It’s a travesty, and should be illegal that this is being looked at in an ad how fashion. Proper clinical trials with informed consent is the only way to answer these questions and it’s unthinkable that this is how it’s being done.
We are the clinical trial. Better planned trials still have the problem of jeopardizing the volunteers. The best reliance is on competent science, untainted by the politics and corruption driving recent products. Progress always involves some casualties. It's how we learn. No pain, no gain. Some folks apparently believe we'd be better off just letting pathogens do their thing, relying on faith in fate or other gods. They may do so. The rest of us will try to learn to do it better.
We've lost a lot more people due to the reaction to the virus than to the virus itself. We knew how to save most of them with tried and proven medicines already on hand, but chose to withhold them in deference to pharma profits. The real pandemic is corruption in government, journalism and medical bureaucracies. Until we begin controlling them, we'll continue to accumulate disasters like this one. We don't seem likely to do that.
FDA approved Pfizer vax today for 5 year olds. Most people like that. CNBC still lets fauch speak. Most people like that. A population that ignorant probably can't be saved.
I couldn't decide to upvote this comment or not. I don't agree at all with the attitude that I read in the first paragraph, but agree entirely with the second. And the third for that matter. But I think you still need to have a think about whether 'progress' justifies what you think it does.
haha, not that that's what I said, but to go with the flow, I'd be interested to know why you haven't had a look around at progress in action. Just look out your window. Medical progress is not what it seems from the inside. We are sicker than ever before, even if we live longer.
Progress always comes unexpectedly. Medical progress is partly technology, partly the people who deliver it. A good nurse with modern equipment is a better nurse. A bad nurse with better equipment is still a bad nurse.
The best progress in medical services is automated doctors. AI doctors will transform medicine, both for patients and for the doctors who manage them. Then, like every other new technology, some programmers will damage the AIs, some doctors will refuse to use them, a few will actively try to undermine them. But robots are the next stage of programming, too, so eventually AI medics will write themselves.AI assistants will make even the most incompetent doctors successful. They'll make universal health care a reality. Good progress.
Mastering the RNA and DNA of viruses is an application of progress in understanding and controlling genetics. They're already using edited genes to heal sickle cell, which causes a lot of pain and early death for a few with that genetic defect. It might soon cure cancer, alzheimers, and aging.
Progress is inevitable. The true test of any society is how we manage it. The fault of failures in medical progress is not the science of that progress, but inept and often corrupt practitioners who fear the competition, and are more comfortable living in the past.
One good that will come from the current psychosis is recognition the medical industry is unreliable. Many will be looking for ways to make progress in their own health without dependence on often ineffective medical industry. My substack tells how I did it. Use them where they're useful, ignore them where they're not useful, learn to know the difference. Our first priority is our own progress.
I just subscribed to your substack, and it seems like we are on the same side really, so maybe we don't really understand the other's point of view at this moment.
I assume neither of us is going anywhere, so we'll see over time.
The progress that are experiencing right now is very possibly a combination of pentagon, Fauci, Ralph Baric, and biowarfare preparedness. There is an extensive paper trail, describing in detail the progress. I really think that’s the criminals behind the 5 million deaths globally due to this lab created virus need to be shut down. Here is an example of where progress is clearly evil and diabolical. This guy Dr Paul Cottrell went through Baric’s cv to see exactly what research he’s been working on, who paid for it and put the timeline together about who did what where in the development of the Sars cov 2 virus and antidotes (of which they are a couple, I just saw the nanoferritin vaccine the US military is claiming credit). Poke around on this channel, it’s quite an forensic immunological review.
Our current situation seems to be more regression than progression. They've thrown us back to the days before ivm and hcq. They've thrown us back to days when medical science was decided by politicians and astrologers. The scientists are ignoring science. This episode is being driven by corrupt bureaucrats seeking personal gain from corrupt pharmaceutical companies who are profiting enormously from global suffering. The advances in vax tech are indeed progress, but apparently not comp,etc solutions yet. They'll make more progress and they'll become very important for our future.clearly some people need them. Most don't. The crime is forcing it on people who don't need it.
It’s amazing to me that obstetricians (and midwives) haven’t stepped back and looked at the actual data before blindly parroting the “experts” and the drive to vaccinate all pregnant women. 🤔
I have been concerned on this ever since I noted the study trials did not do the research and then reviewing the NEJM study that seemed obviously flawed (it was later corrected).
In the UK the latest dataset from ONS on live births is pre jab rollout to most pregnant women. Normally it is updated in December. Not this year and on enquiry they say they have bo date when it will become available.
I'm not sure I follow. The UK report says stillbirths, which should only be week 20 or later. The CDC reference is also referring only to post week 20 fetal deaths, so I think I'm aligning the data correctly?
You did! I misread the " Roughly half of fetal deaths..." sentence as setting up a chart that looked at all weeks. But the chart only looks at 21+. So that's all valid.
The only other thing would be if the report actually adjusts for exposure time, but no mention of such an adjustment is made. I think it's as bad as you have calculated.
Yeah, that context could make a big difference as far as reader impression. A 23% increase to stillbirth rates is not a 23% increase to the total fetal deaths rate. Just plugging in a 15% figure for miscarriages vs the 3.5/1000 stillbirth rates in the UK report gives (3.5/1000)/(15/100) = ~1/43 as the stillbirths/miscarriage risk ratio.
I read it a long time ago, it is from Dr Jen Gunter. While it’s not current it bears reading.
Mostly to see why the other side thinks what it does. She’s definitely on the other side of this argument.
She argues that vaginal bleeding is normal after a vaccine because the uterine lining is part of the immune system.
I’m not a doctor so maybe I’m missing something, truly, but,
I feel her argument actually .... makes some sense .... no wait for it .... on our side. Yes, our side.
Maybe not all the way, but if a vaccine induced bleeding at ANY time during pregnancy.... isn’t it DANGEROUS (not “safe and effective”) at least during pregnancy?
The other important factor: WHEN was the vaccine pushed out to women of childbearing age? Remember, they vaccinated old people first. In the places I've looked at: Alberta, Ontario, Scotland, women of childbearing age, by and large, were not vaccinated until mid-year. May at the earliest. More like June or July for most. So the big question to answer is: how long after the big rollout to childbearing-age women, should we start seeing a signal in the stillbirth data? Based on what I'm looking at (vaccine uptake by age compared to rumors of stillbirth spikes in Canada), it's somewhere between six and fourteen weeks out. So if the big vaccine push happened in... when did that happen in the UK? Like, when did they finish up with the old folks, and move on to the 18-40 age group? When did that age group reach, say 60% with at least one dose... and count out from there. Depending on when they were vaccinated, August data might not be late enough. We need to see September and October, particularly.
If we do some really sketchy guesswork there and say the big bulk of childbearing age women was vaccinated sometime roundabout June 2021, then if the infant death spike was related, we'd expect to see something like that in other places... about 3-4 months after most people in the 20-40 age group got the first shot (you could run a second comparison for second shot, booster, etc. if you had the data). So... what do you think the lag time might be for stillbirths? Would August's numbers even capture that?
OK, this turns out to be a tricky one, because there's biases working in two directions at once, which I only have a hang on after working with a different pregnancy / births data set.
Your post demonstrates that the Covid-vaccinated are missing the discount that should be present for immortal time bias - they do not experience the full stillbirth risk window.
However, they are over-exposed to the cutoff bias compared to the unvaccinated in the same set. The cutoff bias arises because stillbirths cross the finish line before normal term births, on average. So any "among births" comparison will have this bias at both ends of the window, balancing out - last year's "safe" births in the beginning, next year's "early" births (incl. stillbirths) at the end, if using a year as the window.
Since the Covid-vaccinated do not start off by collecting "safe" births at the beginning of the window, the cutoff bias only affects them negatively - reducing the denominator for completed births. In other words, the immortal time bias actually applies to both sets due to the peculiarities of using an "among births" definition.
Trying to wrap my head around this one. Wouldn't that cutoff benefit the unvaccinated numbers in a positive way? I.e. you have a bunch of healthy births from women at the beginning of the window who were already far along in their pregnancies before the vaccine was widely available?
And when the window ends there will be uncompleted live births for corresponding stillbirths, for both groups. So both cohorts are potentially unevenly biased in both directions. I’m no longer sure why I had an instinct that the end-cutoff overcomes the 3rd trimester skew among the vaxxed, I should have just proposed that it partially compensates for it, esp. if the vaxxed enter the pool toward the end of the time frame.
Yes, here are some relevant excerpts from a post I wrote on this: "
For example, the graph shows the number of deaths of babies within the first four weeks of life, from Public Health Scotland’s “Wider Impacts” website.
The blue dots show 8 consecutive data points in a row which are above the background levels, and the red dots are data points well in excess of alarm signals.
The Scottish site also indicates that the number of pregnancies not reaching term was above baseline during the time of interest, and occurring earlier in the gestation period.
They also provide data for developmental issues in infants, which seem to indicate that since the start of 2021, the number of issues has also been consistently above background rates. In particular, in speech, language and communication, gross motor skills, and problem solving."
It’s a travesty, and should be illegal that this is being looked at in an ad how fashion. Proper clinical trials with informed consent is the only way to answer these questions and it’s unthinkable that this is how it’s being done.
We are the clinical trial. Better planned trials still have the problem of jeopardizing the volunteers. The best reliance is on competent science, untainted by the politics and corruption driving recent products. Progress always involves some casualties. It's how we learn. No pain, no gain. Some folks apparently believe we'd be better off just letting pathogens do their thing, relying on faith in fate or other gods. They may do so. The rest of us will try to learn to do it better.
We've lost a lot more people due to the reaction to the virus than to the virus itself. We knew how to save most of them with tried and proven medicines already on hand, but chose to withhold them in deference to pharma profits. The real pandemic is corruption in government, journalism and medical bureaucracies. Until we begin controlling them, we'll continue to accumulate disasters like this one. We don't seem likely to do that.
FDA approved Pfizer vax today for 5 year olds. Most people like that. CNBC still lets fauch speak. Most people like that. A population that ignorant probably can't be saved.
I couldn't decide to upvote this comment or not. I don't agree at all with the attitude that I read in the first paragraph, but agree entirely with the second. And the third for that matter. But I think you still need to have a think about whether 'progress' justifies what you think it does.
I'd be interested to by hear why you dislike progress.
haha, not that that's what I said, but to go with the flow, I'd be interested to know why you haven't had a look around at progress in action. Just look out your window. Medical progress is not what it seems from the inside. We are sicker than ever before, even if we live longer.
Progress always comes unexpectedly. Medical progress is partly technology, partly the people who deliver it. A good nurse with modern equipment is a better nurse. A bad nurse with better equipment is still a bad nurse.
The best progress in medical services is automated doctors. AI doctors will transform medicine, both for patients and for the doctors who manage them. Then, like every other new technology, some programmers will damage the AIs, some doctors will refuse to use them, a few will actively try to undermine them. But robots are the next stage of programming, too, so eventually AI medics will write themselves.AI assistants will make even the most incompetent doctors successful. They'll make universal health care a reality. Good progress.
Mastering the RNA and DNA of viruses is an application of progress in understanding and controlling genetics. They're already using edited genes to heal sickle cell, which causes a lot of pain and early death for a few with that genetic defect. It might soon cure cancer, alzheimers, and aging.
Progress is inevitable. The true test of any society is how we manage it. The fault of failures in medical progress is not the science of that progress, but inept and often corrupt practitioners who fear the competition, and are more comfortable living in the past.
One good that will come from the current psychosis is recognition the medical industry is unreliable. Many will be looking for ways to make progress in their own health without dependence on often ineffective medical industry. My substack tells how I did it. Use them where they're useful, ignore them where they're not useful, learn to know the difference. Our first priority is our own progress.
I just subscribed to your substack, and it seems like we are on the same side really, so maybe we don't really understand the other's point of view at this moment.
I assume neither of us is going anywhere, so we'll see over time.
The progress that are experiencing right now is very possibly a combination of pentagon, Fauci, Ralph Baric, and biowarfare preparedness. There is an extensive paper trail, describing in detail the progress. I really think that’s the criminals behind the 5 million deaths globally due to this lab created virus need to be shut down. Here is an example of where progress is clearly evil and diabolical. This guy Dr Paul Cottrell went through Baric’s cv to see exactly what research he’s been working on, who paid for it and put the timeline together about who did what where in the development of the Sars cov 2 virus and antidotes (of which they are a couple, I just saw the nanoferritin vaccine the US military is claiming credit). Poke around on this channel, it’s quite an forensic immunological review.
https://rumble.com/vql1cw-hiv-war-room-ep95-baric-made-sars-and-knew-about-myocarditis-by-dr.-paul-co.html
Our current situation seems to be more regression than progression. They've thrown us back to the days before ivm and hcq. They've thrown us back to days when medical science was decided by politicians and astrologers. The scientists are ignoring science. This episode is being driven by corrupt bureaucrats seeking personal gain from corrupt pharmaceutical companies who are profiting enormously from global suffering. The advances in vax tech are indeed progress, but apparently not comp,etc solutions yet. They'll make more progress and they'll become very important for our future.clearly some people need them. Most don't. The crime is forcing it on people who don't need it.
It’s amazing to me that obstetricians (and midwives) haven’t stepped back and looked at the actual data before blindly parroting the “experts” and the drive to vaccinate all pregnant women. 🤔
they shouldn't even need data to reject experimental vaccines in pregnant women.
Damn it, have I taken crazy pills?
Well, since you put it like that …
👍👍👍
Well, it depends what their desired outcome is.
IKR? My midwife didn't even want me taking tylenol or antibiotics! But now experimental meds are totes OK?
They mindlessly follow their professional organizations, who mindlessly follow the CDC, NIH, etc.
It's amazing what people will believe when their jobs depend on it.
I have been concerned on this ever since I noted the study trials did not do the research and then reviewing the NEJM study that seemed obviously flawed (it was later corrected).
In the UK the latest dataset from ONS on live births is pre jab rollout to most pregnant women. Normally it is updated in December. Not this year and on enquiry they say they have bo date when it will become available.
I find the ONS response very un-reassuring.
https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/birthsdeathsandmarriages/livebirths/articles/provisionalbirthsinenglandandwales/2020andquarter1jantomar2021
I haven't got the source at hand but I have seen data which suggests an 80+% miscarriage rate in first trimester vaxxers
Ah, here it is. There is a separate set of codes for spontaneous abortion i.e. miscarriage.
https://www.icd10data.com/ICD10CM/Codes/O00-O9A/O00-O08/O03-/O03
Z37- codes, including stillbirths, thus only apply to outcomes after 20 weeks.
So, exclusion of first 20 weeks equalizes the unvaccinated and Covid-vaccinated risk windows quite a bit.
I still think you're right that the Covid vaccinated should be lower, not equal.
I'm not sure I follow. The UK report says stillbirths, which should only be week 20 or later. The CDC reference is also referring only to post week 20 fetal deaths, so I think I'm aligning the data correctly?
You did! I misread the " Roughly half of fetal deaths..." sentence as setting up a chart that looked at all weeks. But the chart only looks at 21+. So that's all valid.
The only other thing would be if the report actually adjusts for exposure time, but no mention of such an adjustment is made. I think it's as bad as you have calculated.
Good call out though... will edit post to make it more clear.
Yeah, that context could make a big difference as far as reader impression. A 23% increase to stillbirth rates is not a 23% increase to the total fetal deaths rate. Just plugging in a 15% figure for miscarriages vs the 3.5/1000 stillbirth rates in the UK report gives (3.5/1000)/(15/100) = ~1/43 as the stillbirths/miscarriage risk ratio.
I can't believe we have to have a polite discussion about whether experimental vaccines given in pregnancy is a good idea or not.
https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/birthsdeathsandmarriages/livebirths/datasets/birthcharacteristicsinenglandandwales
https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/birthsdeathsandmarriages/livebirths/articles/provisionalbirthsinenglandandwales/2020andquarter1jantomar2021
These may help with age and gestation numbers.
Great analysis. It shows how deceptive numbers can be on the surface.
There is an interesting substack, Vajenda
https://vajenda.substack.com/p/the-covid-19-vaccine-and-menstrual
I read it a long time ago, it is from Dr Jen Gunter. While it’s not current it bears reading.
Mostly to see why the other side thinks what it does. She’s definitely on the other side of this argument.
She argues that vaginal bleeding is normal after a vaccine because the uterine lining is part of the immune system.
I’m not a doctor so maybe I’m missing something, truly, but,
I feel her argument actually .... makes some sense .... no wait for it .... on our side. Yes, our side.
Maybe not all the way, but if a vaccine induced bleeding at ANY time during pregnancy.... isn’t it DANGEROUS (not “safe and effective”) at least during pregnancy?
The other important factor: WHEN was the vaccine pushed out to women of childbearing age? Remember, they vaccinated old people first. In the places I've looked at: Alberta, Ontario, Scotland, women of childbearing age, by and large, were not vaccinated until mid-year. May at the earliest. More like June or July for most. So the big question to answer is: how long after the big rollout to childbearing-age women, should we start seeing a signal in the stillbirth data? Based on what I'm looking at (vaccine uptake by age compared to rumors of stillbirth spikes in Canada), it's somewhere between six and fourteen weeks out. So if the big vaccine push happened in... when did that happen in the UK? Like, when did they finish up with the old folks, and move on to the 18-40 age group? When did that age group reach, say 60% with at least one dose... and count out from there. Depending on when they were vaccinated, August data might not be late enough. We need to see September and October, particularly.
--PS: September is when they had the big spike in neonatal deaths in Scotland, and the vaccines there seem to have started on the childbearing-age group in late May, at the earliest. I'm estimating that based on this article: https://www.glasgowlive.co.uk/news/glasgow-news/covid-vaccine-invitations-30-39-20628711
If we do some really sketchy guesswork there and say the big bulk of childbearing age women was vaccinated sometime roundabout June 2021, then if the infant death spike was related, we'd expect to see something like that in other places... about 3-4 months after most people in the 20-40 age group got the first shot (you could run a second comparison for second shot, booster, etc. if you had the data). So... what do you think the lag time might be for stillbirths? Would August's numbers even capture that?
OK, this turns out to be a tricky one, because there's biases working in two directions at once, which I only have a hang on after working with a different pregnancy / births data set.
Your post demonstrates that the Covid-vaccinated are missing the discount that should be present for immortal time bias - they do not experience the full stillbirth risk window.
However, they are over-exposed to the cutoff bias compared to the unvaccinated in the same set. The cutoff bias arises because stillbirths cross the finish line before normal term births, on average. So any "among births" comparison will have this bias at both ends of the window, balancing out - last year's "safe" births in the beginning, next year's "early" births (incl. stillbirths) at the end, if using a year as the window.
Since the Covid-vaccinated do not start off by collecting "safe" births at the beginning of the window, the cutoff bias only affects them negatively - reducing the denominator for completed births. In other words, the immortal time bias actually applies to both sets due to the peculiarities of using an "among births" definition.
Trying to wrap my head around this one. Wouldn't that cutoff benefit the unvaccinated numbers in a positive way? I.e. you have a bunch of healthy births from women at the beginning of the window who were already far along in their pregnancies before the vaccine was widely available?
And when the window ends there will be uncompleted live births for corresponding stillbirths, for both groups. So both cohorts are potentially unevenly biased in both directions. I’m no longer sure why I had an instinct that the end-cutoff overcomes the 3rd trimester skew among the vaxxed, I should have just proposed that it partially compensates for it, esp. if the vaxxed enter the pool toward the end of the time frame.
Thank you for your work. It's inspiring.
Have you seen Public Health Scotland’s “Wider Impacts” dashboard https://scotland.shinyapps.io/phs-covid-wider-impact/ - it has some very disturbing data..,
I have not seen this before... taking a look. Any pointers of specific areas to investigate is appreciated.
Yes, here are some relevant excerpts from a post I wrote on this: "
For example, the graph shows the number of deaths of babies within the first four weeks of life, from Public Health Scotland’s “Wider Impacts” website.
The blue dots show 8 consecutive data points in a row which are above the background levels, and the red dots are data points well in excess of alarm signals.
The Scottish site also indicates that the number of pregnancies not reaching term was above baseline during the time of interest, and occurring earlier in the gestation period.
They also provide data for developmental issues in infants, which seem to indicate that since the start of 2021, the number of issues has also been consistently above background rates. In particular, in speech, language and communication, gross motor skills, and problem solving."