COVID-19 Vaccine Claim Lost in Translation

For more than a year, COVID-19 vaccination skeptics in the U.S. have been misrepresenting the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System -- a U.S. vaccine safety system that encourages reports of any potential side effects, whether they’re likely to be caused by the vaccine or not. 

That was bad enough, but now those same U.S. skeptics are getting the facts wrong about Germany's vaccine safety reporting system.

It didn't help that the German Federal Ministry of Health is partly to blame for the confusion. 

Former New York Times reporter Alex Berenson, who has wrongly used VAERS data in the past, said in a July 20 Substack post: “This morning, the German Federal Ministry of Health posted a stunning tweet, admitting that 1 out of every 5,000 Covid jabs cause ‘serious side effects.'”

As Managing Editor Lori Robertson explains, the ministry’s July 20 tweet -- which said “One in 5000 people is affected by a serious side effect after a COVID19 vaccination" -- was incorrect. The ministry later corrected it with an equally unclear tweet: "Correction: According to @PEI_Germany, the reporting rate for serious reactions is 0.2 reports per 1,000 vaccine doses.” 

The ministry's correction still didn't make clear what this reporting rate meant.

But Lori got to the bottom of it. She contacted the source of the ministry's reporting rate figure: The Paul-Ehrlich-Institut, which is the Federal Institute for Vaccines and Biomedicines and is responsible for overseeing the safety of medicines, much like the U.S. Food and Drug Administration. 

The Paul-Ehrlich-Institut told Lori that “there are a couple of persisting misunderstandings that continue to lead to misinterpretations” of these safety reports.

Sound familiar? 

As with VAERS, the Paul-Ehrlich-Institut encourages all reports of possible side effects even if the link to vaccination is questionable. The reports don’t mean that the symptom was necessarily caused by the vaccine. 

For more, read Lori's story, "Misrepresentation of Germany’s Data on Unverified COVID-19 Vaccine Side Effects."

Reader: What is the true cost and damage to the environment from making lithium car batteries for electric cars?  

FactCheck.org Director Eugene Kiely: The nonpartisan Congressional Research Service, the research arm of Congress, did a report in June 2020 on the environmental effects of Battery Electric Vehicles (BEVs), reviewing the literature on the environmental effects of BEVs during their entire life cycle, commonly referred to as “life cycle assessments” (LCA) or "cradle-to-grave" assessments. 

Some highlights from the CRS report:

Broadly speaking, a review of the literature shows that in most cases BEVs have lower life cycle greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions than ICEVs (internal combustion engine vehicles). In general, GHG emissions associated with the raw materials acquisition and processing and the vehicle production stages of BEVs are higher than for ICEVs, but this is typically more than offset by lower vehicle in-use stage emissions, depending on the electricity generation source used to charge the vehicle batteries. The importance of the electricity generation source used to charge the vehicle batteries is not to be understated: one study found that the carbon intensity of the electricity generation mix could explain 70% of the variability in life cycle results. 

...

In addition to lower GHG emissions, many studies found BEVs offer greater local air quality benefits than ICEVs, due to the absence of vehicle exhaust emissions. However, both BEVs and ICEVs are responsible for air pollutant emissions during the upstream production stages, including emissions during both vehicle and fuel production. Further, BEVs may be responsible for greater human toxicity and ecosystems effects than their ICEV equivalents, due to (1) the mining and processing of metals to produce batteries, and (2) the potential mining and combustion of coal to produce electricity.

...

In addition to a review of the literature, CRS focused on the results of one study in order to present an internally consistent example of an LCA. This specific study finds that the life cycle of selected lithium-ion BEVs emits, on average, an estimated 33% less GHGs, 61% less volatile organic compounds, 93% less carbon monoxide, 28% less nitrogen oxides, and 32% less black carbon than the life cycle of ICEVs in the United States. However, the life cycle of the selected lithium-ion BEVs emits, on average, an estimated 15% more fine particulate matter and 273% more sulfur oxides, largely due to battery production and the electricity generation source used to charge the vehicle batteries. Further, the life cycle of the selected lithium-ion BEVs consumes, on average, an estimated 29% less total energy resources and 37% less fossil fuel resources, but 56% more water resources. These results are global effects, based on the system boundaries and input assumptions of the study.  

The full report can be found here. 

Wrapping Up

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

• "‘Unequivocal’ Evidence that Humans Cause Climate Change, Contrary to Posts of Old Video": There is “unequivocal” evidence that humans are causing global warming, the U.N. climate change panel has said. But viral posts revive a 2014 video of Weather Channel co-founder John Coleman falsely claiming “climate change is not happening.” The channel, which supports the scientific consensus that climate change is real, had distanced itself from Coleman. 
• "Sorting Out the Partisan Tax Spin on Inflation Reduction Act": Both political parties are spinning the facts on whether the Democrats’ Inflation Reduction Act would raise taxes. 
• "How Does the Inflation Reduction Act Address Climate Change?": Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer said the Senate plans to hold its first vote Aug. 6 on the Inflation Reduction Act. An estimated $369 billion over the next 10 years would go toward combating climate change and investing in “energy security.” Here we review some of the climate-focused provisions in the bill. 
• "Three Canadian Doctors Died of Long-Term Illnesses, Contrary to False Claims COVID-19 Vaccine Was Cause": It’s estimated that COVID-19 vaccines have saved millions of lives, but false claims continue to cast doubt on their safety and efficacy. One such claim that has spread around the world falsely suggests that three Canadian doctors died from the shots. But they each died of a long-term illness unrelated to the vaccines.
• “Posts Distort Chinese Research Creating Fragment of Monkeypox Viral Genome”: A Wuhan Institute of Virology study describes assembling part of a monkeypox viral genome for use in a diagnostic test. Although the researchers only made a fraction of the genome — and it matches a different version of the virus — social media posts are using the study to baselessly claim that the current monkeypox outbreak is a result of a lab leak. 
• "COVID-19 Vaccination Increases Immunity, Contrary to Immune Suppression Claims": The mRNA COVID-19 vaccines teach the immune system to recognize and fight the coronavirus, greatly reducing the likelihood of severe disease if a person is infected. There is no evidence the vaccines impair immunity, as some, including Fox News’ Tucker Carlson, have baselessly claimed.
• "Faulty Research Paper Leads to Unfounded Claims About Health of Atlantic Ocean": Climate change has affected ocean ecosystems, scientists say. But an unfounded claim on social media that “plankton in the Atlantic Ocean is 90% gone” and the ocean is “now pretty much dead” is based on a faulty paper.
• "Late Ad Misleadingly Claims Republican Candidate for Governor Could ‘Slash’ State Police Funding": Tudor Dixon, a GOP candidate for governor in Michigan, proposes to phase out the state's individual income tax, but hasn't detailed how she would cut state spending to make up for the lost revenue. The Democrats fill in the blanks in a misleading TV ad.

• "Publicaciones omiten engañosamente datos cruciales que respaldan las vacunas contra el COVID-19 para los niños más pequeños": En niños pequeños, la expectativa es que las vacunas contra el COVID-19 de Pfizer/BioNTech y de Moderna protejan principalmente contra enfermedades graves. Ambas vacunas cumplieron con éxito los parámetros establecidos para medir la eficacia de las vacunas, que incluyó comparar las respuestas de anticuerpos con las de los adultos. Sin embargo, publicaciones en internet que critican las recomendaciones del gobierno sobre las vacunas pediátricas no mencionan estos datos esenciales.
• "Preguntas y respuestas sobre la divulgación financiera de los científicos gubernamentales": En este artículo, explicaremos lo que sabemos sobre los requisitos de divulgación financiera y conflictos de interés para el Dr. Anthony Fauci, otros altos funcionarios de los Institutos Nacionales de Salud (NIH, por sus siglas en inglés) y miembros de dos comités asesores de vacunas en Estados Unidos.