Pretty astounding that these scientists apparently have no fear for their scientific reputation. Shows how rotten this is. Literally over baby's dead bodies. Knowing that new vaccinees will be reassured by their fraud.
why evil ? you know those people are just like you and neighbors doctor, trying to best protect pregnant women ? I'd be more inclined on stupidity if it was one or the other.
Or ye olde genuine belief that the benefits outweigh the harms - the idea that risks and negative effects need to be hidden so they don't scare people away and increase "vaccine hesitancy".
Better title: "How to FAKE a Study On Covid-19 Vaccines During Pregnancy to HIDE the Dangers"
I am so DONE with softening the language ("bias" or "mistake") to make it appear there wasn't actually an agenda (to do HARM) with all of this. It was ALL intentional. NONE of these people were in the dark about WHAT they were doing or WHY they were doing it.
Thanks for the explanation. One of the greatest hidden problems is that the industry doesn't just rely on the progress of scientific understanding to develop new products; they rely on the progress of manipulating methods of study. When they're caught with fraudulent methods, they don't just go home with their tails between their legs; they work at how to manipulate the system better so they don't get caught next time, whether it's by finding ever devious ways to design their studies ,or by withholding the raw data, or by financing the regulators, publishers, media, etc.
Medical science is an absolute mess. I don't know if it can be fixed and I don't know if these agencies can regain the public trust and frankly, as far as the latter is concerned, I don't care. All I want is for their teeth to be pulled so there will be ZERO medical mandates of any kind for anybody. If people want to believe the words of recidivist felons who've chocked up scores of billions of $s worth of fines along with their official accomplices, that's their business. I think it's unconscionably stupid.
It was Marcia Angell, MD, editor of the NEJM, who said many years ago, long before covid, that literally none of the research articles in major medical journals can be taken seriously. She was mainly referring to the fact that the journals are bought and paid for by pharmaceutical companies, so what would one think the findings would be?
The NEJM recently published a study among Veterans, comparing receiving a covid booster+flu shot vs. just getting the flu shot (of course, a study like that is already tainted). The goal was to look at covid related emergencies and covid related ER visits, and deaths. Here is the headline of the article:
Here is the conclusion drawn (from the article itself):
"In this national cohort of U.S. veterans, the receipt of the 2024–2025 Covid-19 vaccine was associated with decreased risks of severe clinical outcomes. (Funded by the Department of Veterans Affairs.)"
However, looking at the data, there were literally no statitstically significant differences in any outcome between the two groups (ER visits for covid, hospitalization for covid, or covid death). An honest assessment of the data would have pointed that out...but good luck getting that published in the NEJM.
Even at the end of the article, this is what is written:
"The absolute differences in outcomes between participants who received Covid-19 vaccination and those who did not were small."
Dr. Angell was right, unfortunately. The days of honest research, such as that done by Dr. Hiram Polk in Louisville in the 70's (who showed the utility of receiving a preoperative antibiotic prior to large bowel surgery) are history.
This reminds me of a study I once read about comparing two communities in India, one which accepted first cousins marrying, and one which did not allow this, the communities being in most other ways similar. They did *not* find that the community allowing cousin marriages experienced more birth defects. They just had about twice the rate of miscarriages. Looking at live births only would have completely missed the ill effects.
Okay so here’s a weird anecdote- I have two grand nephews born to different Covid vaccinated mothers who have something physically wrong with their penises! I don’t know the details but I’ve never heard of such a thing until 2022.
Hypospadias (pee hole in the wrong place) has been happening for a time. Although it's not historically particularly common, it is something all pediatricians and OBs have seen.
Now, that said, the incidence may increase post-jab. I have no idea.
My only point is that certain penis problems were occurring with some infrequent frequency even pre-shots.
In the case of your two grand nephews, I believe the risk for their malformation (most probably either epispadias or hypospadias) is covered in this study. You would not stop a pregnancy for this malformation simply treat it with surgery.
"For rare outcomes, odds ratios can understate elevated risks and overstate protective effects."
"Understate" compared to what? Please explain how odds ratios can understate elevated risks. All the literature I know of shows that, relative to risk ratios, odds ratios overstate associations in either direction (elevation or protection) but that overstatement becomes slight when the outcome is rare. See for example Chapter 4 of Modern Epidemiology, 2nd (1998) or 3rd (2008) edn.
I believe the simple answer to this is : by pure chance. You can state the exact same thing in reverse but it does not quite have the same dramatic impact : "For rare outcomes, odds ratios can understate protective effects and overstate elevated risks."
Sorry, that is not an explanation of why odds ratios were singled out as a problem of the study or a reason for exaggeration: "By pure chance" applies to any measure, not just odds ratios. Also, rareness would increase random error ("chance") for any measure, so why was it mentioned? The one special aspect of the interaction of odds ratios, rarity and "chance" is that it makes odds ratios overstate risks - search on "sparse-data bias" in the cited texts. Thus I think the statement I quoted from the article is simply a mistake.
I believe you are completely right, this should not be mentioned as a problem for this specific study. I am curious, as a pr in epi and stats, which points do you believe are justified in this article ?
I see the following as uncontrolled sources of uncertainty in the original study and those like it:
The article focuses on left truncation by selection for live birth (pregnancy termination or stillbirth). I saw no data that would tell us the impact of this selection effect. Ideally we should want to compare each vaccinated to unvaccinated followed from the same point in pregnancy as the vaccination time.
Outcomes missed by administrative codes is another source of uncertainty, but if the rate of missingness is the same in both groups then this would not be a source of bias. I saw no data that would tell us the direction of any rate difference.
The criticism of propensity weighting presumes any remaining difference is a screening effect. But I saw no data that would tell us how much of that difference is a screening effect or a vaccine effect. Those effects could be in the same direction, or opposite directions and thus partially canceling.
All in all, for me these kinds of studies have many plausible explanations for their results. Thus they don't provide definitive information about effect directions and provide even less information about effect sizes.
Thank you for this analysis ! Your arguments will be discussed in our hospital lecture group.
Some of the limitations you pointed out can indeed be major biais to those results. However, I am not fully convinced by some of the points you make :
1. "For drugs such as valproate, isotretinoin, and thalidomide, early safety studies that limited analysis to surviving infants failed to detect strong signals of harm." : while very early studies that focused on live-birth may have failed to identify a risk signal, I do not believe it was due specifically to the fact that they only included live births but maybe more due to the fact they had limited power to do so. To prove this point I looked for studies on the molecules you were talking about, done based on their SNDS data base and found this study clearly identifying the teratogenic risk of valproic acid that only included live births : https://doi.org/10.1212/WNL.0000000000007696. And although they had included more newborns overall, the number of exposed newborns was almost 15 times smaller than in the covid vaccines study. What do you think of this one ?
2. "first, they fail to apply any formal correction for multiple testing (such as Bonferroni or Holm), despite the sheer volume of comparisons warranting it;": I believe that applying such test corrections would push estimations towards the null, so why would they do that even in the absence of a statically significant risk increase ?
3. Did you read the other studies on the subject : they cite at least 2 other studies in Ontario and Scandinavia, what did you think of those ?
There are lines of people waiting in queues to get the next jab — people who blindly await their turn to inject chemicals into their bodies in the name of health. They’ve been indoctrinated to believe that an injection created by Pharma will protect them from a specific virus strain.
Today there are over 90 vaccines for more than 90 diseases. The lie is that to stay healthy long term, you must inject over 90 doses of chemicals into your body. That doesn’t make sense — viruses constantly evolve. Why not fight them with something else, like ozone water?
People have been taught to believe that injecting things like aluminum and mercury will somehow keep them healthy. Many now ignore studies showing that vaccines can be inherently dangerous.
Indoctrination is complete when the indoctrinated refuse to acknowledge that an alternative may exist. For them, the jab is the only answer. Nothing else will do.
Part of that indoctrination is suppression of alternatives. There is an alternative — organic, effective, and profoundly beneficial. But it’s ignored because it seems too simple to be true.
That alternative is ozone water.
The suppression begins with disbelief: How could water possibly be preferable to injecting chemicals?
“Viruses are deadly,” they say. “Get the jab and you’ll be fine.”
But the truth is hidden. Ozone water is an excellent replacement for vaccines, and here’s why:
Ozone water is the world’s most effective disinfectant.
It’s water infused with highly charged oxygen. The charged oxygen oxidizes contaminants in the water and on any surface it touches. Ozone water safely and instantly dissolves viruses and bacteria. When used daily, it disinfects the body and removes the possibility of infection. Ozone water is preventive — vaccines are reactive. Prevention means you don’t get sick in the first place.
Ozone water oxygenates the body.
The body’s vitality depends on oxygen. Drinking ozone water disinfects your throat and increases oxygen levels in your blood, promoting energy and health.
Ozone water protects against all pathogens.
Vaccines only target specific viruses; they do nothing for bacteria. Ozone water neutralizes viruses, bacteria, mold, and fungus — truly a universal panacea for disease prevention.
The indoctrination is complete when ozone water is dismissed without a thought — and people continue to stand in line, feeling safe but never truly protected.
Prevention is the key to health. It begins with sanitation, hygiene, and nutrition. Ozone water offers all three: unmatched sanitation, full-body hygiene, and enhanced oxygenation. It even improves nutrition — but that’s another story.
Wake up! There’s an easy, organic way to prevent disease.
Vaccines are not the answer.
Wake up! One glass of fresh ozone water daily can prevent infection.
Wake up! Learn to make ozone water and drink it.
Wake up! You never have to fear viruses or bacteria again.
🤬🤬🤬😪😪😪
It's astounding that this passed peer review as the major problem in design is so easy to see and has been noted as a problem in the past.
Actually, it isn't surprising that it passed peer review at all. Peer review has been broken for decades, no matter how much they may deny it.
Obvious and with historical precedent tho. I mean how broken can it be to let that one slip thru?
Methinks if you look a.bit deeper, for instance at the peer selection or exclusion process,you'd see smoke.
Pretty astounding that these scientists apparently have no fear for their scientific reputation. Shows how rotten this is. Literally over baby's dead bodies. Knowing that new vaccinees will be reassured by their fraud.
Brilliant article! Well, it may not be fraud but it’s either evil or incredible stupidity. I’m casting my vote on evil.
why evil ? you know those people are just like you and neighbors doctor, trying to best protect pregnant women ? I'd be more inclined on stupidity if it was one or the other.
Or ye olde genuine belief that the benefits outweigh the harms - the idea that risks and negative effects need to be hidden so they don't scare people away and increase "vaccine hesitancy".
Brilliant reanalysis. Really helped me understand odds ratios and design flaws.
Better title: "How to FAKE a Study On Covid-19 Vaccines During Pregnancy to HIDE the Dangers"
I am so DONE with softening the language ("bias" or "mistake") to make it appear there wasn't actually an agenda (to do HARM) with all of this. It was ALL intentional. NONE of these people were in the dark about WHAT they were doing or WHY they were doing it.
Thanks for the explanation. One of the greatest hidden problems is that the industry doesn't just rely on the progress of scientific understanding to develop new products; they rely on the progress of manipulating methods of study. When they're caught with fraudulent methods, they don't just go home with their tails between their legs; they work at how to manipulate the system better so they don't get caught next time, whether it's by finding ever devious ways to design their studies ,or by withholding the raw data, or by financing the regulators, publishers, media, etc.
Medical science is an absolute mess. I don't know if it can be fixed and I don't know if these agencies can regain the public trust and frankly, as far as the latter is concerned, I don't care. All I want is for their teeth to be pulled so there will be ZERO medical mandates of any kind for anybody. If people want to believe the words of recidivist felons who've chocked up scores of billions of $s worth of fines along with their official accomplices, that's their business. I think it's unconscionably stupid.
After Russian President Boris Yeltsin restored official relations with the Order of Malta in 1992 http://pravo.gov.ru/proxy/ips/?docbody=&firstDoc=1&lastDoc=1&nd=102017797 - the entire top brass of power has been working in the interests of the Davos Masons.
It was Marcia Angell, MD, editor of the NEJM, who said many years ago, long before covid, that literally none of the research articles in major medical journals can be taken seriously. She was mainly referring to the fact that the journals are bought and paid for by pharmaceutical companies, so what would one think the findings would be?
The NEJM recently published a study among Veterans, comparing receiving a covid booster+flu shot vs. just getting the flu shot (of course, a study like that is already tainted). The goal was to look at covid related emergencies and covid related ER visits, and deaths. Here is the headline of the article:
Here is the conclusion drawn (from the article itself):
"In this national cohort of U.S. veterans, the receipt of the 2024–2025 Covid-19 vaccine was associated with decreased risks of severe clinical outcomes. (Funded by the Department of Veterans Affairs.)"
However, looking at the data, there were literally no statitstically significant differences in any outcome between the two groups (ER visits for covid, hospitalization for covid, or covid death). An honest assessment of the data would have pointed that out...but good luck getting that published in the NEJM.
Even at the end of the article, this is what is written:
"The absolute differences in outcomes between participants who received Covid-19 vaccination and those who did not were small."
Dr. Angell was right, unfortunately. The days of honest research, such as that done by Dr. Hiram Polk in Louisville in the 70's (who showed the utility of receiving a preoperative antibiotic prior to large bowel surgery) are history.
"But then we read it." Golden 👏
This reminds me of a study I once read about comparing two communities in India, one which accepted first cousins marrying, and one which did not allow this, the communities being in most other ways similar. They did *not* find that the community allowing cousin marriages experienced more birth defects. They just had about twice the rate of miscarriages. Looking at live births only would have completely missed the ill effects.
A crude analysis of the rate of miscarriage is included in this study.
And in the rest of the literature you will find that mRNA covid vaccine injection during pregnancy does not seem to be associated with miscarriage (exemple study https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMc2114466) but covid infection might be (example of a study on the subject https://bmcmedicine.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12916-025-04094-y)
Okay so here’s a weird anecdote- I have two grand nephews born to different Covid vaccinated mothers who have something physically wrong with their penises! I don’t know the details but I’ve never heard of such a thing until 2022.
Their diagnoses will not be linked in any way to their mother’s shot history.
Obviously we don't know what their condition is.
Hypospadias (pee hole in the wrong place) has been happening for a time. Although it's not historically particularly common, it is something all pediatricians and OBs have seen.
Now, that said, the incidence may increase post-jab. I have no idea.
My only point is that certain penis problems were occurring with some infrequent frequency even pre-shots.
In the case of your two grand nephews, I believe the risk for their malformation (most probably either epispadias or hypospadias) is covered in this study. You would not stop a pregnancy for this malformation simply treat it with surgery.
"For rare outcomes, odds ratios can understate elevated risks and overstate protective effects."
"Understate" compared to what? Please explain how odds ratios can understate elevated risks. All the literature I know of shows that, relative to risk ratios, odds ratios overstate associations in either direction (elevation or protection) but that overstatement becomes slight when the outcome is rare. See for example Chapter 4 of Modern Epidemiology, 2nd (1998) or 3rd (2008) edn.
I believe the simple answer to this is : by pure chance. You can state the exact same thing in reverse but it does not quite have the same dramatic impact : "For rare outcomes, odds ratios can understate protective effects and overstate elevated risks."
Sorry, that is not an explanation of why odds ratios were singled out as a problem of the study or a reason for exaggeration: "By pure chance" applies to any measure, not just odds ratios. Also, rareness would increase random error ("chance") for any measure, so why was it mentioned? The one special aspect of the interaction of odds ratios, rarity and "chance" is that it makes odds ratios overstate risks - search on "sparse-data bias" in the cited texts. Thus I think the statement I quoted from the article is simply a mistake.
I believe you are completely right, this should not be mentioned as a problem for this specific study. I am curious, as a pr in epi and stats, which points do you believe are justified in this article ?
I see the following as uncontrolled sources of uncertainty in the original study and those like it:
The article focuses on left truncation by selection for live birth (pregnancy termination or stillbirth). I saw no data that would tell us the impact of this selection effect. Ideally we should want to compare each vaccinated to unvaccinated followed from the same point in pregnancy as the vaccination time.
Outcomes missed by administrative codes is another source of uncertainty, but if the rate of missingness is the same in both groups then this would not be a source of bias. I saw no data that would tell us the direction of any rate difference.
The criticism of propensity weighting presumes any remaining difference is a screening effect. But I saw no data that would tell us how much of that difference is a screening effect or a vaccine effect. Those effects could be in the same direction, or opposite directions and thus partially canceling.
All in all, for me these kinds of studies have many plausible explanations for their results. Thus they don't provide definitive information about effect directions and provide even less information about effect sizes.
Thank you very much for taking the time to answer. Very clear and sound.
More evidence for Nuremberg 2
Thank you for this analysis ! Your arguments will be discussed in our hospital lecture group.
Some of the limitations you pointed out can indeed be major biais to those results. However, I am not fully convinced by some of the points you make :
1. "For drugs such as valproate, isotretinoin, and thalidomide, early safety studies that limited analysis to surviving infants failed to detect strong signals of harm." : while very early studies that focused on live-birth may have failed to identify a risk signal, I do not believe it was due specifically to the fact that they only included live births but maybe more due to the fact they had limited power to do so. To prove this point I looked for studies on the molecules you were talking about, done based on their SNDS data base and found this study clearly identifying the teratogenic risk of valproic acid that only included live births : https://doi.org/10.1212/WNL.0000000000007696. And although they had included more newborns overall, the number of exposed newborns was almost 15 times smaller than in the covid vaccines study. What do you think of this one ?
2. "first, they fail to apply any formal correction for multiple testing (such as Bonferroni or Holm), despite the sheer volume of comparisons warranting it;": I believe that applying such test corrections would push estimations towards the null, so why would they do that even in the absence of a statically significant risk increase ?
3. Did you read the other studies on the subject : they cite at least 2 other studies in Ontario and Scandinavia, what did you think of those ?
Thank you again for your analysis
Wake Up — There’s a Better Way
There are lines of people waiting in queues to get the next jab — people who blindly await their turn to inject chemicals into their bodies in the name of health. They’ve been indoctrinated to believe that an injection created by Pharma will protect them from a specific virus strain.
Today there are over 90 vaccines for more than 90 diseases. The lie is that to stay healthy long term, you must inject over 90 doses of chemicals into your body. That doesn’t make sense — viruses constantly evolve. Why not fight them with something else, like ozone water?
People have been taught to believe that injecting things like aluminum and mercury will somehow keep them healthy. Many now ignore studies showing that vaccines can be inherently dangerous.
Indoctrination is complete when the indoctrinated refuse to acknowledge that an alternative may exist. For them, the jab is the only answer. Nothing else will do.
Part of that indoctrination is suppression of alternatives. There is an alternative — organic, effective, and profoundly beneficial. But it’s ignored because it seems too simple to be true.
That alternative is ozone water.
The suppression begins with disbelief: How could water possibly be preferable to injecting chemicals?
“Viruses are deadly,” they say. “Get the jab and you’ll be fine.”
But the truth is hidden. Ozone water is an excellent replacement for vaccines, and here’s why:
Ozone water is the world’s most effective disinfectant.
It’s water infused with highly charged oxygen. The charged oxygen oxidizes contaminants in the water and on any surface it touches. Ozone water safely and instantly dissolves viruses and bacteria. When used daily, it disinfects the body and removes the possibility of infection. Ozone water is preventive — vaccines are reactive. Prevention means you don’t get sick in the first place.
Ozone water oxygenates the body.
The body’s vitality depends on oxygen. Drinking ozone water disinfects your throat and increases oxygen levels in your blood, promoting energy and health.
Ozone water protects against all pathogens.
Vaccines only target specific viruses; they do nothing for bacteria. Ozone water neutralizes viruses, bacteria, mold, and fungus — truly a universal panacea for disease prevention.
The indoctrination is complete when ozone water is dismissed without a thought — and people continue to stand in line, feeling safe but never truly protected.
Prevention is the key to health. It begins with sanitation, hygiene, and nutrition. Ozone water offers all three: unmatched sanitation, full-body hygiene, and enhanced oxygenation. It even improves nutrition — but that’s another story.
Wake up! There’s an easy, organic way to prevent disease.
Vaccines are not the answer.
Wake up! One glass of fresh ozone water daily can prevent infection.
Wake up! Learn to make ozone water and drink it.
Wake up! You never have to fear viruses or bacteria again.