So, did anyone have their 'toxins activated by the mRNA poison Covid vaccine' yesterday? What was it like?
I am curious whether this person's experts they are referring to is the media and politicians because like your rachel Maddow post above, politicians and media would say shit about vaccines and covid based on their fantasy and misinformation spread. Most people I would hear talking about this shit would be quoting a politician or CNN or FOX news host for their information which is the world we live in now...
Ron DeSantis appointed a anti-vax Covid-denier as the state Surgeon General in Florida. The appointee, Joseph Ladapo, has been a disaster for the residents of Florida --- taking every step in can to basically foster anti-vax narratives and pretend Covid does not exist --- all to support DeSantis's political ambitions. At this point many in the medical community are demanding that Ladapo's medical license be suspended. Ladapo's latest stunt was putting forward a completely fabricated study to support his anti-vax position. The medical community has outlined in great detail why Ladapo's pre-print study -- which is not peer reviewed and lists no authors --- is utter crap. This fact check outlines the information. Florida’s COVID-19 Vaccination Analysis Is Flawed, Experts Say https://www.factcheck.org/2022/10/s...9-vaccination-analysis-is-flawed-experts-say/ The state of Florida recently announced that it was no longer recommending that younger males receive mRNA COVID-19 vaccines, based on an unpublished analysis that purportedly found an increased risk of cardiac-related death following vaccination. But experts who specialize in the unique method used in the analysis say it was not properly done. Even if it had been, the findings would not mean that individuals should not get vaccinated. The analysis includes no risk-to-benefit comparison, and by its own admission is “preliminary” and “should be interpreted with caution.” On Oct. 7, the Florida Department of Health said in a press release that the state’s surgeon general, Dr. Joseph A. Ladapo, was issuing new guidance about COVID-19 vaccination after the department conducted an analysis that found “an 84% increase in the relative incidence of cardiac-related death among males 18-39 years old within 28 days following mRNA vaccination.” “With a high level of global immunity to COVID-19, the benefit of vaccination is likely outweighed by this abnormally high risk of cardiac-related death among men in this age group,” the press release continued. “As such, the State Surgeon General recommends against males aged 18 to 39 from receiving mRNA COVID-19 vaccines.” No other state has made such a recommendation, and it’s counter to guidance from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and other medical authorities. The mRNA vaccines, which include the Pfizer/BioNTech and Moderna vaccines, have been shown to be remarkably safe in clinical trials and in follow-up safety studies. There is a heightenedrisk of inflammation of the heart muscle or surrounding tissue, known as myocarditis or pericarditis, particularly in younger males after a second dose. The condition, however, is rare and most patients recover within a few months. The same day of the press release, Ladapo, who is known for questioning the safety of COVID-19 vaccines and has promoted unproven COVID-19 treatments, shared the analysis on Twitter. The social media company initially removed his tweet for violating its misinformation policies, but restored it two days later. Ladapo was appointed to his post by Republican Gov. Ron DeSantis in September 2021 after the previous surgeon general resigned. During Ladapo’s tenure, the state of Florida has also recommended against vaccinating babies and children below the age of 5 and against vaccinating healthy children between the ages of 5 and 17. This advice is also at odds with that of the American Academy of Pediatrics, the CDC and numerous medical experts. Florida’s Analysis The Florida Department of Health’s analysis is a self-controlled case series, which is an unusual method that by design only includes people who experienced a possible side effect after vaccination — in this case, death. Instead of comparing deaths among vaccinated or unvaccinated people, as a more standard study might do, the comparison in the Florida study is between the number of deaths during a defined “risk” period versus a control, or “baseline,” period, for each person. “The key benefit of SCCS is that each individual serves as a self-control, so in principle this design adjusts for confounding that is typically a major issue when comparing separate ‘vaccinated’ and ‘unvaccinated’ groups,” University of Pennsylvania biostatistician Jeffrey S. Morris told us in an email, referring to other factors that could affect an outcome. Self-controlled case series can be powerful tools, but they can also be tricky to do, particularly when dealing with a terminal event such as death — and as we’ll explain, experts in the technique said they found the department’s analysis to be flawed. But first, a quick review of what the analysis, which is unpublished and does not even list any authors, claimed to find. According to the methods section, the analysis included adults living in Florida who died within 25 weeks of a COVID-19 vaccination, but excluded those who received boosters or who had a documented coronavirus infection or a COVID-19-associated death. It found that in the first 28 days after vaccination, there was no increase in all-cause deaths, relative to the remaining 25-week period — and for those 60 years and older, vaccination reduced the risk of death slightly. But there was a small, statistically significant increase in cardiac-related deaths for the entire group, which were defined by certain codes written on the death certificates. Broken down by age, only two groups — 25- to 39-year-olds and those 60 and older — had statistically significant increases in cardiac-related deaths, with the strongest effect in the younger group. The statistically significant effects were limited to males. When just looking at the mRNA vaccines, there was an 84% increased risk of cardiac-related death among males 18 to 39, based on 20 deaths in the “risk” period and 52 in the “baseline” period. A key problem, however, is that the authors did not account for multiple vaccine doses, which can bias the result, experts told us. “The flaw in the calculation is that the timing of the death determines the observed exposure pattern, and that this is not taken into account in this method of analysis,” Paddy Farrington, a professor emeritus of statistics at the Open University in the U.K., told us in an email. Farrington specializes in SCCS and is an author on three of the six papers the analysis cited, including a review paper covering “recommendations for best practice” using the method in vaccine safety studies. He has helped conduct acouple SCCS studies of COVID-19 vaccine safety, which have not turned up any concerns for the mRNA vaccines. To understand the issue in the Florida analysis, Farrington said to consider a hypothetical scenario in which there are two doses given four weeks apart and in which deaths occur at a constant rate of one per week, unrelated to vaccination. For a 29-week period, there would be 29 total deaths: four in the first four weeks after dose one, four in the first four weeks after dose two, and 21 in the 21 subsequent weeks. But if one were to do the analysis that Florida’s health department did, comparing the rates of death in the four weeks after the last dose given, Farrington said, there would be eight deaths within four weeks of a vaccine dose. The apparent rate ratio, he said, would be 2, suggesting a doubling of the risk. But this would be an error. “This is biased upwards: the true rate ratio is 1, since deaths arise at a constant rate of 1 per week irrespective of vaccination,” he said. The correct way to do the analysis, Farrington said, is to use a specific methodology he published in January in the journal Statistics in Medicine, which solves these issues. “The method is difficult to explain,” he said, “but it takes into account all the doses given.” The authors of the Florida analysis appear to have modeled their approach on an unpublished paper posted to a preprint server medRxiv in March, which they cited. The preprint, by scientists in the U.K., also evaluated the risk of all-cause and cardiac death following COVID-19 vaccination by doing an SCCS analysis on the last vaccine dose given. Unlike the Florida analysis, however, it did not identify any increased risk of death after vaccination. It also performed a similar analysis after a positive COVID-19 test — which the Florida analysis did not do — and found a large increase in the frequency of both all-cause and cardiac-related deaths after infection in people who were unvaccinated. The lead author of the preprint, Vahé Nafilyan, a principal statistician for the U.K.’s Office for National Statistics, told us in an email that the preprint was “conducted very quickly to respond to rising concerns about the safety of vaccine in young people,” and his group had rerun the analysis using the methodology Farrington recommended. The new paper is currently under review, he said, and the preprint is being released this week. But Nafilyan also said his team had a work-around to avoid the concern Farrington had with analyzing the last vaccine doses. “In the initial analysis, we purposely restricted the follow-up period to 12 weeks – the minimum separation between doses,” he said in an email, referring to the longer interval used in the U.K. when the vaccines were first rolled out. “This was a quick way to circumvent the issue. The Florida study does not apply such a restriction and that is the issue.” “For the Florida study, it would be far more tricky since the minimum gap between doses in the US was 3 weeks,” he added, “making it impossible to use the same ‘trick’ as in our initial analysis.” Farrington agreed that this difference between the studies would mean the U.K. paper “is probably OK, whereas the Florida one is not!” Additional Concerns Othercriticshave raised additional concerns and caveats about the Florida analysis. For example, cardiac deaths were not checked by reviewing medical records, but instead were defined by the presence of certain codes on death certificates, which aren’t a guarantee that a person died from a cardiac problem. As Dr. Kristen Panthagani, an emergency medicine resident at Yale New Haven Hospital, wrote in a blog post, the codes included cardiac arrest, “which simply means ‘the heart stopped’ and can be the terminal event for many different diseases, not just cardiac issues.” The authors say as much in the limitations section, noting the study “cannot determine the causative nature of a participant’s death” and the “underlying cause of death may not be cardiac-related.” The limitations section, notably, also mentions that the increased risk in cardiac deaths the analysis observed in the overall population and the 60 and over group could be due to confounding by age in the older group. Because so many more deaths occurred in older people, when the 60-plus group was removed, there was no longer any statistically significant result for cardiac-related deaths after vaccination, for mRNA vaccines, or males who received mRNA vaccines. Panthagani and others have said that given the relatively small number of deaths in the “risk” period for younger males receiving mRNA vaccines — 20 — a change of just a few because of inaccurate coding could render the finding insignificant. Another issue is how exactly the authors dealt with COVID-19. People with COVID-19 listed as a cause or contributing factor to death were correctly excluded from the analysis, but it’s not entirely clear if the same was done for people who tested positive for COVID-19. This could mean that some of the cardiac deaths being attributed to the vaccine are actually from the disease, Panthagani noted. In one part of the write-up, the analysis says people with positive COVID-19 tests were excluded, but in another, “COVID testing status was unknown for those who did not die of/with COVID.” On Oct. 10, Ladapo responded to some of the criticisms on Twitter, arguing that it didn’t matter if the diagnosis codes for cardiac deaths were “imperfect,” since they were the same for all groups. He also said the state “used all of our data resources,” including test results, to exclude people with documented coronavirus infection. But if that’s the case, then what is written in the limitations section is incorrect. We reached out to the Florida Department of Health to clarify this issue, among others, but did not hear back. Morris, the University of Pennsylvania biostatistician, told us that the analysis might be fine “if properly executed,” but he couldn’t verify if that was the case given the lack of detail in the write-up — and he had “several unresolved questions that make me wonder.” Along with the confusion over the COVID-19 testing and “potential bias from considering the last dose only,” Morris said that he did not understand why some of the average follow-up times in some cases were longer than the 25-week period set for the entire analysis. He said he had asked for more information from the state health department on this and other issues, but had not received a reply. Morris and Farrington also wondered why the analysis excluded booster doses. And critically, despite a mention of “infection” in the title and in another sentence of the discussion — which could be a typo — Morris did not understand why the analysis did not also evaluate the risk of cardiac deaths following coronavirus infection. Not only is this what the U.K. study did, but this would be “a relevant factor to weight against any vaccine-related risks.” Analysis Poor Basis for Changing Vaccine Recommendations Indeed, several critics havepointedout that even if the analysis is taken at face value, it doesn’t include a comparison of the risks of the vaccine with its benefits, so the analysis itself fails to show that the risks outweigh the benefits. And as a single unpublished, preliminary analysis that contradicts other published papers, it’s hardly enough to justify modifying public health guidance. “There is a large literature on the safety of mRNA vaccines, and recommendations should be based on a comprehensive overview of the available evidence, not any one single study (even less so if it is unpublished),” Farrington said. “What I find extraordinary in the Florida saga,” he added, “is that recommendations on vaccination can be made based on a single (in this case, flawed) study, when there is ample other evidence to the contrary.” As we said, myocarditis and pericarditis have been identified as rare side effects of the mRNA vaccines. Studies have consistently shown that for the overall population, the risk of myocarditis is much greater after a coronavirus infection than after vaccination. For some groups, such as men under 40, the risk of myocarditis may be higher after vaccination than after an infection, as a large U.K. study recently found for the second dose of the Moderna vaccine. But considering all the other possible bad outcomes from COVID-19, numerous teams of experts have concluded that the benefits of the vaccine outweigh the risks, even for younger males. “Florida’s public health recommendation is specifically for men age 18-39. Despite the fact that this age group is at lower risk of severe complications of COVID-19 than older Americans, CDC, FDA, and other federal agencies continuously have found that the evidence is clear: the benefits of vaccines clearly outweigh any risks,” Sarah Lovenheim, assistant secretary for public affairs at the department of Health & Human Services, said in a statement. “This is why FDA authorized, and CDC recommended, that all individuals in this age group get vaccinated against COVID-19.” Lovenheim called Florida’s decision “flawed and a far cry from the science.” According to an expert consensus paperpublished in March by the American College of Cardiology, “a very favorable benefit-to-risk ratio exists with the COVID-19 vaccine for all age and sex groups evaluated thus far.” While it’s conceivable that some deaths have occurred because of the vaccines, this risk is exceedingly small. During a CDC vaccine advisory committee meeting in February, the agency presented data showing that 13 deaths involving myocarditis had been reported among people 30 years and younger who had received a first or second mRNA dose. However, none of these was thought to be vaccine-related. We asked the CDC for an update on the numbers, but didn’t receive a response. Studies suggest that post-vaccination myocarditis is milder than typical viral myocarditis and that most people recover within three months. In interviews with Politico and the Washington Post, Ladapo defended the analysis and his decision to stop recommending the mRNA vaccines for young males, given high levels of immunity in the population now. Ladapo told the Post that he hoped his former mentor, Harvard economist David Cutler, would endorse the methods used in the analysis. But according to the Post, Cutler said the analysis was flawed and should not serve as the basis for state vaccine policy. “If I was a reviewer at a journal, I would recommend rejecting it,” Cutler said.
Every week we see the anti-vax clowns falsely claiming another celebrity has died from the Covid vaccine -- some of these celebrities turn out to be unvaccinated. The latest celebrity anti-vax clowns are claiming was killed by the Covid vaccine is Doug Brignole, a body-building guru who passed away this past week. There is no evidence that the Covid vaccine had anything to do with his death despite fake quotes like "If I die, you were right" and "“Those of you who think the vaccine kills people can use me as a test" being attributed to him in misinformation blogs & social media posts.
The latest crap being pushed by anti-vax Covid-deniers are claims that the vaccine causes cancer. Sadly their claims are based on a study which was done BEFORE Covid occurred. Which goes to show what a bunch of idiots these clowns are. Reality is meaningless to them. Claim: There’s a “coincidental correlation” between COVID-19 vaccines and a spike in cancer in adults younger than 50. Cancer study was from data well before COVID-19 vaccines existed https://www.politifact.com/factchec...-study-was-data-well-covid-19-vaccines-exist/ A recent study showed an increase in early onset cancer — cases diagnosed in adults ages 20 to 49. The data analyzed in the study was collected from 2000 to 2012 from 44 countries, involving 14 types of cancers. COVID-19 vaccines, which rolled out in early 2021, do not cause cancer, health experts say. A recent study showed that there has been a sharp rise in cancer diagnoses in adults younger than 50. A social media user — who apparently didn’t read the study — tried to imply a correlation between that bad news and the COVID-19 vaccines. A meme shared in an Instagram post Oct. 16 shows a screenshot of a 2021 Reuters fact-check headline which read, "Fact Check-No evidence COVID-19 vaccines cause cancer." Below it is another screenshot, this one a CNN article with the headline, "A global epidemic of cancer among people younger than 50 could be emerging." The post’s caption read, "I risk being shadowbanned by sharing these types of memes that don’t claim causation but suggest coincidental correlation #BeFreeMySheeple." The Instagram post was flagged as part of Facebook’s efforts to combat false news and misinformation on its News Feed. (Read more about our partnership with Meta, which owns Facebook and Instagram.) The COVID-19 vaccines do not cause cancer, as Reuters reported a year ago. The American Cancer Society said on its website that there’s no evidence the vaccines can cause cancer or cause tumors to grow or recur. The claim that there is a link between the two has nonetheless kept fact-checkers busy. The post’s claim that there is a "coincidental correlation" between the rise in early onset cancer in adults younger than 50 detailed in the CNN article and COVID-19 vaccines is also off base. That’s because the cancer study in the article was based on data collected from 2000 to 2012, years before COVID-19. The report was authored by researchers at Brigham and Women’s Hospital and published in Nature Reviews Clinical Oncology. It looked at global cancer registry records from 44 countries and found a rapidly rising increase in 14 types of cancers, many involving the digestive system. Besides examining the data from 2000 to 2012, the team examined available studies about possible risk factors, including early life exposure, and tumor characteristics of early onset cancers to ones diagnosed after age 50. The report cited increased early screening, and thus early detection, to explain part of the increase. It also said increased early exposure to other common risk factors could explain the spike, including obesity, smoking, alcohol use, sleep deprivation, Type 2 diabetes and unhealthy Western diets high in meat, sugar and processed food. The researchers noted something they called the "birth cohort effect," meaning that groups of people born later than another group had increased risk of early cancer because of increased risk exposure at a young age. "We found that this risk is increasing with each generation," Shuji Ogino, one of the researchers, said in a press release about the study. Our rating An Instagram post implied a "coincidental correlation" between COVID-19 vaccines and a rise in early onset cancers in adults ages 20 to 49. There is no evidence that COVID-19 vaccines can cause cancer. Meanwhile, the report referred to in this claim about a spike in cancer in people younger than 50 is based on data from 2000 to 2012, well before COVID-19. We rate this False.
The latest twisted claim by anti-vaxxers is that the vaccine drove a 8,200% increase in child mortality last year. The actual truth: Child mortality has not changed much over recent years. The fabrications pushed by anti-vax Covid-deniers by deliberately misinterpreting data continually reaches new absurd levels. Fact Check-COVID-19 vaccines not linked to 8,200% increase in child deaths in past year, as claimed in online video https://www.reuters.com/article/factcheck-vaccinedeaths-children-idUSL1N31K0ZE COVID-19 vaccines have not caused an 8,200% increase in child deaths between 2021 and 2022, as has been claimed in a video posted on social media. That figure “completely misrepresents data”, according to a UK Office for National Statistics (ONS) spokesperson. The footage, posted on Facebook here, shows a man in military uniform addressing an audience outside a COVID-19 vaccination centre in Windsor that he and other protesters had attempted to close down on Oct. 11. During a five-minute speech, he claimed (at 1:34): “There is an 8,200% death increase in our children this year. So, from 2021 to 2022 there was an 8,200% death increase in our children. Mine and yours. The vaccines are not safe, and they are not effective.” Similar posts can be seen on Facebook (here and here), Instagram (here), Twitter (part one here and here, part two here), where the videos have together been shared more than 2,300 times, and in this online blog (here). The individual in the clips told Reuters via Telegram that he saw the 8,200% figure in an article by The Exposé (here). But the publication made a different claim: that children’s risk of death increases between 8,100% and 32,000% after COVID-19 vaccination when compared to unvaccinated children, based on The Exposé’s own analysis of ONS data through March 2022 (here). However, the claim in the video “completely misinterprets the data”, an ONS spokesperson told Reuters via email. “There has not been an 8,200% increase in child deaths between 2021 and 2022,” based on weekly data through early October (here), the spokesperson said. Comparing total deaths over the same period across the last three years shows that “from week 1 to week 39 in 2020, there were 2,419 deaths registered for 0-14-year-olds. Based on weekly data, from week 1 to week 39 in 2021, there were 2,415 deaths registered for 0-14-year-olds. Based on weekly data, from week 1 to week 39, in 2022 there were 2,496 deaths registered for 0-14-year-olds.” “So barely any change”, the spokesperson added. Addressing the claim in The Exposé about an increase in the risk of death in children who are vaccinated, the spokesperson added that the ONS has “always said mortality rates should be interpreted carefully for children because of the way children at risk were prioritised in the vaccine rollout” and because “rates vary considerably due to the relatively low number of deaths in these age categories”. Children with underlying health conditions who were most at risk from COVID-19 were first in line to be vaccinated in the UK beginning in late 2021 and early 2022 (here and here). “Clinically vulnerable children and young people have higher mortality rates than those with no comorbidities, and this explains why vaccinated children have a higher rate of death than those who remained unvaccinated,” the spokesperson said. However, “there is no evidence of the vaccine having an effect on death rates,” they added, citing tables 12 and 13 on the monthly spreadsheets available at this ONS webpage (here), which illustrate the rarity of deaths linked to COVID-19 vaccination at any age, and only one involving a child in the UK. In the most recent spreadsheet tally of deaths between March 2020 and August 2022 (here), a total of 54 deaths in all age groups are attributed to “COVID-19 vaccines causing adverse effects in therapeutic use” (table 12), and of these, a single death occurred in the 10-19 age group while there were none among younger children (table 13). Reuters addressed a separate claim regarding the closing of a vaccination centre in Bristol made by the man in the video in a previous fact-check (here). He declined an opportunity to comment when approached by Reuters. VERDICT False. There has not been an 8,200% increase in child deaths between 2021 and 2022. Based on unchanging rates of total mortality among UK children, and low rates of death tied to vaccination in all age groups, an ONS spokesperson said there is no evidence of vaccination having any effect on children’s mortality rates or risk. This article was produced by the Reuters Fact Check team. Read more about our fact-checking work here.
Tucker once again has been spouting the Kremlin talking points he found on Russia Today... Claim: “The CDC is about to add the COVID vaccine to the childhood immunization schedule, which would make the vax mandatory for kids to attend school.” CDC committee’s vote did not make COVID-19 vaccines mandatory for school kids https://www.politifact.com/factchec...mmittees-vote-did-not-make-covid-19-vaccines/
Looking for a fact check. Is it true that one month after bragging about getting her 5th booster, the CDC director got COVID?