The paper from June presented the first one or two snapshots from the pregnancy registry, which goes weeks between participant updates. Both the original and Thornley / Brock's use of "completed pregnancies" as the denominator leaves out the still ongoing pregnancies, so it's weird to see the original mistake repeated in the latter case …
The paper from June presented the first one or two snapshots from the pregnancy registry, which goes weeks between participant updates. Both the original and Thornley / Brock's use of "completed pregnancies" as the denominator leaves out the still ongoing pregnancies, so it's weird to see the original mistake repeated in the latter case (just "-minus +20 weeks completed," but still leaving out ongoing).
Minus Shimabukuro, the latest update on September 9 captures most of the <20 week participants at a post-20 week snapshot - https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34496196/ . They use some weird math but the raw numbers seem non-alarming. Conspicuously, they have stopped showing numbers for ended pregnancies after the 20 week mark - are they hiding an unexpected signal for post-20-week events?
Also worrying is that complications arising after delivery wouldn't show up in the study (if they restored reporting on all outcomes) among the completed births cohort - there are rumors of deaths in the day after birth...
Exactly my thoughts; if you didn't complete a full term pregnancy, but lost your baby, you didn't get counted at all. Sort of like, if you die within 14 days of vaccination you don't get counted as a vaccine death. Bogus science and reporting to promote injection uptake.
The paper from June presented the first one or two snapshots from the pregnancy registry, which goes weeks between participant updates. Both the original and Thornley / Brock's use of "completed pregnancies" as the denominator leaves out the still ongoing pregnancies, so it's weird to see the original mistake repeated in the latter case (just "-minus +20 weeks completed," but still leaving out ongoing).
Minus Shimabukuro, the latest update on September 9 captures most of the <20 week participants at a post-20 week snapshot - https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34496196/ . They use some weird math but the raw numbers seem non-alarming. Conspicuously, they have stopped showing numbers for ended pregnancies after the 20 week mark - are they hiding an unexpected signal for post-20-week events?
Also worrying is that complications arising after delivery wouldn't show up in the study (if they restored reporting on all outcomes) among the completed births cohort - there are rumors of deaths in the day after birth...
Exactly my thoughts; if you didn't complete a full term pregnancy, but lost your baby, you didn't get counted at all. Sort of like, if you die within 14 days of vaccination you don't get counted as a vaccine death. Bogus science and reporting to promote injection uptake.