Claim

Ivermectin could decrease mortality by 40 percent in late stages.

Veracity Rating: 1 out of 4

Facts

The claim that ivermectin could decrease mortality by 40 percent in late-stage COVID-19 patients is not supported by robust scientific evidence. Here's a detailed evaluation based on available studies:

1. **PRINCIPLE Trial**: A recent study published in the Journal of Infection found that ivermectin did not lead to clinically significant improvements in COVID-19 recovery times, hospital admissions, or mortality rates in a largely vaccinated population[1]. This suggests that ivermectin does not have a substantial impact on mortality in such contexts.

2. **Retrospective Cohort Study**: An early study from 2020 suggested that ivermectin was associated with lower mortality in hospitalized patients, particularly those requiring oxygen or ventilatory support[2]. However, this was a retrospective analysis and not a randomized controlled trial (RCT), which is considered the gold standard for determining treatment efficacy.

3. **Case-Control Study**: Another study conducted in India found no significant effect of ivermectin on in-patient mortality or length of hospital stay among COVID-19 patients[3]. This study highlights the lack of consistent evidence supporting ivermectin's mortality benefits.

4. **Meta-Analyses**: Some meta-analyses have reported moderate-certainty evidence suggesting that ivermectin may reduce COVID-19 mortality[4]. However, these findings are not universally accepted, and other analyses have shown conflicting results or highlighted the need for more rigorous trials to confirm any benefits[3][4].

5. **Strongyloidiasis Prevalence**: A meta-analysis found that the apparent mortality benefits of ivermectin in COVID-19 trials were associated with regions of high strongyloidiasis prevalence, suggesting that any observed benefits might not be directly related to COVID-19 treatment but rather to the treatment of strongyloidiasis[5]. This interaction complicates the interpretation of ivermectin's effects on COVID-19 mortality.

In conclusion, while some studies suggest potential benefits of ivermectin in specific contexts, the overall evidence does not robustly support the claim that ivermectin decreases mortality by 40 percent in late-stage COVID-19 patients. The scientific consensus remains divided, and more rigorous, well-designed trials are needed to definitively establish any mortality benefits of ivermectin in treating COVID-19.

Citations

• [1] https://www.phc.ox.ac.uk/news/new-study-shows-ivermectin-lacks-meaningful-benefits-in-covid-19-treatment
• [2] https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.06.06.20124461v2
• [3] https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10071928/
• [4] https://journals.lww.com/americantherapeutics/fulltext/2021/08000/ivermectin_for_prevention_and_treatment_of.7.aspx
• [5] https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamanetworkopen/fullarticle/2790173

Claim

The therapies that the U.S. government is recommending for COVID are not working as advertised at all.

Veracity Rating: 2 out of 4

Facts

## Evaluating the Claim: Effectiveness of U.S. Government-Recommended COVID-19 Therapies

The claim that U.S. government-recommended COVID-19 therapies are not working as advertised requires a comprehensive analysis of the evidence supporting these treatments. This evaluation will focus on the efficacy of antiviral treatments and vaccines, as well as the use of non-evidence-based therapies.

### Antiviral Treatments

1. **Remdesivir**: Remdesivir is one of the antiviral drugs approved for COVID-19 treatment. Studies have shown that it can reduce the time to recovery and lower the need for mechanical ventilation, but it does not significantly impact mortality rates[1][3]. This suggests that while remdesivir offers some benefits, its effectiveness is limited to specific outcomes.

2. **Nirmatrelvir-Ritonavir and Molnupiravir**: More recent antiviral treatments like nirmatrelvir-ritonavir and molnupiravir have demonstrated significant reductions in hospitalization and mortality rates[5]. These treatments have shown promise in reducing severe outcomes, supporting their effectiveness.

### Vaccines

Vaccines have been extensively studied and proven effective in preventing severe illness and death from COVID-19. While there have been reports of side effects, the overall consensus is that vaccines are safe and effective[2]. The claim of ineffectiveness of vaccines is not supported by scientific evidence.

### Non-Evidence-Based Treatments

1. **Ivermectin and Hydroxychloroquine**: These treatments have been widely promoted despite lacking evidence of efficacy for COVID-19. Their use is often associated with misinformation and mistrust in health institutions[2][4]. The FDA has not approved these drugs for COVID-19 treatment, and their use can lead to adverse effects[4].

### Conclusion

The claim that U.S. government-recommended COVID-19 therapies are not working as advertised is partially misleading. While some antiviral treatments like remdesivir have shown limited benefits, newer treatments such as nirmatrelvir-ritonavir have demonstrated significant effectiveness. Vaccines have been proven effective in preventing severe illness. The issue of non-evidence-based treatments highlights a problem of misinformation and mistrust rather than a failure of recommended therapies.

### Recommendations for Future Analysis

1. **Transparent Data Sharing**: Encourage transparent data sharing on vaccine efficacy and side effects to address public concerns.
2. **Evidence-Based Treatments**: Promote the use of evidence-based treatments and discourage non-evidence-based therapies.
3. **Public Health Communication**: Improve public health communication to build trust and combat misinformation.

By focusing on evidence-based treatments and addressing misinformation, we can better evaluate the effectiveness of COVID-19 therapies and improve public trust in health institutions.

Citations

• [1] https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8802260/
• [2] https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama-health-forum/fullarticle/2809985
• [3] https://www.ajtmh.org/view/journals/tpmd/106/3/article-p886.xml
• [4] https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7685699/
• [5] https://www.acpjournals.org/doi/10.7326/M22-3565

Claim

Monoclonal antibodies worked wonderfully for COVID patients.

Veracity Rating: 3 out of 4

Facts

## Evaluating the Claim: Monoclonal Antibodies Worked Wonderfully for COVID Patients

The claim that monoclonal antibodies worked wonderfully for COVID patients can be assessed through clinical studies and evidence from reputable sources.

### Efficacy of Monoclonal Antibodies

1. **Clinical Efficacy**: Studies have shown that monoclonal antibodies can significantly reduce the risk of hospitalization and death in nonhospitalized adults with mild to moderate COVID-19. For example, a combination of amubarvimab plus romlusevimab demonstrated a substantial reduction in hospitalization and/or death compared to placebo, with rates of 2.3% versus 10.8%, respectively[1]. This indicates that monoclonal antibodies can be effective in preventing severe outcomes when used early in the disease course.

2. **Timing of Treatment**: The effectiveness of monoclonal antibodies is enhanced when administered soon after symptom onset. Early treatment is crucial for maximizing the benefits of monoclonal antibodies, as it helps prevent the progression of mild symptoms into severe disease[2][4].

3. **Variants and Efficacy**: The efficacy of monoclonal antibodies can vary depending on the SARS-CoV-2 variant. Some monoclonal antibodies, like sotrovimab, have maintained effectiveness against certain variants such as Omicron subvariants[3][5]. However, other treatments like bamlanivimab/etesevimab have shown reduced efficacy against newer variants[5].

4. **Safety and Use**: Monoclonal antibodies have been shown to be safe and effective in clinical trials, receiving emergency use authorization from regulatory bodies like the FDA[2][4]. They are particularly beneficial for individuals at high risk of severe disease, including those who are immunocompromised[3][4].

### Conclusion

The claim that monoclonal antibodies worked wonderfully for COVID patients is supported by evidence from clinical studies. These treatments have been shown to reduce hospitalization and death rates significantly when used appropriately, especially in high-risk individuals. However, their effectiveness can vary based on the SARS-CoV-2 variant and the timing of administration. Overall, monoclonal antibodies have been a valuable tool in the management of COVID-19, particularly for those who are at risk of severe disease or have limited protection from vaccines.

### References

Citations

• [1] https://www.acpjournals.org/doi/10.7326/M22-3428
• [2] https://www.hackensackmeridianhealth.org/en/healthu/2021/12/07/how-monoclonal-antibodies-help-treat-covid
• [3] https://www.pasteur.fr/en/research-journal/reports/covid-19-which-monoclonal-antibodies-should-be-used-vulnerable-individuals
• [4] https://umc.edu/news/News_Articles/2021/08/How-Monoclonal-antibodies-fight-COVID-19.html
• [5] https://elifesciences.org/articles/79639

Claim

The first hospital in the country to mandate COVID-19 vaccines was Houston Methodist Hospital on April 1, 2021.

Veracity Rating: 4 out of 4

Facts

## Claim Evaluation: Houston Methodist Hospital as the First to Mandate COVID-19 Vaccines

The claim that Houston Methodist Hospital was the first hospital in the U.S. to mandate COVID-19 vaccines for its employees is supported by multiple reliable sources.

### Evidence Supporting the Claim

1. **Houston Methodist's Policy Announcement**: On April 1, 2021, Houston Methodist announced that it would require all employees to be vaccinated against COVID-19, making it the first major U.S. health care system to do so[3][4]. This policy was implemented to ensure the safety of patients and staff, aligning with the hospital's long-standing practice of mandating flu shots for employees[3].

2. **Implementation and Legal Validation**: The vaccine mandate went into effect on June 7, 2021. A federal judge upheld this policy in a lawsuit filed by employees who opposed the mandate, ruling that employers have the right to require vaccinations as a condition of employment[2][4]. This legal validation set a precedent for other hospitals to follow suit.

3. **Industry Impact**: Following Houston Methodist's lead, several other major health systems across the U.S. implemented similar mandates. These include Benefis Health System in Montana, RWJBarnabas Health in New Jersey, Indiana University Health, and the University of Louisville Health[1][3].

### Implications and Context

– **Employee Compliance and Resistance**: Despite initial resistance from some employees, Houston Methodist reported a high compliance rate, with over 99% of its staff vaccinated by June 1, 2021[1]. However, more than 150 employees were either fired or resigned due to non-compliance[5].

– **Legal and Ethical Considerations**: The mandate was defended on legal and ethical grounds, emphasizing the responsibility of healthcare providers to protect patients and staff. The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) supported such mandates, provided that reasonable accommodations are made for those exempt due to medical or religious reasons[1][2].

### Conclusion

The claim that Houston Methodist Hospital was the first hospital in the U.S. to mandate COVID-19 vaccines for its employees is accurate. This decision was part of a broader effort to enhance safety during the pandemic and has been legally validated. The hospital's approach has influenced other healthcare institutions to adopt similar policies.

### References

Citations

• [1] https://www.houstonmethodist.org/leading-medicine-blog/articles/2021/jun/houston-methodist-requires-covid-19-vaccine-for-credentialed-doctors/
• [2] https://www.wshblaw.com/resource-employers-may-terminate-employees-who-refuse-covid-19-vaccine
• [3] https://www.healthevolution.com/insider/houston-methodist-ceo-marc-boom-on-being-the-first-hospital-to-mandate-the-covid-19-vaccine-for-employees/
• [4] https://www.cbsnews.com/news/covid-vaccine-lawsuit-houston-methodist-nurse/
• [5] https://www.texastribune.org/2021/06/23/texas-hospital-houston-methodist-vaccine-employees-fired-resign/

Claim

The FDA issued a tweet discouraging people from taking ivermectin for COVID-19.

Veracity Rating: 4 out of 4

Facts

## Claim Evaluation: FDA Tweet on Ivermectin for COVID-19

The claim states that the FDA issued a tweet discouraging people from taking ivermectin for COVID-19. This claim is **true** and supported by evidence from reliable sources.

### Evidence and Context

1. **FDA's Position on Ivermectin**: The FDA has consistently warned against using ivermectin to treat or prevent COVID-19. This is because there is insufficient evidence to support its effectiveness for this purpose, and it can be dangerous when used improperly, especially in large doses intended for animals[2][4].

2. **FDA Communications**: The FDA has used social media platforms to caution against the misuse of ivermectin. For instance, the FDA has tweeted about the risks associated with self-medicating with ivermectin, emphasizing that it is not approved for COVID-19 treatment and can lead to severe health issues[4].

3. **CDC and NIH Stance**: Both the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and the National Institutes of Health (NIH) have not recommended ivermectin for COVID-19 treatment outside of clinical trials due to insufficient evidence[2][4].

4. **Public Health Advisories**: The CDC has issued health advisories warning against the use of ivermectin for COVID-19, highlighting potential side effects such as nausea, vomiting, diarrhea, and seizures[2].

### Conclusion

The claim that the FDA issued a tweet discouraging the use of ivermectin for COVID-19 is accurate. The FDA, along with other health authorities like the CDC and NIH, has been clear in its warnings against using ivermectin for COVID-19 treatment outside of clinical trials due to the lack of evidence supporting its efficacy and the potential risks involved.

### Additional Context

The broader context of the conversation highlights the challenges faced by healthcare professionals who oppose mainstream treatment guidelines, including the use of alternative therapies like ivermectin. This has led to licensing battles and a growing distrust in public health systems. However, the scientific consensus remains that ivermectin is not recommended for COVID-19 treatment outside of clinical trials.

### References

– [2] FactCheck.org: Facebook Post Misleads on NIH's Position on Ivermectin
– [4] FactCheck.org: Ongoing Clinical Trials Will Decide Whether (or Not) Ivermectin Is Safe, Effective for COVID-19
– [3] ABC News: Group of physicians combats misinformation as unproven COVID-19 treatments continue to be prescribed

Citations

• [1] https://www.fox10phoenix.com/news/texas-medical-board-warns-physicians-who-claim-covid-19-cure
• [2] https://www.factcheck.org/2022/02/scicheck-facebook-post-misleads-on-nihs-position-on-ivermectin/
• [3] https://abcnews.go.com/US/group-physicians-combats-misinformation-unproven-covid-19-treatments/story?id=83097330
• [4] https://www.factcheck.org/2021/09/scicheck-ongoing-clinical-trials-will-decide-whether-or-not-ivermectin-is-safe-effective-for-covid-19/
• [5] https://www.medpagetoday.com/special-reports/exclusives/103353

Claim

Patients I saw who were vaccinated outnumbered unvaccinated patients and were just as sick if not sicker.

Veracity Rating: 1 out of 4

Facts

## Evaluating the Claim: Vaccinated Patients Were Just as Sick as Unvaccinated Ones

The claim that vaccinated patients were just as sick, if not sicker, than unvaccinated ones during the COVID-19 pandemic can be evaluated by examining scientific evidence on vaccine efficacy and outcomes.

### Vaccine Efficacy Against COVID-19

1. **Prevention of Severe Illness**: COVID-19 vaccines have been consistently shown to be effective in preventing severe illness and hospitalization due to COVID-19. Studies across multiple countries have demonstrated that vaccines significantly reduce the risk of severe complications and death from COVID-19[5].

2. **Vaccine Effectiveness Over Time**: The effectiveness of vaccines can vary depending on factors like the viral variant and the number of doses received. For instance, during the Omicron wave, vaccine effectiveness against infection was lower compared to earlier variants, but vaccines remained effective against severe disease[1][5].

### Long COVID and Vaccine Efficacy

1. **Protection Against Long COVID**: Research indicates that COVID-19 vaccines offer protection against long COVID, although the effectiveness can vary. A study found that the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine was highly effective (95.4%) against long COVID during the Delta phase but less so (60.2% for children, 75.1% for adolescents) during the Omicron phase[1]. Another study suggested that receiving three doses of the vaccine reduced the risk of long COVID symptoms by about 30% in women[1].

2. **Meta-Analysis on Vaccine Effectiveness**: A meta-analysis showed that fully vaccinated individuals had a lower risk of developing post-COVID conditions compared to unvaccinated individuals, with vaccine effectiveness increasing with additional doses[3].

### Comparison of Health Outcomes

1. **Vaccinated vs. Unvaccinated Outcomes**: While some anecdotal reports suggest similar severity in vaccinated and unvaccinated patients, large-scale studies consistently show that vaccinated individuals generally experience less severe outcomes than unvaccinated ones[5][3].

2. **Data Collection and Analysis**: Claims about similar sickness levels between vaccinated and unvaccinated patients would require robust data analysis from medical records to be credible. However, such claims often lack the systematic evidence and statistical rigor needed to support them.

### Conclusion

The scientific consensus supports the effectiveness of COVID-19 vaccines in reducing severe illness and long-term complications. While individual experiences may vary, the overall evidence does not support the claim that vaccinated patients are just as sick as unvaccinated ones. Instead, vaccines have been shown to significantly reduce the risk of severe COVID-19 and its long-term effects.

### Recommendations for Further Research

– **Systematic Data Analysis**: Conduct thorough analyses of patient data from diverse healthcare settings to compare outcomes between vaccinated and unvaccinated individuals.
– **Controlled Studies**: Implement controlled studies to account for confounding factors that might influence the perceived severity of illness in vaccinated versus unvaccinated patients.
– **Transparency in Reporting**: Encourage transparent reporting of vaccine efficacy and side effects to address public concerns and improve trust in public health systems.

Citations

• [1] https://www.cidrap.umn.edu/covid-19/studies-describe-vaccine-efficacy-against-long-covid
• [2] https://factcheck.afp.com/doc.afp.com.338Q3AL
• [3] https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10644173/
• [4] https://www.coursehero.com/file/220914991/dsjkldocx/
• [5] https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8447391/

Claim

The Texas Medical Board has been pursuing charges against the physician for three and a half years due to his treatment recommendations.

Veracity Rating: 2 out of 4

Facts

To evaluate the claim that the Texas Medical Board has been pursuing charges against a physician for three and a half years due to his treatment recommendations, we need to consider the process and timeline of how the Texas Medical Board handles complaints.

## Overview of the Texas Medical Board Complaint Process

The Texas Medical Board (TMB) receives about 9,000 complaints annually, which are reviewed to determine if they fall under the Medical Practice Act. If a complaint is deemed jurisdictional, it undergoes a preliminary evaluation within the first 45 days. This process involves contacting both the complainant and the licensee to gather more information[4].

## Investigation and Potential Outcomes

If the complaint warrants further investigation, it is classified as "Jurisdictional, Filed," and the licensee is informed of the alleged violations. Investigations may involve gathering information from various sources, including medical records, and consulting with expert panels if standard of care issues are involved[4]. The outcomes can range from dismissal to disciplinary actions, such as agreed orders, remedial plans, or even license revocation[4].

## Duration of Proceedings

While the exact duration of proceedings can vary significantly depending on the complexity of the case and the need for additional information, there is no specific indication from available sources that a typical investigation lasts three and a half years. However, given the complexity and the potential for appeals or additional legal actions, it is plausible for cases to extend over several years.

## Evidence Supporting the Claim

There is no direct evidence from the provided sources to confirm that the Texas Medical Board has been pursuing charges against a specific physician for three and a half years. However, the general process and potential for lengthy investigations suggest that such a duration is possible.

## Conclusion

Without specific records or details from the Texas Medical Board regarding the case in question, it is difficult to definitively confirm the claim. However, the nature of the TMB's complaint process and the potential for prolonged investigations make it plausible that a case could span several years. To verify the claim, accessing detailed records from the Texas Medical Board would be necessary.

In summary, while the claim is plausible given the potential duration of investigations, direct evidence from the Texas Medical Board's records would be required to confirm it. The TMB's process allows for complex cases to extend over time, but specific details about this case are not available in the provided sources.

Citations

• [1] https://www.dallasnews.com/news/public-health/2021/11/05/texas-medical-board-files-complaint-against-dallas-doctor-for-covid-19-treatment/
• [2] https://www.tmlt.org/podcasts/the-claims-process-episode-3-texas-medical-board-defense
• [3] https://www.tmb.state.tx.us/dl/9A964B7C-B42C-37B5-745A-B84564A64143
• [4] https://www.tmb.state.tx.us/page/enforcement
• [5] https://www.tmb.state.tx.us/page/licensing

Claim

The former medical director of the Texas Medical Board has been working for Planned Parenthood.

Veracity Rating: 4 out of 4

Facts

## Claim Evaluation: Former Medical Director of the Texas Medical Board Working for Planned Parenthood

The claim that the former medical director of the Texas Medical Board was working for Planned Parenthood is **true**. Dr. Robert Bredt, who served as the medical director of the Texas Medical Board since 2012, was also employed by Planned Parenthood South Texas since 2011, specifically as the medical director of their laboratory in San Antonio[1][2][3].

### Evidence Supporting the Claim

1. **Employment Records**: Dr. Bredt's employment with Planned Parenthood was revealed through his resume, which was submitted as part of a legal filing in a case involving a Texas doctor[2][3]. This document confirmed his dual roles at both the Texas Medical Board and Planned Parenthood South Texas.

2. **Public Statements and Reactions**: The revelation of Dr. Bredt's dual employment sparked significant controversy, leading to calls for his resignation from state lawmakers, including Rep. Brian Harrison and Rep. Briscoe Cain[1][2][5]. These reactions underscore the perceived conflict of interest in his roles.

3. **Resignation and Retirement**: Dr. Bredt subsequently retired from his position at the Texas Medical Board, which was confirmed by the board[1][5]. His departure was seen as a response to the political pressure and public outcry over his dual affiliations.

### Implications of the Claim

The situation highlights concerns about potential conflicts of interest when individuals hold influential positions in both regulatory bodies and organizations with politically charged missions, like Planned Parenthood. This scenario has fueled discussions about transparency and accountability in state hiring practices and the oversight of medical professionals[1][2][5].

### Conclusion

The claim is supported by reliable sources, including news reports and official statements from involved parties. The controversy surrounding Dr. Bredt's dual employment underscores broader issues of transparency and conflict of interest in public health governance.

Citations

• [1] https://www.christianpost.com/news/texas-medical-director-who-worked-for-planned-parenthood-departs.html
• [2] https://heartland.org/publications/texas-medical-board-director-resigns-after-conflict-of-interest-surfaces/
• [3] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cq6zzL7Syz4
• [4] https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/579/15-274/
• [5] https://texasscorecard.com/state/planned-parenthood-employee-no-longer-serves-as-texas-medical-board-director/

Claim

Houston Methodist Hospital has 13 billion in assets.

Veracity Rating: 1 out of 4

Facts

To verify the claim that Houston Methodist Hospital has $13 billion in assets, we need to consult financial reports or official announcements from the hospital. However, the search results do not provide specific financial data regarding Houston Methodist's total assets.

## Available Information

1. **Houston Methodist Expansion Projects**: The search results mention significant expansion projects, such as the $247 million expansion at Houston Methodist West Hospital and the $650 million Houston Methodist Cypress Hospital project[1][2]. These investments indicate substantial financial capabilities but do not directly confirm the asset value.

2. **Community Grants and Healthcare Services**: Houston Methodist has awarded $10 million in community grants, highlighting its commitment to healthcare access[4]. This demonstrates financial resources but does not specify total assets.

3. **Organizational Facts**: Houston Methodist is a large nonprofit healthcare organization with multiple hospitals, an academic institute, and extensive healthcare services[5]. While this shows the organization's scale, it does not provide specific asset figures.

## Conclusion

Without direct access to Houston Methodist's financial reports or statements that explicitly mention its total assets, it is challenging to verify the claim of $13 billion in assets. Typically, such financial data would be found in annual reports or financial statements, which are not mentioned in the search results. Therefore, the claim remains unsubstantiated based on the available information.

To confirm this claim, one would need to review Houston Methodist's official financial documents or press releases that disclose its asset value.

Citations

• [1] https://www.houstonmethodist.org/newsroom/houston-methodist-west-hospital-announces-247-million-expansion-project/
• [2] https://www.mccarthy.com/insights/mccarthy-completes-houston-methodist-cypress-hospital
• [3] https://www.houstonmethodistcareers.org/blog/article/144/
• [4] https://www.houstonmethodist.org/newsroom/houston-methodist-awards-10-million-through-community-benefits-grant-program-to-strengthen-health/
• [5] https://www.houstonmethodist.org/newsroom/facts-statistics/

Claim

They don't pay property taxes because they're a nonprofit.

Veracity Rating: 2 out of 4

Facts

## Claim Evaluation: Nonprofit Hospitals and Property Taxes

The claim that Houston Methodist Hospital does not pay property taxes because it is a nonprofit can be evaluated by examining the tax status of the hospital and general regulations regarding nonprofit organizations.

### Houston Methodist Hospital's Tax Status

Houston Methodist Hospital is a nonprofit organization, classified as a 501(c)(3) entity, which means it is exempt from federal income taxes. Contributions to the hospital are tax-deductible, indicating its charitable status[1][3]. However, federal income tax exemption does not automatically grant exemption from state and local property taxes.

### Property Tax Exemption for Nonprofits

In the United States, property tax exemptions for nonprofits are determined by state laws and local regulations. While many states provide property tax exemptions for charitable organizations, the criteria for exemption can vary significantly. For instance, some states require that the property be used for charitable purposes and that the organization demonstrate a level of donative support and gratuitous expenditure[2].

### Payments in Lieu of Taxes (PILOTs)

Some nonprofits, including hospitals, may make Payments in Lieu of Taxes (PILOTs) to local governments. These payments are voluntary and negotiated between the nonprofit and the local government. PILOTs are not taxes but rather a way for nonprofits to contribute to local services without being legally obligated to pay property taxes[2][4].

### Conclusion

While Houston Methodist Hospital is exempt from federal income taxes due to its nonprofit status, its exemption from property taxes depends on Texas state laws and local regulations. If the hospital's property is used for charitable purposes and meets state criteria, it may be exempt from property taxes. However, without specific information on whether Houston Methodist Hospital makes PILOTs or is fully exempt from property taxes, the claim cannot be definitively confirmed or denied based solely on its nonprofit status.

**Evidence Needed for Full Verification:**
– Specific documentation from local tax authorities confirming Houston Methodist Hospital's property tax status.
– Information on whether the hospital makes PILOTs to the local government.

In summary, while nonprofit status can lead to property tax exemptions under certain conditions, it is not a guarantee, and local regulations play a crucial role in determining the actual tax obligations of organizations like Houston Methodist Hospital.

Citations

• [1] https://projects.propublica.org/nonprofits/organizations/741180155
• [2] https://ncpl.law.nyu.edu/wp-content/uploads/resources/Brody_Prop-Exempt-pub-NESL.pdf
• [3] https://www.taxexemptworld.com/organization.asp?tn=2231608
• [4] https://library.unt.edu/gpo/ACIR/Reports/policy/A-90.pdf
• [5] https://plannedgiving.houstonmethodist.org/beneficiary-designations

Claim

There are 105 studies showing the efficacy of ivermectin.

Veracity Rating: 1 out of 4

Facts

## Claim Evaluation: "There are 105 studies showing the efficacy of ivermectin."

The claim that there are 105 studies demonstrating the efficacy of ivermectin for COVID-19 treatment is often referenced by proponents of its use, such as the Front Line COVID-19 Critical Care Alliance (FLCCC). This organization suggests that a comprehensive review of these studies supports ivermectin's effectiveness in reducing mortality, hospitalization, and viral clearance in COVID-19 patients[4].

However, evaluating the validity of this claim requires a closer examination of the quality and consistency of the evidence across these studies.

### Evidence Base

1. **Number of Studies**: The claim of 105 studies is not universally supported by mainstream scientific reviews. While there are numerous studies on ivermectin, not all of them may be included in systematic reviews or meta-analyses due to concerns about quality, bias, or inconsistencies[2][3].

2. **Quality of Evidence**: Many studies on ivermectin have been criticized for methodological flaws, such as high risk of bias, lack of blinding, and small sample sizes[2][3]. This limits the confidence in the evidence supporting its efficacy.

3. **Conflicting Findings**: Systematic reviews and meta-analyses have reported conflicting results. Some meta-analyses suggest significant benefits, while others find no substantial effect on mortality or clinical outcomes[1][3]. For example, a systematic review of 25 RCTs found that ivermectin did not significantly reduce mortality or mechanical ventilation[3].

4. **Recent Studies**: Recent large-scale trials, such as the PRINCIPLE trial, have found that ivermectin lacks meaningful benefits in treating COVID-19, especially in vaccinated populations[5].

### Conclusion

While there are indeed numerous studies on ivermectin, the claim of 105 studies demonstrating its efficacy is not universally supported by high-quality evidence. The scientific consensus remains divided, with many reputable health organizations, such as the World Health Organization (WHO) and the Infectious Diseases Society of America (IDSA), recommending against its use outside of clinical trials due to the low quality of evidence and potential risks[3][4].

In summary, while some studies suggest potential benefits, the overall evidence base is not robust enough to conclusively support the widespread efficacy of ivermectin for COVID-19 treatment. Further high-quality research is needed to clarify its role in managing the disease.

Citations

• [1] https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8088823/
• [2] https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8406455/
• [3] https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9308124/
• [4] https://imahealth.org/ivermectin/
• [5] https://www.phc.ox.ac.uk/news/new-study-shows-ivermectin-lacks-meaningful-benefits-in-covid-19-treatment

Claim

The LD50 of ivermectin is anywhere from 11 to 82 times what we're giving for COVID.

Veracity Rating: 2 out of 4

Facts

To evaluate the claim that "The LD50 of ivermectin is anywhere from 11 to 82 times what we're giving for COVID," we need to understand what LD50 is and compare it with the typical dosages used for COVID-19 treatment.

## Understanding LD50

LD50 is the dose of a substance that, when administered to a group of test subjects, will kill 50% of them within a specified time period. It is a measure of acute toxicity.

## Ivermectin LD50

The LD50 of ivermectin varies by species. For example, in mice, the oral LD50 is approximately 25 mg/kg, and in dogs, it is about 80 mg/kg[3]. For humans, the LD50 is not directly measured due to ethical considerations, but it is estimated to be significantly higher than the approved therapeutic doses.

## Typical Doses for COVID-19

For COVID-19, ivermectin dosing varies but often includes protocols like 0.2 mg/kg per dose for early outpatient treatment or 0.3 mg/kg per dose for hospital treatment[1]. Another common dose is 12 mg per day for five days for mild cases[1].

## Comparison

To assess the claim, let's compare the estimated human LD50 with typical COVID-19 doses. Assuming a human LD50 in the range of 2.02 to 43.24 mg/kg based on animal data[3], we can compare this to the COVID-19 doses:

– **Lowest COVID-19 dose**: 0.2 mg/kg per dose.
– **Highest typical COVID-19 dose**: 0.3 mg/kg per dose.

Even the highest typical dose for COVID-19 (0.3 mg/kg) is significantly lower than the estimated human LD50 range (2.02 to 43.24 mg/kg). Thus, the claim that the LD50 is "anywhere from 11 to 82 times what we're giving for COVID" seems plausible when considering the lower end of the estimated LD50 range (2.02 mg/kg) and the typical COVID-19 doses.

However, the exact factor depends on the specific LD50 value used for comparison. If we take the lowest estimated LD50 (2.02 mg/kg) and compare it to the highest typical COVID-19 dose (0.3 mg/kg), the LD50 is about 6.7 times higher, not reaching the claimed range of 11 to 82 times. But if we consider the upper end of the LD50 range (43.24 mg/kg), the factor could indeed be much higher.

In conclusion, while the claim might be broadly correct in suggesting that the LD50 is significantly higher than typical COVID-19 doses, the precise range of "11 to 82 times" depends on the specific LD50 value used for comparison and might not accurately reflect all possible scenarios.

## Evidence and Sources

– **Ivermectin LD50 and Dosing**: The LD50 values and typical dosing for COVID-19 are based on animal studies and human treatment protocols[1][3].
– **Toxicity and Safety**: Ivermectin is generally well-tolerated at approved doses but can cause adverse effects at higher doses[3][4].
– **COVID-19 Treatment**: The FDA has not approved ivermectin for COVID-19 treatment, and its efficacy remains controversial[2][4].

Citations

• [1] https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8354388/
• [2] https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2021/apr/23/instagram-posts/fact-checking-claim-about-use-ivermectin-treat-cov/
• [3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ivermectin
• [4] https://www.fda.gov/consumers/consumer-updates/ivermectin-and-covid-19
• [5] https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8406455/

Claim

You can get some GI issues diarrhea and then you can get blurry vision from ivermectin.

Veracity Rating: 2 out of 4

Facts

To evaluate the claim that ivermectin can cause gastrointestinal (GI) issues like diarrhea and blurry vision, we need to examine the side effects listed in medical literature.

## Gastrointestinal Issues (Diarrhea)
Ivermectin is known to cause several common side effects, including **diarrhea**. This is documented in multiple reliable sources:
– **WebMD** lists diarrhea as one of the common side effects of ivermectin[2].
– **GoodRx** also mentions diarrhea as a possible side effect[3].
– **MedicalNewsToday** notes that nausea and diarrhea are among the more common side effects when ivermectin is used to treat intestinal infections[5].

## Blurry Vision
Regarding **blurry vision**, ivermectin can cause eye-related symptoms. While "blurry vision" is not explicitly listed in all sources, there are mentions of **vision problems** and other eye-related issues:
– **All About Vision** mentions that ivermectin can cause eye pain, redness, and vision problems[4].
– **MedicalNewsToday** lists serious eye problems, including pain, redness, swelling, and loss of vision, as potential side effects[5].

## Conclusion
The claim that ivermectin can cause GI issues like diarrhea is supported by medical literature. However, the claim about blurry vision is partially supported, as ivermectin can cause vision problems, though "blurry vision" is not explicitly mentioned in all sources.

In summary, the claim is **partially verified**:
– **Diarrhea**: Verified as a common side effect.
– **Blurry Vision**: Partially verified, as ivermectin can cause vision problems, but "blurry vision" is not explicitly listed in all sources.

Citations

• [1] https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC5929173/
• [2] https://www.webmd.com/drugs/2/drug-1122/ivermectin-oral/details
• [3] https://www.goodrx.com/ivermectin/ivermectin-side-effects
• [4] https://www.allaboutvision.com/conditions/related/coronavirus/ivermectin-covid-treatment/
• [5] https://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/ivermectin-oral-tablet

Claim

Only 1% of doctors are not employed by hospitals.

Veracity Rating: 0 out of 4

Facts

The claim that "only 1% of doctors are not employed by hospitals" is not supported by available data. Recent studies and reports indicate that while a significant majority of physicians are employed by hospitals or corporate entities, the percentage of those not employed by hospitals is much higher than 1%.

## Evidence from Recent Studies

1. **Physician Employment Trends**: As of January 2024, approximately 77.6% of U.S. physicians were employed by hospitals, health systems, or other corporate entities[5]. This means that about 22.4% of physicians were not employed by these entities, which includes those working in independent practices or other settings.

2. **Hospital and Corporate Employment**: The Physicians Advocacy Institute (PAI) and Avalere Health reported that over the past five years, more than 127,000 physicians became employees of hospitals or corporate entities[1][5]. However, this does not imply that only 1% of physicians remain outside hospital employment.

3. **Independent Practices**: Although the number of physicians in independent practices has decreased significantly, a substantial number still operate outside hospital employment. For instance, by January 2024, about 41.5% of physician practices were owned by physicians themselves, indicating a presence of independent practitioners[5].

## Conclusion

Based on the available data, the claim that "only 1% of doctors are not employed by hospitals" is inaccurate. A more accurate figure suggests that nearly a quarter of physicians are not employed by hospitals or corporate entities, including those in independent practices or other employment arrangements. This trend reflects the ongoing shift towards consolidation in healthcare but does not support the claim of such a low percentage of non-hospital employed physicians.

Citations

• [1] https://www.physiciansadvocacyinstitute.org/Portals/0/assets/docs/PAI-Research/PAI-Avalere%20Physician%20Employment%20Trends%20Study%202019-2023%20Final.pdf?ver=uGHF46u1GSeZgYXMKFyYvw%3D%3D
• [2] https://apps.who.int/iris/bitstream/handle/10665/325547/9789241515924-eng.pdf
• [3] https://www.amnhealthcare.com/blog/physician/perm/a-growing-number-of-physicians-are-employed/
• [4] https://www.emerald.com/insight/content/doi/10.1108/ijebr-04-2021-0304/full/html
• [5] https://www.techtarget.com/revcyclemanagement/news/366600149/Nearly-4-of-5-physicians-employed-by-hospitals-corporations

Claim

Ivermectin helps bind the spike protein and is anti-inflammatory.

Veracity Rating: 2 out of 4

Facts

## Claim Evaluation: Ivermectin's Effectiveness Against Spike Protein and Its Anti-Inflammatory Properties

The claim that ivermectin helps bind the spike protein and has anti-inflammatory properties can be evaluated through existing scientific literature.

### Binding to Spike Protein

While there is evidence that ivermectin can inhibit the attachment of the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein to human cell membranes in vitro, this effect is significant at concentrations much higher than those safely achievable in humans. For instance, studies have shown that ivermectin can reduce viral RNA concentration by inhibiting spike protein attachment, but the required dose for this effect is far beyond the maximum safe dosage for humans[5].

### Anti-Inflammatory Properties

Ivermectin is known to possess anti-inflammatory properties. It can inhibit cytokine production, downregulate transcription of NF-κB, and limit the production of nitric oxide and prostaglandin E2, which are involved in inflammatory responses[1]. Additionally, ivermectin may act on glycine receptors, which can inhibit inflammatory responses by hyperpolarizing plasma membranes and inhibiting endosomal nicotinamide adenine dinucleotide phosphate oxidase activity[2].

### Clinical Evidence for COVID-19 Treatment

Despite its potential in vitro effects, clinical evidence on ivermectin's efficacy in treating COVID-19 is mixed. Some studies suggest benefits in reducing symptoms and mortality, particularly in early stages or as prophylaxis[1]. However, other studies, including the PRINCIPLE trial, have found that ivermectin does not provide clinically significant benefits in a largely vaccinated population, failing to reduce hospitalizations or mortality rates[3]. A systematic review and meta-analysis also found that ivermectin did not significantly reduce mortality or the need for mechanical ventilation in COVID-19 patients[5].

### Conclusion

While ivermectin shows potential in binding to the spike protein and has anti-inflammatory properties in vitro, its clinical efficacy in treating COVID-19 remains uncertain. The evidence supporting its use is not strong enough to recommend it as a standard treatment, especially in vaccinated populations. Further research is needed to clarify its role in post-vaccine complications and to establish its safety and efficacy in various clinical contexts.

## References

Citations

• [1] https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8088823/
• [2] https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9442455/
• [3] https://www.phc.ox.ac.uk/news/new-study-shows-ivermectin-lacks-meaningful-benefits-in-covid-19-treatment
• [4] https://www.bjid.org.br/en-self-prescribed-ivermectin-use-is-associated-articulo-S1413867021000726
• [5] https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9308124/

Claim

A growing movement of doctors is shifting towards direct primary care.

Veracity Rating: 4 out of 4

Facts

## Evaluation of the Claim: A Growing Movement of Doctors is Shifting Towards Direct Primary Care

The claim that a growing movement of doctors is shifting towards direct primary care (DPC) can be evaluated by examining the rise of DPC practices and their implications on healthcare.

### Definition and Growth of Direct Primary Care

**Direct Primary Care (DPC)** is a healthcare model where patients pay a monthly or annual fee directly to their physician for primary care services, bypassing traditional insurance billing systems[1][3]. This model has been gaining traction over the past decade, with a notable increase in recent years[1][3].

– **Growth**: In 2015, there were 141 DPC practices operating at 273 locations across 39 states[2]. More recently, the number of DPC practices has expanded significantly, with over 1,000 practices now operating nationwide[5]. This growth indicates a rising interest among physicians in adopting the DPC model.

### Implications and Benefits of Direct Primary Care

1. **Reduced Administrative Burden**: DPC practices eliminate the need for insurance paperwork and quality reporting, which can significantly reduce administrative tasks and contribute to physician satisfaction[1][2].

2. **Improved Patient-Physician Relationship**: By limiting patient loads to around 600 per physician, DPC allows for longer, more personalized consultations and better communication between patients and doctors[3][5].

3. **Cost-Effectiveness**: DPC offers transparent, predictable costs for patients, including discounted lab tests and medications, which can be particularly beneficial for those with high-deductible insurance plans or those who are uninsured[4][5].

4. **Professional Satisfaction**: Many physicians find DPC appealing due to its potential to reduce burnout by offering a better work-life balance and more time with patients[1][2].

### Challenges and Limitations

Despite its benefits, DPC also presents challenges, such as the need for patients to maintain separate insurance for specialty or emergency care, potential perverse incentives for physicians to select healthier patients, and a lack of regulation[1][2].

### Conclusion

The claim that a growing movement of doctors is shifting towards direct primary care is supported by evidence of increasing adoption and expansion of DPC practices. This shift is driven by the desire for reduced administrative burdens, improved patient-physician relationships, and enhanced professional satisfaction among physicians. However, DPC also faces challenges related to financial and regulatory aspects.

In summary, while the DPC model is gaining popularity, its long-term impact and broader acceptance within the healthcare system remain subjects of ongoing evaluation and debate.

Citations

• [1] https://www.wolterskluwer.com/en/expert-insights/what-exactly-is-direct-primary-care
• [2] https://www.ama-assn.org/practice-management/payment-delivery-models/pondering-direct-care-13-potential-benefits-and
• [3] https://www.physicianspractice.com/view/the-benefits-of-direct-primary-care
• [4] https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9350501/
• [5] https://www.holyfamilydpc.com/direct-primary-care

Claim

The COVID shot needs to be pulled off the market immediately.

Veracity Rating: 0 out of 4

Facts

The claim that the COVID shot needs to be pulled off the market immediately is not supported by current scientific evidence and regulatory assessments. Here's a detailed evaluation of the claim based on reliable sources:

## Regulatory Status and Safety Assessments

1. **FDA Confidence in COVID-19 Vaccines**: The FDA has consistently expressed confidence in the safety, effectiveness, and quality of COVID-19 vaccines, including mRNA vaccines, based on thorough assessments of manufacturing processes and clinical data[1]. The FDA emphasizes that the benefits of these vaccines outweigh their risks, with no identified safety concerns related to residual DNA[2].

2. **CDC Recommendations**: The CDC recommends that everyone aged 6 months and older receive a 2024-2025 COVID-19 vaccine, highlighting their role in preventing severe illness and death from COVID-19[1][3]. The CDC also monitors vaccine safety continuously, identifying rare adverse events like anaphylaxis and myocarditis but concluding that these risks are outweighed by the vaccines' benefits[5].

3. **Ongoing Safety Monitoring**: Both the FDA and CDC continue to monitor the safety of COVID-19 vaccines, ensuring they meet rigorous standards for safety and effectiveness even after approval[5]. This ongoing surveillance is part of the most intensive safety analysis in U.S. history[5].

## Scientific Evidence and Expert Consensus

1. **Effectiveness of Vaccines**: Studies have shown that COVID-19 vaccines have saved millions of lives worldwide by reducing the risk of severe illness, hospitalization, and death[4]. A study published in the Lancet estimated that COVID vaccines saved nearly 20 million lives in their first year alone[2].

2. **Addressing Misinformation**: Claims about DNA integration and cancer risks from mRNA vaccines have been refuted by federal health officials as "implausible" and "misleading"[2]. Experts emphasize that there is no evidence to support these claims, and DNA-based vaccines have been used without links to cancer[2].

3. **Adverse Events**: While rare adverse events like myocarditis and anaphylaxis have been identified, these are closely monitored, and the overall benefit-risk assessment supports continued use of the vaccines[5].

## Conclusion

Based on the evidence from reputable sources, the claim that the COVID shot needs to be pulled off the market immediately is not supported. The FDA and CDC continue to endorse the use of COVID-19 vaccines due to their proven safety and effectiveness in preventing severe illness and death. Ongoing safety monitoring and scientific consensus support the continued use of these vaccines as a critical component of COVID-19 prevention strategies[1][3][5].

In summary, while there are valid concerns about vaccine safety and efficacy, these are being addressed through rigorous monitoring and scientific evaluation. The benefits of vaccination in preventing severe COVID-19 outcomes are well-documented and widely recognized by health authorities[1][3][5].

Citations

• [1] https://www.fda.gov/vaccines-blood-biologics/industry-biologics/information-about-updated-covid-19-vaccines
• [2] https://www.cbsnews.com/news/florida-surgeon-general-covid-vaccines-fda-claims-misleading/
• [3] https://www.cdc.gov/acip/grade/covid-19-2024-2025-6-months-and-older.html
• [4] https://oversight.house.gov/wp-content/uploads/2024/12/2024.12.04-SSCP-FINAL-REPORT-ANS.pdf
• [5] https://www.cdc.gov/vaccine-safety/vaccines/covid-19.html

Claim

According to VAERS, there have been 38,000 deaths from these COVID shots.

Veracity Rating: 0 out of 4

Facts

## Claim Evaluation: "According to VAERS, there have been 38,000 deaths from these COVID shots."

The claim that VAERS reports 38,000 deaths from COVID-19 vaccines is not supported by the available data. As of recent updates, VAERS has received reports of deaths following COVID-19 vaccination, but these reports do not establish causality between the vaccine and the deaths.

### Key Points and Evidence:

1. **VAERS Reporting and Causality**:
– **VAERS** is a passive surveillance system that collects reports of adverse events following vaccination. It is crucial to understand that a report to VAERS does not imply that the vaccine caused the adverse event[4].
– Healthcare providers are required to report any serious adverse events, including deaths, even if they do not believe the vaccine was the cause[1][4].

2. **Number of Reports**:
– As of November 2021, VAERS had received reports of approximately 14,506 deaths following COVID-19 vaccination[1]. More recent data indicate around 8,164 reports of deaths as of June 2024[3].
– There is no evidence to support the claim of 38,000 deaths.

3. **Causal Relationship**:
– The vast majority of reported deaths do not have a verified causal link to the vaccine. Scientific investigations are needed to establish such a link, and these investigations often find that the reported events are coincidental or unrelated to the vaccine[2][4].
– For example, a literature review identified only 14 cases where a causal relationship between the vaccine and death was considered very probable or demonstrated out of 55 reported cases[2].

4. **Safety and Efficacy**:
– Despite the reports, COVID-19 vaccines have been extensively tested in clinical trials and continuously monitored post-authorization. The scientific consensus is that these vaccines are safe and effective, with rare adverse events[1][3].

### Conclusion:
The claim of 38,000 deaths from COVID-19 vaccines as reported by VAERS is unfounded. VAERS data do not establish causality, and the actual number of reported deaths is significantly lower than the claim. The benefits of vaccination in preventing COVID-19 far outweigh the risks of rare adverse events.

Citations

• [1] https://www.nebraskamed.com/COVID/does-vaers-list-deaths-caused-by-covid-19-vaccines
• [2] https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8875435/
• [3] https://www.congress.gov/118/meeting/house/117456/documents/HHRG-118-JU05-20240626-SD011.pdf
• [4] https://www.cdc.gov/vaccine-safety-systems/vaers/index.html
• [5] https://www.ronjohnson.senate.gov/services/files/A4A76F9A-9B29-4CF9-B987-F9097A3F4CB7

Claim

Nine million American children have gotten the latest version of these COVID shots.

Veracity Rating: 1 out of 4

Facts

To verify the claim that "Nine million American children have gotten the latest version of these COVID shots," we need to examine the latest data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) regarding COVID-19 vaccination coverage among children.

## Available Data and Methodology

1. **CDC Vaccination Data**: The CDC provides data on COVID-19 vaccination coverage through the National Immunization Survey–Flu (NIS–Flu), which includes information on children aged 6 months to 17 years[1]. However, the specific figure of nine million children receiving the latest version of the COVID-19 vaccine is not directly mentioned in the available search results.

2. **Vaccination Coverage Estimates**: The CDC reports vaccination coverage estimates based on interviews conducted through the NIS–Flu, which are updated weekly. These estimates represent the cumulative percentage of children vaccinated by mid-week[1][5].

3. **2024–2025 COVID-19 Vaccine**: The CDC recommends that everyone aged 6 months and older receive the 2024–2025 COVID-19 vaccine[3]. The updated vaccine became available at the end of August 2024[1].

## Verification of the Claim

Without specific CDC data directly confirming the figure of nine million children receiving the latest COVID-19 vaccine, it is challenging to verify this claim. However, we can look at broader trends:

– **General Vaccination Trends**: As of the latest reports, the overall percentage of the population vaccinated with the updated 2024–2025 COVID-19 vaccine is relatively low, with only about 12.8% of the total population reporting receipt of the vaccine[5]. This suggests that while some children are getting vaccinated, the overall uptake might not be extremely high.

– **Importance of Staying Up to Date**: The CDC emphasizes the importance of staying up to date with COVID-19 vaccines, especially for children, to protect against severe illness and to maintain community immunity[3].

## Conclusion

Given the lack of specific data confirming the exact figure of nine million children receiving the latest COVID-19 vaccine, this claim cannot be verified with the available information. For precise numbers, one would need to access the most recent CDC data or reports specifically detailing vaccination coverage among children for the 2024–2025 season.

In summary, while the CDC provides ongoing updates on vaccination coverage, the specific claim regarding nine million children cannot be confirmed without direct access to detailed CDC reports or datasets that include this specific figure.

Citations

• [1] https://www.cdc.gov/covidvaxview/weekly-dashboard/child-coverage-vaccination.html
• [2] https://www.bu.edu/articles/2021/myths-vs-facts-covid-19-vaccine/
• [3] https://www.cdc.gov/covid/vaccines/stay-up-to-date.html
• [4] https://www.factcheck.org/2022/08/scicheck-widespread-claims-misrepresent-effectiveness-of-covid-19-vaccines/
• [5] https://www.cdc.gov/respiratory-viruses/data/vaccination-trends.html

Claim

There is an increased risk of myocarditis in teenage boys who take these shots.

Veracity Rating: 4 out of 4

Facts

## Claim Evaluation: Increased Risk of Myocarditis in Teenage Boys After COVID-19 Vaccination

The claim that there is an increased risk of myocarditis in teenage boys who receive COVID-19 vaccinations is supported by multiple studies and reports from reputable health organizations.

### Evidence Supporting the Claim

1. **Age and Sex-Specific Risk**: Myocarditis risk is higher in younger males, particularly adolescents and young adults, following mRNA COVID-19 vaccinations. This is consistently reported across various studies, with the highest risk observed in males aged 12 to 17 years[2][4].

2. **Incidence Rates**: The incidence of myocarditis after the second dose of mRNA vaccines is notably higher in male adolescents. For example, one study found that the risk among male recipients aged 12 to 15 years was approximately 8.09 cases per 100,000, compared to 0.69 cases per 100,000 for female recipients in the same age group[4]. Another study reported a risk of about 35.9 cases per 100,000 for males aged 12 to 17 years after the second dose[2].

3. **Comparison with COVID-19 Infection**: While the risk of myocarditis is increased after vaccination, it remains significantly lower than the risk associated with COVID-19 infection itself. Studies have shown that COVID-19 infection poses a higher risk for myocarditis, often leading to more severe cases compared to vaccine-related myocarditis[3][5].

4. **Severity and Recovery**: Most cases of vaccine-related myocarditis are mild and transient, with patients typically recovering quickly. This contrasts with myocarditis caused by viral infections, which can be more severe and prolonged[2][3].

### Conclusion

The claim that there is an increased risk of myocarditis in teenage boys after receiving COVID-19 vaccinations is supported by scientific evidence. However, it is crucial to note that this risk is rare, and the condition is generally mild and treatable. Additionally, the risk of myocarditis from COVID-19 infection is significantly higher than from vaccination.

### Recommendations for Further Action

– **Monitoring and Reporting**: Continued monitoring of vaccine side effects and transparent reporting are essential to maintain public trust and ensure the safety of vaccines.
– **Risk Communication**: Clear communication about the risks and benefits of vaccination is vital to address concerns and promote informed decision-making.
– **Research on Long-Term Effects**: Ongoing research into the long-term effects of mRNA vaccines will help alleviate concerns and provide a comprehensive understanding of their safety profile.

Citations

• [1] https://www.heart.org/en/news/2022/09/06/myocarditis-from-covid-19-booster-rare-but-risk-highest-among-teen-boys-young-men
• [2] https://medicine.yale.edu/news-article/qanda-what-causes-rare-instances-of-myocarditis-after-mrna-covid-19-vaccines/
• [3] https://www.chla.org/blog/advice-experts/myocarditis-and-covid-19-vaccines-latest-news-parents
• [4] https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9538893/
• [5] https://www.cidrap.umn.edu/covid-19/new-data-show-safety-pfizer-covid-vaccine-teens-ages-12-17

Claim

The spike protein in the mRNA shots has SV40 in it which is an oncogenic virus.

Veracity Rating: 0 out of 4

Facts

## Claim Evaluation: Presence of SV40 in mRNA COVID-19 Vaccines and Oncogenic Effects

The claim that mRNA COVID-19 vaccines contain SV40, an oncogenic virus, and thus pose a cancer risk, is unfounded and lacks scientific evidence. Here's a detailed analysis based on available scientific literature:

### Background on SV40

Simian Virus 40 (SV40) is a DNA virus known for its oncogenic properties, primarily studied in animal models and associated with certain human cancers, such as mesotheliomas, brain and bone tumors, and lymphomas[1][3][4]. Historically, SV40 contaminated early poliovirus vaccines, but epidemiological studies have not conclusively linked SV40 exposure from these vaccines to increased cancer risk in humans[2][4].

### Use of SV40 Promoter in Vaccines

The SV40 promoter, a DNA sequence that enhances gene expression, has been used in some vaccine development processes. However, this use is limited to the promoter sequence and does not include the viral DNA that encodes for oncogenic proteins like the T antigen[2]. The promoter is used to enhance gene expression but is not considered an ingredient in the final vaccine product, as it is largely removed during manufacturing[2].

### mRNA COVID-19 Vaccines and SV40

There is no credible scientific evidence suggesting that mRNA COVID-19 vaccines contain SV40 or any part of its oncogenic DNA. mRNA vaccines work by delivering a piece of genetic material that instructs cells to produce a specific protein (e.g., the spike protein), which then triggers an immune response. The mRNA is degraded quickly by the body, typically within days[2]. Claims about SV40 being present in mRNA vaccines are likely misinformation and have been debunked by scientific fact-checking efforts[2].

### Conclusion

In conclusion, the claim that mRNA COVID-19 vaccines contain SV40 and thus pose an oncogenic risk is not supported by scientific evidence. SV40 is an oncogenic virus, but its association with human cancers is still under investigation, and there is no evidence linking it to mRNA vaccines. The use of the SV40 promoter in vaccine development does not imply the presence of oncogenic viral components in the final vaccine product.

**Recommendation:** For accurate information on vaccine safety and efficacy, it is crucial to rely on peer-reviewed scientific literature and reputable health organizations rather than unsubstantiated claims. Transparency and open communication about vaccine development and side effects are essential for maintaining public trust in health systems.

Citations

• [1] https://journals.asm.org/doi/10.1128/JVI.01626-07
• [2] https://www.voicesforvaccines.org/jtf_topics/do-covid-vaccines-have-cancer-causing-dna/
• [3] https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2024.01.09.574829v1.full-text
• [4] https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC452549/
• [5] https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6669359/

Claim

The FDA will pull a medication off the market if there have been 50 deaths.

Veracity Rating: 0 out of 4

Facts

The claim that the FDA will pull a medication off the market if there have been 50 deaths is not supported by specific FDA guidelines or regulations. The FDA's decision to remove a drug from the market is based on a comprehensive evaluation of the drug's safety profile, including the severity and frequency of adverse events, potential health risks, and the overall benefit-risk assessment.

## FDA's Approach to Drug Safety

1. **Adverse Event Reporting**: The FDA requires sponsors of investigational drugs to report serious and unexpected adverse events that are associated with the drug. This includes events that result in death, life-threatening conditions, or significant incapacitation[1][3]. However, the decision to withdraw a drug is not solely based on the number of deaths but rather on whether the drug poses a significant health risk.

2. **Risk Assessment**: The FDA assesses the overall safety of a drug by evaluating its benefits against its risks. If a drug is found to pose a significant health risk, it may be recalled or withdrawn from the market[2]. This decision is typically made on a case-by-case basis, considering factors such as the severity of adverse events, their frequency, and whether they are unexpected[1][3].

3. **Regulatory Actions**: While the FDA does not have a specific threshold like "50 deaths" for withdrawing a drug, it may take regulatory action if a drug is deemed unsafe. This can include updating drug labels to reflect new safety information or, in more severe cases, issuing a recall[2].

## Historical Actions

Historically, the FDA has withdrawn drugs from the market due to safety concerns, but these decisions are based on a detailed analysis of the drug's safety profile rather than a fixed number of adverse events. For example, drugs have been withdrawn due to increased risks of heart attacks, strokes, or other severe adverse reactions[2].

## Conclusion

In conclusion, the claim that the FDA will pull a medication off the market if there have been 50 deaths is not accurate. The FDA's decision-making process involves a comprehensive evaluation of a drug's safety and risk profile, rather than relying on a specific number of adverse events. The agency's actions are guided by regulations and guidelines that prioritize public health and safety[1][2][3].

Citations

• [1] https://www.fda.gov/files/drugs/published/Safety-Reporting-Requirements-for-INDs-(Investigational-New-Drug-Applications)-and-BA-BE-(Bioavailability-Bioequivalence)-Studies.pdf
• [2] https://www.findlaw.com/injury/product-liability/why-drugs-get-pulled-from-the-market.html
• [3] https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4606817/
• [4] https://www.fda.gov/patients/learn-about-expanded-access-and-other-treatment-options/understanding-unapproved-use-approved-drugs-label
• [5] https://www.fda.gov/media/167535/download

Claim

Patients are experiencing chronic conditions with significant symptoms following COVID vaccination.

Veracity Rating: 3 out of 4

Facts

## Evaluating the Claim: Chronic Conditions Following COVID Vaccination

The claim that patients are experiencing chronic conditions with significant symptoms following COVID vaccination can be assessed through both patient reports and clinical studies examining long-term side effects of COVID vaccination.

### Evidence from Clinical Studies

1. **Long Post-COVID Vaccination Syndrome (LPCVS):** There is evidence of long-lasting side effects from COVID-19 vaccinations, referred to as Long Post-COVID Vaccination Syndrome (LPCVS). This condition can persist for months and includes symptoms such as fever, headache, skin rashes, tiredness, disorientation, dizziness, and emotional disorders[1]. LPCVS is a recognized complication that can severely impact quality of life and lead to disability.

2. **Post-Vaccination Syndrome (PVS):** Researchers at Yale have identified a condition known as Post-Vaccination Syndrome (PVS), which involves chronic symptoms like excessive fatigue, exercise intolerance, brain fog, insomnia, and dizziness. These symptoms often develop shortly after vaccination and can worsen over time[3]. The study suggests potential immunological patterns unique to individuals with PVS, though more research is needed for diagnosis and treatment.

3. **Vaccine-Induced Immune Thrombotic Thrombocytopenia (VITT):** Another long-term side effect associated with COVID-19 vaccines is VITT, which has been reported in several hundred patients[1]. This condition highlights the potential for severe and long-lasting adverse reactions.

### Observations on Long COVID and Vaccination

1. **Impact on Long COVID:** Studies suggest that COVID-19 vaccines may have protective and therapeutic effects on long COVID, with some patients experiencing symptom improvement after vaccination[2][4]. However, the evidence is observational and requires further validation through randomized controlled trials.

2. **Variable Responses:** A survey of long COVID patients found that 57.9% reported symptom improvement after vaccination, while 17.9% experienced deterioration[4]. This variability underscores the need for personalized approaches to vaccination and post-vaccination care.

### Conclusion

The claim that patients are experiencing chronic conditions following COVID vaccination is supported by evidence of long-term side effects such as LPCVS and PVS. While these conditions affect a small percentage of vaccine recipients, they are significant and warrant further investigation. Additionally, the impact of COVID-19 vaccines on long COVID symptoms is variable, with some patients benefiting and others experiencing worsening symptoms. Therefore, it is crucial to continue monitoring vaccine side effects and to conduct rigorous scientific studies to better understand these phenomena.

**Recommendations for Future Research:**

– **Randomized Controlled Trials:** Conducting randomized controlled trials to assess the long-term effects of COVID-19 vaccines on both vaccinated individuals and those with long COVID.
– **Immunological Studies:** Investigating the immunological patterns associated with PVS and LPCVS to develop targeted treatments.
– **Patient-Centered Care:** Implementing personalized care strategies for patients experiencing chronic post-vaccination symptoms to improve outcomes and trust in healthcare systems.

Citations

• [1] https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9833629/
• [2] https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9978692/
• [3] https://www.foxnews.com/health/scientists-find-clues-covid-vaccine-causes-chronic-health-problems
• [4] https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9146071/
• [5] https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8556595/

Claim

The PrEP Act does not expire until 2029.

Veracity Rating: 3 out of 4

Facts

The claim that the **PrEP Act** does not expire until 2029 appears to be a misunderstanding or mislabeling, as the term "PrEP Act" is not commonly used in the context of COVID-19 or medical countermeasures. However, the **PREP Act** (Public Readiness and Emergency Preparedness Act) is relevant to COVID-19 countermeasures and has been extended.

The **PREP Act** has indeed been extended through December 31, 2029, according to recent declarations by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS). This extension applies to the administration and use of COVID-19 vaccines and tests, providing liability immunity to covered persons involved in these activities, except in cases of willful misconduct[1][3].

Here are the key points regarding the PREP Act extension:

– **Extension Period**: The PREP Act Declaration now extends through December 31, 2029[1][3].
– **Scope**: It provides liability immunity for the manufacture, distribution, administration, and use of specific medical countermeasures related to COVID-19[3].
– **Reason for Extension**: The extension aims to prepare for and mitigate the credible risk that COVID-19 may again pose a public health emergency in the future[1][3].

In summary, while the claim seems to refer to the PREP Act rather than a "PrEP Act," the PREP Act has been extended through 2029, supporting the essence of the claim regarding the duration of protections for COVID-19 countermeasures. However, "PrEP" typically refers to Pre-Exposure Prophylaxis, a different medical context unrelated to the PREP Act.

Citations

• [1] https://paasnational.com/prep-act-extended-through-2029/
• [2] https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/LSB/LSB10730
• [3] https://www.michiganpharmacists.org/news/hhs-extends-prep-act-through-2029
• [4] https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2016-12-19/html/2016-30070.htm
• [5] https://www.pharmacytimes.com/view/prep-act-expiration-in-december-could-impact-health-care-access-for-rural-patients

Claim

Under the PrEP Act, companies are protected from liability for countermeasures they provide.

Veracity Rating: 0 out of 4

Facts

The claim that "Under the PrEP Act, companies are protected from liability for countermeasures they provide" appears to be a misunderstanding or misrepresentation of the actual legal framework. The correct act involved in providing liability immunity for medical countermeasures during public health emergencies is the **Public Readiness and Emergency Preparedness Act (PREP Act)**, not the PrEP Act.

The **PrEP Act** does not exist in the context of liability protections for medical countermeasures. Instead, **PrEP** typically refers to Pre-Exposure Prophylaxis, a treatment used to prevent HIV infection.

The **PREP Act**, on the other hand, provides significant liability protections for companies involved in the development, manufacture, distribution, administration, and use of medical countermeasures during public health emergencies, such as the COVID-19 pandemic. This includes vaccines, treatments, and diagnostics. The PREP Act offers immunity from liability for claims related to the administration or use of covered countermeasures, except in cases of willful misconduct[1][2][3][4].

Here are key points about the PREP Act's liability protections:

1. **Scope of Immunity**: The PREP Act provides immunity to "covered persons," which include manufacturers, distributors, and healthcare providers involved in the development and administration of covered countermeasures[1][3][4].

2. **Covered Countermeasures**: These are medical products authorized for emergency use or approved by the FDA, such as vaccines and treatments for pandemics[2][3].

3. **Limitations on Immunity**: The only exception to this immunity is for claims involving willful misconduct, which can lead to serious physical injury or death[1][3][4].

4. **Preemption of State Law**: The PREP Act preempts state laws, meaning that federal immunity provisions override state tort laws in cases involving covered countermeasures[2][5].

In summary, the claim is incorrect as it refers to the "PrEP Act," which is not relevant to liability protections for medical countermeasures. The correct framework is the PREP Act, which offers substantial liability protections for companies involved in pandemic-related medical countermeasures.

Citations

• [1] https://www.marsh.com/en/services/casualty/insights/covid-19-liability-immunity-under-prep-act.html
• [2] https://www.iadclaw.org/defensecounseljournal/the-prep-act-defending-product-liability-and-professional-liability-litigation-involving-covid-19-countermeasures/
• [3] https://www.hoganlovells.com/~/media/hogan-lovells/pdf/2020-pdfs/2020_03_23_liability_immunity_under_the_prep_act-for_covid_19_countermeasures.pdf
• [4] https://aspr.hhs.gov/legal/PREPact/Pages/PREP-Act-Question-and-Answers.aspx
• [5] https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/LSB/LSB10443

Claim

There is one monumental lawsuit involving a whistleblower against Pfizer regarding clinical trial issues.

Veracity Rating: 1 out of 4

Facts

To evaluate the claim that there is a monumental lawsuit involving a whistleblower against Pfizer regarding clinical trial issues, we need to examine recent and significant whistleblower cases involving Pfizer. Here's a detailed analysis based on available information:

## Overview of Relevant Cases

1. **Brook Jackson and Pfizer's COVID-19 Vaccine Trial**: Brook Jackson, a regional director at Ventavia Research Group, blew the whistle on data integrity issues in Pfizer's COVID-19 vaccine trial. She reported falsified data, unblinded patients, inadequately trained staff, and slow follow-up on adverse events to the FDA. Although this case highlights significant concerns, it does not directly involve a lawsuit against Pfizer by Jackson herself but rather her whistleblowing efforts to the FDA[3][5].

2. **Juan Walterspiel and the Trovan Case**: In the 1990s, Pfizer faced allegations related to the testing of its antibiotic trovafloxacin (Trovan) in Nigeria. Juan Walterspiel, a former Pfizer employee, filed a whistleblower lawsuit claiming that Pfizer's methods in the trial were improper and unsafe. However, this case is not recent and does not directly relate to ongoing monumental lawsuits[1].

3. **Biohaven Pharmaceutical Settlement**: In 2025, Pfizer agreed to pay $59.7 million to settle allegations that its subsidiary Biohaven Pharmaceutical made improper payments to healthcare professionals. This case involves a whistleblower lawsuit but is related to marketing practices rather than clinical trial issues[2].

## Conclusion

While there are significant whistleblower cases involving Pfizer, such as Brook Jackson's revelations about Pfizer's COVID-19 vaccine trial and the historical Trovan case, none of these directly constitute a monumental lawsuit currently active against Pfizer specifically regarding clinical trial issues. The claim might be referring to broader concerns about transparency and oversight in clinical trials, but as of now, there is no single monumental lawsuit fitting this exact description.

**Recommendation for Further Investigation**: For a more comprehensive assessment, it would be beneficial to monitor ongoing legal proceedings and whistleblower actions related to Pfizer, focusing on any emerging cases that might align with the claim. Additionally, examining regulatory actions and FDA responses to whistleblower complaints could provide further insight into how these issues are being addressed.

Citations

• [1] https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC1471980/
• [2] https://whistleblowersblog.org/false-claims-qui-tam-news/whistleblower-awarded-8-4-million-in-pfizer-settlement/
• [3] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RaLxhFiOBYk
• [4] https://www.beasleyallen.com/publication/jere-beasley-report-november-2024/
• [5] https://www.bmj.com/content/375/bmj.n2635

Claim

The Department of Justice (DOJ) intervened to prevent a lawsuit against Pfizer.

Veracity Rating: 0 out of 4

Facts

To evaluate the claim that the Department of Justice (DOJ) intervened to prevent a lawsuit against Pfizer, we need to consider recent legal actions involving Pfizer and the DOJ. However, the provided search results do not directly support this specific claim. Instead, they highlight other legal issues and actions involving Pfizer:

1. **AKS Violations and Copay Assistance Programs**: The DOJ has been involved in cases related to Pfizer's copay assistance programs, which have led to significant settlements. For instance, Pfizer agreed to pay $23.85 million to resolve allegations of violating the False Claims Act by using a third-party charity to cover copays for Medicare patients[1][5]. However, these cases do not indicate that the DOJ intervened to prevent a lawsuit against Pfizer; rather, they show the DOJ's active role in enforcing laws related to pharmaceutical practices.

2. **Texas Lawsuit Over COVID-19 Vaccine Efficacy**: Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton has pursued legal action against Pfizer for allegedly misrepresenting the effectiveness of its COVID-19 vaccine. Despite Pfizer facing legal challenges, there is no indication that the DOJ intervened to prevent this lawsuit. Instead, the lawsuit was initially dismissed due to Pfizer's immunity under the Public Readiness and Emergency Act, and an appeal has been filed to continue the case[2][3].

In summary, while Pfizer has faced legal challenges and settlements related to various practices, there is no evidence from the provided sources to support the claim that the DOJ intervened specifically to prevent a lawsuit against Pfizer. The DOJ has been actively involved in enforcing laws against pharmaceutical companies, including Pfizer, but the nature of these actions does not align with preventing lawsuits against Pfizer.

**Conclusion**: The claim that the DOJ intervened to prevent a lawsuit against Pfizer is not supported by the available information. The DOJ's actions have primarily been focused on enforcing legal compliance and addressing allegations of misconduct by pharmaceutical companies.

Citations

• [1] https://www.loeb.com/en/insights/publications/2021/10/aks-violation-does-not-require-corrupt-intent-in-pfizer-medicare-patient-assistance
• [2] https://www.texasattorneygeneral.gov/news/releases/attorney-general-ken-paxton-sues-pfizer-misrepresenting-covid-19-vaccine-efficacy-and-conspiring
• [3] https://www.texasattorneygeneral.gov/news/releases/attorney-general-ken-paxton-continues-lawsuit-against-pfizer-knowingly-misrepresenting-efficacy
• [4] https://www.fema.gov/sites/default/files/documents/fema_incident-annex_biological.pdf
• [5] https://oig.hhs.gov/fraud/enforcement/drug-maker-pfizer-agrees-to-pay-2385-million-to-resolve-false-claims-act-liability-for-paying-kickbacks/

Claim

Cancer rates among young people are reportedly increasing, according to medical professionals.

Veracity Rating: 4 out of 4

Facts

## Evaluating the Claim: Rising Cancer Rates Among Young People

The claim that cancer rates among young people are increasing is supported by various studies and data analyses. Here's a detailed evaluation based on reliable sources:

### Pediatric Cancer Trends

1. **Incidence Rates**: A CDC study published in the *Journal of the National Cancer Institute* found that the overall incidence of pediatric cancer in the United States increased by 0.5% annually from 2003 to 2019[1]. Another study reported an increase from 14.23 cases per 100,000 children in 1975–1979 to 18.89 in 2010–2019, with an average annual percent change of 0.73[5].

2. **Specific Cancer Types**: The incidence of certain cancers, such as leukemias, lymphomas, brain tumors, and hepatic tumors, has shown significant increases[1][5]. For example, leukemia remains one of the most common and expensive cancers among children[2].

3. **Survival Rates**: Despite rising incidence rates, survival rates for pediatric cancers have improved significantly over the past few decades, especially for acute lymphoblastic leukemia and non-Hodgkin lymphoma[3][5].

### Cancer in Adolescents and Young Adults

1. **Incidence Trends**: Cancer incidence is also rising among adolescents and young adults (AYA), with notable increases in cancers like breast, thyroid, and testicular cancers[3][4].

2. **Global Projections**: A forecast predicts a 30% increase in cancer incidence among young adults globally from 2019 to 2030[4].

3. **Healthcare Costs**: The economic burden of cancer among children and AYA is substantial, with high healthcare costs associated with diagnosis and treatment[2].

### Conclusion

The claim that cancer rates among young people are increasing is supported by evidence from various studies. Pediatric cancer incidence has risen over the past decades, with specific types showing more pronounced increases. Similarly, cancer rates among adolescents and young adults are also on the rise, with significant economic and health implications. While survival rates have improved, further research is needed to address these trends and improve outcomes.

**Sources:**
– [1] CDC study on pediatric cancer incidence trends.
– [2] Review of healthcare costs for children and AYA with cancer.
– [3] NCI fact sheet on cancer in children and adolescents.
– [4] MSK research on rising cancer rates among young adults.
– [5] Long-term trends in childhood cancer incidence and survival.

Citations

• [1] https://www.healio.com/news/hematology-oncology/20230711/cdc-study-reveals-overall-increase-in-pediatric-cancer-incidence-over-16-years
• [2] https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10905233/
• [3] https://www.cancer.gov/types/childhood-cancers/child-adolescent-cancers-fact-sheet
• [4] https://www.mskcc.org/news/why-is-cancer-rising-among-young-adults
• [5] https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11698462/

Claim

COVID vaccinations are still being given to babies despite concerns expressed.

Veracity Rating: 4 out of 4

Facts

## Claim Evaluation: COVID Vaccinations for Babies

The claim that COVID vaccinations are still being given to babies despite concerns expressed can be evaluated by examining current vaccination guidelines and government health recommendations.

### Current Guidelines and Recommendations

1. **CDC Recommendations**: The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) recommends COVID-19 vaccines for everyone aged 6 months and older. This includes children and infants, with the dosage based on age rather than size or weight[2][3]. The CDC emphasizes that COVID-19 vaccination continues to be safe for children, with benefits outweighing the risks of severe illness and complications[2].

2. **Safety Monitoring**: Ongoing safety monitoring by the FDA and CDC indicates that COVID-19 vaccines are safe for children. While adverse reactions are rare, they are typically mild and temporary, similar to those experienced after routine vaccinations[2].

3. **Addressing Concerns**: Concerns about vaccine safety and efficacy are addressed through continuous monitoring and updates to vaccination schedules. The CDC and other health organizations regularly review data to ensure that vaccines are safe and effective for all age groups, including infants[1][2].

4. **Government Health Recommendations**: Government health agencies, such as the CDC, provide guidelines that are based on scientific evidence and expert consensus. These recommendations are designed to protect public health while minimizing risks associated with vaccination[1][4].

### Conclusion

Based on the available evidence and guidelines from reputable health organizations like the CDC, COVID-19 vaccinations are indeed being administered to babies as part of broader vaccination efforts. These vaccinations are recommended because they provide protection against severe COVID-19 illness, and ongoing safety monitoring supports their use in infants and children[2][3]. While concerns about vaccines are valid and should be addressed through transparent data and open dialogue, the current scientific consensus supports the continued use of COVID-19 vaccines in all eligible age groups, including infants[1][4].

### Recommendations for Further Evaluation

– **Transparent Data Sharing**: Encourage health organizations to share detailed data on vaccine efficacy and side effects to address public concerns.
– **Continuous Monitoring**: Support ongoing safety and efficacy monitoring of COVID-19 vaccines to ensure they remain safe for all age groups.
– **Public Education**: Promote public awareness campaigns to educate parents and caregivers about the benefits and risks of COVID-19 vaccination for children.

Citations

• [1] https://paltmed.org/news-media/cdc-announces-2025-vaccine-schedule-updates
• [2] https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/covid-19/planning/children/6-things-to-know.html
• [3] https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/covid-19/downloads/covid-19-immunization-schedule-ages-6months-older.pdf
• [4] https://www.cdc.gov/covid/vaccines/faq.html
• [5] https://dph.illinois.gov/topics-services/prevention-wellness/immunization/minimum-immunization-requirements.html

Claim

There are reports of 38,000 deaths potentially associated with COVID vaccinations.

Veracity Rating: 1 out of 4

Facts

## Evaluating the Claim: 38,000 Deaths Potentially Associated with COVID Vaccinations

The claim of 38,000 deaths potentially associated with COVID vaccinations requires careful examination of official health records and reporting systems to verify its accuracy. Here's a detailed analysis based on available data and scientific evidence:

### Official Reports and Data

1. **European Medicines Agency (EMA) and EudraVigilance**: As of November 2022, the EMA reported 11,448 deaths in the EU following COVID-19 vaccinations[1]. However, EudraVigilance, a database for reporting suspected adverse reactions, listed a total of 50,648 deaths as of April 2023[1]. It's crucial to note that these figures are based on spontaneous reports and do not necessarily imply causality.

2. **Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC)**: In the U.S., the CDC has not reported such a high number of vaccine-related deaths. Serious side effects are rare, and the CDC continues to monitor vaccine safety through multiple systems[2][4].

### Scientific Evidence and Studies

1. **Vaccine Safety**: Extensive research indicates that COVID-19 vaccines are safe and effective, with serious side effects being extremely rare[4][5]. A literature review found only 55 reported cases of death following vaccination, with a causal relationship demonstrated in 14 cases[5].

2. **Excess Deaths**: Studies have shown that excess deaths during the pandemic were primarily due to COVID-19 itself, not vaccination[2]. Vaccination has significantly reduced COVID-19-related mortality[3].

### Conclusion

The claim of 38,000 deaths potentially associated with COVID vaccinations lacks concrete evidence from reputable sources. While there have been reports of deaths following vaccination, these are rare and often do not establish a causal link to the vaccine. Official health agencies and scientific studies emphasize the safety and efficacy of COVID-19 vaccines in preventing deaths from COVID-19[2][3][5].

To verify the accuracy of such claims, it is essential to rely on data from official health reporting systems and peer-reviewed scientific research, ensuring that any conclusions drawn are based on evidence rather than speculation or unverified reports.

### Recommendations for Further Investigation

– **Causal Analysis**: Investigate each reported death to determine if there is a causal relationship with the vaccine.
– **Comparative Studies**: Conduct studies comparing mortality rates among vaccinated and unvaccinated populations to assess vaccine safety further.
– **Transparency in Reporting**: Ensure that all adverse event reports are transparently documented and analyzed to maintain public trust in vaccine safety monitoring systems.

Citations

• [1] https://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/E-9-2023-001201_EN.html
• [2] https://www.factcheck.org/2023/04/scicheck-no-evidence-excess-deaths-linked-to-vaccines-contrary-to-claims-online/
• [3] https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/73/wr/mm7314a5.htm
• [4] https://www.factcheck.org/2022/10/scicheck-posts-distort-misleading-analysis-of-covid-19-vaccine-safety-data/
• [5] https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8875435/

Claim

The COVID vaccines do not have the same liability protections as other products.

Veracity Rating: 3 out of 4

Facts

The claim that **COVID vaccines do not have the same liability protections as other products** can be evaluated by examining the legal frameworks governing vaccine liability in the United States. COVID-19 vaccines are treated differently from other vaccines due to their classification as "countermeasures" under the Public Readiness and Emergency Preparedness Act (PREP Act), which provides broad liability protections to manufacturers and administrators during a public health emergency[5].

## Key Points Regarding Liability Protections for COVID-19 Vaccines

1. **PREP Act Protections**: The PREP Act offers substantial liability protections to "covered persons" involved in the development, distribution, and administration of COVID-19 vaccines. These protections shield them from civil liability for personal injury or property damage claims, except in cases of willful misconduct[5].

2. **Countermeasures Injury Compensation Program (CICP)**: Claims related to COVID-19 vaccine injuries are handled through the CICP, which is a no-fault program providing compensation for serious injuries or deaths resulting from covered countermeasures. However, the CICP has been criticized for its complexity and low payout rates[2][3].

3. **Comparison with Other Vaccines**: Other vaccines, such as those covered by the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program (VICP), also have liability protections, but these are not as broad as those under the PREP Act. The VICP requires petitioners to exhaust their remedies through the program before pursuing legal action against manufacturers or administrators[1][2].

4. **Legislative Efforts to Change Liability Protections**: There have been legislative efforts, such as the LIABLE Act introduced by Rep. Chip Roy, aimed at removing federal liability protections for COVID-19 vaccine manufacturers to allow injured individuals to pursue legal action more easily[3].

## Conclusion

The claim that COVID vaccines do not have the same liability protections as other products is valid in the context that COVID-19 vaccines are protected under the PREP Act, which offers broader and more comprehensive liability shields compared to the VICP, which covers other vaccines. However, these protections are specific to the emergency nature of the pandemic and are designed to ensure the rapid deployment of vaccines during a public health crisis.

## Evidence and Citations

– **PREP Act Protections**: The PREP Act provides broad liability protections for COVID-19 vaccines, which are not typical for all pharmaceutical products[5].
– **CICP vs. VICP**: COVID-19 vaccines are covered by the CICP, while other vaccines are covered by the VICP, each with different liability frameworks[1][2].
– **Legislative Efforts**: Bills like the LIABLE Act aim to change these liability protections, highlighting ongoing debates about the fairness and adequacy of current legal frameworks[3].

Citations

• [1] https://www.hrsa.gov/vaccine-compensation/faq
• [2] https://www.rand.org/pubs/presentations/PTA1138-2.html
• [3] http://roy.house.gov/media/press-releases/rep-roy-fights-remove-federal-liability-protections-covid-19-vaccines
• [4] https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8807205/
• [5] https://web.mhanet.com/media-library/covid-19-vaccine-liability-protections/

Claim

The flu shot has never been shown to decrease hospitalization or death in people that get the flu shot.

Veracity Rating: 0 out of 4

Facts

## Evaluation of the Claim: "The flu shot has never been shown to decrease hospitalization or death in people that get the flu shot."

The claim that the flu shot has never been shown to decrease hospitalization or death in people who receive it contradicts established scientific evidence. Multiple studies and meta-analyses have consistently demonstrated that influenza vaccination reduces the risk of hospitalization and death.

### Evidence Supporting Flu Vaccine Efficacy

1. **Reduction in Hospitalization Risk**: A meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) found that receiving the flu vaccine reduces the odds of hospitalization by 29% compared to those who do not receive the vaccine[1]. Another study showed that flu vaccination can reduce the risk of hospitalization for pneumonia or influenza by 27%[4]. During the 2018-2019 flu season, flu vaccination reduced flu-related hospitalization by 41%[5].

2. **Reduction in Mortality Risk**: The same meta-analysis indicated that the flu vaccine reduces the risk of overall death by 18%[1]. Observational studies among older adults have also shown that influenza vaccination is associated with a lower risk of in-hospital death, particularly among those with respiratory diseases[3]. A study in the elderly population found that flu vaccination prevented all-cause mortality by 38%[4].

3. **Specific Populations**: In older adults with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) or pneumonia, influenza vaccination has been linked to a lower risk of in-hospital death[3]. Among children, flu vaccination has been shown to significantly reduce the risk of severe life-threatening influenza and flu-related hospitalizations[5].

### Challenges in Assessing Vaccine Effectiveness

While there is strong evidence supporting the benefits of flu vaccination, challenges exist in evaluating vaccine effectiveness, including:

– **Variability in Influenza Seasons**: The effectiveness of the flu vaccine can vary from year to year based on how well the vaccine strains match circulating viruses[2].
– **Confounding Variables**: Studies, especially observational ones, may face confounding variables, such as the "healthy vaccinee bias," where those at higher risk for death are less likely to receive the vaccine[2].
– **Need for Long-Term Surveillance**: Proper evaluation of vaccine programs requires long-term surveillance to account for fluctuations in disease incidence over time[2].

### Conclusion

The claim that the flu shot has never been shown to decrease hospitalization or death is not supported by scientific evidence. Multiple studies demonstrate that flu vaccination reduces the risk of hospitalization and death, particularly among vulnerable populations like older adults and those with chronic health conditions. While challenges exist in assessing vaccine effectiveness, the overall consensus in the medical literature supports the efficacy of flu vaccines in preventing severe outcomes.

Citations

• [1] https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10362208/
• [2] https://apps.who.int/iris/bitstream/handle/10665/255203/9789241512121-eng.pdf
• [3] https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9746403/
• [4] https://www.aetna.com/cpb/medical/data/1_99/0035.html
• [5] https://www.cdc.gov/flu-vaccines-work/benefits/index.html

Claim

The PrEP Act was enacted in 1986 under President Reagan due to lawsuits crippling vaccine manufacturers.

Veracity Rating: 0 out of 4

Facts

The claim that the **PrEP Act** was enacted in 1986 under President Reagan due to lawsuits crippling vaccine manufacturers is **incorrect**. Here's why:

1. **PrEP Act Does Not Exist in This Context**: The term "PrEP Act" is not associated with any legislation related to vaccine manufacturers or lawsuits in 1986. PrEP (Pre-Exposure Prophylaxis) is a term commonly used in the context of HIV prevention, not vaccine legislation.

2. **Public Readiness and Emergency Preparedness Act (PREPA)**: The **PREPA** was enacted in 2005, not in 1986. It provides liability protections for pharmaceutical manufacturers during public health emergencies, such as pandemics[2][4].

3. **National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act (NCVIA)**: This act was indeed enacted in 1986 under President Reagan. It established the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program to stabilize the vaccine market by providing a no-fault system for compensating vaccine-related injuries, thereby reducing financial liability for vaccine manufacturers[1][3]. The NCVIA was passed due to concerns about the stability of the vaccine supply following an increase in lawsuits related to vaccine injuries, particularly those involving the DPT vaccine[3].

4. **Historical Context**: The NCVIA was a response to the rising number of lawsuits against vaccine manufacturers in the early 1980s, which threatened the availability of vaccines. By creating a compensation program, the act aimed to ensure a stable supply of vaccines[3].

In summary, the claim about the "PrEP Act" being enacted in 1986 is incorrect. The relevant legislation from that period is the **National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act (NCVIA)** of 1986, which addressed concerns about vaccine supply and manufacturer liability.

Citations

• [1] https://www.congress.gov/bill/99th-congress/house-bill/5546
• [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_Readiness_and_Emergency_Preparedness_Act
• [3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Childhood_Vaccine_Injury_Act
• [4] https://www.americanhealthlaw.org/getmedia/1aa85119-96dc-44dd-b178-21b4fde0b3b4/Expansion-of-the-PREP-Act-Over-the-Past-Year_Seyfarth-Shaw.PDF
• [5] https://www.reaganlibrary.gov/archives/speech/statement-signing-state-comprehensive-mental-health-plan-bill

Claim

Medical professionals report that there is difficulty in obtaining up-to-date cancer statistics.

Veracity Rating: 4 out of 4

Facts

The claim that medical professionals face difficulties in obtaining up-to-date cancer statistics can be evaluated through the lens of public health data repositories and the challenges associated with cancer registry data. Here's a detailed analysis based on reliable sources:

## Challenges in Cancer Registry Data

1. **Data Quality and Completeness**: Cancer registry data can be affected by issues such as duplicate reports, reporting delays, and misclassification of race/ethnicity, which can impact the accuracy and completeness of the data[1]. These challenges can lead to difficulties in obtaining reliable and up-to-date statistics.

2. **Timeliness**: The timeliness of cancer data is crucial for surveillance and research. However, delays in reporting can hinder the availability of current statistics[1]. This is particularly relevant for surveillance purposes where real-time data are essential.

3. **Data Accessibility and Usability**: The usability of cancer data can be limited by factors such as the complexity of accessing and analyzing the data, uncertainty about data collection methods, and the lack of specific data elements needed for detailed analysis[2]. These limitations can make it difficult for medical professionals to access and utilize the data effectively.

4. **Proactive Evaluation and Monitoring**: While there are guidelines for proactive evaluation and routine monitoring of cancer data, state resources and capacity can limit the frequency and depth of these evaluations[3]. This might affect the availability of up-to-date statistics, especially at more granular geographic levels.

## Public Health Data Repositories

1. **SEER and NPCR Registries**: The Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) program and the National Program of Cancer Registries (NPCR) provide comprehensive cancer data in the U.S.[4]. However, despite these resources, challenges in data quality, completeness, and accessibility persist.

2. **Data Modernization Efforts**: The CDC is involved in data modernization activities, including the potential use of Electronic Health Record (EHR) data for more timely cancer surveillance[3]. This could improve the availability of up-to-date statistics in the future.

## Conclusion

The claim that medical professionals face difficulties in obtaining up-to-date cancer statistics is supported by the challenges associated with data quality, timeliness, accessibility, and usability. While there are robust public health data repositories like SEER and NPCR, limitations in data collection and reporting processes can hinder the availability of current statistics. Efforts to improve data quality and modernize data collection methods are ongoing, which may address these challenges over time.

### Evidence Summary:
– **Data Quality Issues**: Cancer registry data are affected by multiple factors, including duplicate reports and reporting delays[1].
– **Timeliness and Accessibility**: Delays and complexities in accessing data can limit the availability of up-to-date statistics[1][2].
– **Public Health Efforts**: Ongoing efforts to improve data quality and accessibility through programs like SEER and NPCR, as well as data modernization initiatives[3][4].

Citations

• [1] https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC1446235/
• [2] https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/73/su/su7303a1.htm
• [3] https://www.cdc.gov/cancer-environment/php/guidelines/proactive-evaluation.html
• [4] https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC5846186/
• [5] https://ourworldindata.org/cancer