Are the reports from Mr. Dowd of 5000 deaths weekly related to Covid mRNA vaccines true?
This fact-check may be outdated. Consider refreshing it to get the most current information.
Was this fact-check helpful?
1. Summary of the results
The reports from Mr. Dowd of 5000 deaths weekly related to Covid mRNA vaccines are not supported by credible evidence [1]. Multiple sources, including FactCheck.org [1], have contradicted Mr. Dowd's claim, stating that COVID-19 vaccines substantially reduce the risk of dying from COVID-19 and serious side effects are very rare. Additionally, the CDC data shows excess deaths related to COVID-19, not COVID-19 vaccines, and other factors may have contributed to excess deaths in certain age groups [2]. A study analyzing the safety of COVID-19 vaccines, including mRNA vaccines, found that while they are generally safe, there are some potential safety signals that need to be monitored, but it did not find any evidence of 5000 deaths weekly related to Covid mRNA vaccines [3]. Other sources, such as the CDC report on safety monitoring of COVID-19 vaccines, have also not provided any information on weekly deaths related to Covid mRNA vaccines [4].
2. Missing context/alternative viewpoints
A key missing context in the original statement is the lack of credible evidence to support the claim of 5000 deaths weekly related to Covid mRNA vaccines [1]. Alternative viewpoints, such as the potential benefits of COVID-19 vaccines in reducing the risk of dying from COVID-19, are also not considered in the original statement [1]. Furthermore, the original statement does not account for the fact that excess deaths may be related to COVID-19 itself, rather than the vaccines [2]. Some sources, such as the study on the safety of COVID-19 vaccines, highlight the importance of monitoring potential safety signals, but this is not presented as evidence for the claim of 5000 deaths weekly [3]. The CDC report on safety monitoring of COVID-19 vaccines also provides context on the evaluation of specific safety outcomes, but does not support the claim [4].
3. Potential misinformation/bias in the original statement
The original statement may be an example of misinformation, as it presents a claim that is not supported by credible evidence [1]. The statement may benefit anti-vaccination groups or individuals who oppose COVID-19 vaccines, as it perpetuates a narrative of harm and danger associated with the vaccines [1]. On the other hand, public health organizations and medical professionals may be harmed by the spread of this misinformation, as it may lead to decreased trust in COVID-19 vaccines and reduced vaccination rates [2]. The statement may also be biased towards presenting a negative view of COVID-19 vaccines, without considering the potential benefits and the lack of evidence for the claim [3]. Overall, it is essential to rely on credible sources, such as FactCheck.org [1] and the CDC [4], to inform discussions about COVID-19 vaccines and their safety.