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.