I think there may have been GM mouse studies. But for pregnancy, they needed rhesus monkeys, or something like that. Mice don't make the same early-pregnancy chemical signals. Certain kinds of monkeys do. Definitely the appropriate testing has not been done, and the first-round human trials for pregnancy have now been done on women without informed consent. Note I'm not cheering on animal testing. I just think it's better than testing on pregnant women. In this case, it should never have got to the testing phase, because there are safe, effective, and cheap ways to treat the disease already.
There are rumors now of high rates of neonates with pulmonary hemorrhage, and heart problems. Waiting to see if those turn out to be real or just rumor.
There was that small Pfizer study in rats that found the treatment group had twice as many early losses as the control group, and there were some fetal malformations. That study was reported to the European Medicines Agency, not published AFAIK, and the EMA did not report any comparison of the rate of fetal malformations in the treatment group to that in the control group.
The EMA report (https://www.ema.europa.eu/en/documents/assessment-report/comirnaty-epar-public-assessment-report_en.pdf) said:
>There was an increase (~2x) of pre-implantation loss (9.77%, compared to control 4.09%) although this was within historical control data range (5.1%-11.5%). Among foetuses (from a total of n=21 dams/litters), there was a very low incidence of gastroschisis, mouth/jaw malformations, right sided aortic arch, and cervical vertebrae abnormalities, although these findings were within historical control data. Regarding skeletal findings, the exposed group had comparable to control group levels of presacral vertebral arches supernumerary lumbar ribs, supernumerary lumbar short ribs, caudal vertebrae number < 5). There were no signs of adverse effects on the postnatal pups (terminated at PND21). It is noted that there is currently no available data on the placental transfer of BNT162b2.
They really should have done testing with monkeys, though, because (as you said) their placenta is more similar to humans'.
Yeah, I saw that one. With mouse studies, it's just hard to tell if there's anything there. Suggestive? Yes. Conclusive? Far from it. So we're gonna muddle through this doing a giant medical experiment on pregnant women who've been assured it's totally safe.
It really does feel that way. Even if the rate of negative effects is vastly lower than thalidomide, it's been given to SO many more people! For a disease that was only ever dangerous people already on the brink of death anyway...
If we're still around in ten years, we'll be reading books about this, trying to understand it.
I don't think it takes a Nostradamus to see that the adolescents and teenagers of today are going to be the angry and disenfranchised Baby Bust childless of a decade or two from now. And that's the mildest of potential outcomes for them...
The cynical voice that resides in the back of my head making atavistic calculations says: if even half the horrible things they're saying about the foxes turn out to be true, then my unmodified organic children are going to have a much easier-than-anticipated time finding Nice Orthodox Spouses in 10-20 years. Particularly as the church prohibits most forms of assisted reproduction (no surrogates, no donor gametes, no IVF). Nothing like sweeping the competition off the field...
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
timeasmymeasure
no subject
Date: 2021-11-07 10:44 pm (UTC)There are rumors now of high rates of neonates with pulmonary hemorrhage, and heart problems. Waiting to see if those turn out to be real or just rumor.
no subject
Date: 2021-11-09 02:22 am (UTC)The EMA report (https://www.ema.europa.eu/en/documents/assessment-report/comirnaty-epar-public-assessment-report_en.pdf) said:
>There was an increase (~2x) of pre-implantation loss (9.77%, compared to control 4.09%) although this was within historical control data range (5.1%-11.5%). Among foetuses (from a total of n=21 dams/litters), there was a very low incidence of gastroschisis, mouth/jaw malformations, right sided aortic arch, and cervical vertebrae abnormalities, although these findings were within historical control data. Regarding skeletal findings, the exposed group had comparable to control group levels of presacral vertebral arches supernumerary lumbar ribs, supernumerary lumbar short ribs, caudal vertebrae number < 5). There were no signs of adverse effects on the postnatal pups (terminated at PND21). It is noted that there is currently no available data on the placental transfer of BNT162b2.
They really should have done testing with monkeys, though, because (as you said) their placenta is more similar to humans'.
no subject
Date: 2021-11-09 06:21 pm (UTC)It's not going to end well.
no subject
Date: 2021-11-09 07:47 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2021-11-09 07:53 pm (UTC)If we're still around in ten years, we'll be reading books about this, trying to understand it.
no subject
Date: 2021-11-10 06:56 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2021-11-10 08:52 pm (UTC)