Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: SoConPubbie

This is just plain wrong. The people who wrote this article didn’t read the source.. just went crazy and got things backward. 20% abortion rate isn’t acceptable to anyone so.. the actual report is a nightmare... but being just wrong blows credibility.


31 posted on 08/12/2021 11:13:17 PM PDT by dalight
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]


To: dalight
This is just plain wrong. The people who wrote this article didn’t read the source.. just went crazy and got things backward. 20% abortion rate isn’t acceptable to anyone so.. the actual report is a nightmare... but being just wrong blows credibility.

No, their credibility is intact. You need to read it more closely. The authors of the study either fraudulently or mistakenly (hard to believe) overweighted their sample to mothers in the third trimester instead of having the same-sized sample among all three trimesters. The Third Trimester babies hardly had problems, but the first and second had the 82% rate of spontaneous abortion. By having a gigantic size of third-trimester sample, they hid the disastrous effects on the first and second-trimester babies.

Out of the 127 women receiving vaccines during their first or second trimesters, 104 spontaneous abortions occurred before their pregnancies hit the 20-week mark. These are indicated as “spontaneous abortions” in the table.

33 posted on 08/13/2021 12:09:44 AM PDT by SoConPubbie (Mitt and Obama: They're the same poison, just a different potency)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


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