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!
Ultimately, this article does nothing to break down any one study, while dismissing them wholesale as of "poor quality". Anyone citing Gorski's opinion (they guy who told Raoult he was "full of ****" for pointing out obvious data flaws in the Surgisphere study, but never apologized, and whose opinion seems uniformly in line with the narratives during the pandemic) as even "of interest" and relies only on a funnel plot and a bias score system that is nothing more than opinion isn't a particularly serious author on the topic. After all, easy to run trials *should* have funnel plots that look the same as for topics where the trials are hard to run and bias toward publication leans positive. Given that ivermectin is an easy drug to test with a known side effects profile, that doesn't really qualify as evidence of much of anything.
There are already those taking the serious approach. And when this kind of issue has become a flood, satire and levity and are good tool to lift the right spirits.
Also, I do encourage the writing of many letters. By all means, make your own serious. They should know this is serious (and that they have opened themselves wide to mockery).
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. "
This from another site clarifies the numbers: "I run into that study as well, ” ‘Preliminary Findings of mRNA Covid-19 Vaccine Safety in Pregnant Persons”, and draw the same conclusion as in the article at first.
But then two sources have confirmed that the numbers are actually not abnormal.
First d Drbeen Medical Lectures. Dr Mobeen Syed explains how the data in the study can be misinterpreted. There were 827 cases with a “completed pregnancy” in the study, of which 127 were from trimester one and two (up to week 20), and 700 who got their vaccine in the third trimester. It is important to note that “completed” here means, resulting in either live birth or a terminated pregnancy (for example by a spontanous abortion). According to the data in table 4, 104 spontanous abortions occured, and thus one might believe that 82% of the pregnancies resulted in spontanous abortions ( 104/127), but that is incorrect. The total number of pregnant “persons” who got their vaccine in trimester 1 and 2 were not 127, but 1132 in the first trimester, and 1714 in the second trimester. “A total of 96 of 104 spontaneous abortions (92.3%) occurred before 13 weeks of gestation.”, that is 96/1132 =8,5% .
I was actually in touch with the crew behand Darkhorse podcast and Bret Weinstein, and they confirmed that the numbers looks don’t look abnormal, but they will keep on looking into it and the question of side effects of the vaccine among pregnant women.
Yeah, I had the feeling this problem was a memed error, which is why I hadn't made it a personal priority to dig in. Only so much time to give. Thanks for your commentary and breakdown.
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!
Ultimately, this article does nothing to break down any one study, while dismissing them wholesale as of "poor quality". Anyone citing Gorski's opinion (they guy who told Raoult he was "full of ****" for pointing out obvious data flaws in the Surgisphere study, but never apologized, and whose opinion seems uniformly in line with the narratives during the pandemic) as even "of interest" and relies only on a funnel plot and a bias score system that is nothing more than opinion isn't a particularly serious author on the topic. After all, easy to run trials *should* have funnel plots that look the same as for topics where the trials are hard to run and bias toward publication leans positive. Given that ivermectin is an easy drug to test with a known side effects profile, that doesn't really qualify as evidence of much of anything.
Thanks for getting back to me, Matthew. Much appreciated.
I would have worded that a bit more seriously 😬 The problem is funny-not-funny, so to get him to take you seriously...
There are already those taking the serious approach. And when this kind of issue has become a flood, satire and levity and are good tool to lift the right spirits.
Also, I cannot be who I am not.
Also, I do encourage the writing of many letters. By all means, make your own serious. They should know this is serious (and that they have opened themselves wide to mockery).
🥸🥰
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. "
This from another site clarifies the numbers: "I run into that study as well, ” ‘Preliminary Findings of mRNA Covid-19 Vaccine Safety in Pregnant Persons”, and draw the same conclusion as in the article at first.
But then two sources have confirmed that the numbers are actually not abnormal.
First d Drbeen Medical Lectures. Dr Mobeen Syed explains how the data in the study can be misinterpreted. There were 827 cases with a “completed pregnancy” in the study, of which 127 were from trimester one and two (up to week 20), and 700 who got their vaccine in the third trimester. It is important to note that “completed” here means, resulting in either live birth or a terminated pregnancy (for example by a spontanous abortion). According to the data in table 4, 104 spontanous abortions occured, and thus one might believe that 82% of the pregnancies resulted in spontanous abortions ( 104/127), but that is incorrect. The total number of pregnant “persons” who got their vaccine in trimester 1 and 2 were not 127, but 1132 in the first trimester, and 1714 in the second trimester. “A total of 96 of 104 spontaneous abortions (92.3%) occurred before 13 weeks of gestation.”, that is 96/1132 =8,5% .
I was actually in touch with the crew behand Darkhorse podcast and Bret Weinstein, and they confirmed that the numbers looks don’t look abnormal, but they will keep on looking into it and the question of side effects of the vaccine among pregnant women.
https://youtu.be/QFccIHppTaA"
Yeah, I had the feeling this problem was a memed error, which is why I hadn't made it a personal priority to dig in. Only so much time to give. Thanks for your commentary and breakdown.