Posted on 07/05/2021 1:51:00 PM PDT by Triple
A total of 35,691 v-safe participants 16 to 54 years of age identified as pregnant. Injection-site pain was reported more frequently among pregnant persons than among nonpregnant women, whereas headache, myalgia, chills, and fever were reported less frequently. 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).
CONCLUSIONS
Preliminary findings did not show obvious safety signals among pregnant persons who received mRNA Covid-19 vaccines. However, more longitudinal follow-up, including follow-up of large numbers of women vaccinated earlier in pregnancy, is necessary to inform maternal, pregnancy, and infant outcomes. . . . Table 4 (excerpt)
Participant-Reported Outcome Published Incidence* V-safe Pregnancy Registry† % no./total no. (%)
Pregnancy loss among participants with a completed pregnancy Spontaneous abortion: <20 wk15-17...10–26...104/827 (12.6)‡ Stillbirth: ≥ 20 wk18-20...<1... 1/725 (0.1)§
† Data on pregnancy loss are based on 827 participants in the v-safe pregnancy registry who received an mRNA Covid-19 vaccine (BNT162b2 [Pfizer–BioNTech] or mRNA-1273 [Moderna]) from December 14, 2020, to February 28, 2021, and who reported a completed pregnancy. A total of 700 participants (84.6%) received their first eligible dose in the third trimester.
§ The denominator includes live-born infants and stillbirths.
(Excerpt) Read more at nejm.org ...
Ok ...
Read and explain the ✝️and Following footnote to table 4. - TIA
Are you sure the study isn’t saying that of the 127 women who lost the baby, 104 lost the baby early in the pregnancy when most babies are lost?
“Among 1040 participants (91.9%) who received a vaccine in the first trimester and 1700 (99.2%) who received a vaccine in the second trimester, initial data had been collected and follow-up scheduled at designated time points approximately 10 to 12 weeks apart; limited follow-up calls had been made at the time of this analysis.
Among 827 participants who had a completed pregnancy, the pregnancy resulted in a live birth in 712 (86.1%), in a spontaneous abortion in 104 (12.6%), in stillbirth in 1 (0.1%), and in other outcomes (induced abortion and ectopic pregnancy) in 10 (1.2%).”
To me, they seem to be saying that they had 1040 women in their study who got the vax in the first trimester and of these about 100 lost the baby, or about 10%, which is not very far off the number of women who find out they are pregnant and lost the baby within a few weeks.
Their study seems to consist of a subset of 30K plus women who got the vax and who were pregnant. This subset consisted of roughtly 3.5K women whose chose to make themselves available for follow-up questions about the state of their pregnancy and complication experienced.
Look, I’m as skeptical of this vax as the next person and would tell any woman who is pregnant or wants to become pregnant someday not to get it. Hell, I’d tell a woman aged 60 and in good health not to get it.
But we need to be really careful in how we read the results of studies and what claims we make lest we lose credibility.
Preliminary findings did not show obvious safety signals among pregnant persons who received mRNA Covid-19 vaccines. However, more longitudinal follow-up, including follow-up of large numbers of women vaccinated earlier in pregnancy, is necessary to inform maternal, pregnancy, and infant outcomes. . . . Table 4 (excerpt
~~~~~~~~~~~~~
They have no proof it’s safe. They kick the can down the road and say it has to be studied more - and in the mean time they push the vaccine. They have an agenda - to inject as many as possible before people rebel. These ‘vaccines’ send spike proteins throughout the body within 48 hours, collecting in the spleen, liver, ovaries and other organs. They lie when they say it just stays in the arm.
Vaccinated women have spontaneous abortions. They have the head of the CDC, and Fauci urging pregnant women to get vaccinated. This is biowarfare conducted in part by the CDC, which is funded by Bill Gates through it’s Foundation (501c3). NOTHING that happens will be accepted as a reason for caution or to protect women and infants.
ETCM wrote: “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.”
IOW, there were fewer than expected miscarriages than would have been expected?
Do you get 96/127 early pregnancies spontaneously terminated for women in the study, or are you saying that there are many other women In The study, with early jabs, and they are still pregnant.
If that is the case (this group is still pregnant), then This was written very poorly, and the dataset is premature to publish.
How about potential long term risks to mother or child? It’s...”experimental”...
It is possible i misinterpreted their poorly written report.
Most of the terminations were early in pregnancy.
Most of the completed pregnancies were late term vaccinations.
What is not quite clear is the percentage of pregnancies with early vaccination that are spontaneously terminated.
So far 96, but out of how many? The article uses 827, and that is NOT the right number. When all the early vax moms are done (or ten months go by) then we can have a valid denominator, not before.
One poster says we are not there yet. I think that is likely the case. I also made a mistake ( assuming that enough data was in for the early vax moms.)
What I found wrong was the 827 in the denominator...and it is wrong. The right ratio is TBD. So why publish this mess?
They are only addressing pregnancies that have ended in birth or death. Read the dates. It should be obvious to anyone that with about 1200 1st trimester pregnancies being studied, and 96 1st trimester miscarriages, that is solidly in the normal range. Clearly, ANY wanted pregnancy that ends in the first trimester or early in the 2nd is going to be a miscarriage. But only 96 of 1224 1st trimester mothers had miscarriages. That’s 7.8%, and within norms. It’s NOT 82%.
I can’t speak for ETCM, but I the way I read this study is that there are many women in the study who got jabs early in pregnancy and did not lose their baby or it is still gestating in them.
I didn’t find the study to be that particularly poorly written. It was written in a way that is par for the course with these types of studies.
Now would it be ethical for an OB to use this study as the basis for advising his newly pregnant patient to get the vax? I personally don’t think so.
—Especially when this very same OB is likely advising her not to drink, to cut back on caffeine significantly, perhaps to stop taking her hay fever meds, to stop cleaning the cat box, to stop eating meat with lots of nitrates, to wear cotton and not polyester underwear, and any host of other things.
And this is coming from me, one of the biggest proponents on FR of the ‘rona being a plandemic and the vax being part of this plan.
“So why publish this m”ess?
My guess is that health systems are trying to convince their pregnant employees that it is okay to get the jab and then to pressure them to do so.
Either the vax is going to make women lose babies at a higher rate than average or it isn’t. This can’t be hidden forever. Too many women work in some capacity in OB offices as nurses, doctors, technicians, or paper pushers. Too many of them want to become mothers or see their daughters, sisters, or friends become mothers. They will talk if they see problems.
High rates of miscarriage will show up in other places. Health insurance companies project costs months down the road for deliveries based on claims submitted for the beginning of pregnancy care. Hospitals get reports from OB’s who have privileges that they use to project staffing needs months down the road, etc.
Where I think the real problems will come in will be in spiking, no pun intended, rates of autism and other problems in the children that are born.
I’m not sure you first dash is correct.
See Table S4. (Help needed)
Here: https://www.nejm.org/doi/suppl/10.1056/NEJMoa2104983/suppl_file/nejmoa2104983_appendix.pdf
It looks like this table says (including the notes) that 37 out of the 81 first trimester vax moms that had completed pregnancy, had miscarriages. (About twice the expected rate of miscarriage)
Your interpretation please...
Characteristics of reports to VAERS among pregnant persons following mRNA COVID-19 vaccines, December 14,2020–February 28, 2021 (N=221)*.
Median maternal age in years (range)
Trimester of pregnancy at time of vaccination in completed weeks†
First (0–13 weeks) Second (14–27 weeks) Third (28+ weeks)
Vaccine brand (%)
Pfizer-BioNTech Moderna
Most frequently reported nonpregnancy-specific adverse events (%)‡ Fatigue
Headache
Chills
Pain in extremity Nausea
Pain
Fever
Injection site pain Dizziness
Injection site erythema
Pregnancy- or neonatal- specific conditions (%)
Miscarriage§
Stillbirth
Premature rupture of membranes
Vaginal bleeding
Fetal hydrops
Preterm delivery
Neonatal death in 22-week preterm birth║ Other¶
33 (16–51)
163
81 (49.7) 53 (32.5) 29 (17.8)
130 (58.8) 90 (40.7)
155 (70.1)
44
43
30
27
25
21
18
17
17
11
66 (29.9)
46 3 3 3 2 2 1 6
* Reports received and processed through February 28, 2021; 1 report with unknown vaccine brand
† Includes 163 reports where information was available on trimester of pregnancy at the time of vaccination
‡ Not mutually exclusive; more than one adverse event can be assigned to a single report
§ 37 in first trimester, 2 in second trimester, and 7 where trimester was unknown or not reported
║ Person was diagnosed with COVID-19 before pregnancy (mild 3-day illness 8 months before delivery) and received dose 2 of Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine one day prior to delivery; onset of
8
preterm labor symptoms began 2 days before dose 2 and birth occurred 32 hours after dose 2 at 22 weeks and 2 days; reported symptoms following receipt of dose 2 were muscle aches and chills; additional information regarding any adverse events associated with dose 1 of the vaccine were not available
¶ Other pregnancy- or neonatal-specific conditions include 1 report each of calcified placenta, leakage of amniotic fluid, shortened cervix, gestational diabetes, pre-eclampsia, irregular/painful contractions
You are mixing VAERS report data with study data.
That's what I read. 1132 first trimester and 92 who were "preconception" when they were vaccinated. I also don't out think the report was unclear. It's just giving preliminary data. Some time around December the final report will be complete.
For someone trying to conceive or already pregnant, they should make a vax choice with their doctor and husband, not base it on random internet posters.
“That the mRNA jabs end @90% of early pregnancies...that is nuts”
______________________________
This study is not saying this at all.
If truly the vaccines were causing the vast majority of pregnancies to end in miscarriage, one or more of the following things would happen:
1) Such a study would never see the light of day.
2) If a majority of the people running of the study had scruples and were forced or threatened to not talk about the results, they would get themselves on BitChute and warn people.
3) See my points elsewhere about women in the medical profession noticing as well as maternity ward number crunchers.
4) Some people involved in running the plandemic would panic because they know such high rates of miscarriage cannot escape notice and they would be forced to come out and say the vax is not recommended for pregnant women. They would have to get ahead of the story because some health minister types in some countries somewhere would sound the alarm.
Correction - Pregnancy and COVID Vaccine
Confusing study results explained by a smart doctor who believes he got it wrong the first time. He originally thought what you do.
Can someone please define the term “completed pregnancy”?
Apparently it includes miscarriages and stillbirths. What kind of completion is that?
A completed pregnancy is a pregnancy that ended with a woman no longer being pregnant, which all pregnancies do.
The baby is either still in her and she is pregnant or it is out of her and she is not pregnant and thus her pregnancy completed.
If it is out, she either has a baby boy or girl she is taking care of or there was a tragedy.
Regardless of whether or not a pregnancy ends with a live baby or a tragedy, all pregnancies come to an end or a completion.
If mommy-to-be dies while still pregnant, does that count as a completed pregnancy?
MY God am i the only one seeing this!! we are looking at a bio-weapon!! what are the statistics of women going on to have babies after the first trimester when they don't get the jab.?
I bet it's huge in the 90 percentiles.!!
Some here are not getting it:
THIS IS A BIOWEAPON,THE JAB IS A BIOWEAPON,LITTLE ELSE!!
Thanks for the post; FReepmail; posts. BTTT!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.