Replies

What you are missing is this “newspaper article”* is quoting Naomi Wolfe, and only Naomi Wolfe, who claims her “crowdsourced project” to analyze the Pfizer documents found that 50% miscarried. So you are trusting Wolfe’s word and her “crowdsourced project” if you believe it.

Here’s the link to the actual “newspaper article”:

https://www.theflstandard.com/massacre-nearly-half-of-pregnant-women-in-pfizer-trial-miscarried/

As it turns out, Wolfe is still a very sloppy researcher. You see, she (or her “crowdsourced researchers”) double counted the miscarriages. Each miscarriage, along with its unique event number, was listed under “all adverse events” and again under “serious adverse events”. So there were 11 total miscarriages, not 22.

The “newspaper article” links to the “article” making the claim on Wolfe’s website, by someone called “Berberine on Gettr”

To her credit, Berberine has since noted that she was called out on this by The Naked Emperor and Phil Kerson. (But shame on her for truncating Kerpen’s finding.)

Naked Emperor (most is behind paywall, and sorry, not paying)

https://nakedemperor.substack.com/p/fact-checking-the-claim-that-44-of

Phil Kerpen (better analysis than The Naked Emperor anyway):

https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1559949374381244416.html

Not only is it 11 miscarriages (not 20) but the total number of pregnancies is unknown because only 3 of the women who miscarried are on the list of the 50 who became pregnant after the first dose. As the trial excluded pregnant women, there must have been an unknown (as yet) number who were pregnant without realizing it before the first dose. Perhaps there is yet another table of women who became pregnant after the second dose. Whichever, 8 of the women who miscarried are missing from the list of 50. Therefore, the total number of pregnant women is unknown at this time.

As Phil Kerpen wrote:

“If we go back to the table of 50 pregnancies and mark the miscarriages we find only 3 of the 11 subject IDs. Presumably the other 8 were pregnant before dose 1. But we don’t have the denominator for that to figure a rate.

So really all we can say is that at the timepoint when the file was generated there had been 11 miscarriages after Pfizer vaccine.

To further clarify, we cannot say 22% because it’s not 11 out of 50. It’s only 3 out of 50; the 11 is out of an unknown denominator.”

The normal rate of miscarriage is between 10% and 20% (although researchers say it is likely much higher, as very early in a pregnancy a woman may not know she was pregnant and miscarried).

3 out of 50 is 6%, which seems too low at first glance, but, given the tiny sample size of 50, not surprising. Small samples can yield skewed results. So we can’t say the miscarriage rate was only 6%. Until they find the pages with the table of women who were unknowingly pregnant before the first dose, we cannot figure the actual rate of miscarriage.

According to this article:

Pregnant people were not included in the initial clinical trial, so participants would have been unaware of their pregnancies at the trial’s start and early in pregnancy at the time of the Pfizer report. Of the 270 pregnancies reported during the trial, 238 were ongoing at the time of the report, while the remaining 32 pregnancies had ended, with 28 resulting in miscarriage. Pfizer’s data shows that at the time of the report, 10.4 percent of the pregnancies had ended in miscarriage, which is well within the normal miscarriage rate of 10 to 20 percent. Emphasizing that data from multiple other studies show that COVID-19 vaccination does not increase miscarriage risk is recommended, as is explaining that vaccination is safe and recommended for people who are pregnant and breastfeeding or anyone trying to become pregnant in the future.”

Link: https://publichealthcollaborative.org/misinformation-alert/post-claims-pfizer-vaccine-caused-miscarriages-during-clinical-trial/

Link given to other studies: https://www.cidrap.umn.edu/news-perspective/2021/09/covid-19-vaccines-dont-raise-miscarriage-risk-3-studies-show

*”The Florida Standard” is not a newspaper. It’s a brandy new website run by “social media influencer” Will Witt which was registered on June 27 of this year.

Will Witt:

https://www.prageru.com/presenters/will-witt

To quote an Isaac Asimov short story,

“Exactly. I mean that I’m going to let him go ahead, choose his rope, test its strength, cut off the right length, tie the noose, insert his head and grin. I can do what little else is required.”

Here's your supposed kill shot.

Not only is it 11 miscarriages (not 20) but the total number of pregnancies is unknown because only 3 of the women who miscarried are on the list of the 50 who became pregnant after the first dose. As the trial excluded pregnant women, there must have been an unknown (as yet) number who were pregnant without realizing it before the first dose. Perhaps there is yet another table of women who became pregnant after the second dose. Whichever, 8 of the women who miscarried are missing from the list of 50. Therefore, the total number of pregnant women is unknown at this time.

How does a woman who is not pregnant, have a miscarriage?

Oh, right. Maybe the Kaitlyn Jenners of the world. (*snicker*)

This is what is known in technical terms as "lousy record keeping."

Are the other 8 part of the trial or not?

And if the records are so lousy that they're losing track of 8 of 11 miscarriages, what good is the study in the first place?

Remember, it was Pfizer's study in the first place.

Your first link to "other studies" is more or less an editorial from "Public Health Communications Collaborative" which was founded in August 2020 in part by the CDC "to provide unbiased communication about the COVID-19 pandemic." Source, their own web page: https://publichealthcollaborative.org/about/

In other words, it is literally a government propaganda outlet.

Yeah, the CDC of Fauci and Birx and Wallensky.

Top Kek.

The CIDRAP Link is a hot mess. They quote from JAMA on a study of ~105k pregnancies.

Note the following:

1) they only cover women who get the jab less than 20 weeks' gestation.

2) they only looked for abortion within 28 days of the jab.

3) The adjusted odds ratio was 1.02 for abortion if women got the jab.

(Note at the 95% percent confidence level, the real odds ratio could have been as low as 96% or as high as 108%).

Oh, yes, and they had to issue a correction online, since they switched the column headings (ongoing pregnancies vs. spontaneous abortions) in the first published edition.

But ...muh JAMA. Because SCIENCE!

And they also quote from a letter to NEJM.

For participants in the V-safe Covid Vaccine Pregnancy Registry;

all of whom got the jab.

The cumulative risk of abortion between 6 and 20 weeks gestation, was 14.1% (95% confidence interval was 12.1% - 16.1% ; when they age-adjusted to the reference population, it became 12.8% (95% CI, 10.8 to 14.8%).

Only one little thing (besides only following for 14 weeks out of pregnancy). No control group. So they fudged by comparing to other historical groups to "guesstimate" upper and lower ranges for spontaneous abortion in pregnancy; no effort at matching by age, or ethnicity, or anything like that.

Guess where 12 out of the 13 authors came from?

Yeah, the CDC.

Suck on it, troll.