copenlu/druid huggingface dataset:
Claim: [T]he raw data, the actual thermometer data[...] shows that the US has been cooling for 80 to 90 years. But the graphs they release to the public show warming trend, and it's all because they've altered the data. (Tony Heller, 2019-05-08)
Evidence (2022-06-09): NOAA does not fraudulently adjust data to create the illusion of a global warming trend [...] Hosted by former Australian senator, Tony Heller repeats false claim that scientists fake the warming trend [...] NASA did not create global warming by manipulating data
Claim: [T]he raw data, the actual thermometer data[...] shows that the US has been cooling for 80 to 90 years. But the graphs they release to the public show warming trend, and it's all because they've altered the data. (Tony Heller, 2019-05-08)
Evidence (2024-10-08): During the year following the initial release of the 1991-2020 station-based U.S. Climate Normals in May 2021, National Weather Service Forecast Offices submitted inquiries regarding the Normals at a total of 60 stations. Staff at NCEI carefully adjudicated each inquiry in collaboration with its NWS partners. At 21 stations, NWS staff was able to provide data additions and corrections, and NCEI staff recalculated or added the affected normals parameters based on the updated data records. In most cases, changes the monthly normals were <0.5°C for temperature, <0.1 in for precipitation, and <0.5 in for snowfall. At two additional sites, certain normals parameters were removed because they were judged to be inaccurate, and no correction to the underlying data was feasible. The following stations were affected by changes in one or more of their Normals parameters. [...] During the temperature data homogenization process, abrupt but real changes in sea ice on the west and northern coasts of Alaska could be mistaken for artificial air temperature changes at stations close to the coast (north of 70°N or west of 160°W). To address this issue, we replaced the homogenized temperature records with original observations that were quality controlled but not homogenized, and reran the normals process. Normals at 18 stations within this zone were slightly modified. In addition, normals for 7 stations near the zone were under the influence of the coastal stations for filling missing data or estimating normals, and also had changed values.
Claim: [T]he raw data, the actual thermometer data[...] shows that the US has been cooling for 80 to 90 years. But the graphs they release to the public show warming trend, and it's all because they've altered the data. (Tony Heller, 2019-05-08)
Evidence (2023-03-06): A trip down memory lane and a lesson on scientific integrity. [...] Instead, they chose to hide the structural uncertainty in the MSU retrievals (the TMT trends for 1979-2013 in UAH v5.5 and RSS v3.3 were 0.04 and 0.08 +/- 0.05 K/dec respectively – a factor of two different!), and ignore the spread in the CMIP5 models TMT trends [0.08,0.36] and graph it in a way as to maximise the visual disparity in a frankly misleading way. Additionally, they decided to highlight the slower warming TMT records instead of the TLT record they had discussed in 1994. For contrast, the UAH v5.5 TLT trends for 1979-2013 were 0.14± 0.05 K/dec.
Claim: [T]he raw data, the actual thermometer data[...] shows that the US has been cooling for 80 to 90 years. But the graphs they release to the public show warming trend, and it's all because they've altered the data. (Tony Heller, 2019-05-08)
Evidence (2017-07-20): Raw data shows more global warming [...] You can see that adjustments to the data have relatively little effect on global temperatures after 1950. The rate of warming between 1950 and 2016 in the adjusted data is just under 10% faster than the raw data, and only 4% faster since the start of the modern warming period in 1970. The adjustments that have a big impact on the surface temperature record all occur before 1950. Here, past temperatures are adjusted up – significantly reducing the warming over the past century. Over the full 1880-2016 period, the adjusted data actually warms more than 20% slower than the raw data. The large adjustments before 1950 are due almost entirely to changes in the way ships measured temperatures (more on that later).
Claim: [T]he raw data, the actual thermometer data[...] shows that the US has been cooling for 80 to 90 years. But the graphs they release to the public show warming trend, and it's all because they've altered the data. (Tony Heller, 2019-05-08)
Evidence (2008-07-15): This site authored and maintained by: Tom Knutson, Senior Scientist, NOAA/GFDL Any views expressed here are the author’s and do not represent official views of NOAA or the U.S. government. A State of the Science Fact Sheet, reviewed and vetted by NOAA, is found here. [...] For more information and related research see:
Claim: [T]he raw data, the actual thermometer data[...] shows that the US has been cooling for 80 to 90 years. But the graphs they release to the public show warming trend, and it's all because they've altered the data. (Tony Heller, 2019-05-08)
Evidence (2024-09-09): The data shown are the latest available, with a four- to five-month delay needed for processing. [...] Credit: NASA's Goddard Space Flight Center Credit: NASA’s Goddard Space Flight Center/PO.DAAC
Claim: “An accurate reporting by Pfizer would have shown equal numbers of clinical trial deaths in the vaccine and placebo groups and thus, no benefit of vaccination” (Megan Redshaw, 2023-10-21)
Evidence (2023-10-21): When COVID-19 vaccines were first tested, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration had asked that manufacturers demonstrate first and foremost their vaccine’s ability to reduce the risk of getting COVID-19. The Pfizer-BioNTech 2020 clinical trial showed a 95% efficacy in reducing that risk. Furthermore, real-world analysis performed after the worldwide COVID-19 vaccination campaign showed that all-cause mortality was lower among vaccinated individuals.
Claim: “An accurate reporting by Pfizer would have shown equal numbers of clinical trial deaths in the vaccine and placebo groups and thus, no benefit of vaccination” (Megan Redshaw, 2023-10-21)
Evidence (2021-08-04): CLAIM: Because 14 people in Pfizer’s placebo group died and 15 people in the vaccinated group also died, Pfizer’s data shows its COVID-19 vaccine does not reduce the risk of dying from the disease. [...] Pfizer’s study states that fourteen people in the placebo group and 15 people in the vaccinated group died before January 2021. The vast majority of the deaths were unrelated to COVID-19. Only two people in the placebo group died of COVID-19 and one person in the vaccinated group died of COVID-19 pneumonia, according to additional Pfizer data obtained by The Associated Press. The rest of the deaths were due to other factors, including heart disease and heart attacks. [...] A widely shared Twitter post misrepresented the significance of the death numbers to falsely suggest those deaths meant the Pfizer’s vaccine doesn’t reduce a person’s chance of dying from the virus: "The pivotal clinical trial for the @pfizer #Covid vaccine shows it does nothing to reduce the overall risk of death. ZERO. 15 patients who received the vaccine died; 14 who received placebo died," the tweet reads.
Claim: “An accurate reporting by Pfizer would have shown equal numbers of clinical trial deaths in the vaccine and placebo groups and thus, no benefit of vaccination” (Megan Redshaw, 2023-10-21)
Evidence (2020-11-18): Pfizer and BioNTech Conclude Phase 3 Study of COVID-19 Vaccine Candidate, Meeting All Primary Efficacy Endpoints - Primary efficacy analysis demonstrates BNT162b2 to be 95% effective against COVID-19 beginning 28 days after the first dose;170 confirmed cases of COVID-19 were evaluated, with 162 observed in the placebo group versus 8 in the vaccine group - Efficacy was consistent across age, gender, race and ethnicity demographics; observed efficacy in adults over 65 years of age was over 94% [...] NEW YORK & MAINZ, Germany--(BUSINESS WIRE)-- Pfizer Inc. (NYSE: PFE) and BioNTech SE (Nasdaq: BNTX) today announced that, after conducting the final efficacy analysis in their ongoing Phase 3 study, their mRNA-based COVID-19 vaccine candidate, BNT162b2, met all of the study’s primary efficacy endpoints. Analysis of the data indicates a vaccine efficacy rate of 95% (p<0.0001) in participants without prior SARS-CoV-2 infection (first primary objective) and also in participants with and without prior SARS-CoV-2 infection (second primary objective), in each case measured from 7 days after the second dose. The first primary objective analysis is based on 170 cases of COVID-19, as specified in the study protocol, of which 162 cases of COVID-19 were observed in the placebo group versus 8 cases in the BNT162b2 group. Efficacy was consistent across age, gender, race and ethnicity demographics. The observed efficacy in adults over 65 years of age was over 94%.
Claim: “An accurate reporting by Pfizer would have shown equal numbers of clinical trial deaths in the vaccine and placebo groups and thus, no benefit of vaccination” (Megan Redshaw, 2023-10-21)
Evidence (2022-12-18): No Changes in All-Cause Mortality in Pfizer’s Clinical Trial for mRNA Vaccine: Why? In the 6-month trial, 21 deaths occurred in the mRNA vaccine group and 17 in the placebo group. [...] To state this article’s conclusion early, yes, no reduction in all-cause mortality rate was seen in the mRNA vaccine group in Pfizer’s 6-month clinical trial. But there are reasons for this; for example, very few participants are at high risk of fatal Covid-19, making this trial unsuitable for studying mortality rate. Other observational studies on Covid-19 vaccines and all-cause mortality show otherwise.
Claim: “An accurate reporting by Pfizer would have shown equal numbers of clinical trial deaths in the vaccine and placebo groups and thus, no benefit of vaccination” (Megan Redshaw, 2023-10-21)
Evidence (2023-10-31): FULL CLAIM: A "peer-reviewed" study showed that Pfizer had "altered" and "manipulated" the reporting of deaths that occurred in their clinical trial; an "accurate reporting" of mortality data would have shown that there is "no benefit of vaccination" In October 2023, the Epoch Times claimed that an analysis of clinical trial data obtained from a Freedom of Information Act request revealed that not all deaths that occurred during the trial had been reported to the FDA. It also claimed that an "accurate reporting" of mortality data would have shown "no benefit of vaccination". [...] If, as implied by the Epoch Times, all-cause mortality was the sole possible benefit, it is highly plausible that it would have been presented as such. Yet, the briefing document provided by Pfizer to the FDA described the number of deaths as "similar" between the vaccine and placebo arms in its section 6.3.3.2.1.2 and didn’t present the seemingly lower number of deaths in the vaccine arm as supporting evidence of the vaccine benefits.
Claim: “An accurate reporting by Pfizer would have shown equal numbers of clinical trial deaths in the vaccine and placebo groups and thus, no benefit of vaccination” (Megan Redshaw, 2023-10-21)
Evidence (2020-12-10): Pfizer and BioNTech Announce Publication of Results from Landmark Phase 3 Trial of BNT162b2 COVID-19 Vaccine Candidate in The New England Journal of Medicine - Data from 43,448 participants, half of whom received BNT162b2 and half of whom received placebo, showed that the vaccine candidate was well tolerated and demonstrated 95% efficacy in preventing COVID-19 in those without prior infection 7 days or more after the second dose - Vaccine efficacy observed in the overall study population was also generally consistent across subgroups defined by age, gender, race, ethnicity, baseline body mass index (BMI), or presence of other underlying co-morbidities - Partial protection from the vaccine candidate appears to begin as early as 12 days after the first dose - These data were included in the requests for regulatory authorization submitted to regulatory agencies across the globe, including the U.S. Food and Drug Administration and the European Medicines Agency [...] The most common adverse events of BNT162b2 were transient, mild to moderate pain at the injection site, fatigue and headache, and these generally resolved within two days. These reactions were less common and milder in older adults than younger adults. Severe reactions (Grade 3) were reported in fewer than 2% of vaccine recipients after either dose except for fatigue (3.8%) and headache (2.0%). Fever (≥38 °C) was reported in similar proportions of younger (16%) and older (11%) vaccine recipients. Rates of serious adverse events were similar between vaccine and placebo groups (0.6% and 0.5%).There were no COVID-19 related deaths.
Claim: “An accurate reporting by Pfizer would have shown equal numbers of clinical trial deaths in the vaccine and placebo groups and thus, no benefit of vaccination” (Megan Redshaw, 2023-10-21)
Evidence (2023-07-19): Evidence regarding safety of the Pfizer vaccine consisted of data from two randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled clinical trials, including the same ongoing phase 3 trial (24), and a phase 1/2 trial with 91 participants aged ≥65 years who received either the vaccine formulation used in phase 3 or placebo (25). Across both clinical trials, severe reactogenicity events (grade 3 or higher local or systemic reactions recorded during days 0–7 after vaccination) occurred in 1.0% of the intervention group participants, compared with 0.7% of the control group participants (pooled RR = 1.43; 95% CI = 0.85–2.39) (Table 4). The frequency of SAEs across both trials was similar in the intervention (4.3%) and control (4.1%) groups (pooled RR = 1.04; 95% CI = 0.94–1.15). A higher number of participants in the intervention group than in the control group reported atrial fibrillation as an unsolicited event within the 30 days after injection (intervention = 10 events [<0.1%]; control = four events [<0.1%], of which seven were SAEs [intervention = four; control = three]). Among participants who reported atrial fibrillation, a medical history of atrial fibrillation was reported by six of 10 Pfizer vaccine recipients and two of four placebo recipients (26).
Claim: “An accurate reporting by Pfizer would have shown equal numbers of clinical trial deaths in the vaccine and placebo groups and thus, no benefit of vaccination” (Megan Redshaw, 2023-10-21)
Evidence (2021-07-14): A vaccine’s efficacy is measured in a controlled clinical trial and is based on how many people who got vaccinated developed the ‘outcome of interest’ (usually disease) compared with how many people who got the placebo (dummy vaccine) developed the same outcome. Once the study is complete, the numbers of sick people in each group are compared, in order to calculate the relative risk of getting sick depending on whether or not the subjects received the vaccine. From this we get the efficacy – a measure of how much the vaccine lowered the risk of getting sick. If a vaccine has high efficacy, a lot fewer people in the group who received the vaccine got sick than the people in the group who received the placebo. So, for example, let’s imagine a vaccine with a proven efficacy of 80%. This means that – out of the people in the clinical trial – those who received the vaccine were at a 80% lower risk of developing disease than the group who received the placebo. This is calculated by comparing the number of cases of disease in the vaccinated group versus the placebo group. An efficacy of 80% does not mean that 20% of the vaccinated group will become ill.
Claim: “An accurate reporting by Pfizer would have shown equal numbers of clinical trial deaths in the vaccine and placebo groups and thus, no benefit of vaccination” (Megan Redshaw, 2023-10-21)
Evidence (2024-06-20): The drug, developed by Pfizer, had an 89% reduction in the risk of hospitalization and death in unvaccinated people in the clinical trial that supported the EUA, a number that was high enough to prompt the National Institutes of Health (NIH) to prioritize it over other COVID treatments. Studies outside of the laboratory also have confirmed Paxlovid’s effectiveness among people who have been vaccinated. [...] When it applied for FDA authorization in 2021, Pfizer presented data from a clinical trial conducted between mid-July and early December 2021. That data showed that participants, who were given Paxlovid were 89% less likely to develop severe illness and death compared to trial participants who received a placebo. All of the trial participants were unvaccinated and they took the drug within three days of symptom onset.
Claim: “An accurate reporting by Pfizer would have shown equal numbers of clinical trial deaths in the vaccine and placebo groups and thus, no benefit of vaccination” (Megan Redshaw, 2023-10-21)
Evidence (2021-01-04): All attention has focused on the dramatic efficacy results: Pfizer reported 170 PCR confirmed covid-19 cases, split 8 to 162 between vaccine and placebo groups. But these numbers were dwarfed by a category of disease called "suspected covid-19"—those with symptomatic covid-19 that were not PCR confirmed. According to FDA’s report on Pfizer’s vaccine, there were "3410 total cases of suspected, but unconfirmed covid-19 in the overall study population, 1594 occurred in the vaccine group vs. 1816 in the placebo group." [...] Another reason we need more data is to analyse an unexplained detail found in a table of FDA’s review of Pfizer’s vaccine: 371 individuals excluded from the efficacy analysis for "important protocol deviations on or prior to 7 days after Dose 2." What is concerning is the imbalance between randomized groups in the number of these excluded individuals: 311 from the vaccine group vs 60 on placebo. (In contrast, in Moderna’s trial, there were just 36 participants excluded from the efficacy analysis for "major protocol deviation"—12 vaccine group vs 24 placebo group.) [...] By my count, Pfizer apparently reported 8 cases of confirmed, symptomatic Covid-19 in people positive for SARS-CoV-2 at baseline (1 in the vaccine group, 7 in the placebo group, using the differences between Tables 9 and 10) and Moderna, 1 case (placebo group; Table 12).
Claim: “An accurate reporting by Pfizer would have shown equal numbers of clinical trial deaths in the vaccine and placebo groups and thus, no benefit of vaccination” (Megan Redshaw, 2023-10-21)
Evidence (2022-05-17): Vaccine clinical trials for a new candidate vaccine showed that vaccines very significantly reduced COVID-19 in people who were vaccinated, compared to a control group of people who did not receive the vaccine, through a reduction in numbers of laboratory confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infections. Since the population-wide roll out of COVID-19 vaccines commenced in December 2020, a significant number of effectiveness studies have been published in refereed international medical journals. The population wide effectiveness data have been in line with the findings of the clinical trial results and shown high effectiveness against infection and even higher effectiveness against serious illness, hospitalisation or death from COVID-19 infection. Progressive waning of the effectiveness of one or two doses, particularly against mild infection and against the SARS-CoV-2 Omicron variant has emphasised the importance of a third booster vaccination.
Claim: “An accurate reporting by Pfizer would have shown equal numbers of clinical trial deaths in the vaccine and placebo groups and thus, no benefit of vaccination” (Megan Redshaw, 2023-10-21)
Evidence (2021-12-01): The higher frequency of reported unsolicited non-serious adverse events among Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 Vaccine recipients compared to placebo recipients was primarily attributed to local and systemic adverse events reported during the first 7 days following vaccination that are consistent with adverse reactions solicited among participants in the reactogenicity subset and presented in Tables 3 and 4. From Dose 1 through 30 days after Dose 2, reports of lymphadenopathy were imbalanced with notably more cases in the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 Vaccine group (64) vs. the placebo group (6), which is plausibly related to vaccination. Throughout the safety follow-up period to date, Bell's palsy (facial paralysis) was reported by 4 participants in the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 Vaccine group. Onset of facial paralysis was Day 37 after Dose 1 (participant did not receive Dose 2) and Days 3, 9, and 48 after Dose 2. No cases of Bell's palsy were reported in the placebo group. Currently available information is insufficient to determine a causal relationship with the vaccine. There were no other notable patterns or numerical imbalances between treatment groups for specific categories of non-serious adverse events (including other neurologic or neuro-inflammatory, and thrombotic events) that would suggest a causal relationship to Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 Vaccine.
Claim: “An accurate reporting by Pfizer would have shown equal numbers of clinical trial deaths in the vaccine and placebo groups and thus, no benefit of vaccination” (Megan Redshaw, 2023-10-21)
Evidence (2021-04-01): Thirty-two cases of severe disease, as defined by the CDC, were observed in the placebo group versus none in the BNT162b2 vaccinated group, indicating that the vaccine was 100% efficacious in this analysis against severe disease by the CDC definition (95% CI, [88.0,100.0]). Twenty-one severe cases, as defined by the FDA, were observed in the placebo group versus one case in the BNT162b2 vaccinated group, indicating 95.3% efficacy by the FDA definition (95% CI, [71.0, 99.9]). [...] A total of 697 cases of COVID-19 were observed in the United States; 647 cases of COVID-19 were observed in the placebo group versus 50 in the vaccine group, indicating vaccine efficacy of 92.6% (95% CI, [90.1, 94.5]).
Claim: “An accurate reporting by Pfizer would have shown equal numbers of clinical trial deaths in the vaccine and placebo groups and thus, no benefit of vaccination” (Megan Redshaw, 2023-10-21)
Evidence (2021-04-02): But I want to point out one aspect of this that is very interesting. Part of the study was done in South Africa. Although it was relatively small in size, they showed, in the setting of the troublesome B1351 South African variant, that there was six cases in the placebo and zero in the vaccinated group — strongly suggesting the efficacy of the vaccines that we’re using now against problematic variants. [...] And then, finally, what you see here is that in a study of adolescence where — did a study, most recently, in which it was shown to be literally 100 percent efficacy in which 18 cases of COVID-19 was seen in the placebo group and, again, no cases in the vaccine group.
Claim: Vaccines have caused an "explosion" of childhood cancer; vaccine package insert states vaccines weren’t tested for mutagenic effect (Candace Owens, 2024-01-25)
Evidence (2024-01-25): Childhood vaccines typically don’t undergo testing for carcinogenicity and mutagenicity because their safety has already been demonstrated in earlier studies. Published scientific studies so far haven’t found reliable evidence showing that childhood vaccination increases the risk of childhood cancer. In fact, some childhood vaccines, such as the Hepatitis B vaccine and the human papillomavirus vaccine, protect individuals from certain cancers.