ANOTHER study purports to support Covid vaccination during pregnancy while hiding half the data! No, really! Another one - I know! It just keeps happening!
Hi Brian my apologies but can you give a top level summary of your findings? Based on the points you review, I am guessing it would be something like: "Covid vaccination during pregnancy does not improve any birth outcomes and may in fact be harmful."
There's nothing to derive about outcomes, only about the study. So: "The COPS study findings are all likely to be misleading. The study doesn't tell us anything we want to know, manipulates its own results, and hides half of the raw data."
Very true: incompetence is both fostered and rewarded these days. Corruption has been grandfathered in. Mediocrity is the benchmark. That's my top level summary.
No "evidence' or proof is necessary that there are studies and then there are "studies". A regular reminder that the vacc pimps also had their "studies".
Thanks for taking the time to pick this apart. It is deeply frustrating that someone, somewhere, apparently has access to maternity outcome data from the second half of 2021, but these numbers don't seem to have been made public, anywhere. I want to see that data! Particularly for August thru December!
Jan 15, 2022·edited Jan 15, 2022Liked by Brian Mowrey
Can you imagine if the raw data said:
* (no vaccine) infections = 10% increase in losses
* vaccinated infection = no increase in loss
* vaccinated no infection = no increase in loss
They would publish the raw data in a heart beat.
Something similar happened here in Vic Aus once we crossed 50 or 60% vaccinated: the daily presser changed from "X unvaccinated in hospital / ICU" to, "X not fully vaccinated in hospital / ICU". The really annoying part about this was the pro-vaxers read / interpreted and then posted on social media things like "X people in hospital are unvaccinated!! selfish assholes!!" - when the presser / data had in fact said, "not fully vaccinated". It was like OAS applied to covid outcome data releases.
I'm glad someone's paying attention. Maternity outcomes seems like a really, really important thing to know-- I've been hammering away looking for answers on the public-health-data side of things, and there's just so much... not available. Even my home state only reports those numbers once a year, all at once... so you can't find anything from the second half of 2021... and in most places women of childbearing age weren't vaccinated until mid-year! There is almost nothing that outcome stats from June could tell you about vaccine effects, or whether they're safe during pregnancy :(
Then there's tantalizingly irritating things like this:
--Where it *looks* like Alberta might, possibly, have had a mere six-month reporting lag (or they start their reporting year in August. Shrug.)... but then this past August 13, all on the same day, suddenly all their open data pages related to maternity/newborn stats suddenly give this message:
"Effective July 30, 2021 csv file downloads have been removed for this dataset."
WTF does that mean? They posted it, and then took it down? You can't get that data anymore? Inquiring minds want to know!
Thanks - "Editor’s note: Nature recognizes that transgender men and non-binary people can become pregnant. We occasionally use ‘women’ in this story when discussing studies that used the same language." is the perfect chaser.
"This study shows that a category of humans that Nature acknowledges does not exist are protected"
I vote for pier review. Just make all the authors of this study walk off of one.
It boggles my little plebeian brain how so much research takes place in the "intuitively sounds like it will lead to a false conclusion, but we do this all the time so it's ok" design space
Hi Brian my apologies but can you give a top level summary of your findings? Based on the points you review, I am guessing it would be something like: "Covid vaccination during pregnancy does not improve any birth outcomes and may in fact be harmful."
There's nothing to derive about outcomes, only about the study. So: "The COPS study findings are all likely to be misleading. The study doesn't tell us anything we want to know, manipulates its own results, and hides half of the raw data."
No conclusions could be drawn from this study. (Except that the study authors are corrupt and/or incompetent.)
Very true: incompetence is both fostered and rewarded these days. Corruption has been grandfathered in. Mediocrity is the benchmark. That's my top level summary.
No "evidence' or proof is necessary that there are studies and then there are "studies". A regular reminder that the vacc pimps also had their "studies".
That handwriting almost qualifies you as a GP. Almost.
However, I will have my license revoked when it is revealed that the composition pad was on my lap
Thanks for taking the time to pick this apart. It is deeply frustrating that someone, somewhere, apparently has access to maternity outcome data from the second half of 2021, but these numbers don't seem to have been made public, anywhere. I want to see that data! Particularly for August thru December!
Can you imagine if the raw data said:
* (no vaccine) infections = 10% increase in losses
* vaccinated infection = no increase in loss
* vaccinated no infection = no increase in loss
They would publish the raw data in a heart beat.
Something similar happened here in Vic Aus once we crossed 50 or 60% vaccinated: the daily presser changed from "X unvaccinated in hospital / ICU" to, "X not fully vaccinated in hospital / ICU". The really annoying part about this was the pro-vaxers read / interpreted and then posted on social media things like "X people in hospital are unvaccinated!! selfish assholes!!" - when the presser / data had in fact said, "not fully vaccinated". It was like OAS applied to covid outcome data releases.
And I want to hash posts out of the data! Everything is behind the iron curtain. The V-Safe study has been dark since September.
I'm glad someone's paying attention. Maternity outcomes seems like a really, really important thing to know-- I've been hammering away looking for answers on the public-health-data side of things, and there's just so much... not available. Even my home state only reports those numbers once a year, all at once... so you can't find anything from the second half of 2021... and in most places women of childbearing age weren't vaccinated until mid-year! There is almost nothing that outcome stats from June could tell you about vaccine effects, or whether they're safe during pregnancy :(
Then there's tantalizingly irritating things like this:
https://methylethyl.dreamwidth.org/12752.html
--Where it *looks* like Alberta might, possibly, have had a mere six-month reporting lag (or they start their reporting year in August. Shrug.)... but then this past August 13, all on the same day, suddenly all their open data pages related to maternity/newborn stats suddenly give this message:
"Effective July 30, 2021 csv file downloads have been removed for this dataset."
WTF does that mean? They posted it, and then took it down? You can't get that data anymore? Inquiring minds want to know!
Thanks for this. Nature morning newsletter was pimping this crap yesterday.
I don't subscribe - luckily I was randomly looking for Public Health Scotland data yesterday anyway. It's probably going to get a lot of mileage.
Well if you're a glutton for punishment: https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-022-00031-8
Thanks - "Editor’s note: Nature recognizes that transgender men and non-binary people can become pregnant. We occasionally use ‘women’ in this story when discussing studies that used the same language." is the perfect chaser.
"This study shows that a category of humans that Nature acknowledges does not exist are protected"
The future of Scotland, killed by a clotting neurotoxin. I blame the TNI primarily. News would be reaching more people if the TNI could be broken.
How about a fraud charge, with a mandatory prison sentence?
I vote for pier review. Just make all the authors of this study walk off of one.
It boggles my little plebeian brain how so much research takes place in the "intuitively sounds like it will lead to a false conclusion, but we do this all the time so it's ok" design space