FDA: No Covid boosters for most of you!

[Joes Place]

Covid jab: better than the 'morning after' pill...or at least more effective.

Except when you go look at the actual data.


Grok AI:

COVID-19 Vaccines and Miscarriage Risk:

Multiple high-quality studies, including systematic reviews and meta-analyses, consistently show no increased risk of miscarriage associated with COVID-19 vaccination. A 2023 meta-analysis of 21 studies (149,685 women) found a miscarriage rate of 9% among vaccinated pregnant women, with no significant difference compared to unvaccinated women (risk ratio 1.07, 95% CI 0.89–1.28). Similarly, a CDC study of 105,446 pregnancies reported a miscarriage risk of 12.8–14.1%, within the expected range for the general population.

https://academic.oup.com/humrep/article/38/5/840/7043098

COVID-19 vaccines don't raise miscarriage risk, 3 studies show

www.cidrap.umn.edu

A Norwegian case-control study and a Dutch cohort study of 4,640 women also found no association between vaccination during pregnancy and increased miscarriage risk. Some studies even suggest a slightly lower miscarriage risk with vaccination before pregnancy (adjusted HR 0.69, 95% CI 0.48–0.99).

https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMc2114466

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/pds.5724

Claims of high miscarriage rates (e.g., 82% or 13.3% vs. 4.5%) often stem from misinterpretations of preliminary data or unverified VAERS reports, which cannot establish causation due to self-reporting and lack of controls. These claims have been debunked by the CDC and peer-reviewed research.

COVID-19 vaccination does not increase risk of miscarriage

A blog shared widely on social media claims COVID-19 vaccines have led thousands of women to miscarry. The blog relies on unconfirmed reports. There has not been an increased risk of miscarriage among people who received COVID-19 vaccines just before or during pregnancy, the United States...

www.reuters.com

Social media post misrepresents preliminary data on miscarriages and COVID-19 vaccines - Poynter

Until all the pregnancies are evaluated and more authoritative data is released, any statistic on this topic should be considered preliminary.

www.poynter.org

We know that you have a "Ph.D." in Anti-vax Social Media Propaganda
But that don't hold up to the actual data.

 

[Joes Place]

Lol says the guy who will make any claim regardless of the scientific evidence to back it up.

I've been posting "scientific evidence" for pages and pages here.
You keep getting throttled by it every time you post more garbage.

 

[Joes Place]

I follow the science, not an agenda.

Your own posts indicate that this is a demonstrably false claim on your part.

 

[Joes Place]

I guess we will have to agree to disagree on this one.

Translation: I have been shown the peer-reviewed research information that debunks my pre-conceived notion.
But I am sticking with my bias, because I don't actually rely on data and science for my opinions.

 

[MichaelKeller99]

Just more bullshit Pharma propaganda.

75% of studies included in linked Rimmer article from GroksPlace exhibited moderate to serious bias, along with these other disclaimers:

Only about half of the included studies had appropriately matched controls which limited our ability to generate a RR with accurate confidence intervals.

...as pregnant women were excluded from these trials at the time of randomization, the evidence included in this review is mainly observational with high level of heterogeneity. Several factors could explain this heterogeneity including variation in study design and patient characteristics, and the high risk of bias across included studies. This limits the generalizability of our meta-analysis and highlights the need for better quality primary studies involving pregnant women.

The majority of the included studies practiced suboptimal and varied outcome reporting which limited our ability to synthesize high-quality evidence, as reflected in our GRADE assessment (Fig. 4). This reduced the certainty of our pooled estimates, especially since other important pregnancy outcomes, e.g. stillbirth and ectopic pregnancy, were not reported.

...our pooled rate offers a limited snapshot assessment over a short period of time and therefore should be interpreted with caution.

Clearly, this outcome does not offer an accurate assessment of long-term reproductive outcomes as not all ongoing pregnancies captured will yield a live birth.

We planned to perform meta-regression and subgroup analysis to evaluate and adjust for important confounders such as patient characteristics, vaccine types (e.g. mRNA versus vector), and the number of vaccine boosters. However, we were unable to produce these additional analyses due to poor reporting across included studies (Table I).

 

[Joes Place]

Just more bullshit Pharma propaganda.

You love to post your anti-vax propaganda, and not cite where any of it comes from...

 

[LetsGoHawks83]

 

[Joes Place]

Meanwhile...