Technocracy News & Trends readers should learn how to analyze “fact-check” or “debunking” stories that are frequently thrown in their face as “evidence” of ignorance and misapplication of otherwise real data. Here is a short analysis of one such article.
A publication in Ireland called The Journal claims to debunk reports based on the EU and US vaccine injury databases with the title: Debunked: No, EU and US databases do not show that thousands of people have died from Covid-19 vaccines.
The story’s subtitle reveals the theme of the article: Claims which rely on the EudraVigilance and VAERS databases are often misleading. The next 40 paragraphs give the reasons for its claim. The attack begins:
“False claims about vaccines, which rely on the EudraVigilance and VAERS databases, have appeared in social media posts, including on Facebook and Twitter, on TV and radio, and even in literature distributed by a candidate in the upcoming Dublin Bay South by-election.”
The unilateral assertion that such claims are false is tied to the use of government-maintained vaccine injury data, which is published for all to see and examine. Somehow it makes a difference that social media posts, TV and radio are involved. How else would such reports be disseminated?
“However, claims which rely on EudraVigilance and VAERS to suggest that thousands of people are dying from Covid-19 vaccines are misleading and often false.”
By just scanning the data anyone can see that thousands of people have already died. But some reports are apparently often false. Is this to say that other reports are NOT false? If so, which ones? Again, no evidence or rationale is offered.
“However, like other systems, these are suspected adverse reactions which could relate to vaccination – but is not necessarily so. Often, the reported outcome and its link to vaccination has not been verified.”
Now doubt is sewn that the vaccine injury data is accurate. Vaccine injury events are only “suspected” and not specifically proven. It states that some reports have not been verified, thus implying that others have been verified. Which ones? No evidence or rationale is offered.
“The US Centres for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) runs a similar reporting scheme titled Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS), which also features in false and misleading claims about vaccines.”
Now the authors flatly state that the CDC and VAERS are making “false and misleading claims about vaccines.” Which ones are false? No evidence is provided.
This is the tenor of the entire article, each paragraph suggesting that anyone’s conclusion that mRNA gene therapy injections could be harmful is wrong.
When reading any kind of supposed “fact-checking” report like this, I always go to the bottom of the article and read the last paragraph because it represents the conclusion. In this case, the last paragraph states,
“Scientific evidence to date shows that vaccines against Covid-19 are overwhelmingly safe and that they reduce serious illness and rates of hospitalisation due to the virus.”
Aha. This sounds exactly like something the vaccine makers would say. Overwhelmingly safe? Reduce serious illness? Reduce rates of hospitalization? Not.
The bigger question should be, just how many vaccine deaths are acceptable before anyone should be concerned? One hundred? One thousand? Ten thousand?
This “debunking” and “fact-checking” is pedestrian journalism of the lowest caliber, but it is always predictable in style and approach. It says everything but says nothing at the same time, never offering any concrete or tangible evidence to support its claims while sewing doubt and confusion in your mind. In short, it is partisan propaganda and nothing more.
You might not be surprised to learn that The Journal is a member of the Facebook Third-Party Fact Checking programme, and receives payment for “submitting certain factcheck articles to be applied to misinformation on its platform.”