The UK government's regulator revealed that 13.7% of people who received Covid vaccines suffered adverse events considered to be 'medically serious'.

Slay News - com

<p>The article from Slay News claims that the UK government's regulator, the Medicines Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency (MHRA), revealed that 13.7% of people who received Covid vaccines suffered adverse events considered to be 'medically serious'. This claim is based on a study published in the medRxiv medical journal. However, a thorough review of the data and context is necessary to assess the accuracy of this claim.</p>
<p>The study analyzed data from the Yellow Card Vaccine Monitor (YCVM), a system established by the UK MHRA to monitor adverse reactions following Covid vaccination. The study found that out of 30,281 vaccinated individuals, 15,764 (52.1%) reported experiencing at least one adverse reaction, with 4,134 (13.7%) reporting an event considered medically serious.</p>
<p>It is important to note that the term 'medically serious' can encompass a wide range of symptoms, from those requiring medical attention to more severe outcomes. The article does not provide a detailed breakdown of the types of adverse events reported, which is crucial for understanding the severity and context of these events.</p>
<p>Furthermore, the claim that 13.7% of vaccinated individuals experienced medically serious adverse events is not supported by other reliable sources. According to the UK government's official data, the rate of serious adverse events following Covid vaccination is significantly lower. For example, the MHRA's weekly report on Covid-19 vaccine adverse reactions shows that the rate of serious adverse events is around 0.1% (<a href="https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/coronavirus-covid-19-vaccine-adverse-reactions">MHRA Weekly Report</a>).</p>
<p>The discrepancy between the study's findings and the official data can be attributed to several factors, including the study's methodology, sample size, and the definition of 'medically serious' events. It is also worth noting that the study was not peer-reviewed, which means it has not been subjected to the rigorous scrutiny of the scientific community.</p>
<p>In conclusion, the claim that 13.7% of Covid-vaccinated individuals experienced medically serious adverse events is misleading and lacks context. While the study does report this figure, it does not align with the official data from the UK government, which shows a significantly lower rate of serious adverse events. It is essential to rely on official and peer-reviewed sources when assessing the safety of Covid vaccines.</p>

Claim Review: 13.7% of Covid-Vaxxed Suffered 'Medically Serious' Side Effects

<h2>Introduction</h2>
<p>A recent article from The Exposé claims that an investigation of the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) data has revealed extremely high numbers of adverse reactions and deaths associated with specific lot numbers of COVID-19 vaccines. This article aims to review this claim and provide a thorough analysis based on reliable scientific sources.</p>
<h2>Understanding VAERS</h2>
<p>VAERS is a passive surveillance system that collects reports of adverse events following vaccination. It is important to note that VAERS reports are not verified and do not necessarily indicate a causal relationship between the vaccine and the adverse event. Anyone can submit a report to VAERS, and the system is designed to detect potential safety signals that warrant further investigation.</p>
<h2>Variability in Adverse Events</h2>
<p>The claim suggests that there is excessive variability in the number of adverse events reported for different lots of COVID-19 vaccines compared to flu vaccines. However, several factors can contribute to this variability:</p>
<ul>
  <li><strong>Reporting biases:</strong> The media attention and public concern surrounding COVID-19 vaccines may lead to increased reporting of adverse events compared to other vaccines.</li>
  <li><strong>Vaccine rollout:</strong> The rapid and widespread rollout of COVID-19 vaccines means that a larger number of people have been vaccinated in a shorter period, which could lead to a higher number of reported adverse events.</li>
  <li><strong>Data quality:</strong> VAERS data is subject to limitations, including incomplete reports, inconsistencies, and errors.</li>
</ul>
<h2>Scientific Evidence</h2>
<p>A study published in <a href="https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/70/wr/mm7037e2.htm">the Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report (MMWR)</a> analyzed VAERS data for COVID-19 vaccines and found that the majority of adverse events were non-serious. The study also noted that the reporting rates for serious adverse events were consistent with those observed in clinical trials and did not identify any new safety concerns.</p>
<p>Another study published in <a href="https://www.thelancet.com/journals/laninf/article/PIIS1473-3099(21)00228-3/fulltext">The Lancet Infectious Diseases</a> analyzed data from multiple countries and found that the benefits of COVID-19 vaccines far outweigh the risks. The study did not find evidence of excessive adverse reactions associated with specific vaccine lots.</p>
<h2>Conclusion</h2>
<p>Based on the available scientific evidence, the claim that specific batches of COVID-19 vaccines are causing excessive adverse reactions and deaths is not supported. The variability in adverse events is likely due to reporting biases and other factors, not the vaccines themselves. It is essential to rely on reliable scientific sources and peer-reviewed studies when evaluating claims related to vaccine safety.</p>
<h2>References</h2>
<ul>
  <li><a href="https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/70/wr/mm7037e2.htm">MMWR: Monitoring the Safety of COVID-19 Vaccines</a></li>
  <li><a href="https://www.thelancet.com/journals/laninf/article/PIIS1473-3099(21)00228-3/fulltext">The Lancet Infectious Diseases: COVID-19 vaccine safety</a></li>
</ul>

Claim Review: COVID-19 Vaccine Batch Variability and Adverse Reactions

<p>The claim that the UK government used Midazolam to prematurely end the lives of thousands of elderly people and falsely reported them as COVID-19 deaths has been circulating widely. This claim is based on several pieces of information, including the purchase of a large quantity of Midazolam, the use of Midazolam in care homes, and the correlation between Midazolam prescriptions and COVID-19 deaths.</p>
<p>Midazolam is a sedative drug commonly used in palliative care and for sedation before medical procedures. It is also associated with respiratory depression and respiratory arrest, especially when used for sedation in noncritical care settings. The claim suggests that the UK government purchased a two-year supply of Midazolam in March 2020 and that this drug was used to prematurely end the lives of elderly people in care homes, with their deaths being falsely reported as COVID-19 deaths.</p>
<p>However, there are several issues with this claim. Firstly, while it is true that the UK government purchased a large quantity of Midazolam in March 2020, this was done as part of national efforts to respond to the coronavirus outbreak and to reduce the likelihood of future shortages. The purchase of Midazolam was not unique to the UK, and many other countries also increased their stocks of sedatives and other drugs in response to the pandemic.</p>
<p>Secondly, while there was an increase in the number of prescriptions for Midazolam in April 2020, this does not necessarily mean that the drug was used to prematurely end the lives of elderly people. Midazolam is a commonly used drug in palliative care, and the increase in prescriptions may have been due to the increase in the number of people requiring end-of-life care during the pandemic.</p>
<p>Thirdly, the claim that the deaths of elderly people were falsely reported as COVID-19 deaths is not supported by any concrete evidence. While it is true that there were a large number of excess deaths in care homes during the pandemic, this does not necessarily mean that these deaths were caused by Midazolam or that they were falsely reported as COVID-19 deaths.</p>
<p>In conclusion, while there are some concerning correlations between the use of Midazolam and COVID-19 deaths, there is no concrete evidence to support the claim that the UK government used Midazolam to prematurely end the lives of thousands of elderly people and falsely reported them as COVID-19 deaths. This claim is largely unfounded and should be treated with caution.</p>

Claim Review: Midazolam and COVID-19 Deaths in the UK

<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

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 UK government's regulator revealed that 13.7% of people who received Covid vaccines suffered adverse events considered to be 'medically serious'." is Mostly False

Has beed claimed by:

Articles reviewing this claim:

Content you might like: