That's it, I'm invoking the mercy rule.
“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.
That's it, I'm invoking the mercy rule.
No, you are the one who does not get it. It’s not a case of lousy record keeping on Pfizer’s part. It’s a case of lousy research on the part of Naomi Wolfe and her “crowdsourced” researchers.
Naomi Wolfe has her “crowdsourced project” going through the 30,000 pages of Pfizer documents and they made grave errors. These are glaring errors, but Wolfe failed to notice them when announcing their erroneous finding that 44% of vaccinated pregnant women miscarried.
Error #1: They found the page with the table listing the 11 women who miscarried in the “all adverse events” section. And they found the the page with the table listing those same 11 women in the “serious adverse events” section. Being lousy researchers, they failed to notice it was the same 11 women, same 11 miscarriages, and added the two tables together, claiming there were 22 miscarriages — but actually there were only 11.
Error #2: They found the table listing the 50 women who became pregnant after the first dose and assumed this was the total number of pregnant women enrolled in the study, a wrong assumption. They also failed to notice that only 3 of the 11 women who miscarried are listed among the 50.
Therefore, there must be a table listing women who became pregnant at some other time which Naomi’s “researchers” have not found yet among the 30,000 pages. It is highly likely a number of women did not yet realize they were pregnant when they were enrolled in the study, and so were pregnant before receiving the first dose. The “missing” 8 women must be in this group, and hence are not on the list of 50 who became pregnant after receiving the first dose. (Note that pregnant women were excluded from the study, so these women would not have participated in the study had it been known they were pregnant at the time of enrollment.)
Without the missing table of women who were already pregnant when they received the first dose (which likely includes the 8 women missing from the list of 50 who became pregnant after receiving the first dose), we cannot know the total number of pregnant women in the study. All we know is that of the 50 women who reported they were pregnant after the first dose, 3 miscarried.
Perhaps Naomi’s “researchers” will find that table and correct the error. Or perhaps not. Naomi got her “Massacre!” headline on Will Witt’s website that dupes then spread on social media.
At least this “Berberina on Gettr” who posted the erroneous “finding” that “44% of pregnant women miscarried” on Wolfe’s website noted that others had called out the errors, as you can see:
https://dailyclout.io/pfizer-misleadingly-classified-multiple-miscarriages/
Other people can see and understand the errors made by Wolfe and her “crowdsourced project”. Why can’t you? Phil Kerpen spells it out and provides the Pfizer tables so you can check for yourself. Here is the link again:
https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1559949374381244416.html
>>>>Re your “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?”<<<<
Pfizer did not “lose track” of those 8 women. As I spelled out in my earlier post and again in this one, those 8 women are not among the subset of 50 women who reported they became pregnant after receiving the first dose. Therefore, they must be among the women who became pregnant before receiving the first dose, but did not yet realize it at the time. Naomi’s “researchers” have either not yet found the page(s) listing these women, or they failed to disclose this information.
>>>>Ref your “they only cover women who get the jab less than 20 weeks’ gestation.”:
Well of course they did. By definition, a miscarriage is “spontaneous loss of a pregnancy before the 20th week”:
>>>>Re your “2) they only looked for abortion within 28 days of the jab.”<<<<
I agree it would have been better to monitor the women until they passed the 20th week of pregnancy. The researchers probably reasoned that if the vaccines were responsible for elevated risk of miscarriage, it would occur within 28 days of receiving the vaccine, as the spike proteins would have been cleared from the body well before 28 days.
>>>>>Re your “3) The adjusted odds ratio was 1.02 for abortion if women got the jab.”
Yes, a 1.02 odds ratio is basically a wash. No statistically significant difference between the two groups.
Okay, so you don’t like “muh JAMA” (yet promote and defend Naomi Wolfe’s hot mess of a “crowdsourced project” — go figure). You seemed to think highly of the Virology Journal with the letter to the editor by the Japanese doctor, and noted it was a BMC Nature journal in your post #150 on this thread, so how about this meta analysis from Nature:
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-022-30052-w?s=09
Oops, it uses the same two studies on miscarriage risk.
Speaking of the Virology Journal and The Lancet, you surely remember posting it to me in your #150 and to Semimojo in your #151.
My response in my #173: “The Virology Journal “article” you touted is not peer-reviewed article, but a letter to the editor of said journal by Kenji Yamamoto, a Japanese doctor (link: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9167431/ ). The Lancet study is the one he cites to support his statement that “the study showed that immune function among vaccinated individuals eight months after the administration of two doses of the COVID-19 vaccine was lower than that among the unvaccinated individuals” in his footnote 1, but this is a gross misunderstanding or misrepresentation of that study, perhaps a translation error. The Lancet study absolutely DOES NOT support your assertion that “not just immune response to COVID-1984 variants, but overall immunity is impaired by the clot shots.”
If you bother to check out The Lancet study yourself, you will find it says no such thing. It does show the vaccines’ efficacy wanes considerably over time, especially in the elderly (and recommends boosters). While the study does show immunity to the Covid virus lessens over time as vaccine efficacy wanes, there is never any claim or question that overall immune function is depressed.”
Funny you would post that twice and never get around to checking the Lancet study and too ashamed to admit it. You needn’t be though. Wayne Root and Gateway Pundit didn’t bother to check either. (Not surprising, as they also neglected to check cause of death of the celebrities Root insinuated died of the vaxx: https://freerepublic.com/focus/chat/4080412/posts?page=202#202 )
So how about it? Here’s the link to the Lancet article:
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/35131043/