You'll need to look at miscarriages as well as stillbirths to get a more accurate picture. If significant numbers of vaccinated pregnancies are subject to early miscarriage then they won't appear in the stillbirth numbers.
Well, the first thing to look at is how many pregnancies there were, period. You cannot have a stillbirth if you never got pregnant in the first place, or if the pregnancy ended before the 20th week they are using as a cutoff.
The numbers are so skewed that our old friend data displacement must be at work here.
Either the definition of vaccinated means 14 days post jab (or similar) in this study so that the unvaccinated include those actually jabbed; or
By some miracle mRNA tech not only gets your body cells to mass produce the spike gene (surely only a good thing), but by some further miracle it also prevents still births etc.
I think your right about data displacement (in time). However, I don’t think it’s the good old 14 day trick this time. I think the difference may be in the still births being more common in the pre-mature (<37 week) deliveries. My reading of the dates for inclusion and the data collection dates would appear to skew the sample towards pre-mature births which are more likely to occur at the beginning of the time interval (i.e before 1/8/21). This is when (according to their paper) there was a supply issue with the vaccines in Australia, so the % vaccinated would be expected to be low. The end cut off dates for inclusion and the data collection dates also makes the end of the time interval more likely to contain full term deliveries. This is at a time when the vaccination rate was high.
The conclusion I draw from the data is that pre-mature deliveries are more likely to result in a still births, which is hardly surprising . Pre-mature deliveries by the study’s design are more likely to have occurred towards the early part of the data collection period when the vaccination rate was low. So vaccination status probably has little to do with the outcome. The results are possibly biased by what I’d call a “time windowing effect”.
Also, not commented on in the body of the paper, it would appear that the vaccinated are more likely to have been induced. Again, I don’t think vaccination has anything to do with it. Age, socio economic status or the the delivery being after the expected due date (same time windowing issue but in reverse) are possibly a more likely indicator than vaccination status. Just my 2 cents after a quick look at the data.
If I’m correct, I’m surprised the authors didn’t pick up on it. If they had then they’d have nothing to write about except there failure to prove their hypothesis. There is nothing else I can see besides the induction rate that was of any statistical significance.
The baseline assumption with anything that looks good for jabs is that it's highly suspect, but it COULD be believable in this case. We are early in figuring out the reproductive impact here. As others have said, stillbirths could be low because of decreased pregnancies or increased miscarriages. I think the most telling stat at this point is overal healthy birthrate vax vs. Nonvax.
A lot of the data going back to the beginning of the panic has been unreliable. Some is unreliable because there was a panic, and panic makes people behave unreliably. But a lot of the unreliability is by manipulation, either by omission or fraudulent entries. So we'll never know exactly what happened, or why, but clever detectives will deduce a lot of the errors to fill in some of the gaps. The whole world is now third world.
I've written a post about the drop in German births. I think it could be primarily driven by a dramatic fall in weddings during the first pandemic year. Would be interested to hear any feedback.
Strong 1st post! I agree that stillbirths (which I have obviously written about many times) are rare enough in any case to show up in the overall birth rate. I suspect social impacts are the predominant explanation, although the paper from Israel on possible vaccine impact on male fertility would be a far scarier possible contributing factor.
hehe my first thought was they counted vaccinated only after 14 days of vaccination, and all the stillbirths happened within 14 days of vaccination, and so the "vaccinated" women had almost no stillbirths, and the "unvaccinated" women were above average... :-/
This paper is a mess... it is almost impossible to determine, at a specific point in the paper, what exact sample they are talking about. Example: "By the end of the study period 85% of women giving birth had received at least one dose of the COVID-19 vaccine before or during pregnancy." And two paragraphs later: "Of the 32,536 women giving birth during the 9-month study period, 17,365 (53.4%) had received at least one dose of the mRNA COVID-19 vaccine and 15,171 (46.6%) had not." Huh?
My main question: is the total number of stillbirths (i.e., the number related to the 32,536 women giving birth) anywhere in the paper?
Thank you - way more learned than my quick response. I should have read the paper at least. But having read a fair few (including the corrected NEJM paper on pregnancy which had similar issues) I am too familiar with the games being played - the lessons are
Sounds like another case of "we're only counting people who aren't in the two-week post-vax window" that made the vax look like it was making old people live unreasonably longer.
You'll need to look at miscarriages as well as stillbirths to get a more accurate picture. If significant numbers of vaccinated pregnancies are subject to early miscarriage then they won't appear in the stillbirth numbers.
It’s called FRAUD
Well, the first thing to look at is how many pregnancies there were, period. You cannot have a stillbirth if you never got pregnant in the first place, or if the pregnancy ended before the 20th week they are using as a cutoff.
The numbers are so skewed that our old friend data displacement must be at work here.
Either the definition of vaccinated means 14 days post jab (or similar) in this study so that the unvaccinated include those actually jabbed; or
By some miracle mRNA tech not only gets your body cells to mass produce the spike gene (surely only a good thing), but by some further miracle it also prevents still births etc.
I know which I think the more likely.
Good point Matt.
I think your right about data displacement (in time). However, I don’t think it’s the good old 14 day trick this time. I think the difference may be in the still births being more common in the pre-mature (<37 week) deliveries. My reading of the dates for inclusion and the data collection dates would appear to skew the sample towards pre-mature births which are more likely to occur at the beginning of the time interval (i.e before 1/8/21). This is when (according to their paper) there was a supply issue with the vaccines in Australia, so the % vaccinated would be expected to be low. The end cut off dates for inclusion and the data collection dates also makes the end of the time interval more likely to contain full term deliveries. This is at a time when the vaccination rate was high.
The conclusion I draw from the data is that pre-mature deliveries are more likely to result in a still births, which is hardly surprising . Pre-mature deliveries by the study’s design are more likely to have occurred towards the early part of the data collection period when the vaccination rate was low. So vaccination status probably has little to do with the outcome. The results are possibly biased by what I’d call a “time windowing effect”.
Also, not commented on in the body of the paper, it would appear that the vaccinated are more likely to have been induced. Again, I don’t think vaccination has anything to do with it. Age, socio economic status or the the delivery being after the expected due date (same time windowing issue but in reverse) are possibly a more likely indicator than vaccination status. Just my 2 cents after a quick look at the data.
If I’m correct, I’m surprised the authors didn’t pick up on it. If they had then they’d have nothing to write about except there failure to prove their hypothesis. There is nothing else I can see besides the induction rate that was of any statistical significance.
Igor Chudov has written extensively on this.
You were subjected to fraudulent cya “data.”
Can you please explain " cya "data" " in a sentence or two? Thanks.
Manipulated data to hide the truth.
Thanks
The baseline assumption with anything that looks good for jabs is that it's highly suspect, but it COULD be believable in this case. We are early in figuring out the reproductive impact here. As others have said, stillbirths could be low because of decreased pregnancies or increased miscarriages. I think the most telling stat at this point is overal healthy birthrate vax vs. Nonvax.
A lot of the data going back to the beginning of the panic has been unreliable. Some is unreliable because there was a panic, and panic makes people behave unreliably. But a lot of the unreliability is by manipulation, either by omission or fraudulent entries. So we'll never know exactly what happened, or why, but clever detectives will deduce a lot of the errors to fill in some of the gaps. The whole world is now third world.
Hi T Coddington,
I've written a post about the drop in German births. I think it could be primarily driven by a dramatic fall in weddings during the first pandemic year. Would be interested to hear any feedback.
https://lostintranslations.substack.com/p/why-is-there-a-sudden-drop-in-german?sd=pf
Strong 1st post! I agree that stillbirths (which I have obviously written about many times) are rare enough in any case to show up in the overall birth rate. I suspect social impacts are the predominant explanation, although the paper from Israel on possible vaccine impact on male fertility would be a far scarier possible contributing factor.
Thanks :) I've been following your work and also saw the paper about male fertilitiy, so I am open to the idea of vaccine impacts on births.
Vaxed people are miscategorized as unvaxed until 14 days post-vax. This is also how UK authorities hid the increased all-cause deaths of the vaxed v unvaxed (and the same trick employed around the world to hide the truth). See Professor Norman Fenton's work for more; https://rumble.com/v1aladz-all-cause-mortality-analysis-vaccinated-v-non-vaccinated-with-prof-fenton.html
hehe my first thought was they counted vaccinated only after 14 days of vaccination, and all the stillbirths happened within 14 days of vaccination, and so the "vaccinated" women had almost no stillbirths, and the "unvaccinated" women were above average... :-/
This paper is a mess... it is almost impossible to determine, at a specific point in the paper, what exact sample they are talking about. Example: "By the end of the study period 85% of women giving birth had received at least one dose of the COVID-19 vaccine before or during pregnancy." And two paragraphs later: "Of the 32,536 women giving birth during the 9-month study period, 17,365 (53.4%) had received at least one dose of the mRNA COVID-19 vaccine and 15,171 (46.6%) had not." Huh?
My main question: is the total number of stillbirths (i.e., the number related to the 32,536 women giving birth) anywhere in the paper?
Certainly seems a remarkable difference. Does the Pre-print allow comments/questions online?
Thank you - way more learned than my quick response. I should have read the paper at least. But having read a fair few (including the corrected NEJM paper on pregnancy which had similar issues) I am too familiar with the games being played - the lessons are
1. Question the definitions use
2. Read the appendices and raw data
3. If the data is modelled consider it corrupt.
Thanks again for your comment
Sounds like another case of "we're only counting people who aren't in the two-week post-vax window" that made the vax look like it was making old people live unreasonably longer.
at what point does this go viral and mainstream?