Trust in public health agencies declined during the COVID-19 pandemic, as misinformation about vaccines and the virus proliferated on social media. But did the public health agencies themselves also play a role in the decline of their credibility?
Paul Offit had a front-row seat to federal public health agencies pandemic response. A pediatrician and vaccine developer from the Childrens Hospital of Philadelphia, Offit is a member of the FDAs vaccine advisory committee, which played a critical role in reviewing COVID vaccine research and advising the FDA on vaccine safety.
READ MORE: Paul Offit, Phillys most vocal vaccine advocate, on science, truth, and why hes not a fan of the latest COVID boosters
In his new book, Tell Me When Its Over: An Insiders Guide to Deciphering Covid Myths and Navigating Our Post-Pandemic World, Offit chronicles the first years of the pandemic, explains the science of COVID, and traces the rise of anti-vaccine movement and misinformation. He also blames those charged with protecting the nations health of taking action against evidence and in doing so undermining public trust.
He says public health agencies made mistakes in key moments, such as when the FDA fast tracked in 2020 the authorization of an antimalaria drug with risk of fatal heart side effects that didnt work against COVID. At the time, President Donald Trump called the medication a game changer and promoted it as a COVID treatment. The FDA revoked the authorization a few months later.
People lost faith in the FDA, Offit said. People saw that you could twist the FDAs arm.
The Inquirer spoke to Offit about his new book, and what steps public health agencies can take to reclaim the publics trust.
The pandemic saw significant scientific advancement. Scientists were able to produce a safe and effective vaccine to protect against a new virus within a year a feat that can take more than 10 years. Offit called the vaccine the greatest medical achievement in his lifetime.
At the same time, more people grew suspicious of vaccines, and their mistrust continued to grow through last fall, according to surveys by the Annenberg Public Policy Center at the University of Pennsylvania. In the centers most recent survey, 71% agreed that vaccines approved in the U.S. are safe, down from 77% in April 2021.
The way public health agencies and elected officials communicated also contributed to the publics loss of faith, Offit said.
He criticized the response to a July 4, 2021, celebration in Provincetown, Mass. After thousands of people attended the event, nearly 350 fully vaccinated men were among those who developed COVID. Only four of those vaccinated were hospitalized, and the rest developed mild or no symptoms.
Offit saw a success: the vaccines were working.
But the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention used the term breakthrough infection to describe the incident, a phrasing choice that Offit said implied failure to offer protection.
READ MORE: Pandemic-era misinformation erodes confidence in all vaccines, Penn researchers find in new survey
Another mixed message came in August 2021: President Joe Biden promoted booster shots for American adults even though boosters had not been approved by the FDA yet.
A month later, the FDA advisory committee overwhelmingly voted against the recommendation to offer boosters to people under age 65, because there wasnt enough evidence at the time that an extra dose would improve protection to people of all ages.
The conflicting messages added to public distrust, Offit said.
The FDA began expanding the eligibility for boosters in Nov. 2021, and currently recommends that everyone over age 6 months receive an extra shoot.
Neither the FDA nor the CDC responded to request for comment about Offits criticism. A spokesperson for the FDA shared a statement saying the agency stands by the safety and effectiveness of the COVID vaccines.
Rebuilding trust in public health agencies wont be easy, Offit said. But he has some ideas for how to move forward.
Science and knowledge are always evolving, which means the best advice experts can offer may change. Public health agencies shouldnt shy away from that fact and should do more to explain the scientific process, Offit said.
READ MORE: How many workers in Philadelphia-area hospitals are unvaccinated against COVID-19 or flu? Check your local hospital.
You have to trust the American public to at least tell them the truth, he said. Its OK to make your best guess and get it wrong, but say that.
Offit also wants to see public health agencies more aggressively responding to anti-vaccination claims and other misinformation. When misinformation is spread, public health agencies should spend resources on campaigns disputing the claims with science.
People who advocate against vaccines harm children, he said, pointing to the recent measles outbreaks in the U.S, and he wants public health agencies to portray them as such.
Hammer back, Offit said.
Specialty
Please choose I'm not a medical professional. Allergy and Immunology Anatomy Anesthesiology Cardiac/Thoracic/Vascular Surgery Cardiology Critical Care Dentistry Dermatology Diabetes and Endocrinology Emergency Medicine Epidemiology and Public Health Family Medicine Forensic Medicine Gastroenterology General Practice Genetics Geriatrics Health Policy Hematology HIV/AIDS Hospital-based Medicine I'm not a medical professional. Infectious Disease Integrative/Complementary Medicine Internal Medicine Internal Medicine-Pediatrics Medical Education and Simulation Medical Physics Medical Student Nephrology Neurological Surgery Neurology Nuclear Medicine Nutrition Obstetrics and Gynecology Occupational Health Oncology Ophthalmology Optometry Oral Medicine Orthopaedics Osteopathic Medicine Otolaryngology Pain Management Palliative Care Pathology Pediatrics Pediatric Surgery Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation Plastic Surgery Podiatry Preventive Medicine Psychiatry Psychology Pulmonology Radiation Oncology Radiology Rheumatology Substance Use and Addiction Surgery Therapeutics Trauma Urology Miscellaneous
Babies born to women who received a course of mRNA-based COVID-19 vaccinations or a booster dose during pregnancy are protected against symptomatic COVID-19 infection for at least six months, data suggests.
COVID-19 is especially dangerous for newborns and young infants, yet they are unable to be vaccinated until they are at least six months old. While previous research had suggested that protective antibodies could transfer across the placenta in women who had been vaccinated, it was unclear how strong and long the protection they afforded might last in their infants, and what the impact of a booster dose might be.
To investigate, Cristina V. Cardemil at the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases in Rockville, US, and colleagues followed 271 infants born to mothers who received two doses of a messenger RNA (mRNA) COVID-19 vaccine during pregnancy, and 204 further infants whose mothers received these, plus a third booster dose.
As well as analysing samples of the babies' cord blood at birth, the researchers evaluated the infants during at least one follow-up visit during their first six months of life. Their parents also reported whether they had become infected with COVID-19 or exhibited any symptoms.
The research, published in Pediatrics, found that newborns with high antibody levels at birth also had greater protection against COVID-19 infection during their first six months. And while the infants of mothers who received two vaccine doses had strong antibody responses at birth, those whose mothers had received an additional booster dose during pregnancy had both higher levels of antibodies at birth and greater protection from COVID-19 infection at their follow-up visits.
The study reinforces the importance of receiving both a COVID-19 vaccine and booster during pregnancy for both mothers and their babies. It follows separate evidence published earlier this month confirming that babies whose mothers were vaccinated against COVID-19 during pregnancy are at no greater risk of adverse events and may be at lower risk of death and severe complications during birth.
In contrast to the first two years of the pandemic when the burden of disease was highest in adults, hospitalisation rates in infants under six months of age have surged during the Omicron period and are currently on par with those of adults aged 65 to 74, Cardemil said.
"Among infants who are hospitalised with COVID-19, more than half are previously healthy without underlying comorbidities," she added.
"Maternal booster vaccination during pregnancy is an effective strategy that provides [antibodies] that protect effectively against infection during early infancy."
WASHINGTON The Select Subcommittee on the Coronavirus Pandemic held a hearing titled Assessing Americas Vaccine Safety Systems, Part 1 to examine the effectiveness of vaccine safety reporting and injury compensation systems following the rollout of the COVID-19 vaccine. Biden Administration officials from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), Food and Drug Administration (FDA), and Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA) all testified that Americas vaccine injury and compensation systems have serious deficiencies related to inadequate staffing, lackluster surveillance, and overlapping programs. Select Subcommittee Members pointed out the false narrative about the efficacy of the COVID-19 vaccine and pressed witnesses to explain potentially politically motivated decision making during the pandemic. This hearing served as part one of a two-part series. The second hearing will emphasize the importance of the doctor-patient relationship in order to obtain public trust in vaccines during a future public health crisis.
Key Takeaways
The Biden Administration mandated the COVID-19 vaccine without a sufficient system in place to compensate individuals injured by the policy.
HRSA Director at the Division of Injury Compensation Programs CDR George Reed Grimes: At the beginning of the COVID 19 pandemic, we had not had a direct appropriation with the CICP. We also had only four staff.
The FDA accelerated the COVID-19 vaccine approval process to seemingly meet arbitrary mandate timelines set by the Biden Administration.
Executive branch officials from the CDC and FDA agree that the federal government can never guarantee a vaccine is 100% safe.
Chairman Wenstrup: Is any pharmaceutical 100% safe?
FDA Director at the Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research, Dr. Peter Marks: No pharmaceutical is 100% safe.
CDC Director at the National Center for Emerging and Zoonotic Infectious Diseases, Dr. Daniel Jernigan: No medical intervention is risk-free.
CDR Grimes: Theres a reason we have a compensation program, and were dedicated to diligently carrying that out. I cant say it any better than my colleagues sitting next to me have.
Vaccine injury reporting and compensation systems were not prepared to handle the avalanche of injury claims caused by the COVID-19 vaccine.
Dr. Peter Marks: We tried to be prepared for that, but the avalanche of reports was tremendous. It, again, required re-tasking people on the flyWe had to usually staff up and had many meetings working to increase our ability to go through these reports.
Shortcomings in vaccine injury reporting and vaccine compensation systems, as well as ineffective government messaging during the pandemic, deteriorated public trust in vaccine safety.
Dr. Peter Marks: We probably have not done a good enough job of communicating sometimes the actual numbers of deaths versus whats in VAERS.
Member Highlights
Select Subcommittee on the Coronavirus Pandemic Chairman Brad Wenstrup (R-Ohio), D.P.M, argued that advancing an accurate narrative about the COVID-19 vaccine through doctor-patient relationships during the pandemic would have decreased misinformation and disinformation.
Chairman Wenstrup: I want everyone to understand, especially those serving on the government side that the public perception becomes reality. And because of that, words matter. Words matter that are coming out, you know. For those of us as Members of Congress or as physicians at home, were face to face with people. We are sitting face to face with somebody. Were not just looking at data on a sheet and making decisions. It needs to be done, what youre doing, but theres a difference and thats why I say words matter. Let me give you an example. When you say safe and effective, thats relative in your mind. Its relative in your mind, but its not to the person at home. They hear 100% safe and 100% effective. Thats what they hear. This is why words matter. Dr. Fauci, in his testimony, even said, you can never say that any treatment is 100% safe. Yet, in essence, thats what people heard and are still hearing today. Weve got to change that because the doctor on the ground or the Member of Congress on the ground is one on one with somebody and explains that to them.
Let me tell you, Im grateful we live in a country that has these systems (vaccine injury reporting and compensation systems) in place because theyre there to protect the American people and to provide for better health in America. But theres ways we can do better.
Committee on Oversight and Accountability Chairman James Comer (R-Ky.) pressed FDA Director Dr. Peter Marks to admit he ignored warnings from his colleagues about the dangers of accelerating the COVID-19 vaccine approval process. Chairman Comer further noted that the timing of the Biden Administrations vaccine mandate and the FDAs rushed approval of the vaccine appear to correlate.
Chairman Comer: Why were you pressuring the doctors and then removing them from the approval process when they disagreed?
Dr. Marks: The approval process was one that needed to move as rapidly as possible.
Chairman Comer: Do you recall any conversations regarding the need to approve the vaccines in order for it to then be mandated?
Dr. Marks: There was an acknowledgment that an approval could allow vaccine mandates to occur.
Chairman Comer: So, Dr. Gruber wrote that you and Dr. Woodcock expressed your opinion that absent a license, states cannot require mandatory vaccination. Do you recall this conversation?
Dr. Marks: I dont know what youre what youre referring to, but theres probably, its just a statement of fact that once you have a license, vaccine and mandate could be placed.
Chairman Comer: Do you recall seeing safety signals regarding myocarditis in young men during this time?
Dr. Marks: There were yes. There were safety signals known and they were placed on the label.
Chairman Comer: Did you express your desire to approve the vaccine by August 20th?
Dr. Marks: I did.
Chairman Comer: And it was ultimately approved on August 23rd. Correct?
Dr. Marks: Correct.
Chairman Comer: And just for the record, the military mandate was issued on the 24th. And that is interesting timing.
Rep. Rich McCormick (R-Ga.), M.D., argued that the federal government wrongly inserted itself in the doctor patient relationship during the COVID-19 pandemic. This created a lack of trust between Americans and their public health system.
Rep. McCormick: When you insert yourself between a doctor and a patient, and some doctors contradict you and you censor them, even when youre not a doctor treating patients, people are going to say, why does the government have authority to do that, to censor my doctor? And then secondly, when you start requiring people to do something instead of encouraging the natural resistance of a freedom-loving people that were founded on those principles, will be to resist what youre requiring. So, it shouldnt be any surprise to us when the people say, Im not going to do what youre telling me I have to do when my doctor may agree with me and not you. Youre the government. Why do they insert themselves in inappropriate ways?
And really, when we talk about the evolution of science, when you have immunity and youre still requiring a vaccination that can cause a hyper-immune response, which were all scientists, we can admit to, theres risk versus benefit on every decision. When the government says were going to make a carte blanche requirement without taking science into account, its no wonder people are mistrustful of our recommendations.
Rep. Debbie Lesko (R-Ariz.) demanded FDA Director Dr. Peter Marks explain why the publicly reported data on vaccine injuries differs significantly from the confirmed death and injury count available to FDA officials.
Rep. Lesko: We spoke over the phone back on August 10th of 2021, and I was asking about VAERS because I had lots of constituents reaching out to me saying there were tons of adverse effects, there were thousands of deaths, etc., and they were very concerned. And I asked how many were confirmed. And at that time, you said four. There were four cases that you confirmed deaths that were caused by the vaccine. I suggested, at that time, that the CDC and FDA do a better job of telling the public not just how many cases were reported, but how many were actually confirmed. And just if I heard you right, just recently, you said, well, we dont want to give out too much information because of privacy rights. But certainly, we could put out how many were confirmed deaths, couldnt we?
Dr. Marks: I fully agree with you that we probably have not done a good enough job of communicating sometimes the actual numbers of deaths versus whats in VAERS. In fact, we just nearly fell prey to it here at this hearing.
Rep. Lesko: It seems very logical to me that if youre saying the public shouldnt count on VAERS because anybody can report to that, which they can, why wouldnt you as actively report to the public well, we confirmed this really low number of cases that actually were caused by vaccines. I mean, its been years now. Why? Why havent you done it?
Dr. Marks: We did present that in various settings, including at, I believe, at the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices. It was mentioned at our vaccine advisory committee. It perhaps did not go as broadly.
Rep. Mariannette Miller-Meeks (R-Iowa), M.D., uncovered evidence that the COVID-19 vaccine was mandated for healthy Americans and U.S. service members without a sufficient system in place to compensate those harmed by the coercive policy.
Rep. Mariannette Miller-Meeks: I understand that theres a current backlog of claims in CICP, by about more than 10,000. Why is there a backlog of claims for the COVID 19 vaccines?
CDR Grimes: At the beginning of the COVID 19 pandemic, we had not had a direct appropriation with the CICP. We also had only four staff. When we received our first direct appropriation in fiscal year 2022, we were able to ramp up quickly and now we have over 35 staff who are assisting to adjudicate claims.
###
The first COVID-19 vaccine candidate was administered during a clinical trial in March 2020, a triumph shared worldwide by all those working to overcome the deadly virus. A year later, there are almost 100 vaccines being tested in human trials, including new approaches to immunization whose development has been accelerated by the pandemic. Researchers are now working not just to prevent COVID-19 infections, but to prevent reinfection and address emerging variants as well.
Below, The Scientist rounds up those vaccine candidates that have advanced to clinical trials.
Editors note: The introduction of this story was updated on April 15, 2021.
DEVELOPER(S)
VACCINE METHOD
EVIDENCE
STATUS
Finlay Vaccine Institute/Pasteur...
DEVELOPER(S)
VACCINE METHOD
EVIDENCE
STATUS
Multiple organizations
International
The Bacille Calmette-Guerin (BCG) vaccine for tuberculosis consists of live attenuated Mycobacterium bovis.
Lower rates of COVID-19related deaths in countries with mandatory BCG vaccination prompted the launch of several clinical trials to test whether the immune response triggered by the vaccine may protect against SARS-CoV-2.
Several Phase 3 and 4 trials areunderway.
Multiple organizations
International
The measles-mumps-rubella (MMR) vaccine consists of live-attenuated strains of the three viruses.
Epidemiological data have revealed that places where the MMR vaccine is given as standard medical care have lower COVID-19 death rates than areas where MMR vaccination is not standard. Additionally, sailors aboard the U.S.S. Roosevelt who tested positive for COVID-19 had mostly mild symptoms, which some researchers suspect may have been due to administration of the MMR vaccine to all US Navy recruits.
A Phase 3 trial is underway in Egypt, led by researchers at Kasr El Aini Hospital. Separately, researchers at the Washington University School of Medicine are running an international Phase 3 trial of healthcare workers in the US, Canada, Europe, and Africa.
Immunovative Therapies, Mirror Biologics
US
An off-the-shelf living immune cell
The affiliated companies are currently testing the formulation as a therapeutic vaccine for chemotherapy-refractory metastatic cancers.
A Phase 1/2 trial for healthy older adults has been approved to begin in New York.
Canadian Cancer Trials Group, others
Canada
Heat-killed Mycobacterium obuense
The vaccine is intended to stimulate nonspecific innate immunity. The company is also testing the vaccine in clinical trials for cancer.
A Phase 3 trial has been approved to begin in Canada.
Bandim Health Project
Guinea-Bissau
Oral polio vaccine, an attenuated strain of the poliovirus
Researchers argue that the vaccine is safer and available in greater quantities than the BCG vaccine against tuberculosis, which is also being tested as a possible COVID-19 preventive.
A Phase 4 trial has been approved to begin in Guinea-Bissau in West Africa.
Inmunotek, BioClever
Mexico
A mixture of inactivated bacteria
The vaccine is intended to stimulate nonspecific innate immunity.
A Phase 3 trial for healthcare workers has been approved to begin in Mexico.
Pulmotect
US
An inhaled combination of two synthetic Toll-like receptor agonists
The vaccine was originally developed as a potential therapeutic for cancer and has undergone early stage clinical testing. In mice, it provided protection against a range of respiratory pathogens, including MERS and SARS.
A Phase 2 trial for people with known SARS-CoV-2 exposure is underway in several US states.
Corrections: An earlier versions of this table stated that Janssens adenovirus-based COVID-19 vaccine candidate is administered intranasally. In fact, the vaccine is administered via intramuscular injection. /An earlier version of this table stated that the Phase 1 and Phase 2 Moderna trials were taking place in Seattle. In fact, there have been multiple locations since the Phase 1. / Aprevious update to this table implied that the adverse event that caused the Phase 3 AstraZeneca trial to be put on hold occurred in the Phase 1/2 trial in the UK. In fact, the event occurred in a participant enrolled in the Phase 3 UK study./ A previous update to this table listed Switzerland as having given emergency use approval for the Pfizer/BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine. In fact, the country granted its full approval. /A previous version of this table indicated that UAE and Bahrain had given emergency approval for the Beijing Institute of Biological Productss COVID-19 vaccine; in fact, these countries have granted full approval. / A previous version of this table stated that Altimmunesvaccine was approved for a Phase 2 trial; in fact, it is approved for Phase 1. / A previous version of this table stated that China had approved the Sinopharm vaccine developed by Wuhan Institute of Biological Products in December 2020; in fact, that approval happened in February 2021.The Scientistregrets the errors.
Receive full access to more than 35 years of archives, as well as TS Digest, digital editions of The Scientist, feature stories, and much more!
Join for free today
Login Here
State Alabama Alaska Arizona Arkansas California Colorado Connecticut Delaware Florida Georgia Hawaii Idaho Illinois Indiana Iowa Kansas Kentucky Louisiana Maine Maryland Massachusetts Michigan Minnesota Mississippi Missouri Montana Nebraska Nevada New Hampshire New Jersey New Mexico New York North Carolina North Dakota Ohio Oklahoma Oregon Pennsylvania Rhode Island South Carolina South Dakota Tennessee Texas Utah Vermont Virginia Washington Washington D.C. West Virginia Wisconsin Wyoming Puerto Rico US Virgin Islands Armed Forces Americas Armed Forces Pacific Armed Forces Europe Northern Mariana Islands Marshall Islands American Samoa Federated States of Micronesia Guam Palau Alberta, Canada British Columbia, Canada Manitoba, Canada New Brunswick, Canada Newfoundland, Canada Nova Scotia, Canada Northwest Territories, Canada Nunavut, Canada Ontario, Canada Prince Edward Island, Canada Quebec, Canada Saskatchewan, Canada Yukon Territory, Canada
Zip Code
Country United States of America US Virgin Islands United States Minor Outlying Islands Canada Mexico, United Mexican States Bahamas, Commonwealth of the Cuba, Republic of Dominican Republic Haiti, Republic of Jamaica Afghanistan Albania, People's Socialist Republic of Algeria, People's Democratic Republic of American Samoa Andorra, Principality of Angola, Republic of Anguilla Antarctica (the territory South of 60 deg S) Antigua and Barbuda Argentina, Argentine Republic Armenia Aruba Australia, Commonwealth of Austria, Republic of Azerbaijan, Republic of Bahrain, Kingdom of Bangladesh, People's Republic of Barbados Belarus Belgium, Kingdom of Belize Benin, People's Republic of Bermuda Bhutan, Kingdom of Bolivia, Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina Botswana, Republic of Bouvet Island (Bouvetoya) Brazil, Federative Republic of British Indian Ocean Territory (Chagos Archipelago) British Virgin Islands Brunei Darussalam Bulgaria, People's Republic of Burkina Faso Burundi, Republic of Cambodia, Kingdom of Cameroon, United Republic of Cape Verde, Republic of Cayman Islands Central African Republic Chad, Republic of Chile, Republic of China, People's Republic of Christmas Island Cocos (Keeling) Islands Colombia, Republic of Comoros, Union of the Congo, Democratic Republic of Congo, People's Republic of Cook Islands Costa Rica, Republic of Cote D'Ivoire, Ivory Coast, Republic of the Cyprus, Republic of Czech Republic Denmark, Kingdom of Djibouti, Republic of Dominica, Commonwealth of Ecuador, Republic of Egypt, Arab Republic of El Salvador, Republic of Equatorial Guinea, Republic of Eritrea Estonia Ethiopia Faeroe Islands Falkland Islands (Malvinas) Fiji, Republic of the Fiji Islands Finland, Republic of France, French Republic French Guiana French Polynesia French Southern Territories Gabon, Gabonese Republic Gambia, Republic of the Georgia Germany Ghana, Republic of Gibraltar Greece, Hellenic Republic Greenland Grenada Guadaloupe Guam Guatemala, Republic of Guinea, Revolutionary People's Rep'c of Guinea-Bissau, Republic of Guyana, Republic of Heard and McDonald Islands Holy See (Vatican City State) Honduras, Republic of Hong Kong, Special Administrative Region of China Hrvatska (Croatia) Hungary, Hungarian People's Republic Iceland, Republic of India, Republic of Indonesia, Republic of Iran, Islamic Republic of Iraq, Republic of Ireland Israel, State of Italy, Italian Republic Japan Jordan, Hashemite Kingdom of Kazakhstan, Republic of Kenya, Republic of Kiribati, Republic of Korea, Democratic People's Republic of Korea, Republic of Kuwait, State of Kyrgyz Republic Lao People's Democratic Republic Latvia Lebanon, Lebanese Republic Lesotho, Kingdom of Liberia, Republic of Libyan Arab Jamahiriya Liechtenstein, Principality of Lithuania Luxembourg, Grand Duchy of Macao, Special Administrative Region of China Macedonia, the former Yugoslav Republic of Madagascar, Republic of Malawi, Republic of Malaysia Maldives, Republic of Mali, Republic of Malta, Republic of Marshall Islands Martinique Mauritania, Islamic Republic of Mauritius Mayotte Micronesia, Federated States of Moldova, Republic of Monaco, Principality of Mongolia, Mongolian People's Republic Montserrat Morocco, Kingdom of Mozambique, People's Republic of Myanmar Namibia Nauru, Republic of Nepal, Kingdom of Netherlands Antilles Netherlands, Kingdom of the New Caledonia New Zealand Nicaragua, Republic of Niger, Republic of the Nigeria, Federal Republic of Niue, Republic of Norfolk Island Northern Mariana Islands Norway, Kingdom of Oman, Sultanate of Pakistan, Islamic Republic of Palau Palestinian Territory, Occupied Panama, Republic of Papua New Guinea Paraguay, Republic of Peru, Republic of Philippines, Republic of the Pitcairn Island Poland, Polish People's Republic Portugal, Portuguese Republic Puerto Rico Qatar, State of Reunion Romania, Socialist Republic of Russian Federation Rwanda, Rwandese Republic Samoa, Independent State of San Marino, Republic of Sao Tome and Principe, Democratic Republic of Saudi Arabia, Kingdom of Senegal, Republic of Serbia and Montenegro Seychelles, Republic of Sierra Leone, Republic of Singapore, Republic of Slovakia (Slovak Republic) Slovenia Solomon Islands Somalia, Somali Republic South Africa, Republic of South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands Spain, Spanish State Sri Lanka, Democratic Socialist Republic of St. Helena St. Kitts and Nevis St. Lucia St. Pierre and Miquelon St. Vincent and the Grenadines Sudan, Democratic Republic of the Suriname, Republic of Svalbard & Jan Mayen Islands Swaziland, Kingdom of Sweden, Kingdom of Switzerland, Swiss Confederation Syrian Arab Republic Taiwan, Province of China Tajikistan Tanzania, United Republic of Thailand, Kingdom of Timor-Leste, Democratic Republic of Togo, Togolese Republic Tokelau (Tokelau Islands) Tonga, Kingdom of Trinidad and Tobago, Republic of Tunisia, Republic of Turkey, Republic of Turkmenistan Turks and Caicos Islands Tuvalu Uganda, Republic of Ukraine United Arab Emirates United Kingdom of Great Britain & N. Ireland Uruguay, Eastern Republic of Uzbekistan Vanuatu Venezuela, Bolivarian Republic of Viet Nam, Socialist Republic of Wallis and Futuna Islands Western Sahara Yemen Zambia, Republic of Zimbabwe
Dan
Challenge to YC HHS Director Manfrin:
Provide the following information on C-19 injections:
1. All ingredients.
2. For Oregon, C-19 injected v. control group:
Rate of all-cause mortality.
Rate of disability.
Rates of myocarditis, stroke, cancer, miscarriage, stillbirth, neurological disorders.
Meanwhile, I just visited the YC HHS website. The following is pure promotion - without useful information:
Vaccine Safety & Effectiveness Side effects after a COVID-19 vaccination are common, but severe reactions are rare. See more information on side effects. Find more information about the COVID-19 vaccines and those who are pregnant and/or breastfeeding. Read more information about the COVID-19 vaccine and children. See more information about myocarditis and pericarditis after COVID-19 vaccination. See more information about the effectiveness of COVID-19 vaccines.
If you click on any of the links, that takes you to the CDC. Which shamelessly promotes the C-19 injections.
For example: COVID-19 Vaccines While Pregnant or Breastfeeding
"What You Need to Know Everyone ages 6 months and older is recommended to get the updated COVID-19 vaccine. This includes people who are pregnant, breastfeeding, trying to get pregnant now, or those who might become pregnant in the future. Infants ages 6 months and older are recommended to get the updated COVID-19 vaccine even if born to people who were vaccinated or had COVID-19 before or during pregnancy. If you are pregnant or were recently pregnant, you are more likely to get very sick from COVID-19, compared to people who are not pregnant. Additionally, if you have COVID-19 during pregnancy, you are at increased risk of complications that can affect your pregnancy and developing baby. Getting the updated COVID-19 vaccine can help protect both you and your baby from serious illness from COVID-19. People who are pregnant should stay up to date with their COVID-19 vaccines and get an updated COVID-19 vaccine in fall 2023.Evidence shows that: COVID-19 vaccination during pregnancy is safe and effective. COVID-19 vaccines are not associated with fertility problems in women or men."
https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/vaccines/recommendations/pregnancy.html?s_cid=10484:is%20the%20vaccine%20safe%20for%20pregnant%20women:sem.ga:p:RG:GM:gen:PTN:FY21
So now facts from professionals are "a one-sided narrative"? Let County Health do their job and share information relevant to the county's health. Starrett's and Berschauer's politically biased opinions are not relevant and have no place in the County Health Department.
These reports are contrary to the CDC promotion:
The Explosive Link Between COVID Vaccines and Increased Cancer Rates in Children & Young Adults BY THE EXPOS ON FEBRUARY 11, 2024
https://expose-news.com/2024/02/11/link-covid-vaccines-cancer-children/
NIH in Early 2022 Abruptly Stopped Responding to People Injured by COVID Shots
https://childrenshealthdefense.org/defender/nih-communication-covid-vaccine-injured-people/
Pfizer wanted to keep this report secret for 75 years. It was obtained via court enforced FOIA:
5.3.6 CUMULATIVE ANALYSIS OF POST-AUTHORIZATION ADVERSE EVENT REPORTS OF PF-07302048 (BNT162B2) RECEIVED THROUGH 28-FEB-2021 Report Prepared by: Worldwide Safety Pfizer
https://phmpt.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/11/5.3.6-postmarketing-experience.pdf
Superior analysis by Michel Chossudovsky:
https://odysee.com/@Fingerbob:c/Pfizers-Secret-Report-on-the-COVID-Vaccine-Beyond-Manslaughter--The-following-video-interview-w:8
Queen Mary and Princess Lindsey have spoken.
Madmacs, and Dr. of epidemiology Dan has also spoken (and spoken) (and spoken some more) (and more to come Im sure)
The NR needs to add a BS alert button. Maybe an icon of a tinfoil hat would be appropriate.
Mary Starrett: Despot Wannabe. Go back to "Faces and Places" on KATU, Mary. You're the worst thing to ever happen to this county.
If you listen to the meeting of 2/15 it's actually much more unhinged than this article implies, as Starrett repeatedly claims her conspiracy theories (her term) have all been proven true and that everyone else has been covering this up but she was right all along. It would be unbelievable in any other County but seems to be acceptable now in Yamhill County.
Clown show continues and our online Dr. Dan continues his never ending quest to get everyone to believe his conspiracy theories.Starrett and Berschauer are nut jobs elected by the voters in our County. Its time to vote in people who actually have some common sense.
The headline of this article is misleading:
"County board orders limits on vaccine information"
In reality, the BOC wants to add information on vaccines.
The purpose being to show both sides of the story.
I don't think there is any objection to presenting CDC information.
The objection is that contrary information is being excluded.
Whence the BOC Order to limit the promotion side of the story.
It is the promoters of vaccines that are excluding vaccine information.
And the BOC which would like to include that excluded information.
Precisely the inverse suggested by the title of this article.
Maybe re-read the 1st paragraph.commissioners want nothing about vaccines other than they are available!.. your post is incorrect.
The complete sentence:
"Yamhill County Commissioners on Thursday ordered Health and Human Services Director Lindsey Manfrin not to tell the public anything about vaccines other than that they are available, in county social media posts."
Note last phrase: "... in county social media posts."
Let's wait to see the final, written Order.
And what effect it may have on the YC HHS website itself.
Right so the commission showing both sides and adding information was something you made up.. seems like the headline was NOT misleading from the information contained in the story.
The BOC's record extends beyond the four corners of the story.
Nice backpedaling.most people would say adding facts that arent in the story then calling the headline misleading is disingenuous.
I read all the posts that County Health put up on social media. None seem over the top. Two even said to talk to your doctor. This is just more manufactured controversy these two commissioners continually spout to get more attention. I will never vote for either of these two. Please support candidates with common sense and fact-based solutions in November.
The plain meaning of the BOC ORDER is clear.
The plain meaning of the N-R article - title & all - is clear.
My comments are meant according to their own plain meaning.
Anyone is free to agree or disagree with the BOC, N-R, or me.
Plain meaning is important as is credibility.
Take this according to its plain meaning.
What do YOU think?
https://i0.wp.com/expose-news.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/11/image-193-1.webp?resize=1200%2C820&ssl=1
Above UK ONS bar-chart from:
https://expose-news.com/2024/02/11/link-covid-vaccines-cancer-children/
Dan posts on forums, Words flowing like a river, Wisdom in pixels.
Dr Dans favorite source is amazing. I love the opening line of the Wikipedia page about Expose News: The Expos (formerly known as The Daily Expos)[3] is a British news page created in 2020 by Jonathan Allen-Walker.[1][2] It is known for publishing COVID-19 and anti-vaccine misinformation.
Apparently it is run by an English welder with no medical training. No other known staff write for it. Countless times their claims have been debunked.
You keep doing your thing Dr Dan, infectious disease and epidemiologist expert!
Straight from the horse's mouth:
UK Office for National Statistics
Dataset Deaths by vaccination status, England
https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/birthsdeathsandmarriages/deaths/datasets/deathsbyvaccinationstatusengland
In the realm of threads, Dan's words fall with heavy weight, Unliked, he persists.
When our County Commissioners can provide proof of their formal medical education and training then we might be more inclined to value their opinions, but in the meantime they should keep their conspiracy theories to themselves and allow knowledgable trained professionals take the reins on this matter. Stay in your lane, Commissioners.
Looks like the BOC is over the target!
https://external-content.duckduckgo.com/iu/?u=https%3A%2F%2Fimages.fineartamerica.com%2Fimages-medium-large-5%2Fb-17-on-a-bombing-mission-during-ww-ii-in-heavy-flak-l-brown.jpg&f=1&nofb=1&ipt=18d743c0cad575f4927b0dfa6214f5dfa82dc81faeef3c155f26d8a9ef1fc313&ipo=images
How many posts does it take to get to the center of the extrinsic mind? One? Two?....
Keeping 2 million nursing facility staff and 1.2 million residents current on their COVID-19 vaccines is one tool for reducing deaths from COVID-19 as the virus continues to evolve. KFF analysis found that despite over one-fifth of all U.S. COVID-19 deaths occurring in long-term care facilities, as of January 14, 2024, only 38% of residents and 15% of staff were up-to-date with their COVID-19 vaccines, which the CDC defines as having received the updated Fall 2023 vaccine. Those rates are lower than uptake was for the 2022 vaccine. This data note also finds lower uptake rates for for-profit facilities and state uptake rates that vary from 20% to 63%. Data for this analysis include 14,318 nursing facilities (96% of all nursing facilities, home to 1.2 million residents) that had reported COVID-19 vaccination data as of January 21, 2024.
Uptake of the most recent COVID-19 vaccine is lower among nursing facility residents and staff than uptake was for the fall 2022 vaccine: Only 38% of residents and 15% of staff have received the new vaccine (Figure 1). In comparison, at the same point in time last year, 50% of residents and 22% of staff had received the updated vaccine. Those rates represent the share that received the newly available COVID-19 vaccines, 18 weeks after each shot was made available to the public. These rates are much lower than the 87% of residents and 88% of staff who received their primary vaccination series when measured in September 2022. On January 1, 2024, the CDC changed the way it collects data to calculate the percent of staff who are up to date with their COVID-19 vaccination. CMS reports that it may take facilities some time to adapt to the new methodology.
Uptake of the current COVID-19 vaccine is higher in non-profit facilities than in for-profit or government facilities (Figure 2). The percentage of nursing facility residents who received the updated vaccine is 46% in non-profit facilities compared with 35% in for-profit facilities and 43% in government facilities. Uptake of the fall 2022 vaccine was also highest in non-profit facilities and lowest in for-profit facilities. Rates of vaccine uptake for nursing facility staff were low in all types of facilities with minimal variation across facility types (data not shown).
The percentage of nursing facility residents who received the latest COVID-19 vaccine ranges from 20% in Arizona to 63% in Vermont and North Dakota (Figure 3). In eleven states, half or more of nursing facility residents received the newest vaccine while in two states, 25% or fewer have received the most recent vaccine. Uptake among staff of the most recent vaccine ranges from 5% in Arkansas to 51% in Washington D.C. In 42 states, fewer than 20% of staff have received the most recent vaccine. There are a number of factors that may contribute to the variation in nursing facility vaccine uptake across states including ownership patterns and partisanship, with higher rates in states that have more non-profit facilities and states that voted for President Biden in 2020. Other factors include whether facilities have established programs to keep residents current on their vaccines and the success of those various programs. Additionally, some state variation in staff rates may be attributed to variation in how facilities are adapting to new CMS reporting methodology for staff vaccinations.
Federal vaccine clinics contributed to high initial vaccination rates among nursing facility residents, but without ongoing federal initiatives, uptake of vaccines among nursing facility residents may remain low and vary across facilities. Earlier KFF analysis found that nearly 90% of residents completed the initial COVID-19 vaccination series. High take-up of the primary vaccine series stems from high death rates among nursing facility residents, which contributed to a fear of contracting COVID-19, and a concerted policy effort to vaccinate nursing facility residents, including through federally supported on-site vaccination clinics. According to AARP, federal supports have ended and long-term care facilities now coordinate their own COVID-19 vaccination programs, contributing to greater variation across facilities and lower overall rates.
Recent KFF polling shows that over half of previously vaccinated adults are not worried about getting COVID-19, suggesting that uptake of vaccines among nursing facility staff may remain low in the absence of federal mandates. Among nursing facility staff, initial take-up of COVID-19 vaccines was low until a health care worker vaccination mandate required providers that participate in Medicare and/or Medicaid to be vaccinated. This mandate was not updated to include follow-up vaccines, which may contribute to lower uptake of new vaccines among staff, particularly as concern about contracting COVID-19 drops among the U.S, population more broadly.
As winter viruses circulate, COVID-19 vaccines may help decrease sickness and preventable deaths among nursing facility residents and staff. Though people living and working in nursing facilities have likely built some immunity against COVID-19 through prior vaccinations and natural immunity, periodic vaccines have been shown to decrease mortality and increase antibody concentrations among nursing facility residents. For older adultswho constitute most people who use nursing facilitiesthe risks of COVID-19 may be seven times higher than that of the flu. The CDC finds that 72% of residents had received the flu vaccine as of December 10, 2023, among the small number of nursing facilities that had reported such data, a rate that is nearly twice that of the most recent COVID-19 vaccine. Beyond the flu and COVID-19, RSV is another high-risk respiratory virus. Although there is a new vaccine for RSV, uptake of the new vaccine among nursing facility residents has been hampered by shortages of RSV vaccines and the prioritization of the vaccine for infants and high-risk children. Increasing access to all vaccinations for this population may be a key strategy to preventing respiratory illnesses.
SciCheck Digest
The mRNA COVID-19 vaccines have a good safety record and have saved millions of lives. But viral posts claim the contrary, citing a recent peer-reviewed article authored by known COVID-19 misinformation spreaders and published in a controversial journal. The paper repeats previously debunked claims.
How safe are the COVID-19 vaccines?
More thanhalf a billion doses of COVID-19 vaccines have now been administered in the U.S. and only a few, very rare, safety concerns have emerged. The vast majority of people experience only minor, temporary side effects such as pain at the injection site, fatigue, headache, or muscle pain or no side effects at all. As the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has said, these vaccines have undergone and will continue to undergo the most intensive safety monitoring in U.S. history.
A small number of severe allergic reactions known as anaphylaxis, which are expected with any vaccine, have occurred with the authorized and approved COVID-19 vaccines. Fortunately, these reactions are rare, typically occur within minutes of inoculation and can be treated. Approximately 5 per million people vaccinated have experienced anaphylaxis after a COVID-19 vaccine, accordingto the CDC.
To make sure serious allergic reactions can be identified and treated, all people receiving a vaccine should be observed for 15 minutes after getting a shot, and anyone who has experienced anaphylaxis or had any kind of immediate allergic reaction to any vaccine or injection in the past should be monitored for a half hour. People who have had a serious allergic reaction to a previous dose or one of the vaccine ingredients should not be immunized. Also, those who shouldnt receive one type of COVID-19 vaccine should be monitored for 30 minutes after receiving a different type of vaccine.
There is evidence that the Pfizer/BioNTech and Moderna mRNA vaccines may rarely cause inflammation of the heart muscle (myocarditis) or of the surrounding lining (pericarditis), particularly in male adolescents and young adults.
Based on data collected through August 2021, the reporting rates of either condition in the U.S. are highest in males 16 to 17 years old after the second dose (105.9 cases per million doses of the Pfizer/BioNTech vaccine), followed by 12- to 15-year-old males (70.7 cases per million). The rate for 18- to 24-year-old males was 52.4 cases and 56.3 cases per million doses of Pfizer/BioNTech and Moderna vaccines, respectively.
Health officials have emphasized that vaccine-related myocarditis and pericarditis cases are rare and the benefits of vaccination still outweigh the risks. Early evidence suggests these myocarditis cases are less severe than typical ones. The CDC has also noted that most patients who were treated responded well to medicine and rest and felt better quickly.
The Johnson & Johnson vaccine has been linked to anincreased risk of rare blood clots combined with low levels of blood platelets, especially in women ages 30to 49. Early symptoms of the condition, which is known as thrombosis with thrombocytopenia syndrome, or TTS, can appear as late as three weeks after vaccination andincludesevere or persistent headaches or blurred vision, leg swelling, and easy bruising or tiny blood spots under the skin outside of the injection site.
According to the CDC, TTS has occurred in around 4 people per million doses administered. As of early April,the syndrome has been confirmed in 60 cases, including nine deaths, after more than 18.6 million doses of the J&J vaccine. Although TTS remains rare, because of the availability of mRNA vaccines, which are not associated with this serious side effect, the FDA on May 5 limited authorized use of the J&J vaccine to adults who either couldnt get one of the other authorized or approved COVID-19 vaccines because of medical or access reasons, or only wanted a J&J vaccine for protection against the disease. Several months earlier, on Dec. 16, 2021,the CDC had recommended the Pfizer/BioNTech and Moderna shots over J&Js.
The J&J vaccine has also been linked to an increased risk of Guillain-Barr Syndrome, a rare disorder in which the immune system attacks nerve cells.Most peoplewho develop GBS fully recover, although some have permanent nerve damage and the condition can be fatal.
Safety surveillance data suggest that compared with the mRNA vaccines, which have not been linked to GBS, the J&J vaccine is associated with 15.5 additional GBS cases per million doses of vaccine in the three weeks following vaccination. Most reported cases following J&J vaccination have occurred in men 50 years old and older.
Link to this
Thesafetyof the mRNA COVID-19 vaccines from Pfizer/BioNTech and Moderna is supported by the rigorous clinical trials run prior to their release and numerous studies conducted since. Hundreds of millions of people have been vaccinated in the U.S., many with multiple doses, and serious side effects are rare.
COVID-19 vaccines have also been shown to beeffectivein reducing the risk of severe forms of the disease. Multiple studies have estimated that the COVID-19 vaccines saved millions of lives across the globe.
But anarticle written by misinformation spreaders who oppose COVID-19 vaccination that claims to have reviewed the original trials and other relevant studies largely ignores this body of evidence. Instead, the review, which calls for a global moratorium on the mRNA vaccines, cites multiple flawed or criticized studies manyofwhichwevewritten aboutbefore to falsely claim the mRNA COVID-19 vaccines have caused extensive, well-documented serious adverse events and have killed nearly 14 times as many people as they saved.
The article was peer-reviewed and published in Cureus, an open-access online medical journalthat prioritizes fast publication and has published problematic studies before,as we will explain.
Update, Feb. 19: In a Substack post, one of the papers authors announced that he had been informed by the journal that the editors had decided to retract the article, based on an internal review that found multiple instances of data misrepresentation and incorrect or unsubstantiated claims.
Socialmediapoststhat share the incorrect conclusions of the review have gone viral.
mRNA COVID-19 vaccines caused more deaths than saved: study, reads a Feb. 4Instagram postthat shared a screenshot of a headline by the Epoch Times.
One author of the review as well as other social media users are also using the fact that the paper was published as proof that the mRNA COVID-19 vaccines are unsafe.
People have said Im a misinformation spreader because sinceMay 2021, I have been publicly saying the COVID vaccines are not safe. Now the medical peer-reviewed literature shows I was right.Do you believe me now? Steve Kirsch, a review co-author and a former tech entrepreneur who lacks biomedical training, said in a post on X, formerly known as Twitter, on Jan. 30 (emphasis is his).
!!TRUST THE #SCIENCE!!, the author of aviral postwrote on Instagram on Feb. 7. The post included a screenshot of a news story titled Mainstream science mulls global moratorium on COVID vaccines as cancers rise, boosters flub, and the statement Covid vaccines *may* cause cancer. You dont say.
Just because a paper is published does not make it correct. While peer review is useful in weeding out bad science, its not foolproof, and the rigor and processes vary by journal. This review, which many experts have criticized, is an outlier, not mainstream science. And aswevewritten, theres no evidence mRNA COVID-19 vaccines cause cancer and resulted in millions of deaths.
Many of the reviews authors have a history of spreading COVID-19 or vaccine misinformation.This includes Kirsch, who has repeatedly pushed the incorrect idea that the COVID-19 vaccines have killed millions of people worldwide, as well as Dr. Peter McCullough, Stephanie Seneff and Jessica Rose.
McCullough stillrecommendstreating COVID-19 patients with hydroxychloroquine and ivermectin, even though both have been shown not to work against the disease. He also promotes and sells spike protein detoxification products for people who have been vaccinated, despite no evidence that vaccinated people need any such detox.
Seneff is a computer scientist who has promoted the false notion that vaccines cause autism. She previously co-authored a review paper with McCullough, which the Cureus review cites, that misused data from the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System to baselessly claim the mRNA COVID-19 vaccines suppress the innate immune system, as wereported. Rose has also beenaccusedof misusing VAERS data to claim vaccines are not safe a common deception among the anti-vaccination community.
The Cureus review cites and even republishes a figure from one of Roses Substack posts about the supposedly alarming number of VAERS reports for autoimmune disorders following COVID-19 vaccination compared with influenza vaccines. The review claims the increased reporting represents an immense safety signal. But as weve explainedbefore, the higher number of VAERS reports for the COVID-19 vaccines can be explained by multiple factors, such as increased awareness and stricter reporting requirements and does not in and of itself constitute a safety signal. A report can be submitted by anyone and does not mean that a vaccine caused a particular problem.
The review paper, titled COVID-19 mRNA Vaccines: Lessons Learned from the Registrational Trials and Global Vaccination Campaign, repeats many claims weve already written about, based on studies or analyses that have been widely criticized or debunked.
To claim the vaccines cause serious harms to humans, for example, the review draws on a problematic reanalysis of the adverse events reported in the original trials that was published in the journal Vaccine in 2022. Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis and Dr. Joseph Ladapo, the states surgeon general, have cited the paper to argue that the vaccines are too risky. But aswevewritten and is detailed in a commentary article published in the same journal the paper has multiple methodological flaws, including how it counted the adverse events.
The review also uncritically cites an unpublished analysis by former physics professor Denis Rancourt that alleged that some 17 million people died from the COVID-19 vaccines. We recently explained that the report erroneously ignored deaths from COVID-19 and that such estimates are implausible. And the review recycles unsupported claims about high levels of DNA contamination in the mRNA vaccines and the possibility that such DNA fragments will integrate into the human genome and cause cancer. As weve detailed, trace amounts of residual DNA are expected in vaccines, but there is no evidence the DNA can alter a persons DNA or cause cancer.
Finally, the review highlighted findings from a Cleveland Clinic observational study that it called the best evidence for the failure of the COVID-19 mRNA vaccines ability to confer protection against COVID-19. The study, which identified a correlation between more COVID-19 vaccine doses and a higher rate of testing positive for a coronavirus infection, has frequently been cited by those opposed to vaccination. But asweveexplained, the finding runs counter to that of many other studies, which have generally found increased protection with more doses. And the paper did not demonstrate that more doses actually cause an increased risk of infection. In fact, many experts suspect that the association is likely the result of other differences between people who received a different number of doses. Moreover, the primary purpose of vaccination is to protect against severe disease and there is abundant evidence that the COVID-19 vaccines have been very successful on that front.
Lessons learned? More like conspiracies spun, wrote surgical oncologist Dr.David Gorskiin apostabout the review in his blog Respectful Insolence.
The authors of the review have also been criticized for citing their own studies in the review and for including non-scientific publications as primary sources.
BTW, the McCullough, Kirsch, etc. Cureus paper that is purportedly a scientific review article references trialsitetnews, epoch times, brownstone, the spectator, childrens health defense, and conservative review as primary sources for some of their points, as well as 11 substack articles/blogs, a youtube/twitter video, and 2 explicit anti-vaccine books, plus a large number of self-citations from the review authors,Jeffrey S. Morris, director of the division of biostatistics in the department of biostatistics, epidemiology and informatics at the University of Pennsylvania Perelman School of Medicine,wrote on Xon Feb. 1.
Much of the complimentary coverage of the review paper by some of the usual misinformation spreaders has emphasized that it was published in a peer-reviewed journal.
A review paper published last week in the journal Cureus is the first peer-reviewed paper to call for a global moratorium on the COVID-19 mRNA vaccines, declared a Jan. 29articlepublished on Robert F. Kennedys anti-vaccine website, Childrens Health Defense. The story also received attention onsocial media.
Peer review, or the process of having fellow scientists provide feedback on a manuscript and whether it is good enough to publish, can be immensely helpful in ensuring that a given paper does not contain major flaws or errors. But peer review is only as good as the feedback provided and it does not automatically mean the paper can be trusted. Nor are all peer-reviewed journalsthe same, since each has different standards and reputations.
Cureus is unusual in that it focuses on publishing papers quickly and advertises efficient peer review and a hassle-free publishing experience. The journals metrics for the last six months indicate that the average time from submission to publication is 33 days and that the acceptance rate is 51%. For context, the prestigious journalNature which some posts have misleadingly likened Cureus to, as they share the same parent publisher has a median time of 267 days for submission to acceptance and an 8%acceptance rate. Per thearticle informationfor this review paper, the peer-review process took77days.
In 2015, responding to concerns about the journal and its fast peer-review process, the founder, president and co-editor-in-chief of Cureus, Dr. John R. Adler, said that by design peer rejection is not a big part of our review process, and that the journal also relies on post-publication review to sort out what is quality/important.
A paper by Emory University librarians that was presented at a 2022 conference classified Cureus as potentially untrustworthy or predatory. The journal is available on PubMed Central, the National Institutes of Healths database of biomedical research, but is not indexed on MEDLINE, which requires some vetting for inclusion. (A papers appearance in either database does not imply any kind of endorsement by the NIH.)
Cureus, notably, publishedtwo problematicstudies about ivermectin for COVID-19in 2022. As we reported at the time, the results of the studies were inconsistent with stronger studies that did not find any benefit of using ivermectin for COVID-19. Both studies had methodological flaws and were authored by ivermectin activists a fact that was not disclosedat the time of publication.
Although even the best journals occasionally retract published studies, Cureus has ended upmultipletimesin the pages of Retraction Watch, a blog and online database of retractions most recently on Jan. 26 for56 studiesretracted for faked authorship nearly two years after they were first flagged. In 2022, Retraction Watchreportedthat a study retracted by Frontiers in Medicine was later updated and published in Cureus.
Editors note: SciChecks articles providing accurate health information and correcting health misinformation are made possible by a grant from the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation. The foundation has no control over FactCheck.orgs editorial decisions, and the views expressed in our articles do not necessarily reflect the views of the foundation.
Safety of COVID-19 Vaccines. CDC. Accessed 15 Feb 2024.
Selected Adverse Events Reported after COVID-19 Vaccination. CDC. Accessed 15 Feb 2024.
COVID-19 Vaccine Effectiveness Update. CDC. Accessed 15 Feb 2024.
Van Beusekom, Mary. Global COVID vaccination saved 2.4 million lives in first 8 months, study estimates. CIDRAP, University of Minnesota. 31 Oct 2023.
Watson, Oliver J., et al. Global impact of the first year of COVID-19 vaccination: a mathematical modelling study. Infectious Diseases. 23 Jun 2022.
Trang, Brittany. Covid vaccines averted 3 million deaths in U.S., according to new study. Stat. 13 Dec 2022.
COVID-19 vaccinations have saved more than 1.4 million lives in the WHO European Region, a new study finds. WHO. Press release. 16 Jan 2024.
Mead, M. Nathaniel, et al. COVID-19 mRNA Vaccines: Lessons Learned from the Registrational Trials and Global Vaccination Campaign. Cureus. 24 Jan 2024.
Yandell, Kate. Tucker Carlson Video Spreads Falsehoods on COVID-19 Vaccines, WHO Accord. FactCheck.org. 12 Jan 2024.
Yandell, Kate. Faulty Science Underpins Florida Surgeon Generals Call to Halt mRNA COVID-19 Vaccination. FactCheck.org. 5 Jan 2024.
Jaramillo, Catalina. mRNA Vaccines Protect Against COVID-19 Mortality, Contrary to Misleading Posts. FactCheck.org. 26 May 2023.
Jaramillo, Catalina. COVID-19 Vaccine Benefits Outweigh Small Risks, Contrary to Flawed Claim From U.K. Cardiologist. FactCheck.org. 8 May 2023.
Yandell, Kate. Cleveland Clinic Study Did Not Show Vaccines Increase COVID-19 Risk. FactCheck.org. 16 Jun 2023.
Jaramillo, Catalina. Autopsy Study Doesnt Show COVID-19 Vaccines Are Unsafe. FactCheck.org. 21 Dec 2022.
Swann, Sara. Experts say mRNA COVID-19 vaccines have saved millions of lives, not caused mass deaths. PolitiFact. 9 Feb 2024.
Wong, Adrian. COVID-19 mRNA Vaccines Lessons Learned Fact Check! Techarp. 30 Jan 2024.
Gorski, David. Antivaxxers write about lessons learned but know nothing. Respectful Insolence. 26 Jan 2024.
McDonald, Jessica. Flawed Analysis of New Zealand Data Doesnt Show COVID-19 Vaccines Killed Millions. FactCheck.org. 15 Dec 2024.
Yandell, Kate. COVID-19 Vaccines Save Lives, Are Not More Lethal Than COVID-19. FactCheck.org. 6 Nov 2023.
Yandell, Kate. Posts Push Unproven Spike Protein Detoxification Regimen. FactCheck.org. 21 Sep 2023.
Jaramillo, Catalina. Clinical Trials Show Ivermectin Does Not Benefit COVID-19 Patients, Contrary to Social Media Claims. FactCheck.org. 15 Sep 2022.
Robertson, Lori. No New Revelation on Hydroxychloroquine and COVID-19. FactCheck.org. 2 Jul 2021.
McDonald, Jessica. COVID-19 Vaccination Increases Immunity, Contrary to Immune Suppression Claims. FactCheck.org. 29 Jul 2022.
Gorski, David. 2021: The year the weaponization of VAERS went mainstream. Respectful Insolence. 27 Dec 2021.
McDonald, Jessica. What VAERS Can and Cant Do, and How Anti-Vaccination Groups Habitually Misuse Its Data. FactCheck.org. 6 Jun 2023.
Fraiman, Joseph. Serious adverse events of special interest following mRNA COVID-19 vaccination in randomized trials in adults. Vaccine. 22 Sep 2022.
McDonald, Jessica, and Catalina Jaramillo. DeSantis Dubious COVID-19 Vaccine Claims. FactCheck.org. 2 May 2023.
Black, Steven, and Stephen Evans. Serious adverse events following mRNA vaccination in randomized trials in adults. Vaccine. 26 May 2023.
Yandell, Kate. Posts Spread False Claim About Moderna Patent Application. FactCheck.org. 22 Nov 2023.
Yandell, Kate. COVID-19 Vaccines Have Not Been Shown to Alter DNA, Cause Cancer. FactCheck.org. 26 Oct 2023.
Yandell, Kate. Faulty Science Underpins Florida Surgeon Generals Call to Halt mRNA COVID-19 Vaccination. FactCheck.org. 5 Jan 2024.
Jaramillo, Catalina, and Kate Yandell. RFK Jr.s COVID-19 Deceptions. FactCheck.org. 11 Aug 2023.
Morris, Jeffrey (@jsm2334) BTW, the McCullough, Kirsch, etc. Cureus paper that is purportedly a scientific review article references trialsitetnews, epoch times, brownstone, the spectator, childrens health defense, and conservative review as primary sources for some of their points, as well as 11 substack articles/blogs, a youtube/twitter video, and 2 explicit anti-vaccine books, plus a large number of self-citations from the review authors. X. 1 Feb 2024.
Scrutinizing science: Peer review. Understanding Science 101. Accessed 15 Feb 2024.
Crossley, Merlin. When to trust (and not to trust) peer reviewed science. The Conversation. 12 Jul 2018.
Reviewer Guide. Cureus. Accessed 15 Feb 2024.
About Cureus. Cureus. Accessed 15 Feb 2024.
Journal Metrics. Nature. Accessed 15 Feb 2024.
Editorial criteria and processes. Nature. Accessed 15 Feb 2024.
Sparks, Katie, and Kimberly R. Powell. Assessing Predatory Journal Publishing Within Health Sciences Authors. SLA conference. 31 Jul 2022.
MEDLINE, PubMed, and PMC (PubMed Central): How are they different? NIH. 28 Dec 2023.
Disclaimer. National Library of Medicine. Accessed 15 Feb 2024.
Some Strange Goings On at Cureus. Emerald City Journal. 20 Aug 2016.
Oransky, Ivan. Journal retracts more than 50 studies from Saudi Arabia for faked authorship. Retraction Watch. 26 Jan 2024.
Kincaid, Ellie. Researcher attacks journal for retracting his paper on COVID-19 drug. Retraction Watch. 26 Jan 2024. 10 Jun 2022.
Jaramillo, Catalina. Evidence Still Lacking to Support Ivermectin as Treatment for COVID-19. FactCheck.org. 6 Jun 2022.
Jaramillo, Catalina. Clinical Trials Show Ivermectin Does Not Benefit COVID-19 Patients, Contrary to Social Media Claims. FactCheck.org. 15 Sep 2022.
Kerr, Lucy, et al. Correction: Ivermectin Prophylaxis Used for COVID-19: A Citywide, Prospective, Observational Study of 223,128 Subjects Using Propensity Score Matching. Cureus. 24 Mar 2022.
A journal is retracting a paper on the purported harms of vaccines against COVID-19 written in part by authors who have had similar work retracted before.
The article, COVID-19 mRNA Vaccines: Lessons Learned from the Registrational Trials and Global Vaccination Campaign, appeared late last month in Cureus, which used to be a stand-alone journal but is now owned by Springer Nature.(It has appeared frequently in these pages.)
Graham Parker, Director of Publishing and Customer Success at Cureus, told Retraction Watch:
I can confirm we will be retracting it by the end of the week, as we have provided the authors with a deadline to reply and indicate whether they agree or disagree with the retraction.
The senior author on the work was Peter McCullough, a cardiologist at the Institute of Pure and Applied Knowledge who lost his board certification after the American Board of Internal Medicine found he had provided false or inaccurate medical information to the public.
Indeed, McCullough had already lost one paper, in Current Problems in Cardiology, from Elsevier, when he and his colleagues submitted their latest opus to Cureus. And SSRN, which hosts preprints for The Lancet, another Elsevier journal, had removed work by him and colleagues claiming large numbers of deaths from COVID-19 vaccines.
A few days after the paper appeared, we asked John Adler Jr., the editor in chief of Cureus, if the track record of the authors concerned him. His response seemed to admit to the risk, but he also defended the journals vetting of the paper:
Yes I am aware that many of these authors are skeptical zealots when it comes to the dangers of vaccines. Our editorial response was extra vigilance during the peer review process with 8 different reviewers weighing in on publication or not, including a few with strong statistics knowledge. Therefore, a credible peer review process was followed and the chips fell where they may. That is all I can say. If you or other readers were to note fatal flaws in this article now that it is published, i.e. failure to accurately report financial COIs [conflicts of interest], totally erroneous statistical analysis, fake data etc. we will of course re-evaluate at any time.
Adler then took a jab at other journals:
The decision process Cureus made, contrasts sharply with Elseviers seeming editorial decision to just censor the article using ad hominem concerns.
In a Feb. 9, 2024 letter to the journal and the publisher, John P. Moore, a microbiologist at Weill Cornell Medicine in New York City, and Gregg Gonsalves, an epidemiologist at Yale School of Public Health, in New Haven, Conn., expressed their serious concerns about the article. Among their objections:
The authors utterly lack relevant professional qualifications that would enable them to assess the scientific publications they draw on and/or attempt to criticize. The authors self-describe their affiliations under the rubric of Independent Research, or list private foundations, or in one case report an academic discipline unrelated to biology. In short, the authors cannot draw on years of training in biological science, but appear to be self-taught via the University of Google.
They continue:
The point here is that the Cureus review merely regurgitates claims about mRNA vaccines that have circulated on the internet and been debunked over and over again, including by fact-checking organizations (e.g., Factcheck.org, and the USA Today and Politico factcheck teams).
They conclude:
By bringing this highly problematic review to your attention, we hope that you will conduct a thorough review of how it was accepted for publication in Cureus under the Springer Nature imprimatur. How appropriate was the peer review process? How did the editor act? Is the acceptance of this review symptomatic of a wider problem at the journal? Finally, if you share our views that this review is so flawed as to be dangerous to public health, you may well decide that it should be retracted.
Springer Nature had apparently been looking into the case already, and ended up agreeing with Moore, Gonsalves and other critics of the article.
Steve Kirsch, a co-author of the paper, announced the retraction on his Substack over the weekend:
The paper I co-authored with 6 other authors will be retracted by the journal because the publisher wont allow any paper that is counter-narrative to be published.
According to Kirschs post, Springer Natures inquiry found:
a significant number of concerns with your article that in our view cant be remedied with a correction. The concerns include, but are not limited to:
Waving the white flag, a bowed but unbroken Kirsch wrote:
It doesnt do any good to show them these reasons are all bogus. The laundry list of items is simply a placeholder to make it look like the journal is following the science.
Nothing we can say on appeal will make any difference.
The decision was made to retract the paper and facts dont matter. Its about supporting the narrative. When they write in our view cant be remedied with a correction it means dont even bother arguing with us, your paper is retracted.
For his part, Moore said:
The journal and publisher responded courteously and professionally to our letter, and I was pleased by the final outcome. They did what needed to be done.
Like Retraction Watch? You can make atax-deductible contribution to support our work,subscribe to our freedaily digestorpaid weekly update,follow uson Twitter, like uson Facebook, or add us to yourRSS reader. If you find a retraction thatsnot in The Retraction Watch Database, you canlet us know here. For comments or feedback, email us at team@retractionwatch.com.
