I am not going to list them up for you but here is a link for Belgium: https://www.brusselstimes.com/201359/moderna-no-longer-used-to-vaccinate-under-31s
You don't need to list them up. One is just fine. Thank you for sharing. So other than the 3% issue that you are disagreeing, what in this text is incorrect? "A year ago the Moderna shot was declared 85% effective. Last October is was declared 3% effective. Today, its use is restricted because of life-threatening adverse effects."
The text as a whole is misleading, because it only mentions carefully selected bits of information and leaves out other more relevant facts. That combined with the wrong 3% effectiveness claim shows that the poster wanted to falsely make the reader conclude the Moderna shot is dangerous. It's like posting that seat belts were designed to save lives, but every year people get severely injured or even die not only while they were wearing the seat belt, but because they were wearing it. While that statement would be true the conclusion that it is safer not to wear a seat belt would be false. Because it doesn't mention all the lives that were saved thanks to seat belts. Same for the moderna shot. If we look at all the information that is available we see that Moderna slightly elevates the risk of myocarditis, but a covid infection elevates that risk a lot more. When we look specifically at young males below 30 some studies suggest the risk after 2nd Moderna shot and Covid infection is comparable, but when we take into account that Moderna protects against severe symptoms or even death caused by Covid infection - rare but unfortunately real and measureable - the conclusion is that taking the Moderna shots for young males below 30 is safer than not taking them. And - again specifically for young males below 30 - taking one of the other vaccines is even safer. So the tweet would have been a lot more informative and truthful if it would have read something like "While Moderna elevates the extremely small risk of myocarditis, that risk is vastly outweighted by the benefits. Even for young males below 30 getting the Moderna shot is recommended unless other vaccines are available to reduce the health risks even more."
Ok, but other than the 3%, it's not inaccurate. You may not like how the text is worded (Tweets have a max character limit, so brevity is all the rage) and the poster clearly has a view point he is pushing as do the other tens of millions of people (including you), but I'm concerned about what is inaccurate. And the facts are that the efficacy at 85% originally, until the vaccine was suspended for a medical complication that caused fatalities. However rare. But your editorial on his tweet is noted.
@Tsing Tao continually pushes nonsense sourced from social media and blogs which deliberately misleads and misinforms about Covid. It has reached a point where the Covid misinformation he pushes is so scientifically and factually absurd & twisted that it is no longer worth debating the content with him. It is merely enough to point out the source is crap, has failed numerous fact checks, and/or has a history of pushing anti-vax Covid-denier information. Of course -- as you have seen in his response -- when you call him out with the actual facts and demonstrate how his post is misinformation, @Tsing Tao will simply demand that you debunk his nonsense in a continual twisting of words and facts. This is his modus operandi . It is not worth playing his game of "now debunk this" and "now debunk this" -- as he posts a continual string of disreputable misinformation. Simply cite the source is crap, and he needs to get his information from respectable mainstream sources. Sadly Covid misinformation continues to kill tens of thousands of people. The characters create and spread this misinformation are directly responsible for these deaths and misery.
@gwb_trading consistently calls posts "nonsense" and discredits media he doesn't like when the narrative doesn't match his Religion™ without actually disputing the information presented. Instead, he'll constantly tell people to "go read" when challenged or say things like "we are done wasting time disputing" as if there is a "we" beyond him, or he has ever actually "wasted time" disputing anything at all apart from empty rhetoric and just link spamming. Whenever you ask @gwb_trading to provide backup on something, he will never be able to actually have an intelligent discussion without using someone else's words - in fact he has allowed you (trading_jean) to fight his fight for him as his only way forward is to discredit and scream for the sCiENcE™.
More nonsense from John Tierney -- who has spewed an endless stream of Covid-denier nonsense in the media. Not worth paying attention to.
Let's take a look at the latest crap being pushed by anti-vax Covid-denier idiots... Claim: “mRNA Vaccines Show No Mortality Benefit - Danish Study” Fact-checking claims about Danish preprint study on COVID-19 vaccines and mortality https://www.politifact.com/factchec...hecking-claims-about-danish-preprint-study-c/ This doesn’t accurately reflect the study, which has not been peer-reviewed. Medical experts have noted that the findings are limited and said that more research is needed. In the study, researchers used clinical trial data to see what if any effect the different COVID-19 vaccines had on reducing deaths from all causes, not just from COVID-19. It found that adenovirus vaccines like Johnson & Johnson and AstraZeneca appeared to protect against non-accident, non-COVID-19 deaths, while mRNA vaccines didn’t have much of an impact. The research didn’t conclude that mRNA vaccines were ineffective at protecting people from dying of COVID-19. A Danish study that evaluated how the COVID-19 vaccines impact mortality is being used online as evidence that the messenger RNA-based vaccines from Pfizer-BioNTech and Moderna offer "no mortality benefit" at all. "mRNA Vaccines Show No Mortality Benefit - Danish Study" is the title of a YouTube video that says the April 5 study found that the mRNA shots from Pfizer-BioNTech and Moderna do not stop infections or transmission and don’t reduce deaths, thus showing "no discernible mortality benefit." The video adds that, by contrast, the adenovirus vector vaccines from Johnson & Johnson and AstraZeneca do show a "very positive mortality benefit from COVID and, intriguingly, even from non-COVID deaths." The video features Chris Martenson, a former pharmaceutical financial analyst and founder of Peak Prosperity, a website that appears to be devoted to sharing concepts from a book he authored. It was flagged as part of Facebook’s efforts to combat false news and misinformation on its News Feed. (Read more about our partnership with Facebook.) PolitiFact reached out to Peak Prosperity for comment but did not hear back. The study, titled "Randomised Clinical Trials of COVID-19 Vaccines: Do Adenovirus-Vector Vaccines Have Beneficial Non-Specific Effects?" was posted April 5 in the Lancet journal’s preprint server. A "preprint" is a research paper before it is peer-reviewed or accepted for publication by a scholarly or scientific journal. The study was conducted by researchers affiliated with various institutions, including the University of Southern Denmark, the Statens Serums Institut and the Bandim Health Project. The research analyzed randomized controlled trials to see how much the COVID-19 vaccines reduced deaths from all causes, and it sought to compare how the results differed between the adenovirus-vector vaccines and mRNA-based vaccines. For the mRNA vaccines, the study found that 61 people out of 74,193 participants died. Thirty-one received the vaccine, while 30 received a placebo, thus showing that the vaccine essentially had no impact on "overall" mortality, according to the study. For the adenovirus-vector vaccines, the study recorded 46 deaths out of 122,164 participants. Of the 46, 16 had received the vaccine, while 30 received a placebo. The authors concluded that the two types of vaccines differed significantly "with respect to overall mortality." They also said that adenovirus vaccines were associated with protection against non-accident, non-COVID-19 deaths. But when looking at COVID-19 mortality rates specifically, the picture changes. The study found that of the 31 deaths that occured in mRNA-vaccinated individuals, only two were from COVID-19. The rest were due to other causes. For the adenovirus-vaccinated group, two of the 16 deaths were from COVID-19. One of the study’s lead authors, Dr. Christine Stabell Benn, a professor of global health at the University of Southern Denmark, made a post about the findings on her LinkedIn page. She argued that scientists cannot presume to know the full effect of a vaccine "just by knowing its effect against the target infection" and said scientists need to study its effect on overall health. "We need to be clear about which vaccine, and what outcomes, we are talking about," Benn wrote. "The analysis of the randomized clinical trials suggests that COVID-19 vaccines are not a homogeneous group. Hence, we (health authorities, medical doctors, politicians, media as well as citizens) need to distinguish between ‘mRNA COVID-19 vaccines’ and ‘adenovirus vector COVID-19 vaccines’, and we need to specify if we talk about COVID-19-specific mortality or all-cause mortality." She wrote that headlines that say COVID-19 vaccines reduce mortality are too simplified. But the same argument can be said for the YouTube video’s title — that mRNA vaccines offer "no mortality benefit." It’s misleading because it doesn’t specify that the findings are about non-COVID-19 related deaths, that the study is a preprint, or that more research is needed. While scientists like Benn contend that it’s important to study overall mortality effects of vaccines, people received these shots to protect themselves against COVID-19, which these vaccines continue to do. "The study isn’t about the effectiveness of mRNA vaccines against COVID," said Amesh Adalja, a senior scholar at the Johns Hopkins Center for Health and Security. "The study is aimed to determine if COVID vaccines have non-specific mortality impacts that extend beyond the incontrovertible mortality benefit they confer with COVID-19. Certain vaccines have effects that extend beyond the target infection and decrease mortality from other causes (e.g. measles vaccine)." Dr. Monica Gandhi, an infectious disease specialist at the University of California, San Francisco, also said the question of the paper isn’t about COVID-19, but whether the vaccines had a beneficial effect on other causes of mortality. The research reinforced that both types of vaccines significantly prevented COVID-19 deaths, "which is not surprising as both types of vaccines generate cellular immunity against SARS-CoV-2, protecting us against severe disease." The study’s results showing a stronger association between improved mortality and the adenoviral-vector vaccines could suggest these vaccines have other beneficial effects, Ghandi said. But, again, that does not mean there is no mortality benefit to the mRNA vaccine. "However, to be fair," Gandhi said, "the number of non-COVID and COVID deaths were rare in all of the pooled analyses and the causes of non-COVID deaths not well adjudicated, so this analysis needs to be taken as preliminary and hypothesis generating at best." The authors acknowledged that the study was based on limited available data over a shorter than desired timeframe. In an email to PolitiFact, Benn said she feels the lack of data documenting whether the vaccines reduce deaths from causes other than COVID-19 is an area in need of additional research and suggested such data can give a fuller picture of overall vaccine safety. Meanwhile, in an emailed statement, Pfizer said that numerous peer-reviewed studies around the world have confirmed the safety and efficacy of its COVID-19 vaccine. "With hundreds of millions of doses administered globally, the benefit risk profile of our vaccine remains positive for all approved indications and age groups and we remain confident in the protection and safety our COVID-19 vaccine provides," the statement read. Our ruling A video circulating on social media claims that a Danish study found that mRNA vaccines offer "no mortality benefit." This is an oversimplification that doesn’t accurately reflect the preprint study, which was not peer reviewed. Researchers used clinical trial data to see how the different COVID-19 vaccines reduced deaths from all causes. They found that adenovirus-vector vaccines appeared to protect against non-accident, non-COVID-19 deaths, while mRNA vaccines didn’t have much of an impact. They said more research is needed. The research didn’t conclude that mRNA vaccines were ineffective at protecting people from dying of COVID-19. We rate this False.