copenlu/druid huggingface dataset:
Claim: Vitamin B17 “was banned by the US because of its cancer-killing properties” (Facebook user, 2023-03-01)
Evidence (2024-01-01): These claims are based on anecdotal evidence and unsupported opinions and there is no scientific evidence B17 can effectively treat cancer or any other illness. B17 can also have serious side effects and it is banned by the U.S. Food and Drug Agency (FDA). It is also banned in the UK and Europe. [...] - There have been no controlled clinical trials on people of B17 (laetrile, amygdalin) reported. Some anecdotal reports and case reports have not shown B17 to be an effective treatment for cancer.
Claim: Vitamin B17 “was banned by the US because of its cancer-killing properties” (Facebook user, 2023-03-01)
Evidence (2024-07-16): People have used vitamin B17 as a cancer treatment since the 1800s, either alone or as part of a program of treatments. However, clinical trials on animals and humans have found [...] Vitamin B17, also known as amygdalin and laetrile, is not actually a vitamin. Instead, it is a drug derived from plant substances. People may consider using vitamin B17 to treat cancer, but no evidence supports it as an effective treatment and actually highlights the potentially severe adverse effects of its use. No human studies suggest any benefit of vitamin B17 as a cancer treatment, noting that it can cause cyanide poisoning, especially if a person takes it orally in tablet form. Cyanide poisoning can lead to mild-to-severe side effects and could even be fatal.
Claim: Vitamin B17 “was banned by the US because of its cancer-killing properties” (Facebook user, 2023-03-01)
Evidence (2024-06-11): Amygdalin is also called vitamin B17. But that’s a term made up by Krebs’s son, Ernst T. Krebs Jr. Amygdalin and laetrile are not approved vitamins.
Claim: Vitamin B17 “was banned by the US because of its cancer-killing properties” (Facebook user, 2023-03-01)
Evidence (2024-06-25): The hype: Laetrile, first popularized as a cancer therapy in Russia and the United States more than a century ago, is the trade name for a purified form of amygdalin, an extract derived from apricot pits and some nuts and plants. Intestinal enzymes break down Laetrile to produce cyanide, which proponents claim kills cancer cells and leaves normal tissue unharmed. Some also claim that Laetrile is actually a vitamin called B-17 and that deficiencies can cause certain cancers. Banned in the United States, an oral form of Laetrile is available in other countries.
Claim: Vitamin B17 “was banned by the US because of its cancer-killing properties” (Facebook user, 2023-03-01)
Evidence (2017-12-23): The third theory suggests that cancer is caused by a deficiency in vitamin B17 (amygdalin). [...] Laetrile is often wrongly called vitamin B17. It is actually a patented drug that was invented by Dr. Ernst T. Krebs, Jr. in 1952. [...] He likely labeled laetrile as vitamin B17 so that it would be classified as a nutritional supplement, rather than a medicine. This is likely because the tough federal laws that apply to marketing drugs do not apply to supplements.
Claim: Vitamin B17 “was banned by the US because of its cancer-killing properties” (Facebook user, 2023-03-01)
Evidence (2023-03-15): A Facebook post claims "Vitamin B17 is banned because it kills cancer cells" and says the substance can be found in apricot seeds. Vitamin B17 is a common name for a substance called amygdalin which indeed is found in apricots, as well as raw nuts and beans. A synthetic form of the substance, called Laetrile, has been marketed unofficially as a cancer treatment since the middle of the 20th century. [...] Does it kill cancer cells?
Claim: “Since the vaccine rolled out, [a midwife]’s seen no normal placenta […] they’re all compromised” (Naomi Wolf, 2023-04-25)
Evidence (2023-04-25): COVID-19 vaccines are effective at protecting against severe forms of the disease. Research shows that the placentas of pregnant individuals are unharmed by the vaccines. By contrast, SARS-CoV-2 infection during pregnancy poses a higher risk of placental lesions and deficiencies, which places a pregnant individual at risk of complications.
Claim: “Since the vaccine rolled out, [a midwife]’s seen no normal placenta […] they’re all compromised” (Naomi Wolf, 2023-04-25)
Evidence (2023-04-26): FULL CLAIM: "Since the vaccine rolled out, [a midwife]’s seen no normal placenta […] they’re all compromised"; "Some of them are shrunken, so not big enough to deliver a normal baby, and many midwives are reporting that they have to deliver babies early because the placenta can’t sustain a full-term baby" [...] Reporting on her earlier interview of midwife Ellen Jasmer, Wolf stated that Jasmer had seen "no normal placenta […] since the vaccine rolled out". Wolf said that some of the placentas were "shrunken, so not big enough to deliver a normal baby" and that "midwives were reporting that they ha[d] to deliver babies early because the placenta can’t sustain a full-term baby". Wolf also alleged that vaccination compromised the health of newborns as they were "rushed to the hospital within a day because they are in respiratory distress and [Jasmer had] never seen that so frequently before". [...] Wolf also claimed that vaccinated individuals could compromise the placenta of unvaccinated people through a process called shedding. This is most likely a reference to the claim that vaccinated individuals release spike proteins that can be spread to unvaccinated individuals. But there is no data or plausible biological mechanism suggesting that COVID-19 vaccines can cause shedding, as Health Feedback explained in an earlier review, and Wolf failed to produce any supporting evidence in the video.
Claim: “Since the vaccine rolled out, [a midwife]’s seen no normal placenta […] they’re all compromised” (Naomi Wolf, 2023-04-25)
Evidence (2021-08-11): Vaccines could attack the placenta - No evidence
Claim: “Since the vaccine rolled out, [a midwife]’s seen no normal placenta […] they’re all compromised” (Naomi Wolf, 2023-04-25)
Evidence (2023-08-02): Rahman, Grace, and Pippa Allen-Kinross. "There’s no evidence the Pfizer vaccine interferes with the placenta." Full Fact. 22 Dec 2020.
Claim: “Since the vaccine rolled out, [a midwife]’s seen no normal placenta […] they’re all compromised” (Naomi Wolf, 2023-04-25)
Evidence (2022-03-15): In the internet age, misinformation knows no borders. According to Phionah Atuhebwe, MBBS, MPH, the new vaccines introduction officer of the World Health Organization’s Regional Office for Africa, online rumors about vaccine effects on fertility and pregnancy have regularly appeared since the vaccine rollout started, particularly during its early phases.
Claim: “Since the vaccine rolled out, [a midwife]’s seen no normal placenta […] they’re all compromised” (Naomi Wolf, 2023-04-25)
Evidence (2022-08-04): Amid the devastation of the pandemic, Heerema-McKenney sees a glimmer of hope. The antibodies from the vaccine have been shown to transfer through the placenta. That immunity in the womb, research shows, reduces the risk of the youngest infants being hospitalized with COVID-19. She continues to encourage pregnant patients to get vaccinated and boosted. If not for them, for their baby.
Claim: “Since the vaccine rolled out, [a midwife]’s seen no normal placenta […] they’re all compromised” (Naomi Wolf, 2023-04-25)
Evidence (2023-04-06): Soon after the COVID-19 vaccines rolled out, some women reported brief changes to their menstrual cycles following a COVID-19 vaccine dose. Because there is often a lot of variability in period cycles, though, it wasn’t clear whether the shots necessarily caused the changes.
Claim: “Since the vaccine rolled out, [a midwife]’s seen no normal placenta […] they’re all compromised” (Naomi Wolf, 2023-04-25)
Evidence (2021-09-16): Information around this is still emerging, but the data so far suggests that mRNA in the vaccines doesn't cross the placenta. Exactly why that's the case is complicated - so here's a quick explainer. [...] Do the Covid-19 vaccines cause damage to the placenta? Since the beginning of the vaccine roll out, there have been false rumours that the Pfizer vaccine could cause damage to the placenta. There is no evidence to support this. We have written more about this previously.
Claim: “Since the vaccine rolled out, [a midwife]’s seen no normal placenta […] they’re all compromised” (Naomi Wolf, 2023-04-25)
Evidence (2021-05-11): A new Northwestern Medicine study of placentas from patients who received the COVID-19 vaccine during pregnancy found no evidence of injury, adding to the growing literature that COVID-19 vaccines are safe in pregnancy. "The placenta is like the black box in an airplane. If something goes wrong with a pregnancy, we usually see changes in the placenta that can help us figure out what happened," said corresponding author Dr. Jeffery Goldstein, assistant professor of pathology at Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine and a Northwestern Medicine pathologist. "From what we can tell, the COVID vaccine does not damage the placenta." [...] The study authors collected placentas from 84 vaccinated patients and 116 unvaccinated patients who delivered at Prentice Women’s Hospital in Chicago and pathologically examined the placentas whole and microscopically following birth. Most patients received vaccines – either Moderna or Pfizer – during their third trimester.
Claim: “Since the vaccine rolled out, [a midwife]’s seen no normal placenta […] they’re all compromised” (Naomi Wolf, 2023-04-25)
Evidence (2021-05-11): The study, published Tuesday in the journal Obstetrics & Gynecology, was the first to examine the impact of Covid-19 vaccines on the placenta, the authors said. [...] Miller and Goldstein examined placentas from 84 vaccinated women and 116 unvaccinated women who gave birth at one hospital in Chicago. In addition to looking for abnormalities, the team also searched for evidence of abnormal blood flow, which had been previously reported in pregnant patients who have tested positive for Covid-19. The authors saw "no increased incidence" of blood flow issues or placental lesions or malformationsin the women who had the vaccine versus those who did not.
Claim: “Since the vaccine rolled out, [a midwife]’s seen no normal placenta […] they’re all compromised” (Naomi Wolf, 2023-04-25)
Evidence (2023-04-25): Factually inaccurate: The claim is directly contradicted by clinical results showing that vaccinated women don’t experience a higher rate of placental defects. [...] Reporting on her earlier interview of midwife Ellen Jasmer, Wolf stated that Jasmer had seen "no normal placenta […] since the vaccine rolled out". Wolf said that some of the placentas were "shrunken, so not big enough to deliver a normal baby" and that "midwives were reporting that they ha[d] to deliver babies early because the placenta can’t sustain a full-term baby". Wolf also alleged that vaccination compromised the health of newborns as they were "rushed to the hospital within a day because they are in respiratory distress and [Jasmer had] never seen that so frequently before". [...] Wolf also claimed that vaccinated individuals could compromise the placenta of unvaccinated people through a process called shedding. This is most likely a reference to the claim that vaccinated individuals release spike proteins that can be spread to unvaccinated individuals. But there is no data or plausible biological mechanism suggesting that COVID-19 vaccines can cause shedding, as Health Feedback explained in an earlier review, and Wolf failed to produce any supporting evidence in the video.
Claim: “Since the vaccine rolled out, [a midwife]’s seen no normal placenta […] they’re all compromised” (Naomi Wolf, 2023-04-25)
Evidence (2023-08-24): Placentas of women vaccinated against COVID-19 are abnormal and the women are unable to carry pregnancies to full term. [...] The narrator in the video recounts a midwife’s alleged observations of placentas from vaccinated women, reporting that the organs were "silver-gray" in color, "shrunken" in size, and "pancake-like" in shape. "Many midwives are reporting that they have to deliver babies early because the placenta can’t sustain a full-term baby," the narrator in the clip says. "For sure, since the vaccines rolled out, she said she’s seeing no normal placentas. I asked her to send me an image of a normal placenta post-2020, and she said she doesn’t have any; they’re all compromised."
Claim: “Since the vaccine rolled out, [a midwife]’s seen no normal placenta […] they’re all compromised” (Naomi Wolf, 2023-04-25)
Evidence (2023-05-22): Failed Fact Checks - "44 Percent of Pregnant Women in Pfizer Trial Lost Their Babies" – Inaccurate - Covid-19 vaccines are Bioweapons – Inaccurate - Babies of vaccinated mothers are dying in disproportionate numbers and the COVID-19 vaccines are responsible. – Inaccurate - "Since the vaccine rolled out, [a midwife]’s seen no normal placenta" […]they’re all compromised" – Inaccurate - View Naomi Wolf’s failed fact checks.
Claim: “MSM Silent As Court Holds PCR Covid Tests 97% Inaccurate - Unfit for Purpose” (Hal Turner, 2024-05-26)
Evidence (2024-05-26): PCR tests work by detecting a virus’ genetic material in biological samples like blood or saliva. These tests are highly sensitive and specific. Trace amounts of viral genetic material, left behind after an initial infection is over, can still be detected by PCR tests even when the infected person is no longer contagious. While PCR tests are excellent at detecting current and recent infections, there can be uncertainty when it comes to using them to determine if a person is still contagious.
Claim: “MSM Silent As Court Holds PCR Covid Tests 97% Inaccurate - Unfit for Purpose” (Hal Turner, 2024-05-26)
Evidence (2024-06-05): Instagram posts claiming "Court Holds PCR Covid Tests 97% Inaccurate" began appearing at the end of May 2024. These posts, published by accounts with tens of thousands of followers (see examples here, here, and here), contained a screenshot of an article on the website Hal Turner Radio Show. The website has a record of publishing inaccurate information and conspiracy theories. Its owner Hal Turner was convicted in 2010 for threatening to assault and murder federal judges over handgun bans. [...] This finding, which was cited as part of the basis for the Lisbon court ruling and for Turner’s claim, doesn’t mean that PCR tests are "97% inaccurate". What it means is that the smaller the amount of viral genetic material in a sample (and the higher the Ct), the smaller the chance that live virus—a marker of contagiousness—is present. [...] In conclusion, a Portuguese court’s conclusion that PCR tests are "97% inaccurate" is based on misinterpreted findings. The letter by Jaafar and colleagues didn’t report that PCR tests have a 97% chance of producing false-positive results. Instead, their findings suggest that positive PCR results at high Ct values—indicating very little viral genetic material—may be a sign that a person likely isn’t contagious.
Claim: “MSM Silent As Court Holds PCR Covid Tests 97% Inaccurate - Unfit for Purpose” (Hal Turner, 2024-05-26)
Evidence (2020-05-12): The ‘gold standard’ RT-PCR test for COVID-19 is highly accurate and reproducible, but is costly (US$125 per test kit, and over $15,000 to set up a processing lab) and slow (4–6 hours of processing time, and a turnaround of 2–4 days, including shipping)4.
Claim: “MSM Silent As Court Holds PCR Covid Tests 97% Inaccurate - Unfit for Purpose” (Hal Turner, 2024-05-26)
Evidence (2024-06-08): In 2020 a European court ruled that PCR tests were 97% unreliable for diagnosing Covid. For some strange reason the main stream media (MSM) in Europe and the US have been deathly silent since the court found the PCR test to be legally useless in testing for the virus. [...] Hal Turner Radio Show reports: Four German holidaymakers who were illegally quarantined in Portugal after one was judged to be positive for Covid-19 have won their case, in a verdict that condemns the widely-used PCR test as being up to 97-percent unreliable.
Claim: “MSM Silent As Court Holds PCR Covid Tests 97% Inaccurate - Unfit for Purpose” (Hal Turner, 2024-05-26)
Evidence (2024-05-26): MSM deathly silent as PCR test legally ruled useless to test for Covid Landmark legal ruling finds that Covid tests are not fit for purpose. So what do the MSM do? They ignore it Four German holidaymakers who were illegally quarantined in Portugal after one was judged to be positive for Covid-19 have won their case, in a verdict that condemns the widely-used PCR test as being up to 97-percent unreliable.
Claim: “MSM Silent As Court Holds PCR Covid Tests 97% Inaccurate - Unfit for Purpose” (Hal Turner, 2024-05-26)
Evidence (2021-06-18): What was claimed 97% of positive PCR tests for the Covid-19 virus are false. [...] 97% of positive PCR tests for the Covid-19 virus are false. [...] It is implausible that 97% of positives identified by PCR tests run at more than 25 cycles are false, as the caller claims. At higher cycles, PCR tests are more likely to detect people who have low levels of virus, which could indicate they are early or late in their infection.
Claim: “MSM Silent As Court Holds PCR Covid Tests 97% Inaccurate - Unfit for Purpose” (Hal Turner, 2024-05-26)
Evidence (2020-11-27): While the court has deemed the test to be unreliable, medical experts have hit back against these claims, stating the judges have acted "irresponsibly" in their ruling. [...] "PCR tests have a specificity and sensitivity greater than 95%. That is, in the overwhelming majority of cases they detect the virus that causes covid-19 ". [...] Now, from reading the article, the judges conclude that "the probability of a person receiving a false positive is 97% or higher". According to the investigation, this only happens if the cycle threshold is higher than 35 "as it happens in most laboratories in the USA and Europe", reads the judgment. This information is considered to be inaccurate by Vasco Barreto, who states that where he works at Cedoc "42% of the positive tests, only 25 or less cycles were needed and there is scientific evidence of the high capacity of the virus to spread from "positive" cases to less than 25 cycles".
Claim: “MSM Silent As Court Holds PCR Covid Tests 97% Inaccurate - Unfit for Purpose” (Hal Turner, 2024-05-26)
Evidence (2021-07-26): Scientists consider polymerase chain reaction, or PCR, tests a highly reliable tool for diagnosing COVID-19. But social media posts are misrepresenting a recent Centers for Disease Control and Prevention announcement regarding the eventual discontinuation of its own test, falsely claiming the government has conceded that PCR tests aren’t reliable. [...] Two days later, on July 25, a controversial gym owner in New Jersey, Ian Smith, falsely claimed in a viral tweet that the "FDA confirms PCR tests not accurate for testing COVID." He referred to COVID-19 as a "Manufactured crisis." [...] Scientists consider PCR tests a reliable and highly specific diagnostic tool, as we’ve explained before, but distortions about them have persisted amid the COVID-19 pandemic.
Claim: “MSM Silent As Court Holds PCR Covid Tests 97% Inaccurate - Unfit for Purpose” (Hal Turner, 2024-05-26)
Evidence (2024-06-05): Factually inaccurate: A Portuguese court’s conclusion that PCR tests are 97% inaccurate is based on misinterpreted findings. The findings were related to how well PCR tests could measure contagiousness, but were misconstrued to mean that most positive PCR tests are inaccurate. Instagram posts claiming "Court Holds PCR Covid Tests 97% Inaccurate" began appearing at the end of May 2024. These posts, published by accounts with tens of thousands of followers (see examples here, here, and here), contained a screenshot of an article on the website Hal Turner Radio Show. The website has a record of publishing inaccurate information and conspiracy theories. Its owner Hal Turner was convicted in 2010 for threatening to assault and murder federal judges over handgun bans. [...] In conclusion, a Portuguese court’s conclusion that PCR tests are "97% inaccurate" is based on misinterpreted findings. The letter by Jaafar and colleagues didn’t report that PCR tests have a 97% chance of producing false-positive results. Instead, their findings suggest that positive PCR results at high Ct values—indicating very little viral genetic material—may be a sign that a person likely isn’t contagious.
Claim: “MSM Silent As Court Holds PCR Covid Tests 97% Inaccurate - Unfit for Purpose” (Hal Turner, 2024-05-26)
Evidence (2022-05-26): Thank you for your FOI enquiry dated 28th October in which you asked MHRA to "confirm why the PCR test was granted authorization for use by your department when it is not fit for purpose" and provide information about PCR tests: - Does the PCR test only detect viral matter - How does the PCR test distinguish between sars covid 2 and other coronavirus like say flu or the common cold - Can the PCR test be used to detect infectious viral diseases if so how - Was the PCR test tested with confirmation on a pure isolated sample of sars covid 2 - Who in your department authorised the use of the PCR test - Was the MHRA advised to use the PCR tests by any other organisation or individual [...] The use of CE/UKCA marked PCR tests by the NHS does not require MHRA approval and we are informed by the NHS guidance for the use of COVID 19 tests as provided to the general public. The latest guidance can be found at: https://www.nhs.uk/conditions/coronavirus-covid-19/testing/get-tested-for-coronavirus/
Claim: “MSM Silent As Court Holds PCR Covid Tests 97% Inaccurate - Unfit for Purpose” (Hal Turner, 2024-05-26)
Evidence (2024-07-22): Previous Report–MSM Silent As Court Holds PCR Covid Tests 97% Inaccurate – Unfit for Purpose Portuguese, German, Dutch & Austrian Court Rules PCR Test Not Suitable For COVID-19 Diagnosis And That Lockdowns Had No Legal Basis
Claim: “MSM Silent As Court Holds PCR Covid Tests 97% Inaccurate - Unfit for Purpose” (Hal Turner, 2024-05-26)
Evidence (2023-01-26): The following testing is recommended for MSM:
Claim: “MSM Silent As Court Holds PCR Covid Tests 97% Inaccurate - Unfit for Purpose” (Hal Turner, 2024-05-26)
Evidence (2024-05-26): The main stream media (MSM) in Europe and the US is deathly silent as a court determines the PCR test legally useless to test for Covid. The Landmark legal ruling finds that Covid tests are not fit for purpose. So what does the MSM do? They ignore it Four German holidaymakers who were illegally quarantined in Portugal after one was judged to be positive for Covid-19 have won their case, in a verdict that condemns the widely-used PCR test as being up to 97-percent unreliable.
Claim: “MSM Silent As Court Holds PCR Covid Tests 97% Inaccurate - Unfit for Purpose” (Hal Turner, 2024-05-26)
Evidence (2021-01-09): Yohe S. College of American Pathologists: How good are COVID-19 (SARS-CoV-2) diagnostic PCR tests? https://www.cap.org/member-resources/articles/how-good-are-covid-19-sars-cov-2-diagnostic-pcr-tests#:~:text=Summary,and%2098%2D99%25%20specificity. Accessed 22 Sept 2020.
Claim: “MSM Silent As Court Holds PCR Covid Tests 97% Inaccurate - Unfit for Purpose” (Hal Turner, 2024-05-26)
Evidence (2024-05-27): The main stream media (MSM) in Europe and the US is deathly silent as a court determines the PCR test legally useless to test for Covid. The Landmark legal ruling finds that Covid tests are not fit...
Claim: The Impossible Whopper has 44 mg of estrogen and the whopper has 2.5 ng of estrogen (James Stanger, 2019-12-20)
Evidence (2019-12-20): Plants contain compounds similar to estrogen, called phytoestrogens, but they do not exhibit the same activity as estrogen, which is a mammalian hormone and therefore absent from plant products like the Impossible Whopper. Further, men in certain Asian countries like Japan consume soy-rich diets containing much more phytoestrogen than that found in the Impossible Whopper without ever exhibiting gynecomastia.