A new long-term study assessing the association of vaccines with reported cases of Guillain-Barré syndrome (GBS) found that 'most vaccines' were associated with GBS, and that reports of vaccine-associated GBS have been 'increasing steadily over time.'

Infowars - com

<p>A recent study published in the journal Scientific Reports examined global cases of Guillain-Barré syndrome (GBS) between 1967 and 2023. The study found that out of 19 vaccines examined, 17 were potentially associated with GBS, including COVID-19 and influenza vaccines. The findings also showed that reports of vaccine-related GBS surged following the introduction of the swine flu vaccine in 2009 and the COVID-19 vaccine in 2020.</p>
<p>GBS is a rare condition that attacks the peripheral nervous system, causing sudden numbness and muscle weakness. The study reported 117 deaths among the 15,377 cases of vaccine-associated GBS, with most deaths occurring in people aged 65 and over.</p>
<p>The researchers noted that studies have consistently shown a higher risk of GBS from COVID-19 and flu infections compared to vaccination. They cited a four- to seven-times increase in GBS following influenza infection.</p>
<p>Karl Jablonowski, Ph.D., senior research scientist at <a href="https://remedia.social/claim-author/childrens-health-defense-org-b3c2e48c34df">Children’s Health Defense (CHD)</a> , praised the study’s scope but questioned its methodology. Brian Hooker, Ph.D., chief scientific officer for CHD, also questioned the study’s conclusion that infection poses a greater risk of GBS compared to vaccination.</p>
<p>The study used data from VigiBase, the WHO’s global database of adverse event reports. The researchers concluded that Ad5-vectored COVID-19 vaccines are associated with a higher incidence of GBS, especially when compared to the mRNA COVID-19 vaccines.</p>
<p>The study’s findings did not indicate sex-specific risks of GBS but found an increased association with advancing age. The average time of GBS onset was 5.5 days, with a high standard deviation, suggesting variability in onset times.</p>
<p>The study’s authors acknowledged the scarcity of data connecting GBS to vaccination and the need for more research to elucidate the underlying mechanisms linking vaccines and GBS.</p>
<p>In conclusion, while the study found associations between several vaccines and GBS, it also noted that the risk of GBS from infections like COVID-19 and influenza is higher than from vaccinations. The claim that most vaccines are associated with GBS and that reports of vaccine-associated GBS have been increasing steadily over time is partially true.&nbsp;</p>
<p><strong>References:</strong></p>
<ul>
  <li><a href="https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-024-74729-2">Global burden of vaccine-associated Guillain-Barré syndrome over 170 countries from 1967 to 202</a>3 - Scientific Reports&nbsp;</li>
  <li><a href="https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanwpc/article/PIIS2666-6065(21)00211-X/fulltext">Mortality rate for GBS in countries with limited resources</a> &nbsp;- The Lancet</li>
  <li><a href="https://my.clevelandclinic.org/health/diseases/15838-guillain-barre-syndrome">Guillain-Barré syndrome</a> &nbsp;- Cleveland Clinic</li>
</ul>

Claim Review: Guillain-Barré Syndrome Associated with 17 Vaccines, Including Covid and Flu Shots

<h2>Introduction</h2>
<p>The claim that the Canadian government contract with Pfizer acknowledged the unknown long-term efficacy and safety of COVID-19 vaccines has been circulating widely. This article aims to review this claim, providing a thorough analysis and context based on reliable scientific sources.</p>
<h2>The Claim</h2>
<p>The claim states that the contract between the Canadian government and Pfizer, dated October 26, 2020, includes a section acknowledging that the long-term effects, efficacy, and adverse effects of the vaccine were not known at the time of signing. This information was reported by The Expose and The Canadian Independent.</p>
<h2>Analysis</h2>
<p>The contract indeed contains a section (5.5) under 'Purchaser Acknowledgement' that states: 'Purchaser further acknowledges that the long-term effects and efficacy of the Vaccine are not currently known and that there may be adverse effects of the Vaccine that are not currently known.' This acknowledgment is standard in contracts for new medical products, reflecting the ongoing nature of scientific research and the need for continuous monitoring.</p>
<p>It is important to note that the acknowledgment of unknown long-term effects does not imply that the vaccines are unsafe. Vaccines undergo rigorous testing and approval processes by regulatory bodies such as Health Canada and the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA). These processes ensure that vaccines meet high safety and efficacy standards before they are administered to the public.</p>
<p>Furthermore, ongoing monitoring and research are essential for understanding the long-term effects of any new medical intervention. This is a standard practice in the medical field and is not unique to COVID-19 vaccines.</p>
<h2>Scientific Evidence</h2>
<p>Several peer-reviewed studies and reports from reliable scientific sources support the safety and efficacy of COVID-19 vaccines. For example, a study published in <a href="https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa2101765">The New England Journal of Medicine</a> found that the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine was highly effective in preventing symptomatic COVID-19 infections. Another study published in <a href="https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(21)00947-8/fulltext">The Lancet</a> reported similar findings for the Moderna vaccine.</p>
<p>These studies, along with ongoing surveillance by health authorities, provide evidence that COVID-19 vaccines are safe and effective in the short term. Long-term data is being continuously collected and analyzed to ensure the safety and efficacy of these vaccines over time.</p>
<h2>Conclusion</h2>
<p>The claim that the Canadian government contract with Pfizer acknowledged the unknown long-term efficacy and safety of COVID-19 vaccines is accurate. However, this acknowledgment is a standard practice in contracts for new medical products and does not imply that the vaccines are unsafe. Ongoing research and monitoring are essential for understanding the long-term effects of any new medical intervention. The available scientific evidence supports the safety and efficacy of COVID-19 vaccines in the short term, and long-term data is being continuously collected and analyzed.</p>

Claim Review: Canadian Government Contract with Pfizer on COVID-19 Vaccine Safety

<h2>Introduction</h2>
<p>A recent article from The People's Voice claims that a Lancet review of 325 autopsies found that 74% of deaths were linked to COVID-19 vaccines. The article also states that the journal removed the study after only 24 hours. This claim review will examine the validity of these statements.</p>
<h2>The Claim</h2>
<p>The claim suggests that a significant number of deaths were directly caused by COVID-19 vaccines, as indicated by an autopsy study published in the Lancet. The study was allegedly removed due to its conclusions not being supported by the methodology.</p>
<h2>Analysis</h2>
<p>The study in question was a pre-print awaiting peer-review, authored by Dr. Peter McCullough, Dr. Harvey Risch, and their colleagues. Pre-prints are preliminary reports that have not undergone the rigorous peer-review process necessary for publication in reputable journals. The Lancet removed the study, stating that the conclusions were not supported by the study methodology.</p>
<p>The original study abstract, available in the Internet Archive, suggests that the most implicated organ system in COVID-19 vaccine-associated deaths was the cardiovascular system (53%), followed by the hematological system (17%). The study concluded that there is a high likelihood of a causal link between COVID-19 vaccines and death in most cases.</p>
<p>However, the removal of the study by the Lancet indicates significant methodological concerns. Pre-prints are often removed if they fail to meet basic screening criteria or if the methodology is deemed flawed. The fact that the study was removed so quickly suggests that it did not meet the necessary standards for further review.</p>
<p>Dr. Clare Craig, a pathologist, acknowledged that while the approach taken in the study is sound, there may be a bias towards reporting autopsies where there was evidence of causation. This bias could exaggerate the likelihood of causation. She also emphasized the importance of open scientific critique over censorship.</p>
<h2>Scientific Evidence</h2>
<p>To date, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) has not acknowledged a single death being caused by COVID-19 vaccines. The Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) is designed to alert to potential harms but is not the best way of measuring the extent of those harms. Quantifying the impact of deaths can be done by looking at overall mortality rates in a country, but this method is also imperfect.</p>
<p>A study published in the <a href="https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa2104840">New England Journal of Medicine</a> found no evidence of increased mortality rates among vaccinated individuals compared to unvaccinated individuals. Another study in the <a href="https://www.thelancet.com/journals/laninf/article/PIIS1473-3099(23)00207-4/fulltext">Lancet</a> &nbsp;concluded that COVID-19 vaccines are safe and effective, with rare adverse events.</p>
<h2>Conclusion</h2>
<p>The claim that a Lancet review found 74% of deaths linked to COVID-19 vaccines is based on a pre-print study that was removed due to methodological concerns. The removal of the study indicates that the conclusions were not supported by the methodology. The claim is not substantiated by peer-reviewed evidence, and the available scientific literature does not support the assertion that COVID-19 vaccines are causing a significant number of deaths.</p>
<p>It is crucial to rely on peer-reviewed studies and open scientific critique to assess the safety and efficacy of vaccines. Censorship of flawed studies is a necessary part of maintaining scientific integrity.</p>

Claim Review: Lancet Removes Autopsy Study Linking 74% of Deaths to COVID-19 Vaccines

<h1>Examining the Claims About Gardasil: A Comprehensive Review</h1>
<p>The article by Dr. Joseph Mercola titled 'How Merck Pushed Gardasil Vaccine to Pay for Vioxx Lawsuits — and Why the HPV Shot is So Dangerous' makes several claims about the HPV vaccine Gardasil. This review will examine these claims and provide a thorough analysis based on scientific evidence.</p>
<h2>Claims Made in the Article</h2>
<p>The article claims that Gardasil is extremely dangerous and has caused unprecedented injuries, including autoimmunity, postural orthostatic tachycardia syndrome (POTS), infertility, and death. It also suggests that Merck pushed Gardasil to market to recover losses from Vioxx lawsuits and that the FDA and CDC ignored alarming data about the vaccine's safety.</p>
<h2>Examining the Evidence</h2>
<h3>Safety of Gardasil</h3>
<p>The safety of Gardasil has been extensively studied. A systematic review and meta-analysis published in the journal 'Vaccine' found that Gardasil is generally safe and well-tolerated. The most common adverse events were local reactions at the injection site, such as pain and swelling. Serious adverse events were rare and not significantly different from those observed in the placebo groups.</p>
<p>Reference: <a href="https://karger.com/acy/article/63/2/159/10137/HPV-Vaccine-Updates-and-Highlights">Safety of human papillomavirus vaccines: an updated review</a> &nbsp;by Luisa Lina Villa, et al.</p>
<h3>Efficacy of Gardasil</h3>
<p>Gardasil has been shown to be highly effective in preventing HPV-related infections and cancers. A study published in the 'New England Journal of Medicine' found that Gardasil was 98% effective in preventing HPV-related cervical, vulvar, and vaginal cancers.</p>
<p>Reference: <a href="https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa061741">Quadrivalent Vaccine against Human Papillomavirus to Prevent High-Grade Cervical Lesions</a> &nbsp;by Laura A. Koutsky, et al.</p>
<h3>Autoimmunity and POTS</h3>
<p>The article claims that Gardasil causes autoimmunity and POTS. However, a review of the literature shows that the evidence for these claims is limited and inconclusive. A study published in the journal 'Vaccine' found no association between Gardasil and autoimmune disorders or POTS.</p>
<p>Reference: <a href="https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0264410X17308793">Safety of human papillomavirus vaccines: an updated review</a> by Luisa Lina Villa, et al.</p>
<h3>Infertility</h3>
<p>The article suggests that Gardasil may cause infertility. However, a study published in the 'American Journal of Epidemiology' found no association between Gardasil and infertility. The study followed over 199,000 women and found no difference in fertility rates between those who received Gardasil and those who did not.</p>
<p>Reference: <a href="https://www.researchgate.net/publication/327147760_Primary_Ovarian_Insufficiency_and_Adolescent_Vaccination">Human Papillomavirus Vaccination and Risk of Infertility</a> &nbsp;by Allison L. Naleway, et al.</p>
<h3>Deaths</h3>
<p>The article claims that Gardasil has caused deaths. However, a review of the literature shows that the number of deaths reported after Gardasil vaccination is very low and not significantly different from the background death rate in the general population. A study published in the journal 'Vaccine' found no evidence of an increased risk of death associated with Gardasil.</p>
<h2>Conclusion</h2>
<p>The claims made in the article about Gardasil are not supported by the scientific evidence. While Gardasil has been associated with some adverse effects, the overall benefits of the vaccine in preventing HPV-related cancers outweigh the risks. The FDA and CDC have thoroughly reviewed the safety and efficacy of Gardasil and have concluded that it is a safe and effective vaccine.</p>
<p>It is important to rely on peer-reviewed scientific studies and evidence-based medicine when evaluating the safety and efficacy of vaccines. Misinformation and unfounded claims can lead to vaccine hesitancy and put public health at risk.</p>

Examining the Claims About Gardasil: A Comprehensive Review

If you want to replace an existing title on a portal and you want the replaced title to be visible to you and your followers.

Move the mouse over the title and make a right click.

Select Remedia -> Alternate Title from the menu

In the pop-up window, enter a new title that you like.

The blue icon copies the existing title into the input field, so you don't have to type everything...

By pressing Submit, the title will be replaced, which will be visible to you and others who visit the pages.

(There is a possibility that you will have to reload the page for the changes to be visible)

You can contact one of the fact-checking organizations.

Claim rated as -> Choose from false to true

Add claimer -> Opens a pop-up window that allows you to search for existing people already registered in the system or to create a new profile of that person.

Claimed At -> Enter the link to the page where the claim was found. You can add more places and link more claim authors

Short description -> short content that is seen when sharing articles on social networks

Field for entering the content of the article.

After the article is published, it will be visible on the Remedia social network and to everyone who has the Remedia Chrome extension installed

And you can engage in debunking yourself.

CAUTION! Abusing the platform is not allowed, entering unverified, misleading or untrue content will result in the deletion of the entire account with all content

Canonical -> If you enter content that already exists somewhere (your property), you can enter a link and Remedia will try to enter the content in the provided fields.

Featured image -> Image that is displayed when you share an article on other social networks.

Write your title -> Enter the title of the article

The claim being reviewed -> Enter the claim here, but BEWARE! An assertion is not the entire statement someone has made, but something concise and unambiguous. Check the claim entry multiple times as each change will create a new claim in the system.

Claim made on -> date when someone published the claim.

After installing the Chrome extension, you can log in and use advanced functionalities. One of them is 'Dislike'.

By right-clicking on an article, the options provided by the Remedia extension are opened, by selecting Dislike, the article will become more transparent and less visible.

Your action will be visible to you and all people who follow you!

Alternate Title

1. Log in to the Remedia social network with a Google or Facebook account (link above right).

2. Install the Chrome extension (if you didn't)

4. Enter the email you used to open your Google or Facebook account. Submit.

5. After the input field appears, rewrite the code. Accept.

That's it! Now you can use the advanced functions of the Remedia Chrome extension.

Alternate Titles

Remedia's work so far:

Remedia, the best thing that happened to media!

On the Feed page, you can enter Status, Opinion and Claim Review

It is enough to enter the title, short description and content.

Below the fields for entering content, you will find fields for entering links. By entering page links in these fields, you 'show' the Chrome extension on which pages to display your content

Press Publish to publish your opinion. (It may be necessary to wait a moment while all links are generated)

Claim: "A new long-term study assessing the association of vaccines with reported cases of Guillain-Barré syndrome (GBS) found that 'most vaccines' were associated with GBS, and that reports of vaccine-associated GBS have been 'increasing steadily over time.'" is Half True

Has beed claimed by:

Articles reviewing this claim:

Content you might like: