The article states 78% but I have heard 44%?
Re: “The article states 78% but I have heard 44%?”
The 78% figure is incorrect for the following reason:
https://freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/4087108/posts?page=9#9
At the end of the study, 238 of the women were still pregnant. Therefore no known outcome. Does any sane person believe that a 78% miscarriage rate could be missed or hidden? Was there a 78% reduction in births after the vaccine rollouts?
The 44% was from Naomi Wolfe’s “crowdsourced project” with her “researchers” going through the 30,000 pages of Pfizer documents. When she announced that “44% miscarried!” these “researchers” had supposedly found 22 miscarriages out of a total of 50 pregnant women. Trouble is, they double counted the miscarriages and made a wrong assumption about the total number of pregnant women.
They found a page with a table listing the 11 women who miscarried in the “all adverse events” section. And they found a page with the table listing those same 11 women in the “serious adverse events” section. Being lousy researchers, they failed to notice it was the same 11 women, same 11 miscarriages, and added the two tables together, claiming there were 22 miscarriages — but actually there were only 11.
They found a page with atable listing 50 women who became pregnant after the first dose and assumed this was the total number of pregnant women enrolled in the study, a wrong assumption. They also failed to notice that only 3 of the 11 women who miscarried are listed among the 50.
Therefore, there must be a table listing women who became pregnant at some other time which Naomi’s “researchers” have not found yet among the 30,000 pages. It is highly likely a number of women did not yet realize they were pregnant when they were enrolled in the study, and so were pregnant before receiving the first dose. The “missing” 8 women must be in this group, and hence are not on the list of 50 who became pregnant after receiving the first dose. (Note that pregnant women were excluded from the study, so these women would not have participated in the study had it been known they were pregnant at the time of enrollment.)
Why only 11 miscarriages, not 23? Likely because Naomi’s “researchers” only found pages from the earliest phase of the clinical trial so far. Just like they only found the page with only 50 pregnancies.
Others called her out on her errors, including this guy, who provides the pages and tables so you can see for yourself:
https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1559949374381244416.html
For more, see:
https://freerepublic.com/focus/chat/4086071/posts?page=200#200
https://freerepublic.com/focus/chat/4086071/posts?page=198#198
https://freerepublic.com/focus/chat/4086071/posts?page=247#247