Nov 11, 2023·edited Nov 11, 2023Liked by Tracy Beth Høeg, MD, PhD
So in the placebo arm, 159 pregnant women were studied, and 159 infants were born and lived to be studied.
In the 'vaccine' arm, 161 pregnant women were studied, but only 156 infants were born and/or lived to be studied.
Quite a shortfall in the treatment arm.
Another reason for not reaching the promised 4000 might be the difficulty of recruiting. Finding that many parents-to-be who are willing to have their babies experimented on, is a big ask. No honey, sushi or wine...but sure, inject me/my progeny with novel genetic 'software' because you're not sure whether it's safe and you want to find out.
Rightly, a very tough sell.
But yes, with these early outcomes they would have had to stop the trial.
Here is a somewhat related British Medical Journal article by Peter Doshi, "The FDA and Moderna’s cosy relationship: how lax rules enable a revolving door culture": https://www.bmj.com/content/383/bmj.p2486
Nov 6, 2023·edited Nov 6, 2023Liked by Tracy Beth Høeg, MD, PhD
It seems like women's health and particularly fertility has been a primary place for doing "bad faith" science on COVID. Perhaps it's because women who are pregnant are naturally more vigilant and so it's easier to change the culture by targeting pregnant women with advertising misinformation using badly reported science in order to keep people in lockstep with vaccine uptake.
I remember an article that came out on COVID that was pushed by UCSF specifically trying to show that "COVID puts people at risk for complications in delivery by 35%". What they failed to mention of course is that it does so if you are already overweight, have hypertension, poor income, etc. etc. There was no significant effect for healthy women. Of course, the headline was about the danger of COVID across the board and they pumped that 35% (trick to show your friends: whenever you see a percentage with no other metric, hold that frickin wallet -- anything that can fit on a headline about science is probably a deception) throughout the article. And that's how far most people will read, so now this is the culture we get.
Yes, I agree. And there is this major issue with observational studies like the UCSF one that women who get diagnosed with covid during pregnancy are different than those who may have a mild or asymptomatic case and not test and not report it to their physician. This was the issue with this recent study from Scandinavia (https://bmjpublichealth.bmj.com/content/1/1/e000314) where women who had a positive covid test during pregnancy were simply higher risk (for example they had higher rates of gestational diabetes). If the women who have a + covid test are just not as healthy, of course they are at higher risk for complications. Terrible studies like that were used to scare women into getting vaccinated. Makes me so angry. Women were also told for decades not to exercise pregnant when of course it was all a bunch of paternalist bullshit based on assumptions and anecdotes. There is of course a long history of giving crappy advice to pregnant women because high quality studies are rarely done in that population.
Injured parties must and will rise up. It’s taking longer than anyone would like but this cannot stand. The disregard for human life is unconscionable. Two vaccinated friends lost their pregnancies.
I see they designed the trial to not enroll in the first trimester of pregnancy, the same group that had the highest miscarriage rate in prior publications. This is not an accident.
Significantly higher Birth Defects are reported in Children of Jabbed Mothers, which will no doubt be covered in the Teratology study ongoing. These included Atrial septal defect, Congenital naevus, DiGeorge's syndrome, Hydrocele, Hypotonia, Microcephaly, Mucopolysaccharidosis, Polydactyly, Syndactyly, Trisomy 21, Jaundice, Low birth weight baby, Small for dates baby, Meconium aspiration syndrome, Apgar score low.
Hi Geoff, certainly trisomy 21 can't be explained by getting vaccinated during pregnancy. When you say "significantly", I'm curious what you mean because that's exactly what is so frustrating is the trial was so small, nothing was significant. But are you saying the total # of birth defects was truly significantly higher in the vaccine arm?
I am talking about "post-marketing" Pfizer cases reported to June 2022 in PSUR3, with Process 2jab, not the trial done with Process 1 jab. "Higher" refers to Pfizer's "Non-Interventional Study Group". Florida Grand Jury might extract data?
Geoff, I think the Nature article looks at how people with Down's syndrome have a cytokinopathy, not that it is caused by a cytonkinopathy. Am I misunderstanding something? But yes, this is a minor detail... are you talking about different study results that what I posted in my substack above. Should have been process 2 (or 3 depending on the buffer used?) but was there another study?
Hi Tracy, you wrote about the Pfizer trial that used highly purified RT-PCR DNA from Process 1 to make the mRNA, except for 252 people who were given the highly contaminated Process 2 material grown in Plasmd in E. coli.
I summarized the Birth Defects reported by Pfizer in the mass jabbing with Process 2.
So in the placebo arm, 159 pregnant women were studied, and 159 infants were born and lived to be studied.
In the 'vaccine' arm, 161 pregnant women were studied, but only 156 infants were born and/or lived to be studied.
Quite a shortfall in the treatment arm.
Another reason for not reaching the promised 4000 might be the difficulty of recruiting. Finding that many parents-to-be who are willing to have their babies experimented on, is a big ask. No honey, sushi or wine...but sure, inject me/my progeny with novel genetic 'software' because you're not sure whether it's safe and you want to find out.
Rightly, a very tough sell.
But yes, with these early outcomes they would have had to stop the trial.
Here is a somewhat related British Medical Journal article by Peter Doshi, "The FDA and Moderna’s cosy relationship: how lax rules enable a revolving door culture": https://www.bmj.com/content/383/bmj.p2486
Ha. Clearly we think alike since I just posted that on X! Great article!
It seems like women's health and particularly fertility has been a primary place for doing "bad faith" science on COVID. Perhaps it's because women who are pregnant are naturally more vigilant and so it's easier to change the culture by targeting pregnant women with advertising misinformation using badly reported science in order to keep people in lockstep with vaccine uptake.
I remember an article that came out on COVID that was pushed by UCSF specifically trying to show that "COVID puts people at risk for complications in delivery by 35%". What they failed to mention of course is that it does so if you are already overweight, have hypertension, poor income, etc. etc. There was no significant effect for healthy women. Of course, the headline was about the danger of COVID across the board and they pumped that 35% (trick to show your friends: whenever you see a percentage with no other metric, hold that frickin wallet -- anything that can fit on a headline about science is probably a deception) throughout the article. And that's how far most people will read, so now this is the culture we get.
Yes, I agree. And there is this major issue with observational studies like the UCSF one that women who get diagnosed with covid during pregnancy are different than those who may have a mild or asymptomatic case and not test and not report it to their physician. This was the issue with this recent study from Scandinavia (https://bmjpublichealth.bmj.com/content/1/1/e000314) where women who had a positive covid test during pregnancy were simply higher risk (for example they had higher rates of gestational diabetes). If the women who have a + covid test are just not as healthy, of course they are at higher risk for complications. Terrible studies like that were used to scare women into getting vaccinated. Makes me so angry. Women were also told for decades not to exercise pregnant when of course it was all a bunch of paternalist bullshit based on assumptions and anecdotes. There is of course a long history of giving crappy advice to pregnant women because high quality studies are rarely done in that population.
Yes! This is exactly the thing! Thank you, Dr. Høeg, as always!
Typo (“there” instead of “their” in first sentence beginning “I posted on X.”
Got it! Thank you! I really appreciate that.
We miss these things no matter how many times we proofread.
Injured parties must and will rise up. It’s taking longer than anyone would like but this cannot stand. The disregard for human life is unconscionable. Two vaccinated friends lost their pregnancies.
I see they designed the trial to not enroll in the first trimester of pregnancy, the same group that had the highest miscarriage rate in prior publications. This is not an accident.
Significantly higher Birth Defects are reported in Children of Jabbed Mothers, which will no doubt be covered in the Teratology study ongoing. These included Atrial septal defect, Congenital naevus, DiGeorge's syndrome, Hydrocele, Hypotonia, Microcephaly, Mucopolysaccharidosis, Polydactyly, Syndactyly, Trisomy 21, Jaundice, Low birth weight baby, Small for dates baby, Meconium aspiration syndrome, Apgar score low.
https://geoffpain.substack.com/p/pfizer-biontech-covid19-jab-multiple
Hi Geoff, certainly trisomy 21 can't be explained by getting vaccinated during pregnancy. When you say "significantly", I'm curious what you mean because that's exactly what is so frustrating is the trial was so small, nothing was significant. But are you saying the total # of birth defects was truly significantly higher in the vaccine arm?
Hi Tracy, "Down Syndrome is a Cytokinopathy"
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-023-05736-y
I am talking about "post-marketing" Pfizer cases reported to June 2022 in PSUR3, with Process 2jab, not the trial done with Process 1 jab. "Higher" refers to Pfizer's "Non-Interventional Study Group". Florida Grand Jury might extract data?
Geoff, I think the Nature article looks at how people with Down's syndrome have a cytokinopathy, not that it is caused by a cytonkinopathy. Am I misunderstanding something? But yes, this is a minor detail... are you talking about different study results that what I posted in my substack above. Should have been process 2 (or 3 depending on the buffer used?) but was there another study?
Hi Tracy, you wrote about the Pfizer trial that used highly purified RT-PCR DNA from Process 1 to make the mRNA, except for 252 people who were given the highly contaminated Process 2 material grown in Plasmd in E. coli.
I summarized the Birth Defects reported by Pfizer in the mass jabbing with Process 2.
https://geoffpain.substack.com/p/birth-defects-reported-by-pfizer
PSUR3 has APPENDIX 2.2: Cumulative and Interval Summary Tabulation of Serious and Non-Serious Adverse Reactions from Post-Marketing Data Sources
BNT162B2
Cumulative Reporting Period: Through 18-JUN-2022
Interval Reporting Period: 19-DEC-2021 Through 18-JUN-2022
Total Number of Cases: 507,683 (Interval) / 1,485,027 (Cumulative)
Total Number of Adverse Events (PT): 1,591,026 (Interval) i 4,964,106 (Cumulative)
thank you for sharing. )
I've been really afraid for my double jabbed pregnant friends ... what does one do? (
There were a lot of terrible things that happened in the last 3 years, but harm to unborn babies might be the worst. T