Pro-Pharma, Vaccine-Biased "Health Feedback" Opinion Blog Website Continues to Make Unwarranted, Unsubstantiated Claims About Florida Department of Health Report

KEY TAKE AWAY: Health Feedback represents another self-appointed "Fact Check" opinion blog website that uses distortions to misrepresent its own sources and intentionally mislead the public.

Claim: The Florida Department of Health “put out information alleging that COVID-19 vaccines are dangerous”.

Fact: The Florida Department of Health reported science to the public that demonstrates that COVID-19 vaccines come with serious risks to human health as per their charge.

An opinion article published on Feb 23, 2023, published with a highly opinion-laden title “Florida Department of Health misleads on COVID-19 vaccine safety with erroneous comparison of VAERS reports”

claims that the Florida Department of Health report was “misleading” by its reporting the fact that VAERS reports in Florida increased by 1,700% after COVID-19 vaccines became available, signaling safety concerns.

The opinion blog author, Flora Teoh, bases her claim on what she believes about healthcare professionals’ reporting of serious adverse events (SAEs). She wrote:

“It is mandatory for healthcare professionals to report all serious adverse events following COVID-19 vaccination, regardless of whether the vaccine was the cause. The same requirement isn’t imposed on other vaccines, therefore the greater number of reports associated with COVID-19 vaccines compared to other vaccines is expected even without any issues related to COVID-19 vaccine.”

The author further asserts: “One of the key reasons for the greater number of adverse event reports for COVID-19 vaccines is the mandatory requirement to report all serious adverse events regardless of causality. Other vaccines don’t carry this requirement.”

Note that the “One of the key reasons” reasoning does not rule out a massive increase in serious adverse events due to the nature of the SARS-CoV-2 vaccines. The author is not forthright and fails to report the full body of knowledge on SAEs and deaths following SARS-CoV-2 vaccination.

PR RATING: OPINION BASED ON NO NEW DATA AND INCOMPLETE REPORTING

The Florida Department of Health Report

The Florida Department of Health alert, published on February 15, 2023, represents the duty of the Department of Health, led by Florida State Surgeon-General Dr. Joseph Ladapo to keep the public appraised of factors that could negatively impact their health.

The report, entitled “Health Alert on mRNA COVID-19 Vaccine Safety”, reported that

“In Florida alone, there was a 1,700% increase in VAERS reports after the release of the COVID-19 vaccine, compared to an increase of 400% in overall vaccine administration for the same time period”; “The reporting of life-threatening conditions increased over 4,400%. This is a novel increase and was not seen during the 2009 H1N1 vaccination campaign.”

The Florida DOH Health Alert is based on the findings of three peer-reviewed studies (Fraiman et al., Sun et al., and Dag Berild et al.) .each of which provided independent evidence of safety concerns with COVID-19 mRNA vaccines.

It’s not the first time Health Feedback has put out misleading information about public health.

In this article, Health Feedback repeated a false claim that there was a problem with the health outcome measure of billed office visits used by Lyons-Weiler and Thomas in one of the most important studies of vaccinated vs. unvaccinated children.

(See: “Study on vaccinated and unvaccinated children used a dubious metric for comparing disease incidence in both groups")

Health Feedback had no data on whether the RIOV measure used was “dubious”; since their article, it was found that the original study could not have been biased in the manner suggested because the unvaccinated children made their well-child visits with higher fidelity than the vaccinated children (See Lyons-Weiler and Blaylock).

New Study from IPAK: Results Shows that a Retracted Study Should Not Have Been Retracted. Now What?

CLAIM: Reporting Requirements Are Different for COVID-19 Vaccines, Specifically Requiring All Health Events Following a COVID-19 Vaccine “Regardless of Causality”

The author asserts her opinion: “One of the key reasons for the greater number of adverse event reports for COVID-19 vaccines is the mandatory requirement to report all serious adverse events regardless of causality. Other vaccines don’t carry this requirement.”

The Health Feedback article wrote: “A rise in VAERS reports likely reflects reporting requirements; it doesn’t mean that COVID-19 vaccines are dangerous.”

FACT: The National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act (NCVIA) requires reporting for ALL vaccines.

Evidence: The CDC

On a page for healthcare providers, US CDC writes:

“The National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act (NCVIA) requires healthcare providers to report: Any adverse event listed by the vaccine manufacturer as a contraindication to further doses of the vaccine; or Any adverse event listed in the VAERS Table of Reportable Events Following Vaccination that occurs within the specified time period after vaccination.”

They continue with an “encouragement”:

“In addition, CDC encourages you to report any clinically significant adverse event that occurs in a patient following a vaccination, even if you are unsure whether a vaccine caused the event.”

The author also wrote:

“Secondly, healthcare providers are required by law to report all serious adverse events following COVID-19 vaccination, regardless of whether they believe the vaccination caused the event, as the VAERS website states. The same requirement isn’t imposed on other vaccines like the flu vaccine.”

EVIDENCE: THE VERY LINK SHE USED IN HER ARTICLE ON THE CDC WEBSITE

From the CDC:

“The reporting requirements for COVID-19 vaccines are the same for those authorized under emergency use (EUA) or approved under Biologics License Application (BLA). Healthcare providers who administer COVID-19 vaccines are required by FDA, and under the provider agreements for the CDC COVID-19 Vaccination Program to report to VAERS the following after vaccination:

• Vaccine administration errors, whether or not associated with an adverse event (AE):

  •  If the incorrect mRNA COVID-19 vaccine product was inadvertently administered for a second dose in a 2-dose series, VAERS reporting is required.

  •  If a different product from the primary series is inadvertently administered for the additional or booster (third dose), VAERS reporting is required.

  •  VAERS reporting is not required for the following situations:

    •  If a mixed series is given intentionally (e.g., due to hypersensitivity to a vaccine ingredient)

    •  Mixing and matching of booster doses (as of October 21, 2021, mixing and matching of booster doses is allowed)

• Serious AEs regardless of causality. Serious AEs per FDA are defined as:

  •  Death

  •  A life-threatening AE

  •  Inpatient hospitalization or prolongation of existing hospitalization

  •  A persistent or significant incapacity or substantial disruption of the ability to conduct normal life functions

  •  A congenital anomaly/birth defect

  •  An important medical event that based on appropriate medical judgement (sic) may jeopardize the individual and may require medical or surgical intervention to prevent one of the outcomes listed above

• Cases of myocarditis after a Pfizer-BioNTech, Moderna, or Novavax vaccine

• Cases of pericarditis after a Pfizer-BioNTech, Moderna, or Novavax vaccine

• Cases of Multisystem Inflammatory Syndrome in children and adults

• Cases of COVID-19 that result in hospitalization or death

Here, the CDC also includes an “encouragement”, not a “requirement” as she implied in her article:

“Healthcare providers are encouraged to report to VAERS any additional clinically significant AEs following vaccination, even if they are not sure whether vaccination caused the event.”

See? No difference.

CLAIM: VAERS Cannot Be Used To Determine a Vaccine is Unsafe

The author of the Health Feedback opinion article wrote:

“Firstly, the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) collects reports on adverse events after vaccination, regardless of causality. Therefore it cannot be used alone to imply a vaccine is unsafe.”

EVIDENCE: Historic Fact

Fact: In 1999, CDC suspended an unsafe Rotavirus vaccine using VAERS data See: Suspension of Rotavirus Vaccine After Reports of Intussusception ---United States, 1999

PR RATING: FALSE

CLAIM: The Media attention on COVID-19 Makes People Report More

The author, in proffered more opinion not based on any data, wrote:

“Thirdly, the intense media attention on COVID-19 vaccines and their safety has likely produced a greater level of public awareness, which could plausibly also lead to more reports being submitted, as biostatistician Jeffrey Morris told FactCheck.org.”

She continued:

“In other words, the reporting rate of adverse events for COVID-19 vaccines is much higher than that for other vaccines. Therefore, the much greater number of adverse events reported after COVID-19 vaccination is expected to reflect the higher reporting rate. This is why the number of reports for COVID-19 vaccines cannot be directly compared to those for other vaccines. Health Feedback encountered an earlier iteration of this narrative by Fox News host Tucker Carlson, documented here.”

PR RATING: PARTLY TRUE

Underreporting of vaccine adverse events has been known to be a serious problem, so additional media attention would likely bring about less under-biased reporting.

This does not change the fact that the number of adverse events reported for COVID-19 vaccines is fat, far much higher than that for other vaccines: It outnumbered all other vaccines combined after the first three months of the vaccine program, a result found by Dr. Jessica Rose and published in the peer-reviewed IPAK journal, Science, Public Health Policy & the Law.

The article then goes on to try to critique the three studies cited by DOH.

CLAIM: The studies cited don’t provide reliable evidence that COVID-19 vaccines present a safety concern

The first study critiqued by Health Feedby back was Fraiman et al., which found that COVID-19 mRNA vaccines were associated with an excess risk of serious adverse events.

The Health Feedback author believes there are methodological issues with the Fraiman et al. study. Her source? Another Health Feedback article merely complained that the study did not study enough adverse health effects.

The second study critiqued by Health Check is the study by Sun et al., which reported the increase in acute cardiac arrests and other acute cardiac events following mRNA COVID-19 vaccination found in the number of calls made to the Israel National Emergency Medical Services for cardiac arrest and acute coronary syndrome following the onset of the vaccine program. Their critique was to describe the study as merely correlational and that the vaccination status of those calling the EMS centers was unknown.

However, those who decided on the type of science on COVID-19 vaccines insured that zero long-term health outcomes would be studied with long-term randomized clinical trials, so their critique is actually a condemnation of the decisions and actions of those who unblinded the randomized clinical trials and vaccinated the placebo control groups, forever preventing the type of data that Health Feedback thinks the authors should be able to pull out of thin air.

Health Feedback wrote:

“Based on this correlation, the authors proposed COVID-19 vaccination as an explanation for these heart-related problems. The most significant problem with this conclusion is that the study didn’t have information on the vaccination status of the people who had heart problems. The first step towards assessing whether COVID-19 vaccination is involved is to see if these cases occurred more often in vaccinated people than in unvaccinated people. Without this information, it is impossible to determine that a causal relationship exists.”

Exactly.

The third study critiqued by Health Feedback is the study by Dag Berild et al.,

Health Feedback wrote that “the authors reported an association between the AstraZeneca-Oxford COVID-19 vaccine and blood clotting disorders”.

Fact: The study found quite a bit more than that.

“There was an observed increased rate of coagulation disorders following all 3 vaccines (AZD1222: RR, 2.01 [95% CI, 1.75-2.31]; BNT162b2: RR, 1.12 [95% CI, 1.07-1.19]; and mRNA-1273: RR, 1.26 [95% CI, 1.07-1.47]). There was also an observed increased rate of cerebrovascular disease following all 3 vaccines (AZD1222: RR, 1.32 [95% CI, 1.16-1.52]; BNT162b2: RR, 1.09 [95% CI, 1.05-1.13]; and mRNA-1273: RR, 1.21 [95% CI, 1.09-1.35]).”

“Found 265 339 hospital contacts, of whom 112 984 [43%] were for female patients, 246 092 [93%] were for patients born in 1971 or earlier, 116 931 [44%] were for coronary artery disease, 55 445 [21%] were for coagulation disorders, and 92 963 [35%] were for cerebrovascular disease. In the 28 days following vaccination, there was an increased rate of coronary artery disease following mRNA-1273 vaccination (RR, 1.13 [95% CI, 1.02-1.25]), but not following AZD1222 vaccination (RR, 0.92 [95% CI, 0.82-1.03]) or BNT162b2 vaccination (RR, 0.96 [95% CI, 0.92-0.99]). There was an observed increased rate of coagulation disorders following all 3 vaccines (AZD1222: RR, 2.01 [95% CI, 1.75-2.31]; BNT162b2: RR, 1.12 [95% CI, 1.07-1.19]; and mRNA-1273: RR, 1.26 [95% CI, 1.07-1.47]). There was also an observed increased rate of cerebrovascular disease following all 3 vaccines (AZD1222: RR, 1.32 [95% CI, 1.16-1.52]; BNT162b2: RR, 1.09 [95% CI, 1.05-1.13]; and mRNA-1273: RR, 1.21 [95% CI, 1.09-1.35]). For individual diseases within the main outcomes, 2 notably high rates were observed: 12.04 (95% CI, 5.37-26.99) for cerebral venous thrombosis and 4.29 (95% CI, 2.96-6.20) for thrombocytopenia, corresponding to 1.6 (95% CI, 0.6-2.6) and 4.9 (95% CI, 2.9-6.9) excess events per 100 000 doses, respectively, following AZD1222 vaccination.”

Therefore, on top of making unsubstantiated claims with flawed studies, Health Check also misrepresented the research findings from the study by Dag Berild et al.

OVERALL ASSESSMENT

Health Check is a biased, pro-pharma, vaccine-promoting opinion blog article website that is easily confused with others that do the same thing. Their article is designed to mislead the public with just enough information that sounds like a strong critique, only made possible by leaving out key information or claiming the opposite of what their own sources report.