Swatting Away Bogus mRNA Vaccine Claims 

We have written this several times, but apparently it needs repeating: It has not been shown that COVID-19 mRNA vaccines cause or accelerate cancer. 

But bogus claims about the vaccines keep surfacing on social media, like a game of whack-a-mole. 

As Staff Writer Catalina Jaramillo writes, opponents of the vaccines wrongly claim that a new review article “has found that COVID-19 mRNA vaccines could aid cancer development.” The review conclusions are heavily based on the misinterpretation of a study on mRNA cancer vaccines in mice. 

Messenger RNA, or mRNA, vaccines work by instructing a small number of a person’s cells to make specific proteins, which then prompt the body to mount an immune response. N1-methylpseudouridine is a modification naturally found in some RNA molecules that’s attached to mRNA in vaccines to allow it to deliver its message to the cell without being destroyed by an innate immune response. 

Jordan L. Meier, senior investigator at the National Cancer Institute who has studied the role of N1-methylpseudouridine in COVID-19 vaccines, told Catalina that the authors of the review paper misrepresent what N1-methylpseudouridine, which is abbreviated as m1Ψ, does.

The review “incorrectly” confuses “m1Y’s ability to hide from the immune system with an ability to weaken or disable it,” he said in an email.

To explain it, Meier compared the mRNA modification to a spy using a disguise in order to pass security guards. 

“The authors are essentially suggesting that the disguise somehow makes the guards less able to do their jobs going forward,” he wrote. “In reality, once the disguised person is through, the guards remain just as vigilant and capable as before.”

For more, read Catalina’s article, “Still No Evidence COVID-19 Vaccination Increases Cancer Risk, Despite Posts.”

Reader: There is a commercial on TV in Minnesota. It says that Minnesota has the most controversial abortion law. It says that abortions can be performed up to the time of birth.

FactCheck.org Director Eugene Kiely: Minnesota is one of nine states and the District of Columbia that do not restrict abortion based on the length of the pregnancy, according to the Guttmacher Institute, a research and policy organization that supports abortion rights. That's because the state Supreme Court in 1995 ruled that the state constitution guarantees a woman's right to terminate a pregnancy. 

"The [state] Court explicitly found that the Minnesota Constitution offers broader protection than the United States Constitution of a person’s fundamental right to make reproductive healthcare choices without state interference," the state Attorney General's Office says on its website. "This remains the case despite the U.S. Supreme Court's June 2022 decision in Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization. Minnesotans' rights continue to be protected."

In 2023, the state AG's office explains, the state Legislature codified the court ruling in a state law known as the Protect Reproductive Options Act or PRO Act. 

Late-term abortions, however, are rare. 

As we have written, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention data show that nearly all abortions occur early in pregnancy, in the first trimester. In Minnesota, there were 10,162 abortions in 2020 in which the age of gestation was known. Of those, 200, or 2%, were performed at or after 21 weeks. Most -- 79% -- were performed in the first nine weeks.  

For more about late-term abortions, see our article "The Political Disagreement Over a Health Exception for Later Abortions."

Wrapping Up

Here's what else we've got for you this week:

• "Biden’s Dubious Civil Rights Arrest Anecdote": In his interview with SiriusXM radio’s Howard Stern, President Joe Biden revived a dubious anecdote about having been arrested as a teenager while standing in solidarity on the porch of a Black family amid a desegregation protest.
• "Posts Misrepresent Raising of Palestinian Flags at Harvard": Protesters against the war in Gaza raised three Palestinian flags on the Harvard University campus on April 27. Social media posts misleadingly claimed the university “replaced the American flag with the Palestinian flag.” The Palestinian flags were removed by Harvard staff shortly after they were raised by the protesters.
• "Posts Misrepresent Immigrants’ Eligibility for Social Security Numbers, Benefits": Immigrants who are lawfully living or authorized to work in the U.S. are eligible for a Social Security number and, in some cases, Social Security benefits. But viral posts make the false claim that “illegal immigrants” can receive Social Security numbers and retirement benefits, and they confuse two programs managed by the Social Security Administration.

• "El giro partidista de Trump sobre TikTok": El expresidente Donald Trump dijo que quiere que los jóvenes sepan que “el corrupto Joe Biden es responsable de prohibir TikTok”. Sin embargo, la prohibición de TikTok cuenta con un amplio apoyo bipartidista en el Congreso. Trump mismo intentó prohibir TikTok como presidente a través de una orden ejecutiva, pero fue bloqueada por los tribunales.
• "Publicaciones tergiversan los criterios de elegibilidad de los inmigrantes para obtener números de Seguro Social y beneficios": Los inmigrantes que residen legalmente o están autorizados para trabajar en EE. UU. son elegibles para obtener un número de Seguridad Social y, en algunos casos, beneficios de Seguridad Social. Sin embargo, publicaciones virales hacen la afirmación falsa de que los “inmigrantes ilegales” pueden recibir números de Seguridad Social y beneficios de jubilación, y confunden dos programas gestionados por la Administración de Seguridad Social.