‘Huge red flag’: Medical researchers bury data showing 82% miscarriage rate in vaccinated women.

[–] • 3 pts

Anyone know anyone that is pregnant right now?? i do not

link

[–] • 4 pts

I did...and now she is not.

parent
link

[–] • 2 pts

That would require us to know a real female and... well, you're at Poal.

parent
link

[–] • 1 pt

(edited )

i know a poalr bear that claims its a woman, does that count?

parent
link

[–] • -1 pt

There are only men pretending to be women on here and half of those are federal agents pretending to be racists.

parent
link

[–] • 1 pt

Yup, I know 1 who just had a kid and was fully vaccinated, Child was very premature, but not unexpected because the mother has a whole bunch of health issues. I also know 1 more ready to pop and a couple coming up in the next couple of months. As far as I know, all 4 are fully vaccinated.

parent
link

[–] • 0 pt

A woman has to be batshit crazy to get an immunization during pregnancy. Don't they read or research?? It was only one generation ago that OBGYNs were adamant on the no alchohol no drugs rule, and mine said including OTCs.

parent
link

[–] [deleted] • 3 pts

This vaccine is killing people and it’s dangerous. That said, this article is one of the most blindly ignorant pieces of garbage science that I’ve ever seen in my entire life.

And that’s on top of the fact that it doesn’t even make any sense. This author’s interpretation of what they read in someone else’s article is so misguided and so ignorant that it’s beyond comprehension to me that anyone would post this article here. Actually, no, unfortunately, it isn’t, and that’s my main gripe with people here, who I otherwise align with but who frustrate me to no end with their stupidity.

This is why we have no credibility with the outside world. They point at stuff like this and say that we are spreading misinformation.

But that’s exactly what this article is.

I can look past the logical disconnect of an author trying to say that “they“ are trying to “bury” information in an article that went out of his way to put that very same information on a chart in the article in question. They didn’t have to even bring it up or mention it but went out of their way to put the information on the chart in the article. That’s the opposite of burying. Considering they didn’t even have to attach the chart or the data, but I can look past that, that’s just minor stupidity.

The author of this article linked here has absolutely no idea how they chart the different types of pregnancies or what the terminology is for them and why that number is not surprisingly high and why they differentiated between the different types of pregnancies that the author clearly does not understand. At all. Their interpretation of the article is misleading.

I don’t think it’s on purpose I think it’s out of ignorance. Go read the article in question. Go read it. I guess if you have to do an Internet search for what the different pregnancy terms mean, then go ahead and do it.

No, the New England Journal of Medicine didn’t hide information by ignoring it while INCLUDING THE INCRIMINATING DATA IN A CHART.

We all know the main stream media sucks and that they lie to us on a daily basis.

But for as bad as they are, a writer like this wouldn’t last 10 minutes at the Washington post or the New York Times. This is beyond stupid. If the author were a leftist I’d probably suspect dishonesty and malice, but they seem like the heart is in the right place so I shrug it off as ignorance. But we shouldn’t shrug that off. Stuff like this should not be posted here. And yet we do it, literally every day stuff this stupid or worse. We deserve the fact that no one ever believes us about anything ever.

Some dumb motherfucker in one of the Q subs the other day posted a list of deaths he blamed on vaccines. Included in that list was terminology for deaths from things like cancer, lymphoma, leukemia, strokes, accidents, blunt trauma, and the list goes on and on. He blamed all 15,000 or so deaths on vaccines because all of the people on the list have been vaccinated. Getting stabbed in an alley or run over with a car included. This is exactly what we criticize the Covid maniacs for doing. Remember when Covid morons blamed every death on Covid as long as the person tested positive for Covid or was suspected of having Covid? This is our version of that. And yet I see that exact same shitty information and repeated here daily. And then I get attacked as if I’m not against this vaccine or is if I don’t realize this thing is dangerous and killing people. Of course the fuck it is. But I want us to prove our case not look like fucking idiots.

Not only did that dumb motherfucker post that here, he posts shit like that every single fucking day that makes us look like retards for opposing this vaccine.

This is so disappointing to me because it makes me realize that none of you people actually care about whether or not we get it right. Whether or not we actually help people with good information to combat the lies we see every day in the main stream media. You just want your Internet points. And people like me who take this shit seriously get labeled as suspicious because I resisted and I fight back because I want the truth, I don’t want bullshit, I want us to get it right. We should be the one to get it right because they aren’t. They lie, deliberately, every day, to the American people. We are supposed to be the one to get it right. But I see the rampant reckless ignorance on this forum and others every single fucking day and drives me bonkers. And then I’m the asshole for wanting us to be better. This is why we lost our republic.

This vaccine is killing people and it’s dangerous. That said, this article is one of the most blindly ignorant pieces of garbage science that I’ve ever seen in my entire life. And that’s on top of the fact that it doesn’t even make any sense. This author’s interpretation of what they read in someone else’s article is so misguided and so ignorant that it’s beyond comprehension to me that anyone would post this article here. Actually, no, unfortunately, it isn’t, and that’s my main gripe with people here, who I otherwise align with but who frustrate me to no end with their stupidity. This is why we have no credibility with the outside world. They point at stuff like this and say that we are spreading misinformation. *But that’s exactly what this article is*. I can look past the logical disconnect of an author trying to say that “they“ are trying to “bury” information in an article that went out of his way to put that very same information on a chart in the article in question. They didn’t have to even bring it up or mention it but went out of their way to put the information on the chart in the article. That’s the opposite of burying. Considering they didn’t even have to attach the chart or the data, but I can look past that, that’s just minor stupidity. The author of this article linked here has absolutely no idea how they chart the different types of pregnancies or what the terminology is for them and why that number is not surprisingly high and why they differentiated between the different types of pregnancies that the author clearly does not understand. At all. Their interpretation of the article is misleading. I don’t think it’s on purpose I think it’s out of ignorance. Go read the article in question. Go read it. I guess if you have to do an Internet search for what the different pregnancy terms mean, then go ahead and do it. No, the New England Journal of Medicine didn’t hide information by ignoring it while INCLUDING THE INCRIMINATING DATA IN A CHART. We all know the main stream media sucks and that they lie to us on a daily basis. But for as bad as they are, a writer like this wouldn’t last 10 minutes at the Washington post or the New York Times. This is beyond stupid. If the author were a leftist I’d probably suspect dishonesty and malice, but they seem like the heart is in the right place so I shrug it off as ignorance. But we shouldn’t shrug that off. Stuff like this should not be posted here. And yet we do it, literally every day stuff this stupid or worse. We deserve the fact that no one ever believes us about anything ever. Some dumb motherfucker in one of the Q subs the other day posted a list of deaths he blamed on vaccines. Included in that list was terminology for deaths from things like cancer, lymphoma, leukemia, strokes, accidents, blunt trauma, and the list goes on and on. He blamed all 15,000 or so deaths on vaccines because all of the people on the list have been vaccinated. Getting stabbed in an alley or run over with a car included. This is exactly what we criticize the Covid maniacs for doing. Remember when Covid morons blamed every death on Covid as long as the person tested positive for Covid or was suspected of having Covid? This is our version of that. And yet I see that exact same shitty information and repeated here daily. And then I get attacked as if I’m not against this vaccine or is if I don’t realize this thing is dangerous and killing people. Of course the fuck it is. But I want us to prove our case not look like fucking idiots. Not only did that dumb motherfucker post that here, he posts shit like that every single fucking day that makes us look like retards for opposing this vaccine. This is so disappointing to me because it makes me realize that none of you people actually care about whether or not we get it right. Whether or not we actually help people with good information to combat the lies we see every day in the main stream media. You just want your Internet points. And people like me who take this shit seriously get labeled as suspicious because I resisted and I fight back because I want the truth, I don’t want bullshit, I want us to get it right. We should be the one to get it right because they aren’t. They lie, deliberately, every day, to the American people. We are supposed to be the one to get it right. But I see the rampant reckless ignorance on this forum and others every single fucking day and drives me bonkers. And then I’m the asshole for wanting us to be better. This is why we lost our republic.

link

[–] [deleted] • 2 pts

(edited )

The issue seems to be in how the numbers are presented.

Something like 35K women enrolled in the reporting system reported being pregnant. Out of that number, the study called just over 5k. They were able to contact, confirm, and use data concerning concluded pregancies 827 of those women.

This is not comparing 100 or so miscarriages out of a group of 35K; if it was, I’d conclude the jab stopped miscarriages because that would be a shockingly low rate. Miscarriages occur in about 10-20% of all pregnancies (hard to get an exact number).

Miscarriage is the loss of pregnancy before 20 weeks. After that, it’s a stillbirth. So including third trimester numbers might be interpreted as dishonest on its face.

Out of those 827 women, 96 experienced a miscarriage prior to 13 weeks. 104 pregnancy losses total. 700 of the confirmed live births occurred for women who got the vaccine in their third trimester. Doing the math, that means out of 827 women who were contacted, 127 women got the jab in the first or second trimester. Of them, 104 of them lost their pregnancy. That’s where the number in the article is coming from.

So, both numbers are right. Overall, 12% of women lost a pregnancy. But most of the women contacted got the jab in the third trimester, so the first trimester rate is higher than it should be.

There could be issues with data point selection, ie, women with a loss might have been more willing to talk to this study. They might have pulled a very unrepresentative sample. But that is a HUGE departure from the even the most extreme normal miscarriage rate.

ETA: the other issue might just be length of time. They need to do an apples to apple comparison; track women who got it to the conclusion of their pregnancy. If you got it in the first trimester, in the past say three months, but they’re just looking at “finished” pregnancies, then of course they are excluding any woman who hasn’t had a miscarriage. Which could be throwing the numbers off as well.

The issue seems to be in how the numbers are presented. Something like 35K women enrolled in the reporting system reported being pregnant. Out of that number, the study called just over 5k. They were able to contact, confirm, and use data *concerning concluded pregancies* 827 of those women. This is not comparing 100 or so miscarriages out of a group of 35K; if it was, I’d conclude the jab stopped miscarriages because that would be a shockingly low rate. Miscarriages occur in about 10-20% of all pregnancies (hard to get an exact number). Miscarriage is the loss of pregnancy before 20 weeks. After that, it’s a stillbirth. So including third trimester numbers might be interpreted as dishonest on its face. Out of those 827 women, 96 experienced a miscarriage prior to 13 weeks. 104 pregnancy losses total. 700 of the confirmed live births occurred for women who got the vaccine in their third trimester. Doing the math, that means out of 827 women who were contacted, 127 women got the jab in the first or second trimester. Of them, 104 of them lost their pregnancy. That’s where the number in the article is coming from. So, both numbers are right. Overall, 12% of women lost a pregnancy. But most of the women contacted got the jab in the third trimester, so the first trimester rate is higher than it should be. There could be issues with data point selection, ie, women with a loss might have been more willing to talk to this study. They might have pulled a very unrepresentative sample. But that is a HUGE departure from the even the most extreme normal miscarriage rate. ETA: the other issue might just be length of time. They need to do an apples to apple comparison; track women who got it to the conclusion of their pregnancy. If you got it in the first trimester, in the past say three months, but they’re just looking at “finished” pregnancies, then of course they are excluding any woman who hasn’t had a miscarriage. Which could be throwing the numbers off as well.

parent
link

[–] • 0 pt

(edited )

Yep and you'll get idiot responses from assholes like purge 2020. His brain was purged.

parent
link

[–] • 2 pts

Good, I don't want to breed with a worthless NPC, newage cunt.

Fuck every red-blooded Ameri-slave who cannot be bothered to question his masters.

link

[–] • 2 pts

I'm concerned that this might get worse with the babies that survive. I'm old enough to remember the horrors of the Thalidomide babies.

Such a terrible thing. We repeat history because we are stupid retards.

link

[–] [deleted] • 1 pt

ODD---- Update July 1, 2021: This article has been temporarily pulled for further review, so LifeSite can make adjustments and provide additional clarification regarding the data. We apologize for the inconvenience. Thank you for your understanding and patience as we seek to maintain accurate and honest reporting.

link

[–] • 1 pt

What's the regular rate for miscarriages?

link

[–] [deleted] • 1 pt

The number I normally hear is 10-20%. It might be as high as 40% though, because it takes a few weeks after conception for a woman to realize she’s pregnant.

That being said, the more I think about, I think the design of this study accidentally selected for first trimester miscarriages. I don’t know how far back they were able to pull data from.

parent
link

[–] • 3 pts

I had two in a row back when I was trying.

My fiance at the time refused to stop smoking weed, which grossly mutate your sperm. Early miscarriages are usually due to the sperm quality. The woman can't do anything with it so they clear our their system to try again. If it's early miscarriages men should be VERY concerned about their sperm health. This study should focus on both the female AND males.

Though I also can't read the study since I see it's already been purged. Fantastic.

parent
link

[–] [deleted] • 1 pt

Like I said in another comment, I think this study had some design problems. They need to do a cohort study, where they follow women who get the jab at different points through their pregnancy through their entire pregnancy.

Instead, they pulled data mostly from women who got it in the third trimester, which by definition, can’t give you any information on miscarriage rates. But at the same time, they pulled data on “completed” pregnancies only, so that over selected first and second trimester jabbed women whose pregnancies ended (in miscarriage) within the study’s timeframe.

It basically tells us nothing about the real miscarriage rate.

And yes, men should be included as well.

parent
link

[–] • 1 pt

Obesity has a correlation to miscarriage and conception. And considering most American women are fat....

parent
link

[–] [deleted] • 2 pts

The main cause of early miscarriage (which is most miscarriages) is genetic abnormalities. But eating like shit destroys your eggs, so...

parent
link

[–] • 0 pt

(edited )

I'll call bullshit on this fake news Supposed to believe that 8 out of every 10 pregnant women who took the jab had a miscarriage. Fake news fitting of CNN

link

[–] • 1 pt

Well this website isn't the source of the information, which you'd know if you'd read the first paragraph, even.

Just surprising it's not 10/10, the poison "vaccine" is definitely intended to make women (and men) infertile.

parent
link

[–] • 0 pt

Does not matter. It is bullshit and makes us look idiotic. You might realize that if you thought for yourself.

parent
link

[–] [deleted] • 0 pt

What did I tell you about running your yapper, littledick? Get your shots.

parent
link

Load more (1 reply)

[–] • 0 pt

Full retard response.

parent
link

[–] [deleted] • 1 pt

That’s not at all what the data says.

The majority of miscarriages happened to women who got the jab in the first trimester. Above the normal miscarriage rate. By lumping in those numbers with women who got it in the third trimester, where we did not see an elevated stillbirth rate, you dilute the miscarriage rate to 12%.

So yea, something might be going on here, but the article does not claim that 8 out of 10 pregnancies are ending in spontaneous abortion.

parent
link

[–] [deleted] • 0 pt

An accurate statement of the published data, for this line of table 4, would be: "Of the 827 participants, 127 received a vaccination prior to the third trimester. Of these, 104 reported a spontaneous abortion. (82%)."

link

[–] [deleted] • 0 pt

>827 had a completed pregnancy, of which 115 (13.9%) resulted in a pregnancy loss and 712 (86.1%) resulted in a live birth

That is from the actual study https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33882218/ I don't know what the author of the article is talking about.

link

[–] [deleted] • 0 pt

They didn’t break it out by trimester. Something like 700 of those 827 got the jab in the third trimester. So it’s not an accurate measure of the miscarriage rate, which by definition can only happen before 20 weeks.

parent
link

[–] • 0 pt

(edited )

JeezusChrist. Thank you. Had to scroll down this far to read a comment from somebody who gets it.

82% miscarry if they get the shot within 1st and 2nd trimester. However the published number came when they combined those who miscarried (within 0-20wks) alongside all who haven't even taken the shot yet. I suspect they tried to mask this alarming figure on purpose. Their fallacy (to be kind) resulted in falsely reporting the number to be only 14%. That's a huge mistake and their arrogance shows up in their summary as it is mere insignificant blip of expectant mothers who par-the-course.

It's like crashing your minivan, then parking it next to a brand new car, then saying that the average value of both cars is still high, and proof that crashing cars is no big deal.

The author of the linked article suspects foul play and I agree. This reminds me when global warmers at IPCC were caught adulterating numbers.

parent
link

[–] [deleted] • 0 pt

I think the main issue is when they pulled the data. It might be in the appendix, I haven’t checked. We haven’t had enough time pass for women who got the jab this year to go through a full pregnancy. So anyone who got it this year, in their first trimester, and has had a “completed” pregnancy, wouldn’t have had time to give birth to a full term baby; the only way that pregnancy could be completed would be through miscarriage.

That being said, the authors of this thing took the numbers they had, crunched them in this incredibly inaccurate way, and claimed a 12% miscarriage rate when they should instead have said that data for first trimester jabs wasn’t sufficient to draw any kind of conclusion. So yes, either they’re idiots or they were trying to come up with the lowest number possible.