They don't care about the signal that appears from their distortion of the data because they are only worried about obscuring whatever the real data is. The goal is just to say 'it was monitored' without actually monitoring it. Whatever we think from the numbers they put together is irrelevant.
I'm still on Male's side on this one btw, haha. Voluntary brand choice cannot be assumed random.
They don't care about the signal that appears from their distortion of the data because they are only worried about obscuring whatever the real data is. The goal is just to say 'it was monitored' without actually monitoring it. Whatever we think from the numbers they put together is irrelevant.
I'm still on Male's side on this one btw, haha. Voluntary brand choice cannot be assumed random.
What you are saying is that women would say "I am early in pregnancy so I would prefer Moderna for now" and another woman would say to herself "I am late into pregnancy so I will take Pfizer". There is no plausible path to such decision making
"There is no plausible path" are just words, not a fact.
Moderna had more cultural status in the period we're worried about. More affluent, PMC women could have been more likely to seek out Moderna and more trusting of The Science and likely to get injected while early in pregnancy. Less affluent women more likely to accept Pfizer and to wait until they were pressured by obgyn. The 'preliminary findings' cohort was overwhelmingly healthcare workers so these biases wouldn't apply, but afterward they would.
And once again it's impossible for a disparate fertility impact, if there was one, not to have affected the periconception cohort makeup in some additive fashion.
How do you come to every one of those conclusions? I'm not sure it matters, but since you offer a counter to something you think is just words and not a fact, you do spark my curiosity.
Well, by having "plausible paths" that I could already imagine and give examples of... Really my comment about words vs fact was just a turn of phrase since the words in question are all subjective.
my recollection is that early on, the shots were in "short supply" and you had to fight to get an appointment, any appointment, possibly driving a long distance, and you were told to take whatever shot was offered -- Moderna or Pfizer -- "does not matter."
I'm referring to early on, when the shots were first offered to the elderly and essential workers. Could this have been the case earlier, when offered to first responders?
The early enrollees had no difference between brands in percentage that were preconception or first trimester upon injection. But, these were almost all healthcare workers because they were injected in winter, before availability to conception-age women in general public.
Affluent PMC would have been more likely to not "take whatever" and seek out what was briefly considered the premium product in the media / PMC class. And with pregnancy the biases that go with income are huge, though often contradictory (better care, but older, etc.). So it's never safe to make any conclusions about the results without the raw data.
Any pregnant woman who allows herself to be vaccinated with anything is both foolish and ignorant. I recall when my wife was pregnant in 1964, she would not even take an aspirin. Just a few years later quite few English women took Thalidomide, and their babies were born without arms and legs.
Dr Clare Craig pointed out "ectopic pregnancy", that is NOT vaccine-related for vaccines given after first couple of weeks, also indicates that early-pregnancy vaccines were also predominantly Pfizer (just like overall).
Right - sorry for plugging in the wrong numbers, was on my way out the door.
So actually suggestive of a early bias for Pfizer - however, like I pointed out yesterday, that could actually reflect a higher fertility impact from Moderna!
I think that Slide 33 is totally scandalous and deserves a serious conversation, and your questions (and Vikis Male's attempt at debunking) and my search for answers were very useful in considering possible counterarguments and finding data that answers such counterarguments.
I love disagreements and healthy discussions and I always value your input!!!
They don't care about the signal that appears from their distortion of the data because they are only worried about obscuring whatever the real data is. The goal is just to say 'it was monitored' without actually monitoring it. Whatever we think from the numbers they put together is irrelevant.
I'm still on Male's side on this one btw, haha. Voluntary brand choice cannot be assumed random.
What you are saying is that women would say "I am early in pregnancy so I would prefer Moderna for now" and another woman would say to herself "I am late into pregnancy so I will take Pfizer". There is no plausible path to such decision making
"There is no plausible path" are just words, not a fact.
Moderna had more cultural status in the period we're worried about. More affluent, PMC women could have been more likely to seek out Moderna and more trusting of The Science and likely to get injected while early in pregnancy. Less affluent women more likely to accept Pfizer and to wait until they were pressured by obgyn. The 'preliminary findings' cohort was overwhelmingly healthcare workers so these biases wouldn't apply, but afterward they would.
And once again it's impossible for a disparate fertility impact, if there was one, not to have affected the periconception cohort makeup in some additive fashion.
The issue is that they should have produced that data, no?
They should have released the anonymized pregnancy dataset.
No chance they will do so without a court order
Indeed - As with every other pregnancy+vaccine study / gov. report in the world. It's all omerta.
I believe most of those women are medical workers
45%
How do you come to every one of those conclusions? I'm not sure it matters, but since you offer a counter to something you think is just words and not a fact, you do spark my curiosity.
Well, by having "plausible paths" that I could already imagine and give examples of... Really my comment about words vs fact was just a turn of phrase since the words in question are all subjective.
my recollection is that early on, the shots were in "short supply" and you had to fight to get an appointment, any appointment, possibly driving a long distance, and you were told to take whatever shot was offered -- Moderna or Pfizer -- "does not matter."
I'm referring to early on, when the shots were first offered to the elderly and essential workers. Could this have been the case earlier, when offered to first responders?
The early enrollees had no difference between brands in percentage that were preconception or first trimester upon injection. But, these were almost all healthcare workers because they were injected in winter, before availability to conception-age women in general public.
Affluent PMC would have been more likely to not "take whatever" and seek out what was briefly considered the premium product in the media / PMC class. And with pregnancy the biases that go with income are huge, though often contradictory (better care, but older, etc.). So it's never safe to make any conclusions about the results without the raw data.
Any pregnant woman who allows herself to be vaccinated with anything is both foolish and ignorant. I recall when my wife was pregnant in 1964, she would not even take an aspirin. Just a few years later quite few English women took Thalidomide, and their babies were born without arms and legs.
Dr Clare Craig pointed out "ectopic pregnancy", that is NOT vaccine-related for vaccines given after first couple of weeks, also indicates that early-pregnancy vaccines were also predominantly Pfizer (just like overall).
https://twitter.com/ClareCraigPath/status/1583380862670098434
*edit: nvm this whole comment, I did the wrong maths because hurrying:
Right, but with a ratio that clearly suggests a huge early bias for Moderna.
Overall enrollee ratio Moderna/Pfizer .656, ectopic "estimated early" ratio Moderna/Pfizer .896 -
However, if this actually just reflects another disparate outcome rate for the brands, then it doesn't affirm an early bias after all.
Overall pfizer/moderna ratio: 12751/8356 = 1.52
Ectopic Pfizer/moderna ratio (early pregnancies, unrelated to vax impact, but shows vax uptake early in pregnancy): 17/10 = 1.7
Both very close numbers suggesting early pregnancy vax mix is the same, more or less, as overall mix
Right - sorry for plugging in the wrong numbers, was on my way out the door.
So actually suggestive of a early bias for Pfizer - however, like I pointed out yesterday, that could actually reflect a higher fertility impact from Moderna!
Happens to me all the time too!!!
I think that Slide 33 is totally scandalous and deserves a serious conversation, and your questions (and Vikis Male's attempt at debunking) and my search for answers were very useful in considering possible counterarguments and finding data that answers such counterarguments.
I love disagreements and healthy discussions and I always value your input!!!