Is this Fox News video about the side effects of covid vaccines serial? – Release

In an extrait vu des dizaines de milliers de fois sur les réseaus sociaux, the animator Tucker Carlson relied on a largeme décriée study, an article cité hors contextes and a letter.
Question asked on August 2, 2022

You’re wondering about a widely shared video sequence on social media in which Fox News host Tucker Carlson is multiplying alarmist claims about Covid vaccines, according to scientific publications, not giving them. references.

Sequence is extraite de l’émission du 21 juillet, always available on the site of the chaîne, accompanied by a transcription of Carlson’s proposal. “Est il possible que le vaccin puisse realements vous nuire, surtout si vous continuez à recevoir des rappels? Peut il affaiblir votre système immunitaire? Eh bien, that seems possible»debut it, avant de brandir “the conclusions of several researchers” published «le mois dernier [dans] they Journal of Food and Chemical Toxicology». Et de citer les auteurs, que affirment que la vaccination “induced a profound alteration of type 1 interferon signaling, which has various adverse consequences for human health”evocative “of potential profound disruptions in the regulatory control of protein synthesis and cancer surveillance.” In fact, adds Carlson, “it seems likely that the vaccine can completely inhibit the immune system”.

L’effrayante publication citée par l’animateur n’est pas inconnue des lecteurs de CheckNews, puisque nous lui avions already dedicated an article debut May, to emphasize ses caractères tant spéculatif que fallacieux. For example, starting from the fact that the vaccine’s immune response confers protection without inducing délétères inflammatory reactions linked to infection by the virus (which is the objective of vaccination), the authors present this response mastered as a sign d’un système immunitaire affaibli. Ailleurs, les auteurs confondent allègrement the literature on the effects of the infection au SARS-CoV-2 and those du vaccine. Following this publication, nombreux chercheurs en ont denoncé les manquements, certains denonçant l’exploitation of the data “It does not include, even manipulates, they benefit from a pre-existing hypothesis”.

Among the four co-authors of this questionable article, besides a naturopath, we find the computer scientist Stephanie Seneff (known to have discovered that serious cases of Covid were linked to exposure to residues of glyphosate present in biofuels), but also cardiologist Peter A. McCullough, disappointed from the université de rattachement suite au relais répété d’affirmations fausses (possible contagiousness of the virus, impossibility of reinfection…), which now displays guarantees with a binding foundation of 5G networks and their promotion. “therapeutic approaches based on sheets”.

The Lancet

In sequence télévisée, Tucker Carlson arrived at the presentation of this first publication with these words: «Nous espérons sincèrement car ce nest pas vrai, mais ce nest pas la conclusion d’une seule revue scientifique. The Lancet, which is perhaps the la revue scientifique la plus célèbre in the world, has often published similar conclusions in February…” Apparaît alors à l’écran le nom d’une étude, effectively published dans The Lancet isIn February, et consultable en ligne.

However, what is not on this study, which carries la suite du commentaire de Carlson, but on a «lettre» published in another journal, which elaborated a raisonnement à partir de ses data. “A doctor named Kenji Yamamotoexplain the presenter, [écrit] dans une lettre au Journal of Virology [que l’étude du Lancet] showed that the immune function of vaccinated people is the lowest after the administration of two doses of the Covid-19 vaccine was inferior to that of people who are not vaccinated.» And the Fox News anchor invites viewers to walk through the study for themselves. Lancet. «Vous ne trouverez rien dans le texte de l’article qui dise ce ce ce Kenji Yamamoto dit, ce qui est bizarre. Pourquoi them Lancet voudrait il cacher une découverte majore comme celle-là? Nous puemes pas le dire, mais si tu regardez le tableau 3 de l’article, here is what I will find enfoui dans les données. Parmi les personnes agées d’environ 80 and who have been doubly vaccinated […] le taux d’incidence medical per habitant, y include les hospitalizations pour decés, est presque deux fois plus élevé que le taux d’incidence grave pour les personnes non vaccinées. And what, 180 days after vaccination. Qu’est-ce que c’est et pourquoi personne ne s’y intéresse? The article also includes a graph showing the negative effectiveness of the vaccine for all ages after passing, for all study participants.»

“Le bien-fond of administering a third dose”

On ne trouve dans la famouse lettre de Yamamoto no demonstration de ses affirmations. Raison pour laquelle, vraisemblamente, Carlson tente lui-même l’exégèse de la publication. De façon habile, tout du moins si son intention est de tromper le spectateur. Premieres, car le fameux “table 3” de l’étude du Lancet don’t porte pas sur «serious incidence rates»more sure “l’ensemble des infections, quelle que soit leur sévérité”. Mais aussi et surtout car les valeurs présentées sâvèrent être des données brutes, sans ajustement en fonction de la structure des groupes etudiés (notamment de lâge des members de chaque cohorte).

Yet, few cases plus loin, dans le même tableau, figurent les chiffres de l’efficacy vaccinale, ajustés pour l’âge and the date of vaccination, and with les marges d’erreur associés. In reality, the authors echouent here to establish a significant difference between the more than 80 years vaccinated from plus six months and those who are not vaccinated. It is impossible to establish that the vaccinated of this age, at this distance from their second injection, have more or less risk of Covid than the non-vaccinated.

Raison pour laquelle les auteurs de l’étude concluaient d’ailleurs que leurs résultats “renforçaient le bien-fondé de l’administration d’une third dose de vaccine comme rappel.” In short: by presenting a publication that contains nothing, and by concealing the elements that allow the data of a second publication to be interpreted correctly, Tucker Carlson does nothing but misinform – one more time – the auditory son.

.

Leave a Comment