An investigation of data found in the USA’s Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) has revealed that extremely high numbers of adverse reactions and deaths have been reported against specific lot numbers of the Covid-19 vaccines several times, meaning deadly batches of the experimental injections have now been identified.

The Expose News - com

<h2>Introduction</h2>
<p>A recent article from The Exposé claims that an investigation of the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) data has revealed extremely high numbers of adverse reactions and deaths associated with specific lot numbers of COVID-19 vaccines. This article aims to review this claim and provide a thorough analysis based on reliable scientific sources.</p>
<h2>Understanding VAERS</h2>
<p>VAERS is a passive surveillance system that collects reports of adverse events following vaccination. It is important to note that VAERS reports are not verified and do not necessarily indicate a causal relationship between the vaccine and the adverse event. Anyone can submit a report to VAERS, and the system is designed to detect potential safety signals that warrant further investigation.</p>
<h2>Variability in Adverse Events</h2>
<p>The claim suggests that there is excessive variability in the number of adverse events reported for different lots of COVID-19 vaccines compared to flu vaccines. However, several factors can contribute to this variability:</p>
<ul>
  <li><strong>Reporting biases:</strong> The media attention and public concern surrounding COVID-19 vaccines may lead to increased reporting of adverse events compared to other vaccines.</li>
  <li><strong>Vaccine rollout:</strong> The rapid and widespread rollout of COVID-19 vaccines means that a larger number of people have been vaccinated in a shorter period, which could lead to a higher number of reported adverse events.</li>
  <li><strong>Data quality:</strong> VAERS data is subject to limitations, including incomplete reports, inconsistencies, and errors.</li>
</ul>
<h2>Scientific Evidence</h2>
<p>A study published in <a href="https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/70/wr/mm7037e2.htm">the Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report (MMWR)</a> analyzed VAERS data for COVID-19 vaccines and found that the majority of adverse events were non-serious. The study also noted that the reporting rates for serious adverse events were consistent with those observed in clinical trials and did not identify any new safety concerns.</p>
<p>Another study published in <a href="https://www.thelancet.com/journals/laninf/article/PIIS1473-3099(21)00228-3/fulltext">The Lancet Infectious Diseases</a> analyzed data from multiple countries and found that the benefits of COVID-19 vaccines far outweigh the risks. The study did not find evidence of excessive adverse reactions associated with specific vaccine lots.</p>
<h2>Conclusion</h2>
<p>Based on the available scientific evidence, the claim that specific batches of COVID-19 vaccines are causing excessive adverse reactions and deaths is not supported. The variability in adverse events is likely due to reporting biases and other factors, not the vaccines themselves. It is essential to rely on reliable scientific sources and peer-reviewed studies when evaluating claims related to vaccine safety.</p>
<h2>References</h2>
<ul>
  <li><a href="https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/70/wr/mm7037e2.htm">MMWR: Monitoring the Safety of COVID-19 Vaccines</a></li>
  <li><a href="https://www.thelancet.com/journals/laninf/article/PIIS1473-3099(21)00228-3/fulltext">The Lancet Infectious Diseases: COVID-19 vaccine safety</a></li>
</ul>

Claim Review: COVID-19 Vaccine Batch Variability and Adverse Reactions

<h2>Claim Review: COVID-19 Vaccine Complications and Efficacy</h2>
<p>The claim that the COVID-19 vaccine has a significantly greater rate of complications than the disease it prevents and that its efficacy rapidly declines is partially true. However, the assertion that the vaccine makes things worse is not supported by comprehensive data.</p>
<p>The COVID-19 vaccines have been a subject of intense debate and scrutiny since their rollout. The claim that the vaccines have a significantly greater rate of complications than the disease they prevent is based on various reports of adverse events. According to the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS), there have been numerous reports of severe reactions, including anaphylaxis, myocarditis, and even deaths. However, it is important to note that VAERS data is self-reported and does not establish causality.</p>
<p>The efficacy of the COVID-19 vaccines has been shown to decline over time. Studies have indicated that the protection offered by the vaccines wanes after several months, necessitating booster shots. This decline in efficacy has been observed in various countries, including the United States and Israel. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) has acknowledged this waning immunity and has recommended booster shots for eligible individuals.</p>
<p>The assertion that the vaccine makes things worse is more contentious. While there have been reports of breakthrough infections and concerns about vaccine-induced immune escape, comprehensive data from large-scale studies and real-world observations do not support the claim that the vaccines make the pandemic worse. On the contrary, vaccination campaigns have been associated with reductions in hospitalizations and deaths, particularly in vulnerable populations.</p>
<p>It is crucial to consider the broader context of public health measures and the complex nature of the COVID-19 pandemic. While the vaccines are not perfect, they have played a significant role in mitigating the impact of the disease. The benefits of vaccination, including reduced hospitalizations and deaths, must be weighed against the risks of adverse events.</p>
<p>In conclusion, while the COVID-19 vaccines have been associated with complications and declining efficacy, the claim that they make things worse is not supported by comprehensive data. The vaccines have been instrumental in reducing the severity of the pandemic and protecting vulnerable populations.</p>

Claim Review: COVID-19 Vaccine Complications and Efficacy

<p>The claim that Covid mRNA vaccines caused a 112,000% surge in brain clots, as reported by Slay News, is based on a study published in the International Journal of Innovative Research in Medical Science (IJIRMS). The study alleges that Covid mRNA injections carry a risk of brain clots that is 1,119.6 times higher than the flu shot.</p>
<p>However, several issues need to be addressed to evaluate the credibility of this claim:</p>
<h3>Methodological Concerns</h3>
<p>The study analyzed reports of cerebral thromboembolism from the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and the federal Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS). While VAERS is a valuable tool for monitoring vaccine safety, it is important to note that VAERS data are subject to reporting biases and do not establish causality. The CDC itself acknowledges that VAERS reports are not verified and may include incomplete or inaccurate information.</p>
<h3>Scientific Consensus</h3>
<p>The scientific community has not widely accepted or verified the findings of the study cited in the Slay News article. Peer-reviewed studies published in reputable journals, such as the New England Journal of Medicine and The Lancet, have not reported such a dramatic increase in brain clots associated with Covid mRNA vaccines.</p>
<h3>Expert Opinions</h3>
<p>Leading medical experts and organizations, including the World Health Organization (WHO) and the CDC, have consistently maintained that the benefits of Covid mRNA vaccines far outweigh the risks. While rare adverse events, including blood clots, have been reported, these occurrences are extremely rare and do not support the claim of a 112,000% surge in brain clots.</p>
<h3>Reliable Sources</h3>
<p>For a more balanced perspective, it is essential to refer to reliable scientific sources. A study published in the journal Vaccine, which analyzed data from 99 million people across eight countries, observed significantly higher risks of myocarditis following mRNA-based Covid injections but did not report a dramatic increase in brain clots. The study also warned of potential safety signals that require further investigation.</p>
<p>In conclusion, the claim that Covid mRNA vaccines caused a 112,000% surge in brain clots is misleading and lacks credible scientific support. The study cited has not been widely accepted or verified by the scientific community, and the methodological concerns associated with VAERS data further undermine the claim's credibility.</p>

Claim Review: Covid mRNA Vaccines Caused 112,000% Surge in Brain Clots

<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

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)

Has beed claimed by:

Articles reviewing this claim:

Content you might like: