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.
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?