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.
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...
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?
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.
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...
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?
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?
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