Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

To: aMorePerfectUnion

82% miscarriage rate.

Total BS No one could hide that rate. It would be on the news 24/7


7 posted on 06/30/2021 10:09:19 AM PDT by setter
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]


To: setter

‘It would be on the news 24/7...’

I agree the story is BS; but I disagree if it were true, that the MSM would broadcast it day and night...


8 posted on 06/30/2021 10:12:49 AM PDT by IrishBrigade
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies ]

To: setter

Did you read any of it? It was over 80% for those pregnant twenty weeks or less. This is not the first story on this I have read. I bet it is true.


11 posted on 06/30/2021 10:17:28 AM PDT by TBall
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies ]

To: setter

Not BS. Read this and look at her posts. A female doctor tweeted this herself on twitter. I’ll never forget it.

If someone an post these photos please do. Denying this data doesn’t change it.

This doctor proudly holds untrasounds while she got the jab. Sadly very shortly thereafter she tweeted she’d miscarried.
https://twitter.com/sdaws5mufc/status/1357980910688350217?s=21


13 posted on 06/30/2021 10:21:58 AM PDT by BlueHorseShoe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies ]

To: setter

Who would detect this pattern and who would risk being ridiculed as anti-vaccine or anti-science by reporting it?

As bad as this is, if true, I think a bigger question is whether vaccinated women are now getting pregnant at the same or lesser rate. That statistic will not be hidden but it will take 9 months from when women in their twenties and thirties started getting vaccinated en masse for it to become widely apparent.


25 posted on 06/30/2021 10:45:23 AM PDT by Stingray51 ( )
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies ]

To: setter
-->Total BS No one could hide that rate.

Ah, but they did hide it by including the third trimester statistics to minimize it.

"A medical journal discovered that 82% of women who took an mRNA vaccine in the first 20 weeks of pregnancy had a miscarriage " “However, since the aim was to discover whether Covid vaccination had any adverse effects in the different trimesters, the NEJM papers’ authors should have deducted the 700 women who were not actually vaccinated until the third trimester from the total 827, leaving only those vaccinated in the first 20 weeks, i.e. 127 women to figure in that part of Table 4.”

29 posted on 06/30/2021 10:54:08 AM PDT by aMorePerfectUnion (“Fraud vitiates everything.” )
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies ]

To: setter

Considering what drops down memory hole in the MSM, I sure believe they could.


30 posted on 06/30/2021 10:56:24 AM PDT by metmom (...fixing our eyes on Jesus, the Author and Perfecter of our faith……)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies ]

To: setter

Besides your faith in the media, what causes you to believe it is BS?

In case it isn’t obvious, I find arguments based on the ethics and credibility of the mainstream corporate media to be delusional.


35 posted on 06/30/2021 11:03:32 AM PDT by hopespringseternal
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies ]

To: setter
82% miscarriage rate.

Total BS No one could hide that rate. It would be on the news 24/7


Actually, it's quite possible. The demonstrated cytotoxicity of the furin spike proteins could easily wreak havoc on a first trimester fetus.

Vaccines of ANY type are historically contraindicated for pregnant women due to potential complications with the pregnancy and adverse effects on the developing baby. The pushing of the untried and experimental mRNA vaccines on pregnant women is unprecedented and criminally irresponsible. Given the potential for birth defects due to the vaccines, the babies that spontaneously abort in response to the vaccines may by the fortunate one. The mind boggles and divining the motives and agendas of those pushing this insanity takes one to some very dark places.

36 posted on 06/30/2021 11:03:46 AM PDT by rdcbn1
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies ]

To: setter

You’re blind.


38 posted on 06/30/2021 11:07:12 AM PDT by piusv (Francis didn't start the Fire)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies ]

To: setter

The media is in on the crime.


43 posted on 06/30/2021 11:23:54 AM PDT by bray (Hating Whites is racist)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies ]

To: setter; IrishBrigade; semimojo
Total BS No one could hide that rate.

Your BS detector is working well. Anyone can play with numbers to make a scary headline. Here's info from the actual study:

- "From December 14, 2020, to February 28, 2021, we used data from the "v-safe after vaccination health checker" surveillance system, the v-safe pregnancy registry, and the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) to characterize the initial safety of mRNA Covid-19 vaccines in pregnant persons".

- "Among 3,958 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)."

Now it doesn't take a genius to figure out 3 things from this data.

- First, these women had only been enrolled in this study 1-3.5 months when this was written. To have given birth already, the participant would have had to be AT LEAST late in her 2nd trimester when vaccinated. Note that this data was collected MARCH 30. Those who already delivered were almost all in their 3rd trimester when vaccinated.

- Second, 104 miscarriages out of 3,959 pregnancies isn't 82%. Applying normal miscarriage rates, about 10%-15%, to the 1132 vaccinated during the first trimester and 92 vaccinated before conception, we should expect 122-184 miscarriages.

- Third, the vast majority of these women, over 3,000 were STILL pregnant when this study was written. The 827 "completed pregnancies" are a fraction of the participants. In December, the study will be completed, and the data will paint a more accurate picture that won't fit the scaremonger's agenda.

51 posted on 06/30/2021 12:56:34 PM PDT by ETCM
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson