A major study has been published in the Paediatrics journal, apparently showing that the COVID-19 vaccines are safe in pregnancy (Rowe et al.), but my background in analytic philosophy, which is very useful in pointing out flaws in arguments, keeps preventing me from accepting these sorts of studies as gospel – and in one of those rare cases the prestigious journal let me have my say. Highlights:
- There are “several ties between the study’s authors and COVID-19 vaccine manufacturers such as Pfizer, Moderna, and Novavax”. We worried about conflicts of interest, or nah?
- There were “20,341 pregnancies excluded due to pregnancy outcomes ‘other than livebirth’, which would include miscarriages and stillbirths… over 20% of the pregnancies that could legitimately have comprised the final cohort” of just under 100,000. Ridonkulous! Even just “a handful of cases could result in a very different conclusion”. And shouldn’t we already start asking questions about the fact that the number of pregnancy outcomes not resulting in live birth seems to be a little high? What happened to the curiosity of scientists over the past few years? I, for one, would really like to know how many of these females* were jabbed. How about you?
- I note that the jab has been shown in various studies to have at least temporary effects on menstruation and semen, and can be found in breastmilk, the placenta, and the foetus.
- I take issue with the study’s very narrow counting windows, since counting window issues can have a huge impact on estimating how safe and effective the jabs really are. Despite the misinformation put out by, well, everyone, we are now finding that the jab and its products can be found in vivo even years after vaccination.
Despite these issues the study found no differences “in the prevalence of major structural birth defects… given COVID-19 vaccination”. So what does it look like when we start addressing these issues?
*Extra: As a side note, the article, despite being about pregnancy, never uses the word ‘female’. Here is how the obvious females are described: “Study participants were pregnant people — including women and transgender people with the ability to become pregnant — aged 18 to 49 years. Throughout this manuscript, we use the term ‘maternal’ to indicate exposures during pregnancy or attributes of a pregnant person, and, respectively, acknowledge this may encompass pregnant non-cisgendered individuals.” That was apparently far more important than addressing the critical issues discussed above. Trust the science…
Dr Raphael Lataster is an Associate Lecturer at the University of Sydney, specialised in misinformation, and a former pharmacist. This article was first published in his Substack newsletter, Okay Then News. Read more on his research and legal actions, including his recent win against the healthcare vaccine mandate in New South Wales.
To join in with the discussion please make a donation to The Daily Sceptic.
Profanity and abuse will be removed and may lead to a permanent ban.
I suspect pregnant or soon to be pregnant women will vote on this with their feet (or arms…) and unless I’m really missing the pulse of things, it won’t be in support of the study.
Natural selection will do the rest.
“THE SCIENCE…”
…Operate at warped speed to pander to a fake pandemic narrative
…De-prioritise teratology studies, routine in medicines evaluation since the thalidomide tragedy of over 60 years ago
…Expect no unforeseen consequences and find none
No other way of putting it – Australian doctor, William McBride, who first made public the birth defects attributable to thalidomide, and Dr Frances Oldham Kelsey of the FDA, whom history credits with saving expectant American mothers from a tragedy unfolding in Europe, will be spinning in their graves.
Current scientific establishment too captured by its own hubris to look back on the lessons of a past it feels so superior to. Nemesis is diligently watching.
|The study shows thsat all the women who were unaffected by the “vaccine” were unaffected by the “vaccine”. I can do studies with 100% outcomes using that methodology, please can I have my money now.
I hardly have to persuade any here not to trust clinical trials.
They removed Maddie de Garay from the Moderna trial so they didn’t have to declare her extreme adverse reactions. Convenient that. They also left her to rot and reneged on the medical assistance promised when she signed her release form.
For a thorough review of the tricks employed, may I recommend Doctoring Data by Malcolm Kendrick.
An excellent book by an honest doctor. He also sees statins as doing more harm than good and describes the trial results as basically crap. He also won his defamation case against a Mail on Sunday hatchet job.
You’ve really got to be seriously dim to allow yourself to be injected with the gunk when pregnant.
Survival of the fittest is a cruel mistress.
The default advice given with all jabs pre Covid was not to be given to pregnant women.
Yet this article is still up on Spiked, written by an academic at the Uni of Kent, Sept 2022.
Is it an offence to publish misleading medical advice?
https://www.spiked-online.com/2022/09/02/no-the-covid-jab-is-not-dangerous-for-pregnant-women/
Why has the fertility rate fallen? Why have issues with pregnancies skyrocketed?
More junk $cience studies by the paper mill$ of $cientism. No virus. Scam/plandemic. Pilot project.
Why the hell would a pregnant woman stab herself with poisoned shit, when she knows that alcohol, drugs and other toxins are anathema for a healthy child and birth?
Idiocy.
If the study’s authors are not even aware that only women can be pregnant …
This study makes no sense because I thought we were assured that the jabs were totally safe and effective in pregnancy 3 years ago?
We lost a child in 2022 when my wife was about three months pregnant. My wife had taken three covid injections before becoming pregnant. On the day when the scan couldn’t find a heartbeat for our unborn bav I saw a succession of heartbroken women in floods of tears leaving the pre-natal unit after their scans. My wife texted me from inside the unit as NHS coves rules prevented ne from being with her for the ukrrasound to tell me they couldn’t find a heartbeat. My wife came out of the unit and told me the person performing the ultra
Just the reference to transgender people with the possibility of becoming pregnant as obviously not possible should undermine any validity in the study, along with all the very thorough list of other deficiencies you have identified.