Tom Shimabukuro is a criminal. He absolutely must be tried at Nuremberg 2.0. His entire job is using statistical gimmicks to try to make obvious vaccine safety signals go away. He's one of the worst human beings on the planet.
I don’t understand. Didn’t we know this months ago? The report used the entire study population as the denominator instead of just those who had taken the shot in the first trimester.
There were discussions but no peer-reviewed validation. This peer-reviewed study places that fact into the official publication record, and exposes a pattern. Shimabukuro has consistently misled ACIP, VRBAC and the public.
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.
Yes, investigating vaccine adverse events outbreaks needs reason, logical development of epidemiological filed investigations as better case criteria should be appropriate for diagnostic resources, criteria are just guide etc. More important any of criteria may not be present in particular instance but curiosity. As it was difficult to sort out when cases of veno-occlusive liver disease were first reported in regions of Afghanistan, a wide range of etiologic possibilities were considered with particular attention given to clues suggested by pathologic/forensic findings in liver tissue. The cause of liver damage was not clarified, until investigations CC, cohort, RCT etc investigations focused on the suggestion by a local grower that a plant might be responsible. Thanks
The original study indicates 1080 women vaccinated in the first trimester were assessed, and by 31 March 21, when they would have been 4 to 16 weeks pregnant, there had been 104 spontaneous abortions. So about 10%.
Some of this group might go on to have a miscarriage. You could speculate those 4 to 8 weeks pregnant were at highest risk, so maybe a third of the 1080.
The final results should be ready 9 months from the end of the recruitment phase, ie by the end of November 21.
The link for the report says this has been withdrawn? Confused if this means the original study has been withdrawn or the latest review by IPAK has been withdrawn?
I've been sharing the link to this Substack article widely, and now the data upon which it is based is no longer available? Or worst still, was it compromised?
What can you tell us about the rest of this story?
From what I can gather the study does not finish until November/December 2021 so any findings published will it be accurate as a large portion of women in the study were not due to give birth until November.
A follow-up publication based on the same cohort quotes a cumulative incidence of miscarriage of 14.1%.2 This is considerably lower than the 7 to 8 fold increase that we calculated. There are a range of background miscarriage rates quoted in comparable studies before the covid-19 era which range from 5.4%3 to 21.3%.4 Of note, another case-control study from Norway shows no increased risk in exposure to covid-19 vaccination, comparing women with a first trimester miscarriage to those with a first trimester pregnancy.5
From this evidence, we withdraw the recommendation that covid mRNA injections be considered ‘category X’, but rather suggest caution with their use, in consideration of the overall risks of covid-19 infection in pregnancy.6 We unreservedly apologise for any alarm caused by the publication of the paper.
Brilliant work here! 🙌
Tom Shimabukuro is a criminal. He absolutely must be tried at Nuremberg 2.0. His entire job is using statistical gimmicks to try to make obvious vaccine safety signals go away. He's one of the worst human beings on the planet.
I don’t understand. Didn’t we know this months ago? The report used the entire study population as the denominator instead of just those who had taken the shot in the first trimester.
There were discussions but no peer-reviewed validation. This peer-reviewed study places that fact into the official publication record, and exposes a pattern. Shimabukuro has consistently misled ACIP, VRBAC and the public.
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.
Yes, investigating vaccine adverse events outbreaks needs reason, logical development of epidemiological filed investigations as better case criteria should be appropriate for diagnostic resources, criteria are just guide etc. More important any of criteria may not be present in particular instance but curiosity. As it was difficult to sort out when cases of veno-occlusive liver disease were first reported in regions of Afghanistan, a wide range of etiologic possibilities were considered with particular attention given to clues suggested by pathologic/forensic findings in liver tissue. The cause of liver damage was not clarified, until investigations CC, cohort, RCT etc investigations focused on the suggestion by a local grower that a plant might be responsible. Thanks
Could someone explain this?
https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa2110475
Do negative ratios mean the vaccine reduces the particular condition risk compared to control?
CDC is so intertwined with the lying sack of bo-dinkie falsely sitting in the oval office, read trends in internal medicine!
scary how someone can hide data with no consequence?
The original study indicates 1080 women vaccinated in the first trimester were assessed, and by 31 March 21, when they would have been 4 to 16 weeks pregnant, there had been 104 spontaneous abortions. So about 10%.
Some of this group might go on to have a miscarriage. You could speculate those 4 to 8 weeks pregnant were at highest risk, so maybe a third of the 1080.
The final results should be ready 9 months from the end of the recruitment phase, ie by the end of November 21.
The link for the report says this has been withdrawn? Confused if this means the original study has been withdrawn or the latest review by IPAK has been withdrawn?
Looking forward to feedback from James Lyons-Weiler . . . ?
Why has the Thornley and Brock publication been withdrawn? https://cf5e727d-d02d-4d71-89ff-9fe2d3ad957f.filesusr.com/ugd/adf864_ed413dccc2b5463dae23025690855524.pdf
I've been sharing the link to this Substack article widely, and now the data upon which it is based is no longer available? Or worst still, was it compromised?
What can you tell us about the rest of this story?
With a quick search, I found this update: https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/health/coronavirus/300456441/covid19-vaccination-paper-criticised-as-disinformation-is-being-withdrawn-coauthor-simon-thornley-says
Do you have any follow-up thoughts? Comments?
From what I can gather the study does not finish until November/December 2021 so any findings published will it be accurate as a large portion of women in the study were not due to give birth until November.
Understood. Thanks so much for taking time to confirm.
I just found this
A follow-up publication based on the same cohort quotes a cumulative incidence of miscarriage of 14.1%.2 This is considerably lower than the 7 to 8 fold increase that we calculated. There are a range of background miscarriage rates quoted in comparable studies before the covid-19 era which range from 5.4%3 to 21.3%.4 Of note, another case-control study from Norway shows no increased risk in exposure to covid-19 vaccination, comparing women with a first trimester miscarriage to those with a first trimester pregnancy.5
From this evidence, we withdraw the recommendation that covid mRNA injections be considered ‘category X’, but rather suggest caution with their use, in consideration of the overall risks of covid-19 infection in pregnancy.6 We unreservedly apologise for any alarm caused by the publication of the paper.
Very much appreciate your thoughtful follow-up, Conner. Appreciate having this additional data.
Fb has sadly "f*c*t checked" this. They said is false. But they appear to be qualified to me. I trust this article more than cdx
I'm plagued by some system-fanatic citing all the "good" studies claiming "safe and effective" and "nothing to see here".
Do you know someone that has already or could help to decompose and fairly critisize these?
Thank you so much!
:
1.
"Vaccine Side Effects in Health Care Workers after Vaccination against SARS-CoV-2: Data from TüSeRe:exact Study " Bareiß et al
https://www.mdpi.com/1999-4915/15/1/65
2.
"COVID-19 mRNA Vaccines During PregnancyNew Evidence to Help Address Vaccine Hesitancy", Elyse O. Kharbanda, MD, MPH; Gabriela Vazquez-Benitez, PhD
https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/2790610
3.
"Association of COVID-19 Vaccination in Pregnancy With Adverse Peripartum Outcomes"
Deshayne B. Fell, PhD1,2; Tavleen Dhinsa, MSc2,3; Gillian D. Alton, PhD2,3; et al
https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/2790607
Please, I dare to cross-post from TSN's article by Prof. Kostoff.
I'm plagued by some system-fanatic citing all the "good" studies claiming "safe and effective" and "nothing to see here".
Do you know someone that could help to decompose and fairly critisize these? :
(All stating "nothing to see here".)
List of studies in
https://docs.google.com/document/d/19FNXcmdI0MU6RPmvKYo_g9zEWPKl2-l760OX_8zww3E/edit
(Compiled by Viki Male, Senior Lecturer in Reproductive Immunology at Imperial College London)
1.
"Vaccine Side Effects in Health Care Workers after Vaccination against SARS-CoV-2: Data from TüSeRe:exact Study " Bareiß et al
https://www.mdpi.com/1999-4915/15/1/65
2.
"COVID-19 mRNA Vaccines During PregnancyNew Evidence to Help Address Vaccine Hesitancy", Elyse O. Kharbanda, MD, MPH; Gabriela Vazquez-Benitez, PhD
https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/2790610
3.
"Association of COVID-19 Vaccination in Pregnancy With Adverse Peripartum Outcomes"
Deshayne B. Fell, PhD1,2; Tavleen Dhinsa, MSc2,3; Gillian D. Alton, PhD2,3; et al
https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/2790607