COVID-19 vaccinated individuals are causing serious side effects, including menstrual abnormalities, in unvaccinated people through a phenomenon known as 'vaccine shedding'.

The Peoples Voice - TV

Investigating the Claim: Can COVID-19 Vaccinated Individuals Cause Side Effects in Unvaccinated People?

The claim that COVID-19 vaccinated individuals are causing serious side effects, specifically menstrual abnormalities, in unvaccinated people through 'vaccine shedding' has been circulating in various media outlets. This claim is based on a study titled 'Menstrual Abnormalities Strongly Associated with Proximity to COVID-19 Vaccinated Individuals,' published in the International Journal of Vaccine Theory, Practice, and Research. However, a thorough investigation of this claim reveals several issues that undermine its credibility.
Firstly, the International Journal of Vaccine Theory, Practice, and Research is not a reputable or well-known journal in the scientific community. It is not indexed in major scientific databases like PubMed, and its editorial policies and peer-review processes are not transparent. This raises significant questions about the credibility of the study published in it.
Secondly, the study itself has several methodological flaws. It relies on self-reported data, which can be subject to bias and inaccuracies. The study does not establish a clear causal link between proximity to vaccinated individuals and menstrual abnormalities. Correlation does not imply causation, and the study does not control for other potential factors that could cause menstrual irregularities.
The concept of 'vaccine shedding' as described in the claim is also misleading. Vaccine shedding typically refers to the release of vaccine-strain viruses from a vaccinated individual, which can potentially infect others. However, the COVID-19 vaccines authorized for use do not contain live viruses and cannot cause shedding in this manner. The mRNA vaccines work by instructing cells to produce a harmless piece of the 'spike protein,' which the body then builds an immune response against. This process does not involve the production of infectious viruses.
The claim also references a 2015 FDA document titled 'Design and Analysis of Shedding Studies for Virus or Bacteria-Based Gene Therapy and Oncolytic Products.' However, this document does not support the claim as it pertains to gene therapy products that are fundamentally different from the mRNA vaccines used for COVID-19. The document does not provide evidence that mRNA vaccines can cause shedding that affects unvaccinated individuals.
Furthermore, reputable health organizations and scientific studies have not found evidence supporting the claim of vaccine shedding causing side effects in unvaccinated people. A study published in the New England Journal of Medicine found no significant difference in the incidence of menstrual changes between vaccinated and unvaccinated individuals (<a href="https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11246222/">source</a> ). The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) also states that COVID-19 vaccines are safe and effective, with no evidence of vaccine shedding causing harm to others (<a href="https://www.cdc.gov/covid/vaccines/myths-facts.html">source</a> ).
In conclusion, the claim that COVID-19 vaccinated individuals are causing serious side effects in unvaccinated people through 'vaccine shedding' is not supported by scientific evidence. The study cited has significant methodological flaws and is published in a non-reputable journal. Reputable health organizations and scientific studies do not support this claim. Therefore, it is crucial to rely on credible sources and scientific evidence when evaluating such claims.

The claim that hospitals treated far more people for Covid shot side effects than unvaccinated patients for Covid infections has been circulating, based on a journal article published in October 2024. However, a thorough examination of the study and its findings reveals several issues that cast doubt on the validity of this claim.
The journal article in question reported that 5.69% of respondents were hospitalized due to vaccination adverse events, compared to 1.49% hospitalized due to Covid infection. While these numbers may seem alarming at first glance, it is crucial to consider the context and limitations of the study.
Firstly, the study primarily focused on gender differences in Covid-related outcomes and endocrine systems, not on comparing hospitalization rates between vaccinated and unvaccinated individuals. The data on hospitalizations was a secondary finding and not the main objective of the research.
Secondly, the study relied on self-reported data from a global survey, which can introduce biases and inaccuracies. Self-reported data is not as reliable as clinical data collected in a controlled setting. Participants may misinterpret or misreport their experiences, leading to skewed results.
Thirdly, the study did not provide detailed information on the severity of the adverse events leading to hospitalization. It is possible that some of the reported hospitalizations were for minor or temporary side effects that did not pose a significant health risk.
Furthermore, the study did not account for the overall number of vaccinated and unvaccinated individuals in the population. Without this context, it is impossible to determine whether the hospitalization rates are representative of the broader population.
It is also important to note that numerous peer-reviewed studies have shown the safety and efficacy of Covid-19 vaccines. For example, a study published in <a href="https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa2107058">The New England Journal of Medicine</a> &nbsp;found that the mRNA vaccines were highly effective in preventing Covid-19 infections and severe outcomes.
Another study published in <a href="https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanrhe/article/PIIS2665-9913(22)00001-7/fulltext">The Lancet</a> &nbsp;concluded that the benefits of Covid-19 vaccines far outweigh the risks, with adverse events being rare and generally mild.
In conclusion, the claim that hospitals treated more people for Covid shot side effects than unvaccinated patients for Covid infections is not supported by reliable scientific evidence. The study cited has significant limitations and does not provide conclusive data to support this claim. It is essential to rely on peer-reviewed research and expert analysis when evaluating claims about public health issues.

Claim Review: Hospitals Treated More People for Covid Shot Side Effects than Unvaccinated Patients for Covid Infections

The article from Slay News claims that the UK government's regulator, the Medicines Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency (MHRA), revealed that 13.7% of people who received Covid vaccines suffered adverse events considered to be 'medically serious'. This claim is based on a study published in the medRxiv medical journal. However, a thorough review of the data and context is necessary to assess the accuracy of this claim.
The study analyzed data from the Yellow Card Vaccine Monitor (YCVM), a system established by the UK MHRA to monitor adverse reactions following Covid vaccination. The study found that out of 30,281 vaccinated individuals, 15,764 (52.1%) reported experiencing at least one adverse reaction, with 4,134 (13.7%) reporting an event considered medically serious.
It is important to note that the term 'medically serious' can encompass a wide range of symptoms, from those requiring medical attention to more severe outcomes. The article does not provide a detailed breakdown of the types of adverse events reported, which is crucial for understanding the severity and context of these events.
Furthermore, the claim that 13.7% of vaccinated individuals experienced medically serious adverse events is not supported by other reliable sources. According to the UK government's official data, the rate of serious adverse events following Covid vaccination is significantly lower. For example, the MHRA's weekly report on Covid-19 vaccine adverse reactions shows that the rate of serious adverse events is around 0.1% (<a href="https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/coronavirus-covid-19-vaccine-adverse-reactions">MHRA Weekly Report</a>).
The discrepancy between the study's findings and the official data can be attributed to several factors, including the study's methodology, sample size, and the definition of 'medically serious' events. It is also worth noting that the study was not peer-reviewed, which means it has not been subjected to the rigorous scrutiny of the scientific community.
In conclusion, the claim that 13.7% of Covid-vaccinated individuals experienced medically serious adverse events is misleading and lacks context. While the study does report this figure, it does not align with the official data from the UK government, which shows a significantly lower rate of serious adverse events. It is essential to rely on official and peer-reviewed sources when assessing the safety of Covid vaccines.

Claim Review: 13.7% of Covid-Vaxxed Suffered 'Medically Serious' Side Effects

<h2>Introduction</h2>
The recent approval of the ACAM2000 vaccine for monkeypox by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has sparked controversy due to its acknowledged risks, particularly cardiac inflammation. This article aims to review the claim that the FDA approved the vaccine despite knowing its dangers.
<h2>Background</h2>
The ACAM2000 vaccine, developed by Emergent BioSolutions, was initially approved for smallpox in 2007. On August 29, 2024, the FDA expanded its approval to include individuals at high risk for monkeypox, such as members of the LGBT community.
<h2>Claim Analysis</h2>
The claim suggests that the FDA approved the ACAM2000 vaccine despite knowing its risks. The FDA's medication guide for ACAM2000 lists numerous side effects, including the potential spread of the live vaccinia virus to close contacts and serious complications such as myopericarditis (heart lining and/or muscle inflammation).
According to Karl Jablonowski, a senior research scientist at Children's Health Defense, the risk of cardiac inflammation is significant, with estimates ranging from one in 2,000 to one in 175 vaccinations. Dr. Meryl Nass, an internist and biological warfare expert, also highlighted the CDC's acknowledgment of this risk during a June 2022 meeting.
However, it is crucial to understand the FDA's approval process. The agency evaluates the benefits and risks of a vaccine, especially in the context of public health emergencies. The approval of ACAM2000 for monkeypox was likely based on the assessment that the benefits outweigh the risks for high-risk individuals.
<h2>Scientific Evidence</h2>
The risk of myopericarditis associated with ACAM2000 is well-documented. A study published in the <a href="https://academic.oup.com/aje/article-abstract/160/7/642/136637?redirectedFrom=PDF#google_vignette">New England Journal of Medicine</a> &nbsp;reported cases of myopericarditis following smallpox vaccination, highlighting the need for careful monitoring and risk assessment.
The FDA's approval process involves rigorous evaluation of clinical data and consideration of public health needs. While the risks are acknowledged, the decision to approve the vaccine reflects a balance between these risks and the potential benefits in preventing monkeypox.
<h2>Conclusion</h2>
The claim that the FDA approved the ACAM2000 vaccine for monkeypox despite acknowledging its dangerous side effects is partially true. While the vaccine has known risks, the FDA's approval process considers the benefits versus the risks in the context of public health emergencies. It is essential for individuals to be informed about the potential side effects and for healthcare providers to monitor vaccinated individuals closely.

Claim Review: FDA Approves Monkeypox Vaccine Despite Known Risks

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: "COVID-19 vaccinated individuals are causing serious side effects, including menstrual abnormalities, in unvaccinated people through a phenomenon known as 'vaccine shedding'." is False

Has beed claimed by:

Articles reviewing this claim:

Content you might like: