Misleading Vaccine Miscarriage Paper Hides Conflicts Of Interest
Uni of Edinburgh: If We Don't Disclose Conflicts, Maybe No-one Will Notice?
In a desperate effort to try to turn the tide in favour of vaccines, vaccine shills have broken out the dodgy papers again, one that tries to insist miscarriages aren’t being caused by vaccines. Lets dig a little deeper, shall we?
University of Edinburgh Ties
This tweet was posted by Dr Mike Rimmer:
Dr Mike Rimmer is not remotely impartial in this. He works at the University of Edinburgh (UoE) under “MRC CRH”, according to his own Twitter profile (and UoE page).
“MRC CRH” stands for Medical Research Council Centre for Reproductive Health.
This has to be noted because Mike (Michael) Rimmer’s name appears on the authorship of the paper he posted, and his affilitation (tagged by the number 1) is that to the Medical Research Council:
The Massive Financial Conflicts Of Interest
Why is it important? The paper fails to declare major financial conflicts of interest:
“All authors declare no conflict of interest”. This is false, and can be easily evidenced; University of Edinburgh is under massive amounts of financial influence.
Now, the University of Edinburgh don’t exactly keep their annual grants information up to date, and their most “recent” data for funding comes from 2015/2016.
Their report declares a total of £267,983,468 in external financing to the University of Edinburgh, which in turn finances the Medical Research Council Centre for Reproductive Health, which in turn, financed the above paper.
The page is absolutely rife with vaccine industry financial interests, including these whoppers:
Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation £10,372,408 (pro-vaccine research group)
Janssen Pharmaceutica NV £6,888,106 (manufacturers of the J&J shot)
UK Department of Health £1,236,443
Other pro-vaccine influences listed include:
GlaxoSmithKline £912,247
Department of Defense £714,873 (see our US army propaganda article for more details)
University of Oxford £577,468 (worked with AstraZeneca on the Oxford-AstraZeneca shot)
Industrial Biotechnology Innovation Centre £478,613
Ovascience Inc £467,433 (female infertility biotech research group)
US Army Research Laboratory £391,738
Astra Zeneca £327,786
Merck Inc £286,667
Boehringer Ingelheim GmbH £257,679 (AKA the people who caused the 2007 Foot and Mouth outbreak)
Lamellar Biomedical Limited £145,001
UCB Pharma SA £120,521
Novartis Pharma £104,000
Genzyme Corporation £101,289 (owned then ditched by Sanofi)
Hoffmann-La Roche Inc. £100,000 (La Roche manufactures PCR tests besides biologic tech)
Sanofi Pasteur £81,490
Ferring Pharmaceuticals £80,500
MicroPharm £76,000
Institut Pasteur £66,666 (yes, that number is real)
The Canadian International Resources and United States Department of Agriculture £64,516 (see this part of the vaccine manufacturers cause outbreak article)
Eli Lilly and Company Limited £61,119
Proctor & Gamble £56,000
UCB Celltech £56,000 (see this)
Biogen Idec £50,000
UCB Pharma SA £23,967 (unclear why these are separate)
Galecto Biotech AB £17,503
Regulus Therapeutics Inc £10,000
Ingenza £9,565
Astra Zeneca £9,091 (this is presented at the top of the page but distracts from AZ’s much bigger investment)
By our count, there is at least £23,573,256 sourced from pro-vaccine influences, almost accounting for 1/5th of the financial budget for the University of Edinburgh — the majority of which comes from the pro-vaccine Gates Foundation.
This isn’t also counting the £42,269,017 from the European Commission who bodged through acceptance of the Pfizer shots using deceit. That’s easily £65,842,273 worth of pro-vaccine financial influence in the University alone.
The Paper Admits The Data Is Garbage Anyway
And guess what? It was sourced from the pharmaceutical industry too.
Long after the conclusion and abstract has been proudly declared, buried mid-way in the peer-reviewed paper is this major flaw:
Outcome reporting was poor overall with only two studies offering a clear outcome definitions for miscarriage and ongoing pregnancy
Translation: all those paid-for Pfizer studies etc they were reading were intentionally designed not to be accurate nor capture clear outcomes on miscarriage and ongoing pregnancy.
Here’s one example: the paper quotes “Short-term Reactions Among Pregnant and Lactating Individuals in the First Wave of the COVID-19 Vaccine Rollout”, which in turn leads to the JAMA print, on that JAMA print it declares:
The authors of the study used as part of the ‘proof’ by the MCR’s study that the vaccines don’t cause harm, all received (with the exception of Singleton) financing for consultancy work with numerous pharmaceutical companies.
How about another “study” cited by MCR? This research letter, titled “Spontaneous Abortion Following COVID-19 Vaccination During Pregnancy” also includes an author that had received Pfizer financing:
Pharmaceutical Studies Are Garbage
The MCR’s study repeats again, declaring studies (such as the one done by Pfizer & Co consultants above) had “practiced suboptimal and varied outcome reporting which limited out ability to synthesise high-quality evidence”. Oops.
They admit it “offers a limited snapshot assessment over a short period of time” and “should be interpreted with caution”:
Instead of the paper more accurately concluding that ‘majority of miscarriage data on vaccines is suboptimal’ and inferior, that honestly no conclusion could be accurately drawn…
…they instead confidently and boldly — with no mention of the suboptimal data — declare “women who received as COVID-19 vaccine did not have a higher risk of miscarriage”:
They appeal to large numbers of studies (“we included data from 21 studies”) but don’t mention 19 are, by their own admission, garbage: suboptimal and not suitable for such prediction, of which there are ones literally authored by industry interests.
Also Redacted Tables For Some Reason
Smelling yet more fudge, JikkyLeaks spotted that data in the tables supposedly showing miscarriages weren’t an issue… were redacted:
You’ll find redaction on pages 28 to 31. Here’s one example:
Whilst we cannot see what is said under most of the redaction, using textual comparison, we can determine roughly what the table title on the right says by writing using a similar font above the text, based on what we can make out and comparing:
It appears to say ‘higher in the vaccinated’ on the left, and ‘higher in the unvaccinated’ on the right. But curiously the table abuses a one-way logarithmic scale, weighted in favour of the vaccinated, going from 0.02 on the vaccinated side, to 1.02 and up on the unvaccinated side. Seems rigged. Also it’s ‘relative risk’, not absolute.
But don’t worry, the authors declared they have no financial conflicts of interest! So there can’t be anything influencing this clearly forced conclusion!
There is nothing more deceptive than an obvious fact.
— Sherlock Holmes, The Boscombe Valley Mystery
Get more content like this.
Expose corruption!
And leave a comment below:
Good work. Thank you.
Yes the peer review process works great with redactions. How did anyone check the math or methodology. Yet one more sign that the current "scientific" research system is anything but science.