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.
“The important point is the big picture: the fact that in one big country with lots of different regions taking different public health responses, there was no obvious relationship between interventions and outcomes. “
That’s absolutely key. Unless lockdowns can be clearly shown to make a decisive difference, then, in scientific terms, the support for what was always an unlikely idea doesn’t exist.
For sure. And makes Boris Johnson out to be the bare faced liar we all know he is.
“it was the lockdown which brought the cases down”
Liar.
Trouble is, BBRC, is that millions of people believe him.
That is what politicians strive for and what they are paid to do. Our job is to say the truth, of the two measures that can affect infections (lockdown and vaccination) vaccination is best at present.
No substantive evidence for vaccines, either.
Again – the null hypothesis stands.
Vaccines for the over-60s, and that’s assuming proper vaccines, and not these experimental ones.
PHE would beg to differ based on an analysis of 300k subjects and follow-up. The degree of protection from vaccination from symptomatic disease is far from the null.
See the plot, the effect is obvious, no need for dumb-arse hifallutin Latin.
I fell off my bike ten days ago.
Since then, Covid infection rates and deaths have gone down substantially.
Behold, I can work miracles.
I’m sorry you fell off your bike, but it’s a stupid claim, missus, hence are we to assume you are stupid? Explain the link, or find a better theory.
If you need it explaining, you are the stupid one. Look at the definitions of correlation and causation, anybody with half a brain can see that the drop off in a seasonal virus is nothing to do with ‘vaccines’ or NPI’s.
*please note, I don’t think that Annie actually fell off her bike, probably apocryphal fellah.
Sorry you don’t understand standard English. Another item to catch up on.
“PHE would beg to differ”
How true that is. They’re into misleading – as noted by the CEBM, if you recall.
Just quote to me the ARR figures, that I’m sure they’ve published
For many reasons we use relative risk reduction. You’re obsessed with unmeasurable absolute values.
what about this for you null hypothesis, a plot assymptotically trending to zero? You think it’s just good luck? yeah right. You are demented with bitterness. No problem spurn the vaccine, and get lockdown, harder, longer, sooner…. you are the perfect author of your own misery, too stubborn/stupid for your own good.
Getting those blinding lights again where you can’t see anything but this monotonously repeated graph which simply describes the expected curve?
Which curve is interesting on the upward slope in suggesting that the introduction of the vaccines might well have caused a rise in mortality that may have actually delayed the natural decrease.
You are quite entitled to buy into the vaccine mythology that gives the Covidevils more power – but don’t expect others to do so.
Oh … and simple logic is another thing to try to get a grasp of. As well as the folly of resorting to ad hominem (now that is Latin) gibberish when you’re losing an argument. It’s always a tacit (from the Latin) admission of defeat or ignorance.
Earlier to-day you were claiming that self-imposed lockdowns had resulted in a 70% plus decline in the infection rate (See Oxford study post).
That, of course, was complete nonsense. There is no evidence that lockdowns have any more than a marginal effect on infection rates as we see from the US.
There are two measures that might account for it, lockdown, vaccination or both. It does not matter which dominates, and there is presently no way to tell anyway. if they work, I’m happy..if you’re not happy, too bad.
Neither lockdown nor vaccines can satisfactorily explain the 2 peaks or the subsequent declines.
1/ The declines began BEFORE lockdowns could have taken effect.
2/ This means that infection rate was slowing several days before that (dynamics of virus transmission)
3/ ZOE is useful as a leading indicator but it doesn’t capture hospital and care home infections which caused a big chunk of the deaths in Dec & Jan.
4/ The most reliable data are the figures related to DATE of Deaths since they are not influenced by scale of testing. This shows a peak on or about Jan 21st 2021 (using 7 day moving average) .
The Mean time from initial infection to death follows 2 Gaussian distributions, i.e. ;
Incubation Period ~5.1 days
Symptoms to Death ~17.8 days
Total Time ~23 days.
This puts peak infection at the end of December – possibly a bit later since many of the over 80s died following the Pfizer vaccine which significantly suppressed their immune systems.
Further to my other reply to you, Tim Spector (ZOE) actually supports my point about cases falling before lockdown. The UK introduced the second lockdown on Nov 5th. On November 6th, TS writes
https://covid.joinzoe.com/post/over-the-second-wave
Before every lockdown the “COvid death” curves were on a downward trend
“There are two measures that might account for it, lockdown, vaccination or both.”
Errr … So what happened in April 2020 when neither applied??????
> to what happened in April 2020 when neither applied?
in April 2020, the PM was in critcal care and 1,000 a day were dying with covid19.
If you look at deaths rather than infections then the decline last spring was almost as steep as this year. Obviously the decline last year wasn’t due to vaccines, so it makes no sense to claim this years decline was.
Yes – I’m afraid the key point was entirely missed. As usual. I don’t think the fact of a steep ‘unaided’ decline from a higher point in a similar curve was noticed, either.
Hopefully fon has had his jab just like a good boy should.
He / she will be dead within twelve months.
Enjoy it while you can.
I can show lockdown probabley did buy a very small advantage here, but at huge cost, not really worth it.
There are only two measures, lockdown and vaccination, both have some effect. Vaccination has the biggest effect now, in conjunction with better weather.
False dichotomy: there is another skywalker, sorry, way, the way in which we protected the vulnerable and took basic precautions, banning large indoor events but otherwise letting people get on with their lives like a liberal democrasy should.
you can vote on it…
No, we can’t.
Look at the graph. Read the article. Lockdowns don’t work to control the virus spread. They may temporarily delay it, that’s all, if everyone, absolutely everyone is confined to their homes, but you destroy the economy, people would die from other causes, and the virus would spread around again as soon as lockdown is lifted.
Unless you do what Australia and NZ did of course: lock down until the virus is eliminated (easier for them to do because seasonality meant it didn’t get very prevalent in the first place) and then seal the borders to stop it getting back in.
Most countries don’t have that capability though.
I vaguely aggree with that, it’s a good plot, but tells us little.
Unfortunately, that won’t change their minds, or stop them from imposing them again.
They’re not going to let data get in the way of a good narrative.
The plot tells us it’s not worth doing lockdown, but ut tells us that in a complicated way! It’s a good plot that tells us nothing. In conclusion, there appears to be no material difference between doing lockdown or not doing it, it is best to not do it since lockdown is disruptive.
Two of the main things that differentiate various states are their relative populations and their climate. So let’s look at this graph, in particular the 4 outliers at the right which all did winter lockdown, and had high death rates, and the outliers on the left which did no lockdowns. Sometimes in statistics, the outliers tell the story.OK, first the high fatality outliers
Rhode island, 1,057,125, climate cold
Massachusetts, 7 m, cold
New York 20m, v. cold (see midNight Cowboy)
New Jersey, 9m, v cols (see above)
So big populations, relatively, and all cold and damp (maritime).
So no obvious answers leap out yet, so let’s see low mortality outliers
Hawaii, 1.5m, v. warm.
vermont, .6m, very cold
Alaska, .75m, very cold
Maine 1.3m, v cold
So again nothing obvious. The size/climate number on the outliers do not give the game away. So I’m stuck. What IS going on. What’s the big difference? The plot’s colour pattern says the distribution of outcomes wrt lockdown/no lockdown is random.
There are 20 states with below average mortality that did lockdown, and 14 states, with above average average mortality that did lockdown. It is too close to call, but it slightly favours a lockdown approach. But let’s see the other side of that. There are 9 states with below average mortality that did not lockdown, and 8 states, with above average average mortality that did not lockdown. it is too close to call, but it favours a slightly no lockdown approach.
So certainly no at all clincher in the plot. It’s a good plot that tells us nothing. In conclusion, since there appears to be no material difference between doing lockdown or not doing it, it is best to not do it since lockdown is disruptive.
There is a real virus around, its called ‘fon’.
It’s harmless.
Well at least you’ve acknowledged this here. Elsewhere you blather on about lockdowns and vaccinations being the only two ways of dealing with disease. It’s obvious lockdowns cause at least as much damage in the short term as they prevent, and in the long term far more.
>lockdowns and vaccinations being the only two ways
please tell us the others.
Growing natural population immunity; seasonal effects – the basic nature of viruses.
The fact you even need to point this out to him/her/they demonstrates the worthlessness of continuing a discussion with him/her/they. I tried to yesterday, but it’s just a waste of keyboard time.
Fon has hit the bottle.
Hilarious.
There are two ways to deal with fon, who is clearly a 77 Brigade amalgam:
take the piss or ignore the dozy ducker.
Dr Fauci says the people in the states that locked down didn’t obey the lockdown. And he seems to think he is making a point in his favour by doing so, which is worrying.
And in the states that didn’t lockdown, people just did it anyway, more rigorously than the ones that had it but didn’t obey? amazing
Surely the main reason lockdown doesn’t work is that people with a high viral load generally feel pretty unwell so stay at home without being told to do so. Therefore anyone who feels well enough to go out is unlikely to be highly contagious and it’s therefore pointless to make them stay home.
Isn’t Oregon the state which kills old people?. If it’s the one I am thinking of, hospice care also suffered after this started. And now… you see where crimes against humanity lead.
Brilliant article on the US ‘case study’. I know nothing is really new but for the less informed these are the key arguments that go against the lockdown strategy as a viable or successful one. The real ‘negacionists’ are the ones (MSM/politicians/experts) who either don´t want to see this evidence or find funny arguments to, in desperation, try to counteract it. Trouble is: this is the REALITY and you cannot pretend it doesn´t exist!
The argument most people use against this kind of data is this:
‘Yeah but those states still had SOME measures like masks/social-distancing and without those? The deaths would have gone up! And if those non-lockdown states had locked? Their deaths would be even lower.’
‘And anyway the population density is different so you can’t compare them.’
Not my argument but it’s what people always say to me. People appear to not want to believe the counter arguments.
Not sure why I got downvoted for that. I’m just relaying what people say to me!