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