Immediate red flags are differences in the groups, such as the higher prevalence of smoking in the "COVID" group which hasn't been seen in real world studies. And the smoker group had the exact same educational history - you don't usually see that.
Always worth looking at the supplementary to look for inconsistencies in published data.
These figures on a test negative design show that the "effectiveness" was only 9%. Bearing in mind miscategorisation bias, this means there was negative efficacy against infection.
And, as we have seen previously, these non-randomised studies bias towards smokers in the unvaccinated group, which is the primary driver for preterm labour.
Oh look (RR=0.78, p<0.05)
Table 3b gives the outcomes for those pesky "unvaccinated" women by COVID status, showing the only fetal outcome difference was preterm birth, which could entirely be accounted for by the group smoking rates.
The UK maternal mortality rate is 7 per 100,000 births (2017).
In this series of unvaccinated women there were 4 deaths. This should not have happened. The probability of 4 deaths in 1732 patients... 0.00001
Note that the table 3b breakdown was not published for the vaccinated women, demonstrating an innate bias by the authors.
And one death has been removed in table 5, which should have 5 deaths in total if there was one death in the vaccinated group.
If there truly were 4 or 5 deaths in this series of 2738 pregnant women, the whole trial group should must be audited because this level of maternal mortality is off the scale.
Those 5 deaths... 4 were in the unvaccinated who received antibiotic treatment at a lower rate despite having "more COVID". Which likely means they had treatment withheld compared to the vaccinated group.
If that was the #3tablets needed for post-viral pneumonia...
It would suggest that those women were treated with prejudice, which resulted in their death.
So I am calling on EVERY death in that paper to be criminally and independently investigated.
There is something fishy going on with this NCBI record. The Protein record was updated in a hurry after the discovery of this protein, with a reference to a seemingly unrelated Nature paper from 2003.
The lead author on the 2003 reference is the supervisor on the 2018 ref
The original 2003 paper from Thien-Fah Mah was written as an affiliate of Dartmouth Med School in New Hampshire.
Damning: @kevinault@vikilovesfacs and @ztkelly were recruited by @projecthalo to coerce pregnant women to taken an experimental therapy in pregnancy by selling a lie that COVID caused stillbirths and deaths and the therapy prevents them.
The chart is from a breakdown of the recently released Scottish ICU report, which includes pregnancy data and attempts to scare the reader into believing that there was a pregnancy COVID catastrophe in 2020.
But Vicky's misinformation unravels when we see that she is quoting a paper from Jan 2022 when the majority of the women in the analysis were "unvaccinated". Base rate fallacy anyone?
Only 12% of the cohort had a "vaccine" but of course these would occupy a lesser proportion of risk-days, because they occurred later in the study period.
New Cheese π§π§π§on #Blotgate - The emerging scandal that keeps on giving.
The EMA and FDA reviews of the Pfizer BNT162b2 molecular biology assays were not independent reviews at all.
Pfizer wrote their documents. @chrismartenson
The paper that David is referring to is published as a "peer reviewed" paper in @JPharmSciences
Except it wasn't that at all, it was a submission by Pfizer in response to the EMA and FDA questions posed in relation to their gene therapy product.
[PDF: jpharmsci.org/action/showPdfβ¦]
It has simply been reconstituted as a "peer reviewed" manuscript.
These are the claims in the paper but they are not shown to be true.
Let's ignore the "safe and effective" claim for obvious reasons