Shanahan needs to know about VAERS…

Fact #1 : VAERS Is A Reporting System

Let me start by pointing out that VAERS is an an acronym for the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System used by the United States Department of Health and Human Services (HHS).

VAERS is not a body that “determines if someone injured by a vaccine can be compensated”, as Nicole Shanahan claimed. It is an early warning system design to collect adverse event reports, to detect possible safety problems in U.S. licensed vaccines.

Fact #2 : VAERS Data Is Unverified

I should point out that VAERS is a passive reporting system similar to the British Yellow Card system, and it relies on individuals or healthcare professionals to submit reports of potential adverse reactions to vaccines.

While its open, catch-all design lets scientists catch very rare adverse events that even large clinical trials may not catch, VAERS is open to abuse as anyone from anywhere in the world can submit a report, and write anything they want.

In other words – VAERS data is unverified, and cannot be used to determine whether a vaccine injury has occurred, never mind determine whether someone should be compensated for that vaccine injury!

Fact #3 : VAERS Is Managed By CDC + FDA

VAERS is also not an independent or separate organisation. It is a database that is co-managed by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), as well as the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA).

For Shanahan’s benefit, both the CDC and the FDA are agencies of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS).

Hence, the official VAERS website is https://vaers.hhs.gov – it is using a subdomain under the official HHS government website domain.

Fact #4 : VICP Determines Vaccine Injury Compensations

As many people have pointed out to Nicole Shanahan, it is not VAERS – a database of unverified reports of vaccine adverse events, that determines whether someone should be compensated for a vaccine injury.

That job belongs to the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program (VICP), which is under a completely different HHS agency – the U.S. Health Resources & Services Administration (HRSA). VICP is a program offering an alternative to the tort system for resolving vaccine injury petitions.

In fact, the VAERS FAQ specifically pointed out that the VICP is a separate program from VAERS.

Is VAERS involved in the Vaccine Injury Compensation Program?

No. The Vaccine Injury Compensation Program (VICP) is a separate program from VAERS and is administered by the Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA). Reporting an adverse event to VAERS does not constitute filing a claim with the VICP. For more information about the VICP, call (800) 338-2382 or visit the VICP Web site.

VICP compensation is funded through excise taxes on covered vaccines, while expenses are paid through annual funding by Congress.

Fact #5 : COVID-19 Vaccines Are Covered By CICP

While Nicole Shanahan tried to cover her mistake by claiming that VAERS “defines” what injuries can be compensated, but it is VICP that pays the compensation, that’s not accurate since she was referring to COVID-19 vaccines.

Community Notes on X (formerly Twitter) are also inaccurate when it comes to vaccine injury compensation for COVID-19 vaccines, which are not covered by the VICP, but a separate Countermeasures Injury Compensation Program (CICP).

It is the 2005 Public Readiness and Emergency Preparedness Act (PREP Act) that authorises the CICP to provide benefits / compensation to people “who sustain a covered serious physical injury as the direct result of the administration or use of covered countermeasures” that were “administered or used under a PREP Act declaration“.

The PREP Act declaration for COVID-19 does not only cover COVID-19 vaccines, but also antiviral and biologic drugs, as well as diagnostic tools, used to diagnose, mitigate, prevent, treat, or cure COVID-19, or the transmission of the SARS-CoV-2 virus.

In addition to COVID-19, the CICP also covers compensation for:

acute radiation syndrome
anthrax
botulinum toxin
Ebola
Marburg
nerve agents and certain insecticides
pandemic influenza
Smallpox and other orthopoxviruses like mpox
Zika

The CICP is funded through separate Congressional appropriations that must occur each time a new countermeasure is designated.

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 | Health | Tech ARP

Support Tech ARP!

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

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

Leave a reply

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:

1.) Glyphosate, the active ingredient in Roundup, causes non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma, a claim that has been validated through three jury trials and a $13 billion settlement with Monsanto.

2.) COVID-19 vaccines would not prevent transmission, which is now generally accepted.

3.) “I said that COVID lockdowns were going to be very, very harmful to children, particularly. They would damage our economy, and they would not prevent the spread of a respiratory virus.

4.) “I said the masks were not going to work to prevent the spread of the disease and that they would probably do more harm than good. And now everybody agrees with that.”

5.) Social distancing wasn’t science-based, a claim that Fauci has acknowledged is true.

“I’ve been around long enough that I question everything that the government tells me,” remarked Kennedy. “And I think people who don’t question what the government tells them are not paying attention.”

Show less

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:

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) says there’s “no evidence that glyphosate causes cancer in humans.”
Health Canada says the product does not cause damage to human DNA. Objections to Health Canada’s position “could not be scientifically supported when considering the entire body of relevant data,” the agency said.
The European Food Safety Authority “did not identify any critical areas of concern in its peer review of the risk assessment” of glyphosate.
The Australian Pesticides and Veterinary Medicine Authority states that glyphosate products “are considered safe to use when the instructions on the label are followed.”

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.

Herbicide manufacturers have stood by their products, even while still agreeing to settlements of current and future lawsuits. In June 2020, Bayer, which acquired Monsanto in 2018, settled the majority of current and possible future lawsuits for more than $10 billion, CNN reported.

In an announcement about the settlement, the chief executive officer of Bayer said that “the extensive body of science indicates that [glyphosate-based herbicide] Roundup^® does not cause cancer, and therefore, is not responsible for the illnesses alleged in this litigation. We stand strongly behind our glyphosate-based herbicides, which are among the most rigorously studied products of their kind, and four decades of science support their safety and that they are not carcinogenic.”

Show less

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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!

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

Leave a reply

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.

Peter McCullough : One more example of all trust lost with @CDCgov
Agency releases vaccine myocarditis manuscript with all pages redacted so patient and scientific community is blocked from learning more about this deadly COVID-19 vaccine side effect.

The People’s Voice : CDC Redacts Every Single Word of 148-Page Study on Myocarditis After Covid Vaccination

The Gateway Pundit : CDC Finally Releases 148 Page Study on Myocarditis Following COVID Vaccine – And EVERY SINGLE WORD is Redacted!

Hans Mahncke : The CDC “released” a 148 page study on myocarditis after COVID-19 “vaccination” and every single page is completely redacted. This must be a new record.

Show less

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.

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 2022 – more 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“.

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!

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 | Health | Tech ARP

Support Tech ARP!

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

Kennedy family snubs RFK Jr. in St. Patrick’s Day photo with Biden!

Leave a reply

The Kennedy family openly snubbed RFK Jr. when it posted a St. Patrick’s Day photo with President Joe Biden at the White House!

Kennedy family snubs RFK Jr. in St. Patrick’s Day photo with Biden!

The Kennedy family has largely been against the independent bid for the US Presidency by their infamous family member, Robert F. Kennedy Jr., which is also known as RFK Jr.

Several members of the family have openly spoken out against his candidacy, and his anti-vaccine views, calling them “dangerous”. To make it clear that the Kennedy family supports Joe Biden in his bid to be re-elected for a second term, almost the entire Kennedy family joined the president for a St. Patrick’s Day celebration at the White House on Sunday, 17 March 2024.

In an open snub to her own brother – RFK Jr., Kerry Kennedy posted a photo showing dozens of the Kennedy family taking a photo with Joe Biden, with this message.

“It’s not enough to wish the world were better, you must make the world better”

@POTUS President Biden, you make the world better. Happy St. Patrick’s Day ☘️

@vradenburg3 @Mkennedycuomo @vickikennedy2277 @amykennedy715 @pjk4brainhealt @roryekennedy
@maxeykennedy

The photo featured former Rhode Island congressman Patrick J. Kennedy, Ambassador Caroline Kennedy, Biden’s special envoy to Northern Ireland Joe Kennedy III, as well as Kennedy family members of all ages… except RFK Jr. himself.

Other members of the family then reshared the photo on their social media accounts, making it clear that they support Joe Biden, and not their infamous family member – RFK Jr.

Patrick Kennedy even tweeted additional photos, writing:

What an honor to spend St. Patrick’s Day afternoon at the @WhiteHouse with friends, family, and world leaders @POTUS , His Excellency @LeoVaradkar and many cousins – Smiths, Shrivers, and Kennedys!
We are blessed.”

What an honor to spend St. Patrick’s Day afternoon at the @WhiteHouse with friends, family, and world leaders @POTUS , His Excellency @LeoVaradkar and many cousins – Smiths, Shrivers, and Kennedys!
We are blessed. pic.twitter.com/76cM5Ljdjg

— Patrick J. Kennedy (@PJK4brainhealth) March 18, 2024

Joe Biden himself retweeted Kerry Kennedy’s post, with the reply, “From one proud Irish family to another — it was good to have you all back at the White House.”

From one proud Irish family to another — it was good to have you all back at the White House. https://t.co/x62TsIYWVu

— Joe Biden (@JoeBiden) March 18, 2024

Maria Shriver Snubs RFK Jr. The Next Day!

In the second of a one-two punch against RFK Jr., Maria Shriver – another member of the Kennedy family, joined President Joe Biden the next day for his signing of a new executive order to spend $$12 billion to improve research on women’s issues like reproductive challenges and conditions like menopause.

At that White House event which was also attended by First Lady Jill Biden and Vice President Kamala Harris, Maria Shriver called the executive order historic, and praised Biden profusely for his commitment to women’s health in an obvious snub of RFK Jr., and joked:

I’ll bet today that this is the first time a president of the United States has ever signed an executive order that mentions the words ‘menopause’ and ‘women’s mid-life health!’

Shriver even threw a veiled jab at former President Donald Trump, when she said:

This is an undertaking that could only be put into a motion by a president who respects women sees women who understands women and who want the best for women who wants us all to achieve our highest potential.

Biden’s executive order comes at a time when women’s health issues are dominating politics, with several states adopting anti-abortion laws that have threatened even unrelated reproductive issues like IVF.

Just before he signed the executive order, Joe Biden repeated his call for people to vote for a Democratic Congress to restore abortion rights:

You send me a Democratic Congress that supports reproductive freedom, I promise you we will restore Roe v Wade again as the law of the land.

Biden’s executive order goes beyond reproductive health issues. It also includes federal funding of research into mental health, substance abuse disorders, environmental health factors, and autoimmune diseases that disproportionately affect women, like rheumatoid arthritis.

The National Institutes of Health, for example, will increase its investments in small businesses that focus on women’s health by 50%, while the Defense Department will invest $10 million to learn more about cancers and mental health issues affecting women in active military service.

The US NIH is also launching a new effort around menopause and the treatment of menopausal symptoms that will identify research gaps and work to close them, according to White House advisor Jennifer Klein. However, this funding isn’t guaranteed as it is ultimately up to the US Congress to approve it.

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 > Politics | Photo + Video | 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 Red Cross Rejecting COVID Vaccinated Blood?!

Leave a reply

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

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

Claim : Red Cross May Be Rejecting COVID Vaccinated Blood!

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

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

Robert F. Kennedy Jr : The propaganda is beginning to unravel.

DC_Draino : 🚨The American Red Cross is now asking blood donors if they ever received the Covid vaccine

If you answer Yes, they want you to call ahead to see if you’re still eligible

I thought the vax was “safe and effective”?

What info are they hiding from us?

Steve Kirsch : American Red Cross tacitly admits the COVID vaccines are not safe. Finally.

Shadow of Ezra : The American Red Cross is now asking blood donors if they have received the Covid vaccine.

If donors answer yes, they are advised to call ahead to confirm if they are still eligible to donate.

I thought Dr. Fauci said the unvaccinated were the problem?

Liz Churchill : “If you’ve had the Covid Vaccine and wish to donate blood…please call this number…” -The American Red Cross.

This is infuriating. Life in Prison isn’t enough for these Murderers.

Show less

Truth : Red Cross Is Not Rejecting COVID Vaccinated Blood!

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

Fact #1 : This Eligibility Requirement Isn’t New

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Fact #3 : Red Cross Only Defers Some Blood Donations

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Fact #6 : Red Cross Is Helping To Vaccinated People

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

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

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

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

Please Support My Work!

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

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

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

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

Recommended Reading

Go Back To > Fact Check | Health | Tech ARP

Support Tech ARP!

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

Did Scientists Call For Global mRNA Vaccine Moratorium?!

Leave a reply

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

A review paper published last week in the journal Cureus is the first peer-reviewed paper to call for a global moratorium on the COVID-19 mRNA vaccines. The authors say that reanalyzed data from the vaccine makers’ trials and high rates of serious post-injection injuries indicate the mRNA gene therapy vaccines should not have been authorized for use.

Governments should endorse a global moratorium on mRNA vaccines until all questions about their safety have been thoroughly investigated, according to the authors of a new, peer-reviewed article on the COVID-19 vaccine trials and the global vaccination campaign published last week in Cureus, Journal of Medical Science.

Cureus is a web-based peer-reviewed open-access general medical journal using prepublication peer review.

The authors surveyed published research on the pharmaceutical companies’ vaccine trials and related adverse events. They also called for the COVID-19 vaccines to be removed immediately from the childhood immunization schedule.

After the first reports from vaccine trials claimed they were 95% effective in preventing COVID-19, serious problems with method, execution and reporting in the trials became public, which the paper reviewed in detail.

Evidence also shows the products never underwent adequate safety and toxicological testing, and since the vaccine rollout, researchers have identified a significant number of adverse events (AEs) and serious adverse events (SAEs).

Show less

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.

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.

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.

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.

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 | Health | Tech ARP

Support Tech ARP!

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

FDA Now Allows Experiments On People Without Consent?!

Leave a reply

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.

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).

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 | 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!

Did Norway Study Show mRNA Vaccine Danger In Children?!

Leave a reply

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.

Teens receiving two doses of an mRNA COVID-19 vaccine were at much higher risk for anaphylaxis, swollen glands and two types of serious heart inflammation, according to a study by the Norwegian Institute of Public Health (NIPH).

When the post-vaccination observation window increased from 14 to 42 days they observed a 39% higher risk for appendicitis after the first shot and a 43% increase after the second dose.

Researchers led by German Tapia, Ph.D., a postdoctoral epidemiologist at NIPH, enrolled 496,432 adolescents born between 2002 and 2009, living in Norway and unvaccinated before the official vaccine approval for this age group.

The researchers found no statistically significant associations between first-dose vaccination and any of the outcomes when comparing vaccinated and unvaccinated groups, but several serious safety signals arose after the second shot.

Second-dose vaccination was associated with a greater-than-tenfold increase in the risk of anaphylaxis compared with unvaccinated, a 133% greater risk of swollen glands and a 427% rise in myo- and pericarditis at up to 28 days after the last dose.

Show less

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.

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.

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 | Health | Tech ARP

Support Tech ARP!

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

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

Leave a reply

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

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

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

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

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

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

People who received two doses of a COVID-19 vaccine may be more likely to get long COVID symptoms compared with those who received one or no dose, a peer-reviewed study showed.

The study authors — who published their report on Dec. 20, 2022, in PLoS One — looked at what factors predicted whether or not 487 adults who had a COVID-19 infection later developed long COVID symptoms.

They also looked at what symptoms those with long COVID reported experiencing.

The authors found five statistically significant predictors of developing long COVID: pre-existing medical conditions, having a higher number of symptoms during the acute phase of COVID-19, two doses of COVID-19 vaccination, the severity of illness, and admission to a hospital.

In other words, these five factors were “independently associated” with a heightened risk of long COVID, Dr. Peter McCullough noted in a Substack post about the study.

Long COVID symptoms experienced by the study participants included fatigue, cough, difficulty breathing, chest pain, loss of taste or smell, brain fog, heart palpitations and anxiety.

When it came to discussing the link between two doses of COVID-19 vaccination and the development of long COVID symptoms, the study authors called it an “observational paradox” and cited research that contradicted what their data showed.

Dr. Pierre Kory told The Defender he wasn’t surprised the researchers found a link between two vaccine doses and long COVID — and he also wasn’t surprised the authors downplayed the finding.

Show less

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Fact #3 : Other Factors Were Far More Significant

If you read the Arjun et. al. study, you will notice (see results) that it actually found that other factors were more strongly associated with a higher risk of long COVID symptoms:

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

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

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

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

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

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

It is also a welcome departure from earlier studies, which suggested that vaccines provided only a modest defense against long COVID. In 2022 Marra’s team published a meta-analysis of six studies that found that a single dose of the COVID vaccine reduced the likelihood of long COVID by 30 percent. Now, that protection appears to be much greater.

A study published in November in the BMJ found that a single COVID vaccine dose reduced the risk of long COVID by 21 percent, two doses reduced it by 59 percent and three or more doses reduced it by 73 percent. Vaccine effectiveness clearly climbed with each successive dose.

That lines up with the findings of several new studies, which similarly show this ladderlike benefit. Marra’s October 2023 meta-analysis found that two doses reduced long COVID likelihood by 36.9 percent and three doses reduced it by 68.7 percent. And in a study published last year in the Journal of the American Medical Association, other researchers found that the prevalence of long COVID in health care workers dropped from 41.8 percent in unvaccinated participants to 30 percent in those with a single dose, 17.4 percent with two doses and 16 percent with three doses.

Show less

In short – newer studies show that COVID-19 vaccines not only protect against long COVID, the protection increases with each additional dose!

Therefore, if you are worried about long COVID, you should definitely be up-to-date on your COVID-19 vaccinations!

Fact #5 : Long COVID More Common In Unvaccinated People

According to Scientific American, the prevalence of long COVID is significantly greater in unvaccinated people, compared to people who had two or more doses of the COVID-19 vaccines.

Unvaccinated : 11%
Fully-vaccinated : 5%

Again, it clearly shows that COVID-19 vaccines have a significant protective effect against long COVID.

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

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

Please Support My Work!

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

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

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

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

Recommended Reading

Go Back To > Fact Check | Health | Tech ARP

Support Tech ARP!

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

Did mRNA Vaccines Trigger Severe Nerve Damage?!

Leave a reply

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

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

Claim : mRNA Vaccines Trigger Severe Nerve Damage!

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

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

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

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

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

COVID vaccine triggers nerve damage, MS

Multiple Sclerosis and Optic Neuritis triggered by COVID-19 mRNA;
Neuroimmunology Reports, Jan. 1, 2024.

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

The first case involved a 25-year-old woman presenting weakness on her right side plus lower limb pain, sensory impairment, difficulty walking and bladder trouble one week after the shot. These symptoms, plus imaging tests, led to a diagnosis of multiple sclerosis (MS).

The patient was hospitalized, treated with steroids and released with a prescription for dimethyl fumarate, an MS drug. No mention was made of her current status.

The second case was an 8-year-old boy who, 12 days after his vaccination, developed blurred vision in both eyes. Examination revealed optic disk swelling and brain magnetic resonance imaging revealed three brain lesions.

Symptoms completely resolved after five days of steroid treatment.

The authors of the case studies concluded: “Diseases or symptoms triggered or linked to this new vaccine technology must be reported and studied.”

Show less

No Evidence mRNA Vaccines Trigger Nerve Damage!

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

Fact #1 : It Was A Case Presentation

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

You can read it in full here.

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

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

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

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

Fact #3 : Paper Says Vaccine Benefits Outweigh The Risks

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

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

Fact #4 : AstraZeneca Vaccine Is A Virus Vector Vaccine

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

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

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

Fact #5 : First Patient Already Had Multiple Sclerosis

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Fact #6 : Multiple Sclerosis Can Cause Optic Neuritis

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Fact #8 : Both Patients Recovered

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

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

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

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

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

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

Please Support My Work!

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

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

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

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

Recommended Reading

Go Back To > Fact Check | Health | Tech ARP

Support Tech ARP!

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

Jeffrey Epstein List : Watch Out For Fake Lists!

Leave a reply

The partial Jeffrey Epstein list has been revealed, but watch out for the fake lists going around!

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

Updated @ 2024-01-05 : Added details about the partial list that was just released.
Originally posted @ 2024-01-03

Claim : The Jeffrey Epstein List Has Been Released!

People are sharing at least one video, and some photos, which purportedly shows the infamous Jeffrey Epstein list:

Mic-Ha-El : Epstein Island visitors list

God Bless America : Here is the list of visitors to Epstein island

Don Salmon : Jeffrey Epstein list is reveal. And I must admit it is a shocker everyone white, black conservative, liberals is on the list .

Show less

https://www.techarp.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/01/Jeffrey-Epstein-fake-list.mp4?_=3

Truth : Jeffrey Epstein List Has Not Been Released!

This is yet another example of FAKE NEWS circulating on social media platforms, and here are the reasons why…

Fact #1 : Official Jeffrey Epstein List Has Not Been Released

In December 2023, New York judge Loretta A. Preska ruled that there was no legal justification to continue concealing the names of more than 150 “John and Jane Does” mentioned in the records. It is from these documents that a “list” of more than 150 names are expected to be revealed – the so-called “Jeffrey Epstein list”.

Judge Preska ordered the names and documents to be unsealed after 1 January 2024, pending appeals. That does not mean that the names will be released immediately on 2 January 2024. It just means it can take place anytime in the coming days or weeks.

That’s because she gave people whose names would be unsealed until midnight on January 1, 2024, to file an objection or appeal. The release of this list of names could be delayed if anyone appeals.

On 20 December, the lawyer for Doe 107 filed a request for a 30-day extension (source), which was approved the next day (source). Doe 107 now has until 22 January 2024, to support her contention that unveiling her name would put her at risk of physical harm.

Hence, only a partial list was released on Wednesday, 3 January 2024. While more names is likely to be released in coming days, the full and final list will not be released so soon. In addition to Doe 107, Doe 110 also submitted an enquiry, which Judge Preska will need to rule on.

In other words – all those Jeffrey Epstein lists that have been circulating prior to 3 January 2024, are not the actual list that people have been eagerly anticipating. Even that list is partial.

Fact #2 : Real List Has Over 150 Names

I should point out that the official Jeffrey Epstein list, once released, is expected to consist of over 150 names.

It is currently unknown how many people are on the final list, as Judge Preska will keep some names sealed, including those belonging to child victims who have not spoken publicly.

The public interest does not outweigh the privacy interests of the alleged minor victim.

The fake lists that I’ve seen circulating on social media are short, listing far fewer than 50 names. That alone should tell you that they are not the real Jeffrey Epstein list, at least in reference to what Judge Preska ordered to be revealed.

Fact #4 : Jeffrey Epstein List Is All-Encompassing

The term – Jeffrey Epstein list – carries the connotation that people on this list are somehow complicit in his crimes. That would be quite incorrect.

The list of names that is set to be released soon comprises of everyone involved or named in the defamation lawsuit by Virginia Giuffre against Ghislaine Maxwell – Jeffrey Epstein’s former girlfriend and convicted accomplice. For example:

People who were accused of wrongdoing
People making those accusations of wrongdoing
Victims of Jeffrey Epstein, Ghislaine Maxwell, and/or their associates,
Potential witnesses to those crimes, or witnesses called by the defense
Employees of Jeffrey Epstein or Ghislaine Maxwell
People who visited Jeffrey Epstein’s home or island
People who flew on Jeffrey Epstein’s private plane

In other words – this Jeffrey Epstein list isn’t his “black book” of people who took part in his crimes, or abetted them. It comprises of people who was once associated with Jeffrey Epstein or Ghislaine Maxwell, including victims and witnesses.

Fact #3 : Many Of The Names Are Already Known

The eventual release of the official Jeffrey Epstein list is unlikely to be a bombshell, as many of the names on the list are already publicly known. For example:

Bill Clinton
Bill Gates
Donald Trump
Prince Andrew
Robert F. Kennedy Jr.

As Judge Loretta Preska noted, many of those who are on the Epstein list had already been publicly identified by the media, or during Ghislaine Maxwell’s criminal trial.

Most of the fake lists circulating on social media are based on the names already publicly known, with some names “conveniently” left out. Donald Trump, for example, was left out of the viral video clip above.

Instead of forwarding or sharing those fake lists, why not wait for the real one?

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 | Cybersecurity | Tech ARP

Support Tech ARP!

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

Why Jeffrey Epstein Name List Was Partially Released!

Leave a reply

Here is the partial Jeffrey Epstein name list that was just released. You will need to wait a while longer for the full list!

Updated @ 2024-01-04 : Updated with the partial release of the Epstein name list
Originally posted @ 2024-01-03

Jeffrey Epstein Name List : What Is It?

On September 21, 2015, Virginia Giuffre filed a defamation lawsuit against Ghislaine Maxwell. This case (Giuffre v. Maxwell (1:15-cv-07433) was settled under seal in 2017, with Maxwell reportedly paying Giuffre “millions”.

In December 2023, New York judge Loretta A. Preska ruled that there was no longer any legal justification to continue concealing the names of the 187 “John and Jane Does” mentioned in the records.

It is currently unknown how many people are on the final list, as Judge Preska will keep some names sealed, including those belonging to child victims who have not spoken publicly. However, the final so-called “Jeffrey Epstein list” is expected to number more than 150 names.

Many people have eagerly searching for the Jeffrey Epstein name list, leading to a number of fake lists appearing on social media.

On Wednesday, 3 January 2023, a partial list of 90 names was released, but what you may not know is that this isn’t the full list, which has actually been delayed!

Why Jeffrey Epstein Name List Has Been Delayed!

It is common knowledge now that Judge Preska ordered the release of the unredacted names after 1 January 2024. What many people don’t seem to know is that the release of the full name list has actually been delayed.

Hence, when the name list of some 90 names was released on Wednesday, 3 January 2023, it was not the full list. Here is the current list of names released so far:

Ghislaine Maxwell
Virginia Lee Roberts Giuffre
Kathy Alexander
Miles Alexander
James Michael Austrich
Philip Barden
REDACTED
Cate Blanchett
David Boies
Laura Boothe
Evelyn Boulet
Rebecca Boylan
Joshua Bunner
Naomi Campbell
Carolyn Casey
Paul Cassell
Sharon Churcher
Bill Clinton
David Copperfield
Alexandra Cousteau
Cameron Diaz
Leonardo DiCaprio
Alan Dershowitz
Dr. Mona Devanesan
REDACTED
Bradley Edwards
Amanda Ellison
Cimberly Espinosa
Jeffrey Epstein
Annie Farmer
Marie Farmer
Alexandra Fekkai
Crystal Figueroa
Anthony Figueroa
Louis Freeh
Eric Gany
Meg Garvin
Sheridan Gibson-Butte
Robert Giuffre
Al Gore
Ross Gow
Fred Graff
Philip Guderyon
REDACTED
Shannon Harrison
Stephen Hawking
Victoria Hazel
Brittany Henderson
Brett Jaffe
Michael Jackson
Carol Roberts Kess
Dr. Karen Kutikoff
Peter Listerman
George Lucas
Tony Lyons
Bob Meister
Jamie A. Melanson
Lynn Miller
Marvin Minsky
REDACTED
David Mullen
Joe Pagano
Mary Paluga
J. Stanley Pottinger
Joseph Recarey
Michael Reiter
Jason Richards
Bill Richardson
Sky Roberts
Scott Rothstein
Forest Sawyer
Doug Schoetlle
Kevin Spacey
Cecilia Stein
Mark Tafoya
Brent Tindall
Kevin Thompson
Donald Trump
Ed Tuttle
Emma Vaghan
Kimberly Vaughan-Edwards
Cresenda Valdes
Anthony Valladares
Maritza Vazquez
Vicky Ward
Jarred Weisfeld
Courtney Wild
Bruce Willis
Daniel Wilson
Andrew Albert Christian Edwards, Duke of York

Four names mentioned in the newly released documents remained redacted, while many more names were not included in this release.

This is because Judge Preska ordered the names and documents to be unsealed after 1 January 2024, pending appeals. She gave people whose names would be unsealed until midnight on January 1, 2024, to file an objection or appeal.

On the day the current list and documents were released, another person – Doe 110, submitted an enquiry which is currently being reviewed by the Court (source).

Dec 20, 2023 : NOTICE OF APPEARANCE by Richard Ware Levitt on behalf of John Doe 107..(Levitt, Richard) (Entered: 12/20/2023)

Dec 20, 2023 : LETTER addressed to Judge Loretta A. Preska from Richard Levitt dated 12/20/2023 re: Doe 107. Document filed by John Doe 107..(Levitt, Richard) (Entered: 12/20/2023)

Dec 21, 2023 : MEMO ENDORSEMENT: on re: 1317 Letter filed by John Doe 107. ENDORSEMENT: Doe 107’s request for a 30-day extension is approved. Doe 107 shall, by January 22, 2024, submit to the Court for in camera review an affidavit (1) supporting her assertion that she faces a risk of physical harm in her country of residence and (2) providing detail concerning the hate mail she has received. Doe 107’s counsel may also provide by this date any additional factual support for Doe 107’s contention that unsealing the relevant records would put her at risk ofphysical harm. SO ORDERED. (Signed by Judge Loretta A. Preska on 12/21/2023) (ama) (Entered: 12/21/2023)

Jan 3, 2024 : ORDER: On December 18, 2023, the Court entered an order (dkt. no. 1315) summarizing its findings following a particularized review of the documents noted therein and immediately staying its order for fourteen days to allow any impacted Doe an opportu nity to appeal. The Court received inquiries from two Does seeking to remain under seal. The first of these two Does is Doe 107, whom the Court granted an extension of time until January 22, 2024, to submit support for her assertion that unsealing wo uld cause her physical harm. (See dkt. no. 1318.) The second inquiry was submitted by Doe 110 and is currently under review by the Court. With the exception of the documents relating to these Does, the parties have informed the Court that they will b egin filing the unsealed records outlined in this Court’s December 18 Order later today. The Court will render its determination on the documents relating to Does 107 and 110 in due course. SO ORDERED. (Signed by Judge Loretta A. Preska on 1/03/2024) (ama)

Until Judge Preska rules on the Doe 107 and Doe 110 enquiries, the Jeffrey Epstein list of names will remain incomplete.

In addition, the current list of some 90 names isn’t complete either. The court documents list 184 “Does”, starting at J. Doe #3 through J. Doe #187.

Even though some names are repeated twice, and some are the names of minors who did not speak out publicly and will remain sealed, the final list of people associated (even tangentially) with the Jeffrey Epstein scandal is likely to number over 150.

Frankly, even the full and final Jeffrey Epstein list is unlikely to be a bombshell, as many of the names on the list are already publicly known, like:

Bill Clinton
Bill Gates
Donald Trump
Prince Andrew
Robert F. Kennedy Jr.

As Judge Loretta Preska noted, many of those who are on the Epstein list had already been publicly identified by the media, or during Ghislaine Maxwell’s criminal trial.

On top of that, many people whose names appear in these court documents are not being accused of any crimes. To be clear – this is not a Jeffrey Epstein “client list”!

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 | Cybersecurity | Tech ARP

Support Tech ARP!

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

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

Leave a reply

Are soccer players keeling over while playing on the field from the COVID-19 vaccine?!

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

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

The Children’s Health Defense (CHD) activist group, which is chaired by Robert F. Kennedy Jr., just posted an article suggesting that soccer players are keeling over while playing on the field from the COVID-19 vaccine!

Here is an excerpt from the long, rambling article. Please feel free to skip to the next section for the facts!

Keeling Over on the Soccer Field: Is It ‘Long COVID’ — or the Vaccines?

There is an urgent need for studies comparing the health of COVID-19-vaccinated and unvaccinated people. This research is not being done. The data that would identify people who die or were hospitalized is available to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, but is not being released.

The first reports of people keeling over on the soccer field were in the summer of 2021, a year after the first surge in COVID-19 cases, but synchronous with the availability of mRNA vaccines for young, healthy people.

The people who are suffering heart attacks while exercising are young males of exceptional good health. There is almost no danger from COVID-19 for such people, but they are known to be a high-risk group for myocarditis from the shots.

The mRNA vaccines were pressed upon billions of people globally with no long-term safety studies. This was an unprecedented departure from past regulation practice.

And the control groups in the Pfizer and Moderna trials were given the vaccine just a few months into the trials, assuring that these trials can never test the long-term safety of the products. With Kafka-esque logic, the companies claimed that their products were so safe and effective that it would be unethical to deny their benefits to the placebo group in the study, so Shucks!

It’s just too bad that we’re never going to have the data that would establish just how safe and effective they are. At the time when they claimed it would be unethical to deny the benefit of their product to the 30,000 subjects in the control groups, more people had died in the vaccine group than in the control group.

It is now established that problems with heart inflammation and blood clots come from the spike protein of the vaccine. But the spike protein is the active epitope for all the vaccines, and it goes everywhere in the body.

Some people who are vaccinated get a much higher dose of spike protein than people who contract the disease. This is because mRNA vaccines, unlike traditional vaccines, do not deliver a measured dose of the epitope to the body. Instead, they deliver coded instructions for making the spike protein, and cells of our bodies do the work of creating it. Most people who receive the shots can degrade the mRNA within a few days.

But in a small percentage of people, the mRNA persists for months, continuing to churn out the spike protein. In a smaller set — we don’t know how many people because no one is conducting quantitative research — the mRNA is reverse-transcribed back into DNA, and the body’s generation of spike protein never stops. Since the liquid nanoparticles carrying mRNA are concentrated in the ovaries, it is possible that DNA coding for the spike could be passed to succeeding generations. No one is looking for this effect.

We now know that COVID-19 came from a bioweapon laboratory, and the spike protein was the part of the virus that was engineered to be toxic. This means that there are people who know exactly how it was designed and in what way it was engineered to be toxic.

These scientists probably also know how to cure the disease, because every bioweapon is researched in parallel with an antidote. Cross-examining these scientists could save millions of lives. Why is no one with authority conducting the investigations or issuing the subpoenas?

There is an urgent need for studies comparing the health of COVID-19-vaccinated and unvaccinated people. This research is not being done, and the data that would identify people who die or were hospitalized is available to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), but not being released.

It is my opinion, given the present messaging climate, that if such studies supported the long-term benefits of mRNA vaccination, we would be hearing about them loud and clear. The fact that these data are not being reported and the studies are not being done is suspicious.

Show less

No Evidence Soccer Players Are Keeling Over From COVID-19 Vaccine!

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

Fact #1 : Sudden Cardiac Arrest Is Pretty Common

The first reports of soccer players keeling over on the field did not start only “in the summer of 2021”. Sudden Cardiac Arrest (SCA) is a medical emergency that has been documented for as long as medical records exist.

And SCA is actually pretty common. The United States alone records over half a million cases of sudden cardiac arrest cases every year – an incidence of about 130 per 100,000 individuals per year.

In addition, the COVID-19 vaccines were first prioritised towards vulnerable people, and not athletes. So some athletes who collapsed on the field in the summer of 2021, like Christian Eriksen, were actually unvaccinated!

The incidence of SCA also did not increase after the COVID-19 vaccines were introduced, which squashes the claim that vaccines are causing a spike in sudden cardiac arrest deaths.

As this Peterson-KFF chart shows, the incidence of heart disease as well as other causes of death in the United States remained relatively stable during the pandemic. Only deaths from COVID-19 varied significantly during that time.

Fact #2 : COVID-19 Causes Far More Myocarditis Than Vaccines!

It is true that younger males are more likely than other segments of the population to develop myocarditis after taking COVID-19 vaccines based on mRNA technology. However, what you may not know is that – the risk of developing myocarditis is much, much higher with COVID-19 infections!

The large SAFECOVAC study showed that the risk of developing vaccine myocarditis is less than 1 in a million doses. On the other hand, the study data showed that the risk of developing myocarditis after a COVID-19 infection is hundreds of times higher than getting 3 doses of any COVID-19 vaccine!

If you are worried about myocarditis, you should definitely want to AVOID getting infected with 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

Fact #3 : COVID-19 Vaccines Continue To Be Monitored

COVID-19 vaccines received their Emergency Use Authorisations (EUA) in December 2020 through early 2021, after passing large Phase 3 clinical trials. Even then, they continue to be monitored by their manufacturers, and health authorities across the world.

Even after the Pfizer and Moderna mRNA vaccines received their full FDA approval on 23 August 2021, and 31 January 2022 respectively, they continue to be monitored for safety and efficacy.

After three years of safety monitoring and billions of doses administered, COVID-19 vaccines have been proven to be largely safe and effective. There is zero evidence that the COVID-19 vaccines are nefariously targeting soccer players, and “assassinating” them while they play on the field.

Fact #4 : Viruses Multiply, Vaccines Won’t

The claim that COVID-19 vaccines produce more spike proteins than an actual COVID-19 virus infection is illogical. After all, viruses multiply, while the vaccines won’t.

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

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

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

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

Fact #5 : No Evidence SARS-CoV-2 Is A Bioweapon

There is no evidence that SARS-CoV-2 was developed as a bioweapon. Neither is there any evidence that the spike protein was man-made, or “engineered to be toxic”.

For one thing – SARS-CoV-2 isn’t virulent enough to serve as a bioweapon. There are far more potent bioweapons that have already been tested in the past that make this coronavirus look puny.

COVID-19 also disproportionately targets the elderly and the vulnerable, instead of the “fighting age” population. A good bioweapon would do the opposite.

The Chinese also did not have any antidote at hand to deal with COVID-19, when it first broke out in Wuhan.

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 | Health | Tech ARP

Support Tech ARP!

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

Were Hank Aaron Autopsy + Cause of Death Falsified?!

Leave a reply

Robert F. Kennedy Jr. just suggested that the Hank Aaron autopsy and cause of death may have been falsified to cover up his death from the COVID-19 vaccine!

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

Updated @ 2023-09-03 : Added video fact check.
Originally posted @ 2023-09-02

Claim : Hank Aaron Autopsy + Cause of Death Are False!

People are sharing a video clip of US Presidential candidate Robert F. Kennedy Jr. to suggest that Hank Aaron likely died from the COVID-19 vaccine, because his autopsy and cause of death may have been falsified!

Chief Nerd : Robert F. Kennedy Jr on How the New York Times Lied About Hank Aaron’s Autopsy

“The New York Times did an article that said ‘Robert Kennedy is a conspiracy theorist because the Fulton County coroner has declared that Hank Aaron’s death was unrelated to the vaccine…So I called the Fulton County coroner and got them on the phone and they said we don’t know what the New York Times is talking about. We never saw Hank Aaron’s body.”

torontowriter : New York Times lied about Hank Aaron’s autopsy

#diedsuddenly #plandemic #vaccineinjuries #politics #cdnpoli #covid #health

Torah Law : How many people knew Hank Aaron took the vaccine shot as a promotion to show its efficacy and then died two and a half weeks later? I didn’t know that. Oh and @RobertKennedyJr says the New York times lied about an autopsy that never happened… so there’s that

No Evidence Hank Aaron Autopsy + Cause of Death Are False!

Let’s take a look at what happened, and what the facts really are!

Fact #1 : Hank Aaron Received Moderna COVID-19 Vaccine Dose

Hank Aaron (born Henry Louis Aaron on February 5, 1934) was an American professional baseball player who played 23 seasons in Major League Baseball, from 1954 to 1976.

On 5 January 2021, Hank Aaron posted on Twitter that he just received his first COVID-19 vaccine dose at the Morehouse School of Medicine in Atlanta, Georgia:

I was proud to get the COVID-19 vaccine earlier today at Morehouse School of Medicine. I hope you do the same!

It was reported that Hank Aaron received the Moderna COVID-19 vaccine.

Fact #2 : Hank Aaron Did Not Have Side Effect From Vaccine

According to former congressman, mayor and US ambassador, Andrew Young, who was also vaccinated at the same clinic on the same day, Aaron Hank did not experience any side effects from the COVID-19 vaccine he received:

I talked to the fella who was his driver, and I said, ‘was Hank feeling any discomfort or any problem over the last few days?’ and he said, ‘no, he wanted to keep his schedule,’

Fact #3 : Hank Aaron Died Of Natural Causes

Hank Aaron died in his sleep at his Atlanta, Georgia home on January 22, 2021. He was 86 years old when he died.

On January 25, 2021, the Fulton County Medical Examiner’s Office announce that Hank Aaron died of natural causes.

A memorial service was held at the Truist Park on Tuesday, January 26, with a funeral service on Wednesday, January 27, at the Friendship Baptist Church, followed by a burial at the South-View Cemetery.

Because Hank Aaron died 17 days after receiving the first dose of the COVID-19 vaccine, many anti-vaccine activists claimed or suggested that he died from the vaccine.

Fact #4 : RFK Jr. Was Repeating His Earlier Claim

This isn’t the first time Robert F. Kennedy Jr. suggested that Hank Aaron may have died suddenly from the COVID-19 vaccine.

On January 22, 2021, he tweeted a link to an article by his organisation, Children’s Health Defense, which suggested that Hank Aaron died suddenly from the Moderna COVID-19 vaccine.

#HankAaron’s tragic death is part of a wave of suspicious deaths among elderly closely following administration of #COVID #vaccines. He received the #Moderna vaccine on Jan. 5 to inspire other Black Americans to get the vaccine. #TheDefender

The difference is – this time, he’s suggesting that the New York Times was wrong, and that the Fulton County Examiner’s office “never saw Hank Aaron’s body“!

Fact #5 : Hank Aaron’s Body Was Examined By Fulton County Medical Examiner

Robert F. Kennedy Jr. said on The Breakfast Club radio show that he called the Fulton County Medical Examiner’s office, and was told that the people there “never saw Hank Aaron’s body”.

He repeated the claim for a second time, stating that he wrote to The New York Times, telling them they needed to post a correction because the Fulton County Medical Examiner’s office never saw his body.

That is quite a ludicrous claim since Hank Aaron was taken to the Fulton County Medical Examiner’s office after his death. So it would be quite ridiculous for anyone at the Fulton County ME to claim that it never saw his body.

In fact, the county medical examiner, Karen Sullivan, told AFP Fact Check on January 27, 2021 that it examined Hank Aaron’s body (my emphasis in bold):

[E]xamination of Mr. Aaron’s body did not suggest his death was due to any event other than that associated with his medical history.

Based on the information provided by Mr Aaron’s family and physical examination of his body, it is my medical opinion that Mr Aaron’s death was not related to his recent vaccination for Covid-19.

Fact #6 : New York Times Never Mentioned An Autopsy

On January 31, 2021, the The New York Times published a fact check article, which called out Robert K. Kennedy for suggesting without evidence that there was a link between Hank Aaron’s death and the COVID-19 vaccine he received.

Never mind the skeptics, officials say: Hank Aaron’s death had nothing to do with the Covid-19 vaccine.

[A]nti-vaccine activists, including Robert F. Kennedy Jr., a prominent vaccine skeptic, are seizing on his death to suggest — without evidence — that there might be a link.

To be clear – the NYT article never mentioned that Hank Aaron underwent an autopsy. The word “autopsy” was not mentioned even once in the entire article.

Neither did the NYT article quote the Fulton County medical examiner as claiming that an autopsy was conducted. It only mentioned that the medical examiner only stated that there was no evidence Hank Aaron suffered any allergic or anaphylactic reaction to the vaccine.

The Fulton County medical examiner has also said there was nothing to suggest that Mr. Aaron had an allergic or anaphylactic reaction related to the vaccine.

Fact #7 : Fulton County Medical Examiner Did Not Mention Autopsy

Other media reports quoting the Fulton County Medical Examiner also did not mention that an autopsy was conducted on Hank Aaron. They only reported that Hank Aaron’s body was examined by the medical examiner.

Under Georgia law, an autopsy is only required (PDF download) in deaths occurring:

As a result of violence;
By suicide or casualty;
Suddenly when in apparent good health;
When unattended by a physician;
In any suspicious or unusual manner, with particular attention to those persons 16 years of age and under;
After birth but before seven years of age if the death is unexpected or unexplained;
As a result of an execution carried out pursuant to the imposition of the death penalty;
An inmate of a state hospital or a state, county, or city penal institution; or
After having been admitted to a hospital in an unconscious state and without regaining consciousness within 24 hours of admission.

Hank Aaron was 86 years-old, and suffering from arthritis, hypertension and prostate issues. He also had a partial hip replacement after falling down in 2014, and has to use a wheelchair.

Therefore, it does not appear that an autopsy was warranted in his death, and an autopsy was likely not conducted.

Fact #8 : No Evidence Hank Aaron Died From COVID-19 Vaccine

Ultimately, there is simply no evidence that Hank Aaron died from the COVID-19 vaccine.

Unless there is evidence he suffered from an anaphylactic attack (which occurs within minutes), or other vaccine side effects before his death, it is wrong to simply attribute his death to the vaccine:

“That was a pure coincidence,” countered Dr. Louis W. Sullivan, the founding dean of the Morehouse medical school and secretary of health and human services in the George H.W. Bush administration, who was vaccinated along with Mr. Aaron. He told the Atlanta station WSB-TV, “It is though, if you might say, Hank was in a car before the day he died, and we try and attribute his death to being in a car.”

The COVID-19 vaccine only protects against severe disease and death from COVID-19. It cannot protect against other causes of death, and it is certainly not an elixir of immortality. Vaccinated people can and do continue to die from other causes of death.

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 | Health | Tech ARP

Support Tech ARP!

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

Did Russia + Ukraine Sign Peace Agreement In 2022?!

Leave a reply

Did Russia and Ukraine sign a peace agreement in Spring 2022, as Vladimir Putin claimed?!

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

Vladimir Putin : Russia + Ukraine Signed Peace Agreement In 2022!

People are sharing a video of Russian President Vladimir Putin showing South African President Cyril Ramaphosa a document, claiming that Russia signed a peace agreement with Ukraine in the spring of 2022!

Robert F. Kennedy Jr : Looks like the Biden Administration deployed Boris Johnson to scuttle a tentative peace agreement between Russia and Ukraine in spring 2022. This was never about the Ukrainian people. It was always about engineering a war against Russia. #Kennedy24

@onlydjole : 🇷🇺‼️Putin: “Peace was signed between Ukraine and Russia in the spring of 2022.”‼️

#Putin publicly showed the previously unpublished document in front of South African President Ramaphosa.

(Nato reportedly sent disgraced US puppet Boris Johnson to force Kiev to back down.)

Richard Medhurst : BREAKING: Putin holds up a peace agreement that Ukraine & Russia signed over a YEAR ago, in spring 2022.

Not one word of this in mainstream media.

Russians are signalling they want a diplomatic settlement. Why isn’t this welcomed? How can they claim Russia sabotaged the talks?

https://www.techarp.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/06/Putin-Ukraine-peace-agreement-Twitter.mp4?_=4

Truth : Russia + Ukraine Never Signed Peace Agreement In 2022

This is yet another example of FAKE NEWS created by Vladimir Putin himself, and propagated by his supporters to diminish support for Ukraine’s fight against Russia, and here are the reasons why…

Fact #1 : Russia + Ukraine Held Multiple Peace Talks In 2022

Russia and Ukraine held multiple rounds of peace talks during the 2022-2023 Russian invasion of Ukraine.

The first round occurred within days of Russia’s invasion on the Belarus-Ukraine border – on 28 February, 3 March, and 7 March. More talks were held in Turkey on 10 March, and more negotiations started on 14 March.

Fact #2 : Sergei Lavrov Dismissed Ukrainian Peace Deal In April 2022

On 7 April 2022, Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov announced that Moscow rejected a draft peace deal from Ukraine, saying that it contained “unacceptable” elements that deviated from proposals that both sides’ negotiators had earlier agreed on.

The new draft, according to Lavrov, said that the status of Crimea should be raised at a meeting between Vladimir Putin and Volodymyr Zelenskyy. It also said that Ukraine can hold military drills with other countries without Russia’s permission.

He also said that peace talks with Ukraine were not progressing as quickly as Russia would like, and accused the West of trying to derail negotiations by accusing Russian troops of war crimes in Ukraine.

Such inability to agree once again highlights Kyiv’s true intentions, its position of drawing out and even undermining the talks by moving away from the understandings reached.

Fact #3 : Russia + Ukraine Peace Talks Failed By July 2022

By July 2022, both Ukraine and Russia announced that peace talks had failed:

July 13 : Ukrainian foreign minster Dmytro Kuleba said that peace talks are frozen for the time being
July 19 : Dmitry Medvedev said that “Russia will achieve all its goals. There will be peace – on our terms”

In other words – both Russia and Ukraine did not sign any peace agreement in the spring of 2022, as claimed.

https://youtu.be/cm-T-W0_v0k

Fact #4 : Vladimir Putin Rejected Ukrainian Peace Deal

On September 14, 2022, Reuters reported that Vladimir Putin rejected a provisional deal, in which Ukraine agreed to stay out of NATO.

His own chief envoy on Ukraine, Dmitry Kozak, told him that the deal would remove the need for Russia to pursue a large-scale occupation of Ukraine, and recommended that Putin adopt the peace deal.

However, Putin decided to reject the provisional peace agreement Kozak hammered out with the Ukrainians, and pressed ahead with his “special military operation”.

According to sources close to Russian leadership, Putin changed his mind and decided that any peace deal must include the newly-annexed Ukrainian territory.

Fact #5 : Russia + Ukraine Said Peace Deal Was Impossible

It is funny for Vladimir Putin to now claim that Russia and Ukraine had earlier signed a peace agreement in 2022, when Russia continued its invasion of Ukraine.

On top of that, both Putin spokesperson Dmitry Peskov and Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov also said that for any peace plan to be acceptable, Ukraine must recognise Russia’s September 2022 annexation of its territory.

After that, Volodymyr Zelenskyy announced that Ukraine would not hold peace talks with Russia, while Putin remained Russian president, and even signed a decree to ban any further peace talks.

Then in January 2023, Putin spokesperson Dmitry Peskov said that “there is currently no prospect for diplomatic means of settling the situation around Ukraine”.

Up till Putin’s remarkable claim in June 2023, both Russia and Ukraine have repeatedly said that they cannot come to an agreement. Needless to say – no peace agreement was ever signed.

Fact #6 : This Is Just Fake News About Ukraine

This is just another example of fake news created to reduce support for Ukraine during Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. Here are other examples you may have seen on social media:

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

Please Support My Work!

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

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

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

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

Recommended Reading

Go Back To > Fact Check | Military | 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 Bill Gates Releasing Millions of GMO Mosquitoes?!

Leave a reply

Is Bill Gates manufacturing and releasing 30 million genetically-modified mosquitoes every week?!

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

Claim : Bill Gates Is Releasing Millions Of GMO Mosquitoes!

People are sharing a World Mosquito Program video as evidence that Bill Gates is manufacturing and releasing 30 million genetically-mosquitoes every week, from his mosquito factory in Colombia.

Robert F. Kennedy Jr : Should Bill Gates be releasing 30 million genetically modified mosquitoes into the wild? Part of the mentality of earth-as-engineering-object. What could possibly go wrong?

Dr. Anastasia Maria Loupis : BILL GATES – This is Bill’s mosquito factory in Colombia. It’s the largest in the world. 30 million genetically modified mosquitoes are released every week into 11 countries. Because Bill knows better than nature, what could possibly go wrong.

Dr. Lynn Fynn-derella : How is @BillGates allowed to do this? They are likely testing mosquito-borne disease spread in order to roll out more vaccines for the diseases they create. The entire mosquito population should be eradicated- including the king mosquito-

Truth : Bill Gates Is NOT Releasing Millions Of GMO Mosquitoes!

This is yet another example of FAKE NEWS created about Bill Gates, and here are the reasons why…

Fact #1 : Mosquito Factory Video Was Released In 2022

First, let me just point out that the mosquito factory video is not new. It was posted by Bill Gates on his YouTube channel some 9 months ago, on August 16, 2022, garnering over 6.9 million views.

Fact #2 : Mosquito Factory Does Not Belong To Bill Gates

The “world’s biggest mosquito factory” in Medellin, Colombia, does not belong to Bill Gates. It is not Bill Gates’ mosquito factory. He doesn’t own one.

As the viral video clearly states, that mosquito factory belongs to World Mosquito Program.

Fact #3 : World Mosquito Program Has Many “Factories”

The World Mosquito Program actually has a number of mosquito breeding facilities worldwide. The Medellin mosquito factory is merely its biggest. To be clear – Bill Gates does not own any of them.

Fact #4 : Those Are Not Genetically-Modified Mosquitoes

The claim that those are genetically-modified mosquitoes is false. Those are regular Aedes aegypti mosquitoes that have not been genetically modified.

As the video itself explained, the mosquitoes are only being infected with the Wolbachia bacteria, which are extremely common bacteria found naturally in 50% of insect species.

The World Mosquito Program also clearly stated on its website that it does not genetically modify any mosquito:

Unlike most other techniques that aim to prevent mosquito-borne diseases, our Wolbachia method is natural and self-sustaining.

Our method does not suppress mosquito populations or involve genetic modification (GM), as the genetic material of the mosquito is not altered.

Fact #5 : Wolbachia Mosquitoes Prevent Diseases

When Aedes aegypti mosquitoes are infected by the Wolbachia bacteria, scientists discovered that the bacteria competes with viruses like dengue, Zika, chikungunya, and yellow fever!

This makes it harder for the dengue, Zika, chikungunya, and yellow fever viruses to multiply in the Wolbachia-infected mosquito, and thus, block the transmission of those viruses.

A randomised controlled trial conducted in Yogyakarta, Indonesia, found that Wolbachia-infected mosquitoes reduced the number of dengue cases in the city by a whopping 77%, and dengue hospitalisations by 86%!

Another study conducted in Medillin (where the mosquito factory is located) showed that the mosquitoes reduced dengue cases there by 89% since they were first released in 2015.

On top of that, scientists also discovered that male Wolbachia mosquitoes can reduce the population of uninfected mosquitoes by breeding with normal female mosquitoes – the eggs they produce won’t hatch!

All this can be accomplished by breeding and infecting mosquitoes with the Wolbachia bacteria, and releasing them. There is no need for any genetic modification.

Credit : National Environment Agency

Fact #6 : World Mosquito Program Is A Monash University Project

The World Mosquito Program is not a Bill Gates project. Formerly known as the Eliminate Dengue Project, it is a non-profit initiative by Monash University of Australia, with funding from the Australian government, as well as other donors.

Fact #7 : Bill + Melinda Gates Foundation Helped Fund The Project

The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, together with the Wellcome Trust, awarded the World Mosquito Program with AUD$50 million (US$33.7 million) in additional funds in September 2022.

It is unknown how much the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation alone contributed to the World Mosquito Program, but both foundations have contributed a total of AUD$185 million (US$124.6 million) in funding since 2010.

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 | Health | Tech ARP

Support Tech ARP!

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

Did US Send Nuclear AEGIS Missiles To Ukraine?!

Leave a reply

Did the United States just send nuclear capable AEGIS missiles to Ukraine?!

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

Claim : US Sent Nuclear Capable AEGIS Missiles To Ukraine!

US Presidential candidate Robert F. Kennedy Jr. recently claimed that the US government sent nuclear capable AEGIS missiles to Ukraine!

In 2019 actor and comedian Volodymyr Zelensky ran as the peace candidate winning the Ukrainian presidency with 70% of the vote. As Benjamin Abelow observes in his brilliant book, “How the West Brought War to Ukraine,” Zelensky almost certainly could have avoided the 2022 war with Russia simply by uttering five words — “I will not join NATO.”

But pressured by NeoCons in the Biden White House, and by violent fascist elements within the Ukrainian government, Zelensky integrated his army with NATO’s and allowed the U.S. to place nuclear-capable Aegis missile launchers along Ukraine’s 1,200-mile border with Russia.

These were provocations that senior U.S. diplomats like post-WWII foreign policy architect George Kennan, former U.S. Defense Secretary Bill Perry, and former U.S. ambassador to Moscow Jack Matlock had long described as “red lines” for Russian leadership. Let’s face it, the Neocons wanted this war with Russia, just as they wanted war with Iraq.

He followed up by explaining that it’s because the AEGIS system is compatible with Tomahawk missiles which carry nuclear warheads.

The Aegis system advertises its tubes as compatible with Tomahawk missles which carry hydrogen bomb warheads with explosive power 10x the size of the Hiroshima bomb.

Truth : US Did Not Send Nuclear AEGIS Missiles To Ukraine!

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

Fact #1 : AEGIS Is An Anti-Ballistic Missile System

Let me begin by pointing out that AEGIS is a missile defence system that is designed to defend against short to intermediate-range ballistic missiles.

In other words, AEGIS is not an offensive weapon. It is a defensive surface-to-air missile (SAM) system.

Fact #2 : AEGIS Is Not Nuclear Capable

As a defensive missile system, there is no need for AEGIS missiles to be nuclear-capable. Hence, there are no nuclear-capable AEGIS missiles or AEGIS missile launchers.

It is ludicrous for any missile defence system to use nuclear-tipped missiles since they would necessarily intercept incoming ballistic missiles in mid-flight.

The resulting explosion would cause massive destruction to the ground below, which would likely be in the territory of the defending country!

Fact #3 : There Are No AEGIS Missile Systems In Ukraine

AEGIS missile systems are complex and require extensive training, and are only deployed by American and NATO forces. They are also primarily based on ships, although NATO decided to develop the land-based AEGIS Ashore in 2014.

The first AEGIS Ashore site was deployed operationally in Deveselu, Romania, in 2016, while the second site was opened in Redzikowo in Poland, in 2022. There are no other AEGIS Ashore systems in the world, and certainly none in the Ukraine.

It takes many years to develop an AEGIS Ashore site. Even if the US government decided to setup an AEGIS Ashore site in Ukraine today, it wouldn’t be operational for many more years to come!

Note : The AEGIS Ashore facility is behind Robert F. Kennedy Jr. This launcher to his left is the THAAD (Terminal High Altitude Area Defense) launcher that was emplaced during AEGIS Ashore construction.

Fact #4 : AEGIS Is Not Compatible With Tomahawk

Robert F. Kennedy Jr. seems to be confusing the AEGIS missile system, with the Tomahawk cruise missile. They are both different systems. The AEGIS missile defence system is not compatible with the Tomahawk cruise missile system.

What he does not appear to understand is that ships that carry the AEGIS systems (AEGIS ships) use the Mark 41 Vertical Launching System (VLS) which was upgraded to be backward compatible with other missiles. This allows the ships to use a standard canister launching system for different missiles.

Originally, the Mk 41 VLS was designed to fire the RIM-66 Standard missile used by the AEGIS system. But for greater flexibility, the launching system was upgraded to accommodate the larger canister used by Tomahawk missiles. The current Mk 41 VLS now accommodates a variety of different missiles:

RIM-66 Standard
RIM-67 Standard
RIM-161 Standard Missile 3
RIM-174 Standard ERAM
RGM-109 Tomahawk
RUM-139 VL-ASROC
RIM-7 Sea Sparrow
RIM-162 Evolved Sea Sparrow Missile (ESSM)
Joint Strike Missile

While the launcher itself supports different missiles (which are stored in their own containers), the actual systems controlling those missiles are different. An AEGIS system for example, cannot fire Tomahawk missiles out of Mk 41 VLS launchers.

Fact #5 : There Are No Operational Nuclear Tomahawk Missiles

It is true that Tomahawk cruise missiles were originally designed to accept nuclear warheads, but they were withdrawn long ago, and are no longer in service:

BGM-109A Tomahawk Land Attack Missile – Nuclear (TLAM-N) had a W80 nuclear warhead, but was retired from service by 2013.
BGM-109G Ground Launched Cruise Missile (GLCM) had a W84 nuclear warhead, but was withdrawn from service in 1991 to comply with the INF Treaty.

There are currently no Tomahawk missiles with nuclear warheads in active service. So the claim that US deployed nuclear-capable Tomahawk missiles anywhere is nonsense.

Fact #6 : There Are Easier Ways To Attack Russia With Missiles

With heavy fighting on the frontlines in Ukraine, it doesn’t make sense for the US to deploy Tomahawk missiles, nuclear capable or otherwise, in that country.

For one thing, it would be taken as casus belli by Russia. Even if it chose not to escalate the war, it is easier for Russia to attack the AEGIS / Tomahawk missile launchers in Ukraine.

But more importantly, there are easier ways to hit Russia with Tomahawk missiles than deploying them in Ukraine, where Russian forces (including air defences) are deployed in great numbers.

It would be far easier and safer for the United States / NATO to attack Moscow (for example) using Tomahawk or other missiles deployed in Latvia or Estonia, which are both NATO members.

Fact #7 : Robert F. Kennedy Jr Admitted He Was Wrong

Almost a week after he made those false claims, Robert F. Kennedy Jr. finally admitted that he was wrong. But even his correction reasserted the false claim that Russian fears of AEGIS precipitated the 2023 invasion of Ukraine.

Latvia and Estonia are NATO members, where AEGIS Ashore missile systems can potentially be installed, and Tomahawk systems deployed. Attacking Ukraine, which is not a NATO member, does not change that calculus.

This only goes to show how ill-prepared he is to be Commander-in-Chief of the United States.

ERRATA: Apologies for my earlier tweet reporting that the U.S. had installed nuclear-capable Aegis Missile systems in Ukraine. This was incorrect. The U.S. installed the Aegis batteries in Romania and Poland.

According to former top NATO military planner Col. Douglas Macgregor and historian Benjamin Abelow, the Russian government’s fear that the U.S. was about to install the same systems in Ukraine was one of several national security anxieties that motivated Russia’s 2022 invasion.

Russia had been deeply concerned that new U.S. missile systems, deployed as close as 400 miles from Moscow, could increase the chance that, in a crisis, the U.S. might believe it could carry out a decapitating preemptive first strike.

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 | Military | 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!

Plandemic 3 To Prove Satan’s Hand In COVID-19 Vaccines!

Leave a reply

Plandemic 3 is here, and its producers promise that it will finally prove Satan’s hand in the nefarious COVID-19 vaccines!

Get a taste of what Plandemic 3 will reveal in our exclusive sneak preview!

Note to the Google team : There is no Pandemic 3 movie, and this is satire.

Plandemic 3 To Prove Satan’s Hand In COVID-19 Vaccines!

Thanks to the hard work of renown coronavirus expert, Dr. Judy Mikovits and famous autism expert Robert F. Kennedy Jr., the new film will definitively reveal the nefarious Satanic plans behind the COVID-19 vaccines!

The Plandemic 3 team has kindly given us some tidbits to share with all of you. All they ask is that you SHARE and PRAY for Plandemic 3 to reach more people with the hashtag #Plandemic3!

Why Plandemic 3?

Plandemic was a hit, but the second movie – Plandemic: Indoctornation was a failure.

Many people didn’t even realise it was a new movie. President Donald Trump notably thought it was part of the original Plandemic movie.

Based on his feedback, the producers decided to go with Plandemic 3, so people like him understand that it’s a new movie.

5G Tracker In COVID-19 Vaccines

Renown coronavirus expert, Dr. Judy Mikovits, had been looking into how Big Pharma could possibly inject a 5G tracker through COVID-19 vaccines, and had her breakthrough when public vaccinations started.

Many people started reporting that they found 5G trackers implanted in their arms after they were vaccinated.

Some of these concerned citizens sent her their trackers, and after obtaining a vial of the Pfizer mRNA vaccine and the syringes they use, the intrepid Dr. Mikovits finally figured out how they did it!

Why other less eminent researchers failed to find the 5G trackers is because they looked at the vaccine. There’s no 5G tracker inside, just a special activation fluid.

The secret is inside the syringe needle, she explained. That’s why they switch the needles before injecting people!

Dr. Judy Mikovits hard at work with her microscope!

Hidden inside the needle is a super-compressed 5G tracker – deactivated so RF scanners cannot detect it.

Once injected into your arm, the activation fluid expands the tracker so it locks into your arm muscle, and activates its 5G signal.

Dr. Mikovits shared this picture of the 3 variants she found, held in length- and colour-coded microscope attachment screws to differentiate them.

They are apparently made by the Presta Corporation, based in Baltimore, but funded with research funding from Bill Gates and the Wuhan Institute of Virology.

In Plandemic 3, she will show you how the 5G tracker is cleverly hidden inside the needle, and how it gradually expands on contact with the activation fluid.

She will also show you have to cut it out of your arm, or block its signal with a copper-lined skin patch that her company will be releasing shortly.

And yes, Plandemic 3 will flash a special 50% discount code, so be sure to look out for it!

COVID-19 Is Satan’s Work

Robert F. Kennedy Jr. has helped prevent autism for millions of innocent children by praying the vaccines out of them.

The more vaccines people take, the more he prays. 24/7/365 days every day. The man doesn’t sleep, he doesn’t eat. He just prays the vaccines out of our kids. Hallelujah!

Since the COVID-19 pandemic started, he focused his considerable intellect into WHY it happened, and WHAT it really means.

In Plandemic 3, he will show you how he discovered that the coronavirus is Satan’s handiwork. Here is one example he shared with us.

After many sleepless nights calculating the different possibilities, he discovered that CORONA = 666. If this is not proof, he says, then you are blind!

Kennedy also shared how Social Distancing was Satan’s idea. He believes health authorities use this term, as a form of satanic worship.

Every time they say Social Distancing, they are praising Satan. That is also why they refuse to say Physical Distancing.

To check if your friend is a secret follower of Satan, he suggests you say physical distancing. If your friend insists on saying social distancing, he’s a Satanist!

You should also look for all kinds of word and sentence combinations that can create the word “Satan” in everything you read or write. Satan lurks even in YOUR words!

Plandemic 3 : Where To Watch It?

Major corporations (Facebook, YouTube, Instagram, Twitter) have been paid off by Big Pharma and the New World Order to block Plandemic 3 by deleting the video.

To avoid this, the producers are planning to DIRECTLY PM / DM you a link to the video.

To obtain the secret link to the Plandemic 3 video, simply post on social media (Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, WhatsApp groups, Telegram groups) with the hashtag #Plandemic3.

For every share of this article, with the hashtag #Plandemic3 and #CLeeYu, the Plandemic 3 team promises to sponsor the removal of a 5G tracker!

My Most Excellent Works

Go Back To > Science | Fact Check | Tech ARP

Support Tech ARP!

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