Texas Doctor’s False Claims About COVID Vaccine |

In a video widely shared on social media, a Texas doctor known for his political activities and whose vitamin sales warned federal authorities discouraged people from being vaccinated with COVID-19. It forges many false allegations that it seeks.

Dr. Stephen Hotze begs viewers to “just say no” to the vaccine after a long, error-filled marketing claim that the mRNA vaccine is not a vaccine.

As explained in a previous SciCheck article, the two vaccines currently approved in the United States by Pfizer and Moderna are designed using modified messenger RNA. mRNA provides instructions for cells to make peplomer, which provokes an immune response to the peaplomer of the SARS-CoV-2 virus that causes COVID-19.

Hotze is a conservative activist who challenged COVID-19 public health measures in Texas last year and made unproven claims about fraudulent voting prior to the 2020 elections. In December, the Food and Drug Administration and the Federal Trade Commission sent a letter to Hotze warning them to stop selling vitamins, using a misleading proposal that COVID-19 could be treated or prevented.

A video of his mRNA vaccine was published on his website on February 26th. According to CrowdTangle analysis data, the link to the post has been shared over 10,000 times on Facebook. This video has been watched tens of thousands of times on various posts on Facebook and Instagram.

We contacted Hotze about some of his claims in the video, but did not get a reply. Here we break down some of his claims.

False claims about vaccine efficacy and definition

Hotze tells the viewer: “If you are immune to the disease, you may be exposed to the disease without being infected. The so-called COVID-19 vaccine immunizes the vaccinated individual against COVID-19 and also prevents the spread of the disease. No. It does not meet CDC’s own definition of vaccine. That is why deceptive trading practices under the Federal Trade Commission’s 15 US Code Section 41 for pharmaceutical companies claiming this genetic therapy as a vaccine. Is. “

The vaccine has been shown in clinical trials to be very effective in preventing symptomatological COVID-19 disease. More than 30,000 people were enrolled in each of the Pfizer and Moderna trials, demonstrating their effectiveness in preventing symptomatological disorders. It was at least 94% after the second dose. His claim is that the vaccine “provides immunity to COVID-19 to individuals who receive the vaccine” is wrong.

Currently, it is unknown to what extent the vaccine limits infection with the virus, SARS-CoV-2. In other words, the vaccine has been shown to prevent the development of COVID-19 symptoms, but it may not prevent a person from carrying the virus. However, there is a good chance that it will help control the infection to some extent. Experts say that with other vaccines, people who get the vaccine will be less infected because they will release less of the virus, even if they are infected with the virus.

Hotze’s statement that mRNA vaccines “do not meet the CDC’s own definition of vaccine” is also not important.

He points out that the CDC website defines a vaccine as “a product that stimulates a person’s immune system to generate immunity to a particular disease and protects the person from that disease.” exactly. However, that definition is consistent with the FDA’s decision to issue an emergency use authorization for the Moderna and Pfizer vaccines, as it has been shown to be effective in trials.

“Obviously, the Moderna and Pfizer vaccines are products.[s] Jacob Sharkow, a professor of law at the University of Illinois, conducts research with a partial focus on the legal implications of advanced biotechnology. Said by email. Sharkow said it is not entirely clear what the legal effect of the CDC’s website definition is.[i] This is neither a formal administrative rule nor guidance … it is just a general definition of a vaccine. “

Hotze’s claim that the mRNA vaccine is a “deceptive trading practice” is also meaningless. He cites “Federal Trade Commission 15US Code Section 41”, which seems to refer to 15US Code §45 as it deals with the establishment of the FTC.

“Here, the only thing that §45 of the FTC Act does is empower the FTC to crack down on deceptive acts or practices in or affecting commerce,” Shakow said. “It does not define what a deceptive act is.”

Sharkow said the definition of “deceptive practice” is based on long-standing case law. “Generally, these occur when three conditions are met. The consumer’s interpretation is” reasonable. ” Misrepresentation is “important”. That is, the consumer purchased the product for display. “

“None of them are here,” he added. “There is no misrepresentation of the nature of these vaccines. In fact, there is a sea of ​​information about what they are and how they work.”

Referencing the Moderna and Pfizer vaccines again, Hotze erroneously claims: “These so-called vaccines made using cells from human babies that were discontinued in the 1970s should be more precisely called gene therapy. They have not been tested and have been proven. It is not an gene therapy and poses far greater danger and risk to your health than COVID-19. “

First, it addresses his false claim that the vaccine is “ gene therapy.” This is a recurring claim he makes throughout the video.

The FDA’s website defines gene therapy as “a technology that modifies a person’s genes to treat or treat a disease.”

Sharkou, who wrote about gene therapy, said the mRNA vaccine was not so qualified.

“MRNA vaccines do not modify a person’s genes, the genome,” he said. “These are transcripts of the viral spike gene, translated into proteins and expressed in cells. The mRNA is then degraded. The genome has not changed.”

Hotze’s claim that the mRNA vaccine was “made using cells from human babies who had an abortion in the 1970s” is also false.

Fetal cells from two pregnancies discontinued in the early 1960s (one in Sweden and one in the United Kingdom) propagate viruses to make vaccines for chickenpox (chickenpox), rubella, and hepatitis A. It is now the cell line used for. The virus is not present in the vaccine itself because it is purified before it enters the syringe.

However, the Pfizer and Moderna mRNA vaccines were not made from the virus, nor were they made using these fetal cell lines, as Hotze claims. That said, we used one of the cell lines to test these two mRNA vaccines and confirmed that they worked.

The third US-approved vaccine (single dose from Johnson & Johnson without an mRNA platform) was produced using adenovirus produced using a retinal cell line first obtained from the fetus in 1985. Has been done. Philadelphia Children’s Hospital. Like other vaccines made using cell lines, fetal cells are not present in the J & J vaccine.

FactCheck.org We do not accept advertisements. It relies on grants and personal donations. Independent.