WelcomeUser Guide
ToSPrivacyCanary
DonateBugsLicense

©2026 Poal.co

This is a staggering number. Should be front page of every media on the planet. But the murderers own the media.

“Study from the New England Journal of Medicine confirms that when pregnant women are given COVID vaccinations during their first or second trimesters, they suffer an 82% spontaneous abortion rate, killing 4 out of 5 unborn babies.” - Infowars

“It is clear this is a global extermination against humanity.” - Mike Adams

EDIT: Relived to find this (Inforwars') 82% number may be high. Haven't read the NEJM study. But obviously the toxicity of pharma's fake vax battery is very capable of producing such percentages.

This is a staggering number. Should be front page of every media on the planet. But the murderers own the media. “Study from the New England Journal of Medicine confirms that when pregnant women are given COVID vaccinations during their first or second trimesters, they suffer an 82% spontaneous abortion rate, killing 4 out of 5 unborn babies.” - Infowars “It is clear this is a global extermination against humanity.” - Mike Adams EDIT: Relived to find this (Inforwars') 82% number may be high. Haven't read the NEJM study. But obviously the toxicity of pharma's fake vax battery is very capable of producing such percentages.

(post is archived)

[–] 2 pts

No, it doesn't. Approximately 4,000 women received the vaccination, of those 4,000 only 800 pregnancies have completed, and of those 800 completions only 100 were miscarriages. Until the other 3,000 pregnancies resolve there is no conclusive result here, but the preliminary results cannot be understood to mean an 82% loss unless you're retarded or dishonest.

[–] -1 pt (edited )

>only 100 [of 800] were miscarriages.

Even if your argument is accurate, that leaves 12 out of every 100 babies dead. Do you find this acceptable?

It’s LOWER than the 15% miscarriage rate!!!!

Jesus fucking Christ you people!

[–] 1 pt

1) About 15% of all pregnancies end in miscarriage so 12% is fine. 2) Dividing 100 by 800 as you did is utterly pointless because there are approximately 3,000 incomplete pregnancies. Those could all result in miscarriages tomorrow. They could not. The data is simply immature and it's useless to draw any conclusions from it other than "The vaccine doesn't immediately kill the mother or child".

[–] 1 pt

“Sadly, miscarriage is estimated to occur in about 1 in 4 pregnancies (equal to 25 in 100) in the UK (outside of the pandemic) and most occur in the first 12 weeks (first trimester) of pregnancy, so some miscarriages would be expected to occur following vaccination purely by chance.”

[–] 2 pts

so some miscarriages would be expected to occur following vaccination purely by chance.

The problem is that they don't use the same measurement when looking at COVID deaths. Instead, any death that is even remotely possible to be COVID is classified as such. Otherwise, they would have to come to the conclusion that COVID is just a somewhat bad flu that seems to have mutated into a less bad strain now.

If they are going to use one method for categorising one group, and another method for categorising another group, then they cannot be used to measure the comparative risks. Yet they are. They will use the "corrected for statistical chance of all cause death" risk profile of the vaccines against the running around screaming with your fucking hair on fire risk profile of the coof coof.

[–] 1 pt

Yes retard, its completely normal. Before medicine became to the level it was today its more likely 10% of mothers died in child birth too

[–] 1 pt

That is an extremely high number and what should be pushed, not the dishonest 82%. If we push bad data, it does a lot of damage towards convincing people of things that are true.

[–] 1 pt

No you are wrong https://files.catbox.moe/k7ppi3.jpeg

They quote 12% of the 827 subjects had spontaneous abortion prior to 20 weeks. But at the bottom they state that 700 subject had the vax in the 3rd trimester. The true rate of spontaneous abortion among people that had the vax in the first 2 trimesters was 82%. This is astoundingly high!

The dishonesty was from the authors who included 700 subjects in the spontaneous abortion number when they weren’t capable of having a miscarriage at <20 weeks because they hadn’t taken the vax at that point!

[–] 1 pt

Common sense: You can't have blood clots occurring in the vascular system without compromising the placenta and killing the fetus.

[–] 1 pt

This study ALONE should be more than enough to stop all use of all kinds of Covid vaccines.

Look at the numbers - miscarriage rate in this study is actually around 10%!

THE NORMAL RATE OF MISCARRIAGE - 15% - IS FUCKING HIGHER THAN IN THIS STUDY.

THIS is why NO ONE TAKES US SERIOUSLY

It’s unfathomable how fucking ignorant some of you are.- which is fine, you aren’t experts - but your dramatic declarations without ANY KNOWLEDGE of what your talking about should be embarrassing to you but you just don’t retain new knowledge. Holy fucking shit is this enraging.

[–] 0 pt (edited )

Alex Jones is asshoe just like china https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qwYnPS33kJQ

[–] 1 pt

you're attacking the wrong (irrelevant) messenger, source is the New England Journal of Medicine..

[–] 0 pt

“Sadly, miscarriage is estimated to occur in about 1 in 4 pregnancies (equal to 25 in 100) in the UK (outside of the pandemic) and most occur in the first 12 weeks (first trimester) of pregnancy, so some miscarriages would be expected to occur following vaccination purely by chance.”

https://www.reuters.com/article/factcheck-miscarriage-vaccine/fact-check-there-is-no-evidence-to-suggest-covid-19-vaccines-increase-the-risk-of-miscarriage-idUSL1N2LT21A

[–] 1 pt

See my other comment. The alex jones number is correct. 4 out of 5 women who took the vaccine in the 1st and 2nd trimester lost their pregnancy before 20 weeks (aka spontaneous abortion.) One women in the study lost her pregnancy after 20 weeks ( aka stillbirth ). Deceptively, this article asserts that there was no unusual pattern with “still births”. This is semantics. There’s a massive signal buried in their data. Vaccine at <20 weeks = death. Look at the actual study in nejm, not the fucktards at reuters. Table 4, I screen shotted it below.

[–] 0 pt

The actual rate was 9% so this claim is disinformation.

However the suspicious thing about the Vsafe registry is that it hasn't updated its figures. Very strange

[–] 1 pt

9% is a staggering number. Should be front page of every media on the planet.

[–] 1 pt

Well it's low for first trimester. But the study hasn't reported the 900 women that had it in the first trimester but continued the pregnancy

[–] [deleted] -1 pt

NO IT ISN’T STAGGERING. Holy shit! That’s lower than average miscarriage rate!

Holy fucking hell this is EXACTLY why no one believes ANYTHING we say about vaccines!

[–] 0 pt

As far as I can tell 82% isn't accurate.

Quoting from the New England Journal: https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMe2107070

"Among 827 registry participants who reported a completed pregnancy, the pregnancy resulted in a spontaneous abortion in 104 (12.6%) ... these percentages are well within the range expected"

12% sounds high, but the study says thats within the normal expected range without vaccine

[–] 1 pt (edited )

No youre wrong, if you look at table 4 in that study, it says that 700 of the 827 subjects got their first dose in the 3rd trimester (bottom fine print). So the true spontaneous abortion rate is actuall 104/127 or 82%.

Do you see the statistical fuckery that we need to expect in these studies? Right out in the fucking open but you had to be looking for it. What self respecting scientist would do that?

, it is that bad, unfortunately. They sent these normies to kill their babies. The ones who survive will be retards, wait and see.

[–] 0 pt

I think sold his account to a pharma company.

[–] 1 pt

If you were to manufacture a product and have some statistical idea or projected 'knowledge' that an amount will actually die from your product, and you announce a percentile range, for example '8% - 15% may suffer adverse reaction events', then any number in that range is in a "normal expected range". It really is just devious duplicity, obfuscation and semantics ....

[–] 0 pt (edited )

Relived to find this (Inforwars') 82% number may be high. Haven't read the NEJM study. But obviously the toxicity of pharma's fake vax battery is very capable of producing such percentages.

[–] 0 pt

Can we get the study instead of some shit video?