Retracted NZ Study Proved HPV Vaccine “Reduced Preterm Births” – By INVERTING THE DATA (vax actually had opposite effect)

dailyclout.io ^ | December 27, 2023 | Igor Chudov

[ransomnote]

A study by New Zealand’s Beverley Lawton et al. “proved” that receipt of the HPV vaccine reduced preterm births.

 

However, when statistical sleuths questioned the data, the study was retracted, as it turned out that the findings were inverted. The story of the retraction is quite scandalous and is worth exploring!

 

The study purported to provide “findings” of reductions in preterm births among HPV-vaccinated mothers.

Supposedly, vaccination “reduced” very preterm births (under 31 weeks) by 23% (77% odds ratio circled in the picture below).

 

However, in the retraction notice, the authors were forced to admit that the “findings were inverted,” and the data showed the opposite!

In other words, the data showed that the HPV vaccine increased the chances of very preterm births!

The authors’s retraction statement says:

This paper is being retracted at the request of the authors. The authors report that there was an incorrect interpretation of the odds ratio meaning that instead of HPV vaccination potentially being protective, there may be an associated increased risk of preterm delivery.

Then, backpedaling started:

[ransomnote]

The story continues, noting financial conflict of interest and blaming a non existent lower level staff member. I do wonder how often this kind of outright lie is never exposed, and patients are told that it's all in their head.

[ClearCase_guy]

Academic research of all kinds (c.f. Harvard’s stellar ex-President) is largely garbage. It’s fiction that tells a story that someone wants told, and often pays good money for that story to be told.

We really need to re-invent higher education. And when I say “re-invent” I mean burn it to the ground.

[exDemMom]

Instead of using some antivax site interpretation of this event, let's look at the retraction notice in its entirety:

Retraction notice to “Association of prior HPV vaccination with reduced preterm birth: A population based study” [Vaccine 36 (2018) 134–140]
This paper is being retracted at the request of the authors. The authors report that there was an incorrect interpretation of the odds ratio meaning that instead of HPV vaccination potentially being protective, there may be an associated increased risk of preterm delivery. The authors believe that an increased risk of preterm delivery is unlikely and not consistent with the evidence to date. Further, the authors have not been able to access the original source data as per protocol to check the data validity. The authors wish to repeat the study to reassure themselves that there were no data processing or other errors in the databases in order to reach definitive conclusions. (Emphasis mine)

Lastly, it is of serious concern to the Editor-in-Chief that the Conflict of Interest statement was only added to the paper by the authors after acceptance and was not made visible to the editor or reviewers prior to acceptance. The authors state that there was no input to the methodology, implementation and results of this study by any commercial entity. The pharma distribution company CSL mentioned in the conflict of interest statement only knew about the study after publication.

What I see here is that the authors reviewed the paper themselves and realized there was a computational error. The fact that the authors themselves requested for the paper to be retracted indicates that no one was trying to commit fraud and that they were making a good faith effort to validate the data.

I can't help but notice that the article was published in Jan 2018 and the retraction notice was published in Sept 2020. I take the fact that some antivax blog only picked it up now, over three years later, as evidence that the professional antivaxxers are really scraping the bottom of the barrel when it comes to finding fresh material with which to fearmonger. This also suggests that those of us who make the effort to present the real science and the actual scientific interpretations of data in order to counter antivax misinformation have at least some success in this effort.

Finally, let's look at what the CDC has to say about HPV vaccination during pregnancy: HPV Vaccination Recommendations. HPV vaccine is not recommended for use during pregnancy. People known to be pregnant should delay initiation of the vaccination series until after the pregnancy. However, pregnancy testing before vaccination is not needed.

And the reason for this?

Although HPV vaccines have not been linked to causing adverse pregnancy outcomes or side effects (adverse events) to the developing fetus among pregnant people vaccinated inadvertently, HPV vaccines have not been studied in pregnant people in clinical trials.

And the further recommendations: --If a person is found to be pregnant after starting the HPV vaccine series, second and/or third doses should be delayed until they are no longer pregnant.
--If a person receives HPV vaccine and later learns that they are pregnant, there is no reason to be alarmed.
--Anyone who learns they are pregnant when they received an HPV vaccine can contact the manufacturer at 1-877-888-4231.
--Any suspected adverse events following HPV vaccination during pregnancy should be reported to VAERS.

My advice is to not try to get information from antivax blogs. They won't tell the full story and only want to scare people. If you have questions or concerns about vaccines, consult a scientist or medical professional who has expertise in the science of vaccination.

[gunnut]

Why won’t the NZ government provide the data set again? Are they afraid of what will be found?

[ransomnote]

You’re a shill. I don’t read your posts or value your opinion.

[DAC21]

Like in the USA, there will be no accountably in NZ for treasonous actions.