copenlu/druid huggingface dataset:
Claim: “New Study Links Pfizer’s COVID Vaccine to ‘Turbo Cancer’” (Jonas Vesterberg, 2023-07-13)
Evidence (2022-03-11): While an intact, competent immune system may optimize efficacy of a vaccine, routine use of cytotoxic chemotherapy and subsequent myelosuppression presents a logistical challenge for patients undergoing cancer treatment. A recent prospective study compared immune responses with a SARS-CoV-2 mRNA vaccine between patients with solid tumours on cytotoxic, antineoplastic agents and participants without a cancer diagnosis6. Neutralizing antibodies against SARS-CoV-2 increased after sequential vaccine doses in patients with cancer. However, this group receiving cytotoxic chemotherapy, in contrast to the control participants, experienced less of an increase specifically in T cells following vaccine administration.
Claim: “New Study Links Pfizer’s COVID Vaccine to ‘Turbo Cancer’” (Jonas Vesterberg, 2023-07-13)
Evidence (2023-07-20): On 13 July 2023, the website The Florida Standard published an article carrying the headline "New Study Links Pfizer’s COVID Vaccine to ‘Turbo Cancer’". Screenshots of the article’s headline circulated on social media in July 2023, with some users implying that this showed COVID-19 vaccines are unsafe like in this Instagram post. The claim is based on a study published in the journal Frontiers in Oncology in May 2023. [...] In summary, claims that a mouse study by Eens et al. shows COVID-19 vaccination causes "turbo cancer" misinterpret the study’s findings and fail to understand its limitations. The Florida Standard article distorted the conclusions of the study by claiming it showed a "link to ‘turbo cancer’", incorrectly lending readers the impression that the study was relevant to humans. In fact, the study used a vaccine dose that was several hundreds of times greater than the human dose—in short, a dose that is irrelevant to vaccination. The mouse that died of lymphoma also showed signs of illness even before it received the vaccine dose, therefore it is doubtful that the vaccination played a role in causing the lymphoma. Taken together, the study provides no evidence supporting the alleged "link to ‘turbo cancer’", and by claiming otherwise, the Florida Standard article misrepresented the study.
Claim: “New Study Links Pfizer’s COVID Vaccine to ‘Turbo Cancer’” (Jonas Vesterberg, 2023-07-13)
Evidence (2024-05-03): The review also refers to a study that has been extensively misinterpreted to falsely claim that the Pfizer/BioNTech mRNA COVID-19 vaccine causes what vaccine opponents called "turbo cancer." The study describes one mouse that died from a lymphoma after 14 mice were given a high dose of the vaccine. The review paper reproduces images from the study that show dissected mice and compares the organs of the mouse that died with one with a normal anatomy. As we explained, and as the authors of that paper noted in an addendum, there is no such thing as "turbo cancer," and, more importantly, the case report does not demonstrate a causal relationship between the lymphoma and the vaccine. [...] Yandell, Kate. "COVID-19 Vaccines Have Not Been Shown to Cause ‘Turbo Cancer’." FactCheck.org. 31 Aug 2023.
Claim: “New Study Links Pfizer’s COVID Vaccine to ‘Turbo Cancer’” (Jonas Vesterberg, 2023-07-13)
Evidence (2023-08-01): A recent Belgian study on coronavirus vaccines has been read by millions of people after it was shared on social media by anti-vax campaigners. The anti-vaxxers claim that the study shows that there is a link between coronavirus vaccines and so-called "turbo cancer", a phenonium that is not recognised by scientists. However, one of the scientists that worked on the research Sander Eens says that the study proved no such thing. "There is not a single piece of scientific evidence, neither in our study nor elsewhere that points to there being a causal link between mRNA-vaccines and cancer. [...] Nevertheless, prominent antivaxxers such as the controversial Canadian doctor William Makis shared the Belgian scientists’ work on what was then still Twitter. Dr Makis has often spread fake news about coronavirus vaccines in the past. Dr Makis claimed that the study "proves that mRNA vaccines cause turbo cancer". "Turbo cancer" is a term that has been doing the rounds for some time now among anti-vaxxers. It implies that coronavirus vaccines cause fast-growing tumors or cancers. However, to date there is no scientific evidence to back this up.
Claim: “New Study Links Pfizer’s COVID Vaccine to ‘Turbo Cancer’” (Jonas Vesterberg, 2023-07-13)
Evidence (2024-09-26): Cases of myocarditis and pericarditis have rarely been observed after COVID-19 vaccination in the United States and evidence from multiple vaccine safety monitoring systems in the United States and around the globe supports a causal association between mRNA COVID-19 vaccines (i.e., Moderna or Pfizer-BioNTech) and myocarditis and pericarditis.
Claim: “New Study Links Pfizer’s COVID Vaccine to ‘Turbo Cancer’” (Jonas Vesterberg, 2023-07-13)
Evidence (2024-01-03): The Surgeon General outlined concerns regarding nucleic acid contaminants in the approved Pfizer and Moderna COVID-19 mRNA vaccines, particularly in the presence of lipid nanoparticle complexes, and Simian Virus 40 (SV40) promoter/enhancer DNA. Lipid nanoparticles are an efficient vehicle for delivery of the mRNA in the COVID-19 vaccines into human cells and may therefore be an equally efficient vehicle for delivering contaminant DNA into human cells. The presence of SV40 promoter/enhancer DNA may also pose a unique and heightened risk of DNA integration into human cells.
Claim: “New Study Links Pfizer’s COVID Vaccine to ‘Turbo Cancer’” (Jonas Vesterberg, 2023-07-13)
Evidence (2022-01-20): As stunningly successful as the mRNA COVID-19 vaccines have been, researchers have long hoped to use mRNA vaccines for a very different purpose—to treat cancer. mRNA-based cancer treatment vaccines have been tested in small trials for nearly a decade, with some promising early results. In fact, scientists at both Pfizer-BioNTech and Moderna drew on their experience developing mRNA cancer vaccines to create their coronavirus vaccines. Now, some investigators believe the success of the mRNA COVID-19 vaccines could help accelerate clinical research on mRNA vaccines to treat cancer. [...] Another key feature of the Pfizer-BioNTech and the Moderna coronavirus vaccines is the use of modified forms of mRNA, according to Jordan Meier, Ph.D., of NCI’s Center for Cancer Research, who studies mRNA modifications.
Claim: “New Study Links Pfizer’s COVID Vaccine to ‘Turbo Cancer’” (Jonas Vesterberg, 2023-07-13)
Evidence (2024-04-20): Myriad publications have falsely warned readers about "turbo cancer," a purportedly aggressive form of cancer caused by mRNA vaccines like the Pfizer and Moderna COVID-19 vaccines. A recent rash of headlines on the topic assert that the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) had warned the public about turbo cancer, an assertion that originated from disreputable websites including the conspira-satirical The People's Voice. [...] The CDC has warned that COVID-19 vaccines have caused at least a 14,000% increase in turbo-cancer cases across the United States. [...] As Lead Stories reported during an earlier batch of turbo cancer headlines, epidemiologist-analyzed and corrected VAERS data do not suggest any causal link between any cancer and mRNA vaccination. A representative for the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) told the fact-checking outlet in an Aug. 16, 2023, email that:
Claim: “New Study Links Pfizer’s COVID Vaccine to ‘Turbo Cancer’” (Jonas Vesterberg, 2023-07-13)
Evidence (2023-09-25): Controversial Claims Link Increased Cancer Rates to COVID-19 Vaccination Amid ongoing vaccination efforts, Dr. Harvey Risch, a professor emeritus of epidemiology at the Yale School of Public Health, suggests a worrying pattern: an increase in certain types of cancer following COVID-19 vaccination. Although Dr. Risch emphasizes the preliminary nature of these findings, the assertions have raised significant concern and debate within the medical community. For physicians, these controversial claims merit careful scrutiny and comprehensive research. At present, the evidence linking COVID-19 vaccines to increased cancer rates is largely anecdotal and lacks peer-reviewed validation. Before altering vaccination protocols, the medical community must prioritize rigorously conducted studies to evaluate Dr. Risch’s assertions critically.
Claim: “New Study Links Pfizer’s COVID Vaccine to ‘Turbo Cancer’” (Jonas Vesterberg, 2023-07-13)
Evidence (2023-03-22): Despite the current lack of concrete, real-world data linking COVID-19 infection to cancer progression, the science supports the association in theory. [...] Some studies have looked at potential biomarkers of this link between COVID-19 infection and worsening cancer progression, even if it was not a primary end point. [...] The common denominator among these studies is the investigators’ call for additional research. Realistically, they write, it may take years to establish a clear association between COVID-19 and cancer progression, but that makes it even more important to focus on research now. It is also important to note that, even if the existing research cannot find a clear association between the two, they do support the need for biomarker testing to help understand this association.
Claim: “New Study Links Pfizer’s COVID Vaccine to ‘Turbo Cancer’” (Jonas Vesterberg, 2023-07-13)
Evidence (2024-01-04): In a bulletin posted Wednesday on the Florida Department of Health's website, Ladapo raised concerns about "nucleic acid contaminants" found in the approved Pfizer and Moderna COVID-19 vaccines. He claimed this could deliver "contaminant DNA" into human cells and also raised concerns about cancer risk. [...] Anti-vaxxers call this "turbo cancer" — which doesn't exist, Gounder said. [...] "DNA vaccines have never been associated with cancer development despite delivering orders of magnitude more DNA than is present as a contaminant in mRNA vaccines," she says. "Trace amounts of DNA are present in pretty much every biologic used in medicine that is made in cell cultures, including monoclonal antibodies, some of which are used as cancer therapies. There will also be some trace levels of DNA in the other COVID vaccines, because they are made in cell cultures."
Claim: “New Study Links Pfizer’s COVID Vaccine to ‘Turbo Cancer’” (Jonas Vesterberg, 2023-07-13)
Evidence (2024-10-03): Turbo cancer is an anti-vaccination conspiracy theory[1] alleging that people vaccinated against COVID-19, especially with mRNA vaccines, are suffering from a high incidence of fast-developing cancers. Although the idea has been spread by a number of vaccine opponents, including several health professionals,[2] turbo cancer is not supported by cancer research, and there is no evidence that COVID-19 vaccination causes or worsens cancer.[3][4][5] [...] Similarly, a Frontiers in Oncology paper discussing a laboratory mouse dying of lymphoma after being injected with the Pfizer–BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine was claimed to prove the existence of turbo cancer. However, the study in question did not claim any causality between the two events. Notably, the type of mouse used in the study had a higher predisposition to sarcomas and lymphomas, with that specific individual having shown signs of preexisting cancer such as weight loss before the vaccine injection. The setup of the study was also criticized, as it differed from human vaccinations in the method of injection (intravenous rather than intramuscular) and dose in proportion to body weight (480 to 600 times higher).[9][10][11] The authors later added that their findings were "largely misinterpreted".[12] [...] - ^ "False claims persist about COVID-19 vaccine-linked "turbo cancers"". Public Health Communication Collaborative (PHCC). 18 August 2023. Retrieved 5 October 2023.
Claim: “New Study Links Pfizer’s COVID Vaccine to ‘Turbo Cancer’” (Jonas Vesterberg, 2023-07-13)
Evidence (2022-07-14): Future Look: How COVID-19 Vaccines Are Accelerating New Cancer Treatments Join CRI for an in-depth look into the newest and most exciting approach to vaccination in our lifetime…mRNA vaccines. This exclusive, invitation-only event celebrates the four key scientists whose research has led to the first two lifesaving mRNA vaccines now being used in the global fight against COVID-19. On November 10, CRI will bestow the 2021 William B. Coley Award for Distinguished Research in Basic Immunology on Katelin Karikó, PhD, of BioNTech and the University of Pennsylvania, Drew Weissman, MD, PhD, of the University of Pennsylvania, and BioNTech co-founders Ugur Sahin, MD, PhD, and Özlem Türeci, MD, PhD Alice Park of TIME Magazine will moderate a historic joint interview with the honorees who will share their thoughts on how mRNA vaccine technology will transform cancer treatment in the future. MEET THE 2021 COLEY AWARD WINNERS Katalin Karikó graduated from University of Szeged, Hungary in 1978, and received a doctoral degree in biochemistry from the same university in 1982.
Claim: “New Study Links Pfizer’s COVID Vaccine to ‘Turbo Cancer’” (Jonas Vesterberg, 2023-07-13)
Evidence (2023-01-12): - Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Local Reactions, Systemic Reactions, Adverse Events, and Serious Adverse Events: Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 Vaccine. Available online: https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/covid-19/info-by-product/pfizer/reactogenicity.html (accessed on 10 December 2022). [...] - Sekizawa, A.; Hashimoto, K.; Kobayashi, S.; Kozono, S.; Kobayashi, T.; Kawamura, Y.; Kimata, M.; Fujita, N.; Ono, Y.; Obuchi, Y.; et al. Rapid progression of marginal zone B-cell lymphoma after COVID-19 vaccination (BNT162b2): A case report. Front. Med. 2022, 9, 963393. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [...] - Lane, D.L.; Neelapu, S.S.; Xu, G.; Weaver, O. COVID-19 Vaccine-Related Axillary and Cervical Lymphadenopathy in Patients with Current or Prior Breast Cancer and Other Malignancies: Cross-Sectional Imaging Findings on MRI, CT, and PET-CT. Korean J. Radiol. 2021, 22, 1938–1945. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Claim: Best available data show sea-level rise is not accelerating. Local and regional sea levels continue to exhibit typical natural variability—in some places rising and in others falling. (Craig Idso, Robert Carter, S. Fred Singer, 2017-08-05)
Evidence (2017-08-05): Globally, sea level is rising due to melting glacial ice and warming oceans, and the current rate of sea level rise is faster than past rates.
Claim: Best available data show sea-level rise is not accelerating. Local and regional sea levels continue to exhibit typical natural variability—in some places rising and in others falling. (Craig Idso, Robert Carter, S. Fred Singer, 2017-08-05)
Evidence (2021-01-07): To estimate the local sea level trends and the local sea level acceleration we choose to use the SLA grids derived from satellite altimetry measurements from the Copernicus Climate Change Service (C3S)6. This dataset focuses on long-term stability for climate applications and provides an homogeneous processing from 1993 to present. Daily SLA maps at 1/4° spatial resolution are available from https://cds.climate.copernicus.eu. The time span considered here is limited to 1993 to 2019 to consider only complete years. C3S sea level grids are corrected for a time-varying TOPEX-A drift following37 and for local geocentric SL changes due to GIA. Here We focus on large scale sea level patterns (both in space and time) which respond to climate fluctuations. Individual meso-scale eddies can generate substantial variability in sea level and mask the underlying climate fluctuations. To remove this noise from eddies we perform a spatio-temporal smoothing of the original grids. A 3° wide gaussian spatial filter is applied to remove high frequency spatial features and yearly averages are computed from the daily grids. After filtering, we sub-sample the grids to a 2° resolution. This filtering is consistent with previous works (e.g.5,38). [...] Significant local sea level trends and accelerations [...] Forget, G. & Ponte, R. M. The partition of regional sea level variability. Progress in Oceanography137, 173–195, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pocean.2015.06.002 (2015).
Claim: Best available data show sea-level rise is not accelerating. Local and regional sea levels continue to exhibit typical natural variability—in some places rising and in others falling. (Craig Idso, Robert Carter, S. Fred Singer, 2017-08-05)
Evidence (2023-08-03): Local sea level trends, accelerations and uncertainties over 1993–2019 [...] Prandi, P. et al. Local sea level trends, accelerations and uncertainties over 1993–2019. Sci. Data8, 1 (2021). [...] Forget, G. & Ponte, R. M. The partition of regional sea level variability. Prog. Oceanogr.https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pocean.2015.06.002 (2015).
Claim: Best available data show sea-level rise is not accelerating. Local and regional sea levels continue to exhibit typical natural variability—in some places rising and in others falling. (Craig Idso, Robert Carter, S. Fred Singer, 2017-08-05)
Evidence (2024-09-25): Here’s what you need to know about sea level rise: [...] Rising sea levels are the result of ocean warming and the melting of glaciers and ice sheets, phenomena which are the direct consequences of climate change. [...] It is worth noting that ocean circulation patterns, such as the Gulf Stream, can lead to regional differences in sea level rise.
Claim: Best available data show sea-level rise is not accelerating. Local and regional sea levels continue to exhibit typical natural variability—in some places rising and in others falling. (Craig Idso, Robert Carter, S. Fred Singer, 2017-08-05)
Evidence (2023-03-17): Since satellites began observing sea surface height in 1993 with the U.S.-French TOPEX/Poseidon mission, the average global sea level has increased by 3.6 inches (9.1 centimeters), according to NASA’s Sea Level Change science team. The annual rate of rise – or how quickly sea level rise is happening – that researchers expect to see has also increased from 0.08 inches (0.20 centimeters) per year in 1993 to 0.17 inches (0.44 centimeters) per year in 2022. Based on the long-term satellite measurements, the projected rate of sea level rise will hit 0.26 inches (0.66 centimeters) per year by 2050. [...] Despite natural influences like La Niña, sea levels continue to rise because of human-caused climate change driven by the excess amounts of greenhouse gases like carbon dioxide that society pumps into the atmosphere. Climate change is melting Earth’s ice sheets and glaciers, adding more fresh water to the ocean, while warming causes the expansion of seawater. Both of these effects contribute to rising seas, overriding many natural effects on sea surface height. [...] When altimetry data from all ocean basins is combined with more than a century of observations from coastal surface-based sources, together they dramatically expand and improve our understanding of how sea surface height is changing on a global scale. And when those measurements of sea level are combined with other NASA data sets on ice mass, land motion, and other Earth changes, scientists can decipher why and how seas are rising.
Claim: Best available data show sea-level rise is not accelerating. Local and regional sea levels continue to exhibit typical natural variability—in some places rising and in others falling. (Craig Idso, Robert Carter, S. Fred Singer, 2017-08-05)
Evidence (2024-05-24): Acceleration of U.S. Southeast and Gulf coast sea-level rise amplified by internal climate variability [...] Fig. 1: Rapid acceleration of sea level rise after 2010 in observations. [...] It is well known that global warming tends to increase sea level over most oceans due to thermal expansion and the melting of land ice22,23,24,25. Here we argue that the accelerated SLR along the USSEC in the most recent decade is the result of a compounding effect arising from long-term global warming trend and the NA sea level tripole. The leading empirical orthogonal function (EOF) mode of detrended sea level (see "Methods") in the NA Ocean in satellite observation is characterized by a tripole pattern13,26, with sea level anomalies of one sign over the subtropical band (15o–40oN) and anomalies of the opposite sign in the subpolar and tropical regions (Fig. 2a). The maximum sea level variability occurs near the GS and its extension regions. This tripole pattern imprints itself on the U.S. east coast, manifested as an out of phase sea level variability to the north and south of Cape Hatteras. The time evolution of the tripole sea level pattern exhibits pronounced interannual to decadal-scale variability (Fig. 2d). There is an extreme low value in 2010, coincident with a strongly negative NAO and the weakest AMOC state at 26.5oN in observation27,28.
Claim: Best available data show sea-level rise is not accelerating. Local and regional sea levels continue to exhibit typical natural variability—in some places rising and in others falling. (Craig Idso, Robert Carter, S. Fred Singer, 2017-08-05)
Evidence (2024-10-05): In other words, we have a continuous stream of data telling us the same thing again, and again, and again: Earth's climate is changing, and it's because of the humans that populate it. It is this kind of data that should be dictating our response. [...] During previous interglacial periods, sea levels sometimes rose more than they have so far this cycle. During the last interglacial period about 100,000 years ago, sea level reached a peak 25 feet higher than it is now. I remember reading about a 65 foot higher peak sea level several cycles earlier. It is a good bet that there were some rather warm years back then, before we had record-keeping humans. And single years are probably not discernable in the geological record with the accuracy needed to make year-to year comparisons with the present. [...] NASA Earth Observatory ----------------------------------------------------------------
Claim: Best available data show sea-level rise is not accelerating. Local and regional sea levels continue to exhibit typical natural variability—in some places rising and in others falling. (Craig Idso, Robert Carter, S. Fred Singer, 2017-08-05)
Evidence (2022-02-13): Regional Relative Sea-Level Change Although changes in global mean sea level (GMSL) provide an important measure of the warming climate, when assessing potential impacts at the coast, it is the change in regional relative sea level that is most important. Regional relative sea-level change is influenced by multiple physical processes that vary both in space and time and can lead to large regional departures from the long-term rate of global mean sea-level rise. For each process, a brief description is provided, in addition to a summary of the observing systems used to measure that process, and a future outlook for the understanding of that process. While there are different ways to separate and group the contributing processes, we define regional relative sea-level change as follows, with each process changing in both space and time: Regional Relative Sea Level = Short-Term Effects + Sterodynamic Variability + Glaciers + Land Water Storage + Ice Sheets + Subsidence