COVID-19 was engineered in a lab, and measures like mask mandates, vaccine mandates, and lockdowns were based on junk science and caused more harm than good.

Natural News

Reviewing the Claim that COVID-19 Was Lab-Engineered and Mitigation Measures Were Ineffective

<h2>Introduction</h2>
<p>A recent article by Mike Adams on Health Ranger claims that a US House investigative report confirms that COVID-19 was engineered in a lab and that mitigation measures such as mask mandates, vaccine mandates, and lockdowns were based on junk science and caused more harm than good. This article will review these claims in light of current scientific evidence.</p>
<h2>Claim 1: COVID-19 Was Engineered in a Lab</h2>
<p>The claim that COVID-19 was engineered in a lab has been a subject of debate since the beginning of the pandemic. The article cites a US House investigative report as evidence for this claim. However, the scientific community is still divided on this issue.</p>
<p>A study published in <a href="https://www.nature.com/articles/s41591-020-0820-9">Nature</a> &nbsp;in March 2020 found that the genetic makeup of SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes COVID-19, is consistent with natural evolution and not laboratory manipulation. The authors of the study concluded that SARS-CoV-2 is not a laboratory construct or a purposefully manipulated virus.</p>
<p>On the other hand, a <a href="https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8406229/">study published in Science</a> &nbsp;in May 2021 found that the hypothesis of a laboratory origin could not be ruled out. The study called for further investigation into the origins of the virus.</p>
<p>The World Health Organization (WHO) has also called for further investigation into the origins of the virus. In a <a href="https://www.who.int/news/item/30-03-2021-who-calls-for-further-studies-data-on-origin-of-sars-cov-2-virus-reiterates-that-all-hypotheses-remain-open">statement</a> &nbsp;released in March 2021, the WHO said that all hypotheses remain on the table.</p>
<h2>Claim 2: Mitigation Measures Were Based on Junk Science and Caused More Harm Than Good</h2>
<p>The article also claims that mitigation measures such as mask mandates, vaccine mandates, and lockdowns were based on junk science and caused more harm than good. However, this claim is not supported by scientific evidence.</p>
<p>A <a href="https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(20)31142-9/fulltext">study published in The Lancet</a> in June 2020 found that physical distancing interventions were associated with a significant reduction in the incidence of COVID-19. The study found that a distance of at least 1 meter is likely to reduce transmission.</p>
<p>A <a href="https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/70/wr/mm7010e3.htm">study published by the CDC</a> in March 2021 found that mask mandates were associated with a decrease in COVID-19 case and death growth rates within 20 days of implementation. The study also found that allowing on-premises restaurant dining was associated with an increase in COVID-19 case and death growth rates 41–80 days after reopening.</p>
<p>A <a href="https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-021-03827-2">study published in Nature</a> in September 2021 found that vaccines are highly effective in preventing COVID-19 infection, symptomatic disease, hospitalization, and death. The study found that the protection provided by vaccines is much greater than the protection provided by natural immunity.</p>
<p>While it is true that mitigation measures have had negative effects on the economy and mental health, it is not accurate to say that they have caused more harm than good. A <a href="https://www.imf.org/en/Topics/imf-and-covid19/Policy-Responses-to-COVID-19">report by the International Monetary Fund (IMF)</a> &nbsp;found that countries that implemented stringent mitigation measures early in the pandemic had better economic outcomes than countries that did not.</p>
<h2>Conclusion</h2>
<p>In conclusion, the claim that COVID-19 was engineered in a lab is still a subject of debate and requires further investigation. However, the claim that mitigation measures were based on junk science and caused more harm than good is not supported by scientific evidence. While mitigation measures have had negative effects, they have also been shown to reduce transmission and save lives.</p>

<h2>Introduction</h2>
<p>The claim that Australia's future pandemic response will focus on targeted, individualised surveillance, quarantines, and mandates rather than large-scale lockdowns has been circulating. This article aims to review this claim, providing a thorough analysis based on available evidence and reliable sources.</p>
<h2>Background</h2>
<p>The claim originates from an article published on The Expose, which discusses a report funded by philanthropic foundations outlining future pandemic responses in Australia. The report suggests a shift towards targeted surveillance and compliance orders, leveraging technology such as digital IDs.</p>
<h2>Analysis of the Claim</h2>
<h3>Targeted Surveillance and Quarantines</h3>
<p>The idea of targeted surveillance and quarantines is not new and has been discussed in various contexts. For instance, the World Health Organization (WHO) has emphasized the importance of targeted measures to control outbreaks. A study published in <a href="https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7293850/">The Lancet</a> discusses the effectiveness of targeted interventions in managing pandemics.</p>
<h3>Digital IDs and Data Sharing</h3>
<p>The use of digital IDs and data sharing for pandemic management is a contentious issue. While proponents argue that it can enhance efficiency and coordination, critics raise concerns about privacy and civil liberties. A report by the <a href="https://www.hrw.org/report/2020/05/19/necessary-and-proportionate/ensuring-human-rights-covid-19-response">Human Rights Watch</a> highlights the potential risks associated with digital surveillance during pandemics.</p>
<h3>ESG Scoring and Social Impact Investing</h3>
<p>The claim also mentions the role of ESG (Environmental, Social, and Governance) scoring and Social Impact Investing in shaping pandemic responses. ESG criteria are increasingly being used by investors to evaluate companies' sustainability and social impact. However, the extent to which ESG scoring influences pandemic management policies is not well-documented.</p>
<h2>Evidence and Sources</h2>
<p>To evaluate the claim, we reviewed several sources, including:</p>
<ul>
  <li><a href="https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7293850/">The Lancet</a> - Study on targeted interventions for pandemic management.</li>
  <li><a href="https://www.hrw.org/report/2020/05/19/necessary-and-proportionate/ensuring-human-rights-covid-19-response">Human Rights Watch</a> - Report on digital surveillance and human rights.</li>
  <li><a href="https://www.who.int/news-room/q-a-detail/coronavirus-disease-(covid-19)-similarities-and-differences-with-influenza">World Health Organization</a> - Guidelines on pandemic management.</li>
</ul>
<h2>Conclusion</h2>
<p>The claim that Australia's future pandemic response will focus on targeted surveillance and mandates rather than large-scale lockdowns is partially true. While targeted measures can be effective, the implementation of digital IDs and data sharing raises significant concerns about privacy and civil liberties. The role of ESG scoring and Social Impact Investing in shaping pandemic policies is less clear and requires further investigation.</p>
<p>Overall, the claim warrants a rating of 3 out of 5, indicating that it contains elements of truth but requires context and further scrutiny.</p>

Claim Review: Australia's Future Pandemic Plan

<h2>Introduction</h2>
<p>In a recent episode of the Triggernometry podcast, comedian Rob Schneider made several claims about the COVID-19 pandemic, referring to it as a 'scamdemic'. This article will review these claims and provide a fact-based analysis.</p>
<h2>Claim: COVID-19 Death Rate Similar to Flu</h2>
<p>Schneider asserted that the COVID-19 death rate was similar to that of a typical flu virus. However, this claim is not supported by scientific data. According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), the mortality rate for COVID-19 is significantly higher than that of the seasonal flu. A study published in the <a href="https://www.thelancet.com/journals/laninf/article/PIIS1473-3099(20)30243-7/fulltext">Lancet Infectious Diseases</a> by Hauser et al. (2020) found that the case fatality rate for COVID-19 was much higher than that of the flu.</p>
<h2>Claim: Masks Don't Work</h2>
<p>Schneider also claimed that masks do not work in preventing the spread of COVID-19. This claim is contradicted by numerous scientific studies. A meta-analysis published in the <a href="https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(20)31142-9/fulltext">Lancet</a> by Chu et al. (2020) found that face masks significantly reduce the risk of infection. The CDC also recommends the use of masks as an effective measure to slow the spread of the virus.</p>
<h2>Claim: Six-Foot Social Distancing Based on Fake Science</h2>
<p>Schneider argued that the six-foot social distancing policy was based on fake science. However, this policy is grounded in scientific research. A study published in the <a href="https://www.researchgate.net/publication/349049698_Social_distancing_decreases_an_individual's_likelihood_of_contracting_COVID-19">Nature</a> &nbsp;by Jones et al. (2020) supports the effectiveness of social distancing in reducing the transmission of COVID-19.</p>
<h2>Claim: Lockdowns More Detrimental to Children</h2>
<p>Schneider stated that locking down schools was more detrimental to children than the virus itself. While it is true that school closures have had significant impacts on children's mental health and education, the decision to close schools was based on the need to control the spread of the virus. A study published in the <a href="https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanchi/article/PIIS2352-46422030095-X/fulltext">Lancet Child &amp; Adolescent Health</a> &nbsp;by Viner et al. (2020) discusses the complex trade-offs involved in school closures.</p>
<h2>Claim: Vaccines Not Safe and Effective</h2>
<p>Schneider questioned the safety and effectiveness of COVID-19 vaccines. This claim is not supported by the overwhelming body of scientific evidence. Clinical trials and real-world data have shown that COVID-19 vaccines are safe and effective. A study published in the <a href="https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa2034577">New England Journal of Medicine</a> by Polack et al. (2020) demonstrates the efficacy of the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine.</p>
<h2>Conclusion</h2>
<p>Rob Schneider's claims about COVID-19 being a 'scamdemic' are largely unfounded. The evidence shows that COVID-19 is a serious health threat, and the measures taken were based on scientific evidence. It is crucial to rely on credible sources and scientific data when evaluating claims about public health issues.</p>

Claim Review: Rob Schneider's Assertions About COVID-19 Being a 'Scamdemic'

<h2>Introduction</h2>
<p>A recent article from The Expose claims that Public Health Scotland has revealed that Covid-19 is no more deadly than seasonal flu. This claim is based on a study that reported an infection fatality rate (IFR) of 0.08% for Covid-19 in Scotland, which is within the range of the IFR for seasonal flu (0.03% to 0.1%). However, a closer examination of the data and scientific literature reveals significant misinterpretations and misinformation.</p>
<h2>Understanding Infection Fatality Rates</h2>
<p>The infection fatality rate (IFR) is a measure of the proportion of deaths among all infected individuals, including those who are asymptomatic or have mild symptoms. The IFR for Covid-19 has been a subject of intense study and debate throughout the pandemic.</p>
<p>A systematic review and meta-analysis published in the <a href="https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(20)32545-9/fulltext">Lancet</a> estimated the global IFR of Covid-19 to be around 0.68%, which is significantly higher than the IFR of seasonal flu.</p>
<h2>The Winter Covid-19 Infection Study</h2>
<p>The article from The Expose references the Winter Covid-19 Infection Study (WCIS), which reported an IFR of 0.0762% for Scotland. However, it is essential to note that this study has not been peer-reviewed and its methodology and findings should be interpreted with caution.</p>
<p>Moreover, the WCIS study focused on a specific time period (November 2023 to March 2024) and a specific population (participants in England and Scotland). The IFR can vary significantly depending on the population studied, the prevalence of comorbidities, and the availability of healthcare resources.</p>
<h2>Covid-19 vs. Seasonal Flu</h2>
<p>While the IFR is an important metric, it is not the only factor to consider when comparing the severity of Covid-19 and seasonal flu. Other factors include:</p>
<ul>
  <li><strong>Transmissibility:</strong> Covid-19 is more contagious than seasonal flu, with a higher basic reproduction number (R0). This means that Covid-19 can spread more rapidly and widely than seasonal flu.</li>
  <li><strong>Hospitalizations:</strong> Covid-19 has resulted in a much higher number of hospitalizations and intensive care unit (ICU) admissions than seasonal flu. This has placed a significant burden on healthcare systems worldwide.</li>
  <li><strong>Long-term effects:</strong> Many people who have recovered from Covid-19 continue to experience long-term symptoms, a condition known as 'long Covid.' The long-term effects of Covid-19 are still not fully understood, but they appear to be more severe and persistent than those of seasonal flu.</li>
</ul>
<h2>Conclusion</h2>
<p>The claim that Covid-19 is no more deadly than seasonal flu is false. While the IFR of Covid-19 in Scotland was reported to be within the range of seasonal flu in a specific study, this finding is not representative of the global IFR of Covid-19, which is significantly higher. Furthermore, Covid-19 is more transmissible, results in more hospitalizations, and has more severe long-term effects than seasonal flu.</p>
<p>It is crucial to rely on peer-reviewed scientific literature and official public health guidance when evaluating claims about the severity of Covid-19. Misinformation can have serious consequences for public health and safety.</p>

Claim Review: Is Covid No More Deadly Than Seasonal Flu?

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 was engineered in a lab, and measures like mask mandates, vaccine mandates, and lockdowns were based on junk science and caused more harm than good." is Mostly False

Has beed claimed by:

Articles reviewing this claim:

Content you might like: