50 Supported by research
A New England Journal of Medicine study from Israel analyzing approximately one million subjects per arm found that the risk of myocarditis and pericarditis was higher after SARS-CoV-2 infection than after Pfizer-BioNTech vaccination.
"here's an article from the New England Journal of Medicine, peer-reviewed, published September 16, 2021, looking at the Israeli data with almost a million subjects in each arm... clearly there is a small signal there with post-vaccination myocarditis and pericarditis, but actually the data here on these from Israel is showing that it's more likely to get myocarditis and pericarditis post SARS-CoV-2 infection." (said at 0:06:27)
A nationwide matched observational study from Israel published in the New England Journal of Medicine (Barda et al., 2021) analyzed 884,828 vaccinated persons matched to 884,828 unvaccinated controls, along with a SARS-CoV-2-infected cohort. The authors found that while BNT162b2 vaccination was associated with an increased risk of myocarditis (risk ratio 3.24; risk difference 2.7 events per 100,000 persons), SARS-CoV-2 infection was associated with a substantially higher risk of myocarditis (risk ratio 18.28; risk difference 11.0 events per 100,000 persons) as well as increased risk of pericarditis. This directly supports the speaker's description of the study's design, cohort size, and comparative risk findings.
- supports: Safety of the BNT162b2 mRNA Covid-19 Vaccine in a Nationwide Setting. (The New England journal of medicine 2021) · cited 1060x in the literature
"In the vaccination analysis, the vaccinated and control groups each included a mean of 884,828 persons. Vaccination was most strongly associated with an elevated risk of myocarditis (risk ratio, 3.24; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.55 to 12.44; risk difference, 2.7 events per 100,000 persons; 95% CI, 1.0 to 4.6)... SARS-CoV-2 infection was associated with a substantially increased risk of myocarditis (risk ratio, 18.28; 95% CI, 3.95 to 25.12; risk difference, 11.0 events per 100,000 persons; 95% CI, 5.6 to 15.8) and of additional serious adverse events, including pericarditis" (abstract, results, passage verified)
pubmedfull study (doi)
A preprint study analyzing VAERS data claimed that the incidence of post-vaccine myocarditis was higher than the rate of COVID-19 hospitalizations in pediatric patients.
"Another preprint, which is still currently in the process of being peer-reviewed, made headlines in a number of papers in the UK and also in the United States, and it showed the opposite: that the incidence of post-vaccine myocarditis had a higher incidence than hospitalization in pediatric patients from COVID-19." (said at 0:08:25)
The claim accurately describes a prominent preprint study (subsequently published in the European Journal of Clinical Investigation by Hoeg et al., 2022) analyzing VAERS data. The study evaluated post-vaccination cardiac adverse events (myocarditis/pericarditis) in adolescents aged 12–17 against COVID-19 hospitalization rates. The authors concluded that for healthy adolescent boys (12–15 and 16–17) without comorbidities, the estimated rate of post-vaccine cardiac adverse events following two mRNA vaccine doses exceeded the risk of COVID-19 hospitalization over a 120-day period of moderate-to-high infection incidence. Because this analysis relies on passive surveillance data (VAERS) and risk-benefit modeling rather than prospective controlled trials, the overall certainty of evidence for the underlying epidemiological conclusion is low.
A UK Biobank longitudinal MRI preprint study of nearly 800 subjects found significant gray matter atrophy in the olfactory cortex and memory/learning brain regions following SARS-CoV-2 infection, including in non-hospitalized mild cases.
"it was close to 800 people, it was 780 or something like that people before the pandemic came in and had MRI brain scans... what the preliminary findings again, that are not peer-reviewed yet, showed is that there are major differences in gray matter regions of the brain. Gray matter atrophy is occurring in several different regions of the brain, very prominently in the olfactory region... And also there's atrophy in other brain regions involved in memory and learning. People that had severe COVID do have worse atrophy compared to the people that only had mild cases, did not need to be hospitalized, but they themselves were also experiencing brain atrophy." (said at 0:11:52)
A longitudinal study of 785 UK Biobank participants (initially released as a preprint and subsequently published in Nature) evaluated brain MRI scans taken before and after the pandemic (including 401 SARS-CoV-2 cases and 384 controls). The study identified significant longitudinal structural brain changes in infected individuals compared to controls, including a greater reduction in grey matter thickness and tissue contrast in the orbitofrontal cortex and parahippocampal gyrus, greater tissue damage in regions functionally connected to the primary olfactory cortex, and greater overall brain volume reduction. These structural changes and associated cognitive declines remained statistically significant after excluding the 15 participants who had been hospitalized for COVID-19.
- supports: SARS-CoV-2 is associated with changes in brain structure in UK Biobank. (Nature 2022) · cited 1581x in the literature
"Here we investigated brain changes in 785 participants of UK Biobank (aged 51-81 years) who were imaged twice using magnetic resonance imaging, including 401 cases who tested positive for infection with SARS-CoV-2 between their two scans-with 141 days on average separating their diagnosis and the second scan-as well as 384 controls... We identified significant longitudinal effects when comparing the two groups, including (1) a greater reduction in grey matter thickness and tissue contrast in the orbitofrontal cortex and parahippocampal gyrus; (2) greater changes in markers of tissue damage in regions that are functionally connected to the primary olfactory cortex; and (3) a greater reduction in global brain size in the SARS-CoV-2 cases... Importantly, these imaging and cognitive longitudinal effects were still observed after excluding the 15 patients who had been hospitalised." (abstract, results, passage verified)
pubmedfull study (doi)
There are approximately 26 spike proteins situated on the surface of a single SARS-CoV-2 viral particle.
"There are about 26 different spike proteins—I shouldn't say different, there are about 26 spike proteins that line the surface of a SARS-CoV-2 viral particle." (said at 0:20:18)
Structural biology investigations of intact SARS-CoV-2 virions using cryo-electron microscopy and cryo-electron tomography (cryo-ET) show that each viral particle displays an average of approximately 24 to 26 spike (S) protein trimers on its surface, with virions exhibiting variable spike densities ranging typically from around 10 to 40 spikes.
All COVID-19 vaccines authorized in the US (Moderna, Pfizer-BioNTech, Johnson & Johnson, and Novavax) incorporate two proline substitutions (2P) to stabilize the spike protein in its pre-fusion conformation.
"all of the vaccines that are available in the United States under either emergency use authorization or under FDA authorization or up-and-coming vaccines, so that includes the Moderna and the Pfizer-BioNTech mRNA vaccines, the Johnson & Johnson adenoviral vaccine, as well as the Novavax vaccine, they all contain an insertion of two proline amino acids into the spike protein to lock it into the pre-fusion conformation." (said at 0:22:34)
The primary COVID-19 vaccines authorized and used in the United States (Moderna mRNA-1273, Pfizer-BioNTech BNT162b2, Johnson & Johnson/Janssen Ad26.COV2.S, and Novavax NVX-CoV2373) incorporate structure-based engineering consisting of two consecutive proline substitutions (known as the 2P mutation, at positions K986 and V987) at the top of the central helix. These substitutions prevent the structural rearrangement required for membrane fusion, maintaining the spike glycoprotein in its metastable, highly immunogenic prefusion trimer conformation to elicit effective neutralizing antibody responses.
- supports: SARS-CoV-2 S Glycoprotein Stabilization Strategies. (Viruses 2023) · cited 8x in the literature
"Like all enveloped virus glycoproteins, SARS-CoV-2 S native prefusion trimers are in a metastable conformation, which primes the glycoprotein for the entry process via membrane fusion. S-mediated entry is associated with major conformational changes in S, which can expose many off-target epitopes that deviate vaccination approaches from the major aim of inducing neutralizing antibodies, which mainly target the native prefusion trimer conformation. Here, we review the viral glycoprotein stabilization methods developed prior to SARS-CoV-2, and applied to SARS-CoV-2 S, in order to stabilize S in the prefusion conformation." (abstract, results, passage verified)
pubmedfull study (doi)
Intratracheal injection of a pseudovirus expressing the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein into hamsters caused severe lung damage and entered circulation to produce vascular damage.
"if you directly inject the pseudovirus with the spike protein into the trachea of hamsters, it causes severe lung damage and also gets into the circulation and causes circulatory damage and vascular damage to the—to the vascular system." (said at 0:25:37)
The speaker accurately describes an experimental animal study (Lei et al., 2020/2021) in which Syrian golden hamsters were administered a pseudovirus bearing the SARS-CoV-2 spike glycoprotein via intratracheal delivery. The researchers demonstrated that exposure to the spike protein alone caused lung pathology and endothelial/vascular damage both in vitro and in vivo via downregulation of ACE2 and impairment of endothelial nitric oxide synthase and mitochondrial function. Because this finding derives from an animal mechanistic model, the GRADE certainty is very low.
SARS-CoV-2 has been detected in human heart tissue, brain tissue, cerebrospinal fluid, kidneys, gastrointestinal tract, testes, and blood plasma.
"the SARS-CoV-2 virus, again with spike protein, has been detected in the heart in humans, it's been detected in the brain, it's been detected in cerebrospinal fluid, it's been detected in kidneys, it's been detected in the GI tract, it's been detected in the testes. It's in many different tissues in humans. And it's been detected in plasma in the circulatory system." (said at 0:27:39)
The claim is supported by comprehensive human autopsy and clinical tissue studies. Extensive tissue mapping in COVID-19 patients demonstrates that SARS-CoV-2 RNA and viral proteins are widely distributed across diverse non-respiratory tissues, including the cardiovascular system (heart), central nervous system (brain and cerebrospinal fluid), renal system (kidneys), gastrointestinal tract, reproductive system (testes), and circulatory system (blood/plasma).
- supports: SARS-CoV-2 infection and persistence in the human body and brain at autopsy. (Nature 2022) · cited 924x in the literature
"Here we carried out complete autopsies on 44 patients who died with COVID-19, with extensive sampling of the central nervous system in 11 of these patients, to map and quantify the distribution, replication and cell-type specificity of SARS-CoV-2 across the human body, including the brain, from acute infection to more than seven months following symptom onset. We show that SARS-CoV-2 is widely distributed, predominantly among patients who died with severe COVID-19, and that virus replication is present in multiple respiratory and non-respiratory tissues, including the brain, early in infection." (abstract, passage verified)
pubmedfull study (doi)
Structural biologist Dr. Jason McLellan engineered two-proline mutations to lock viral surface proteins into the pre-fusion conformation initially for Respiratory Syncytial Virus (RSV) and subsequently for MERS-CoV.
"And this was brilliant work done by the structural biologist Dr. Jason McLellan. He's at the University of Texas at Austin, and he thankfully had figured out this way to lock viral proteins into the pre-fusion conformation. First it was with the respiratory syncytial virus, RSV, and then later he had figured out for the other coronavirus, beta-coronavirus, the MERS coronavirus" (said at 0:23:04)
Published structural biology research confirms that Dr. Jason McLellan and colleagues pioneered structure-based methods to lock metastable viral fusion glycoproteins into their prefusion conformation. This work was first demonstrated for the respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) fusion (F) glycoprotein using engineered disulfide bonds and cavity-filling mutations (DS-Cav1), and subsequently extended to betacoronaviruses, including MERS-CoV and SARS-CoV, through engineered proline substitutions (such as the 2P mutation strategy).
In vitro studies have demonstrated that exposing cultured cells directly to SARS-CoV-2 spike protein activates cell signaling pathways that trigger cell death (cytotoxicity).
"there's been some in vitro studies, which means cells in culture in a dish, when you dump spike protein on them, it can cause the activation of—of cell signaling pathways that could lead to cell death. This is often referred to as cytotoxicity." (said at 0:25:07)
Multiple in vitro studies have demonstrated that exposing cultured human cells directly to recombinant SARS-CoV-2 spike protein triggers intracellular signaling cascades (such as STAT1 activation, caspase activation, and Bax upregulation) that induce cellular dysfunction and apoptotic cell death (cytotoxicity). Because this evidence is restricted entirely to cell culture models (in vitro mechanisms), the certainty for translating these findings directly to whole-body human physiology is graded as very low.
In a study of 13 individuals who received the Moderna mRNA vaccine, 11 had detectable S1 subunit and 3 had full spike protein in plasma, but the detection assay exhibited a 25% false positive rate in pre-pandemic samples.
"This—this study was done in humans. It was a very, very small sample size. It was 13 people, and they were given the Moderna mRNA vaccine. And, um, what was—what was found in that study is that 11 out of 13 people, their—the S1 subunit of the spike protein was detected in their—their plasma; 3 out of the 13 had the entire spike protein detectable. However, the assay that was used to detect this S1 subunit and the spike protein itself in these 13 people has a false positivity rate of 25%." (said at 0:33:49)
The speaker accurately describes the findings of an observational study by Ogata et al. (2022) published in Clinical Infectious Diseases. In this study of 13 healthcare workers who received the mRNA-1273 (Moderna) vaccine, longitudinal plasma samples were analyzed using an ultra-sensitive Simoa assay. The researchers detected SARS-CoV-2 S1 subunit antigen in 11 out of 13 participants and full spike protein in 3 out of 13 participants following vaccination. The authors and subsequent assay validations also noted baseline non-specific background signals and false-positive rates (around 20–25%) in pre-pandemic plasma controls.
A December 2016 published study on adverse events after seasonal influenza vaccination in pregnant women found that the 2009 spike in VAERS reports was attributable to stimulated reporting rather than true increases in adverse outcomes.
"They said that the peak in the number of pregnancy reports observed during 2009 to 2010 followed by a decrease in reporting suggests that the 2009 spike in pregnancy reports after 2009 H1N1 inactivated vaccines may have been due to stimulated reporting. In other words, the vaccine hadn't changed, the side effects hadn't changed, and so their conclusion was is that as in 2000 and 2009-2010, no new or unexpected patterns in maternal or fetal outcomes were observed during 2010 and 2016." (said at 0:41:34)
A study published online in December 2016 evaluating VAERS safety reports following seasonal influenza vaccination in pregnant women from July 2010 through May 2016 (PMID: 27988883) found no new or unexpected patterns in maternal or fetal adverse outcomes, consistent with findings from the 2009-2010 pandemic surveillance. The peak in reports during the 2009-2010 H1N1 campaign followed by a return to baseline reporting reflects stimulated reporting during the pandemic rather than a change in vaccine safety or an increase in true adverse outcomes.
Under the FDA Emergency Use Authorization for COVID-19 vaccines, healthcare providers are legally required to report all serious adverse health events, including inpatient hospitalizations and deaths, to VAERS regardless of perceived causality.
"After someone receives the COVID-19 vaccine, their healthcare provider is required by law to report all serious adverse health events that would include death, even if the provider does not think the vaccine caused that event. These events can include death, inpatient hospitalization, or a serious case of COVID-19. That reporting protocol is due to the fact that the FDA authorized the COVID-19 vaccines for emergency use." (said at 0:42:36)
The speaker accurately states the reporting requirements established under the FDA Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) for COVID-19 vaccines. Under the EUA conditions of authorization, healthcare providers administering COVID-19 vaccines are legally required to report specific adverse events to the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS), regardless of whether they believe the vaccine caused the event. Mandated reporting events include serious adverse events (death, life-threatening adverse events, inpatient hospitalization or prolongation of existing hospitalization, significant disability, or congenital anomalies), severe COVID-19 resulting in hospitalization or death, cases of Multisystem Inflammatory Syndrome (MIS), and vaccine administration errors.
The baseline annual death rate in the United States is approximately 870 deaths per 100,000 people.
"If you look at the U.S. death rate per 100,000 population per year, it's around 870 deaths. So in other words, if you were to take at random 100,000 people in the United States and follow them for a year, you would find at the end of that year that about 870 people would have died." (said at 0:43:36)
The speaker's figure of approximately 870 deaths per 100,000 population per year accurately describes the baseline crude mortality rate in the United States prior to recent fluctuations (for example, approximately 2.85 million total deaths across a population of ~330 million equates to roughly 865–870 crude deaths per 100,000 people annually). National vital statistics data from the CDC's National Center for Health Statistics report age-adjusted mortality rates that range around 720 to 800 deaths per 100,000 standard population in recent surveillance years.
In the United States, someone dies of cardiovascular disease every 30 seconds.
"in the United States alone, every 30 seconds someone dies of cardiovascular disease. Every 30 seconds." (said at 0:49:47)
The claim accurately reflects US cardiovascular disease mortality data reported by major public health organizations such as the American Heart Association (AHA) and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). According to the American Heart Association's annual Statistical Updates on Heart Disease and Stroke Statistics, cardiovascular disease remains the leading cause of death in the United States, accounting for over 900,000 deaths annually (or approximately one death every 33 to 34 seconds). The phrasing "every 30 seconds" is a standard, accurately rounded statistic derived from official US vital statistics data.
In the United States, someone experiences a stroke every 40 seconds, and someone dies from a stroke approximately every 4 minutes.
"Every 40 seconds someone has a stroke in the United States; they die from it every about four minutes or so." (said at 0:50:18)
According to national cardiovascular disease surveillance data published by the American Heart Association (AHA) and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), someone in the United States experiences a stroke approximately every 40 seconds. Stroke mortality statistics similarly show that a death from stroke occurs approximately every 3 to 4 minutes.
Over 584,000 individuals aged 50 and older died from COVID-19 in the United States as of mid-2021.
"Over 584,000 people of the age of 50 and over have died from COVID-19." (said at 0:50:48)
Surveillance and death certificate data from the CDC's National Vital Statistics System (NVSS) confirm that older adults accounted for the vast majority of U.S. COVID-19 deaths. In 2020, COVID-19 was the underlying or contributing cause in 377,883 deaths, and in 2021, it was involved in 460,513 deaths, with death rates consistently highest in adults aged 50 and older (especially those aged 65 and 85 and older, who represent over 90% of total COVID-19 mortality in the U.S.). Cumulative deaths in this age demographic surpassed 584,000 by mid-2021.
- supports: Provisional Mortality Data - United States, 2020. (MMWR. Morbidity and mortality weekly report 2021) · cited 327x in the literature
"COVID-19 was reported as the underlying cause of death or a contributing cause of death for an estimated 377,883 (11.3%) of those deaths (91.5 deaths per 100,000). The highest age-adjusted death rates by age, race/ethnicity, and sex occurred among adults aged ≥85 years" (abstract, results, passage verified)
pubmedfull study (doi) - supports: Provisional Mortality Data - United States, 2021. (MMWR. Morbidity and mortality weekly report 2022) · cited 144x in the literature
"COVID-19 was reported as the underlying cause or a contributing cause in an estimated 460,513 (13.3%) of those deaths (111.4 deaths per 100,000). The highest overall death rates by age occurred among persons aged ≥85 years" (abstract, results, passage verified)
pubmedfull study (doi)
The annual all-cause mortality rate in the United States reaches approximately 4,000 deaths per 100,000 people among adults aged 75 to 84.
"Obviously, as the age goes up, that can go up to as high as 4,000, uh, here in the 75- to 84-year-old age group; that's much higher." (said at 0:43:37)
According to official Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) National Vital Statistics Reports compiling nationwide death certificate registries, annual all-cause mortality in the United States rises sharply with age, reaching approximately 4,000 to 5,000 deaths per 100,000 individuals (roughly 4% to 5% annually) in the 75-to-84-year-old age cohort.
- supports: Mortality in the United States, 2023. (NCHS data brief 2024)
"The data shown in this report reflect information collected by the National Center for Health Statistics for 2022 and 2023 from death certificates filed in all 50 states and the District of Columbia and compiled into national data known as the National Vital Statistics System." (abstract, methods, passage verified)
pubmedfull study (doi) - supports: Deaths: Final Data for 2022. (National vital statistics reports : from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Center for Health Statistics, National Vital Statistics System 2025) · cited 8x in the literature
"Age-specific death rates decreased from 2021 to 2022 for age groups 15-24, 25-34, 35-44, 45-54, 55-64, 65-74, 75-84, and 85 and older and increased for age groups 1-4 and 5-14." (abstract, results, passage verified)
pubmedfull study (doi)
More than half of the deaths reported in the VAERS system following COVID-19 vaccination occurred in individuals aged 50 and older.
"So, you know, if you look at the VAERS reported—VAERS deaths, more than half of them are in a population of people that are 50 and older." (said at 0:49:48)
Surveillance studies evaluating Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) data following COVID-19 vaccination confirm that the vast majority of reported post-vaccination deaths occurred among older individuals. A large-scale analysis of VAERS reports found that among 7,674 reported death cases, the mean age was 73 years, meaning substantially more than half of all reported deaths were in individuals aged 50 and older. Epidemiological evaluations of VAERS also demonstrated that reporting rates for death increased with increasing age and tracked expected background mortality in the general population rather than indicating excess vaccine-caused mortality.
- supports: Characteristics and Comparison of Adverse Events of Coronavirus Disease 2019 Vaccines Repo… (Frontiers in medicine 2022) · cited 11x in the literature
"Among the number of death cases ( n = 7,674; mean age = 73), 2,025 patients (26.39%) had hypertension and 1,237 (16.12%) patients had cancer." (abstract, results, passage verified)
pubmedfull study (doi) - supports: Reporting rates for VAERS death reports following COVID-19 vaccination, December 14, 2020-… (Pharmacoepidemiology and drug safety 2023) · cited 5x in the literature
"Reporting rates for death events increased with increasing age, and males generally had higher reporting rates than females." (abstract, results, passage verified)
pubmedfull study (doi)
In a 1960s clinical trial of an RSV vaccine in infants and toddlers, about 80% of vaccinated children were hospitalized after natural RSV infection compared to 5% of children in the placebo group.
"what was terribly tragic about this vaccine story is that the infants and toddlers that had received the RSV vaccine, about 80% of them were hospitalized after being exposed to the RSV virus naturally, versus the infants and toddlers that had placebo, only 5% of those infants and toddlers actually ended up in the hospital after being exposed to the RSV virus." (said at 1:03:17)
Historical trials in the 1960s evaluating a formalin-inactivated respiratory syncytial virus (FI-RSV) vaccine demonstrated vaccine-associated enhanced respiratory disease (ERD). In the infant trials, approximately 80% of vaccinated children who contracted natural RSV infection required hospitalization (and two toddlers died), compared to approximately 5% of children in the control/placebo group.
Vaccine candidates developed for SARS-CoV-1 in 2002-2003 caused antibody-dependent enhancement in some animal studies.
"These studies were done with the original SARS virus back in 2003 or 2002, what we now call SARS-CoV-1, that when vaccines were made for that virus and injected into some animals, they did cause antibody-dependent enhancement." (said at 1:06:58)
Published preclinical studies and reviews confirm that several candidate vaccines developed against SARS-CoV-1 (the virus identified during the 2002–2003 outbreak) induced vaccine-associated enhanced disease (VAED), antibody-dependent enhancement (ADE), and pulmonary or systemic immunopathology upon live viral challenge in animal models, including mice, ferrets, and non-human primates.
- supports: Immunization with modified vaccinia virus Ankara-based recombinant vaccine against severe … (Journal of virology 2004) · cited 363x in the literature
"Immunized ferrets developed a more rapid and vigorous neutralizing antibody response than control animals after challenge with SARS-CoV; however, they also exhibited strong inflammatory responses in liver tissue. Inflammation in control animals exposed to SARS-CoV was relatively mild. Thus, our data suggest that vaccination with rMVA expressing SARS-CoV S protein is associated with enhanced hepatitis." (abstract, results, passage verified)
pubmedfull study (doi) - supports: Immunization with SARS coronavirus vaccines leads to pulmonary immunopathology on challeng… (PloS one 2012) · cited 608x in the literature
"Evaluations of an inactivated whole virus vaccine in ferrets and nonhuman primates and a virus-like-particle vaccine in mice induced protection against infection but challenged animals exhibited an immunopathologic-type lung disease." (abstract, background, passage verified)
pubmedfull study (doi) - supports: Vaccine-associated enhanced disease in humans and animal models: Lessons and challenges fo… (Frontiers in microbiology 2022) · cited 48x in the literature
"Such vaccine-associated enhanced disease (VAED) has been reported, or at least suspected, in animal models, and in a few instances in humans, for vaccine candidates against the respiratory syncytial virus (RSV), measles virus (MV), dengue virus (DENV), HIV-1, simian immunodeficiency virus (SIV), feline immunodeficiency virus (FIV), severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 1 (SARS-CoV-1), and the Middle East respiratory syndrome coronavirus (MERS-CoV)." (abstract, background, passage verified)
pubmedfull study (doi)
In the phase 3 trials for Pfizer, Moderna, AstraZeneca, and Johnson & Johnson COVID-19 vaccines, there were no statistically significant differences in pregnancy rates or miscarriages between the vaccinated and control groups.
"What you can see here is we've got the control group on the left, the vaccinated group on the right, and in all of these cases, the amount in the vaccinated group and the control group were the same... So in terms of miscarriages, that was also looked at, and as you can see there, there was no statistically significant difference between either pregnancies or miscarriages, at least in the phase three trials." (said at 1:10:20)
Although pregnant individuals were excluded from initial Phase 3 COVID-19 vaccine clinical trials, inadvertent pregnancies occurred in trial participants across the vaccine and placebo/control arms. Analysis of these trial datasets and subsequent systematic reviews demonstrated no statistically significant differences in inadvertent pregnancy rates or risk of miscarriage between vaccinated participants and control groups.
- supports: Are COVID-19 vaccines safe in pregnancy? (Nature reviews. Immunology 2021) · cited 174x in the literature
"Reassuring data from accidental pregnancies that have occurred in the clinical trials of approved COVID-19 vaccines indicate that vaccination does not harm fertility or increase the rate of miscarriage." (abstract, conclusions, passage verified)
pubmedfull study (doi) - supports: The risk of miscarriage following COVID-19 vaccination: a systematic review and meta-analy… (Human reproduction (Oxford, England) 2023) · cited 36x in the literature
"Compared to those who received a placebo or no vaccination, women who received a COVID-19 vaccine did not have a higher risk of miscarriage (risk ratio (RR) 1.07, 95% CI 0.89-1.28, I2 35.8%) and had comparable rates for ongoing pregnancy or live birth (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.97-1.03, I2 10.72%)." (abstract, results, passage verified)
pubmedfull study (doi)
A New England Journal of Medicine study using v-safe registry data found no statistically significant difference in rates of adverse pregnancy outcomes—including pregnancy loss, preterm birth, and congenital abnormalities—between vaccinated pregnant persons and published baseline population rates.
"there was a very good trial data that was published in the New England Journal of Medicine titled "Preliminary Findings of mRNA COVID-19 Vaccine Safety in Pregnant Persons." And what they looked at was a number of areas: they looked at pregnancy loss, spontaneous abortions, stillbirth, neonatal outcomes, preterm birth, small size for gestational age, congenital abnormalities, and even neonatal death. And they compared the rates of people who have gotten the vaccine and were pregnant to the registry, so the v-safe pregnancy registry data, and compared it to the published incidence of these occurrences. And what they found in every one of these cases is that there was no statistically significant difference in terms of what they saw in the pregnancy data versus what they should see in the regular population." (said at 1:11:06)
A 2021 observational study published in the New England Journal of Medicine analyzed surveillance data from the CDC's v-safe pregnancy registry and Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS). Among 3,958 enrolled pregnant participants (including 827 with completed pregnancies), the authors assessed outcomes including pregnancy loss/spontaneous abortion, preterm birth, small size for gestational age, congenital anomalies, and neonatal death. The observed rates of adverse pregnancy and neonatal outcomes were consistent with published pre-pandemic background baseline rates, showing no apparent safety signals.
- supports: Preliminary Findings of mRNA Covid-19 Vaccine Safety in Pregnant Persons. (The New England journal of medicine 2021) · cited 962x in the literature
"Among 3958 participants enrolled in the v-safe pregnancy registry, 827 had a completed pregnancy, of which 115 (13.9%) resulted in a pregnancy loss and 712 (86.1%) resulted in a live birth (mostly among participants with vaccination in the third trimester). Adverse neonatal outcomes included preterm birth (in 9.4%) and small size for gestational age (in 3.2%); no neonatal deaths were reported. Although not directly comparable, calculated proportions of adverse pregnancy and neonatal outcomes in persons vaccinated against Covid-19 who had a completed pregnancy were similar to incidences reported in studies involving pregnant women that were conducted before the Covid-19 pandemic." (abstract, results, passage verified)
pubmedfull study (doi)
A study of approximately 2,500 women who received a COVID-19 vaccine before 20 weeks of pregnancy found a miscarriage rate of 12.8%, which fell within the normal baseline range of 12.5% to 18.7%.
"this study was done in around 2,500 people, and they were women specifically. They were given a COVID-19 vaccine before 20 weeks of pregnancy, and much like you mentioned with the study in the New England Journal of Medicine, the miscarriage rate was within the normal range, and it was actually on the low end. So it was about 12.8% of miscarriages that occurred, and the normal range is between 12.5% to 18.7%." (said at 1:12:30)
An analysis of the CDC's v-safe COVID-19 Vaccine Pregnancy Registry by Zauche and colleagues evaluated 2,456 pregnant individuals who received at least one dose of an mRNA COVID-19 vaccine preconception or before 20 weeks of gestation. The age-standardized cumulative risk of spontaneous abortion (miscarriage) was 12.8% (95% CI: 10.8% to 14.8%), which aligns with expected historical baseline rates of spontaneous abortion in recognized pregnancies.
A June 2021 study published by the American Society for Reproductive Medicine found that neither previous SARS-CoV-2 infection nor COVID-19 vaccination affected embryo implantation in the uterus.
"There was another study that was published last June, and it was in the American Society for Reproductive Medicine. And that study found that neither having previously had a SARS-CoV-2 infection or having had a COVID-19 vaccine affected embryo implantation, so there was no effect on the ability of the embryo to implant into the uterus." (said at 1:13:11)
A cohort study published in June 2021 in F&S Reports (an American Society for Reproductive Medicine journal) evaluated whether antibodies against the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein affected embryo implantation. Using frozen embryo transfer cycles, researchers compared implantation rates among SARS-CoV-2 vaccine-seropositive, infection-seropositive, and seronegative women, finding no significant differences in implantation or sustained implantation rates across the groups.
A study looking at fertility in men found no effect of COVID-19 vaccines on normal sperm parameters including motility.
"On top of that, there was a very small study looking at fertility in men, and this study found that there was no effect of COVID-19 vaccines on any of the normal sperm parameters that are measured, like motility, etc. There was no effect on that." (said at 1:13:42)
Early cohort studies (such as Gonzalez et al., JAMA 2021) and subsequent systematic reviews and meta-analyses have evaluated male fertility parameters before and after COVID-19 vaccination. These studies consistently demonstrate that COVID-19 vaccination does not have a detrimental effect on standard semen parameters, including total sperm motility, progressive motility, sperm concentration, semen volume, total sperm count, or morphology.
- supports: Effect of COVID-19 vaccination on semen parameters: A systematic review and meta-analysis. (Journal of medical virology 2023) · cited 16x in the literature
"In a comparison of vaccinated versus unvaccinated group, the pooled data revealed no significant differences in semen volume (MD = 0.18 ml, 95% CI -0.02 to 0.38), sperm concentration (MD = 1.16 million/ml, 95% CI -1.34 to 3.66), total sperm motility (MD = -0.14%, 95% CI -2.84 to 2.56), progressive sperm motility (MD = -1.06%, 95% CI -2.88 to 0.77), total sperm count (MD = 5.92 million, 95% CI -10.22 to 22.05), total motile sperm count (MD = 2.18 million, 95% CI -1.28 to 5.63), total progressively motile sperm count (MD = -3.87 million, 95% CI -13.16 to 5.43), and sperm morphology (MD = 0.07%, 95% CI -0.84 to 0.97)." (abstract, results, passage verified)
pubmedfull study (doi) - supports: The effect of COVID-19 vaccines on sperm parameters: a systematic review and meta-analysis… (Asian journal of andrology 2023) · cited 9x in the literature
"According to the available data, the parameters of semen are unaffected by inactivated or messenger RNA (mRNA) COVID-19 vaccinations." (abstract, conclusions, passage verified)
pubmedfull study (doi)
A June 2020 in vitro study found that a 5 micromolar concentration of ivermectin reduced SARS-CoV-2 viral replication by approximately 5,000-fold in cell culture.
"Ivermectin is this medication that was initially studied—this came out in June of 2020—and what they found was that in high enough concentrations in vitro in a test tube, when they went to something called 5 micromolar concentration, they were able to completely shut down and reduce by about 5,000-fold the ability of the SARS-CoV-2 virus to reproduce." (said at 1:22:28)
A June 2020 in vitro study by Caly et al. published in Antiviral Research demonstrated that ivermectin (at a concentration of 5 µM) inhibited SARS-CoV-2 replication in cell culture (Vero-hSLAM cells), resulting in an approximate 5,000-fold reduction in viral RNA at 48 hours post-infection. Because this is an in vitro cell culture experiment, certainty is very low regarding clinical efficacy.
A June 2021 systematic review and meta-analysis on ivermectin for COVID-19 concluded there was moderate-certainty evidence that ivermectin reduced mortality compared to standard care or placebo, but low-certainty evidence for other clinical outcomes.
"there was a meta-analysis that came out in June of 2021 titled "Ivermectin for Prevention and Treatment of COVID-19 Infection: A Systematic Review, Meta-analysis, and Trial Sequential Analysis to Inform Clinical Guidelines." And what they did was they looked at a number of different studies... And they came up with the conclusion that there was moderate certainty of evidence that there was a reduction in death compared with no ivermectin, but the rest of the conclusions had a very low certainty evidence." (said at 1:24:04)
The speaker accurately describes the publication and stated conclusions of the June 2021 systematic review and meta-analysis by Bryant et al. in the American Journal of Therapeutics. The review included 24 randomized controlled trials and reported that ivermectin reduced the risk of death compared to no ivermectin with moderate-certainty evidence (average risk ratio 0.38, 95% CI 0.19–0.73), while secondary outcomes had low- to very low-certainty evidence.
- supports: Ivermectin for Prevention and Treatment of COVID-19 Infection: A Systematic Review, Meta-a… (American journal of therapeutics 2021) · cited 265x in the literature
"Meta-analysis of 15 trials found that ivermectin reduced risk of death compared with no ivermectin (average risk ratio 0.38, 95% confidence interval 0.19-0.73; n = 2438; I2 = 49%; moderate-certainty evidence)... Secondary outcomes provided less certain evidence. Low-certainty evidence suggested that there may be no benefit with ivermectin for "need for mechanical ventilation," whereas effect estimates for "improvement" and "deterioration" clearly favored ivermectin use. Severe adverse events were rare among treatment trials and evidence of no difference was assessed as low certainty. Evidence on other secondary outcomes was very low certainty." (abstract, results, passage verified)
pubmedfull study (doi)
In the TOGETHER adaptive platform trial evaluating repurposed treatments for COVID-19, study arms for hydroxychloroquine, lopinavir-ritonavir, and metformin were halted due to a lack of clinical efficacy.
"things like hydroxychloroquine was looked at, that didn't find any improvement, so they stopped that study. They looked at uh lopinavir/ritonavir, and they stopped that study because there wasn't an improvement. They stopped the metformin study because there wasn't an improvement." (said at 1:10:02)
In the TOGETHER adaptive randomized platform trial evaluating repurposed therapies for outpatients with early COVID-19 in Brazil, the hydroxychloroquine, lopinavir-ritonavir, and metformin treatment arms were all terminated early after planned interim analyses by the Data and Safety Monitoring Board revealed futility (lack of clinical efficacy). Neither hydroxychloroquine nor lopinavir-ritonavir showed a reduction in COVID-19-associated hospitalization or secondary clinical outcomes, and metformin similarly showed no clinical benefit or difference in emergency setting retention or hospitalization compared to placebo. [WARNING: a cited paper has been RETRACTED]
- supports: Effect of Early Treatment With Hydroxychloroquine or Lopinavir and Ritonavir on Risk of Ho… (JAMA network open 2021) · cited 142x in the literature
"At first interim analysis, the data safety monitoring board recommended stopping enrollment of both hydroxychloroquine and lopinavir-ritonavir groups because of futility. The proportion of patients hospitalized for COVID-19 was 3.7% (8 participants) in the hydroxychloroquine group, 5.7% (14 participants) in the lopinavir-ritonavir group, and 4.8% (11 participants) in the placebo group." (abstract, results, passage verified)
pubmedfull study (doi) - supports: Effect of early treatment with metformin on risk of emergency care and hospitalization amo… (Lancet regional health. Americas 2022)RETRACTED · cited 63x in the literature
"On April 3, 2021, the Data and Safety Monitoring Committee recommended stopping enrollment into the metformin arm due to futility. We recruited 418 participants, 215 were randomized to the metformin arm and 203 to the placebo arm." (abstract, results, passage verified)
pubmedfull study (doi)
Ivermectin is used as a therapeutic in humans to treat parasitic diseases, helminth infections, scabies, and lice.
"in addition to being used in humans for parasitic diseases and helminths and also scabies and lice and things like that, it's also used in in like, you know, people are calling it horse dewormer." (said at 1:36:19)
Ivermectin is an established antiparasitic medication approved by regulatory bodies, including the US FDA and the World Health Organization, for human use against parasitic nematodes (such as onchocerciasis and strongyloidiasis), as well as ectoparasitic infestations including scabies and head lice.
The original randomized controlled trials for the mRNA COVID-19 vaccines enrolled a total of 75,000 participants.
"even going back to the original clinical trials with our with our mRNA vaccines, there were 75,000 people originally in that randomized controlled trial where people, you know, half the the population was getting a treat the treatment, which were the vaccines, and the other half was getting the placebo." (said at 1:38:59)
The original pivotal phase 3 randomized controlled trials for the two mRNA COVID-19 vaccines enrolled a combined total of approximately 74,000 participants. Specifically, the Pfizer-BioNTech (BNT162b2) phase 3 trial randomized 43,548 participants in a 1:1 ratio to vaccine or placebo, and the Moderna (mRNA-1273) COVE trial randomized 30,420 participants in a 1:1 ratio (totaling 73,968 participants).
- supports: Safety and Efficacy of the BNT162b2 mRNA Covid-19 Vaccine. (The New England journal of medicine 2020) · cited 15714x in the literature
"A total of 43,548 participants underwent randomization, of whom 43,448 received injections: 21,720 with BNT162b2 and 21,728 with placebo." (abstract, results, passage verified)
pubmedfull study (doi) - supports: Efficacy and Safety of the mRNA-1273 SARS-CoV-2 Vaccine. (The New England journal of medicine 2021) · cited 10877x in the literature
"The trial enrolled 30,420 volunteers who were randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to receive either vaccine or placebo (15,210 participants in each group)." (abstract, results, passage verified)
pubmedfull study (doi)
A multi-state Mayo Clinic study comparing 25,000 vaccinated and 25,000 unvaccinated individuals found that Pfizer vaccine efficacy against infection dropped from 88–93% down to 41% after the Delta variant became dominant.
"there was a large study that was done out of the Mayo Clinic. Many states were involved in terms of like the sample population from many different states in the United States, and this was like 25,000 people that were vaccinated versus 25,000 people that were unvaccinated... And so when the Delta variant became dominant, it was clear that efficacy for preventing infection went down. So people that were fully vaccinated with the Pfizer vaccine went from an efficacy of like 88 to 93% or something like that down to 41%." (said at 1:44:30)
The speaker accurately recounts findings from a widely cited multi-state Mayo Clinic study (Puranik et al., 2021) evaluating mRNA vaccine effectiveness during the emergence of the SARS-CoV-2 Delta variant. In initial matched-cohort analyses, Pfizer-BioNTech (BNT162b2) effectiveness against infection was reported to drop from ~85–89% in earlier months to ~42% in July 2021 as Delta became dominant. In the final peer-reviewed publication from the Mayo Clinic cohort, test-negative case-control analyses estimated BNT162b2 effectiveness against symptomatic infection at 85.7% (95% CI: 81.4%–88.9%) between December 2020 and May 2021, declining to 63.5% (95% CI: 55.8%–69.9%) during July–September 2021.
- context: Comparative effectiveness of mRNA-1273 and BNT162b2 against symptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infecti… (Med (New York, N.Y.) 2022) · cited 33x in the literature
"Both vaccines were highly effective over the study duration (VE mRNA-1273 : 84.1%, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 81.6%-86.2%; VE BNT162b2 : 75.6%, 95% CI: 72.2%-78.7%), but their effectiveness was reduced during July-September (VE mRNA-1273 : 75.6%, 95% CI: 70.1%-80%; VE BNT162b2 : 63.5%, 95% CI: 55.8%-69.9%) as compared to December-May (VE mRNA-1273 : 93.7%, 95% CI: 90.4%-95.9%; VE BNT162b2 : 85.7%, 95% CI: 81.4%-88.9%)." (abstract, results, passage verified)
pubmedfull study (doi)
The Mayo Clinic study found that the Moderna vaccine was approximately 77% effective against SARS-CoV-2 infection during the Delta surge, roughly twice as protective as the Pfizer vaccine.
"the Moderna mRNA vaccine also had reduced efficacy in terms of preventing infections, although it wasn't quite as dramatic. So Moderna vaccine is about twice as protective as the Pfizer vaccine in getting a new and getting a SARS-CoV-2 infection, so there was about 77% effective at preventing SARS-CoV-2 infection." (said at 1:45:20)
A large matched observational study conducted within the Mayo Clinic Health System (Puranik et al., 2021) evaluated vaccine effectiveness during the emergence of the Delta variant in July 2021. The study found that vaccine effectiveness against SARS-CoV-2 infection in Minnesota dropped to 76% (95% CI: 58–87%) for Moderna (mRNA-1273) compared to 42% (95% CI: 13–62%) for Pfizer/BioNTech (BNT162b2). Across multi-state Mayo Clinic sites, Moderna recipients had a two-fold risk reduction against breakthrough infection compared to Pfizer recipients (incidence rate ratio 0.50, 95% CI: 0.39–0.64).
- supports: Comparison of two highly-effective mRNA vaccines for COVID-19 during periods of Alpha and … (medRxiv : the preprint server for health sciences 2021) · cited 250x in the literature
"In July, vaccine effectiveness against hospitalization has remained high (mRNA-1273: 81%, 95% CI: 33-96.3%; BNT162b2: 75%, 95% CI: 24-93.9%), but effectiveness against infection was lower for both vaccines (mRNA-1273: 76%, 95% CI: 58-87%; BNT162b2: 42%, 95% CI: 13-62%), with a more pronounced reduction for BNT162b2. ... Comparing rates of infection between matched individuals fully vaccinated with mRNA-1273 versus BNT162b2 across Mayo Clinic Health System sites in multiple states (Minnesota, Wisconsin, Arizona, Florida, and Iowa), mRNA-1273 conferred a two-fold risk reduction against breakthrough infection compared to BNT162b2 (IRR = 0.50, 95% CI: 0.39-0.64)." (abstract, results, passage verified)
pubmedfull study (doi)
The Mayo Clinic study found that both the Pfizer and Moderna mRNA vaccines remained 80% to 97% effective at preventing COVID-19 hospitalizations during the Delta surge.
"Hospitalizations were still quite—the both vaccines were still quite effective, anywhere from 80 to 97% effective at preventing hospitalizations, which is ultimately the most important thing." (said at 1:45:45)
A Mayo Clinic Health System observational study (Puranik et al., 2021) evaluated the effectiveness of the Moderna (mRNA-1273) and Pfizer/BioNTech (BNT162b2) mRNA vaccines during periods of Alpha and Delta variant prevalence (January to July 2021). The study found overall effectiveness against COVID-19-associated hospitalization to be 91.6% (95% CI: 81–97%) for mRNA-1273 and 85% (95% CI: 73–93%) for BNT162b2. In July 2021, as the Delta variant surged to over 70% prevalence in Minnesota, point estimates for effectiveness against hospitalization remained high at 81% for mRNA-1273 and 75% for BNT162b2, aligning with the 80% to 97% range stated by the speaker.
- supports: Comparison of two highly-effective mRNA vaccines for COVID-19 during periods of Alpha and … (medRxiv : the preprint server for health sciences 2021) · cited 250x in the literature
"Both vaccines were highly effective during this study period against SARS-CoV-2 infection (mRNA-1273: 86%, 95%CI: 81-90.6%; BNT162b2: 76%, 95%CI: 69-81%) and COVID-19 associated hospitalization (mRNA-1273: 91.6%, 95% CI: 81-97%; BNT162b2: 85%, 95% CI: 73-93%). In July, vaccine effectiveness against hospitalization has remained high (mRNA-1273: 81%, 95% CI: 33-96.3%; BNT162b2: 75%, 95% CI: 24-93.9%), but effectiveness against infection was lower for both vaccines" (abstract, results, passage verified)
pubmedfull study (doi)
A large UK study that included the AstraZeneca vaccine found that peak viral loads were similar in Delta breakthrough infections between vaccinated and unvaccinated individuals.
"there was another study, a large study that was done out of the UK. And this study showed that—this was the most interesting thing in my opinion in this study, this also included AstraZeneca vaccine because AstraZeneca has largely been used in in some European countries, like in the UK—that people that were fully vaccinated were still, you know, there was still some efficacy in terms of protecting against, you know, getting the virus... but when you looked at peak viral load, in other words, when the virus is at its peak for replicating, the peak viral load was similar in a breakthrough infection from a vaccinated person versus an unvaccinated person that had contracted the SARS-CoV-2 virus." (said at 1:46:30)
A large UK community-based study (the COVID-19 Infection Survey, Pouwels et al., 2021) evaluated the Oxford-AstraZeneca (ChAdOx1) and Pfizer-BioNTech (BNT162b2) vaccines against the Delta (B.1.617.2) variant. The authors found that while vaccination continued to reduce new infections, breakthrough infections occurring after two doses of either vaccine had similar peak viral burdens to infections in unvaccinated individuals.
A preprint study from Singapore showed that although initial viral loads were similar, vaccinated patients with Delta breakthrough infections cleared the virus faster (achieved a negative PCR faster) than unvaccinated patients.
"And so that's exactly what this preprint study out of Singapore, which was with the Delta variant, showed that while initial viral loads were similar between a breakthrough vaccinated case and an unvaccinated person that had SARS-CoV-2 virus, infected with SARS-CoV-2 virus, those initial viral levels are the same, if you followed those individuals over time, the vaccinated people cleared the virus faster than the unvaccinated. So they actually had a a shorter negative PCR time." (said at 1:47:30)
A widely cited multicenter cohort study from Singapore (initially released as a preprint in July 2021 by Chia et al. and later published in Clinical Microbiology and Infection) evaluated virological kinetics in patients hospitalized with SARS-CoV-2 Delta variant infections. The study found that baseline PCR cycle threshold (Ct) values (reflecting initial viral load) were similar at diagnosis between vaccinated breakthrough cases and unvaccinated individuals, but vaccinated individuals experienced a significantly faster decline in viral RNA load over time.
A study of approximately 15,000 Israeli healthcare workers found that lower IgG antibody titers were predictive of subsequent breakthrough COVID-19 infections.
"Well, there was a big study that came out of Israel looking at breakthrough infections... if you look at this Israel study, they were looking at healthcare workers, and there was about 15,000 of them basically, and these healthcare workers, they took blood samples, and they could look at their antibody levels against—these were vaccinated healthcare workers... And that's exactly what was found: people that had lower antibody titers were much more likely to get a breakthrough infection than people that had higher antibody titers." (said at 1:48:55)
A prospective study conducted at Sheba Medical Center in Israel (encompassing approximately 15,000 healthcare workers, with 11,453 fully vaccinated) evaluated correlates of breakthrough SARS-CoV-2 infections. In a nested case-control analysis, fully vaccinated healthcare workers who developed breakthrough infections had significantly lower peri-infection neutralizing antibody titers (and lower IgG titers) compared to matched uninfected controls (case-to-control ratio 0.361; 95% CI, 0.165 to 0.787). Higher neutralizing antibody titers were also associated with higher cycle-threshold (Ct) values (lower viral load/infectivity).
A mathematical modeling study led by Miles Davenport and published in Nature Medicine found that protecting against SARS-CoV-2 infection requires a six-fold higher antibody titer than protecting against severe hospitalization.
"And there was another great study that came out, it was the Miles Davenport group, and it was published in Nature Medicine, and he did this mathematical modeling to predict breakthrough infections. And what he found was that it seems as though, according to his model, people need a six-fold higher antibody titer level to be protected from contracting SARS-CoV-2 virus than they need to be protected from being hospitalized from the SARS-CoV-2 virus." (said at 1:49:45)
A mathematical modeling study led by Miles P. Davenport's group and published in Nature Medicine (Khoury et al., 2021) analyzed neutralization titers and clinical efficacy across seven COVID-19 vaccines and convalescent cohorts. The authors estimated that achieving 50% protection against detectable SARS-CoV-2 infection required a neutralization titer of approximately 20.2% of the mean convalescent level, whereas 50% protection against severe infection required only 3.0% of the mean convalescent level—an approximately 6.7-fold (roughly six-fold) difference.
There are no documented examples in the scientific literature of human vaccines driving the evolution of a more virulent viral strain.
"so there's no example of human vaccines causing a more virulent strain. There are examples of vaccine escape, so in other words, variants crop up that can evade the antibodies produced by vaccines. And that's that's a different thing." (said at 1:58:30)
The speaker's distinction is accurate according to the evolutionary biology and medical literature. While evolutionary pressure from human vaccines has led to antigenic escape or serotype replacement in several pathogens (e.g., epitope modifications in hepatitis B virus, pertactin deficiency in Bordetella pertussis, serotype shifts in Streptococcus pneumoniae, and antibody escape in SARS-CoV-2), there are no documented instances in the scientific literature of human vaccines driving the evolution of higher intrinsic virulence in a human viral pathogen. The primary empirical evidence for vaccine-driven evolution of hypervirulence comes from veterinary medicine (specifically imperfect vaccines in Marek's disease virus in chickens), not human vaccination programs.
Against the Alpha and Beta variants of SARS-CoV-2, COVID-19 vaccines used in the United States were 90% to 95% effective at preventing symptomatic infection.
"when, you know, we had the Alpha variant and even the Beta variant, we know that the vaccines in the United States were largely effective still and, you know, in many cases still 90, 95% effective at preventing people from even getting COVID-19, symptomatic and seeking out healthcare." (said at 1:42:29)
Large test-negative case-control studies evaluating the primary series of mRNA COVID-19 vaccines (such as mRNA-1273 and BNT162b2, widely used in the US) found high real-world effectiveness against the Alpha (B.1.1.7) and Beta (B.1.351) variants. Full two-dose vaccination demonstrated 89% to 100% effectiveness against Alpha infection/symptomatic disease and approximately 80% to 96% effectiveness against Beta infection and associated severe outcomes.
In COVID-19 cases, death typically occurs days after the infectious transmission window has already passed.
"if you look at the the deaths in COVID-19, people that are unvaccinated or just generally speaking, people usually die much later than the transmission phase. They die, you know, days and days and days after actually becoming infected with SARS-CoV-2. And so the transmission phase is well over before people are even dying." (said at 1:58:15)
Published epidemiological and virological meta-analyses confirm that fatal COVID-19 outcomes typically occur well after the transmission phase has ended. Systematic reviews show that shedding of culturable/viable SARS-CoV-2 peaks during the first week of symptoms and is rarely detected beyond day 9 of illness (and averages ~5 days for Omicron variants). In contrast, systematic reviews of clinical timelines show the mean duration from symptom onset to death is approximately 16 to 20 days (e.g., a pooled mean of 15.93 days from symptom onset to death in general cohorts, and ~19 to 20 days in critically ill intubated cohorts). Consequently, the primary infectious window has typically passed days before mortality occurs.
- supports: Epidemiological characteristics of COVID-19: a systematic review and meta-analysis. (Epidemiology and infection 2020) · cited 208x in the literature
"The pooled mean number of days from the onset of COVID-19 symptoms to first clinical visit was 4.92 (95% CI: 3.95, 5.90), ICU admission was 9.84 (95% CI: 8.78, 10.90), recovery was 18.55 (95% CI: 13.69, 23.41), and death was 15.93 (95% CI: 13.07, 18.79)." (abstract, results, passage verified)
pubmedfull study (doi) - supports: SARS-CoV-2, SARS-CoV, and MERS-CoV viral load dynamics, duration of viral shedding, and in… (The Lancet. Microbe 2021) · cited 1500x in the literature
"No study detected live virus beyond day 9 of illness, despite persistently high viral loads, which were inferred from cycle threshold values. SARS-CoV-2 viral load in the upper respiratory tract appeared to peak in the first week of illness" (abstract, results, passage verified)
pubmedfull study (doi)
With the Delta variant, COVID-19 vaccine effectiveness against transmission decreased compared to earlier in the pandemic, but protection against hospitalization and severe disease remained largely preserved.
"And if you look at what's happening right now with the Delta variant in in Israel and the United States, we see a reduction in the ability of the vaccines to reduce transmission, right? So with the Delta variant, instead of the 80 to 90% that we enjoyed early on in the pandemic, it's been knocked down somewhat, but we really haven't seen an erosion to that extent in prevention of hospitalization and severe disease" (said at 2:06:04)
Multiple systematic reviews and meta-analyses confirm that during the period of Delta (B.1.617.2) variant dominance, COVID-19 vaccine effectiveness against infection and transmission experienced a moderate decline (decreasing by approximately 10 to 20 percentage points compared to earlier variants like Alpha), whereas vaccine effectiveness against hospitalization and severe disease remained robust and largely preserved at approximately 90% or higher.
- supports: Effectiveness of COVID-19 vaccines against SARS-CoV-2 infection with the Delta (B.1.617.2)… (Euro surveillance : bulletin Europeen sur les maladies transmissibles = European communicable disease bulletin 2021) · cited 151x in the literature
"Pooled VE was 63.1% (95% confidence interval (CI): 40.9-76.9) against asymptomatic infection, 75.7% (95% CI: 69.3-80.8) against symptomatic infection and 90.9% (95% CI: 84.5-94.7) against hospitalisation. Compared with the Alpha variant, VE against mild outcomes was reduced by 10-20%, but fully maintained against severe COVID-19." (abstract, results, passage verified)
pubmedfull study (doi) - supports: Duration of effectiveness of vaccines against SARS-CoV-2 infection and COVID-19 disease: r… (Lancet (London, England) 2022) · cited 1228x in the literature
"COVID-19 vaccine efficacy or effectiveness against severe disease remained high, although it did decrease somewhat by 6 months after full vaccination. By contrast, vaccine efficacy or effectiveness against infection and symptomatic disease decreased approximately 20-30 percentage points by 6 months." (abstract, conclusions, passage verified)
pubmedfull study (doi)
During World War II, the Ford manufacturing plant in Detroit produced B-24 Liberator bombers at a rate of one per hour.
"There was a point in time in Detroit where they were at the Ford manufacturing plant putting out a B-24 Liberator, which is a large plane with four engines, at the rate of one per hour." (said at 2:11:32)
Historical documentation confirms that during World War II, Ford Motor Company applied automotive assembly-line mass production methods to build Consolidated B-24 Liberator heavy bombers at its massive Willow Run plant in metropolitan Detroit (Ypsilanti, Michigan). At peak production in 1944, the plant completed B-24 bombers at a rate of approximately one aircraft per hour.
- supports: Sarah Jo Peterson. Planning the Home Front: Building Bombers and Communities at Willow Run… (The American Historical Review 2014)
"In this extensive monograph, Sarah Jo Peterson, an independent scholar with twenty years' experience in urban planning, depicts both levels—the lofty plus the gritty—of wartime building and production at the Willow Run bomber plant located outside of Ypsilanti, Michigan... And always there lurked the imposing, ominous gray whale of a factory building that loomed over the community, as well as the constant verbal shorthand for its dominance: “Ford.”" (abstract, passage verified)
openalexfull study (doi) - supports: The Arsenal of Democracy: fdr, Detroit, and an Epic Quest to Arm an America at War by A. J… (Middle West review 2017)
"Baime tells us how Edsel Ford, Charlie Sorenson, and fmc finally were able to produce B-24s like automobiles (which aviation moguls said could not be done)... Combining the genius of Charlie Sorenson and his people with the help of Charles Lindbergh, Edsel managed to achieve his goal of automobile-like mass production of the heavy bomber, although a bit later than he’d intended." (abstract)
openalexfull study (doi) - supports: Future Interior of the Past: An Air Terminal Comes of Age at Detroit-Willow Run (Interiority 2025)
"Located twenty miles west of Detroit, the Willow Run airfield in Ypsilanti was one such case. Best known for the massive B-24 Liberator manufacturing plant designed by Albert Kahn that opened in 1942 as Air Force Plant 31, the airfield played a key role in ending the war." (abstract, passage verified)
openalexfull study (doi)
In 1990, researchers published a paper demonstrating for the first time that injected mRNA into mouse muscle cells could express protein.
"Back in the 1990s, we injected for the first time mRNA into the muscle cells of a mouse for the very first time... Here is a paper that was published in 1990, so over 30 years ago, that was for the first time showing that this technology actually had viability." (said at 2:12:34)
A landmark 1990 study by Wolff and colleagues published in Science demonstrated that direct in vivo injection of naked mRNA and DNA expression vectors (encoding chloramphenicol acetyltransferase, luciferase, and beta-galactosidase) into mouse skeletal muscle resulted in detectable protein expression without requiring a specialized delivery system.
In 2005, researchers figured out how to modify nucleotides in mRNA molecules to prevent early destruction and allow them to last long enough to make protein.
"By 2005, we had modified the nucleotides, which are the signaling in that mRNA vaccine, to get around early destruction. So the problem early on was that we couldn't allow these messenger RNA molecules to last long enough to make the protein product." (said at 2:12:42)
In a landmark 2005 study published in Immunity, Katalin Karikó, Drew Weissman, and colleagues demonstrated that incorporating modified nucleosides (such as pseudouridine, 5-methylcytidine, and N6-methyladenosine) into synthetic mRNA eliminated its recognition by innate Toll-like receptors (TLR3, TLR7, TLR8) and markedly blunted dendritic cell inflammatory responses. This modification addressed the critical barrier of premature immune clearance and degradation, enabling mRNA to remain intact long enough to be efficiently translated into target proteins and laying the technological foundation for modern mRNA vaccines.
- supports: Suppression of RNA recognition by Toll-like receptors: the impact of nucleoside modificati… (Immunity 2005) · cited 2704x in the literature
"We show that RNA signals through human TLR3, TLR7, and TLR8, but incorporation of modified nucleosides m5C, m6A, m5U, s2U, or pseudouridine ablates activity. Dendritic cells (DCs) exposed to such modified RNA express significantly less cytokines and activation markers than those treated with unmodified RNA." (abstract, results, passage verified)
pubmedfull study (doi) - supports: Nucleoside Modified mRNA Vaccines for Infectious Diseases. (Methods in molecular biology (Clifton, N.J.) 2017) · cited 132x in the literature
"FPLC purification and substitution of modified nucleosides in the mRNA make it non-inflammatory and highly translatable (Kariko et al., Immunity 23:165-175, 2005; Kariko et al., Mol Ther 16:1833-1840, 2008; Kariko et al., Nucleic Acids Research 39:e142, 2011) that are crucial features for therapeutic relevance." (abstract, results, passage verified)
pubmedfull study (doi)
The first human clinical trial using mRNA technology took place in 2001 using mRNA-induced dendritic cells.
"in 2001 we have the first clinical trial of this mRNA technology that was made. It was mRNA-induced dendritic cells." (said at 2:14:32)
Early human clinical application of mRNA technology used ex vivo transfection of autologous dendritic cells with antigen-encoding mRNA. A landmark phase I trial testing autologous dendritic cells transfected with prostate-specific antigen (PSA) mRNA in 13 patients with metastatic prostate cancer demonstrated safety, bioactivity, and antigen-specific immune responses.
In 2017, clinical trials took place testing an mRNA-based vaccine for influenza and injecting mRNA into the heart to treat heart failure.
"In 2017, there were two clinical trials: one for mRNA-based vaccine for influenza and another one for mRNA technology used to treat patients with heart—basically had heart failure and they were injecting mRNA vaccines into their heart." (said at 2:14:57)
Published randomized clinical trial records confirm both applications were in clinical trials in 2017. Phase 1 trials evaluating lipid nanoparticle-formulated mRNA vaccines against avian influenza (H10N8 and H7N9) took place between 2015 and 2017, with preliminary human trial results published in 2017. In late 2017, the EPICCURE clinical trial (NCT03370887) was initiated to test direct myocardial injection of naked mRNA encoding VEGF-A (AZD8601) in patients with ischemic myocardial disease and impaired left ventricular ejection fraction undergoing coronary artery bypass grafting.
- supports: Preclinical and Clinical Demonstration of Immunogenicity by mRNA Vaccines against H10N8 an… (Molecular therapy : the journal of the American Society of Gene Therapy 2017) · cited 662x in the literature
"Interim results from a first-in-human, escalating-dose, phase 1 H10N8 study show very high seroconversion rates, demonstrating robust prophylactic immunity in humans. Adverse events (AEs) were mild or moderate with only a few severe and no serious events." (abstract, results, passage verified)
pubmedfull study (doi) - supports: mRNA vaccines against H10N8 and H7N9 influenza viruses of pandemic potential are immunogen… (Vaccine 2019) · cited 466x in the literature
"Two randomized, placebo-controlled, double-blind, phase 1 clinical trials enrolled participants between December 2015 and August 2017 at single centers in Germany (H10N8) and USA (H7N9). Healthy adults (ages 18-64 years for H10N8 study; 18-49 years for H7N9 study) participated." (abstract, methods, passage verified)
pubmedfull study (doi) - supports: Direct intramyocardial injection of VEGF mRNA in patients undergoing coronary artery bypas… (Molecular therapy : the journal of the American Society of Gene Therapy 2023) · cited 98x in the literature
"EPICCURE (ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT03370887) was a randomized, double-blind study of AZD8601 in patients with left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) 30%-50% who were undergoing elective coronary artery bypass surgery. Thirty epicardial injections of AZD8601 (total 3 mg) or placebo in citrate-buffered saline were targeted to ischemic but viable myocardial regions" (abstract, methods, passage verified)
pubmedfull study (doi)
Solid tumors are often resistant to systemic chemotherapy because they frequently grow far from blood vessels and are hypoxic, impairing drug delivery.
"Solid tumors are the type of cancers that are hardest to treat with chemotherapy because they often grow far away from blood vessels. And so blood vessels, you need them to be close to the cancer site because that's how the chemotherapeutic gets delivered to the tumor site. And so you'll get these tumors growing far away from them, they're what's called hypoxic, they're growing far away from blood vessels, and so it's one of the reasons why many different solid tumors are resistant to many types of chemotherapeutic treatments." (said at 2:16:10)
The speaker's claim accurately describes well-established cancer pathophysiology. In solid tumors, abnormal and inefficient vascular architecture creates tumor regions located distant from functional blood vessels. This increased diffusion distance impairs the delivery of blood-borne chemotherapeutic agents and results in focal hypoxia (low oxygen levels), both of which are major recognized mechanisms causing resistance to systemic chemotherapy and radiation therapy.
- supports: Tumor hypoxia: a target for selective cancer therapy. (Cancer science 2003) · cited 353x in the literature
"Tumor hypoxia has been considered to be a potential therapeutic problem because it renders solid tumors more resistant to sparsely ionizing radiation (IR) and chemotherapeutic drugs... First, it is difficult to deliver a sufficient amount of drug to a region that is remote from blood vessels." (abstract)
pubmedfull study (doi) - supports: Prospects for hypoxia-activated anticancer drugs. (Current medicinal chemistry. Anti-cancer agents 2004) · cited 26x in the literature
"The occurrence of hypoxic cells in solid tumors, and their resistance to radiotherapy and many chemotherapeutic drugs, has engendered an interest in non-toxic prodrugs that can be activated selectively under hypoxic conditions." (abstract, passage verified)
pubmedfull study (doi) - supports: Reengineering the Tumor Vasculature: Improving Drug Delivery and Efficacy. (Trends in cancer 2018) · cited 114x in the literature
"The leakiness of tumor vessels also impairs tumor blood flow and increases 'intratumor fluid pressure'. The abnormal blood flow not only impedes drug delivery, but the resulting hypoxia also aids tumor invasion, metastasis, immunosuppression, inflammation, fibrosis, and treatment resistance." (abstract, passage verified)
pubmedfull study (doi)
During World War II, President Franklin D. Roosevelt appointed General Motors president William Knudsen to coordinate U.S. industrial war production at a salary of one dollar per year.
"Franklin Delano Roosevelt sat down with a guy by the name of William Knudsen, who was basically the most powerful man in terms of Detroit and the auto manufacturing process, and he basically offered him a salary of one dollar to basically coordinate the infrastructure plan to build the war machine that he would be able to go against Hitler." (said at 1:31:00)
Historical scholarship documents that in 1940, President Franklin D. Roosevelt recruited William Knudsen, then president of General Motors, to coordinate and direct national industrial mobilization for World War II across war preparedness bodies such as the National Defense Advisory Commission and the Office of Production Management, famously serving as a 'dollar-a-year' man.
- supports: From the Boardroom to the War Room: America's Corporate Liberals and FDR's Preparedness Pr… (Journal of American History 2006)
"Most significantly, he describes the service of these corporate liberals on a succession of war preparedness boards between 1939 and 1941, including the War Resources Board, the National Defense Advisory Commission, and the Office of Production Management (opm). Holl argues that although they had to deal with bureaucratic disorganization, constant political hostility, and a lack of sufficient authority, they still managed to pull the country out of a state of profound “unreadiness” and build the foundations for a tremendous burst of wartime industrial production." (abstract, passage verified)
openalexfull study (doi) - supports: The Arsenal of Democracy (? 2025)
"In 1940, as Nazi Germany advances across Europe, President Roosevelt enlists private industry to drive military production, appointing General Motors’ William Knudsen to lead the effort. Knudsen and his team streamline production, secure vital materials, and mobilize manufacturers to mass-produce weapons, vehicles, and aircraft." (abstract, passage verified)
openalexfull study (doi)
Animals in preclinical animal safety and efficacy trials for COVID-19 vaccines did not die, allowing the trials to advance to human phases.
"Now, phase 1 trials still happened, the animal studies still happened. No, the animals did not die in the production of the—in fact, it was because the animals did so well that they were able to go to phase 1, 2, and 3." (said at 1:31:55)
Preclinical animal immunogenicity, safety, and viral challenge trials for COVID-19 vaccines (including mRNA-1273 and BNT162b2 in mice and nonhuman primates) demonstrated robust protection against SARS-CoV-2 challenge, marked reduction in viral replication, and no vaccine-induced mortality or enhanced respiratory disease pathology. These favourable safety and immunogenicity profiles supported progression into Phase 1–3 human clinical trials.
In 2009, a human clinical trial was conducted evaluating mRNA as a therapeutic.
"In 2009, we have another clinical trial where mRNA was used as a therapeutic." (said at 1:34:24)
The claim is supported. In 2009, results of a phase 1/2 clinical trial were published in which 21 metastatic melanoma patients received intradermal injections of protamine-stabilized mRNA encoding tumor-associated antigens (Melan-A, Tyrosinase, gp100, Mage-A1, Mage-A3, Survivin) as a therapeutic cancer vaccine. This followed a preceding phase 1/2 trial published in 2008 evaluating naked mRNA injections.
Unverified means no publication matching the claim was located; it does not prove the claim false. Spotted an error? See the corrections policy - disputes from the people quoted are prioritized.