'Huge red flag’: Medical researchers bury data showing 82% miscarriage rate in vaccinated women

https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/huge-red-flag-medical-researchers-bury-data-showing-82-miscarriage-rate-in-vaccinated-women?utm_source=top_news&utm_campaign=standard ^

[aMorePerfectUnion]

WALTHAM, Massachusetts, June 30, 2021 (LifeSiteNews) — A medical journal discovered that 82% of women who took an mRNA vaccine in the first 20 weeks of pregnancy had a miscarriage — and then it then buried the data.

In mid-June the New England Journal of Medicine published a study called “Preliminary FIndings of mRNA Covid-19 Vaccine Safety in Pregnant Persons” by Tom T. Shimabukuro and others from the Center of Disease Control’s “v-safe COVID-10 Pregnancy Registry Team.” The team wrote that there were “no obvious safety signals among pregnant [women] who received Covid-19 vaccines” even though it published a table which showed that 82% of women in the study who were injected with either the Pfizer or the Moderna vaccine during early pregnancy lost their babies. More prominent in their study was a claim that only 13.9% of all “completed pregnancies” had ended in miscarriage — but this figure included the women who were not vaccinated until they were in the second half of their pregnancies.

[Silent One]

Or maybe he's just a fraud and a felon.

Possible, or possibly you are really not that familiar with the legal cases.  Either way, it is only fair for our readers to make up their own conclusions.  How do I know you are not a fraud or simply someones lackey?

[MNDude]

“IBTVP try to deny this”

Look at the keywords someone added: debunked, scaremongers, qtards.

[ETCM]

I guess you can believe whoever you wish. Note that he’s also the grifter who falsely claimed that Dr Atkins was obese when he died in order to discredit low carb diets and promote his own vegetarian diet plan that replaces meat with soy. In fact, his group, Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine (PCRM), is a front for far left radical anti-meat, animal rights activists.

[palmer]

Article is gone. But here's the NEJM study: https://europepmc.org/backend/ptpmcrender.fcgi?accid=PMC8117969&blobtype=pdf Original, uncensored. There's no 82% that I can see.

[palmer]

I linked the study. There's no indication of 82% miscarriage anywhere in the study. The LifeSite news site pulled their article. That's probably a sign that their article was crap, but of course the true believers will say that it means it's even more true.

My best guess is LifeSiteNews is trying to protect their reputation which is good on life topics.

[palmer]

nothing to see here

That's literally true since LifeSiteNews pulled the story.

[palmer]

Your story was pulled.

[grey_whiskers]

Read the thread here, it gets discussed.

[palmer]

From the internet archive

Wheatley pointed out that the “real rate” of spontaneous miscarriages among women vaccinated in the first 20 weeks of their pregnancy was not 12.6% but 82% because 104 of these 127 pregnancies were lost. She highlighted the “small print” in the study that stated that a “total of 700 participants (84.6) received their first eligible dose in the third trimester” and that a “total of 96 of 104 spontaneous abortions (92.3%) occurred before 13 weeks of gestation.”

That matches the table in the study which I linked, nothing has been changed one iota. Nothing was censored or hidden. So why did LifeSiteNews pull it?

Their source said 104 out of 827 women lost their pregnancies in the first trimester. But 700 out of the 827 were not injected until their third trimester. Therefore 82% (104/127).

The study says "Among 3958 participants enrolled in the v-safe pregnancy registry, 827 had a completed pregnancy, of which 115 (13.9%) resulted in a pregnancy loss and 712 (86.1%) resulted in a live birth (mostly among particpants with vaccination in the third trimester)."

That's the statement the LifeSiteNews source took issue with. I read the study. 3958 participants (94% healthcare). 1132 vaxed in the first trimester, 1714 second, and 1019 third. Then there's 1040 first, 1700 second. Then there's 827 completed pregnancies with 712 live births, 700 of which were third.

I don't know where the 827 comes from.

[palmer]

What gets discussed? What post?

The study says "Among 3958 participants enrolled in the v-safe pregnancy registry, 827 had a completed pregnancy, of which 115 (13.9%) resulted in a pregnancy loss and 712 (86.1%) resulted in a live birth (mostly among participants with vaccination in the third trimester)."

What happened to the 79% that did not complete their pregnancy? That's what I want to know.

[grey_whiskers]

The 2nd footnote, with the +, says where the 827 comes from.

[palmer]

That's fine but the 827 completed out of 3928 is only 21%. Subtract 105 losses and get 18% So 82% of pregnancies "did not complete" and 104 of those were considered miscarriages based on timing and 1 was a stillbirth. What about the rest? What happened to the rest?

My 82% is not 104 out of 127 like the LSN source. But it's the same percentage.

[palmer]

From study limitations: "We were unable to evaluate adverse outcomes that might occur in association with exposures earlier in pregnancy, such as congenital anoma- lies, because no pregnant persons who were vac- cinated early in pregnancy have had live births captured in the v-safe pregnancy registry to date; follow-up is ongoing. In addition, the proportion of pregnant persons who reported spontaneous abortion may not reflect true postvaccination proportions because participants might have been vaccinated after the period of greatest risk in the first trimester, and very early pregnancy losses might not be recognized. Whereas some pregnancies with vaccination in the first and early second trimester have been completed, the majority are ongoing, and a direct comparison of outcomes on the basis of timing of vaccina- tion is needed to define the proportion of spontaneous abortions in this cohort. Because of sample-size constraints, both pregnancy and neonatal outcomes were calculated as a proportion instead of a rate."

What I bolded is part of the explanation for "what about the rest?" That's not quantitative though. They say the majority. Do they mean 51% are still awaiting an outcome?

However they acknowledge "very early pregnancy losses might not be recognized" which means they are implying the 104 or 105 is an undercount. Do they mean people didn't know if they were pregnant or not?

[grey_whiskers]

I had to dig into the statistical analysis of the paper.
Man these idiots can’t write.

Descriptive analyses were performed
with the use of v-safe survey data for persons
who identified as pregnant through February 28,
2021 (35,691 persons); persons enrolled in the
v-safe pregnancy registry who were vaccinated
through February 28, 2021 (3958 persons); and
VAERS reports involving pregnant women received through February 28, 2021 (221 persons).

Then go back up to the TOP to the results section.

Among 3958 participants enrolled in the v-safe pregnancy registry, 827 had a completed pregnancy, of which 115 (13.9%) resulted in
a pregnancy loss and 712 (86.1%) resulted in a live birth (mostly among participants with vaccination in the third trimester). Adverse neonatal outcomes included
preterm birth (in 9.4%) and small size for gestational age (in 3.2%); no neonatal
deaths were reported. Although not directly comparable, calculated proportions of
adverse pregnancy and neonatal outcomes in persons vaccinated against Covid-19
who had a completed pregnancy were similar to incidences reported in studies
involving pregnant women that were conducted before the Covid-19 pandemic.
Among 221 pregnancy-related adverse events reported to the VAERS, the most
frequently reported event was spontaneous abortion (46 cases).

So if you were in v-safe, you’re one of 35,691.
If you’re in v-safe, AND jabbed through Feb 28 2021 you’re one of 3958.
If you’re in v-safe, and jabbed through Feb 28 2021, AND YOU STOPPED BEING PREGNANT, you’re one of the 827.

115 of the completed pregnancies were a loss.
Then you have to do the crosstab for those jabbed during the first trimester, yada yada.

NEJM is vastly overrated, from this article.

[palmer]

This is the best I can do with the study which I linked. 3958 pregnancies, at least 2019 "a majority" are ongoing. It might be more, but 51% is the bare minimum for a majority. There are 827 known outcomes including spontaneous abortion (104), live birth (712), stillbirth (1), induced and ectopic (10). There are 1939 that are "not ongoing" (maximum). Therefore there are 1112 unaccounted for (maximum). Some of those might be losses since they admit "very early pregnancy losses might not be recognized."

I assume all participants knew they were pregant when they enrolled? Regardless the maximum number of losses at this point is 1112 + 104 + 1 + 10 or 31% pregnancy losses.

[palmer]

My numbers in post 75 are based on the 3958 vaxed pregnancies only.

[grey_whiskers]

Do they mean people didn't know if they were pregnant or not?

Yes that can happen.

[grey_whiskers]

Yes, I understand. But if you you’re looking for detrimental effects of the jab, then you compare (women jabbed in 1st trimester) to (women not jabbed in first trimester) for example.

[palmer]

Let me be clear that part of my post 72 is answered by the study. I assumed that none of the pregnancies were ongoing. So when I asked, what about the rest of the outcomes, the answer is in the study limitations text: "the majority are ongoing".

Without knowing what the exact "ongoing" number is, the rest of the study numbers are useless.

[palmer]

then you compare (women jabbed in 1st trimester) to (women not jabbed in first trimester)

They get two jabs in this study so jabbed in first will very likely get jabbed in second or third. There will be very few cases in the "first but not second or third" group.