Let's take a look at some more of the laughable nonsense being pushed by Covid-deniers this week. Navarro Falsely Links Fauci to Pandemic Origin https://www.factcheck.org/2022/05/scicheck-navarro-falsely-links-fauci-to-pandemic-origin/ SciCheck Digest The U.S. indirectly funded some bat coronavirus research at a lab in Wuhan, China. But those experiments could not have led to the coronavirus that causes COVID-19, because the viruses used were very different. Yet former White House trade adviser Peter Navarro repeated a false claim that Dr. Anthony Fauci “killed a lot of people” by funding the lab. Full Story It’s not known how SARS-CoV-2, the coronavirus that causes COVID-19, originated. But many scientists suspect the virus “spilled over” into humans from an animal. There is no evidence the virus was created in a lab, let alone as part of any U.S.-funded research. For over a year, politicians and others have misleadingly cited certain grants awarded to a group collaborating with a lab in Wuhan to incorrectly suggest that National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases Director Dr. Anthony Fauci is responsible for the COVID-19 pandemic. While there is a debate about whether some of the research should have been funded or performed, the experiments did not produce SARS-CoV-2, as the National Institutes of Health and others have explained. The latest iteration of these claims comes from Peter Navarro, former President Donald Trump’s trade adviser, who in a May 16 interview with the conservative outlet Newsmax blamed Fauci for the pandemic and called for his imprisonment. Navarro began by responding to a clip of Fauci telling CNN on May 15 that he would not serve under Trump if the former president were elected in 2024. “Tony, you’re fired, dude. There’s no way you’re ever getting back into the Trump White House,” Navarro said, adding that as soon as Republicans take back the House, Fauci would sit in Congress and “confess to creating the virus that’s killed almost a million Americans now.” “We’re going to fit you for an orange jumpsuit, Tony, you can count on that,” he continued. “So don’t be smug on CNN, dude, okay. You’re fired. And if that’s the only thing that happens to you, Tony, you’ll be lucky because you killed a lot of people by funding this Wuhan lab. You got in bed with the Chinese Communist Party, you lied to the American people.” Fauci, who has been head of NIAID since 1984 and is one of the most distinguished living scientists, has served under seven presidents, including three Democrats and four Republicans. At age 81, Fauci has said he is thinking of retirement, but has no immediate plans to depart and would not do so until the country is firmly out of danger from COVID-19’s pandemic phase. Later, Navarro, who has previously misled the public about hydroxychloroquine as a COVID-19 treatment and shared inaccurate information about COVID-19 vaccines, baselessly stated as fact that the pandemic began at the Wuhan Institute of Virology. “This is where the virus started,” he said, pointing to an image of the facility. “This was funded by Tony Fauci. Gain-of-function research is what he went behind the back of Donald Trump and the White House to get going here in 2017 with the Chinese communists. And now we have a pandemic that’s killed almost a million people. I don’t know how this guy is still in public office, he really ought to have a jumpsuit.” Newsmax shared its interview with Navarro on Facebook, where it received more than 30,000 views in two days. Fauci Has No Connection to Pandemic Virus Navarro’s statements are reminiscent of those from other Republicans, including Florida Rep. Matt Gaetz and Sen. Rand Paul of Kentucky, who have at times also falsely insinuated that NIH-funded research at the Wuhan Institute of Virology could have led to the creation of SARS-CoV-2. As we have explained before, NIAID did fund some experiments at WIV as part of a multiyear $3.7 million grant that began in 2014 to the U.S.-based nonprofit EcoHealth Alliance. The research was aimed at understanding the risk of the future emergence of coronaviruses from bats, and a small portion of the money — $600,000 — went to an EcoHealth collaborator at the Wuhan Institute of Virology. But those experiments, which mixed and matched certain elements of bat coronaviruses, couldn’t have produced SARS-CoV-2 because the viruses used were very different. “Analysis of published genomic data and other documents from the grantee demonstrate that the naturally occurring bat coronaviruses studied under the NIH grant are genetically far distant from SARS-CoV-2 and could not possibly have caused the COVID-19 pandemic,” NIH Director Dr. Francis Collins said in an Oct. 20, 2021, statement, referring to an analysis posted to the NIAID’s website. “Any claims to the contrary are demonstrably false.” As we’ve written, the NIH analysis shows that the WIV viruses share only about 80% of their genomes with SARS-CoV-2, which is a tremendous difference. Even much more similar viruses — those 96% identical — still differ from SARS-CoV-2 by more than 1,000 nucleotides, and could not have plausibly been the ancestral virus, David Robertson, the head of viral genomics and bioinformatics at the University of Glasgow, told us for a previous story. There is simply no basis to claim that Fauci, via this NIAID grant, has anything to do with the origin of the coronavirus. Moreover, there is no evidence that SARS-CoV-2 came from WIV or any lab, and many experts say the virus almost certainly was not bioengineered. Indeed, despite continued speculation, largely because of the proximity of certain research institutions to the city of Wuhan, where the first COVID-19 cases were identified, there is no credible evidence of a lab leak. In contrast, while there is still no proof, multiple lines of evidence, including geolocation and genetic analyses, suggest the pandemic began with a natural spillover at the Huanan market, which sold a variety of live animals for human consumption. Much of the debate about the WIV experiments has focused on whether they were so-called gain-of-function experiments and whether NIH should have funded them. Paul has an ongoing feud with Fauci over this issue, and each man has accused the other of lying. Fauci has said the experiments do not count as gain-of-function, which the agency defines in a specific way and refers to research involving “enhanced pathogens of pandemic potential,” or ePPPs. Paul has insisted they do. In February, the NIH said it had ordered a review of its ePPP policies, which have been controversial. Regardless of whether certain potentially risky research should be funded or not, it’s inaccurate for Navarro to claim Fauci had a role in starting the pandemic. Editor’s note: SciCheck’s COVID-19/Vaccination Project is made possible by a grant from the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation. The foundation has no control over FactCheck.org’s editorial decisions, and the views expressed in our articles do not necessarily reflect the views of the foundation. The goal of the project is to increase exposure to accurate information about COVID-19 and vaccines, while decreasing the impact of misinformation. Sources McDonald, Jessica. “The Facts – and Gaps – on the Origin of the Coronavirus.” FactCheck.org. 25 Jun 2021. Holmes, Edward C. et al. “The origins of SARS-CoV-2: A critical review.” Cell. 18 Aug 2021. Robertson, Lori. “The Wuhan Lab and the Gain-of-Function Disagreement.” FactCheck.org. 21 May 2021. McDonald, Jessica. “Republicans Spin NIH Letter About Coronavirus Gain-of-Function Research.” FactCheck.org. 26 Oct 2021. Collins, Francis S. “Statement on Misinformation about SARS-CoV-2 Origins.” 20 Oct 2021. Stracqualursi, Veronica. “Fauci says ‘no’ to serving under Donald Trump should he win a second term.” CNN. 16 May 2022. “Anthony S. Fauci, M.D., NIAID Director.” NIAID. Accessed 18 May 2022. “Anthony S. Fauci, M.D.” NIAID. Accessed 18 May 2022. “‘This Week’ Transcript 3-20-22: Sen. Dick Durbin, Sen. John Barrasso, Marina Ovsyannikova & Dr. Anthony Fauci.” ABC News. 20 Mar 2022. Haslett, Cheyenne. “Fauci says COVID-19 cases will likely increase soon, though not necessarily hospitalizations.” ABC News. 18 Mar 2022. McDonald, Jessica. “Navarro Doesn’t Give Full Picture On Hydroxychloroquine.” FactCheck.org. 9 Jul 2020. “Washington Times article by Robert Malone and Peter Navarro relies on inaccurate and unsubstantiated claims about virus evolution, vaccine immunity, and COVID-19 vaccine safety.” Health Feedback. 15 Aug 2021. Robertson, Lori. “Trump Spreads Distorted Claim on Wuhan Lab Funding.” FactCheck.org. 15 May 2020. “SARS-CoV-2 and NIAID-supported Bat Coronavirus Research.” NIAID. 20 Oct 2021. Maxmen, Amy. “Wuhan market was epicentre of pandemic’s start, studies suggest.” Nature. 27 Feb 2022. Robertson, Lori and McDonald, Jessica. “Fauci and Paul, Round 2.” FactCheck.org. 22 Jul 2021. “Research Involving Enhanced Potential Pandemic Pathogens.” NIH. Accessed 18 May 2022. Tabak, Lawrence A. “Statement on charge to the National Science Advisory Board for Biosecurity to review scope and effectiveness of two U.S. Government biosecurity policy frameworks.” NIH statement. 28 Feb 2022. Achenbach, Joel. “NIH orders sweeping review of potentially risky experiments on viruses and other pathogens.” Washington Post. 1 Mar 2022.
Let's take a look at another false claim being pushed this week from the social media accounts of Covid-deniers. Airlines in Spain and Russia have not 'warned Covid vaccinated people not to fly' https://factcheck.afp.com/doc.afp.com.32AW8XU Social media posts shared hundreds of times claim airlines in Spain and Russia warned people who have been vaccinated for Covid-19 not to fly because they have an increased risk of developing blood clots. This is false: airlines in those countries have issued no such advice as of May 25, 2022. Health experts say blood clots are a rare side effect of the Covid-19 vaccine and are not the same as those that occur during flights. “Fun Fact: Airlines in Spain and Russia are warning COViD vaccinated people not to fly due to the increased risk of blood clots” reads a tweet by an Australia-based user on May 8. The post has been retweeted more than 300 times. It previously circulated here, here and here on Facebook in countries including the Philippines, the United States and Canada. It was also shared in Hong Kong and China on Twitter. Comments on the posts indicated they were misled by the claim. One user wrote: "What about the vaccinated pilots? That should be everyone’s concern”, while another commented: "At least they are honest”. A similar claim was debunked by AFP in 2021 after commentator and former Australian senator Cory Bernardi claimed on a Sky News Australia TV segment that “airlines in Spain and Russia are warning people who've been vaccinated against coronavirus not to travel because of the risk of blood clots”. But the claim remains false as of May 25, 2022. 'No truth' The International Air Transport Association (IATA), which represents 290 airlines worldwide including Russia’s largest airline Aeroflot and Spain’s largest airline Iberia, told AFP it was not aware of any airlines “considering denying vaccinated passengers travel due to the blood clot risk”. “There is no truth to these suggestions”. In a July press release, IATA advised that their medical advisory group had not considered vaccine-induced blood clots to be of risk. “We are also not aware of any suggestion in medical literature that the particular blood clot phenomenon [known as Vaccine-Induced Immune Thrombotic Thrombocytopenia TTS], which has been designated as a rare side effect of one or possibly two types of COVID vaccines, has any impact on air travel”. In May 2021 Aeroflot launched a programme to “support mass vaccination”, with CEO Mikhail Poluboyarinov saying in a press release that Covid-19 vaccine promotion was important for industry rehabilitation. “Promoting vaccination is our contribution to facilitate a full-fledged recovery of air transportation and provide convenience and comfort to our passengers”. “We’ve launched the programme as part of the federal initiative to encourage mass vaccination.” A keyword search found no mention of the claim on Aeroflot's website or in its published press releases. Iberia told AFP that it has “never made any recommendation in that sense”. The airline has a comprehensive Covid-19 policy in place for travellers that can be found here. Blood clots Australia's health department told AFP the blood clots that occur during flights are different to those caused by vaccines. “Among case reports, there are no known markers for increased risk for thrombosis with thrombocytopenia syndrome (TTS) including air travel, following vaccination with Covid-19 vaccines,” a department spokesperson said. Blood clots associated with the AstraZeneca vaccine are a very rare side effect occurring in “around four to six people in every million after being vaccinated”, the health department said in September last year. The Pfizer and Moderna vaccines are not associated with such a risk, according to the Australian government's Therapeutic Goods Administration and health department. According to material released by the department, TTS “is different from general clotting disorders such as deep vein thrombosis [DVT]”. “TTS can occur at different parts of the body, including the brain (called cerebral venous sinus thrombosis) and in the abdomen (idiopathic splanchnic vein thrombosis)”. Healthdirect Australia, the national public health information service supported by the government, advises that DVT occurs when a blood clot forms in one or more of the deep veins in your body. “Anything that slows blood flow in deep veins can cause DVT '' usually as a result of long periods of inactivity such as a long flight,” Healthdirect said. Professor of vascular medicine at the University Hospital of Amiens, Marie-Antoinette Sevestre-Pietri, told AFP that blood clots resulting from Covid-19 vaccines are “immunological”. "There is absolutely no reason not to take a patient on a flight on the pretext that he is vaccinated,” she said.
The ones I post certainly have interesting info. Info that you have never been able to refute. That, in itself, says a whole lot. But hey, keep spamming all those links. No one reads them.
Let's take a look at an example of the typical fabricated document found in social media posts cited by anti-vax Covid-deniers in this forum. This is just one example of the crap they cite as sources. Fact check: No, document doesn't show Pfizer warning against vaccine for breastfeeding women https://www.usatoday.com/story/news...-used-false-claim-pfizer-vaccines/9811219002/ The claim: Document shows Pfizer-BioNTech said vaccine should not be given to women who are pregnant or breastfeeding As the Food & Drug Administration continues to release thousands of pages per month of documents related to its review of the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine, dozens of posts on Twitter and Facebook claim that one shows Pfizer warning that breastfeeding and pregnant women should not be vaccinated. "Pfizer has been releasing their court ordered clinical trial data," one Canadian Facebook user wrote in a May 4 post of the screenshot. "This months release states 'Covid mRNA vaccine is NOT recommended for women who are pregnant and it’s also unknown if covid mRNA is excreted in human milk.' I clearly recall our governments pushing the vaxx on expecting mothers. Wake up." The posts show a screenshot of an unnamed, unsourced document with several sentences highlighted in red, which say that the vaccine is not recommended during pregnancy and that it "should not be used during breastfeeding" because "it is unknown whether COVID-19 mRNA Vaccine BNTI62b2 is excreted in human milk." However, contrary to the social media claims, the document featured in the post does not come from the documents the FDA has released so far. It also wasn't written by Pfizer. The quoted document was published by the United Kingdom's drug regulation agency in December 2020, before any significant data was available on the vaccine's efficacy and safety for pregnant and breastfeeding women, the agency told USA TODAY. The updated version of the regulation does not state that pregnant or breastfeeding women are in danger. USA TODAY reached out to users who shared the claim for comment. Document is 2020 guideline from UK government; has since been updated The social media posts use an out-of-context photo of an information sheet for health professionals in the United Kingdom, which the country's Medicines & Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency distributed when the vaccine was approved in late 2020. An archived version of Regulation 174, shows it is the same document as the one in the screenshot. This version was published in December 2020, as UK fact-checking outlet Full Fact reported. The guideline has since been updated to reflect data from safety reviews and studies conducted in the year and a half since then. The U.K. regulatory agency has found no indications the vaccine is unsafe for people who are pregnant or breastfeeding, a spokesperson for the agency told USA TODAY. "Over 104,000 pregnant people have received at least one dose of COVID-19 vaccine in England and Scotland, and no concerns of the safety of the vaccines have been raised," spokesperson Laura Kennedy wrote in an email on May 18. "This conclusion is also supported by extensive international data from the rollout of the vaccines in other countries." Fact check:No evidence Pfizer, Moderna COVID-19 vaccines cause miscarriage While the UK guidelines still recommend that pregnant individuals consult their doctors with questions about the vaccine, vaccination has been found safe for mothers-to-be and nursing newborns, as USA TODAY has reported. Both the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists and the Society for Maternal-Fetal Medicine recommend COVID-19 vaccination for pregnant individuals. “ACOG is recommending vaccination of pregnant individuals because we have evidence of the safe and effective use of the vaccine during pregnancy from many tens of thousands of reporting individuals (and) because we know that COVID-19 infection puts pregnant people at increased risk of severe complications,” Dr. J. Martin Tucker, then-president of the college, said in a July 2021 press release. Fact check:Nursing newborns are not having reactions to COVID-19 vaccine Pfizer's study on the vaccine's safety and effectiveness for pregnant women is still ongoing. Phase two of three is estimated to be completed in August 2022. Our rating: False Based on our research, we rate FALSE the claim that a document shows Pfizer-BioNTech said the vaccine should not be given to women who are pregnant or breastfeeding. The document featured in the post was not written by Pfizer. It is a guideline that was published by the United Kingdom's drug regulation agency in December 2020, before any significant data was available on the vaccine's efficacy and safety for pregnant and breastfeeding women. Experts say studies and worldwide usage have shown the vaccine is safe for pregnant and breastfeeding women. Our fact-check sources: American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, July 30, 2021, ACOG and SMFM Recommend COVID-19 Vaccination for Pregnant Individuals American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, updated April 28, COVID-19 Vaccination Considerations for Obstetric–Gynecologic Care Laura Kennedy, May 18, Email exchange with USA TODAY Medicines & Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency, updated May 5, Information for Healthcare Professionals on COVID-19 Vaccine Pfizer/BioNTech (Regulation 174) Medicines & Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency via Wayback Machine, December 2020, Information for Healthcare Professionals on COVID-19 Vaccine Pfizer/BioNTech (archived) Victoria Male, May 5, Tweet Full Fact, May 9, ‘Pfizer document’ doesn’t show company admitting vaccines unsafe in pregnancy - Full Fact MedPageToday, March 7, FDA Begins Releasing Pfizer COVID Vax Documents Reuters, Jan. 7, ‘Paramount importance’: Judge orders FDA to hasten release of Pfizer vaccine docs Reuters, May 5, Fact Check-Screenshots do not show Pfizer declaring vaccines unsafe Society for Maternal-Fetal Medicine, July 30, 2021, Provider Considerations for Engaging in COVID-19 Vaccination U.S. National Library of Medicine, updated Feb. 23, Study to Evaluate the Safety, Tolerability, and Immunogenicity of SARS CoV-2 RNA Vaccine Candidate (BNT162b2) Against COVID-19 in Healthy Pregnant Women 18 Years of Age and Older USA TODAY, Apr. 13, 2021, Fact check: Nursing newborns are not having reactions to COVID-19 vaccine USA TODAY, Dec 13, 2021, Fact check: No evidence Pfizer, Moderna COVID-19 vaccines cause miscarriage
No it’s just basic math. Follow the math and you will get the answers. Or remain in dumdumland and realize that vaccinators are getting infected at the highest rate, having a ridiculous number of adverse events post vaccine, and dying at higher rates than unvaxxed. You’ve been wrong about this from the beginning. Posting story after story of covidiot liars and propagandists. You are deranged under mass psychosis.
He’s been wrong about everything. I mean everything. Lockdowns, masks, Sweden, vaccines… His wife works for J&J and takes down LOADS of commission, I’m sure. He cuts n pastes articles from propagandists and relays them as truth. He fact checks. LOOOOOOOL. He’s an idiot.
This belongs in this thread, because it shows what a clown the NPC really is, thinking he is the all-knowing fact checker.