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.