NEJM published a correction... they now admit that there is no evidence that the vaccines are safe for pregnant women. Whoops. Took them months to respond to our group. Look for the "1" at the VERY top of the page. https://t.co/6nQ5h9fftx— Steve Kirsch (@stkirsch) September 17, 2021
Thanks.
Now they issue “a correction”....after how many pregnant women took these shots, based on recommendations, from their ObGyn???
How many miscarriages and unknown, long term effects?
Typically, vaccines have not been recommended, to pregnant women, before these risky and experimental mNRA (messenger NRA) shots.
Evil.
Thanks for the info!
Link in that “1” at the top:
https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMx210017
The correction at that link:
CORRECTION
mRNA Covid-19 Vaccines in Pregnant Women
List of authors.
September 8, 2021
DOI: 10.1056/NEJMx210017
Metrics
Related Articles
Article
mRNA Covid-19 Vaccines in Pregnant Women (Editorial, N Engl J Med 2021;384:2342-2343). At the time of publication of preliminary findings in the Original Article related to this editorial, the number of spontaneous abortions was 104 and there was 1 stillbirth. However, no proportion could be determined for the risk of spontaneous abortion among participants vaccinated before 20 weeks of gestation because follow-up information was not yet available for the majority of those persons. The article has now been updated. In the fifth paragraph of this editorial (page 2342), the first sentence should have read, “Among 827 registry participants who reported a completed pregnancy, 104 experienced spontaneous abortions and 1 had a stillbirth,” rather than, “…a completed pregnancy, the pregnancy resulted in a spontaneous abortion in 104 (12.6%) and in stillbirth in 1 (0.1%); these percentages are well within the range expected as an outcome for this age group of persons whose other underlying medical conditions are unknown.” In the same paragraph, in the sentence beginning “Among live-born infants” (page 2343), the expression “were also consistent” should have read, “were consistent.” In the seventh paragraph, beginning “Given that,” the first sentence should have ended, “…limitations in their ability to draw conclusions about spontaneous abortions, congenital anomalies, and other potential rare neonatal outcomes,” rather than “…to draw conclusions about congenital anomalies and other potential rare neonatal outcomes.” The editorial is correct at NEJM.org.
“NEJM published a correction... they now admit that there is no evidence that the vaccines are safe for pregnant women.”
Evil monsters