WelcomeUser Guide
ToSPrivacyCanary
DonateBugsLicense

©2024 Poal.co

1.3K

(post is archived)

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.

[–] 0 pt

I believe the expectant mothers you describe are already included in the 0-20wk figures. That's why its 84% because >16% are still viable / not miscarried.

[–] 0 pt

I looked. They did NOT release the raw data, citing their inability to keep participants anonymous or some thing that didn't make sense