Hi Matthew, very much enjoyed your irreverent letter to Dr Schooley and your previous demolition of Roman et al.
Whilst Roman et al has been the subject of much specific criticism, I've only come across one specific critique of the Bryant et al meta-analysis. (Clearly, there's been plenty of broad/vague criticism which seems to have consisted of recitation of the "small studies, low-quality studies" mantra!)
The one specific critique is by Gideon Meyerowitz-Katz
If you can find a moment, would you be able to give your opinion as to his critique. I'm not statistically competent to pass judgment and so would very much appreciate the thoughts of someone who is. Thanks!
The concern is this table entry: "Spontaneous abortion: <20 wk: published-incidence: 10–26%, study-incidence: 104/827 (12.6%)"
Accompanied by this footnote: "Data on pregnancy loss are based on 827 participants in the v-safe pregnancy registry who received an mRNA Covid-19 vaccine (BNT162b2 [Pfizer–BioNTech] or mRNA-1273 [Moderna]) from December 14, 2020, to February 28, 2021, and who reported a completed pregnancy. A total of 700 participants (84.6%) received their first eligible dose in the third trimester. "
So it appears that the number of first-and-second trimester vaccinees was 127, and that the miscarriage rate for them was 104/127, or over 80%. If this interpretation is correct, the vaccine is aborting ~60% of pregnancies in the first and second trimesters (over the expected published rates).
This is in direct contradiction to the paper's conclusion: "Preliminary findings did not show obvious safety signals among pregnant persons who received mRNA Covid-19 vaccines. "
Here's an interesting assessment of health research in general. The link is a review of a blog post at bmj.com:
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2021/07/26/time-to-assume-that-health-research-is-fraudulent-until-proven-otherwise/
Hi Matthew, very much enjoyed your irreverent letter to Dr Schooley and your previous demolition of Roman et al.
Whilst Roman et al has been the subject of much specific criticism, I've only come across one specific critique of the Bryant et al meta-analysis. (Clearly, there's been plenty of broad/vague criticism which seems to have consisted of recitation of the "small studies, low-quality studies" mantra!)
The one specific critique is by Gideon Meyerowitz-Katz
https://gidmk.medium.com/does-ivermectin-work-for-covid-19-1166126c364a
If you can find a moment, would you be able to give your opinion as to his critique. I'm not statistically competent to pass judgment and so would very much appreciate the thoughts of someone who is. Thanks!
I would have worded that a bit more seriously 😬 The problem is funny-not-funny, so to get him to take you seriously...
🥸🥰
OUCH BABE😬😀❗
Thank you for this excellent writing. Brightened up my morning no end. Also thank you for all your work in general, much appreciated 🙏
“All governments lie”
Journalist I.F. Stone
Covid treatments exist. Spread the word!
https://trialsitenews.com/get-sicker-anatomy-of-a-failed-policy/
Another paper that looks like it has a serious error is https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8117969/ -- have you looked at this?
The concern is this table entry: "Spontaneous abortion: <20 wk: published-incidence: 10–26%, study-incidence: 104/827 (12.6%)"
Accompanied by this footnote: "Data on pregnancy loss are based on 827 participants in the v-safe pregnancy registry who received an mRNA Covid-19 vaccine (BNT162b2 [Pfizer–BioNTech] or mRNA-1273 [Moderna]) from December 14, 2020, to February 28, 2021, and who reported a completed pregnancy. A total of 700 participants (84.6%) received their first eligible dose in the third trimester. "
So it appears that the number of first-and-second trimester vaccinees was 127, and that the miscarriage rate for them was 104/127, or over 80%. If this interpretation is correct, the vaccine is aborting ~60% of pregnancies in the first and second trimesters (over the expected published rates).
This is in direct contradiction to the paper's conclusion: "Preliminary findings did not show obvious safety signals among pregnant persons who received mRNA Covid-19 vaccines. "