Cancer seen at 35 per 10,000 was seen at 45 per 10,000.
Yes, its 1.28x more likely. It's still 0.0045 likelihood, and the most likely outcome of presenting for test with no symptoms or concerns remains a negative (not cancer) outcome.
17 cancers showed lower rates, or identical rates. That's more than half. What are we to make of this overall?
I am not a medical or epidemiological scholar. I am not inclined to change my stance regarding vaccine on those outcomes, given half of the cancers under consideration showed lower risks, I appear to be choosing between equally unlikely outcomes, compared to higher risk outcome of having an infection.
There were extensive and contentious discussions between ACIP members, Pfizer and industry representatives regarding the statistically significant rates of birth defects and stillbirths documented in the COVID-19 mRNA injections animal and human clinical trials during Friday’s vaccine advisory committee, including Pfizer’s own study of 300 pregnant women.
“The safety and the efficacy of COVID-19 vaccination during pregnancy have never been tested in appropriately powered randomized clinical trials. In one randomized trial there was observed numerical imbalance of higher number of babies with congenital malformation among those born to vaccinated women.”
The net result of these discussions - in 2 separate policy votes of 11 to 1, pregnant women have been dropped from the CDC’s recommendations for the COVID-19 shots and ACIP is now recommending against vaccinating pregnant women.
Let’s go through some the body of evidence ACIP used before we get to the draft warning verbiage for pregnant women.
Spike Protein and Nanoparticles Found in the Placenta and Breast Milk:
Dr. Griffin noted that there were peer-reviewed studies demonstrating the presence of mRNA COVID-19 vaccines (which is the spike protein and lipid nanoparticles) in breast milk and the placenta.
Pfizer Pregnancy Study Shows 4-Fold Increase in Birth Defects - Pfizer Denies Findings
Pfizer also claimed that the birth defects in the vaccinated occurred during the first trimester, weeks before they got the first injection. After nearly 8 minutes of debate between Dr. Kulldorf and the Pfizer representative, Carol Hayes from the American Association of Nurse Midwives came to Pfizer’s defense falsely claiming, ‘birth defects only occur in the first trimester.’
Fig1B is quite interesting. It seems like the overall cancer incidence in the non-vaccinated group increases much more slowly in the first 90ish days, but then stabilizes at a similar or very slightly lower rate in the middle of the graph at 180 days. I would not expect any non linear time effect in the control group.
I wonder (pure speculation) if this is because many in the non-vaccinated groups die because of COVID and so don't get a cancer diagnosis?
Taking a bunch of data from the Korean National Health Insurance database and looking for one specific connection is less than helpful. Like carl sagan said: extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.
A significant error I often see in cancer studies, is the assumption that after a carcinogenic event (consumption of something toxic, exposure to radiation, etc.) suddenly there is a tumor of such a large size the person notices it and gets it investigated by a medical professional.
Some cancers take years to grow, which means the increase in certain cancer-type rates cannot possibly be explained by a carcinogenic event within a 1-year timescale.
Science is not just about finding relationships in data. You have to justify the claims, argue against them, uncover biases and guarantee the correctness of data. Statistical links are the weakest form of evidence and literally anything can be proven if not graduated through the scientific model.
4 comments
[ 4.1 ms ] story [ 24.0 ms ] threadYes, its 1.28x more likely. It's still 0.0045 likelihood, and the most likely outcome of presenting for test with no symptoms or concerns remains a negative (not cancer) outcome.
17 cancers showed lower rates, or identical rates. That's more than half. What are we to make of this overall?
I am not a medical or epidemiological scholar. I am not inclined to change my stance regarding vaccine on those outcomes, given half of the cancers under consideration showed lower risks, I appear to be choosing between equally unlikely outcomes, compared to higher risk outcome of having an infection.
There were extensive and contentious discussions between ACIP members, Pfizer and industry representatives regarding the statistically significant rates of birth defects and stillbirths documented in the COVID-19 mRNA injections animal and human clinical trials during Friday’s vaccine advisory committee, including Pfizer’s own study of 300 pregnant women.
“The safety and the efficacy of COVID-19 vaccination during pregnancy have never been tested in appropriately powered randomized clinical trials. In one randomized trial there was observed numerical imbalance of higher number of babies with congenital malformation among those born to vaccinated women.”
The net result of these discussions - in 2 separate policy votes of 11 to 1, pregnant women have been dropped from the CDC’s recommendations for the COVID-19 shots and ACIP is now recommending against vaccinating pregnant women.
Let’s go through some the body of evidence ACIP used before we get to the draft warning verbiage for pregnant women.
Spike Protein and Nanoparticles Found in the Placenta and Breast Milk:
Dr. Griffin noted that there were peer-reviewed studies demonstrating the presence of mRNA COVID-19 vaccines (which is the spike protein and lipid nanoparticles) in breast milk and the placenta.
Pfizer Pregnancy Study Shows 4-Fold Increase in Birth Defects - Pfizer Denies Findings
Pfizer also claimed that the birth defects in the vaccinated occurred during the first trimester, weeks before they got the first injection. After nearly 8 minutes of debate between Dr. Kulldorf and the Pfizer representative, Carol Hayes from the American Association of Nurse Midwives came to Pfizer’s defense falsely claiming, ‘birth defects only occur in the first trimester.’
https://www.thekingstonreport.com/p/pfizer-denies-significan...
I wonder (pure speculation) if this is because many in the non-vaccinated groups die because of COVID and so don't get a cancer diagnosis?
A significant error I often see in cancer studies, is the assumption that after a carcinogenic event (consumption of something toxic, exposure to radiation, etc.) suddenly there is a tumor of such a large size the person notices it and gets it investigated by a medical professional.
Some cancers take years to grow, which means the increase in certain cancer-type rates cannot possibly be explained by a carcinogenic event within a 1-year timescale.
Science is not just about finding relationships in data. You have to justify the claims, argue against them, uncover biases and guarantee the correctness of data. Statistical links are the weakest form of evidence and literally anything can be proven if not graduated through the scientific model.