The Southwest Idaho Health District Board of Health voted to remove COVID-19 vaccines from its clinics due to safety and efficacy concerns.

The Expose News - com

<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

<p>An official report by a Slovak government commission investigating the COVID-19 pandemic recommended mRNA vaccines be banned after determining they are ‘dangerous.’ This claim has gained attention, especially as it was followed by a similar call from the town council of Port Hedland in Western Australia. However, a thorough examination of the available scientific evidence does not support this claim.</p>
<h3>Understanding mRNA Vaccines</h3>
<p>mRNA vaccines, such as those developed by Pfizer-BioNTech and Moderna, work by instructing cells to produce a harmless piece of the ‘spike protein’ found on the surface of the SARS-CoV-2 virus. This triggers an immune response, preparing the body to fight the virus if exposed in the future. This technology has been studied for decades and has shown promising results in various applications, including cancer treatments and other infectious diseases.</p>
<h3>Safety and Efficacy of mRNA Vaccines</h3>
<p>The safety and efficacy of mRNA vaccines have been extensively studied and confirmed by numerous peer-reviewed studies and health organizations. For example, a study published in <a href="https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa2034577">The New England Journal of Medicine</a> found that the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine was 95% effective in preventing COVID-19. Similarly, a study published in <a href="https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa2035389">The New England Journal of Medicine</a> found that the Moderna vaccine was 94.1% effective.</p>
<p>Regarding safety, a study published in <a href="https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/70/wr/mm7002e3.htm">Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report (MMWR)</a> by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) found that serious adverse events after mRNA vaccination were rare. The most common side effects were mild to moderate and included pain at the injection site, fatigue, headache, and muscle pain.</p>
<h3>Addressing Concerns</h3>
<p>The Slovak government commission's report raises concerns about the safety of mRNA vaccines, but these concerns are not supported by the broader scientific community. The World Health Organization (WHO), the European Medicines Agency (EMA), and the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) have all reviewed the data on mRNA vaccines and concluded that they are safe and effective.</p>
<p>It is important to note that any medical intervention, including vaccines, can have side effects. However, the benefits of mRNA vaccines in preventing severe COVID-19, hospitalization, and death far outweigh the risks. The rare cases of serious adverse events, such as myocarditis and anaphylaxis, have been closely monitored and studied, and the overall risk remains very low.</p>
<h3>Conclusion</h3>
<p>The claim that mRNA vaccines are dangerous and should be banned is not supported by scientific evidence. The safety and efficacy of mRNA vaccines have been extensively studied and confirmed by numerous peer-reviewed studies and health organizations. While it is important to continue monitoring the safety of these vaccines, the available data strongly support their use in preventing COVID-19.</p>
<p>For high school students and the general public, it is crucial to rely on credible sources of information and to critically evaluate claims made in the media. Misinformation can spread quickly and have serious consequences for public health. Always seek information from reliable scientific sources and consult with healthcare professionals for medical advice.</p>

Claim Review: Slovak Government Report Calls for Ban of ‘Dangerous’ mRNA Vaccines

<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>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

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 Southwest Idaho Health District Board of Health voted to remove COVID-19 vaccines from its clinics due to safety and efficacy concerns." is Mostly False

Has beed claimed by:

Articles reviewing this claim:

Content you might like: