Seventy Years of Political Action 1953 - 2023
Este artículo estará disponible en español en El Tiempo Latino.
Quick TakeAt a campaign rally in Michigan, former President Donald Trump promised to build an Iron Dome missile defense system for the U.S. that would serve as “a shield around our country.” A post on Threads falsely claimed Trump said the system would be used to “‘defend us’ from Canada.”
Full StoryOn a day off from his criminal trial in New York City, former President Donald Trump traveled to the swing states of Wisconsin and Michigan on May 1 for campaign rallies in support of his effort to regain the White House.
A post shared on Threads on May 1 shows a clip from Trump’s rally that day in Freeland, Michigan, and the Thread user claims, “Donald Trump wants to build an ‘iron dome’ at the border of our country to ‘defend us’ from Canada. Yes, Canada.”
In the 22-second video in the Threads post, Trump says, “In my next term, we will build a great Iron Dome very much like Israel has, but even better. I’m saying, why don’t we have that? We should have that too. We have a lot of hostile people out there. We have a lot of bad actors out there. We’re going to build the greatest dome of them all.”
But Trump does not mention Canada in the short video on Threads. And a YouTube video of his entire remarks in Michigan shows he didn’t cite any need to “‘defend us’ from Canada.” Nor did he identify who he meant by “hostile people” or “bad actors.”
As he did in Michigan, Trump has advocated for an Iron Dome system for the U.S. in other recent speeches as well. But never as a defense against Canada.
Defense Against Short-Range AttackTrump’s references are to a missile defense system first used by Israel in 2011 to shoot down short-range rockets fired from Gaza. The Iron Dome, along with the Arrow 3 system — an Israeli air defense system that can intercept ballistic missiles — successfully downed nearly all the 300 drones and missiles launched at Israel by Iran on April 14.
The U.S. Army acquired two Iron Dome batteries from Israel in 2020, but they “have subsequently been returned to Israel as part of US security assistance efforts to our Israeli partners,” a Pentagon spokesperson told us in a May 2 email.
The Pentagon spokesperson referred us to U.S. weapons manufacturer Raytheon for information on the capabilities of the Iron Dome system.
Raytheon works with Rafael Advanced Defense Systems, an Israeli company, on the Iron Dome, which Raytheon describes as “the world’s most-used system, intercepting more than 1,500 incoming targets with a success rate exceeding 90 percent since being fielded in 2011.”
The system “detects, assesses and intercepts a variety of shorter-range targets such as rockets, artillery and mortars,” Raytheon’s website explains. “Iron Dome’s Tamir missile knocks down incoming threats launched from ranges of 4-70 km,” or 2.4 to 43.5 miles.
“Ten Iron Dome batteries protect the citizens and infrastructure of Israel, with each battery comprising three to four stationary launchers, 20 Tamir missiles and a battlefield radar. Each of the batteries can defend up to nearly 60 square miles, and are strategically placed around cities to intercept threats headed toward populated areas,” the Raytheon site also says.
But “against the normal threats to U.S. security, the Iron Dome is not a useful system,” Stephen Biddle, adjunct senior fellow for defense policy at the Council on Foreign Relations, told us in a phone interview. “Iron Dome is designed to deal with short-range threats, especially unguided rockets,” not long-range ballistic missiles that could be fired from adversaries like China or Russia.
The Congressional Research Service explains that “a ballistic missile leaves the atmosphere and follows an unpowered trajectory or flight path before reentering the atmosphere toward a predetermined target. Ballistic missiles have an effective range from a few hundred kilometers (km) to more than 10,000 km,” or 6,200 miles.
“If the North Koreans launched intercontinental ballistic missiles at the U.S., an Iron Dome would not be able to intercept reentry vehicles,” explained Biddle, who is also a professor of international and public affairs at Columbia University. Reentry vehicles are the parts of intercontinental ballistic missiles carrying warheads back into earth’s atmosphere before striking a target.
‘A More Sophisticated Version’At the May 1 rally in Michigan, Trump touted the security and economic benefits of an Iron Dome system.
After the remarks quoted in the Threads clip about building “the greatest [Iron] Dome of them all,” the YouTube video of Trump’s full remarks show that he then said: “We’re going to have it all made right here in America. Some of it’s going to be made right here in Michigan. State-of-the-art missile defense shield that will be entirely built in America and will create jobs, jobs, jobs, and we’re going to have the greatest Dome of them all. … We’re going to have a more sophisticated version. We have the technology. We have the genius. We’re going to have a more, we’re going to build a great Iron Dome. We’re going to have a shield around our country and it’s made here, and it’s going to be a great day.”
Defense experts are skeptical that a missile defense system can “shield” the entire U.S., as Trump suggests. But Trump did not say such a system was needed to “defend us” from our neighbor to the north.
Editor’s note: FactCheck.org is one of several organizations working with Facebook to debunk misinformation shared on social media. Our previous stories can be found here. Facebook has no control over our editorial content.
SourcesBiddle, Stephen. Adjunct senior fellow for defense policy, Council on Foreign Relations. Phone interview with FactCheck.org. 2 May 2024.
Congressional Research Service. “Defense Primer: Ballistic Missile Defense.” Updated 30 Jan 2024.
Fowler, Stephen. “Away from his New York trial, Donald Trump’s campaign rallies are business as usual.” NPR. 1 May 2024.
Rafael Advance Defence Systems Ltd. “Our Story.” Accessed 2 May 2024.
Raytheon/RTX. “Iron Dome System and SkyHunter Missile.” Rtx.com. Accessed 2 May 2024.
Reiss, Adam, et al. “Key witnesses in Trump’s criminal trial describe how the hush money deals came together.” NBC News. 30 Apr 2024.
Seitz-Wald, Alex. “Trump has long promised a ‘beautiful’ wall. Now he’s pledging ‘the greatest dome ever.'” NBC News. 23 Jan 2024.
U.S. Department of Defense. Email from Pentagon spokesperson to FactCheck.org. 2 May 2024.
Vinograd, Cassandra and Matthew Mpoke Bigg. “What Weapons Did Israel Use to Block Iran’s Attack?” New York Times. 14 Apr 2024.
The post Threads Post Distorts Trump’s Remarks on Iron Dome for U.S. appeared first on FactCheck.org.
Este artículo estará disponible en español en El Tiempo Latino.
Former President Donald Trump said FBI data that show homicides and other violent crimes trending down are “fake numbers.” They’re not.
The FBI data for 2023 are preliminary, but crime statistics experts say the reporting behind the overall downward trend is solid, and that trend is validated when compared to data samples from local and state law enforcement reports.
The FBI statistics contradict Trump’s campaign narrative, repeated at a May 1 rally in Wisconsin, about rampant and rising violent crime in the U.S. And polls that show most Americans believe crime is on the increase. But that doesn’t mean the data are wrong or “fudged,” as Trump put it.
The FBI statistics are, however, incomplete, given that they measure only crimes reported to law enforcement — some crimes, such as rape, are historically greatly underreported — and not every law enforcement agency reports its statistics. That has been the case for decades.
Trump’s dismissal of the validity of the FBI’s crime statistics reminds us of when Trump was running for president in 2016 and falsely labeled the unemployment rates published by the Bureau of Labor Statistics as “phony numbers.”
At that time, Trump claimed the unemployment rate was really 42%. (The official unemployment rate then was 4.9%.) Less than two months after Trump took office, however, he was happy to cite BLS’ official unemployment rate. Sean Spicer, Trump’s top spokesman at the time, joked in a press briefing about Trump’s new embrace of the jobs data, “Yeah, I talked to the president prior to this, and he said to quote him very clearly — ‘They may have been phony in the past, but it’s very real now.’”
According to the FBI’s preliminary 2023 crime report, violent crimes dropped 5.7% between 2022 and 2023, and the number of murders declined 13.2%. That’s based on data from 79% of law enforcement agencies in the U.S., representing higher participation than any year during Trump’s presidency. Murders and violent crime went up in 2020, Trump’s last year in office, and murders continued to rise in 2021, albeit to a lesser extent, as violent crime ticked down a bit. Both have been declining since, according to FBI and other crime data.
Asked about the downward trend in violent crime figures in a Time interview conducted on April 12, Trump said he didn’t believe it, and he claimed, “The FBI gave fake numbers.”
Time National Politics Reporter Eric Cortellessa, April 12: Violent crime is going down throughout the country. There was a 6% drop in—
Trump: I don’t believe it.
Cortellessa: You don’t believe that?
Trump: Yeah, they’re fake numbers.
Cortellessa: You think so?
Trump: Well it came out last night. The FBI gave fake numbers.
Cortellessa: I didn’t see that, but the FBI said that there was a 13% drop [in homicides] in 2023.
Trump: I don’t believe it. No, it’s a lie. It’s fake news.
Cortellessa: Sir, these numbers are collected by state and local police departments across the country. Most of them support you. Are they wrong?
Trump: Yeah. Last night. Well, maybe, maybe not. The FBI fudged the numbers and other people fudged numbers. There is no way that crime went down over the last year. There’s no way because you have migrant crime. Are they adding migrant crime? Or do they consider that a different form of crime?
Cortellessa: So these local police departments are wrong?
Trump: I don’t believe it’s from the local police. What I saw was the FBI was giving false numbers.
We reached out to Trump’s press office for clarification about what Trump was referring to when he said, “it came out last night” that “[t]he FBI gave fake numbers.” We also asked for any other evidence to support Trump’s claim the FBI “fudged the numbers.” We got no response.
The FBI figures are based on voluntary reports by agencies nationwide. The final numbers and information about nationwide crime rates, which are adjusted for population, won’t be available until the FBI’s annual crime report is released in October.
“This data is preliminary and unaudited so agencies have time to submit data for additional months or fix apparent data errors (of which there are a handful), but it’s data coming from agencies themselves,” crime analyst Jeff Asher, co-founder of the New Orleans firm AH Datalytics, told us via email. “I like to think of those figures as accurate but not precise.”
In other words, he said, the drop in murders may end up being 10% or 11% lower in 2023 instead of 13.2%. And the drop in violent crime may be smaller than the 5.7% in the preliminary report. But, he said, the preliminary data “highlights the trend of rapidly declining murder and less rapidly declining violent crime.”
The downward homicide trend is backed up by AH Datalytics’ analysis of data about homicides from more than 200 large U.S. cities, which showed homicides declined by about 12% in 2023, Asher said. The FBI data also track with a large decline in shooting victims in 2023 documented by the Gun Violence Archives.
“Murder almost certainly declined at one of the fastest rates ever recorded in 2023,” Asher wrote in his 2023 analysis.
As for the downward trend in violent crime, that “is seemingly backed up by publicly available data from 14 states that published their data already showing a decline in violent crime in most states,” Asher said.
The Council on Criminal Justice’s crime report for 2023, published in January, found that homicides in 32 cities that provided such data were 10% lower—representing 515 fewer homicides—in 2023 than in 2022. The CCJ analysis also found there were 3% fewer reported aggravated assaults and 7% fewer gun assaults in 11 reporting cities, and 5% fewer carjackings in 10 reporting cities. The report found robberies and domestic violence incidents each rose 2% in 2023.
“Overall, crime rates are largely returning to pre-COVID levels as the nation distances itself from the height of the pandemic, but there are notable exceptions.” the CCJ report states. “While decreases in homicide in the study cities (and many other cities) are promising, the progress is uneven and other sources of crime information, including household surveys of violent victimization, indicate higher rates and more pronounced shifts than reports to law enforcement agencies.”
The latest figures from the Major Cities Chiefs Association also show a decline in murders and violent crime. The number of murders went down by 10.4% from 2022 to 2023 in 69 large U.S. cities that provided data, according to its report. Since 2020, murders in those cities have dropped by 8.6%. The latest report from MCCA shows violent crime continued to trend down in the first quarter of 2024, though homicides and other violent crimes remain above their pre-pandemic 2019 levels.
“Given the multitude of data sources pointing to the same widespread decline I’d say the FBI quarterly data is trustworthy in terms of the overarching trend while there still being a fair amount of uncertainty as to how large the declines in murder and violent crime may have been,” Asher said.
Richard Berk, emeritus professor of criminology and statistics at the University of Pennsylvania, agrees. “Violent crime generally appears to have been declining post COVID,” Berk told us via email.
“It’s clearly going down in the way it’s described” by the FBI, Berk said. And if you doubt that, he said, “If you use local data (e.g., from the Philly PD) you can bypass claims of FBI malfeasance. And if you do that, you get pretty much the same story.”
Nonetheless, he said, the process of tracking crime in the U.S. is “a very imperfect system.” For one, some violent crimes — such as rape and domestic violence — are far more underreported to police than others.
Crime Victimization SurveyThe FBI’s Uniform Crime Report documents crimes reported to law enforcement. The government’s other national crime measure is the National Crime Victimization Survey, which estimates levels of various crimes based on a survey of about 240,000 people each year, asking whether they have been victims of various crimes. The two measures can vary, and have in recent years.
At a May 1 rally in Wisconsin, Trump said, “We have a country that’s in hell. Look at what’s going on. Look at the crime.” But FBI statistics contradict Trump’s campaign narrative that crime is on the rise. Photo by Scott Olson/Getty Images.While the FBI Uniform Crime Reports were showing a decrease in violent crime between 2021 and 2022, the NCVS for 2022 — the latest year available — showed the serious violent crime victimization rate — which includes rape and sexual assault, robbery, and aggravated assault — rose from 5.6 the year before to 9.8 violent crimes per 1,000 population age 12 and older.
In an October report, criminologists at the Council on Criminal Justice wrote that the divergence between the FBI’s Uniform Crime Report and the NCVS “makes it uncertain whether violent crime actually went up or down in 2022.”
Nonetheless, that still doesn’t support Trump’s claim.
“These findings from the National Crime Victimization Survey show that the 2022 rate of nonfatal violent victimization increased compared to 2021, but was similar to the rate in 2018 and remained much lower than the highs of the early 1990s,” Kevin M. Scott, principal deputy director of the Bureau of Justice Statistics, said in a press release about the report for 2022.
Asher said there are numerous reasons the NCVS does not nullify the trends reported in the FBI’s Uniform Crime Report.
The NCVS “is terrific for outlining the contours of what does and doesn’t get reported but isn’t particularly great at measuring year-to-year trends,” Asher told us. In a post on April 8, Asher outlined some of the reasons for the discrepancy between the reports in 2022.
“The most obvious reason to avoid year-to-year direct comparisons is that UCR counts murder while NCVS does not,” Asher wrote. “Murder victims cannot be surveyed, so the reason for the crime’s absence makes sense in NCVS, but it’s also the crime that comes with the highest societal cost and I’m guessing it’s usually the crime that people are thinking about when they think about the nation’s violent crime rate. Murder is also the one crime that probably has decently accurate — albeit imperfect — counts each year.”
Murders have indisputably gone down in each of the last two years, after a spike in 2020 and a smaller uptick in 2021, though they are still a bit higher than 2019.
Asher also cites a lag time built into surveys that ask about crimes over the last six months, the fact that the surveys only include people 12 and older, and that surveys — by definition — have margins of error.
Asher also notes that the NCVS’ most recent survey is for 2022, while the preliminary FBI data is for 2023.
“In many ways, 2022’s violent crime trend isn’t particularly important relative to the direction implied in 2023’s preliminary reported crime trend sitting here in the spring of 2024,” Asher wrote.
In an op-ed for the Wall Street Journal on April 24, John Lott, an economist and president of the Crime Prevention Research Center, argued that the NCVS has revealed that violent crime is not down, just reporting of violent crime to police departments. He attributes that to large cities arresting fewer people, and thereby giving victims less incentive to report a crime.
“Law enforcement has collapsed in the U.S., particularly in big cities,” Lott wrote, and “many Americans [are] no longer confident that the legal system will protect them.”
Indeed, Ernesto Lopez, a research specialist at the Council on Criminal Justice, said the NCVS indicated that “non-reporting of aggravated assaults increased by about 29% from 2021 to 2022,” which he said, “could create an undercount of aggravated assaults.” Nonetheless, he said, “I generally would not classify the FBI data as inaccurate.”
Lott, whose controversial research on crime and guns is often cited by conservatives, also attributes the discrepancy between the 2022 FBI and NCVS data to low participation among local police departments that feed data to inform the FBI report. But participation rates in 2023 grew substantially.
A Change in Reporting DataAs we have written, starting in 2021, the FBI transitioned to a new system for local law enforcement agencies to submit data, requiring agencies to use what’s called the National Incident-Based Reporting System. That first year, only 60% of agencies reported crime data — police departments in the two largest U.S. cities, New York City and Los Angeles, were among the notable non-reporters — and so the FBI and the Bureau of Justice Statistics provided national estimates to fill in the gaps. Due to the low reporting level, some crime data experts cautioned not to make sweeping conclusions about crime trends.
Anna Harvey, a politics, data science and law professor at New York University, was among those who warned at the time that politicians were “kind of throwing around allegations and claims about crime that may or may not be accurate.”
In an email interview, Harvey told us participation rates have since improved dramatically.
The year the FBI transitioned to the NIBRS system for collecting crime data — 2021 — she said, only 60% of agencies reported. That increased to 71% in 2022, “which was better but still worse than pre-NIBRS rates,” Harvey said.
But the preliminary 2023 FBI report — the one that found a 13.2% drop in murders and a 5.7% decline in violent crimes in 2023 compared with 2022 — is based on 79.4% of agencies reporting.
“That’s pretty good!” Harvey said. “It’s higher than any reporting rate during the Trump presidency, and close to the highest observed reporting rate between 2000 and 2022 (81%).”
‘Migrant Crime’Trump argued that the FBI crime statistics must have been “fudged” because they did not account for a wave of “migrant crime.”
“There is no way that crime went down over the last year,” Trump said in the Time interview. “There’s no way because you have migrant crime. Are they adding migrant crime? Or do they consider that a different form of crime?”
Crime data experts say Trump confuses how FBI crime data are collected and reported.
“The FBI UCR statistics do not track incidents such as illegal entries, failure to appear in hearings, etc.,” Lopez, of the Council on Criminal Justice, told us. “However, if a migrant commits an offense, such as a robbery, and that robbery is reported to the police, and that police department reports their crime incidents to the FBI, that incident will be reflected in official statistics.”
To be sure, there have been a number of high-profile crimes committed by immigrants in the country illegally this year, including the murder of nursing student Laken Riley in February and an assault on New York City police officers in January.
But Asher, of AH Datalytics, says there is no evidence in the data to indicate a migrant crime wave. Asher said that assuming a wave of crimes being committed by immigrants was too small to register in overall national trends of reported violent crime, he decided to analyze crime data to see if it was at least showing up along the U.S. border with Mexico. And so he looked at Texas crime data.
“Comparing violent crime rates in Texas border counties over time to violent crime in the US and statewide in Texas shows no evidence of increasing violent crime along the US border with Mexico,” Asher wrote. “The 14 counties along the Texas-Mexico border have seen a relatively steady violent crime rate below that of the rest of their state and the nation as a whole.”
“There are — and likely always will be — extraordinarily tragic individual incidents of crime to point to as anecdotal evidence of whatever wider trend one wants to assert,” Asher wrote. “But individual tragedies do not inherently constitute a crime wave, and the lack of an overarching surge in incidents shouldn’t detract from the tragedy of individual examples.
“Ultimately, the US crime data system is poorly set up to definitively answer the question of whether there is an immigrant-driven crime wave,” he said. “That said, the overall trend of declining violent crime nationally, and seeing no localized crime surges in the places I’d expect to see one if there was such a ‘wave’ strongly suggests that no such thing exists.”
A February New York Times analysis found that while 170,000 migrants have arrived in New York City since April 2022 — when Texas Gov. Greg Abbott began bussing migrants there to call attention to rising illegal immigration into his state — “the overall crime rate has stayed flat. And, in fact, many major categories of crime — including rape, murder and shootings — have decreased.”
Jeffrey Butts, director of the Research and Evaluation Center at the John Jay College of Criminal Justice, told the New York Times there was no evidence of a migrant crime wave.
“I would interpret a ‘wave’ to mean something significant, meaningful and a departure from the norm,” Butts said. “So far, what we have are individual incidents of crime.”
An ‘Imperfect’ SystemThe FBI’s Uniform Crime Reports are an “imperfect” way to measure crime in the U.S., Berk said. There isn’t uniform compliance among reporting agencies, and the report only captures crimes reported to law enforcement.
“Overall crime is a composite of many different kinds of crimes, some are quite common and some are quite rare,” Berk said. “Overall measures can be dominated by the most common crimes. Crimes such as homicide, which is what has great political clout, are relatively rare. The concept of overall crime is basically nonsense.”
“The best back of envelope way to proceed is to focus on particular crimes one by one and one jurisdiction at a time,” Berk said. “But there are subtitles here too. For example, homicides can fall even if the number of shootings increases insofar as medical care substantially improves, such as with the ‘scoop and run’ policy of the Philly PD. Trauma centers really help as well.
“Nevertheless, violent crime generally appears to have been declining post COVID,” Berk said.
In other words, there are numerous caveats that go along with crime statistics like the FBI’s Uniform Crime Reports. The data have certain limitations. But crime data experts say they are useful and informative, and there is no reason to believe they are “fake” or “fudged,” as Trump claimed.
In order to check the FBI data, Berk said, simply look at the crime reports from various cities and you will see they generally match up with the data reported by the FBI for that city, he said.
“It’s hard to argue there’s a conspiracy [by the FBI to fudge the data] if the local police departments are giving them the statistics,” Berk said. “You could say [for example] the Philadelphia police department is in cahoots with the Biden administration’s FBI, but that’s simply a silly conspiracy theory.”
Editor’s note: FactCheck.org does not accept advertising. We rely on grants and individual donations from people like you. Please consider a donation. Credit card donations may be made through our “Donate” page. If you prefer to give by check, send to: FactCheck.org, Annenberg Public Policy Center, 202 S. 36th St., Philadelphia, PA 19104.
The post Trump’s Bogus Attack on FBI Crime Statistics appeared first on FactCheck.org.
It has not been shown that COVID-19 vaccines cause or accelerate cancer. Yet opponents of the vaccines say a new review article “has found that COVID-19 mRNA vaccines could aid cancer development.” The review conclusions are mainly based on the misinterpretation of a study on mRNA cancer vaccines in mice.
How is mRNA in vaccines delivered to cells? How is mRNA in vaccines delivered to cells?Messenger RNA, or mRNA, vaccines work by instructing a small number of a person’s cells to make specific proteins. In the case of the approved mRNA vaccines for COVID-19, the cells make spike protein — one component of the virus that causes COVID-19.
For mRNA vaccines to work, it’s not enough to just put mRNA molecules into a vial and then inject them into a person’s muscle. One innovation that made the current mRNA vaccines possible was the use of lipids to encircle the mRNA molecules.
These fatty structures — called lipid nanoparticles — protect the mRNA from being broken down prematurely. They also help the mRNA cross the cell membrane and get into cells. The approved mRNA vaccines for COVID-19 each use a blend of four types of lipids.
Once the lipid nanoparticles make it past the cell membrane, they release the mRNA into the cell’s interior. Called the cytoplasm, this region encompasses the inside of the cell excluding the nucleus, in which the cell’s DNA resides. The mRNA is processed and used to create the spike protein. The body then mounts an immune response to the spike protein, preparing the immune system to respond to the virus that causes COVID-19 in the future.
Full StoryClinical trials, involving thousands of people, and multiple studies have shown that the mRNA COVID-19 vaccines from Pfizer/BioNTech and Moderna are safe. Hundreds of millions of doses have been administered under close monitoring systems that have found serious side effects are rare. Studies have also shown that the vaccines work very well in preventing severe COVID-19 disease and death, saving millions of lives across the globe.
There is no evidence to support a link between COVID-19 vaccines and cancer, as we’ve reported. Both the National Cancer Institute and the American Cancer Society have stated there’s no information that suggests COVID-19 vaccines cause cancer, make it more aggressive or lead to recurrence of cancer.
Yet, vaccine opponents falsely claim a review article published in April proves the contrary.
“BREAKING: A review in the International Journal of Biological Macromolecules has found that COVID-19 mRNA vaccines could aid cancer development,” reads an April 16 Facebook post by America’s Frontline Doctors, a group that has repeatedly spread misinformation about the pandemic and whose founder was sentenced to 60 days in prison for entering the U.S. Capitol during the Jan. 6 riot.
A separate Facebook post used a Gateway Pundit headline to falsely claim, “Confirmed: Researchers Reveal COVID mRNA Vaccines Contain Component that Suppresses Immune Response and Stimulates Cancer Growth.” Similarly, a post on X said the new “study … confirms what some medical experts have been suspecting for 18 months: The COVID mRNA shots containing N1-methyl-pseudouridine SUPPRESS the immune system and STIMULATE cancer growth!”
Messenger RNA, or mRNA, vaccines work by instructing a small number of a person’s cells to make specific proteins, which then prompt the body to mount an immune response. N1-methylpseudouridine is a modification naturally found in some RNA molecules that’s attached to mRNA in vaccines to allow it to deliver its message to the cell without being destroyed by an innate immune response, as we will explain.
Experts told us the review paper, which is based on other published articles and does not contain original research, misleads by misinterpreting several studies and the role of N1-methylpseudouridine in vaccines. The authors also refer to an unreliable review article, written by authors known for spreading misinformation, that falsely claimed the mRNA COVID-19 vaccines impair the immune system and increase the risk of cancer, as we have explained before.
One of the most important misrepresentations, and one that the authors heavily rely on, is based on the findings of a study on mRNA cancer vaccines in mice. The study looked at the efficacy of mRNA cancer vaccines with different degrees of N1-methylpseudouridine modification in a mouse melanoma model. According to the review, the study found that “adding 100% of N1-methyl-pseudouridine (m1Ψ) to the mRNA vaccine in a melanoma model stimulated cancer growth and metastasis, while non-modified mRNA vaccines induced opposite results, thus suggesting that COVID-19 mRNA vaccines could aid cancer development.”
But that’s not what the study found.
“[O]ur results did not show, suggest or indicate that modified mRNA promotes tumor growth/metastasis,” Tanapat Palaga, professor of microbiology at the Chulalongkorn University in Thailand and the corresponding author of that study, told us in an email.
What the study actually showed is that both unmodified mRNA and modified mRNA induced immune responses against the tumor antigens, but only the unmodified mRNA reduced cancer growth and metastasis, while the modified mRNA didn’t. The study was published in 2022 and co-authored by Drew Weissman, who won the 2023 Nobel Prize with Katalin Karikó for discovering this mRNA modification that eventually led to the mRNA COVID-19 vaccines.
Dr. James A. Hoxie, an emeritus professor of medicine at the University of Pennsylvania and co-director of the Penn Institute of RNA Innovation (directed by Weissman), told us those findings are relevant for scientists who are studying ways in which mRNA cancer vaccines can elicit immune responses needed to prevent or delay cancer progression. (See “Social Media Posts Misinterpret Biden on mRNA Cancer Vaccines” for more information about mRNA cancer vaccines.)
“But that is a far cry from saying that the vaccine that was used to prevent COVID-19 disease causes cancer,” he said. Implying that by regulating the innate immune system, which is something scientists working in immunotherapies are trying to understand, “you’re leaving yourself open for cancer risk — that is ludicrous.”
“I believe that the authors of this review article intentionally or [unintentionally] misinterpret our results and tried to twist the conclusion to support their agenda,” Palaga told us.
There are no studies supporting a link between N1-methylpseudouridine and cancer in animals or mice, experts told us.
There is also no evidence mRNA COVID-19 vaccines impair, much less suppress, the immune system, as we’ve reported. In fact, the vaccines enhance immunity by teaching the immune system how to identify and fight the coronavirus.
N1-methylpseudouridine and Its Role in mRNA VaccinesTo understand the role of N1-methylpseudouridine we have to look back at the history of mRNA vaccines.
Normally, when a cell encounters a foreign RNA, a molecule present in most living organisms and viruses, it activates a strong innate immune response against the molecule.
Daniel Jędzura / stock.adobe.comThis was a problem for scientists trying to use mRNA as a therapeutic, since the goal was for the cell to receive the instructions carried by the mRNA and produce certain proteins. Until the mid-2000s, Karikó, Weissman and others observed that if they attached certain chemical modifications found in some kinds of natural RNA molecules, such as pseudouridine, into one of the four bases of mRNA, they could blunt that innate immune response and, at the same time, increase the mRNA’s capacity to translate its code for the cell to make the desired proteins.
Later, scientists found N1-methylpseudouridine, another modification naturally found in some kinds of RNA molecules, worked better than pseudouridine.
The modification is not “suppressing” the immune system, Hoxie told us — it just allows for certain parts of the immune system not to activate temporarily “in order to get the desired effect.”
Jordan L. Meier, senior investigator at the National Cancer Institute who has studied the role of N1-methylpseudouridine in COVID-19 vaccines, told us the authors of the review paper misrepresent what N1-methylpseudouridine, which is abbreviated as m1Ψ, does.
The review “incorrectly” confuses “m1Y’s ability to hide from the immune system with an ability to weaken or disable it,” he told us in an email.
To explain it, Meier compared the mRNA modification to a spy using a disguise in order to pass security guards.
“The authors are essentially suggesting that the disguise somehow makes the guards less able to do their jobs going forward,” he wrote. “In reality, once the disguised person is through, the guards remain just as vigilant and capable as before.”
The review, he added, doesn’t provide evidence that N1-methylpseudouridine “leaves the immune system any worse off for future threats.”
Misrepresented Studies in the Review PaperSimilarly, the review misleads by cherry-picking or misrepresenting figures and tables of this and other papers.
For example, in the study by Palaga, Weissman and others using a mouse melanoma model (in which malignant cells from a tumor are given to a mouse), scientists found that relative to mice that received no vaccine (and instead received a saline solution) no increase in tumor growth or decrease in survival occurred when animals were vaccinated with a modified mRNA vaccine. However, when animals received a vaccine containing unmodified mRNA, the study showed a decrease in tumor growth and an increase in survival compared with the control group that received the saline solution. In other words, the study found that the unmodified mRNA generated immune responses that decreased tumor growth and improved survival, while, similar to the control group, the modified mRNA had no effect on the tumor.
Table 1 of the review, however, incorrectly says the study found that the modified mRNA vaccine “increases tumor growth” and “decreases survival.”
“This is simply not true and is a gross misrepresentation of the data that paper actually shows. The modified RNA had no effect on the tumor, and results using that vaccine were the same as using a saline solution,” Hoxie told us.
The tumor growth in mice receiving the modified mRNA was “increased relative to the unmodified vaccine, but it was identical to when there was no intervention,” Hoxie told us. “Animals that received the modified mRNA vaccine died at the same rate and with the same amount of tumor as did animals that received the saline solution. The fact tumor progression in this model was reduced with the unmodified mRNA vaccine is the key point of this paper and indicated that in this model immune responses to unmodified mRNA may have anti-tumor activity, an important finding for the cancer immunotherapy field.”
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.
Meier told us the review also wrongly refers to a study published in 2016 to support its thesis that modified mRNA vaccines turn off an immune sensor known as RIG-I.
“In reality, this study only showed m1Y mRNAs are unable to activate RIG-I and did not test inhibition. In other words, what was shown was that m1Y is a strong camouflage, not that it is an immune suppressor,” he wrote.
Editor’s note: SciCheck’s articles providing accurate health information and correcting health misinformation are made possible by a grant from the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation. The foundation has no control over FactCheck.org’s editorial decisions, and the views expressed in our articles do not necessarily reflect the views of the foundation.
Sources“Safety of COVID-19 Vaccines.” CDC website. Updated 3 Nov 2023.
“Selected Adverse Events Reported after COVID-19 Vaccination.” CDC website. Updated 12 Sep 2023.
Trang, Brittany. “Covid vaccines averted 3 million deaths in U.S., according to new study.” Stat. 13 Dec 2022.
“COVID-19 vaccinations have saved more than 1.4 million lives in the WHO European Region, a new study finds.” WHO. Press release. 16 Jan 2024.
Van Beusekom, Mary. “Global COVID vaccination saved 2.4 million lives in first 8 months, study estimates.” CIDRAP, University of Minnesota. 31 Oct 2023.
Watson, Oliver J., et al. “Global impact of the first year of COVID-19 vaccination: a mathematical modelling study.” Infectious Diseases. 23 Jun 2022.
Yandell, Kate. “COVID-19 Vaccines Have Not Been Shown to Cause ‘Turbo Cancer’.” FactCheck.org. 31 Aug 2023.
Yandell, Kate. “COVID-19 Vaccines Have Not Been Shown to Alter DNA, Cause Cancer.” FactCheck.org. 26 Oct 2023.
“COVID-19 Vaccines and People with Cancer.” National Cancer Institute website. Accessed 2 May 2024.
“COVID-19 Vaccines in People with Cancer.” American Cancer Society website. Accessed 2 May 2024.
Bergengruen, Vera. “‘What Price Was My Father’s Life Worth?’ Right-Wing Doctors Are Still Peddling Dubious COVID Drugs.” Time. 15 May 2023.
Van Beusekom, Mary. “Report spotlights 52 US doctors who posted potentially harmful COVID misinformation online.” CIDRAP. 16 Aug 2023.
Dyer, Owen. “Founder of America’s Frontline Doctors is sentenced to prison for role in Capitol riot.” BMJ. 22 Jun 2022.
“Understanding COVID-19 mRNA Vaccines.” National Human Genome Research Institute website. Accessed 22 Mar 2024.
McDonald, Jessica. “COVID-19 Vaccination Increases Immunity, Contrary to Immune Suppression Claims.” FactCheck.org. 30 Jul 2022.
Sittplangkoon, Chutamath. “mRNA vaccine with unmodified uridine induces robust type I interferon-dependent anti-tumor immunity in a melanoma model.” Frontiers in Immunology. 14 Oct 2022.
Palaga, Tanapat. Professor of microbiology at the Chulalongkorn University in Thailand. Email sent to FactCheck.org. 19 April 2024.
“The Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine 2023.” The Nobel Prize. Accessed 2 May 2024.
Hoxie, James A. Emeritus professor of medicine at the University of Pennsylvania and co-director of the Penn Institute of RNA Innovation. Phone interview with FactCheck.org. 25 Apr 2024.
Jaramillo, Catalina. “Social Media Posts Misinterpret Biden on mRNA Cancer Vaccines.” FactCheck.org. 22 Mar 2024.
Karikó, Katalin, et al. “Suppression of RNA recognition by Toll-like receptors: the impact of nucleoside modification and the evolutionary origin of RNA.” Immunity. 23 Aug 2005.
Anderson, Bart R., et al. “Incorporation of pseudouridine into mRNA enhances translation by diminishing PKR activation.” Nucleic Acids Research. 1 Sep 2010.
Karikó, Katalin, et al. “Incorporation of Pseudouridine Into mRNA Yields Superior Nonimmunogenic Vector With Increased Translational Capacity and Biological Stability.” Molecular Therapy. Nov 2008.
Andries, Oliwia, et al. “N1-methylpseudouridine-incorporated mRNA outperforms pseudouridine-incorporated mRNA by providing enhanced protein expression and reduced immunogenicity in mammalian cell lines and mice.” Journal of Controlled Release. 10 Nov 2015.
Meier, Jordan L. Senior investigator at the National Cancer Institute. Email to FactCheck.org. 26 Apr 2024.
Nance, Kellie D, and Jordan L. Meier. “Modifications in an Emergency: The Role of N1-Methylpseudouridine in COVID-19 Vaccines.” ACS Cent. Sci. 26 May 2021.
Eens, Sander, et al. “B-cell lymphoblastic lymphoma following intravenous BNT162b2 mRNA booster in a BALB/c mouse: A case report.” Frontiers in Oncology. 1 May 2023.
Fiegen Durbin, Ann, et al. “RNAs Containing Modified Nucleotides Fail To Trigger RIG-I Conformational Changes for Innate Immune Signaling.” mBio. 20 Sep 2016.
The post Still No Evidence COVID-19 Vaccination Increases Cancer Risk, Despite Posts appeared first on FactCheck.org.
