The Canadian government contract with Pfizer states that the long-term efficacy and safety of COVID-19 injections were unknown at the time of signing.

The Expose News - com

<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>The claim that Dr. Anthony Fauci, Bill Gates, and Moderna are responsible for the COVID-19 pandemic has been circulating widely. This claim is based on the discovery of a contract awarded by the U.S. Department of Defense (D.O.D) for COVID-19 research in November 2019, three months before the virus was officially recognized. Additionally, it is alleged that Fauci and Moderna had a vaccine ready in December 2019. This article aims to review these claims and provide a factual analysis.</p>
<h2>The Claim</h2>
<p>The claim suggests that the U.S. government, specifically the D.O.D, had prior knowledge of the COVID-19 virus and may have been involved in its creation. It also implies that Dr. Fauci and Moderna had a vaccine ready before the virus was officially named, indicating potential foreknowledge or involvement.</p>
<h2>Analysis of the Claim</h2>
<h3>Contract for COVID-19 Research</h3>
<p>The contract mentioned in the claim was part of a broader project for a 'Biological threat reduction program in Ukraine.' The specific transaction for 'COVID-19 Research' was awarded to Labyrinth Global Health INC in November 2019. However, it is important to note that the term 'COVID-19' was not officially used until February 2020. The contract likely pertained to general coronavirus research, which is a broad category of viruses that includes SARS and MERS.</p>
<p>Research into coronaviruses has been ongoing for decades due to their potential to cause outbreaks. The timing of the contract does not necessarily imply foreknowledge of the COVID-19 pandemic.</p>
<h3>Vaccine Development</h3>
<p>The claim that Moderna and Dr. Fauci had a vaccine ready in December 2019 is based on a confidentiality agreement for an mRNA coronavirus vaccine candidate. However, vaccine development is a lengthy process that typically takes years. The agreement likely pertained to ongoing research into coronavirus vaccines, not specifically COVID-19.</p>
<p>Moderna had been working on mRNA vaccine technology for several years before the COVID-19 pandemic. The rapid development of the COVID-19 vaccine was possible due to this pre-existing research and the urgent need created by the pandemic.</p>
<h2>Scientific Evidence</h2>
<p>The origin of the COVID-19 virus is still a subject of ongoing research. While some theories suggest a natural origin, others propose a lab leak. However, there is no credible evidence to support the claim that the virus was deliberately created or that the U.S. government, Dr. Fauci, Bill Gates, or Moderna were involved in its creation.</p>
<p>A study published in <a href="https://www.nature.com/articles/s41591-020-0820-9">Nature Medicine</a> concluded that the COVID-19 virus is likely of natural origin. The study analyzed the genetic sequence of the virus and found no evidence of manipulation.</p>
<p>Another study published in <a href="https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.abf8890">Science</a> reviewed the evidence for a lab leak and concluded that while it cannot be ruled out, there is currently no conclusive evidence to support it.</p>
<h2>Conclusion</h2>
<p>The claim that Fauci, Gates, and Moderna are responsible for the COVID-19 pandemic is largely unfounded. The contract for COVID-19 research and the vaccine development agreement are part of ongoing research into coronaviruses, not evidence of foreknowledge or involvement in the pandemic. The scientific evidence currently available does not support the claim that the virus was deliberately created or that the mentioned parties were involved in its creation.</p>

Claim Review: Fauci, Gates & Moderna Responsible for COVID Pandemic

<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?

<h2>Introduction</h2>
<p>Remdesivir, an antiviral drug, has been widely promoted as a treatment for COVID-19 patients. However, the effectiveness and safety of this drug have been subjects of debate. This article aims to review the claim that Remdesivir is an effective treatment for COVID-19 patients and to provide a thorough analysis based on scientific evidence.</p>
<h2>What is Remdesivir?</h2>
<p>Remdesivir is a broad-spectrum antiviral drug that inhibits RNA polymerase, disrupting the production of vital RNA. It was initially developed to treat Ebola but has been repurposed for COVID-19 treatment.</p>
<h2>Claim Analysis</h2>
<p>The claim that Remdesivir is an effective treatment for COVID-19 patients is based on its approval by regulatory bodies such as the FDA, EU, and UK's drug regulator. However, several studies have cast doubt on its efficacy and safety.</p>
<h2>Scientific Evidence</h2>
<p>The World Health Organization's Solidarity Trial found that Remdesivir does not reduce mortality or the time COVID-19 patients take to recover. A study published in <a href="https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(20)31022-9/fulltext">The Lancet</a> also found no statistically significant benefit from the treatment.</p>
<p>Furthermore, a review of Remdesivir on <a href="https://www.drugs.com/comments/remdesivir/">drugs.com</a> showed that 47% of reviewers had a negative experience with the drug, compared to 19.38% who had a positive experience.</p>
<h2>Side Effects and Safety Concerns</h2>
<p>Remdesivir has been associated with several side effects, including fast, pounding heartbeats, trouble breathing, wheezing, shivering, itching, sweating, facial swelling, severe headache, and a feeling of being about to pass out. Subsequent side effects may include nausea and abnormal liver function tests.</p>
<p>The UK's National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) reports that Remdesivir interacts with twelve other drugs, including chloroquine, hydroxychloroquine, and phenytoin. Doctors prescribing Remdesivir should be aware of these interactions to avoid potential harm to patients.</p>
<h2>Conclusion</h2>
<p>Based on the available scientific evidence, the claim that Remdesivir is an effective treatment for COVID-19 patients is not supported. The drug has shown minimal efficacy in clinical trials and is associated with significant side effects. It is crucial for healthcare providers to consider the risks and benefits carefully before prescribing Remdesivir to COVID-19 patients.</p>

Claim Review: Remdesivir as an Effective Treatment for COVID-19

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: "The Canadian government contract with Pfizer states that the long-term efficacy and safety of COVID-19 injections were unknown at the time of signing." is Half True

Has beed claimed by:

Articles reviewing this claim:

Content you might like: