"Trust us bro" is Jeffrey Morris's dogma that means nobody can verify any of this data. It is most prevalent in the pregnancy data relating to COVID - I wrote about it in a 2 part series after Viki Male infamously dumped a bunch of these junk studies as evidence of the safety of the COVID vaccines in pregnancy.
Here if anyone wants to look into this further specific to the pregnancy papers (apologies for the crossref:
As an aside "FeesGarden" also covers this synthetic data scandal in her latest cryptic blog which is Australia focused - pertinent given the involvement of Monash and Perth universities in the background of the paper you have discussed.
That's a pretty trick experimental design - exclude all the people who might lead to you NOT getting the result you want, do the study, then declare your result is confirmed. Oh wait, that's exactly what Pfizer did, where if my memory is correct they excluded pregnant females from their study, which got the jabs approved.
Thank you for your brilliant article. Additionally to all what is already said, pregnancy outcomes are not limited to absense of birth defects. The vaccinated cohorte should be followed up into adulthood and compared with non vaccinated group. I see this scientific fallacy with clotrimazole exposure during pregnancy. Many thousand exposed pregnancies did not show increased problems with skeletal abnormalities of the newborn babies. But clotrimazole is an endocrine disruptor. The European Union monitors clotrimazole levels in surface waters and allows 20 nanogramm per litre which is far less of what will get to the fetus. Konsequences of exposure during intrauterine development will not be seen at birth but will show up much later in life
The truth of the actual safety of the Covid "vaccine" and the certainty that it clearly is not safe, is surely obvious, when one realises that Pfizer did not have one single woman in their trial of 140,000 people, who was in the first trimester of pregnancy!
If, as a manufacturer of medications, you deliberately choose NOT to have one section of society within a trial, that should tell any observer, let alone a rigorously critical scientific one, all they need to know, surely?
I have forgotten the actual statistics, but I think that it was intended to have 4,000 women who were in their second and third trimester in the trial, but only 400 signed up.
Although the numbers in the trial were smaller than intended, the fact that a particular group of pregnant women were in trial and one critical group were not, should tell any observer, all they need to know.
It should tell anyone that, first, pregnant women were not forgotten, but that there was an immense fear, due to the critical development phase that is the first trimester, that the manufacturer was frightened of the outcomes of giving this "vaccine" in the first trimester.
Furthermore though, how many pregnant women are over 80, with multiple co-morbidities, and hence in the very vulnerable group that might benefit from the jab?
I appreciate that, from the data realised by DOGE in America, of the age of tens of thousands of Americans claiming state assistance, who are well over 140 years old, there may well be more than I initially thought. So perhaps my previous skeptical question is misplaced!
"Misleading by Design": Sounds like the name of the next Documentary or Blockbuster Bestseller. This is the very business model of much of the corporate world's sales operations. John Stauber and Sheldon Rampton's book Toxic Sludge is Good For You: Lies, Damn Lies, and the Public Relations Industry has set the beat for this theme. So far, a lot of people keep getting taken in, as P.R. has become more and more sophisticated. Here's a possible subtitle for the book: " Why Injecting Toxic Sludge Into Yourself While Pregnant Helps You Produce a Healthy Baby". When do you spell Public Relations this way: C.I.A.?
This is yet another example of TGA going all the way with FDA - no independent assessment re their safety of pregnant women and their babies. False statements in informed Consent. Prof John Skerritt under whom the TGA admin exemptions were signed is so slack.
When we look at antivirals Paxlovid and Lagevrio which is available scripted medicine by nurse practitioners in the field - kept in aged care medical stores for the elderly residents…. How do the systems ensure that staff desperate not to have to go on sick leave with COVID aren’t taking Lagevrio known for mutations that WHO in 2022 warned not to be taken by those of child rearing age - ie pregnant or pre pregnant. Then there is the keenest of govt to give aboriginals access to treatments. We see the shallow flawed trials on pregnant women and withholding of SERs like miscarriage from the data. Have studies ever been done on aboriginal cohorts ?
"What, then, should we think about researchers who use the wrong techniques (either wilfully or in ignorance), use the right techniques wrongly, misinterpret their results, report their results selectively, cite the literature selectively, and draw unjustified conclusions? We should be appalled."
That’s appalling. Isn’t ‘testing’ on pregnant women of any vaccine or medication an impossibility given the risks. The life of a baby is at stake not to mention the mother. Given how readily abortion happens now along with this it makes the womb a very dangerous place.
I posted your article in a debate on Facebook. It was pointed out to me that the original paper started with Scott 135000 pregnancies. They only used shit 78000 for the study and that about 20000 were miscarriages. In your article you said they left out 20% of pregnancies. Where did you get 20% from?
"Trust us bro" is Jeffrey Morris's dogma that means nobody can verify any of this data. It is most prevalent in the pregnancy data relating to COVID - I wrote about it in a 2 part series after Viki Male infamously dumped a bunch of these junk studies as evidence of the safety of the COVID vaccines in pregnancy.
Here if anyone wants to look into this further specific to the pregnancy papers (apologies for the crossref:
https://www.arkmedic.info/p/debunking-viki-male-part-1
https://www.arkmedic.info/p/debunking-viki-male-part-2-the-calvert
As an aside "FeesGarden" also covers this synthetic data scandal in her latest cryptic blog which is Australia focused - pertinent given the involvement of Monash and Perth universities in the background of the paper you have discussed.
https://feesgarden.substack.com/p/argus-safety-web-the-australian-story-448
That's a pretty trick experimental design - exclude all the people who might lead to you NOT getting the result you want, do the study, then declare your result is confirmed. Oh wait, that's exactly what Pfizer did, where if my memory is correct they excluded pregnant females from their study, which got the jabs approved.
Exactly. Pfizer excluded pregnant women from the pivotal trial and then said “see, no adverse effects seen in pregnant woman” 😠
Pfizer = Pfooey ! Vile Piles of Bile 🤮
Thank you for your brilliant article. Additionally to all what is already said, pregnancy outcomes are not limited to absense of birth defects. The vaccinated cohorte should be followed up into adulthood and compared with non vaccinated group. I see this scientific fallacy with clotrimazole exposure during pregnancy. Many thousand exposed pregnancies did not show increased problems with skeletal abnormalities of the newborn babies. But clotrimazole is an endocrine disruptor. The European Union monitors clotrimazole levels in surface waters and allows 20 nanogramm per litre which is far less of what will get to the fetus. Konsequences of exposure during intrauterine development will not be seen at birth but will show up much later in life
Thanks Philipp, excellent point. Long term follow up is essential.
Another excellent article
Thanks David
👍 Agreed ! REAL facts, HARD analysis, Doc MaDem tells it like it is ! 👏
Thanks JB 🙌
The truth of the actual safety of the Covid "vaccine" and the certainty that it clearly is not safe, is surely obvious, when one realises that Pfizer did not have one single woman in their trial of 140,000 people, who was in the first trimester of pregnancy!
If, as a manufacturer of medications, you deliberately choose NOT to have one section of society within a trial, that should tell any observer, let alone a rigorously critical scientific one, all they need to know, surely?
I have forgotten the actual statistics, but I think that it was intended to have 4,000 women who were in their second and third trimester in the trial, but only 400 signed up.
Although the numbers in the trial were smaller than intended, the fact that a particular group of pregnant women were in trial and one critical group were not, should tell any observer, all they need to know.
It should tell anyone that, first, pregnant women were not forgotten, but that there was an immense fear, due to the critical development phase that is the first trimester, that the manufacturer was frightened of the outcomes of giving this "vaccine" in the first trimester.
Furthermore though, how many pregnant women are over 80, with multiple co-morbidities, and hence in the very vulnerable group that might benefit from the jab?
I appreciate that, from the data realised by DOGE in America, of the age of tens of thousands of Americans claiming state assistance, who are well over 140 years old, there may well be more than I initially thought. So perhaps my previous skeptical question is misplaced!
Yes, it was a disgrace…. 4000 turned into 348 recruits and then randomised half to each arm. Here was my analysis of that Pfizer trial. https://open.substack.com/pub/maryannedemasi/p/pfizer-drip-feeds-data-from-its-pregnancy?r=p03ac&utm_medium=ios
Once again, excellent work Marianne.
The conflict of interest statement says it all.
And journals think declaring COIs fixes the problem… but it doesn’t.
But don't eat soft cheese whilst pregnant, the hypocrisy is astounding
"Misleading by Design": Sounds like the name of the next Documentary or Blockbuster Bestseller. This is the very business model of much of the corporate world's sales operations. John Stauber and Sheldon Rampton's book Toxic Sludge is Good For You: Lies, Damn Lies, and the Public Relations Industry has set the beat for this theme. So far, a lot of people keep getting taken in, as P.R. has become more and more sophisticated. Here's a possible subtitle for the book: " Why Injecting Toxic Sludge Into Yourself While Pregnant Helps You Produce a Healthy Baby". When do you spell Public Relations this way: C.I.A.?
“… otherwise no competing interests, tru$t me.”
Unreal.
I wish it was. 😖
This is yet another example of TGA going all the way with FDA - no independent assessment re their safety of pregnant women and their babies. False statements in informed Consent. Prof John Skerritt under whom the TGA admin exemptions were signed is so slack.
When we look at antivirals Paxlovid and Lagevrio which is available scripted medicine by nurse practitioners in the field - kept in aged care medical stores for the elderly residents…. How do the systems ensure that staff desperate not to have to go on sick leave with COVID aren’t taking Lagevrio known for mutations that WHO in 2022 warned not to be taken by those of child rearing age - ie pregnant or pre pregnant. Then there is the keenest of govt to give aboriginals access to treatments. We see the shallow flawed trials on pregnant women and withholding of SERs like miscarriage from the data. Have studies ever been done on aboriginal cohorts ?
"What, then, should we think about researchers who use the wrong techniques (either wilfully or in ignorance), use the right techniques wrongly, misinterpret their results, report their results selectively, cite the literature selectively, and draw unjustified conclusions? We should be appalled."
https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.308.6924.283
Indeed, Doug would be rolling in his grave at the state of science today.
RIP https://blogs.bmj.com/openscience/2018/07/09/remembering-doug-altman/
What relevance do Drs. Sullivan and Munoz have to this post or this study, and why are they listed in 'Author's conflicts of interest'?
If you click on the link to the Pediatrics study, you will find those are among the authors.
Thank you. I should have looked before asking.
That’s appalling. Isn’t ‘testing’ on pregnant women of any vaccine or medication an impossibility given the risks. The life of a baby is at stake not to mention the mother. Given how readily abortion happens now along with this it makes the womb a very dangerous place.
I posted your article in a debate on Facebook. It was pointed out to me that the original paper started with Scott 135000 pregnancies. They only used shit 78000 for the study and that about 20000 were miscarriages. In your article you said they left out 20% of pregnancies. Where did you get 20% from?
Oops I was swiping and meant to use 'about' in front of the digits. Swype interpreted that as 'Scott' and then 'shit' 😂😕. My apologies 🙂
They excluded about 20% of pregnancies…one-fifth.
20,341 out of a total of 98,393 (20,341 + 78,052)….
In the original paper it seems they started with 135000 pregnancies so the 20341 is only about 15%.
Anyway the bloke that I was debating with used this as a reason to denigrate you . . .