Miscarriage rates in Pharma studies have been misrepresented for years in order to hide the effects of drugs on pregnancies. The COVID vaccine data is no exception.
A big irony here is that the more they have tried to stifle scientific debate and discovery, the more public they have made it, drawing many, many more people in than probably would have happened otherwise. The outcome is likely to be that decades of malfeasance will be uncovered and, hopefully, generations to come will be spared from the Harmaceutical Complex.
Thank you I have been following the ‘debate’ but it gets complicated for those without a background appreciate the time you took to produce a clear and concise summary and also for the Kenny Rogers share - 🤣
The whole acknowledging the lab leak theory I believe, is to solidify it’s a ‘real’ problem still. No doubt it’s a nasty flu, but gene therapy is never the answer. Denying responsive treatment AND Then wanting to be mutilating children to ‘make them feel better!’ WHAT is wrong with these people they want to make everyone a bunch of freaks. Like we are one big experiment and they are all Dr Frankenstein!
My goodness, this is terrifying. I have to admit, after personal experience in this area (pre-pandemic) I was also led to believe the baseline rate of miscarriage was quite high, but I can appreciate the differences in individual cases (gestational age, number of miscarriages) make it a complex area of study. Pointing out the data manipulation related to the cancer survival models and the references to "0 weeks" gestation also help to understand the disingenuous position of these hard pro-vaxxers. Thank you.
Do Not Forget the CDC put the EUA genetic injections on the Childhood Vaccination Schedule in January or February 2023. Watch the Nurses closely. I would go so far as to insist upon seeing the vials of vaccines with labels being drawn up in front of your eyes. Not behind closed doors in a med room. Do not take no for an answer or take your children and walk out.
Its too damn depressing to read this stuff any more. Yet at the same time, the war has always been over WORDS. We can't just keep silent like they want us to.
A relief to know there is a devoted and sophisticated statistical posse nipping at the heels of the frontpersons and shills presenting the COVID jab data magic tricks in the area of pregnancy. And that Twitter for now is a "safe and effective" place to have the debate and rebuttals. Bottom line: the totality of all sorts of data sets points in the same direction--a massive concern in giving the shots to anyone planning to have children. The safety signals are blaring.
This is a Masterful analysis.. wonderful Medical data detective work..Thank you.. you are Exposing the Wolf aka Big Brother and the lengths it will go to hide the Real data.. the Real Harm this Global PsyOp is producing
I have yet to figure out what the DoE has to do with lab leaks in China. The true effects of most drugs, vaccines and mRNA poisons are always hidden from the public. Otherwise, big pharma would be reduced to being a snake oil peddler traveling around the country in a circus wagon. What better way to control population than destroying the source?
TFW you realise that using a survival analysis may actually have been appropriate and it was just their way of confessing to doing type of treatment x start week x duration of treatment experiments on pregnant women, with a goal of reducing the number of full term healthy babies. Well, you can't rule that possibility out, at least.
Despite the serious nature of all of this, I cannot help but chuckle hysterically at the board game jab at the ridiculous mutton geeks🤣 Pissing myself.
Thanks for the great article and I largely agree with your overall analysis and claims regarding miscarriage rates. I hope you don't mind a bit of quibbling over a statistical point, offered to strengthen and refine your case and head-off would-be critics:
Survival analysis (including nonparametric and Cox proportional hazards) is a general set of methods for any kind of time-to-event data (not just cancer) designed to handle left and/or right censoring and provide a more refined breakdown of risks over time beyond raw rates. Censoring just means we do not know a data value exactly, but only an upper or lower bound, and so I find the statement "left censoring to 0 weeks is nonsensical" to be nonsensical itself.
Well-conducted survival analysis should enhance and complement comparisons of raw rates, and it seems perfectly reasonable to apply them here given the nearly complete uncertainty of gestational age values less than 6 weeks. Your own brief R analysis supports this and effectively compares survival curves over at-risk time windows for the two cohorts. As you have nicely said, we could do much more with full data, and I would contend this would include well-formed survival models with a left-censoring indicator at 6 weeks.
A lot of "normal" people have derived great value from Kaplan-Meier plots and Cox models for decades. So it is not survival analysis per se that is the problem here, nor Xu's sample size calculation; it is failure to apply survival analysis properly and make unbiased comparisons with raw rates, including adjustments for all potential confounders.
I remember being very surprised when I first read somewhere it's normal for around 14-15 per cent of pregnancies to end in miscarriage. Instinctively I thought to myself "that can't be right". Thank you for clarifying. Brilliant. Do you have an opinion on the work Naomi Wolfe's team is doing in this area? Is she about right in her calculations?
A big irony here is that the more they have tried to stifle scientific debate and discovery, the more public they have made it, drawing many, many more people in than probably would have happened otherwise. The outcome is likely to be that decades of malfeasance will be uncovered and, hopefully, generations to come will be spared from the Harmaceutical Complex.
Thank you I have been following the ‘debate’ but it gets complicated for those without a background appreciate the time you took to produce a clear and concise summary and also for the Kenny Rogers share - 🤣
The whole acknowledging the lab leak theory I believe, is to solidify it’s a ‘real’ problem still. No doubt it’s a nasty flu, but gene therapy is never the answer. Denying responsive treatment AND Then wanting to be mutilating children to ‘make them feel better!’ WHAT is wrong with these people they want to make everyone a bunch of freaks. Like we are one big experiment and they are all Dr Frankenstein!
My goodness, this is terrifying. I have to admit, after personal experience in this area (pre-pandemic) I was also led to believe the baseline rate of miscarriage was quite high, but I can appreciate the differences in individual cases (gestational age, number of miscarriages) make it a complex area of study. Pointing out the data manipulation related to the cancer survival models and the references to "0 weeks" gestation also help to understand the disingenuous position of these hard pro-vaxxers. Thank you.
Do Not Forget the CDC put the EUA genetic injections on the Childhood Vaccination Schedule in January or February 2023. Watch the Nurses closely. I would go so far as to insist upon seeing the vials of vaccines with labels being drawn up in front of your eyes. Not behind closed doors in a med room. Do not take no for an answer or take your children and walk out.
Its too damn depressing to read this stuff any more. Yet at the same time, the war has always been over WORDS. We can't just keep silent like they want us to.
Thank you, fab article and great timing as I was just having this ‘discussion’. My eyes have been opened in so many ways, I am eternally grateful.
Viki loves human sacrifice. For sure. Especially babies.
A relief to know there is a devoted and sophisticated statistical posse nipping at the heels of the frontpersons and shills presenting the COVID jab data magic tricks in the area of pregnancy. And that Twitter for now is a "safe and effective" place to have the debate and rebuttals. Bottom line: the totality of all sorts of data sets points in the same direction--a massive concern in giving the shots to anyone planning to have children. The safety signals are blaring.
This is a Masterful analysis.. wonderful Medical data detective work..Thank you.. you are Exposing the Wolf aka Big Brother and the lengths it will go to hide the Real data.. the Real Harm this Global PsyOp is producing
I have yet to figure out what the DoE has to do with lab leaks in China. The true effects of most drugs, vaccines and mRNA poisons are always hidden from the public. Otherwise, big pharma would be reduced to being a snake oil peddler traveling around the country in a circus wagon. What better way to control population than destroying the source?
TFW you realise that using a survival analysis may actually have been appropriate and it was just their way of confessing to doing type of treatment x start week x duration of treatment experiments on pregnant women, with a goal of reducing the number of full term healthy babies. Well, you can't rule that possibility out, at least.
Despite the serious nature of all of this, I cannot help but chuckle hysterically at the board game jab at the ridiculous mutton geeks🤣 Pissing myself.
Thanks for the great article and I largely agree with your overall analysis and claims regarding miscarriage rates. I hope you don't mind a bit of quibbling over a statistical point, offered to strengthen and refine your case and head-off would-be critics:
Survival analysis (including nonparametric and Cox proportional hazards) is a general set of methods for any kind of time-to-event data (not just cancer) designed to handle left and/or right censoring and provide a more refined breakdown of risks over time beyond raw rates. Censoring just means we do not know a data value exactly, but only an upper or lower bound, and so I find the statement "left censoring to 0 weeks is nonsensical" to be nonsensical itself.
Well-conducted survival analysis should enhance and complement comparisons of raw rates, and it seems perfectly reasonable to apply them here given the nearly complete uncertainty of gestational age values less than 6 weeks. Your own brief R analysis supports this and effectively compares survival curves over at-risk time windows for the two cohorts. As you have nicely said, we could do much more with full data, and I would contend this would include well-formed survival models with a left-censoring indicator at 6 weeks.
A lot of "normal" people have derived great value from Kaplan-Meier plots and Cox models for decades. So it is not survival analysis per se that is the problem here, nor Xu's sample size calculation; it is failure to apply survival analysis properly and make unbiased comparisons with raw rates, including adjustments for all potential confounders.
I remember being very surprised when I first read somewhere it's normal for around 14-15 per cent of pregnancies to end in miscarriage. Instinctively I thought to myself "that can't be right". Thank you for clarifying. Brilliant. Do you have an opinion on the work Naomi Wolfe's team is doing in this area? Is she about right in her calculations?
And when confronted with malfeasance, the “experts” just yell louder. Can they do that during a neck stretch? Hopefully we’ll find out.