Question asked on August 2, 2022
You ask us about a video sequence widely disseminated on social networks in which the host Tucker Carlson, of the Fox News channel, multiplies the alarmist accusations about anti-Covid vaccines, according to him backed by scientific publications, of which he gives the reason . references
The footage was taken from the July 21 broadcast, still available on the channel’s website, along with a transcript of Carlson’s remarks. “Is it possible that the vaccine could really harm him, especially if he keeps getting booster shots? Can it weaken your immune system? Well, it seems possible.”begins, before brandishing “the conclusions of several researchers” published “last month [dans] the Journal of Chemical and Food Toxicology“. And to quote the authors, who claim that vaccination “induces a profound alteration in type 1 interferon signaling, which has various adverse consequences for human health”and evoke “Potential profound alterations in the regulatory control of protein synthesis and cancer surveillance”. In fact, Carlson adds, “It seems likely that the vaccine could completely suppress the immune system”.
The terrifying post quoted by the presenter is not unknown to readers of To watch the news, since we had already dedicated an article to it at the beginning of May, to highlight its speculative and fallacious characteristics. For example, based on the observation that the immune response to the vaccine confers protection without inducing the deleterious inflammatory reactions associated with virus infection (which is the goal of vaccination), the authors present this controlled response as a sign of immune weakening. system. Elsewhere, the authors gleefully confuse the literature on the effects of SARS-CoV-2 infection and those of the vaccine. As a result of this publication, many researchers denounced its shortcomings, some denouncing the exploitation of data “misunderstood, even manipulated, in favor of a pre-established hypothesis”.
Among the four co-authors of this dubious article, in addition to being a naturopath, we find computer scientist Stephanie Seneff (known for having argued that serious cases of Covid were linked to exposure to glyphosate residues present in biofuels), but also the el cardiologist Peter A. McCullough, disavowed by his university of origin after the repeated retransmission of false statements (low contagiousness of the virus, impossibility of reinfection, etc.), which now shows his ties to a foundation that links Covid to 5G networks and promotes “Faith-Based Therapeutic Approaches.”
In his television sequence, Tucker Carlson ends his presentation of this first publication with these words: “We sincerely hope this is not true, but this is not the conclusion of a single scientific journal. the lancet, which is perhaps the most famous scientific journal in the world, published similar findings in February…” Then the name of a study appears on the screen, actually published in the lancet andn February, and available online.
However, it is not to this study that the rest of Carlson’s comment relates, but to a “letter” published in another journal, which elaborates an argument from its data. “A doctor named Kenji Yamamotoexplains the presenter, [écrit] in a letter to Virology Journal [que l’étude du Lancet] showed that the immune function of vaccinated people eight months after receiving two doses of the Covid-19 vaccine was lower than that of unvaccinated people. And the Fox News host to invite his viewers to tour the studio of the Lancet. “You won’t find anything in the text of the article that says what Kenji Yamamoto said, which is weird. Because the Lancet would you want to hide a great discovery like this? We can’t tell, but if you look at Table 3 in the article, this is what you’ll find hidden in the data. Among people in their 80s who have been vaccinated twice […] the per capita medical incidence rate, including hospitalizations for death, is almost double the serious incidence rate for unvaccinated people. And this, 180 days after vaccination. What is it and why nobody cares? The article also includes a graph showing negative vaccine efficacy for all ages after eight months for all study participants.”
“The advantages of administering a third dose”
There is no proof of his claims in Yamamoto’s famous letter. Which is why, presumably, Carlson rehearses the exegesis of the publication himself. Cleverly, at least if his intention is to deceive the viewer. First, because the famous “Table 3” of the study of Lancet does not relate to “the serious incidence ratebut in “all infections, regardless of severity”. But also and above all because the values presented turn out to be raw data, without adjustment according to the structure of the groups studied (particularly the age of the members of each cohort).
However, a few boxes further down in the same table are the figures for the effectiveness of the vaccine, adjusted for age and vaccination date, and with the associated margins of error. Actually, the authors fail to establish here a significant difference between those over 80 years of age vaccinated for more than six months and those not vaccinated. It is impossible to establish that vaccinated people of this age, at this distance from their second injection, have more or less risk of Covid than unvaccinated people.
This is why the study authors concluded that their results “strengthened the case for administering a third dose of vaccine as a booster.” In short: by presenting as it would be a publication that is not at all, and by obscuring the elements that allow to correctly interpret the data of a second publication, Tucker Carlson does nothing but misinform, once again, his audience.
#Cette #vidéo #Fox #News #sur #les #effets #secondaires #des #vaccins #antiCovid #estelle #sérieuse