"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 …
"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.
"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.