Having a crack at “Da Yoof” is punching down; it’s like criticising blacks or white women for being bad at STEM, when the cognitive distribution for both has its 99th percentile at below 120 (the 99th percentile for white men – and East Asian women – is 130).
They can’t help it, is what I’m sayin’.
Besides, if you hadn’t “pulled out to early” (kek) from your review of Historical Wisdom, you would’ve got to the 6th century BCE, and the Peak Wisdom of BIAS OF PRIENE… to wit:
Οι Πλειστοι Ανθροπιο Κακοι – Most People Are Shit.
We can quibble over he last word, but kakoi means “bad; worthless; evil; ETC” and is so obviously cognate with kakkao – shit – that you just have to accept that Bias fully intended people to make the connection.
My two recentposts mentioned a disturbing pattern appearing in several studies of children born to COVID-19-vaccinated mothers. For a yet unknown reason, children born to mothers vaccinated during the first trimester of pregnancy consistently show a greater rate of developmental problems compared to vaccinations done during the third trimester.
By pure luck (searching for information about the RSV vaccine,) I stumbled upon another study showing the same pattern.
The Canadian authors proclaim that their study did not find any problems in infants born to vaccinated mothers:
However, the data provided in the Supplement shows the same pattern we saw in the two previous trimester analyses: children born to mothers vaccinated early in pregnancy show worse developmental outcomes than those vaccinated in the third trimester. The Canadian study we are discussing today lumped the first and second trimesters together but still demonstrated the difference in outcomes between “early” and “late” vaccinations.
Take a look at eTable 7 in the supplement. I highlighted (in blue) the outcomes that were worse for infants whose mothers got the vaccine in the first and second trimester, compared to the third trimester:
What is in that table? It shows the relative risk of certain events (for example, neonatal ICU admission) for the given subgroups – which are compared to the unvaccinated mothers. The column “SUBGROUP ANALYSIS 3” that I highlighted shows analysis by trimester.
You can see (in the blue circles) that the risks of negative outcomes for the two subgroups, compared to unvaccinated mothers, show a higher relative risk for those mothers who were vaccinated during the first or second trimester.
A child given birth by an early-vaccinated mother has a 28% greater chance of a low Apgar score. For those who are not parents, the Apgar score is a quick rating given to newborns to see how well they are doing post-birth. A low Apgar score demonstrates serious health concerns, for example, being limp, not breathing on their own, etc.
Can a “safe vaccine” that has “no effect on pregnancy” cause a 28% greater chance of a newborn with serious problems having a very low Apgar score, if given during the first trimester as opposed to the third trimester?
That does not seem plausible!
Anyway, if any future mother you know is dead set on receiving a Covid vaccine during pregnancy, at least try to talk them into waiting until the third trimester.
What do you think? Why do first-trimester vaccinations show much greater risks to newborns across the board? Is that because their major organs are forming early in pregnancy?
Its objective was to prove that COVID vaccines are “safe for pregnancy.”
Meaning In this large population-based study, vaccination of pregnant individuals with mRNA COVID-19 vaccines was not associated with increased risks of neonatal adverse events in their infants.
Indeed, authors show that infants born to vaccinated mothers experience fewer adverse outcomes compared to unvaccinated mothers:
Results Of 196 470 newborn infants included (51.3% male, 93.8% born at term, 62.5% born in Sweden), 94 303 (48.0%) were exposed to COVID-19 vaccination during pregnancy. Exposed infants exhibited no increased odds of adverse neonatal outcomes, and they exhibited lower odds for neonatal nontraumatic intracranial hemorrhage (event rate, 1.7 vs 3.2/1000; adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 0.78 [95% CI, 0.61-0.99]), hypoxic-ischemic encephalopathy (1.8 vs 2.7/1000; aOR, 0.73 [95% CI, 0.55-0.96]), and neonatal mortality (0.9 vs 1.8/1000; aOR, 0.68 [95% CI, 0.50-0.91]).
The authors admit:
It is unlikely that mRNA COVID-19 vaccination during pregnancy directly reduces neonatal mortality, although others have suggested that such a protective effect is biologically plausible.12 The vaccine does not seem to pass the placenta or induce placental inflammation, and could not be traced in cord blood.25,26 The current study’s results could not elucidate the mechanisms that explain why infants of vaccinated individuals had lower risks of some outcomes including mortality. Unmeasured confounding due to vaccinated individuals being healthier may have contributed to the lower neonatal morbidity and mortality associated with COVID-19 vaccination during pregnancy.
I will show that the data provided in the study, including subgroup and trimester analysis, suggests that Covid vaccines given to pregnant women may be dangerous to fetuses if the mothers were vaccinated during the first trimester.
This study of infants born in Sweden and Norway during the pandemic includes valuable and hard-to-find data:
Sensitivity analyses show subsets of mothers, for example, vaccinated mothers who did not have COVID-19 during pregnancy.
Breakdown by the trimester of COVID vaccine exposure.
When looked at together, the data mentioned above raises serious questions about Covid vaccine safety in pregnancy.
Those who tout the benefits of maternal COVID vaccination often state that vaccines prevent COVID-19, which is dangerous to fetuses. This study has a sensitivity analysis that belies this theory.
First of all, COVID vaccines did NOT meaningfully reduce infections during pregnancy, as Table 1 shows:
The sensitivity analysis data shows that the infants whose mothers avoided COVID-19 during pregnancy have similar outcomes to all infants (including the ones whose mothers had Covid during pregnancy):
Therefore, “vaccine protection against infection” does not reduce the relative risk of adverse outcomes. Looking at the subset of mothers who did not have Covid shows that infections have nothing to do with the relative risk of those adverse outcomes.
The authors suggest that “unexplained confounders,” sometimes described as the “healthy vaccinee effect,” may be the reason for the reduced relative risk of vaccinated vs. unvaccinated outcomes.
Imagine a perfectly useless but harmless substance: a saline shot or a sugar pill. A treatment of that kind, given to pregnant mothers, would not result in disparate outcomes based on the trimester of exposure. Stating the same in scientific terms, the relative risk of adverse events experienced by newborns whose mothers were given a harmless substance would not depend on the trimester of exposure.
Why, then, do newborns whose mothers were vaccinated in the first trimester of pregnancy (when major organs form) experience approximately 50% greater rates of adverse postnatal events than those born to mothers vaccinated in the third trimester?
Take a look at this:
Rates of almost all negative infant outcomes (circled in blue) are worse for first-trimester infants compared to third-trimester infants.
Can we perform a statistical test on some of these differences to see whether the disparity in the outcomes in the two samples could arise due to pure chance? Look at the above outcome, “neonatal thrombocytopenia,” highlighted in red.
The data shows that infants exposed to the vaccine earlier (in the first trimester of pregnancy) are more likely to have thrombocytopenia after birth. P = 0.00001 suggests that the difference did not occur due to chance.
The only explanation that I can personally muster is that Covid vaccines, given in the first trimester, somehow interfere with fetal development and make thrombocytopenia (and a host of other outcomes) more likely to happen.
The same effect appears when looking at “all adverse outcomes.” See supplement:
Infants exposed in the first trimester have 0.68/0.49 – 1 = 39% greater risk of having any adverse outcome.
How can a “safe vaccine” that “does not affect pregnancy” make the first trimester of exposure more dangerous?
A similar finding was recently seen in another study: the risk of neurodevelopmental disorders was similarly higher for first-trimester exposure compared to third-trimester:
A sub-analysis of pregnancies that avoided COVID-19 shows that the “reduction in adverse outcomes due to vaccines” is likely due to confounding, not reduction in infections.
At the same time, the unexplainable disparity between infants exposed in the firsttrimester and infants exposed in the third trimester suggests that the Covid vaccines negatively affect fetal development.
What do you think? Is there a pattern suggesting that Covid vaccines are not safe for pregnancy? Let us know what you think – and feel free to disagree with me!
Many influential thought leaders are calling for “family abolition.”
Their vision of the future world is nicely illustrated by an important proponent of “family abolition,” Sophie Lewis. Check out this picture:
We all want “kinship, love, and ‘good things to eat’”. It’s just that the family as we currently know it is not necessarily the best way to satisfy those desires. More importantly, the family assumes central responsibility to provide for these needs in a society that fails to do so.
The nuclear family does not just hold the promise of fulfilling needs of love and kinship, but as an institution it is built on intersecting racism, sexism, and homophobia. As Melinda Cooper points out, for example, welfare restructuring in the United States explicitly enforced a particular model of the married nuclear family that would exclude African-American single mothers from receiving benefits. Defending the “monogamous, heterosexual, many-children family” is therefore not a neutral act of defending the right to a safe and cozy home but is more often than not tied up in other conservative political goals.
The above might sound strange to my readers. Are families inherently “homophobic”? Is a way for people to live monogamously and procreate “exclusionary”? How are families, which include members of all genders, “sexist”?
Families are not exclusive to humans: many mammals (which all breastfeed their babies) form families as a matter of routine. Consider this beaver family:
The above-pictured beavers are not ideological. They are doing what comes naturally: making, breastfeeding and bringing up babies and building dams.
Beavers thrive by creating complex river flow control systems as the necessary building skills are passed down the generations, as this amazing video shows:
Such advanced skills would be impossible for the little beaver babies to learn outside of nurturing but demanding families that protect them and teach them to build dams.
Many of us might dismiss “family abolition” outright as a fringe idea occupying only a few deranged minds. While that would be a partly correct characterization, be aware that the pandemic put “family abolitionists” in overdrive.
Indeed, as if by design, every aspect of the pandemic response appears to have been perfectly designed to fracture previously intact families.
The divisive, hate-filled press succeeded in creating discord and alienation among many families. According to a professionally conducted poll, two-thirds of vaccinated Americans planned to ban unvaccinated relatives:
The poll found that 58% of vaccinated people cut familial ties with at least one unvaccinated relative:
Of the 65% who are fully vaccinated, six in 10 (58%) have reportedly cut off family members who refuse to get vaccinated, while 63% don’t feel comfortable inviting unvaccinated relatives to their parties.
A redditor describes ghosting her entire family (archive link) in a series of disturbing posts. She lied about relatives “skipping her wedding,” as the wedding venue prohibited the parents from coming. She is infuriated by the suggestions to reconcile.
The family abolitionists, vaccine promoters, and the hate-filled divisive media succeeded in breaking many families. Most ridiculously, the vaccine that they promoted does not even work and makes vaccinated people more likely to be infected – but the damaged familial ties often remain unhealed.
I was amazed by the quantity, thoughtfulness, and emotional charge of 1,329 replies that my previous post on this topic received:
Sorry for not posting in the last five days.I spent the entire last week researching this topic and writing this post because of the obvious importance and tragic nature of this problem.
I spent several days reading estranged people’s forums.
What I found was depressing.
The estranged people (children, parents, and siblings) are almost universally unhappy and lonely and wish that they could have a functional, loving, and friendly family.
They congregate in “estranged kids” and “estranged parents” forums. These forums are emotionally toxic echo chambers that forbid dissent, normalize dysfunction, discourage understanding, and celebrate hate against former relatives.
The result of all this is millions of unhappy people hating “toxic parents” or “ungrateful, entitled children” without venturing outside of comfortable, coddling support echo chambers, which often perpetuate the problem.
Oftentimes, family discord passes from generation to generation, poisoning people’s lives and making them unable to resolve even minor, inevitable family tensions.
According to research, 23% of people are estranged from at least one close relative.
This video does not take sides and presents interesting data on family rifts. They asked for input from those estranged by choice and the relatives they rejected, a thorough approach that is very unusual in this field.
Often, estrangement happens for very good reasons, involving past child abuse or irresponsible or drug-addicted relatives (parents and children). I get it. Some people are genuinely better off without contact!
However, refusing the Covid vaccine should have never been a reason for breaking up ties. In 2024, it makes no sense to be alienated from people based on their vaccination status. So, if you know any people not talking because of COVID vaccines, ask yourself:
Do we want to allow family abolitionists, hateful media, and Covid vaccine promoters to succeed with their plan to create discord among people?
My answer is no – we should not allow this to happen. So, I hope that families that broke up for the sole reason of refusing Covid vaccines will eventually reconcile.
Do you know anyone who was able to mend the broken ties? Do you know any previously united family that was broken up? Do you think that I am wrong?
Whatever your opinion, you are welcome to express it in the comments.
SUMMARY: The baffling pattern of positiveassociation of excess mortality with COVID vaccination rates continued in 2023, contradicting the thesis that “COVID vaccines save lives.” It is statistically significant and is unlikely to have occurred by chance. It continued the patterns seen in 2022.
To calculate average mortality from weekly OECD data, I wrote this Perl script to load the CSV data and average it, limiting myself to countries with a full 40 weeks of data.
Please note that averaging “weekly excess mortality” for weeks 1-40 is not a perfectly correct calculationfor the excess mortality in that period (fact checkers, take note!), but it is a very close approximation.
Additionally, I excluded Israel due to the armed conflict that occurred during this period.
It turns out that COVID-19 vaccination rates increase mortality by 25.01%, and the association is highly statistically significant with the P-value of 0.0131, showing that it is unlikely a result of random chance.
We were told that “Covid vaccines save lives.” The real-world data, unfortunately, shows the opposite. The pattern seen in previous analyses continues: vaccination rates are associated with increases, not decreases, in total mortality.
Similarities between relationships between vaccination rates and excess mortality in 2023 and 2022 (2022 data discussed here) are striking:
I have good news for people tired of negativity: excess mortality during weeks 1-40 of 2023 was somewhat lower than in 2022. Could it be explained by people no longer vaccinating against COVID-19? We cannot be sure of the answer based on the data above, but we cannot dismiss that explanation either.
I am deeply grateful to my paid subscribers, who sustain my efforts. Paid subscribers get no benefit: no paid-only articles, paid-only commenting, etc. They support me only because of the goodness of their hearts.
I do not sell supplements or have any conflicts of interest. My only interest is writing truthful posts that may engage my readers. Writing articles like this one takes considerable effort, computer programming, etc. Therefore, please consider upgrading to a paid subscription:
Your thoughts and predictions on excess mortality will be greatly appreciated, so please comment on this post:
What is the biological reason for such a positive association?
How come Covid vaccinations, which mainly occurred in 2021, still affect excess mortality two years later?
Can this data be reanalyzed using, for example, booster rates or doses in 2023, as the independent variable?