FactCheck.org Vaccination Article Lacks Context and Pushes Misinformation

First and foremost, FalseFactCheck.org is 100% pro-vaccination for those who are good candidates as directed by their primary care physician and face significant risk of exposure. Vaccinations work. Vaccinations have worked for hundreds of years, ever since 1796 when the first vaccine was administered for cowpox.

The COVID-19 vaccines do work and they do not contain any COVID-19 virus. Anyone who has not been vaccinated and has concerns should speak with their primary care physician and make an educated decision. There is also information available on the CDCs website.

Important The data presented here is for informational purposes only and should not be taken into consideration for any reason whatsoever without first consulting a physician with knowledge and understanding of the inquiring individuals full and accurate medical history.

That said, FactCheck.org now labels some of its fact checks "SciCheck" and recently published a misleading article missing context titled "COVID-19: The Unvaccinated Pose a Risk to the Vaccinated".

They state the full question asked by Tucker Carlson (FoxNews):

"How can the unvaccinated possibly pose a threat to the vaccinated? How does that work? What is the risk exactly?"

To which they answered

"...experts told FactCheck.org that unvaccinated people with COVID-19 are a potential threat to people who have been fully immunized against the disease."

"The expert"(s) is apparently Dr. Paul A. Offit, MD, who is the Director of the Vaccine Education Center and professor of pediatrics in the Division of Infectious Diseases at Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia.

Dr. Offit, according to FactCheck.org, said that

"...that thinking is based, in part, on the incorrect assumption that the vaccines are 100% effective at preventing an infection or illness, which is not true of any vaccine."

We assume "that thinking" means that thinking of Carlson's.

They go on to state that currently, under the delta variant, effectiveness against CODVID-19 infection ranges from 39% to 84% and that prior to delta, that was as high as 97%. The latter being most likely during the "trials" because in the real world, this hasn't shown to be the case.

The Undisclosed

What FactCheck.org, or SciCheck, fails to mention is that vaccinated people are also a threat to vaccinated people and unvaccinated people.

Vaccinations promote the human immune system to quickly identify and fight a virus infection which limits or prevents an individual from getting sick or showing any significant symptoms. They do not prevent the virus from entering the body, or do they prevent the vaccinated person from being contagious. They do reduce the potential of a virus load being passed between humans, however, multiple vaccinated people that are carriers of a virus can just as easily produce a viral load as infectious as a person considered to be contagious can.

Moreover, Vaccine-Associated Enhanced Disease (VAED) which occurs as two distinct immunopathologies, antibody-dependent enhancement (ADE) and vaccine-associated hypersensitivity (VAH), is one of the risks that can actually present a scenario where a vaccinated individual is actually more threatening to everyone than an unvaccinated individual.

That scenario is the exact opposite threat as the one SciCheck is promoting.

While VAH reactions are not infrequent and generally consist of adverse effects ranging from mild or moderate allergic reactions to more severe symptoms like myocarditis and pericarditis, they would unlikely elevate the level of contagion that would be threatening to another human.

ADE caused from VAED's however, can cause symptoms and conditions (See figure 1 below) more severe than the virus would have if the individual not been vaccinated and drastically diminish the immune systems ability to combat the virus which can cause severe illness, long-term damage, and death.

Figure 1 - VADE (courtesy of wileyonlinelibrary.com)

The Concerns

VAED is one of the risks presented in rapid vaccine development. Traditional platforms typically have a 10 to 15 year development cycle. The COVID-19 vaccine development cycle was around 12 months and that presents concerns regarding adequate time for analyzing potential long-term adverse reactions.

Articles like SciCheck's featuring doctors that proclaim something is safe without also fully explaining or even acknowledging the risks also presents concerns. This is especially true when the "experts" are fully aware these risks and Dr. Otter is fully aware of the risks of ADE and VAED and appears to have deliberately called these concerns misinformation.

He peer reviewed this article on September 9th, 2021 which states:

Unfortunately, some people continue to spread misinformation suggesting that ADE is an ongoing concern for COVID-19 vaccines; however, scientists and clinicians are continuing to monitor COVID-19 infections and, to date, no evidence to validate this concern has emerged.

This is an irresponsible statement given lack of time and data generally used to make these determinations, which is years on average. This is also an irresponsible statement because there have been many scientific papers written by medical scientists warning of the dangers of the risk of VAED in COVID-19 development.

In fact, a recent study concluded that the risks of ADE (VAED) should have been and should be part of written disclosures to patients informing them of these risks, however, SciCheck and their referenced expert, Dr. Otter, not only engage in adverse activity, they further falsely condemn these risks as misinformation.

The article Dr. Otter reviewed also states that there is "no evidence to validate this [ADE] concern". That is absolutely false.

In addition to several papers from 2019, 2020, and 2021 warning of this phenomenon and recommending disclosure, as well as clinical tests in February 2021 identifying and concluding the risks, VAED/ADE has been observed in humans, with cases filed and published in the National Library of Medicine. Two of which came in early September of 2021, which around the same time the Dr. Otter reviewed aforementioned article that was published by The Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia.

Additional case reports were published in October 2021. Notably, the FactCheck.org article was published on the 21st of September 2021.

Additional ADE False Claims

The Dr. Otter-reviewed article also states that:

People infected with SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes COVID-19, have not been likely to develop ADE upon repeat exposure. This is true of other coronaviruses as well. Likewise, studies of vaccines in the laboratory with animals or in the clinical trials in people have not found evidence of ADE.

Which is also absolutely false. This clinical study mentioned above specifically contradicts this statement saying that previous "SARS-CoV-1 and MERS-CoV vaccine efforts have failed due to ADE in animal models" which is supported by research referenced in the study (See references 10 through 11).

Note: what is factual is that there is no evidence of naturally occurring ADE in humans that has been observed in either trials or current vaccine distributions. All cases of ADE reported thus far are actually cases of VAED (also known as Vaccine-Associated Disease Enhancement or VADE).

SciCheck is not only lacking context regarding the unvaccinated/vaccinated threats, but they themselves are pushing misinformation which is what SciCheck claims to be against.

Summary

FactCheck.org, through SciCheck, lacks context in stating the unvaccinated threaten without also explaining the vaccinated can be a bigger threat to both the unvaccinated and the vaccinated. Further, they are contributing to the spread of misinformation by supporting any claim of ADE concerns being unwarranted or inaccurate and the hosted expert makes a false claim of no ADE case reports which contradicts case reports available as submitted to the U.S. National Library of Medicine.

Claim: "COVID-19: The Unvaccinated Pose a Risk to the Vaccinated"

Fact Check Verdict: MISLEADING FALSE CLAIM MISINFORMMATION

Claimant: FactCheck.org/SciCheck