Tag Archives: Robert F. Kennedy Jr.

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

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.

Recommended : Elon Musk Bitcoin + Ethereum Giveaway Scam Alert!

 

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???

Recommended : Did Trump warn it’ll be a ‘Bloodbath’ if he’s not elected?!

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.

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

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

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

 

Please Support My Work!

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

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

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

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

 

Recommended Reading

Go Back To > Fact Check | PoliticsTech 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!

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.”

Recommended : Did NATO + Russian Forces Engage In Battle In Ukraine?!

 

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“.

Recommended : Is Ukraine now drafting soldiers with Down syndrome?!

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!!

Recommended : Is Ukraine now drafting soldiers with Down syndrome?!

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.

Recommended : Was “Dead” Ukrainian Crisis Actor Caught Waking Up?!

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!

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.

Recommended : How Antivaxxers Create Fake News Using VAERS!

 

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!

Recommended : Can Pfizer Vaccine Cause Prion / Alzheimer’s Disease?!

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.

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

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 | HealthTech ARP

 

Support Tech ARP!

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

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

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

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

Which RFK Jr Conspiracy Theories Turned Out To Be True?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

Please Support My Work!

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

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

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

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

 

Recommended Reading

Go Back To > Fact Check | Science | Tech ARP

 

Support Tech ARP!

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

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

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

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Recommended : Is Red Cross Rejecting COVID Vaccinated Blood?!

 

Truth : CDC Did Not Redact Its mRNA Myocarditis Study!

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

Fact #1 : It Was CDC Document, Not Study

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Fact #3 : CDC Study Was Already Published Publicly!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Fact #6 : COVID-19 Myocarditis Is More Common

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

Please Support My Work!

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

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

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

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

 

Recommended Reading

Go Back To > Fact Check | HealthTech ARP

 

Support Tech ARP!

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

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

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.

Recommended : Did Joe Biden Just Propose To Start Vaccinating America?!

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.”

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.

 

 

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.

Recommended : Did Joe Biden Teach The 2nd Amendment For 12 Years?!

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 > PoliticsPhoto + 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?!

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

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

 

Claim : Red Cross May Be Rejecting COVID Vaccinated Blood!

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

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

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

 

Truth : Red Cross Is Not Rejecting COVID Vaccinated Blood!

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

Fact #1 : This Eligibility Requirement Isn’t New

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Fact #3 : Red Cross Only Defers Some Blood Donations

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Fact #6 : Red Cross Is Helping To Vaccinated People

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

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

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

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

 

Please Support My Work!

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

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

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

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

 

Recommended Reading

Go Back To > Fact Check | HealthTech ARP

 

Support Tech ARP!

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

Did Scientists Call For Global mRNA Vaccine Moratorium?!

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

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

 

Claim : Scientists Call For mRNA Vaccine Moratorium!

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

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

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

Recommended : Are Residual DNA In mRNA Vaccines Dangerous?!

 

Scientists Call For mRNA Vaccine Moratorium : My Fact Check

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Fact #2 : It Regurgitates Long-Debunked Claims

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

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

COVID-19 Vaccine Clinical Trials Were Too Short?!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Low Absolute Risk Shows No Need To Vaccinate?!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

mRNA Vaccines Do Not Prevent Transmission?!

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

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

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

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

mRNA Vaccines Have A Lot Of AESIs?!

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

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

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

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

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

Lots Of Deaths + Hospitalisation Were Reported?!

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

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

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

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

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

Autopsy Reports Show Deaths Caused By Vaccines?!

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

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

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

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

Recommended : Did mRNA Vaccines Trigger Severe Nerve Damage?!

mRNA Vaccines Are Contaminated By DNA?!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

Please Support My Work!

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

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

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

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

 

Recommended Reading

Go Back To > Fact Check | HealthTech ARP

 

Support Tech ARP!

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

FDA Now Allows Experiments On People Without Consent?!

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

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

 

Claim : FDA Now Allows Experiments On People Without Consent!

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

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

This is a direct violation of the Nuremberg Code.

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

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

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

 

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

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

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

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

At that time, the Common Rule had four criteria for the waiver or alteration of informed consent for minimal risk research. It was then revised on 19 January 2017, to add a fifth criteria – “[i]f the research involves using identifiable private information or identifiable biospecimens, the research could not practicably be carried out without using such information or biospecimens in an identifiable format”.

So the claim by Robert F. Kennedy Jr. that it was a recent 21 December 2023 FDA ruling (PDF) called “Institutional Review Board Waiver or Alteration of Informed Consent for Minimal Risk Clinical Investigations” that exempts “minimal risk” clinical trials from informed consent is false.

This was specifically mentioned in Section III A. of the FDA ruling, so it is odd that Robert F. Kennedy Jr. would make such a claim.

Fact #2 : Final FDA Rule Has Strict Limits

The new FDA rule basically allows Institutional Review Boards (IRBs) to decide on the waiver or alteration of informed consent for “certain minimal risk clinical investigations”.

FDA is issuing this final rule to permit an IRB waiver or alteration of informed consent in limited circumstances, consistent with the Cures Act. We believe that this rule will both safeguard the rights, safety, and welfare of human subjects and enable minimal risk clinical investigations that may facilitate medical advances and promote public health.

To be clear – the FDA is not simply waiving the need for informed consent where researchers can simply “claim that what they are testing is safe“. Such medical research have to be approved by an Institutional Review Board (IRB).

Recommended : Did FDA just admit Pfizer vaccine has Graphene Oxide?!

Fact #3 : Informed Consent Waiver Only Permitted For Minimal Risk

In addition, I should point out that IRBs are only allowed to grant or alter informed consent waivers for research that meet FDA’s definition of “minimal risk”:

“Minimal risk” means that the probability and magnitude of harm or discomfort anticipated in the research are not greater in and of themselves than those ordinarily encountered in daily life or during the performance of routine physical or psychological examinations or tests.

In short – the new FDA rule strictly limits the waiver or alteration of informed consent only to “minimal risk” research in which the subjects are not exposed to harm or discomfort that they would not normally experience in their daily life, or routine examinations.

It would therefore not be possible to get IRB approval for the “testing of new medicines via the water supply or aerolized spraying” as Robert F. Kennedy Jr. suggested.

Fact #4 : FDA Amended Its Rules To Comply With Law

The FDA isn’t simply creating this new rule for fun. It was more or less compelled to do so by the 21st Century Cures Act (Cures Act), which was was signed into law by President Barack Obama on 16 December 2016.

Amongst its provisions were Section 3024, which specifically amended sections 505(i)(4) and 520(g)(3) of the FD&C Act (21 U.S.C. 355(i)(4) and 360j(g)(3)) to “provide FDA with the authority to permit an exception from informed consent requirements when the proposed clinical testing poses no more than minimal risk to the human subject and includes appropriate safeguards to protect the rights, safety, and welfare of the human subject”.

In addition, Section 3023 of the Cures Act directs the Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) to “harmonize differences between the HHS Human Subject Regulations and the FDA Human Subject Regulations,” to the extent practicable and consistent with other statutory provisions.

In short – the US FDA was only issuing its final ruling based on the Cures Act, which was enacted by Congress and signed into law by President Obama.

Recommended : Did US FDA Just Ban Pfizer + Moderna Vaccines?!

Fact #5 : FDA Amendment Was Open For Public Comment

It is odd that concerned citizens like Robert F. Kennedy Jr. are only now complaining about the FDA rule amendment, when it was open for public comment years ago!

The FDA issued the proposed rule changes in the Federal Register of 15 November 2018, and asked the public to submit any electronic or written comments to the proposed rule changes by 15 January 2019.

In the end, the FDA received fewer than 50 comment letters from the academia, Institutional Review Boards (IRBs), public advocacy groups, industry, trade organizations, public health organizations, individuals, and other organizations.

Where were these concerned citizens when the FDA asked for their comments, before making its decision on the final rule?

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

 

Please Support My Work!

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

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

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

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

 

Recommended Reading

Go Back To > Fact Check | ScienceTech ARP

 

Support Tech ARP!

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

Did Norway Study Show mRNA Vaccine Danger In Children?!

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

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

 

Claim : Norway Study Shows mRNA Vaccine Danger In Children!

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

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

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

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

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

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

Fact #2 : It Was A Retrospective Cohort Study

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

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

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

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

Fact #3 : Risk Of Adverse Events Were Low

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

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

Recommended : Did mRNA Vaccines Trigger Severe Nerve Damage?!

Fact #4 : Lymphadenopathy Was Most Common Event

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

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

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

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

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

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

Fact #5 : Study Found No Vaccine Link To Deaths

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

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

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

Fact #6 : Study Found No Vaccine Link To Arrhythmia 

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

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

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

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

Fact #7 : Study Confirmed Existing mRNA Vaccine Risks

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

Please Support My Work!

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

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

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

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

 

Recommended Reading

Go Back To > Fact Check | HealthTech ARP

 

Support Tech ARP!

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

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

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

Recommended : Are Residual DNA In mRNA Vaccines Dangerous?!

 

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?

Recommended : Did mRNA Vaccines Trigger Severe Nerve Damage?!

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.

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!

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

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 | HealthTech ARP

 

Support Tech ARP!

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

Did mRNA Vaccines Trigger Severe Nerve Damage?!

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

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

 

Claim : mRNA Vaccines Trigger Severe Nerve Damage!

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

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

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

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

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

COVID vaccine triggers nerve damage, MS

Recommended : Are Residual DNA In mRNA Vaccines Dangerous?!

 

No Evidence mRNA Vaccines Trigger Nerve Damage!

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

Fact #1 : It Was A Case Presentation

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

You can read it in full here.

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

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

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

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

Fact #3 : Paper Says Vaccine Benefits Outweigh The Risks

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

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

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

Fact #4 : AstraZeneca Vaccine Is A Virus Vector Vaccine

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

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

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

Fact #5 : First Patient Already Had Multiple Sclerosis

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Fact #6 : Multiple Sclerosis Can Cause Optic Neuritis

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Fact #8 : Both Patients Recovered

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

Please Support My Work!

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

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

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

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

 

Recommended Reading

Go Back To > Fact Check | HealthTech ARP

 

Support Tech ARP!

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

Jeffrey Epstein List : Watch Out For Fake Lists!

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

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

 

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.

Recommended : Why Jeffrey Epstein Name List Was Partially Released!

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!

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!

Recommended : Jeffrey Epstein List : Watch Out For Fake Lists!

 

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:

  1. Ghislaine Maxwell
  2. Virginia Lee Roberts Giuffre
  3. Kathy Alexander
  4. Miles Alexander
  5. James Michael Austrich
  6. Philip Barden
  7. REDACTED
  8. Cate Blanchett
  9. David Boies
  10. Laura Boothe
  11. Evelyn Boulet
  12. Rebecca Boylan
  13. Joshua Bunner
  14. Naomi Campbell
  15. Carolyn Casey
  16. Paul Cassell
  17. Sharon Churcher
  18. Bill Clinton
  19. David Copperfield
  20. Alexandra Cousteau
  21. Cameron Diaz
  22. Leonardo DiCaprio
  23. Alan Dershowitz
  24. Dr. Mona Devanesan
  25. REDACTED
  26. Bradley Edwards
  27. Amanda Ellison
  28. Cimberly Espinosa
  29. Jeffrey Epstein
  30. Annie Farmer
  31. Marie Farmer
  32. Alexandra Fekkai
  33. Crystal Figueroa
  34. Anthony Figueroa
  35. Louis Freeh
  36. Eric Gany
  37. Meg Garvin
  38. Sheridan Gibson-Butte
  39. Robert Giuffre
  40. Al Gore
  41. Ross Gow
  42. Fred Graff
  43. Philip Guderyon
  44. REDACTED
  45. Shannon Harrison
  46. Stephen Hawking
  47. Victoria Hazel
  48. Brittany Henderson
  49. Brett Jaffe
  50. Michael Jackson
  51. Carol Roberts Kess
  52. Dr. Karen Kutikoff
  53. Peter Listerman
  54. George Lucas
  55. Tony Lyons
  56. Bob Meister
  57. Jamie A. Melanson
  58. Lynn Miller
  59. Marvin Minsky
  60. REDACTED
  61. David Mullen
  62. Joe Pagano
  63. Mary Paluga
  64. J. Stanley Pottinger
  65. Joseph Recarey
  66. Michael Reiter
  67. Jason Richards
  68. Bill Richardson
  69. Sky Roberts
  70. Scott Rothstein
  71. Forest Sawyer
  72. Doug Schoetlle
  73. Kevin Spacey
  74. Cecilia Stein
  75. Mark Tafoya
  76. Brent Tindall
  77. Kevin Thompson
  78. Donald Trump
  79. Ed Tuttle
  80. Emma Vaghan
  81. Kimberly Vaughan-Edwards
  82. Cresenda Valdes
  83. Anthony Valladares
  84. Maritza Vazquez
  85. Vicky Ward
  86. Jarred Weisfeld
  87. Courtney Wild
  88. Bruce Willis
  89. Daniel Wilson
  90. 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.

Recommended : Epstein had painting of George Bush playing paper airplanes?!

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.

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?!

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.

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

 

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.

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

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!

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

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 | HealthTech ARP

 

Support Tech ARP!

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

Were Hank Aaron Autopsy + Cause of Death Falsified?!

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.”

torontowriterNew 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

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

 

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.

Recommended : Did Moderna Try To Cover Up Vaccine Deaths?!

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.

Recommended : Is Joe Biden Reinstating Face Mask + Lockdowns?!

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:

  1. As a result of violence;
  2. By suicide or casualty;
  3. Suddenly when in apparent good health;
  4. When unattended by a physician;
  5. In any suspicious or unusual manner, with particular attention to those persons 16 years of age and under;
  6. After birth but before seven years of age if the death is unexpected or unexplained;
  7. As a result of an execution carried out pursuant to the imposition of the death penalty;
  8. An inmate of a state hospital or a state, county, or city penal institution; or
  9. 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.

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

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 | HealthTech ARP

 

Support Tech ARP!

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

Did Russia + Ukraine Sign Peace Agreement In 2022?!

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?

Recommended : Did Mossad Just Admit NATO Is Losing Ukraine War?!

 

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.

Recommended : Russian Government Caught Fabricating Dirty Bomb Evidence!

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.

Recommended : Is Ukraine Investigating Zelenskyy For High Treason?!

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?!

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-

Recommended : Did Philippines Issue Arrest Warrant For Bill Gates?!

 

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.

Recommended : Is ICC launching Nuremberg 2 trials for COVID crimes?!

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.

Recommended : Did Bill Gates Call For COVID-19 Vaccine Withdrawal?!

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 | HealthTech ARP

 

Support Tech ARP!

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

Did US Send Nuclear AEGIS Missiles To Ukraine?!

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.

Recommended : Did Russia Destroy NATO Arms Convoy To Ukraine?!

 

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!

Recommended : Are Nazis From Japan Fighting For Ukraine?!

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.

Recommended : Did Russia Destroy NATO Arms Convoy To Ukraine?!

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.

Recommended : Does CGTN Video Prove US Blew Up Nord Stream?!

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!

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!