12.6% or 82% Spontaneous Abortion Rate for Pregnant Women who get the jab?

[foxtrotuniformlima]

There should be a penalty for posting this fake BS

[uzigalil]

Another covid myth: the jab is safe for pregnant women.

Facts:

- There were no pregnant women participants in the EUA trials.
- The 12.6% figure being thrown around in the narrative for spontaneous abortions is total data manipulation. The actual number is 82% of women who received the covid jab within 0 - 20 weeks of pregnancy lost their child. Birth defects of the remaining 18% of children who lived are unknown.

There was a "study" (I use that term loosely, it's more like marketing data) performed on 827 pregnant women to observe the rates of "spontaneous abortion". "Spontaneous abortion" is defined when the baby dies up to 20 weeks after conception. Out of the 827 women, 700 of the women did not receive their first jab until the 3rd trimester.

104 women who received the jab within the first 20 weeks lost their babies. Instead of comparing 104 to 827, it has to be compared to 127 which gives the actual rate of spontaneous abortions of 82%.

More info:
https://thehighwire.com/videos/are-c...-miscarriages/

hahahahaha, YOUR LINK AND THIS INFO IS BOGUS. you really listen to DEL Bigtree ?

[subscriber]

I am not for or against the info in the article. However, it appears that that looking at miscarriage rates occurring within first 20 weeks would not show any effect from vaccines injected during the third trimester.

While this is obvious, some people seem to be overlooking the fact that a treatment (vaccination) can only have an effect, if it precedes the effect being studied. In this study, a large number of vaccinations occured in the third trimester. These cannot possibly have contributed to miscarriage's in the first 20 weeks. Discovering that lack of effect within the 20 week gestation period is not proof of anything, other than that you may be missing the point.

The attached file is a screen shot of the video pertaining to that section of the presentation, 7 minutes into the video: https://thehighwire.com/videos/are-c...-miscarriages/


Edited to highlight pertinent section of screen shot with red underline:

[kalibeltfeeder]

I am not for or against the info in the article. However, it appears that that looking at miscarriage rates occurring within first 20 weeks would not show any effect from vaccines injected during the third trimester.

While this is obvious, some people seem to be overlooking the fact that a treatment (vaccination) can only have an effect, if it precedes the effect being studied. In this study, a large number of vaccinations occured in the third trimester. These cannot possibly have contributed to miscarriage's in the first 20 weeks. Discovering that lack of effect within the 20 week gestation period is not proof of anything, other than that you may be missing the point.

The attached file is a screen shot of the video pertaining to that section of the presentation, 7 minutes into the video: https://thehighwire.com/videos/are-c...-miscarriages/

They vaccinated more than 127 women in the first trimester though, 1132 women were vaccinated in the first trimester. If 82% of them miscarried than you would have over 900 miscarriages. Which the study shows is not true.

[stonefly-2]

hahahahaha, YOUR LINK AND THIS INFO IS BOGUS. you really listen to DEL Bigtree ?

I pulled up an interview of his with a microbiologist well over a year ago who showed the manipulated elements of the bioweapon,

that was about the time the Indian study preprint got memory holed.

What are the attributes you favor most of the truth being obfuscated for a year as people die?

Del Bigtree has been a rabid antivaxxer for years,
if you plan to stand in the way of the status reassignment I suspect is coming his way I would keep my head down.

"I told you so's" incoming.

[stonefly-2]

They vaccinated more than 127 women in the first trimester though, 1132 women were vaccinated in the first trimester. If 82% of them miscarried than you would have over 900 miscarriages. Which the study shows is not true.

There were zero miscarriages or still births in the first 20 weeks of pregnancy.

we should all go to about 5:13 in the video to fix in our minds just what is being said.

[stonefly-2]

There should be a penalty for posting this fake BS

There's an "I've been triggered" button you can hit in the upper right.

[subscriber]

we should all go to about 5:13 in the video to fix in our minds just what is being said.

It is much easier to dismiss claims, if the video is just ignored completely. Actually watching it carries the risk of forcing the viewer to challenge their own predetermined conclusions. Can't have that.

[kalibeltfeeder]

There were zero miscarriages or still births in the first 20 weeks of pregnancy.

we should all go to about 5:13 in the video to fix in our minds just what is being said.

[SPUTTER]

127 women had the injection in the first/second trimester. 104 out of those had a spontaneous abortion. The study covered 827 women but 700 received the first injection in their third trimester. Also a spontaneous abortion can't occur in the third trimester, technically it's referred to something else. So yes, the interpretation of the data is misleading.

[stonefly-2]

Well if you are talking spontaneous abortions and not miscarriages now at least we have corrected that part of your confusion.....carry on.

[kalibeltfeeder]

Well if you are talking spontaneous abortions and not miscarriages now at least we have corrected that part of your confusion.....carry on.

https://medlineplus.gov/ency/article/001488.htm#start

[kalibeltfeeder]

127 women had the injection in the first/second trimester. 104 out of those had a spontaneous abortion. The study covered 827 women but 700 received the the first injection in their third trimester. Also a spontaneous abortion can't occur in the third trimester, technically it's referred to something else. So yes, the interpretation of the data is misleading.

[stonefly-2]

https://medlineplus.gov/ency/article/001488.htm#start

It may but "is it"? in this particular study?

Seems like you now understand the particular statistic being parsed out of this study and are looking to segue.

Whether this study obfuscates the data or the OP'S link refines it out is semantics as is when a potato "may" be called a potatoe.

[SPUTTER]

Where are you getting those numbers? This is the table directly from the study.



I should've been clearer, I meant the author of the study is being misleading.