Florida's Fake Surgeon General Faked COVID Vaccine 'Study' Results, Documents Show
If it's OK for hurricane forecasts, why not for public health?
Florida Surgeon General Joseph Ladapo, who was appointed to the job because his anti-vaccine quackery pleased Ron Desantis, made news last October when he flogged a deeply flawed "study" as an excuse to recommend that Florida Men under the age of 40 not get vaccinated against COVID-19. The recommendation and the study were roundly condemned by real medical experts at the time, because the study had multiple flaws: a tiny sample size, multiple methodological flaws, including several the authors pointed out themselves, and the glaring fact that the work hadn't been peer reviewed.
Previously:
Florida dOiNg iTs oWN vAcCInE rEseArcH
In Bold Move, Ron DeSantis Appoints Actual COVID Virus As Florida Surgeon General
Yesterday, Politico reported that there's an even bigger reason to doubt the already shaky research: Dr. Ladapo "personally altered" the study to make it seem the COVID vaccines from Moderna and Pfizer pose "a significantly higher health risk for young men than had been established by the broader medical community," according to a copy of the study draft obtained through a public records request.
Ladapo’s changes [...] presented the risks of cardiac death to be more severe than previous versions of the study. He later used the final document in October to bolster disputed claims that Pfizer-BioNTech and Moderna vaccines were dangerous to young men.
Specifically, Ladapo's revisions to the eight-page draft edited out the results of "an important analysis that would have contradicted his recommendation," in order to exaggerate the supposed risk of heart disease from the vaccines. Every last footnote and reference to that "sensitivity analysis" was deleted by Ladapo, making an already iffy study seem like its findings were more definite than it really was.
Hilariously — if you like HOLLOW MORDANT LAUGHTER at least — Ladapo responded to a request for comment from Politico with a real banger of a non-denial denial, a statement in which
Ladapo said revisions and refinements are a normal part of assessing surveillance data and that he has the appropriate expertise and training to make those decisions.
“To say that I ‘removed an analysis’ for a particular outcome is an implicit denial of the fact that the public has been the recipient of biased data and interpretations since the beginning of the mRNA COVID-19 vaccine campaign,” he said. “I have never been afraid of disagreement with peers or media.”
We like the part where he doesn't really deny that he removed the sensitivity analysis to skew the outcome, but instead shifts to a completely different claim about whether the public has gotten good information. Those two clauses have nothing to do with each other.
And look, he did it twice:
He also said that he determined the study was worthwhile since “the federal government and Big Pharma continue to misrepresent risks associated with these vaccines.”
Whether the second part of that sentence is true (it isn't) has nothing to do with the validity of the study, or of Ladapo's edits.
The deletion of the sensitivity analysis puts an entirely different spin on the conclusion of the study. In addition to removing the actual data from the analysis, a key sentence is shorn of an absolutely vital caveat, so that now it reads "COVID-19 vaccination was associated with a slight increased risk for cardiac-related mortality 28 days following vaccinations [...]"
What was removed? This statement, saying the additional analysis made that seeming result vanish:
in the primary analysis, but this association was attenuated and no longer significant when applying the event-dependent exposures model utilized for multidose vaccines. Thus, there is little suggestion of any effect immediately following vaccination. [emphasis added — Dok]
Instead, Ladapo inserted this assertion, which hadn't been in any of the earlier drafts:
"Results from the stratified analysis for cardiac related death following vaccination suggests mRNA vaccination may be driving the increased risk in males, especially among males aged 18-39. The risk associated with mRNA vaccination should be weighed against the risk associated with COVID-19 infection.”
Ladapo even removed a qualifier from the authors' fairly substantial section on the study's limitations, eliminating a caution that the work was "not academic research." More chillingly, he deleted the study's call for further, more detailed study of connections between actual COVID-19 infections and heart problems "before vaccine recommendations are changed."
Instead, he went right ahead and changed the recommendations. After all, if the word of caution is deleted, there's no need for caution.
Matt Hitchings, a biostatistics professor at the University of Florida (Motto: "Still real medicine until DeSantis starts fucking with us") said Ladapo's claim that the study showed an increased risk of cardiac death from the vaccine simply isn't justified by any of the the study's (already dubious) findings:
"I think it’s a lie. [...] To say this — based on what we’ve seen, and how this analysis was made — it’s a lie."
Further, Politico notes,
Hitchings chastised the integrity of Ladapo’s study after it was released last fall but is now much more critical.
“What’s clear from the previous analysis, and even more clear from Dr. L’s edits, is that absolutely there was a political motivation behind the final analysis that was produced,” Hitchings said. “Key information was withheld from the public that would have allowed them or other experts to interpret this in context.”
Finally, Politico points out that in November, shortly after Ladapo published the crap study, an anonymous complaint to the inspector general for Florida's Department of Health alleged that Ladapo had futzed around with the study results:
“The analysis performed in DOH did not find this,” the individual wrote without providing evidence, according to the complaint. “He manipulated the final draft of the analysis.”
However, that story notes, the IG dropped the investigation "after the complainant didn’t respond to follow-up questions regarding the accusations," so thanks a lot, accurate but apparently cowardly whistle-blower. When Politico covered the story in February, Ladapo insisted that the complaint was "factually false," because of course he did.
We have little doubt that this new, clear evidence that Ladapo dishonestly edited an already flawed study so it would fit his boss's anti-vax agenda will cause a big scandal in Florida's medical and public health community, which will be completely ignored by DeSantis stans because after all the media lies about everything.
[Politico / Ladapo Edits PDF / Politico]
Yr Wonkette is funded entirely by reader donations. Please help us keep the lies at bay — Tampa Bay, prolly — with a monthly $5 or $10 donation, if you can!
Vile And Unrepentant Tucker Carlson Now Telling Your Nana COVID Vaccines Kill
File under: people God is preparing a special place in hell for. (Tucker, not your Nana.)
REMEMBER WHEN! We will be spending much of the day throwing at your face some of our favorite old Tucker Carlson posts, or at least the ones Evan linked to yesterday, because that is a nice cheat sheet to start with. This post originally published on May 6, 2021.
Tucker Carlson has a new and vile conspiracy theory lie to tell your impressionable Boomer Republican family members, and it's that COVID vaccines are MURDERING EVERYBODY.
If your old dumb Uncle Bubba watched Tucker last night (and he assuredly did), he heard Tucker tell him that "thousands" of people have died from getting the COVID vaccine. He said that according to some very real doctor he talked to, this is the "single deadliest mass vaccination event in modern history." Yes, just like Fox News fills your grandmother's head with verifiable bullshitabout things that actually are not happening, like antifa terror hordes and Mr. Potato Head's forced castration, Tucker is now telling your misguided yet beloved grandmother that the vaccine kills.
How many exactly have died, according to Tucker's wildest imaginations and lies? Media Matters transcribes.
Carlson inaccurately asserted that thousands of people have died after receiving the COVID-19 vaccination, claiming that "between late December of 2020 and last month, a total of 3,362 people apparently died after getting the COVID vaccine in the United States" and that even though the data was "not quite up to date," we "can assume that another 360 people at that rate have died in the 12 days since. You put it all together, and that is a total of 3,722 deaths. That's almost 4,000 people who died after getting the COVID vaccines. The actual number is almost certainly higher than that, perhaps vastly higher than that."
Between December and last month, 3,362 people "apparently died" after getting the vaccine, says Tucker. Does he say they died OF vaccine? Or did they die WITH vaccine? Because that's how they deny COVID deaths in people who wouldn't have died of some underlying condition if coronavirus hadn't aggravated it. (Speaking of, here's some more evidence from one of America's greatest public health experts that actual worldwide COVID deaths are likely twice as high as the official numbers.) However, in this case, the WITH and not OF thing is a valid construction. Are vaccinated car accident deaths being included here? Gender reveal explosions among the freshly vaccinated? We are just curious.
Tucker said "we can assume" — you know, based on science! — that another 360 people have died since "the data" was updated. And then — using math! — Tucker calculated that "almost 4,000 people" have definitely died, adding that based on his expertise, "the actual number is almost certainly higher than that, perhaps VASTLY higher than that."
Here's a bigger transcription of Tucker's latest deadly lie, and the video:
TUCKER: In just the first four months of this year, the U.S. government has recorded more deaths after COVID vaccinations than from all other vaccines administered in the United States between mid-1997 and the end of 2013. That is a period of 15 and a half years. Again, more people, according to VAERS, have died after getting the shot in four months during a single vaccination campaign than from all other vaccines combined over more than a decade and a half. Chart that out. It's a stunning picture. Now, the debate is over what it means. Again, there is a lot of criticism of the reporting system. Some people say, well, it's just a coincidence if someone gets a shot and then dies, possibly from other causes. No one really knows, is the truth. We spoke to one physician today who actively treats COVID patients. He described what we are seeing now as the single deadliest mass vaccination event in modern history. Whatever is causing it, it is happening as we speak.
We bolded a lot of that to note how Tucker couches his absolute lies in "just asking questions"-type deniability. He uses weasel language when he says the government "has recorded" all these vaccine deaths. (How were they "recorded"?) He says this is "according to VAERS." (Tell us more about VAERS and how these stats are compiled!) He says there's a "lot of criticism" of the reporting system. (Is it because people just don't like it, or is it valid criticism?) He says "no one really knows." (So feel free to spout an uninformed opinion!) But this doctor (what doctor?) says it's the SINGLE DEADLIEST MASS VACCINATION EVENT IN MODERN HISTORY.
As usual, the correct response is to tell Tucker to shut his fucking mouth.
The Truth
Media Matters has a full explanation of how this lie was formed, with answers to all our parenthetical questions above, noting that this conspiracy theory has been going around the wet bowels of the rightwing internet for a while now.
VAERS is the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System, and it's run by the CDC, but it's a tool for researchers, and not a tool for your Nana, unless your Nana is a scientist. As Politifact explains, it "helps researchers collect data on vaccine after-effects and to detect patterns that may warrant a closer look."
The key thing to get here is that VAERS is all self-reported. In other words, Wilma Wingnut can literally get on there and say somebody died because they had just gotten their second shot the day before, even though Wilma Wingnut is a documented moron. Then the researchers will check to see if Wilma Wingnut's report fits with any emerging patterns, or if she's just full of shit again.
Politifact adds these two bullet points:
- The CDC cautions that VAERS results are not enough to determine whether a vaccine causes a particular adverse event.
- For the COVID-19 vaccines, VAERS has received a flood of reports and become especially potent fuel for misinformation.
Got it? VAERS isn't for random Joe Shitbags on the street, and it's not for Tucker Carlson.
That's why there's "criticism" of the reporting system, because it allows literally the stupidest and worst people God ever made to use its reports to create whatever "truth" they want to create. The system is open because CDC needs people to submit legitimate reports — even if they're morons — so that scientists can pore over the data to find real and legitimate patterns.
Media Matters notes that VAERS is quite upfront about how its data should and should not be used:
VAERS' own data guide states that "a report to VAERS," including reports of death, "generally does not prove that the identified vaccine(s) caused the adverse event described. It only confirms that the reported event occurred sometime after vaccine was given. No proof that the event was caused by the vaccine is required in order for VAERS to accept the report."
And this, also from the VAERS website:
"While very important in monitoring vaccine safety, VAERS reports alone cannot be used to determine if a vaccine caused or contributed to an adverse event or illness. The reports may contain information that is incomplete, inaccurate, coincidental, or unverifiable. In large part, reports to VAERS are voluntary, which means they are subject to biases. This creates specific limitations on how the data can be used scientifically. Data from VAERS reports should always be interpreted with these limitations in mind."
This shit is literally all over the VAERS website, screaming at you that it's incomplete and unverified and that you shouldn't extrapolate based on your own lack of understanding of Science, What Is THAT? Apparently, according to Media Matters, "users [of VAERS] are required to acknowledge twice" that they have read and understand this. Not just people submitting reports, but people who merely want to play with their data. Maybe they should add a thing that clarifies that dilettante Swanson frozen dinner heirs who host Fox News shows should zip their fucking wordholes and go cry about gay dudes in the bathroom some more.
Media Matters also points us to this thread from radiologist Dr. Pradheep Shanker, about the good and the bad of VAERS data. They note that Dr. Shanker actually writes for National Review, so no commie Deep State plot here:
So who got some real data Tucker coulda used? The CDC got some real data Tucker coulda used!
Let's copy/paste everything CDC says about what science actually has determined about the COVID vaccine causing deaths. Surprise, they even explain here why Tucker Carlson shouldn't be playing on the VAERS website without adult supervision, in case they haven't screamed that enough:
CDC uses the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) to closely monitor reports of death following COVID-19 vaccination.
FDA requires healthcare providers to report any death after COVID-19 vaccination to VAERS.
Reports to VAERS of death following vaccination do not necessarily mean the vaccine caused the death.
CDC follows up on any report of death to request additional information to learn more about what occurred and to determine whether the death was a result of the vaccine or was unrelated.
CDC, FDA, and other federal agencies will continue to monitor the safety of COVID-19 vaccines.
Over 245 million doses of COVID-19 vaccines were administered in the United States from December 14, 2020, through May 3, 2021. During this time, VAERS received 4,178 reports of death (0.0017%) among people who received a COVID-19 vaccine. CDC and FDA physicians review each case report of death as soon as notified and CDC requests medical records to further assess reports. A review of available clinical information, including death certificates, autopsy, and medical records has not established a causal link to COVID-19 vaccines.
However, recent reports indicate a plausible causal relationship between the J&J/Janssen COVID-19 Vaccine and a rare and serious adverse event—blood clots with low platelets—which has caused deaths.
That's the science. Fuck you, Tucker.
Who's going to be the first litigant to be granted standing to sue Tucker for every cent he'll ever make because one of their loved ones listened to Tucker and died?
Because if we were a creative wrongful death lawyer right now ... Oh hell, Fox News would just argue again that no reasonable person would think Tucker was telling the truth, and they'd probably win again.
[Media Matters / Politifact / CDC]
Follow Evan Hurst on Twitter RIGHT HERE, DO IT RIGHT HERE!
If you happen to have some extra money right now, we would take it.
Climate Crisis Well Into 'Just Like Science Fiction' Territory
Extreme heat kills at least 11 in India.
On Sunday, Reuters reports, hundreds of thousands of people sat in the hot sun for hours during an award presentation in an empty field near Mumbai. As the event went on, the high temperature reached 38 degrees Celsius (100.4°F), with high humidity, which Reuters says is normal for this time of year, although sitting out in the midday sun for hours isn't. At least 11 people died of heatstroke, and about 50 were taken to hospitals; the Times of India reports that another unconfirmed tally set the death toll at 13, and adds that
Eight of the dead are women, mostly elderly. The casualties may rise as some of those hospitalised are believed to be critical with cardiac problems and fluctuations in blood sugar levels.
The disaster has led to accusations of careless planning for the annual awards ceremony, which this year honored a prominent social worker and health activist. India's Home Affairs Minister Amit Shah joined many officials from Maharashtra state at the dais — which was among the few parts of the grounds that was covered with shade. He tweeted this photo of the crowd as seen from the stage:
The New York Times reports that the deaths
immediately led to political finger-pointing. The Maharashtra chief minister, Eknath Shinde, called them “unfortunate” and promised compensation of 500,000 rupees, or around $6,100, to the families of the dead. Opposition politicians called for an inquiry.
What's more, the Times points out, there hadn't been an official heat warning issued prior to the event, because "there wasn’t, strictly speaking, a heat wave," because the Indian Meteorological Department's criterion is that the temperature be 4.5 degrees Celsius above normal. it was merely hot enough to be deadly to people who'd been in the sun for hours, particularly since the humidity was around 60 to 70 percent during the event.
The Times also points out that many local and state-level governments in India aren't very well prepared for extreme heat:
A report from an independent Indian think tank called the Centre for Policy Research telegraphed those risks just a few weeks ago. It credited government agencies for creating a heat wave early warning system and for working in creative ways to get messages out, including radio jingles, billboards, WhatsApp messages and YouTube shorts.
But the report found that only a handful of Indian cities and states have heat action plans in place, designed to protect lives and livelihoods. Many of them had ambitious targets, like setting up cooling centers and improving access to water. But most lacked funding. Nor did many have ways to identify the most vulnerable citizens. Most “have an oversimplified view of the hazard,” it went on.
But if that information doesn't get to people, it can't do much good. Maharashtra state, where the awards event took place, only adopted its heat wave plan in late March, and it's not even clear whether it would have been triggered by weather conditions Sunday, the Times explains.
The terrifying thing is that climate change is only going to make extreme heat events worse. Last year saw some of India's hottest temperatures on record.
This week, many parts of India were under heat wave alerts. Schools and colleges were closed in most parts of West Bengal state. Delhi sweltered above 40 degrees Celsius, or 104 degrees Fahrenheit, for the second day in a row.
India isn’t alone in facing heat hazards. Thailand set an ominous national record when temperatures peaked past 45 degrees Celsius, or 114 degrees Fahrenheit, this week. Several weather stations in China broke temperature records this month.
Now, the reason this news landed with a nauseating thud in my heart is that I recently finished reading Kim Stanley Robinson's 2020 novel The Ministry for the Future, which is set in the very near future, and imagines a UN agency tasked with somehow solving the climate crisis. It's a hell of a compelling read, with some very definite ideas about how humans might find a way to address the planetary catastrophe we've been building for two centuries.
Ministry for the Future's first chapter is a devastating read, in which Robinson imagines a very plausible scenario: in the later years of this decade, a perfect storm of atmospheric conditions leads to a long heatwave in Uttar Pradesh, with heat and humidity at levels that human beings simply can't survive. The overstressed electrical grid goes down, all over the area. In a fictional city, an American NGO worker, Frank May, does what little he can for several local families, inviting them into the clinic where he works, where there's a single window air conditioner connected by extension cords to a portable generator on the roof.
Then young men with guns show up and demand both the generator and the air conditioner. Nobody is coming to help, because everyone is in the same terrible straits, including Frank's colleagues at the regional headquarters of the NGO in Delhi. People in the clinic start dying, the weak and old first, then the children, and the people stuck inside take the bodies to the roof. By late afternoon they all decide to try going to the local lake, but there's no shade or relief, and the water is hotter than body temperature. Everyone gets in the water anyway, because it's at least wet, but they die there too.
People were dying faster than ever. There was no coolness to be had. All the children were dead, all the old people were dead. People murmured what should have been screams of grief; those who could still move shoved bodies out of the lake, or out toward the middle where they floated like logs, or sank.
Frank shut his eyes and tried not to listen to the voices around him. He was fully immersed in the shallows, and could rest his head back against the concrete edge of the walkway and the mud just under it. Sink himself until he was stuck in mud and only half his head exposed to the burning air.
When I read the first chapter of The Ministry for the Future, I wanted to send a copy to every Republican in Congress, and in my state legislature. I wanted to make it required reading in high schools, even if it got banned in Florida.
It sticks with you, and the news of the deadly heat in India this weekend feels like the orchestra tuning up for a far worse calamity. It's a hell of a book, although I also have to agree with climate and energy journalist Dave Roberts that at times it does read more like a collection of white papers with characters added in than a novel. But hell, the white papers are good reading too, and the book is full of Big Ideas about how we might just survive this.
Should we do a book club on this thing?
[New York Times / Reuters / Times of India / The Ministry for the Future (a small portion of sales goes to Yr. Wonkette)]
Yr Wonkette is funded entirely by reader donations. If you can, please help us keep this mommyblog going with a monthly $5 or $10 donation.
Federal Judge Takes Dump On Clean Water Act In 24 States
Now that water's not so clean.
A federal judge in North Dakota issued a temporary stay Wednesday on a key EPA rule that protects small bodies of water like streams, wetlands, and creeks that can feed into larger water supplies, in yet another fight between regulators who think it would be nice for water in this country to not be polluted, and business and Big Agriculture interests who think the Feds shouldn't be able to stop them from dumping nasty shit that can make its way into streams and rivers.
At issue is a December 2022 EPA rule defining what exactly the term "waters of the United States" means in the 1972 Clean Water Act, because how those five words are interpreted makes all the difference in whether particular damp spots on the map are subject to regulation by the federal government. EPA and Republicans have fought over the term through multiple presidential administrations, and you may be delighted to know that it's such a big part of environmental law that it's regularly abbreviated as "WOTUS."
Also I promise not to go too much into the weeds, or the reeds, since the details of "waters of the US" can be remarkably dry.
To oversimplify a bit, would-be polluters (and the 24 mostly Republican-run states who sued the EPA) would really prefer that the definition only include bodies of water that are fairly permanent and obviously connected to other bodies of water, like lakes or rivers or wetlands, and streams that flow pretty much year round. At the outside, they'd also include "semi-permanent" stream and riverbeds that are frequently dry, like the LA River, but that drain into other bodies of water when it rains.
Nutty environmentalists and scientists — and the December 2022 EPA rule — point at hydrological data showing that nasty stuff in one place can very easily get into water downstream even if you don't see a stream right there, so the EPA rule includes wet spots — even sometimes-wet spots — that have a "significant nexus" to navigable waterways.
Ranchers and agribusiness and developers claim this is tyrannical overreach and an excuse for the EPA to require expensive, time-consuming permits even if a hypothetical "roadside ditch" nowhere near any major waters might conceivably be linked to another body of water. I recall seeing that "roadside ditch" example as far back as the '90s; the anti-enviros love that ditch almost as much as they love complaining that all of modern progress is cancelled by crazy hippies who won't let the snail darter go extinct.
In yesterday's ruling — which includes a fine history of the fight over defining WOTUS, even if the ruling itself is crap — US District Judge Daniel L. Hovland put a hold on enforcement of the rule by EPA and the Army Corps of Engineers while the case goes forward. Hovland's ruling piggybacks on a previous injunction in a case that blocked the rule in Texas and Idaho, blocking the rule in a total of 26 states. Here is a handy map of the Polluters' Friends, from EarthJustice:
Not surprisingly, land-messers-uppers of all stripes were delighted by the ruling, like Todd Wilkinson, the president of the National Cattlemen’s Beef Association, who, come the revolution, will be what's for dinner.
Once again, the courts have affirmed that the Biden administration’s WOTUS rule is overreaching and harmful to America’s beef farmers and ranchers. [...] Cattle producers in 26 states now have some additional certainty while this rule is being litigated and we are optimistic that the Supreme Court will provide nationwide clarity on the federal government’s proper jurisdiction over water.
And yeah, considering the current drift of the Supremes, that may turn out to be the case — but it may help that in addition to the EPA being one of the defendants, the case is also being defended by EarthJustice on the behalf of four tribes in the affected states — the Chickaloon Village Traditional Council (Alaska), Rappahannock Tribe (Virginia), Tohono O’odham Nation (Arizona), and White Earth Band of Minnesota Chippewa Tribe. Justice Neil Gorsuch, as we've noted before, has a particular interest in cases affecting tribal sovereignty, so that might overcome his usual inclination to let corporations do anything they want. Or not.
For its part, the EPA issued a statement saying that it and the Army Corps of Engineers are reviewing the order, but that it considers the December 2022 rule the best interpretation of the Clean Water Act, and noting that the rule remains in effect in the rest of the states. (So move there if you like clean water, basically. This national divorce is coming along just great.)
The court's injunction came just a week after President Joe Biden vetoed a Republican-led attempt to kill off the EPA rule through the Congressional Review Act. That resolution passed in the GOP-led House and picked up four votes in the Senate from Democrats — Joe Manchin, Jon Tester, and both Nevada senators, Catherine Cortez Masto (!) and Jacky Rosen (!) — plus Arizona independent Kyrsten Sinema, who caucuses with corporate lobbyists.
In his veto message, President Biden said that overturning the rule would
leave Americans without a clear definition of “Waters of the United States”. The increased uncertainty caused by H.J. Res. 27 would threaten economic growth, including for agriculture, local economies, and downstream communities. Farmers would be left wondering whether artificially irrigated areas remain excluded or not. Construction crews would be left wondering whether their waterfilled gravel pits remain excluded or not. The resolution would also negatively affect tens of millions of United States households that depend on healthy wetlands and streams.
And now, for half the USA, that is exactly where yesterday's decision leaves us — in a roadside ditch, exactly where polluters would like us to be.
[AP / EarthJustice / Reuters / Order in West Virginia et al v. EPA / White House / Photo: AdA Durden, Creative Commons License 2.0]
Yr Wonkette is funded entirely by reader donations. If you can, please help us keep this little mommyblog going with a monthly $5 or $10 donation, so we can change the filter in our water pitcher more frequently. Hydrate today for a better tomorrow.