I am going to add to this, the spreadsheet, data source, and 5 other charts that lay it bare.
It’s been almost 9 months since Pfizer began its clinical trial to evaluate vaccine safety in pregnant women (which completes a year from now).
But why *isn’t* 9 months really significant?
Surely getting first trimester data is extremely important?
pfizer.com/news/press-rel… Well that’s because in Pfizer’s study, you are excluded from participating if you are < 24 or > 34 weeks pregnant.
Yes, the manufacturer decided it wasn’t appropriate to study first, most-of-second trimester, and late pregnancies.
No really: It is appropriate to get vaccinated at any stage of pregnancy though, as the Royal College of Obstetricians & Gynaecologists states.
It’s just not appropriate to participate in Pfizer’s safety trial.
COVID-19 vaccines, pregnancy and breastfeeding https://www.rcog.org.uk/en/guidelines-research-services/coronavirus-covid-19-pregnancy-and-womens-health/covid-19-vaccines-and-pregnancy/covid-19-vaccines-pregnancy-and-breastfeeding/ For questionable early treatments like IVM, we absolutely cannot rely on observational studies, and must have high-quality, gold-standard RCTs.
But for things like vaccination in pregnancies, observational studies are totally fine, because the vaccines are safe and effective! If scientists like Nikolai Petrovsky and others point out the absolute radical departure from scientific and ethical norms in this context, especially with new technologies with wildly different mechanisms of action, they are bad people with an agenda.
Pfizer has no agenda. If entities like RCOG leverage the safety profile of traditional protein-based vaccines to pretend the expressed spike protein vaccines don’t have similar concerns to ‘live’ vaccines, and additional unknowns, it’s cool and normal. In conclusion, none of this makes sense.