Griffin Health Photo
Editor’s note: The Valley Independent Sentinel is participating today in The Last Best Shot, an effort led by The Boston Globe and The New England Newspaper and Press Association to combat COVID-19 vaccination disinformation in our region.
On Aug. 16, The Valley Indy published a story called “New Push To Get Young People Vaccinated In The Valley.” It was posted to The Valley Indy Facebook page. The post had more than 150 comments.
Some of the posts raised questions or made statements about the COVID-19 vaccine. Here’s a fact check on some of the statements made in the thread.
(FYI I’m vaccinated and I’m personally comfortable with masks in schools.)
The Valley Indy strongly encourages readers to consult with their doctors when making medical decisions.
“A whistleblower reported 45,000 deaths within three days of the shot.”
Fact: This statement is widespread on social media but is not true, according to research from PolitiFact, a fact-checking organization owned by Poynter Institute, a nonprofit school for journalists in Florida.
The claim originates from a lawsuit involving America’s Frontline Doctors, a group known for spreading COVID-19 misinformation.
The lawsuit attributes the claim to an unidentified woman who apparently used the government’s Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS), which contains reports that can be submitted by anyone and are not verified, according to PolitiFact.
But there’s no explanation provided beyond the headline-grabbing statement.
“The number tracks back to a woman who did not reveal her method for calculating the figure and who has not been publicly identified. She based her calculations on reports of deaths in VAERS, according to a lawsuit. But the number does not align with data contained in VAERS — and even the reports of death entered into that system do not prove that those people died as a result of receiving a vaccine. VAERS is an open system that contains reports that can be submitted by anyone and are not verified.”
“(The State Of Connecticut) changed the criteria for a town being in the red since it was first being tracked.”
Fact: The State of Connecticut started publishing COVID-19 ‘red zone’ maps in October 2020. The map is updated every Thursday, and tracks two-week per capita rates in every Connecticut municipality. The state has not changed the criteria that makes a town ‘red’ on the map since introducing the map last year.
The map’s caption reads: “This map shows the average daily rate of new cases of COVID-19 by town during the past two weeks. Only cases among persons living in community settings are included in this map; the map does not include cases among people who reside in nursing homes, assisted living, or correctional facilities.”
However, the state has published several other COVID-19 data maps, such as cumulative cases per town — that is, positive COVID-19 tests per town since March 2020. That map also used a separate, color-coded map key — the higher the number of cases, the darker the color.
This map is not the same as the map posted below. It contains different data.
This map is not the same map as the map posted above. It contains different data.
On The Valley Indy Facebook thread, two readers appeared to confuse the different data in the two different maps.
“My sister’s boyfriend developed Bell’s palsy after receiving the shot . . .”
Fact: A just-released study found an increased risk of Bell’s Palsy for a vaccine made by Sinovac Biotech Ltd.
The Sinovac vaccine is not available in the U.S.
“The risk of Bell’s Palsy, a type of facial paralysis, is higher after Sinovac Biotech Ltd’s (SVA.O) COVID-19 vaccine CoronaVac, but should not be a deterrent to vaccination, according to a study published in The Lancet Infectious Diseases journal.”
“The beneficial and protective effects of the inactivated COVID-19 vaccine far outweigh the risk of this generally self-limiting adverse event,” the study mentioned.
“The study involved 28 clinically confirmed cases of Bell’s Palsy after Sinovac’s CoronaVac shot reported among nearly 452,000 individuals who received first dose of the vaccine, and 16 cases after Pfizer/BioNtech’s vaccine detected from more than 537,000 individuals.”
“Our findings suggest an overall increased risk of Bell’s palsy after CoronaVac vaccination,” according to the study.
“From a clinical, patient-oriented perspective, none of the studies published so far provide definitive evidence to inform the choice of a specific vaccine in individuals worldwide with a history of Bell’s palsy.”
“However, the data published by Wan and colleagues do offer valuable information for a rational and informed choice of COVID-19 vaccines for patients in Hong Kong, and for those in countries where both BNT162b2 and CoronaVac are available.”
“While waiting for conclusive evidence on vaccine-associated facial paralysis, one certainty remains: the benefit of getting vaccinated outweighs any possible risk.”
The American Academy of Otolaryngology is aware of the statements circulating connecting Bell’s Palsy to COVID-19 vaccinations, and issued this statement in April:
“In summary, BP can be devastating. The CDC will continue surveillance for cases of BP as the vaccine is deployed into larger populations. However, the AAO-HNS feels these rare events should not dissuade healthcare personnel or patients from receiving these critical vaccines or strongly preferencing one vaccine over another. We certainly respect everyone’s right of choice in their medical treatment. As data accrues, we will hope to better ascertain associations—if any—between COVID-19 vaccinations and BP.”
Newsweek reported on a case involving a man who developed Bell’s Palsy after getting the Pfizer shots, but doctors could not say the vaccine caused the condition. The man had underlying health issues.
“ . . . and metal sticks to his body like a magnet.”
Fact: From Joe Schwarcz, a chemist who serves as McGill University’s director of the office of science and society:
“ . . . the idea that the COVID vaccines contain some material that when injected causes this remarkable magnetizing effect is pure gobbledygook. These vaccines contain no paramagnetic material, and even if they did, there would not be enough in the tiny amount of material injected to create a detectable magnetic field. We already have a significant amount of iron in our body, roughly 3.5 grams, and we don’t feel any attraction when we encounter even an extremely powerful magnet. Our liver, loaded with iron, isn’t ripped out of our body when we get an MRI scan, is it? And people who get iron injections or take iron supplements, which do contain ferrous or ferric ions that are paramagnetic, do not become magnetized.”
“All three coronavirus vaccines approved for emergency use in the United States are free from metals. And even if they did have metallic ingredients, public health officials say the vaccines wouldn’t cause a magnetic reaction.”
“COVID-19 vaccines do not contain microchips or metallic ingredients that would cause a magnet to stick to your body.”
“There is no scientific evidence that mandating masks in school will stop this virus.”
Fact: Mandated masks requirements cannot stop COVID-19. However, numerous studies have emerged showing properly-worn masks are effective at reducing the transmission of COVID-19 — especially when used with other prevention measures.
The Poynter Institute published a piece Aug. 17 looking at the masks in school controversy.
A Buffalo TV station this week posted links to 49 face mask studies, and notes not all have been peer reviewed.
A report issued June 30 from Duke University looking at schools in North Carolina provided additional evidence that wearing masks reduces transmission of the virus.
The CDC’s website has an abundance of text pointing to studies showing masks are an effective way to reduce transmission.
Click here for information from Yale-New Haven Hospital.
The American Academy of Pediatrics “strongly endorses the use of safe and effective infection control procedures to protect children and adolescents. During the COVID-19 pandemic, effective infection prevention and control requires the correct and consistent use of a well-fitting face mask.”
From the AAP:
“Consistent use of a face mask is one part of a comprehensive strategy (in addition to vaccination, physical distancing, and hand washing) to mitigate risk and help reduce the spread of COVID-19, particularly in those who are not fully vaccinated or not eligible to receive a COVID-19 vaccine.”
The pediatricians support masks in schools:
“In updated guidance for the 2021-22 school year, the American Academy of Pediatrics strongly recommends in-person learning and urges all who are eligible to be vaccinated to protect against COVID-19.”
“In addition to vaccinations, the AAP recommends a layered approach to make school safe for all students, teachers and staff in the guidance here. That includes a recommendation that everyone older than age 2 wear masks, regardless of vaccination status. The AAP also amplifies the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s recommendations for building ventilation, testing, quarantining, cleaning and disinfection in the updated guidance.”
“We need to prioritize getting children back into schools alongside their friends and their teachers — and we all play a role in making sure it happens safely,” said Sonja O’Leary, MD, FAAP, chair of the AAP Council on School Health. “The pandemic has taken a heartbreaking toll on children, and it’s not just their education that has suffered but their mental, emotional and physical health. Combining layers of protection that include vaccinations, masking and clean hands hygiene will make in-person learning safe and possible for everyone.”
Jeffrey H. Anderson, the director of the Bureau of Justice Statistics during the Trump administration, published a story Aug. 11 in City Journal pointing out that most mask studies, particularly those cited by the CDC, did not pass through rigorous randomized controlled trials. This calls their effectiveness into question, Anderson writes.
“It’s striking how much the CDC, in marshalling evidence to justify its revised mask guidance, studiously avoids mentioning randomized controlled trials. RCTs are uniformly regarded as the gold standard in medical research, yet the CDC basically ignores them apart from disparaging certain ones that particularly contradict the agency’s position,” Anderson writes in a piece that received national exposure from The Washington Times.
“In a “Science Brief” highlighting studies that “demonstrate that mask wearing reduces new infections” and serving as the main public justification for its mask guidance, the CDC provides a helpful matrix of 15 studies—none RCTs,” Anderson writes.
In March, PolitiFact, a publication of The Poynter Institute in Florida, looked into the randomized controlled trial debate and pointed out conducting such studies in the middle of a pandemic raises ethical questions.
“To conduct a randomized controlled trial on the efficacy of masks, researchers would have to randomly assign some members of a community not to wear a face mask for a long period of time to see whether they got sick at higher rates than a control group,” Politifact reported. “Practically, there is no way that scientists could run a study like this during a global pandemic without endangering trial participants and other people they encountered out in the world.”
The organization reached out to four public health experts to learn more about the small number of randomized controlled trials:
“Randomized controlled trials are pretty much the gold standard, but they’re not always ethical,” said Mary Kathryn Grabowski, an assistant professor in epidemiology at Johns Hopkins University. “We can’t just send people out without masks in the middle of a pandemic in the same way we can’t randomize people to not use a parachute when they jump out of a plane.”
“The vaccines have not been approved.”
Fact: The vaccines currently being used in the United States have been green lit through an emergency use authorization. They are designed to protect the public from serious illness and hospitalization.
Update: the FDA approved the Pfizer vaccine Aug. 23.
There is a scientific and bureaucratic process underway toward “full approval.”
“Pfizer submitted for full approval on May 7, and Moderna on June 1,” according to ABC News.
Johnson & Johnson is expected to apply for “full approval” later this year.
The FDA is under increasing pressure to grant full approvals, according to an Aug. 2 story published in The Washington Post.
“Emergency use authorization, while streamlining the regulatory process so the vaccine is more quickly available to the public, still follows a rigorous process the FDA requires to ensure vaccine safety and effectiveness. The difference is that more time has passed and more data is available for review when a company applies for full approval,” according to Jennifer Girotto, an associate clinical professor of pharmacy practice at the University of Connecticut.
“It is important to note that the number of people who participated in the initial COVID-19 safety studies was similar to that in the safety studies of other commonly used vaccines, including vaccines for tetanus, diphtheria, whooping cough and meningitis. Over 43,000 adults participated in the early phases of the Pfizer BioNTech clinical trial, over 30,400 in Moderna’s and over 44,000 in Johnson and Johnson’s. Half the participants in each study were given a vaccine, while the other half were given a placebo.”
