throwaway406382

Well, now we're just getting May data and maybe June data. So that would be conceptions starting in August 2021. Here's a really lame screen capture of a visualization I just made with the CDC data. The August time frame is where we're passing 50% of the 25-39 year-olds getting vaccinated. So that would start to show up in the May 2022 birth data.

https://pasteboard.co/uhkdWFvhCf9c.png

edit: this showed up in my inbox during dinner - more evidence https://igorchudov.substack.com/p/new-data-from-germany-birt...

Well, I'm not a doctor, just someone doing stats for doctors...but I think we're going to start seeing it as we're reaching the 9-month mark from the big push for child-bearing-age vaccination. It's starting to show up in Sweden and (I think) Taiwan, but it's not something I'm really studying.

https://boriquagato.substack.com/p/sweden-birthrate-update-m...

It is possible to take a finite duration and look at the unvaccinated+covid, unvaccinated+no-covid, vaccinated+covid, vaccinated+no-covid and see differences. And the signals a so large between unvaccinated and vaccinated you don't need much in the way of fancy stats.

Also consider that it wasn't until the late 90's that the flu vaccine was approved for pregnant women and they were still worried about it. So we have the original adverse event studies post flu vaccine and compare them to post covid vaccine.

You are right, there are lots of confounds and interactions, we are careful to handle that properly. We're a bunch of nerds who don't have a dog in the political fight, we just want to show the data.

Yes...I'll post the paper to HN when it's live. We're still finalizing analyses and writing the paper and I'm not at liberty to share it yet.

The lead author is in women's studies, not real science.

I quote from their abstract: "...among a convenience sample...39% of people on gender-affirming hormones"

convenience sample means "I asked my friends on social media"

And 39% on gender-affirming hormones! Yes, I know trans is all the rage now, but it's not 39% of the population! It's a highly biased sample.

From a throwaway because of the potential backlash...This paper is pure bull. They did a survey of 30k people and asked them about their experience and then said that the vaccine didn't cause anything and that we should trust our institutions. They didn't even have a control (unvaccinated) group! Just 30k vaccinated folks who responded to a survey about whether they perceived more/less bleeding, and such.

I'm actually working (as a computational mathematician) with an OBGYN and a few other doctors on a paper on this topic right now. We're using real data and a control and doing real Bayesian stats and all of that. But the tragic thing is, we don't need to get fancy. There's so much signal that the vaccine is bad for women's reproductive health that it really is obvious. I hope we can find an uncaptured journal to get it published in.

This paper is pure propaganda that's toeing the line about vaccine safety. It's idea laundering so they can later point to an article in "Science" showing that it's safe.

I'm so sad that Science (the journal) as fallen so far and is so captured.