Oct 11, 2023·edited Oct 11, 2023Liked by Brian Mowrey
There were 295 total maternal VTEs.
So, 53 women who were jabbed in the 3 months prior to pregnancy had maternal VTE; but only 23 women had maternal VTE if they were vaccinated at any point during the entire 9 month pregnancy?
Am I reading that correctly? It doesn't sound correct.
Well, doesn't sound correct, but who knows. It's easier to be confident that the matched controls have some discrepancies because they shouldn't vary much from whatever the true overall rates are. Even if there is some reason why matching them causes such a variation, that just shows that the data is too biased.
Just read over the pre-print. Hmm, another case of statistical abuse. With N's over 500,000 EVERYTHING is significant! Pure rubbish. Of course this is a convenience sample which, for us statisticians means, no tests of significance. It's just breaks too many mathematical/statistical requirements, like iid RV's and so on. What the heck is this OBSESSION with significance! It's rubbish if you understand the theory. It's time for this to stop. Most of these "researchers" haven't a clue how the theory works and what it means. Ugh!!!
Also, if you poke around for FAQs about the vaccine databases (eg. NIMS, NIVS, PINNACLE, Covid vax passes, Vax administrator 'user support', etc...) there are a multitude of issues addressed, asked, *complained about* that suggests maybe the data is prone to a SIGNIFICANT amount of error.
I know they ask women if they are pregnant when they get the jab and record the answer. Just tell me how many said "yes" and what the outcomes were; that will satisfactorily answer my personal questions...having been pregnant a few times, myself.
Back in the distant past, gynecologists administered pregnancy tests before administering meds, doing procedures, etc., because a woman might not know she is pregnant, and everyone wanted to avoid giving a new, untested, potentially dangerous drug to a pregnant woman. Not sure even the pregnancy stats, let alone the outcomes, can be trusted here. My gut, though, tells me the effects of these vaccines on pregnant women and on pregnancy outcome, are worse than claimed. In my relatively small circle of acquaintances, miscarriage is a frequent occurrence in the completely jabbed, otherwise healthy. In Naomi Wolf’s group study, numbers are large. In the experience of boots on the ground Brandon Is Not Your Bro, stillbirths have become common. Anecdotes matter when they pile up.
HAHAHA. "SIGNIFICANT amount of error". Indeed. Medical research has devolved into gather some data (any data by any means), throw the data into a statistical package (GIGO), generate a thousand p-values and publish. I saw this coming in the late 1970's with the advent of computer statistical packages and the ease with which you can use them. If it were required to do all the computation by hand (and slide rule) we might return to some meaningful research.
Oct 10, 2023·edited Oct 10, 2023Liked by Brian Mowrey
My quest to find undeniable, bulletproof evidence that Covid vaccines negatively affect pregnancy outcomes, mostly was unsuccessful due to denominator issues. (plenty of interesting stuff to discuss about birthrates, but it is correlations, not causations).
However, I had two notable successes finding a solid signal, comparing Pfizer-vaccinated women with Moderna-vaccinated women.
One comparison found 42% increase in miscarriages with Moderna (super low p), and a 93% increase with stillbirths with Moderna (p=0.041). In both cases Moderna (higher dose) was compared with Pfizer.
I remarked on the problems with the miscarriage post at the time. There’s no way to know if there’s a skew in trimester between brands, the p is based on all women even though most weren’t at risk. Any reader that understands these problems which are always going on in pregnancy outcome studies isn’t going to not notice that the p is based on wrong numbers…
Ratio of what? Answer, Miscarriages per pregnant woman. But not all pregnant woman can get miscarriages - so this might as well be "miscarriages per all vaccine recipients, kids, men, elderly, the mice in the trial." All that matters is pregnant women vaccinated while still in the miscarriage risk window. Not all pregnant vaccinated women.
This mistake, someone who has looked at these kinds of studies before doesn't even need to look at the post to guess that it is there, and there it is.
The infant deaths, say it is true - you double a minuscule number. This doesn't really make the shot "dangerous" in any sense that would matter to a woman. A fraction of a fraction of a percent extra deaths. But then anyway how do you know that actually what happened isn't the Pfizer shot somehow prevented deaths, via whatever unknown mechanism? So you don't have a true control either.
I’ve seen various charts of live births plummeting in numerous countries in correlation with 9+ months post COVID vax rollout. Correlation does not equal causation, but COVID vaccines do not equal something I’d recommend to anyone of child bearing age.
I think you're skipping over burden of proof. Pfizer et al. could have run a sufficiently large and long enough randomized controlled trial, but they didn't. I know opinions on this differ, but it seems eminently reasonable for someone to assert that the burden of proof is on vaccine proponents, especially given the novelty of the mechanism, known issues (cardiac, etc.), etc.
In other words, your hidden assumption is that the burden of proof is on those asserting caution, despite, as you point out, the lack of anyone with access to the data publishing on it. I think the CDC's lack of research is just further reason to shift the burden of proof onto vaccine proponents.
Fair enough, it's nothing personal - I see this in everyone's analysis (on all sides). In my opinion, the biggest failure in this whole episode is our lack of using science (good, long RCTs) and it's my hobby horse to point this out whenever I see it. In my opinion, "state of knowledge" should always call out this fundamental failure of our system. Hopefully if it's pointed out more, it goes from a tangential philosophical consideration to a process requirement.
Ok but literally look at any other pregnancy post I have made. What you are asking for is there. Every time. This post is a time saving PSA, I can only say that so many times.
I'm a new subscriber so to be frank I don't have much history other than one of your great posts that brought me here.
> I can only say that so many times.
Why can't we all always emphasize the grand failures of the system? It seems like keeping the "big picture" in frame, even if repetitive, is a valiant attempt to change the fundamentals of the system. Otherwise, what's the point of any of all of this? The next time the same thing comes around, it'll just happen all over again. Critiquing the edges of failure seems like it doesn't get to the root.
I agree, but that's what so aggravates me about one-sided takedowns like the post we're replying to. Where are the equivalent takedowns of the pro-vaccine, bad science? The choice of articles says as much about the implied burden of proof as the article analyses themselves.
During COVID, the big powers had an opportunity to perform real, good science. I think post-COVID is a good opportunity to call them out on their epic hypocrisy.
Independent and identically distributed random variables
There were 295 total maternal VTEs.
So, 53 women who were jabbed in the 3 months prior to pregnancy had maternal VTE; but only 23 women had maternal VTE if they were vaccinated at any point during the entire 9 month pregnancy?
Am I reading that correctly? It doesn't sound correct.
Well, doesn't sound correct, but who knows. It's easier to be confident that the matched controls have some discrepancies because they shouldn't vary much from whatever the true overall rates are. Even if there is some reason why matching them causes such a variation, that just shows that the data is too biased.
Just read over the pre-print. Hmm, another case of statistical abuse. With N's over 500,000 EVERYTHING is significant! Pure rubbish. Of course this is a convenience sample which, for us statisticians means, no tests of significance. It's just breaks too many mathematical/statistical requirements, like iid RV's and so on. What the heck is this OBSESSION with significance! It's rubbish if you understand the theory. It's time for this to stop. Most of these "researchers" haven't a clue how the theory works and what it means. Ugh!!!
Please, what is iid RV?
In total agreement. It's a voodoo ritual.
Also, if you poke around for FAQs about the vaccine databases (eg. NIMS, NIVS, PINNACLE, Covid vax passes, Vax administrator 'user support', etc...) there are a multitude of issues addressed, asked, *complained about* that suggests maybe the data is prone to a SIGNIFICANT amount of error.
I know they ask women if they are pregnant when they get the jab and record the answer. Just tell me how many said "yes" and what the outcomes were; that will satisfactorily answer my personal questions...having been pregnant a few times, myself.
Back in the distant past, gynecologists administered pregnancy tests before administering meds, doing procedures, etc., because a woman might not know she is pregnant, and everyone wanted to avoid giving a new, untested, potentially dangerous drug to a pregnant woman. Not sure even the pregnancy stats, let alone the outcomes, can be trusted here. My gut, though, tells me the effects of these vaccines on pregnant women and on pregnancy outcome, are worse than claimed. In my relatively small circle of acquaintances, miscarriage is a frequent occurrence in the completely jabbed, otherwise healthy. In Naomi Wolf’s group study, numbers are large. In the experience of boots on the ground Brandon Is Not Your Bro, stillbirths have become common. Anecdotes matter when they pile up.
HAHAHA. "SIGNIFICANT amount of error". Indeed. Medical research has devolved into gather some data (any data by any means), throw the data into a statistical package (GIGO), generate a thousand p-values and publish. I saw this coming in the late 1970's with the advent of computer statistical packages and the ease with which you can use them. If it were required to do all the computation by hand (and slide rule) we might return to some meaningful research.
My quest to find undeniable, bulletproof evidence that Covid vaccines negatively affect pregnancy outcomes, mostly was unsuccessful due to denominator issues. (plenty of interesting stuff to discuss about birthrates, but it is correlations, not causations).
However, I had two notable successes finding a solid signal, comparing Pfizer-vaccinated women with Moderna-vaccinated women.
One comparison found 42% increase in miscarriages with Moderna (super low p), and a 93% increase with stillbirths with Moderna (p=0.041). In both cases Moderna (higher dose) was compared with Pfizer.
https://www.igor-chudov.com/p/cdc-data-moderna-causes-42-more-miscarriages
https://www.igor-chudov.com/p/moderna-doubles-the-chance-of-infant
I remarked on the problems with the miscarriage post at the time. There’s no way to know if there’s a skew in trimester between brands, the p is based on all women even though most weren’t at risk. Any reader that understands these problems which are always going on in pregnancy outcome studies isn’t going to not notice that the p is based on wrong numbers…
Why, it is a comparison of ratios, and the p is calculated based on that.
Anyway, the infant deaths comparison should not logically care about vax trimester, and also gives the a worse outcome for Moderna.
Ratio of what? Answer, Miscarriages per pregnant woman. But not all pregnant woman can get miscarriages - so this might as well be "miscarriages per all vaccine recipients, kids, men, elderly, the mice in the trial." All that matters is pregnant women vaccinated while still in the miscarriage risk window. Not all pregnant vaccinated women.
This mistake, someone who has looked at these kinds of studies before doesn't even need to look at the post to guess that it is there, and there it is.
The infant deaths, say it is true - you double a minuscule number. This doesn't really make the shot "dangerous" in any sense that would matter to a woman. A fraction of a fraction of a percent extra deaths. But then anyway how do you know that actually what happened isn't the Pfizer shot somehow prevented deaths, via whatever unknown mechanism? So you don't have a true control either.
I’ve seen various charts of live births plummeting in numerous countries in correlation with 9+ months post COVID vax rollout. Correlation does not equal causation, but COVID vaccines do not equal something I’d recommend to anyone of child bearing age.
I think you're skipping over burden of proof. Pfizer et al. could have run a sufficiently large and long enough randomized controlled trial, but they didn't. I know opinions on this differ, but it seems eminently reasonable for someone to assert that the burden of proof is on vaccine proponents, especially given the novelty of the mechanism, known issues (cardiac, etc.), etc.
In other words, your hidden assumption is that the burden of proof is on those asserting caution, despite, as you point out, the lack of anyone with access to the data publishing on it. I think the CDC's lack of research is just further reason to shift the burden of proof onto vaccine proponents.
I think you should do the same.
This is just reading into what isn't said in a streamlined post. It is designed to save reader time not make any philosophical statements.
+"What is the state of knowledge besides this study with bad data. X"
Fair enough, it's nothing personal - I see this in everyone's analysis (on all sides). In my opinion, the biggest failure in this whole episode is our lack of using science (good, long RCTs) and it's my hobby horse to point this out whenever I see it. In my opinion, "state of knowledge" should always call out this fundamental failure of our system. Hopefully if it's pointed out more, it goes from a tangential philosophical consideration to a process requirement.
Ok but literally look at any other pregnancy post I have made. What you are asking for is there. Every time. This post is a time saving PSA, I can only say that so many times.
I'm a new subscriber so to be frank I don't have much history other than one of your great posts that brought me here.
> I can only say that so many times.
Why can't we all always emphasize the grand failures of the system? It seems like keeping the "big picture" in frame, even if repetitive, is a valiant attempt to change the fundamentals of the system. Otherwise, what's the point of any of all of this? The next time the same thing comes around, it'll just happen all over again. Critiquing the edges of failure seems like it doesn't get to the root.
Good, long RCTs have never been dine in the vaccine industry, and they never reveal that, so good luck with that proposition. . .
I agree, but that's what so aggravates me about one-sided takedowns like the post we're replying to. Where are the equivalent takedowns of the pro-vaccine, bad science? The choice of articles says as much about the implied burden of proof as the article analyses themselves.
During COVID, the big powers had an opportunity to perform real, good science. I think post-COVID is a good opportunity to call them out on their epic hypocrisy.
Intentional hobbles, meant to slow the spread of an inevitable force.