Thursday, February 29, 2024


    The role of the home in children’s critical reading skills development

    Abstract

    This study aimed to identify the specific home environment factors that were judged to support or hinder the development of children’s critical reading skills. Using a Delphi method, 32 experts in Finland listed a set of home-related factors that can either hinder or support the development of children’s critical reading skills. The experts then evaluated and ranked the factors according to their perceived importance. A large set of home-related factors was produced. Out of these, we identified 13 supportive and nine hindering factors. The factors highlighted the importance of having a space for the child to be heard and involved in family discussions, having a space for differing viewpoints and critical thinking, parental competencies to support critical reading skills, and positive parental attitudes towards schooling and learning. The findings can be used for measurement and intervention development purposes.

    READ ON

    The role of the home in children’s critical reading skills development | Humanities and Social Sciences Communications (nature.com)

    Mindfulness: the shield against digital workplace stress

    Credit: Unsplash

    In today’s era, where digital technology pervades every aspect of our work lives, a new study shines a light on how mindfulness and digital confidence can safeguard employees against the adverse effects of the digital workplace.

    Conducted by researchers from the University of Nottingham’s Schools of Psychology and Medicine, the study delves into the experiences of 142 employees, offering insights into combating stress, anxiety, and overload in the digital era.

    The findings, published in the journal PLOS ONE, underscore the importance of adopting a mindful approach to digital work environments.

    Elizabeth Marsh, a Ph.D. student at the School of Psychology, spearheaded this mixed methods study with the aim of exploring the impact of digital technology on people’s health and identifying strategies to mitigate negative outcomes.

    The digital workplace, characterized by constant connectivity through emails, instant messaging, and mobile devices, often breeds stress, anxiety, fear of missing out, and even addiction.

    Marsh notes, “As work is increasingly mediated by digital technology, we wanted to find out the impact this is having on people’s health and whether there are ways to mitigate this.”

    The research highlights two key protective factors: digital confidence and mindfulness. Digitally confident employees, those who navigate digital tools and platforms with ease, reportedly experience less anxiety related to the digital aspects of their work.

    Mindfulness, the practice of staying present and engaged in the moment without judgment, emerged as a powerful buffer against the full spectrum of digital workplace stressors.

    Dr. Alexa Spence, Associate Professor of Psychology, points out the double-edged sword of digital workplace technologies.

    While they facilitate communication and productivity, they also contribute to stress and burnout, emphasizing the need for adaptive strategies in the face of an ever-evolving digital landscape.

    The concept of mindfulness in this context refers to an awareness of the present moment, allowing employees to engage with digital tools in a way that minimizes stress and enhances well-being.

    The study’s findings suggest that mindfulness can reduce the likelihood of falling prey to the “dark side” of the digital workplace, including overload and the compulsive need to be constantly connected.

    Professor Elvira Perez Vallejos, a specialist in Digital Technology for Mental Health, stresses the importance of organizations recognizing and managing digital hazards just as they would other workplace risks.

    Encouraging mindfulness and digital literacy among employees not only enhances their well-being but also promotes a healthier, more productive work environment.

    This study is a call to action for both individuals and organizations to cultivate mindfulness and digital confidence.

    By doing so, we can transform our digital workplaces from sources of stress and anxiety into spaces of productivity and well-being, ensuring that technology serves to support rather than undermine our mental health.

    The research findings can be found in PLOS ONE.

    Copyright © 2024 Knowridge Science Report. All rights reserved.

    Meditation could help relieve menopausal anxiety and depression


    Doctors could offer meditation and talking therapies to help menopausal women with symptoms of anxiety and depression, researchers have suggested. 
    Picture: Dominic Lipinski/PA Wire

    WED, 28 FEB, 2024 - 
    JANE KIRBY

    Doctors could offer meditation and talking therapies to help menopausal women with symptoms of anxiety and depression, researchers have suggested.

    Analysis of 30 studies involving 3,501 women found mindfulness and cognitive behavioural therapy (CBT) may offer some relief, ranging from a small to medium effect on symptoms.

    Experts behind the study said they are not suggesting such therapies should replace hormone replacement therapy (HRT), but could be considered alongside pills and patches.

    The research, published in the Journal of Affective Disorders and carried out by University College London (UCL), involved data from 14 countries including Britain and the US.

    Ten of the studies explored the impact of CBT on menopausal symptoms, while nine looked at mindfulness, a type of meditation in which people focus on being intensely aware of what they are sensing and feeling in that moment.

    Other studies looked at a range of interventions, including those based on "acceptance", group counselling and marital support.

    Women's symptoms were measured using internationally recognised questionnaires, and included a lack of interest in doing things, issues with sleep, low mood and anxiety.

    The findings found that women's low mood "significantly benefited" from CBT and mindfulness.

    Data from 11 studies showed a small to medium effect when it came to improvement in anxiety, the researchers said, which equates to some alleviation of symptoms, though they would not be gone completely.

    Individually, CBT had a small effect on anxiety, while mindfulness had a medium effect.

    When it came to depression, CBT had a small to medium effect, while mindfulness had a small effect.

    Overall, both interventions offered a medium to large effect on improvement in quality of life.

    The authors found a small improvement in memory and concentration, but acknowledged the data in this area is weak.

    They also said it is unclear from the studies how long the effects might last for women.

    Lead author, Professor Aimee Spector, said there is some evidence that mindfulness could be offered alongside HRT to women.

    She said some NHS trusts already offer it for depression.

    She added: "The message we want to be really clear about is that with that we are not in any sense suggesting this as an alternative or recommending this instead of HRT. My personal experience of HRT has been extremely positive.

    "I think what we know is that HRT doesn't get to everyone and not everyone wants it, and not everyone's eligible for it, so we do need to consider other things."

    She said interventions such as CBT could offer additional support to helping women get back to work, for example, "but I don't think we at any point want to say that addressing the hormone imbalance isn't probably the most important thing that can be done for many people".

    Senior author Dr Roopal Desai added: "We're not advocating for this instead of HRT. I think it's just an additional tool that women can have as an option."

    Prof Spector said around 30% of women going through menopause have a first depressive episode, while "anxiety is highly prevalent" and half of women report tension, nervousness or irritability.

    "In terms of HRT, we know it's not clinically indicated for everyone such as breast cancer survivors, and that its usage is variable depending on certain factors," she added.

    "We know in certain ethnic groups such as south-east Asian and Afro-Caribbean populations, there seems to be a much lower uptake, and those who are socially disadvantaged often don't get access to HRT.

    "So I think our message is that having holistic interventions can provide options for people who maybe aren't eligible, don't want HRT, possibly as an addition to HRT, and and they can support the psychosocial aspects as well as the biological."

    Last year, draft guidance for the NHS said women should be offered talking therapy to combat the symptoms of the menopause.

    The National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (Nice) said women should be given a better understanding of the risks and benefits of HRT.

    HRT replaces the hormones oestrogen, progestogen, or both, and can be administered using gels, creams, pessaries, tablets or sprays.

    The risk of developing serious side effects on HRT are "very low" according to the NHS website, although it can lead to a small increase in the risk of breast cancer.

    Dr Louise Newson, a GP and menopause specialist, said it was not surprising the new study had found some improvements after mindfulness and CBT "but it is important to remember that menopause is due to a hormone deficiency affecting the entire body".

    She said this deficiency leads many women to experience "numerous physical as well as psychological symptoms" while long-term health risks associated with low hormones include "an increased risk of heart disease, dementia, diabetes, clinical depression, schizophrenia, osteoporosis and early death".

    Dr Newson added: "First-line treatment of perimenopause and menopause for most women is replacing the missing hormones by prescribing the right dose and type of HRT."


    'Living fossil' tree frozen in time for 66 million years being planted in secret locations

    By Richard Pallardy
    published 1 day ago

    Wollemi pines — thought to have gone extinct 2 million years ago — were rediscovered in 1994. Scientists are now hoping to reintroduce the species in the wild in a conservation effort that could take centuries.

    Wollemi pines were rediscovered in Australia 2 million years after they were thought to have gone extinct. (Image credit: Ken Griffiths via Getty Images)

    Scientists are planting "living fossil" trees in secret locations in a bid to bring back the lost species from the brink of extinction — an effort that could take centuries.

    Wollemi pines (Wollemia nobilis) were believed to have disappeared some 2 million years ago. Fossils of the species dating the Cretaceous period (145 million to 66 million years ago) show they have barely changed in appearance since this time.

    But in 1994, hikers in Australia's Blue Mountains stumbled upon a relict stand of these ancient conifers. Now, only around 60 of them remain in Wollemi National Park. They are threatened by Phytophthora cinnamomi, a pathogenic water mold that causes dieback, and by rampant wildfires that intermittently rage through this region of New South Wales

    Since its rediscovery, wollemi pines have been grown in botanical gardens and private spaces around the world. And the Wollemi Pine Recovery Team, a partnership between Australian government scientists and conservationists, has begun the process of reintroducing seedlings to three sites in Wollemi National Park.

    "The sites comprise high-elevation sandstone gorges that are sufficiently deep, narrow and steep-sided to provide refugia from frequent, intense wildfires and drought," representatives said in a statement emailed to Live Science. "There was no evidence of infection with pathogenic Phytophthora species at either site when surveyed immediately prior to the translocations, and there is a low (but non-zero) likelihood of unauthorized visitation due to their remoteness."

    Following a pilot transplantation effort in 2012, the recovery team initiated a more intensive project in 2019. Over 400 saplings were transplanted at two sites and — due to drought conditions — the team later hauled several thousand gallons of water to the plants in order to help them survive. Later that year, a substantial number of the trees were destroyed by bushfires. Only 58 saplings made it to 2023.



    The trees were found in 1994 by hikers in the Blue Mountains in New South Wales. 
     (Image credit: AndriiSlonchak via Getty Images)

    In 2021, 502 more Wollemi pines were planted at the sites to replace those lost in the fires. "Survival has greatly exceeded expectations, due in part to several years of favorable La Niña conditions following the 2021 population augmentations," the researchers said. La Niña is a periodic climate pattern that features colder-than-average waters in the central and east-central equatorial Pacific. Increased rainfalls due to the climatic phenomenon benefited the new transplants—but that seems to be coming to an end. Landslides caused by heavy rains in 2022 led to further fatalities but more than 80% survived. More will be planted in 2024.

    The team has taken extensive steps to prevent introduction of Phytophthora to the sites. Their locations are concealed from the public and even the reintroduction team limits their time near the plants. They repeatedly disinfect their shoes to reduce the likelihood they will track in traces of the water mold. Even a few spores might spell death for this nascent population.

    They have also intentionally located some of the young trees in areas that might be subject to bushfires "to help address knowledge gaps regarding their response and ability to tolerate fire," the team said.

    While the new populations are being intensively monitored, the fate of the species in the wild is far from assured. The young trees grow less than 0.4 inches (1 centimeter) a year, so it will take decades for them to reach maturity and produce seeds. Some may produce offshoots in the meantime, though when they may begin propagating themselves in this fashion remains unknown.

    Fires and other climate-related issues such as reduced rainfall are likely to interfere with the restoration effort in the coming years. The scientists view their effort as a multi-generational one: a new cohort of stewards will need to take their place in the ensuing decades.

    "To be successful, the translocated populations must become self-sustaining, and the benchmark is the appearance of second-generation seedlings," the researchers said. "Given the slow growth and maturation of Wollemi pines in the wild, this is likely to take many decades, if not centuries. Given predicted increases in the frequency and severity of fire and drought due to climate change — arguably the two greatest threats to these populations — their long-term security is far from guaranteed."
    Marine heatwave might have caused whale decline between 2012 and 2021

    Keira Jenkins
    Feb 28, 2024


    An Australian study has found humpback whale numbers dropped
    by 20 per cent from 2012 to 2021. 


    A severe marine heatwave might have led to a sharp decline in humpback whale populations, a study has found.

    Scientists believe the “major event” that spanned 10 years indicates marine life is sensitive to climate change

    The study’s lead author Dr Ted Cheeseman said humpback whale numbers dropped by 20 per cent from 2012 to 2021 after decades of growth.

    The decline coincided with a marine heatwave, which scientists said likely reduced food availability for the whale.

    “What that means is that humpback whales and by extension a lot of marine life is sensitive to climate change and climate impacts to the oceans,” Cheeseman said.

    Cheeseman, from Southern Cross University in New South Wales, said before 2012, populations had been steadily recovering following the end of commercial whaling in 1976.

    At one stage whales had been hunted down to about five per cent of their natural population, he said

    Humpback whales are considered an “indicator species”.

    Cheeseman said because humpback whales ate a variety of different food sources, their population numbers could provide insight into the health of the entire ocean.

    “What we’re reading from that is this marine heatwave, it didn’t affect a few parts here and there, but it actually decreased the ability of the whole ocean to support a wide range of life,” he said.

    The study used AI to identify whales from photos of their tails.

    They collated images from more than 4000 whale watchers and 46 organisations through the website Happywhale, which Cheeseman founded in 2015.

    “As a result, we got to a place where we have identified almost every living whale in the North Pacific Ocean,” Cheeseman said.

    While the decline in population from 2012 was significant, Cheeseman said humpback whale numbers were starting to stabilise.

    “They’re not in danger of extinction, but this was a major event and very unusual so hopefully not something we will see regularly,” he said.

    “With climate change, we can expect that this could happen again, but how severe or how often we can’t know.”

    -AAP

     

    How health problems after COVID-19 vaccination are sometimes used to feed misinformation narrative


    SUMMARY

    Three years after the start of the COVID-19 pandemic, scientists have acquired ample evidence showing that COVID-19 vaccines are safe. While COVID-19 vaccines are associated with some serious effects like myocarditis, such cases are rare and much less likely to occur after vaccination than after SARS-CoV-2 infection.

    Nevertheless, anecdotes and stories of ill health after COVID-19 vaccination posted on social media, such as the case of Maddie de Garay, continue to be used to promote the claim that COVID-19 vaccines are unsafe.

    While illness can occur shortly after vaccination, it doesn’t mean that the vaccine must be the cause. Illness can also occur simply by coincidence, since diseases have existed long before vaccines arrived. Part of evaluating whether a vaccine is the cause of an illness requires determining if vaccinated people are at a higher risk of the illness compared to unvaccinated people—something that anecdotes alone cannot provide.

    Introduction

    Since the COVID-19 vaccines became available for adolescents and children in the U.S. and the European Union in 2021, there have been many instances of online content casting doubt on the vaccines’ safety in these age groups. Such content took many forms, including disturbing images and stories of children allegedly injured by COVID-19 vaccination.

    The tactic of using distressing images and videos as evidence that COVID-19 vaccines are unsafe hasn’t been limited to children. Similar videos have been used before to imply a link between COVID-19 vaccination in adults and a variety of serious reactions, including convulsionsblood clottingparalysis, and sudden death.

    A March 2021 report by the Virality Project—a research consortium led by the Stanford Internet Observatory to study misinformation dynamics during the COVID-19 pandemic—explained that such formats proliferate because they “have strong emotional appeal”, which makes them effective anti-vaccine campaigns. However, the report said, these narratives usually distort facts by “omitting important context and reframing isolated incidents as evidence of widespread harm”.

    These narratives are contradicted by scientific evidence showing that COVID-19 vaccines are generally safe and most side effects from vaccination are mild and resolve within a few days.

    In this article, we will explain why not all medical events that happen after vaccination are caused by the vaccine and how experts identify those that are. We will also discuss examples of conditions and individual cases that have been misrepresented as vaccine injuries without sufficient evidence supporting such an association.

    Understanding adverse events following vaccination

    Unexpected deaths and health problems already existed before COVID-19 vaccines. When such events happen shortly after vaccination, it is easy to draw premature conclusions and attribute these events to the vaccine. This idea is rooted in the fact that any effect is necessarily preceded by its cause. But while a temporal association is indeed required to establish causality, this association alone is insufficient to determine whether a vaccine caused an adverse event.

    Any vaccine carries a certain risk of side effects and COVID-19 vaccines are no exception. However, we have to keep in mind that an adverse event is any health problem that occurs after vaccination, regardless of its cause. Therefore, while some of these adverse events might be actual side effects (that is, caused by the vaccine), many others may manifest after vaccination simply by chance. Distinguishing between adverse events and actual side effects of a vaccine is essential for making informed vaccine recommendations.

    Clinical trials are designed to identify common side effects. However, due to the limited number of people, they are often unable to detect rare side effects that occur at a very low rate in the population. Generally, such effects can only be detected post-authorization, when a high number of people get vaccinated. This is the reason why public health authorities continue to monitor adverse events even after a vaccine receives authorization.

    Monitoring adverse events is essential for detecting any unusual patterns that may suggest a safety problem, and many countries have specific surveillance systems for doing so. Among those best known are the U.S. Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS), EudraVigilance in Europe, and the Yellow Card Scheme in the U.K.

    These systems have helped identify, for example, the link between viral vector COVID-19 vaccines (Oxford-AstraZeneca and Johnson & Johnson) and the increased risk of a rare blood clotting condition in women under 60 years of age. As a result, many countries changed their vaccination guidelines, favoring alternative vaccines in that population.

    Adverse event reports have also provided essential hints to establish the association between mRNA COVID-19 vaccines and a slight increase in the risk of myocarditis (heart inflammation), particularly in young males and after the second dose[1]. Awareness of this side effect has been fundamental for early detection and treatment of these cases.

    However, adverse event reports alone don’t demonstrate that the vaccine caused the adverse event. Therefore, despite how anti-vaccine groups have tried to portray them, these reports aren’t a reliable catalog of vaccine side effects.

    Establishing a link between an adverse event and a vaccine requires further investigations. These include evaluating whether the adverse event occurs more frequently among vaccinated people than in the general population and whether there is a plausible mechanism by which the vaccine might cause the adverse event.

    Isolated cases don’t demonstrate that a vaccine is unsafe

    As we explained above, rare cases of heart inflammationGuillain-Barré syndrome (GBS), paralysis, clotting, and other conditions have occurred in people even before COVID-19 vaccines existed. For context, each day, about two new cases of childhood myocarditis and 8 to 16 cases of GBS are diagnosed in the U.S.

    While these conditions are rare, the large number of vaccinations administered globally compared to other vaccines makes it more likely that some cases occur after vaccination simply by coincidence. Some groups and media outlets have weaponized these cases to promote anti-vaccine narratives that offer an inaccurate and misleading impression of COVID-19 vaccine safety.

    For example, the recognition of myocarditis as a rare side effect of COVID-19 vaccines fueled misinformation exaggerating this risk and falsely linking COVID-19 vaccination with sudden deaths, particularly among young athletes.

    However, the risk of developing myocarditis following vaccination is very small. In fact, it is lower than the chance of being struck by lightning, as the U.S. National Institutes of Health pointed out.

    Moreover, research shows that cases of post-COVID-19 vaccination myocarditis are typically mild and unlikely to be fatal as mRNA COVID-19 vaccines aren’t associated with an increased risk of cardiac mortality or overall mortality[2].

    Even before COVID-19 vaccines were available, experts in public health warned in a STAT News article that anecdotal reports could be misinterpreted by many as side effects of the vaccines, even without evidence of a causal link. Indeed, that has happened with several conditions, including Bell’s palsy and chronic inflammatory demyelinating polyneuropathy (CIDP).

    CIDP is a neurological disorder caused by an autoimmune reaction against myelin, a fat and protein protective sheath that covers the nerves. Symptoms of CIDP include progressive weakness and reduced senses in the arms and legs, fatigue, and tingling or no feeling in fingers and toes.

    CIDP is closely related to GBS. But while GBS causes acute symptoms from which most people recover, CIDP progresses slowly and is considered a chronic illness, even though remission is also possible. In rare cases, GBS can lead to CIDP.

    Researchers aren’t sure what exactly triggers CIDP, as no apparent genetic or environmental risk factors have been identified so far. Some research suggests that previous infections and dietary habits might play some role[3].

    Rare cases of GBS and CIDP have also been reported following COVID-19 vaccination[4,5], and an increased risk of GBS has been observed following vaccination with the viral vector COVID-19 vaccine from Johnson and Johnson[6,7].

    However, between 7 and 80 new cases of CIDP (0.8 to 8.9 cases per 100,000 people each year) occur each day in the U.S. even in the absence of COVID-19 vaccination, according to estimates. Epidemiological studies found no evidence that these rates are higher among people who received an mRNA COVID-19 vaccine or that GBS and CIDP symptoms worsen or are more recurrent following COVID-19 vaccination[7,8-11].

    Accordingly, the GBS CIDP Foundation International states that, based on current evidence, the likelihood that vaccination can trigger autoimmune neurological conditions such as GBS and CIDP is exceptionally low at best.

    A matter of balancing risk and benefit

    One aspect often overlooked when discussing vaccine side effects is that this risk always needs to be considered in the context of the benefits of vaccination.

    Over three years of studies and safety surveillance show that side effects from COVID-19 vaccines are typically mild and short-lived. While serious side effects such as myocarditis and blood clotting are possible, they are rare—much rarer than after SARS-CoV-2 infection[12].

    Bacterial and viral infections are also common risk factors for developing GBS. One study published in Neurology in October 2023 showed that the risk of developing GBS is six times higher in people with a recent SARS-CoV-2 infection compared to uninfected people. In contrast, vaccination with the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccines was associated with a 59% reduced GBS risk compared to unvaccinated people[13].

    Besides these risks, COVID-19 carries a risk of other serious complications associated with the disease, including heart problemsdamage in other organs such as the lungs, the kidneys, and the brain, and long COVID.

    By reducing the risk of infection and serious COVID-19 in people, the vaccines also help reduce the risk of these potential complications. For this reason, the American Heart Association, the American College of Cardiology, and the GBS CIDP Foundation International consider that even if the COVID-19 vaccines slightly increase the risk of some of these conditions, the benefits of vaccination still outweigh the risks.

    Cases of functional neurological disorder misrepresented as vaccine injuries

    Soon after the COVID-19 vaccine rollout began, videos of alleged neurological problems in people who had received a COVID-19 vaccine went viral on social media.

    This prompted the U.S. Functional Neurological Disorder Society to issue a press release in January 2021 stating that “many of the clinical features reported and observed on video in some cases are those of functional neurological disorder (FND)”, a condition that “can be diagnosed with good accuracy from videos on social media”. Indeed, at least one of the cases had been diagnosed with FND.

    FND, formerly called conversion disorder, is a condition of the nervous system that affects how different brain areas communicate with one another, altering the way the brain functions and processes emotions. This disruption can lead to various symptoms of variable severity, such as paralysis, difficulty in swallowing, problems with hearing and vision, and problems with memory and concentration.

    The term functional means that the symptoms are due to changes in the brain’s functioning, not structural damage. The U.S. National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke puts it this way: “[s]omeone with FND can function normally; they just can’t at that moment”.

    It is important to stress that functional doesn’t equal malingered. People with FND aren’t pretending to be ill or faking their symptoms, which they perceive as involuntary. Regardless of their origin, FND symptoms are real and can impair quality of life as much as other neurological conditions do.

    Although the exact cause of FND is unknown, several biological, psychological, and social risk factors can make a person more likely to develop the condition. These include emotional and physical trauma early in life, other neurological diseases such as epilepsy, and mental health conditions such as depression or anxiety. However, not all people who develop FND have such risk factors.

    Research shows that recent acute physical or emotionally charged events can trigger FND symptoms in people who have a predisposition to it. Vaccination can be one of those triggers, and cases of FND following COVID-19 vaccination have been documented[14,15].

    However, claiming that the vaccine causes FND is misleading because it is the circumstances surrounding vaccination that can trigger the condition, not the vaccine itself. In fact, saline injections, which don’t contain active ingredients, have been used to induce seizures in these patients for diagnostic purposes[16].

    In April 2021, neurologists and psychiatrists at Harvard Medical School and the University of Toronto published a viewpoint in JAMA Neurology pointing out that FND symptoms are indeed unrelated to the vaccine ingredients:

    “FND can be triggered by physical and/or emotionally valenced events, including head injury, medical/surgical procedures, and vaccinations. These precipitating factors, while proximal to the development of the symptoms, are not directly caused by the substances in the vaccine in the same manner that, for example, Neisseria meningitidis is the cause of meningitis. Instead, factors such as expectations, beliefs, heightened bodily attention, arousal, and threat/emotional processing play important mechanistic roles in the pathophysiology of FND.”

    The case of Maddie de Garay

    One popular example of a story that has been shared to support misinformation about the alleged harms of COVID-19 vaccines is the case of Maddie de Garay.

    On 21 January 2024, host Sharyl Attkisson interviewed Maddie’s mother, Stephanie de Garay, for the TV show “Full Measure”. Attkisson is a writer who has promoted anti-vaccine messages falsely linking childhood vaccination with autism in the past.

    During the interview, de Garay explained that at the age of 12 Maddie had participated in the clinical trial for the Pfizer COVID-19 vaccine conducted at Cincinnati Children’s Hospital in June 2020. According to De Garay, her daughter had developed a severely debilitating illness during the trial that led to her needing a wheelchair and feeding tube. Amid interspersed distressing images of Maddie at the hospital, de Garay expressed her belief that the vaccine had been the cause of her daughter’s illness.

    At the time of writing, the interview accumulated almost 400,000 views on YouTube. In addition, fragments of it spread widely on Facebook, Instagram, and X (formerly Twitter).

    Many posts pointed to Maddie’s case as evidence that COVID-19 vaccines are harmful, with captions talking about “millions injured or dead” and the “fatal consequences” of “becoming experimental rats”. Some promoted products to “detox” from vaccination, something that is unnecessary because COVID-19 vaccines don’t contain toxins.

    Maddie and her mother became known to the public in June 2021 after participating in a press conference held by Senator Ron Johnson. The event gathered five families who shared their stories of alleged adverse reactions to COVID-19 vaccines. Johnson had used this format before to spread unsubstantiated claims about the safety of COVID-19 vaccines in adults.

    With Maddie in a wheelchair by her side, de Garay explained that her daughter started having severe abdominal and chest pain after her second vaccine dose. These symptoms later developed into paralysis of the stomach muscles, heart rate problems, memory loss, and difficulty walking.

    De Garay repeated her story in a July 2021 interview with then-Fox News host Tucker Carlson, who also has a record of spreading misinformation about the COVID-19 vaccine.

    The interview went immediately viral, and Maddie became a rallying point for anti-vaccine groups, some of which used images of Maddie’s condition to produce anti-vaccine ads. The case was also publicized by individuals well-known in the COVID-19 misinformation scene, including entrepreneur Steve Kirsch, scientist Robert Malone, and podcaster Daniel Horowitz. The latter referred to the COVID-19 vaccine as “Pfizer’s poison”.

    But as Stephanie de Garay herself acknowledged in her public appearances, no diagnosis suggested a link between the COVID-19 vaccine and Maddie’s illness. Several doctors who evaluated the girl’s symptoms at that time diagnosed her with FND.

    In her interview with Attkisson, de Garay claimed that Maddie had been diagnosed with “basically a stomachache that you can’t explain” and suggested that the diagnosis was a cover-up for vaccine injuries. Similarly, Carlson claimed that Maddie had been diagnosed with “hysteria” or “emotional problems”.

    But these statements misrepresent the true nature of FND, which is a clinically recognized condition that can cause severe disability, as we noted above. The framing of Maddie’s FND diagnosis as diagnoses of “hysteria”, “emotional problems” or “stomachache” is therefore inaccurate. And as we explained earlier, the vaccine ingredients don’t cause this condition.

    Towards the end of the interview, de Garay added a new piece of information; apparently, Maddie was diagnosed with CIDP in July 2022. The interview conveyed the message that this change in diagnosis confirmed that Maddie’s condition was indeed a vaccine injury.

    But we explained earlier that mRNA COVID-19 vaccines haven’t been associated with an increased risk of developing this condition. Therefore, contrary to what the interview might suggest, this change in Maddie’s diagnosis also doesn’t provide evidence that the COVID-19 vaccine caused Maddie’s illness or that the vaccine is overall harmful to children, as social media posts claimed.

    Conclusion

    Simply because an adverse event occurred shortly after receiving a COVID-19 vaccine doesn’t necessarily mean that the vaccine caused it. Nevertheless, many have used this overly simplistic correlation to imply without evidence that COVID-19 vaccines are unsafe. But isolated cases or anecdotes don’t provide sufficient evidence to support such narratives, which often lack essential context and sometimes rely on unverified images of dubious origin.

    When billions of people receive a vaccine within a short period of time, some of them will develop health issues such as myocarditis, GBS, and CIDP shortly after vaccination. Some cases may be related to the vaccine, while others might coincide with vaccination simply by chance. Determining whether there is a causal link between both events requires further investigations.

    But even when an adverse event is indeed causally associated with a vaccine, this risk needs to be viewed in light of the benefits of vaccination. Cases of myocarditis and other heart problems are much less likely to occur after vaccination than after SARS-CoV-2 infection, which also carries other health risks.

    By reducing the risk of infection and serious illness, COVID-19 vaccines can help prevent these risks. Therefore, public health authorities and medical associations agree that the benefits of COVID-19 vaccination outweigh the potential risks.

    REFERENCES