WorldNetDaily just can’t stop promoting misinformation and false claims about COVID vaccines. A Jan. 17 article republished from the right-wing Liberty Daily carried the headline “New cancers projected as highest ever, yet ZERO mention of COVID jabs as cause” — but the article offered no proof there’s a link between the two. Indeed, there’s no evidence of such a link.
An anonymously written Jan. 30 article promoted another dubious claim:
COVID-shot skeptic Steve Kirsch has released a Substack report that charges there’s no doubt that the COVID shots “CAUSE dementia.”
The shots, by Pfizer and others, were developed at a breathtaking pace with government funding when the deadly COVID virus came out of a Chinese research lab that was working to make viruses worse.
They were inflicted on the American public without ordinary trials or tests, often by corporate or government mandate, and the side effects, including tens of thousands of deaths, have been mounting since.
He explained that he reviewed data on the government’s National Vaccine Information Center and confirmed hundreds of cases of the virus “where [a] symptom is dementia.”
He explained, “There is [no way] that you can have a 1,000X increase in event reports if the COVID vaccine isn’t causing this. The CDC simply ‘forgot’ to warn people about it.”
The problem here is that Kirsch’s track record precedes him; he’s notorious for spreading misinformation about COVID vaccines, in part by misusing government data, so he’s not exactly a credible person. WND tell its readers that, of course — it loves COVID conspiracy theories, after all, and it doesn’t want to raise questions about such a productive source.
Bob Unruh served up more dubious medical advice in a Feb. 2 article:
The mRNA shots that were made and sold in a rush when COVID-19 emerged from a Chinese research lab and circled the globe, killing millions, have since been confirmed to have created a long list of problems.
“Suddenly died,” for example, now is a routine phrase linked to reports on the deaths of many young people. Heart ailments and worse have been linked to the treatments, which actually weren’t vaccines at all but more or less DNA treatments.
Amid evidence of problems, there began a move to take down the demands that children take the shots, and in some locations authorities have backed away even further.
Now there’s a new precedent being sought: a global moratorium on those injections.
According to a report from Liberty Counsel, a legal team long involved in the fight for the rights of people not to be forced to take such shots, “For the first time in a published and peer-reviewed paper, scientists are calling for a ‘global moratorium on modified mRNA products’ after surveying data from Pfizer’s and Moderna’s COVID-19 ‘vaccine” trials.'”
[…]Stunningly, the study provided a “generous estimate” that two lives were saved from COVID for every 100,000 shots.
But at the same time, they estimated “a risk of 27 deaths” from those same 100,000 doses.
But as FactCheck.org detailed, the so-called study was written by credibility-challenged anti-vaxxers like Kirsch and Peter McCullough (another favorite WND misinformer), adding: “Just because a paper is published does not make it correct. While peer review is useful in weeding out bad science, it’s not foolproof, and the rigor and processes vary by journal.” FactCheck went on to summarize the bad science in the study:
To claim the vaccines cause “serious harms to humans,” for example, the review draws on a problematic reanalysis of the adverse events reported in the original trials that was published in the journal Vaccine in 2022. Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis and Dr. Joseph Ladapo, the state’s surgeon general, have cited the paper to argue that the vaccines are too risky. But as we’ve written — and is detailed in a commentary article published in the same journal — the paper has multiple methodological flaws, including how it counted the adverse events.
The review also uncritically cites an unpublished analysis by former physics professor Denis Rancourt that alleged that some 17 million people died from the COVID-19 vaccines. We recently explained that the report erroneously ignored deaths from COVID-19 and that such estimates are implausible. And the review recycles unsupported claims about “high levels of DNA contamination” in the mRNA vaccines and the possibility that such DNA fragments “will integrate into the human genome” and cause cancer. As we’ve detailed, trace amounts of residual DNA are expected in vaccines, but there is no evidence the DNA can alter a person’s DNA or cause cancer.
Finally, the review highlighted findings from a Cleveland Clinic observational study that it called the “best evidence for the failure of the COVID-19 mRNA vaccine’s ability to confer protection against COVID-19.” The study, which identified a correlation between more COVID-19 vaccine doses and a higher rate of testing positive for a coronavirus infection, has frequently been cited by those opposed to vaccination. But as we’ve explained, the finding runs counter to that of many other studies, which have generally found increased protection with more doses. And the paper did not demonstrate that more doses actually cause an increased risk of infection. In fact, many experts suspect that the association is likely the result of other differences between people who received a different number of doses. Moreover, the primary purpose of vaccination is to protect against severe disease — and there is abundant evidence that the COVID-19 vaccines have been very successful on that front.
Again, Unruh doesn’t want you to know any of this because the truth conflicts with its agenda.
Unruh promoted Kirsch and his dubious study again in a Feb. 6 article:
For months while the COVID-19 virus, which came out of a Chinese lab experimenting on making those health threats more dangerous, circled the globe and killed millions, science journals adopted a uniform talking point: Get the shots!
That, according to a new report, now has changed, with the publication in the Springer Nature medical journal Cureus, a sibling of Nature and Scientific American, a peer-reviewed paper by mRNA shot critics.
It reveals that the results from the shots are not all good.
In fact, they can be bad.
Longtime COVID shot skeptic Steve Kirsch posted online: “People have said I’m a misinformation spreader because since May 2021, I have been publicly saying the COVID vaccines are not safe. Now the medical peer-reviewed literature shows I was right.”
A report in Just the News points out that mainstream science and medical journals for months, even years, suppressed doubts and concerns about the shots, for which manufacturers were paid billions.
In fact, the federal government, led by COVID shot cheerleader Anthony Fauci, worked to suppress valid evidence undermining the promotion of those shots.
The new article, in fact, lends support for the idea of a global moratorium on those shots.
Note that Unruh tried to boost the credibility of the study by hyping the credibility of the journal, despite its somewhat dubious reputation. He later tried to boost Kirsch’s credibility with a similar ploy:
Kirsch’s influence comes from his founding of multiple companies and his development of the optical mouse.
Even his online detractors concede he’s been a prominent philanthropic supporter of medical research.
Which, of course, doesn’t make his anti-vaxxer conspiracy-mongering any less discredited. Unruh won’t tell you that either.