More than half the adult population of the world are anti-vaxxers.

Cijepljenje - info

Andrew Wakefield

<p>In an interview, <a href="https://remedia.social/claim-author/andrew-wakefield-b9ae5748e147">Andrew Wakefield</a> &nbsp;made several claims about vaccines and autism. One notable claim was that 'more than half the adult population of the world are anti-vaxxers.' This claim warrants a thorough examination to determine its validity.</p>
<p>Vaccine hesitancy is a complex issue that varies widely across different regions and populations. The World Health Organization (WHO) defines vaccine hesitancy as the 'reluctance or refusal to vaccinate despite the availability of vaccines.' While vaccine hesitancy is a concern, it does not represent the majority of the global population.</p>
<p>According to a study published in the journal <em>The Lancet</em>, vaccine confidence varies significantly across countries. The study, titled 'The State of Vaccine Confidence 2016: Global Insights Through a 67-Country Survey,' found that while some countries have high levels of vaccine hesitancy, others have very low levels. The study can be found <a href="https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(16)31540-2/fulltext">here</a>.</p>
<p>A more recent survey conducted by the Wellcome Global Monitor in 2018 found that globally, 79% of people agree that vaccines are safe, and 84% agree that vaccines are effective. This survey included responses from over 140,000 people across 144 countries. The results of the survey can be found <a href="https://wellcome.org/reports/wellcome-global-monitor/2018">here</a>.</p>
<p>In the context of the COVID-19 pandemic, vaccine acceptance has been a critical issue. A global survey conducted by the Imperial College London found that while vaccine hesitancy exists, it is not the majority view. The survey, which included responses from over 13,000 people across 14 countries, found that the majority of respondents were willing to get vaccinated against COVID-19. The survey results can be found <a href="https://www.imperial.ac.uk/news/218476/global-survey-reveals-high-levels-covid-19/">here</a>.</p>
<p>It is important to note that vaccine hesitancy is influenced by a variety of factors, including misinformation, cultural beliefs, and personal experiences. Addressing vaccine hesitancy requires a nuanced approach that involves education, communication, and building trust in healthcare systems.</p>
<p>In conclusion, the claim that more than half the adult population of the world are anti-vaxxers is not supported by available data. While vaccine hesitancy is a real and important issue, it does not represent the majority of the global population. Surveys and studies consistently show that the majority of people around the world support vaccination and recognize its importance in protecting public health.<br>
</p>
<blockquote><br>
The transcript:<br>
I went to the CDC back in 2000 and they said, look, Dr. Wakefield, you know, it's, it's everybody gets the MMR. Only a few children have autism. So how do you equate it? Well, that's how medicine works. A lot of people smoke, only a few develop lung cancer, but the point is it's pattern of exposure. I said, look, we believe, for example, that age of exposure is important.</blockquote>
<blockquote>We know this because with the natural infection, the younger you get measles, the greater the risk of infection. of a more severe reaction. If you get it under one, for example, does the same pertain to the vaccine. If you get the vaccine younger, are you at greater risk? And they went away to their credit and they tested that hypothesis and they found that it was exactly, and they spent the next 14 years destroying the documents, putting them in a dumpster and covering up and publishing a paper that exonerated the vaccine until one of the whistleblowers, William Thompson, head scientist in that study came forward and said, I can't live with this any longer.</blockquote>
<blockquote>I kept the, the documents here. They are, it showed fraud, most appalling violation of medical and scientific ethics on behalf of the CDC. So people say now, oh, there's no evidence. Vaccines cause autism. Absolutely. There is. And when you have to commit to that level of fraud, any level of fraud, but that level of fraud, not only in the context of this vaccine, but Pfizer in the context of the, of the COVID vaccine, everybody else, you're on a losing, run right from the start.</blockquote>
<blockquote>You are going to lose because you can only sustain that lie for so long and then someone somewhere is going to come forward, some brave person and say, actually, no, it was completely the opposite. And public confidence is shattered. It will never be regained. So now we are in a majority of people who are saying no to the 4th, 5th, 6th booster for COVID.</blockquote>
<blockquote>And by definition in media terms, those are anti vaxxers. More than half the adult population of the world are anti vaxxers. So, I think that, as I say, this will turn out to be the greatest mistake they ever made. And I think that we are winning, uncomfortable as that may be, we are winning.</blockquote>

Claim Review: Are Half the Adult Population Anti-Vaxxers?

<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?

<p>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.</p>
<p>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.</p>
<p>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.</p>
<p>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.</p>
<p>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.</p>
<p>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.</p>
<p>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.</p>
<p>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.</p>
<p>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.</p>

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

<h2>Introduction</h2>
<p>The myth of overpopulation has been a persistent concern for many, suggesting that the world's growing population will strip the Earth of its usable resources, leading to diminishing standards of living, poverty, hunger, and environmental catastrophes. This article aims to debunk this myth by examining historical data, current trends, and expert opinions.</p>

<h2>Historical Context</h2>
<p>The myth of overpopulation can be traced back to the late 18th century when Thomas Malthus published his essay on the principle of population. Malthus theorized that population growth would outpace food production, leading to widespread famine and poverty. However, his predictions have not come to pass due to advancements in agriculture and technology.</p>

<h2>Current Trends</h2>
<p>Today, the world produces enough food to feed 10 billion people, yet hunger remains a problem in some regions due to political failures and distribution issues rather than overpopulation. According to the World Education Service, the world currently produces 17% more calories per person than it did 30 years ago. This indicates that food production has kept pace with population growth.</p>

<p>Water scarcity is another concern often linked to overpopulation. However, the Earth is awash in water, with oceans covering 70% of the planet's surface. The challenge lies in making freshwater accessible to those who need it. Since 1900, freshwater withdrawals have increased sevenfold, while the world population has increased only fourfold. This suggests that our ability to access usable water is increasing faster than population growth.</p>

<h2>Population Growth Rate</h2>
<p>Contrary to popular belief, the world population is not growing exponentially. The global population growth rate has been declining since its peak in the early 1960s. Between 1950 and 2000, the world population grew at a rate of 1.76%. Between 2000 and 2050, it is expected to grow by 0.77 percent. This decline in growth rate is due to factors such as increased life expectancy, urbanization, and education, which lead to lower fertility rates.</p>

<h2>Conclusion</h2>
<p>The myth of overpopulation is largely unfounded. Historical data and current trends show that innovation and resource management can sustain a growing population. While challenges such as hunger and water scarcity persist, they are not caused by overpopulation but by political failures and distribution issues. It is crucial to address these challenges through effective policies and technological advancements rather than perpetuating the myth of overpopulation.</p>

<h2>References</h2>
<ul>
<li><a href='https://www.pop.org/overpopulation-myth/'>What is the myth of overpopulation? - Population Research Institute</a></li>
<li><a href='https://www.pop.org/debunking-the-myth-of-overpopulation/'>Debunking the Myth of Overpopulation - Population Research Institute</a></li>
<li><a href='https://www.usccb.org/committees/pro-life-activities/myth-overpopulation-and-folks-who-brought-it-you'>The Myth of Overpopulation and the Folks Who Brought it to You | USCCB</a></li>
</ul>

Debunking the Myth of Overpopulation: 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: "More than half the adult population of the world are anti-vaxxers." is False

Has beed claimed by:

Articles reviewing this claim:

Content you might like: