The COVID-19 vaccine has a significantly greater rate of complications than the disease it prevents, is only partially effective in preventing COVID-19, and its efficacy rapidly declines with time. The large studies of the vaccine show once deployed, it makes things worse not better.

The Forgotten Side of Medicine - midwesterndoctor.com

<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

<h2>Introduction</h2>
<p>A recent claim circulating online suggests that the alleged tragedies associated with the HPV vaccine were a 'test run' for the COVID-19 vaccines, implying that both are part of a coercive and harmful agenda. This claim review aims to examine the evidence and provide a thorough analysis of this assertion.</p>
<h2>Background on HPV and COVID-19 Vaccines</h2>
<p>The HPV (Human Papillomavirus) vaccine is designed to prevent infections that can lead to various types of cancer, including cervical cancer. It has been widely administered since its introduction in 2006. The COVID-19 vaccines, developed in response to the global pandemic, aim to protect individuals from severe illness and death caused by the SARS-CoV-2 virus.</p>
<h2>Safety and Efficacy of HPV Vaccines</h2>
<p>The safety and efficacy of HPV vaccines have been extensively studied. A systematic review published in the <a href="https://www.cochranelibrary.com/cdsr/doi/10.1002/14651858.CD009069.pub3/full">Cochrane Library</a> concluded that HPV vaccines are effective in preventing HPV infections and related diseases. The review also found no evidence of serious adverse effects linked to the vaccines.</p>
<h2>Safety and Efficacy of COVID-19 Vaccines</h2>
<p>Similarly, COVID-19 vaccines have undergone rigorous clinical trials and post-market surveillance. Studies published in reputable journals such as <a href="https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa2034577">The New England Journal of Medicine</a> and <a href="https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(20)32661-1/fulltext">The Lancet</a> have demonstrated the safety and efficacy of these vaccines. Real-world data continues to support their effectiveness in reducing hospitalizations and deaths.</p>
<h2>Addressing the Claim</h2>
<p>The claim that the HPV vaccine tragedy was a test run for COVID-19 vaccines is not supported by scientific evidence. Both vaccines have been developed and administered based on robust scientific research and regulatory oversight. The suggestion of a coercive agenda lacks credible evidence and is often rooted in conspiracy theories rather than factual data.</p>
<h2>Conclusion</h2>
<p>The claim that the HPV vaccine tragedy was a test run for COVID-19 vaccines is misleading and unfounded. Both vaccines have been extensively studied and are considered safe and effective by the scientific community. It is crucial to rely on evidence-based information when making decisions about vaccinations.</p>

Review of the Claim: HPV Vaccine Tragedy as a Test Run for COVID-19 Vaccines

<p>On November 2, 2024, an article published by The Exposé reported that the Southwest Idaho Health District Board of Health voted 4-3 to remove COVID-19 vaccines from its clinics. The decision was made after receiving approximately 300 public comments urging the district to stop promoting the vaccines. The board heard presentations from multiple doctors, including Dr. Ryan Cole, Dr. Peter McCullough, Dr. Renata Moon, and Dr. James Thorp, who were invited by Dr. John Tribble, the only physician on the board.</p>
<p>The article claims that the board's decision was based on evidence showing a lack of safety and efficacy of the COVID-19 vaccines. However, it is important to evaluate these claims in the context of broader scientific consensus and peer-reviewed studies.</p>
<p>According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), COVID-19 vaccines have been rigorously tested and are considered safe and effective. A study published in the New England Journal of Medicine found that the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine was 95% effective in preventing COVID-19 (<a href="https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa2034577">Polack et al., 2020</a>). Similarly, the Moderna vaccine showed 94.1% efficacy in preventing COVID-19 (<a href="https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa2035389">Baden et al., 2020</a>).</p>
<p>While there have been reports of adverse events following vaccination, these are rare and typically mild. The CDC and the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) closely monitor vaccine safety through systems like the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS). A review of VAERS data by the CDC found that the benefits of COVID-19 vaccination outweigh the risks (<a href="https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/vaccines/safety/adverse-events.html">CDC, 2021</a>).</p>
<p>The article also mentions that the updated boosters were never tested in humans. However, this claim is misleading. The updated boosters have undergone extensive testing, including clinical trials, to ensure their safety and efficacy. The FDA has authorized these boosters based on robust scientific evidence (<a href="https://www.fda.gov/news-events/press-announcements/coronavirus-covid-19-update-fda-authorizes-moderna-and-pfizer-biontech-bivalent-covid-19-vaccines">FDA, 2022</a>).</p>
<p>In conclusion, while the Southwest Idaho Health District's decision to remove COVID-19 vaccines from its clinics is based on public comments and presentations from certain doctors, the broader scientific consensus supports the safety and efficacy of these vaccines. The claim that the vaccines lack safety and efficacy is not supported by the majority of peer-reviewed studies and regulatory bodies.</p>

Claim Review: Southwest Idaho Health District Removes COVID-19 Vaccines

<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)

Has beed claimed by:

Articles reviewing this claim:

Content you might like: