That "study" was 16 women. Not 160, not 1,600. Not 16,000.
16
The "study" notes that about half of pregnancies show signs of a "damaged" placenta. The researchers even mentioned that such damage is so common they cannot clearly identify any causational relationship at this point.
The moral of this story? Be skeptical of what you hear from the media. And this isn't new! Journalists aren't scientists. This has been a phenomenon that I've seen for decades. Preliminary study is released. Conclusion is basically, we see a possible correlation, so we feel this is worth some actual study. Journalist finds the study, and incorrectly reads that we have now found a cure for this or that.
Statistically that can't possibly be shown with any level of certainty at all with a sample of under 30. Scientific studies can't converge on any conclusion under that level.
The inclusion of the miscarriage case creates a misleading statistical perception. They weren't following a random group of women and then had one miscarry.
They selected the women based on delivery with +COVID status. This means that the risk of miscarriage based on COVID cannot be inferred.
For example, if you did a small study looking at cardiovascular injury due to broken bones, and you included a person who fell to their death out of a building, you could not say that broken bones therefore carry a significant risk of death.
That "study" was 16 women. Not 160, not 1,600. Not 16,000.
16
The "study" notes that about half of pregnancies show signs of a "damaged" placenta. The researchers even mentioned that such damage is so common they cannot clearly identify any causational relationship at this point.
The moral of this story? Be skeptical of what you hear from the media. And this isn't new! Journalists aren't scientists. This has been a phenomenon that I've seen for decades. Preliminary study is released. Conclusion is basically, we see a possible correlation, so we feel this is worth some actual study. Journalist finds the study, and incorrectly reads that we have now found a cure for this or that.
And they all had damage and one miscarried.
Feel free to play games with your unborn baby. But don't mischaracterize or down play the evidence that 100% of the ones they checked were fucked up.
I understand you're trying to say play it safe, but statistically a study with a sample size of 16 is useless.
No no no, gotta sit on a moral high horse preaching fear and bad science!
The science isn't necessarily bad, just incomplete and with a 16 person sample size, inconclusive.
It isn't a study to describe the overall rates. It is showing that harm occurs.
Statistically that can't possibly be shown with any level of certainty at all with a sample of under 30. Scientific studies can't converge on any conclusion under that level.
Did they check to see if it was actual flu vaccine damaging placentas?
They would never do thay study
But they don't do that.
https://www.cdc.gov/flu/highrisk/qa_vacpregnant.htm#pregnant
You should actually look into their "studies"
The inclusion of the miscarriage case creates a misleading statistical perception. They weren't following a random group of women and then had one miscarry.
They selected the women based on delivery with +COVID status. This means that the risk of miscarriage based on COVID cannot be inferred.
For example, if you did a small study looking at cardiovascular injury due to broken bones, and you included a person who fell to their death out of a building, you could not say that broken bones therefore carry a significant risk of death.