Tag Archives: Vigilant Fox

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

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

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Recommended : Is Red Cross Rejecting COVID Vaccinated Blood?!

 

Truth : CDC Did Not Redact Its mRNA Myocarditis Study!

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

Fact #1 : It Was CDC Document, Not Study

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Fact #3 : CDC Study Was Already Published Publicly!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Fact #6 : COVID-19 Myocarditis Is More Common

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

Please Support My Work!

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

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

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

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

 

Recommended Reading

Go Back To > Fact Check | HealthTech ARP

 

Support Tech ARP!

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

Did Alex Soros Call For Donald Trump To Be Assassinated?!

Did Alex Soros just publicly call for Donald Trump to be assassinated?! Take a look at the viral claims, and find out what the facts really are!

 

Claim : Alex Soros Called For Donald Trump To Be Assassinated!

People are claiming or suggesting Alex Soros, who took over the Open Society Foundation from his billionaire father, George Soros, just publicly called for Donald Trump to be assassinated!

The People’s Voice : Alex Soros openly called for the assassination of Donald Trump on Sunday, warning that the chance of Trump becoming president is too risky for the globalists to ignore.

Recommended : Did George Soros Just Suffer A Stroke At WEF 2024?!

 

Truth : Alex Soros Did Not Call For Donald Trump To Be Assassinated!

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

Fact #1 : Alex Soros Did Not Call For Trump Assassination

First, let me start by pointing out that Alex Soros never publicly called for Donald Trump to be assassinated. None of those claims are backed up by actual evidence.

There is ZERO evidence Alex Soros ever called for Donald Trump to be assassinated. Neither did The People’s Voice provided any evidence to back up its claim that Alex Soros said that “He’s too dangerous alive“.

Fact #2 : Alex Soros Only Shared Article On Crime + Inflation

The whole premise behind these claims of a Trump assassination threat is based on a single tweet by Alex Soros, who shared an article by The Atlantic on the leading theories behind the crime and inflation crises.

Alex Soros never mentioned Donald Trump in his tweet. Neither did he attribute the article to Donald Trump, or suggested that it was somehow linked to him.

Last year, the crime and inflation crises largely evaporated. So did the leading theories about what had caused them.

To be clear – Alexander Soros did not write the article posted by The Atlantic. Neither did he select the photos used for that article.

Recommended : Did WEF Order US Election To Be Nullified If Trump Wins?!

Fact #3 : Those Were Stock Images

Right-wing conspiracy theorists are claiming that the bullet hole referred to an assassination attempt, with the hand holding out 47 dollars is a reference to Donald Trump being the future 47th President of the United States.

That’s completely bonkers because the two photos used in The Atlantic article are stock photos from Getty Images that have no relevance to Donald Trump, or assassinations.

The bullet hole photo (source) was taken on 1 July 2023, by New York Daily News, at the scene of a double shooting of an MTA bus in The Bronx, New York. An appropriate photo for an article on crime, don’t you think?

The photo of a hand holding $47 was taken by George Marks in the 1950s (source). I’m sure you will agree that it is an appropriate photo for inflation, and has nothing to do with Donald Trump.

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!

Did New Study Show Vaccines Causes Long COVID?!

Did a new study just show that COVID-19 vaccines dramatically increase the risk of getting long COVID?!

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

 

Claim : Vaccines Greatly Increase Risk Of Long COVID!

People are sharing a video by The Epoch Times which claims or suggests that a new study just showed that COVID-19 vaccines dramatically increase the risk of getting long COVID!

The Epoch Times : COVID vaccines linked to “Long Covid”.

According to a new study just published on the NIH website: being vaccinated with 2 shots of the Covid vaccine dramatically increases a person’s chance of getting Long Covid.

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

 

Truth : Vaccines Do Not Increase Risk Of Long COVID!

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

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

Let me start by pointing out that the M. C. Arjun et. al. study mentioned in the Epoch Times videos is not new, as alleged.

The Arjun et. al. study is actually more than a year old, being published in PLOS ONE on 20 December 2022. You can read it in full here, and verify the date of publication.

Why would The Epoch Times dig up this study from 2022, when several newer studies showed that COVID-19 vaccines significantly reduced the risk of developing 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 developing long COVID:

  • 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

Curiously, this sudden interest in the old the Arjun et. al. study 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 : Are Residual DNA In mRNA Vaccines Dangerous?!

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 Slovakia PM Just Reject Signing WHO Pandemic Treaty?!

Did Robert Fico – the new Prime Minister of Slovakia, just reject signing the WHO Pandemic Treaty?!

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

 

Claim : Slovakia PM Rejects Signing WHO Pandemic Treaty!

People are sharing a video clip, claiming or suggesting that the new Prime Minister of Slovakia, Robert Fico, just rejected signing the WHO Pandemic Treaty!

William Makis MD : Slovakia rejects signing the WHO Pandemic Treaty – Newly Elected Prime Minister Robert Fico speech that shocked the world:

Fico calls WHO Pandemic Treaty “nonsense invented by greedy pharma companies”

Recommended : Did Mexico Just Reject WHO IHR Amendments?!

 

No Evidence Slovakia Rejected WHO Pandemic Treaty!

Let’s take a closer look at what this WHO Pandemic Treaty is all about, and why there’s no evidence Slovakia has actually rejected it!

Fact #1 : WHO Pandemic Treaty Has Not Been Finalised

Let me start by pointing out that the WHO Pandemic Treaty is still not finalised, with the deadline to conclude negotiations extended to May 2024. That is when the final WHO Pandemic Treaty is expected to be submitted to the 77th World Health Assembly for its approval.

Until then, there is no actual WHO Pandemic Treaty for Slovakia or any other country to accept or reject, which makes the delight of the anti-vaccine / conspiracy theory crowd… premature ejaculation at best.

Fact #2 : Robert Fico Did Not Outright Reject WHO Pandemic Treaty

Robert Fico is a politician, and like all politicians, they have a way of speaking in a way that offers a way out. So we have to examine carefully what he said.

Here is the English translation that can be seen in the video above:

I also declare very clearly that SMER (Slovakian Social Democracy) will not support strengthening the powers of the World Health Organization at the expense of sovereign states in managing the fight against pandemics.

If you carefully read what he said, you will realise that Robert Fico never actually said that he was rejecting the WHO Pandemic Treaty. He only said that the SMER party will not support expanding the powers of the WHO, at the expense of the state’s right to tackle future pandemics.

In other words, it very much sounds like he’s okay with WHO gaining more powers, as long as Slovakia still retains the right to tackle future pandemics its own way. And that brings us to this next point…

Recommended : Is WHO Planning To Take Control Of Internet?!

Fact #4 : WHO Pandemic Treaty Does Not Affect Sovereignty!

If you download and read the zero draft, you will realise that it clearly states in Pages 10 and 11 that countries like Slovakia will continue to have the right to “determine and manage” their own healthcare initiatives, including how to tackle future pandemics.

3. Sovereignty – States have, in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations and the principles of international law, the sovereign right to determine and manage their approach to public health, notably pandemic prevention, preparedness, response and recovery of health systems, pursuant to their own policies and legislation, provided that activities within their jurisdiction or control do not cause damage to their peoples and other countries. Sovereignty also covers the rights of States over their biological resources.

Unless the new Prime Minister of Slovakia did not read the Zero Draft before making that comment, it is likely that Robert Fico was well aware that the WHO Pandemic Treaty will not affect Slovakia’s sovereignty. In other words – he wouldn’t be breaking his word, if Slovakia eventually ratifies the WHO Pandemic Treaty!

Fact #5 : WHO Pandemic Treaty Must Be Ratified By Member Countries

Even if the final WHO Pandemic Treaty is adopted in the 77th Health Assembly in May 2024, it must still be ratified by each individual country. This is clearly stated in Article 33(1) with my emphasis in bold:

The WHO CA+ shall be subject to ratification, acceptance, approval or accession by States, and to formal confirmation or accession by regional economic integration organizations. It shall be open for accession from the day after the date on which the WHO CA+ is closed for signature. Instruments of ratification, acceptance, approval, formal confirmation or accession shall be deposited with the Depositary.

Recommended : Is Biden Admin signing over US sovereignty to WHO?!

Fact #6 : Robert Fico Only Said SMER Will Vote Against Treaty

Robert Fico never actually said that his government will reject the WHO Pandemic Treaty. In fact, his government lacks the power to ratify such treaties.

In the viral video, he even pointed out that it is the National Council that will ultimately decide on whether to ratify the WHO Pandemic Treat, which conveniently offers him (and the SMER party) a way out.

According to the Constitution of the Slovak Republic, the validity of such international agreements in favour of the World Health Organization requires the consent of the National Council of the Slovak Republic.

And I do not believe that the sovereign Slovak political parties will express such approval. The SMER party and its MPs certainly won’t.

In short – his statement that SMER and its MPs won’t agree to the WHO Pandemic Treaty is rather “toothless”, as they only won 42 seats (28%) out of 150 seats in the National Council. As long as a majority of Slovak MPs vote to ratify the treaty, it will be adopted regardless of what SMER or Robert Fico says.

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

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

 

Please Support My Work!

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

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

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

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

 

Recommended Reading

Go Back To > Fact Check | HealthTech ARP

 

Support Tech ARP!

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

Is Italian Health Minister under investigation for vaccine murder?!

Is Italian Health Minister Roberto Speranza under investigation for murder for concealing COVID-19 vaccine deaths?!

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

 

Claim : Italian Health Minister Under Investigation For Vaccine Murder!

People are sharing an article (archive) by Vigilant News Network, claiming / suggesting that Italian Health Minister Roberto Speranza is under investigation for murder for concealing COVID-19 vaccine deaths!

Italian Health Minister Under Investigation for Murder for Concealing COVID-19 Vaccine Deaths

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

 

No Evidence Italian Health Minister Under Investigation For Vaccine Murder!

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

Fact #1 : Roberto Speranza Is Former Italian Health Minister

First, I should just point out that Roberto Speranza is the former Italian Health Minister, who served from 5 September 2019 to 22 October 2022.

The current Italian Health Minister is Orazio Schillaci, who has been serving in that capacity from 22 October 2022.

Fact #2 : Murder Investigation Claims Started In November

I should also point out that the viral claims of a Roberto Speranza murder investigation over COVID-19 vaccines originated in November 2023.

The Italian TV show ‘Fuori dal Coro‘ covered it, and so did the conservative Italian newspaper, La Verità. It was only some three weeks later that the story was picked up by English websites and social media users, including Infowars.

Fact #3 : No Evidence Of Roberto Speranza Murder Investigation

The Vigilant News Network article offered no actual evidence that former Italian Health Minister Roberto Speranza is being investigated for murder for concealing COVID-19 deaths. It appears to be referring to what was “reported” by Greg Reese, an Infowars contributor.

In any case, these claims appear to originate from a photo of a document which allegedly shows Roberto Speranza and Nicola Magrini (Director-General of AIFA, the Italian Medicines Agency) being added to the registry of suspects at the Rome prosecutor’s office.

Neither the photo, nor the purported document, have been verified to be genuine. But even if the document was genuine, it doesn’t mean that the Rome prosecutor’s office has decided to prosecute Speranza or Magrini, or that an official investigation had actually started.

Recommended : Did Singapore Recommend Against Second Booster Dose?!

Fact #4 : Rome Prosecutor Appears To Decline Investigation

According to La Repubblica (archive) – a moderate Italian daily outlet, the “prosecutor’s office therefore decided not to proceed with the investigation.

If that La Repubblica news report is correct, that means the Rome prosecutor’s office had already decided not to investigate Roberto Speranza and Nicola Magrini in November 2023, if not earlier.

If that is the case, why would anyone still claim that Roberto Speranza is being investigated for murder over the COVID-19 vaccines?

Fact #5 : Complaints Were Forwarded With Dismissal Request

On November 23, 2023, Rai News (archive) – website of Italy’s national public broadcaster, published a story which quoted Roberto Speranza’s attorney Danilo Leva as saying that those complaints about the COVID-19 vaccines had been “forwarded to the competent Court of Ministers with a simultaneous request for dismissal“.

With regard to the press reports relating to the registration of the former minister Roberto Speranza in the register of suspects at the Rome prosecutor’s office – we read in the note – following some complaints regarding vaccines, it is specified that the documents were forwarded to competent court of ministers with simultaneous request for dismissal.

In other words, it appears that the Rome prosecutor’s office received some complaints about the COVID-19 vaccines, declined to investigate, and summarily forwarded them to the Court of Ministers with a request to dismiss them.

The Court of Ministers will have to make a formal decision on whether to dismiss the complaints, typically within 90 days. But from what we have seen so far – there does not appear to be any murder investigation involving the former Italian Health Minister Roberto Speranza, or AIFA Director General Nicola Magrini.

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!