Thread by @Jikkyleaks

Cheesy Debunk 🧀🧀🧀...

HUGE red flags over this #pregnancy and #miscarriage paper, which is absolute junk.

We're going to dive in and show you why this should never have been published and anybody associated with it will be forever tainted.
academic.oup.com/humrep/advance…

https://twitter.com/DrMike_Rimmer/status/1628165788233351169

Here's the first red flag.

Redacted tables. I have never seen this in more than 20 years reviewing papers.

This is from the actual pdf on the Hum Reprod page for the paper.
web.archive.org/web/2023022600…

Now we're going to have to assume (because the titles are redacted🤦‍♀️) that the first forest plot shows the #miscarriage rate in each study. The bigger the square the more the weighting in the study - generally more for bigger studies.

The two largest raise a massive red flag

The Kachikis study has a #miscarriage rate of only 0.7% and the Kharbanda study has a miscarriage rate of 12.5%. Both given similar weightings.

How is this possible?
Well, let's look at the included Kachikis study.
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/P…

The answer is there you just have to understand the wording. 49/6244 = 0.78%. But this is JUST the women that reported a miscarrriage "at the time of their second dose". And the trimester of vaccination (hugely important) is not stated.

The Kachikis paper should not have been included because it was not looking prospectively for miscarriage.

It was merely reporting short term events in a narrow time window, of women who were pregnant many of whom would have already passed their first trimester.

The authors were also double-dipping, taking fees from Pfizer and the NICH

This paper was completely inappropriate for this meta-analysis. Massive fail - showing that the authors had no idea what they were doing here.

Worse, the 0.7% miscarriage rate is impossible - unless you are including women who were in advanced weeks of pregnancy.

Once you get past 14 weeks, miscarriage rates fall to this level.

This is what the Kachikis study did - ignored the group of interest (first trimester)

The baseline miscarriage rate in a normal population (after diagnosis by ultrasound) is well established at 5-6% (Naert et al).

#BigPharma will have you believe it is up to 25%. It's not.
arkmedic.substack.com/p/the-curious-…

Irrespective of whether you agree with the baseline rate the fact that there is such a discrepancy between Kachikis and Kharbanda, yet they were given similar weighting, shows that these authors were not competent to write this meta-analysis.

And look at Magnus and Moro - >20%

Now let's look a bit more at the 2021 Magnus study. This is actually a case-control study so shouldn't have been used in this context (overestimates the rate).

It wasn't even a study but was a letter to the discredited #lancetgate @NEJM who published it.

ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/P…

The 2022 Magnus follow-up study is of some interest and underpins a previous meta-analysis touted by @vikilovesfacs who doesn't understand the role of confounders in clinical trials.

It was quoted but not used in this analysis ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/P…

Interestingly the 2022 Magnus study, using the same pregnancy registry, does not include data on miscarriage to confirm or refute the 2021 study.

That study was massively confounded - the authors even wrote about it separately.

ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/P…

So the Magnus group
(1) failed to follow up on miscarriage rates
(2) published a study showing "no impact" on stillbirth rates despite knowing that the study was confounded by smoking and low SES
(3) Have a delusional bias towards the vaccines' efficacy (now known to be negative)

Finally we come to the last major weighted study in this ridiculous "meta-analysis". The Kharbanda study 2021.

Here it is. Another case-control study rather than a cohort study which is what is needed (otherwise the denominator is unknown)
pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34495304/

There are big red flags on this study.

The first is the overall calculated miscarriage rate. It's super low, consistent with Naert et al.

264,104 registered pregnancies
13,160 miscarriages
▶▶ 5% miscarriage rate.

This is a HUGE finding....

...because this is supposed to be a major US EMR database.

Kharbanda threw Pfizer, Moderna and the CDC under the bus.

If the baseline miscarriage should be 5% then why did the @CDCgov say that their post-vaccine miscarriage rate of 14% was OK?

igorchudov.substack.com/p/cdc-data-mod…

Or is it possible that the Kharbanda data is "too good to be true"?

Well who was the supervising author?

One Healther S Lipkind. The DSMB members were literally Pfizer employees.

The fact that Pfizer paid the DSMB members is a travesty revealed recently under deposition of Kathryn by @AaronSiriSG

The DSMB should be completely independent - but it wasn't.

thehighwire.com/videos/the-dep…

So what about Elyse Kharbanda?

She's been very busy - 50 papers in 4 years.

NIAID grant awards. Fauci's organisation.

pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/?term=Kharband…

She is also a bigwig for the CDC's Vaccine safety datalink.

So this dataset should be publicly available, but it's not.

Therefore we must assume it's synthetic.
cdc.gov/vaccinesafety/…

Because there were only 7 authors on this paper with over 200,000 pregnancy records.

Data collection finished June 28.
Paper submitted, reviewed, revised and accepted Aug 26.
It usually takes about 6 weeks to review, revise and accept a paper.

If you're expecting me to believe that a small group of authors working full time had time to write a paper on 200,000+ pregnancy records in two weeks, I'm going to say one word to you.

#lancetgate

It's not possible to publish this paper with these authors so I'm going to go out on a limb and tell you how I think the Kharbanda study came about.

I think it was ghost written, just like the Desai #lancetgate papers.

And based on synthetic data.

That would explain how the miscarriage rate was so low (normally low).

Because the AI that synthesised the data generated it from the existing EMR data that was available.

I don't believe that Lipkind and Kharbanda analysed this data.

https://twitter.com/Jikkyleaks/status/1608768003684061184

They are welcome to prove me wrong. Submit the data to the public domain. Then we'll ask you some questions about how you analysed it.

Let's see what happens.

#Lancetgate #PregnaGate

ADDENDUM: This gets a little dark. If Elyse Kharbanda wrote this paper, why is Gabriela Vazquez-Benitez's name on the supplementary pdf that was submitted to the journal after the acceptance date?

And why does she have a profile on DeepAI.org?

And more on the Pfizer conflicts of the DSMB here:
uncoverdc.com/2022/04/13/pfi…
@chrismartenson @MaryanneDemasi @sonia_elijah

Update: Thank you to an intrepid anonymouse for pointing out that Alisa Kachikis's huge conflicts of interest also turned up in this article about COVID deaths (fortuitous or intentional) of pregnant women

Follow the link to the highlighted section.

thewayout.substack.com/p/the-war-on-l…

Bear in mind that all the papers in this thread have been reused for other "meta-analyses" to attempt to underpin the false claim of safety of the mRNA investigational therapies in #pregnancy.

Please share the thread in response to any such posts that you see

#pregnagate

Update: I should clarify that the miscarriage rate in Kharbanda is impossible to reliably ascertain from the available data. The 5% rate was deduced from the published tables but these include pregnancies counted more than once....

https://twitter.com/Jikkyleaks/status/1629675987700187137?s=20

In addition the cohort is not prospective so includes women of different gestations. 42% of the cohort were 14+ weeks who have a less than 1% risk of miscarriage. This produces a huge skew

The 5% estimator therefore stands, unless Elyse Kharbanda wishes to publish the raw data.