The safety of the vaccines during pregnancy (or even whether there are risks of prior vaccination for pregnancy) is extremely important; you don't find out if there has been a problem in development until birth unless it is a terrible problem (limbs missing, etc), and many problem don't be…
The safety of the vaccines during pregnancy (or even whether there are risks of prior vaccination for pregnancy) is extremely important; you don't find out if there has been a problem in development until birth unless it is a terrible problem (limbs missing, etc), and many problem don't become apparent until the baby is about 1 year of age. Thus you think that they'd be expending huge efforts to track any potential problems -- but instead they're behaving as though the data to August is 'enough' and that there's no need to update.
I'd be slightly sympathetic if there was a dire emergency and that the numbers affected were low -- but they're trying to get every single pregnant woman in the western world vaccinated. They could readily spend a tiny fraction of the money that is used for tracking/testing and get some really good regularly updated information.
But, of course, they don't want to do this -- if a problem emerges then it is the authorities' fault for encouraging vaccination. If they just do the minimum then the problems probably won't be found for a while, at which point those in power currently will have moved onto their next job and they'll be able to say 'but nobody knew'. In the UK this is called plausible deniability, and it is a tool that politicians know about and use strategically.
They should be forced to do much more work investigating potential issues with the vaccines (all, not just in pregnancy) -- so long as those currently in power are the ones that chose what investigations will be undertaken we'll not see any rigourous investigations into vaccine risks.
Can we just flucking address the fact that this is still an EXPERIMENTAL drug drummed up by the same mad scientists who unleashed the disease for which they readily had the 'cure'?
Good gawd. I feel too woke. <--met with laughter and tears
Just to give one example of the time taken to diagnose a developmental problem, Foetal Alcohol Syndrome, a serious developmental problem resulting from the mother drinking (lots of) alcohol during pregnancy, is typically diagnosed between 9 and 18 months of age.
Of course, that one's complicated by the part where, in order to get a FAS diagnosis, mom has to *admit* that she drank (lots of) alcohol while pregnant. Which is a big part of why it takes so long, and why a lot of them never get dxed.
The weekly update of the same data is ridiculous.
The safety of the vaccines during pregnancy (or even whether there are risks of prior vaccination for pregnancy) is extremely important; you don't find out if there has been a problem in development until birth unless it is a terrible problem (limbs missing, etc), and many problem don't become apparent until the baby is about 1 year of age. Thus you think that they'd be expending huge efforts to track any potential problems -- but instead they're behaving as though the data to August is 'enough' and that there's no need to update.
I'd be slightly sympathetic if there was a dire emergency and that the numbers affected were low -- but they're trying to get every single pregnant woman in the western world vaccinated. They could readily spend a tiny fraction of the money that is used for tracking/testing and get some really good regularly updated information.
But, of course, they don't want to do this -- if a problem emerges then it is the authorities' fault for encouraging vaccination. If they just do the minimum then the problems probably won't be found for a while, at which point those in power currently will have moved onto their next job and they'll be able to say 'but nobody knew'. In the UK this is called plausible deniability, and it is a tool that politicians know about and use strategically.
They should be forced to do much more work investigating potential issues with the vaccines (all, not just in pregnancy) -- so long as those currently in power are the ones that chose what investigations will be undertaken we'll not see any rigourous investigations into vaccine risks.
What is happening is a CRIME. Instead of collecting data, CDC is an ad agency for Pfizer and a bad news coverup crew.
Can we just flucking address the fact that this is still an EXPERIMENTAL drug drummed up by the same mad scientists who unleashed the disease for which they readily had the 'cure'?
Good gawd. I feel too woke. <--met with laughter and tears
Just to give one example of the time taken to diagnose a developmental problem, Foetal Alcohol Syndrome, a serious developmental problem resulting from the mother drinking (lots of) alcohol during pregnancy, is typically diagnosed between 9 and 18 months of age.
Krikey! What a horrific and relevant analogy. :(((((
Of course, that one's complicated by the part where, in order to get a FAS diagnosis, mom has to *admit* that she drank (lots of) alcohol while pregnant. Which is a big part of why it takes so long, and why a lot of them never get dxed.