Covid vaccine TERMINATES 4 out of 5 pregnancies via “spontaneous abortions”

[BADecker]

I'm surprised that the article on that site linked to the actual journal entry, they usually don't!

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33882218/

Here's what the study says in conclusion:

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.

Bummer, not quite the 4 out of 5 terminations the article claims. So as with most things, the fringe news sites twist what the journal entry actually says. Another point, CDC recommends consulting your doctor before getting the shot if you're pregnant. The vaccine seems to be relatively safe on pregnant women, but the clinical trials didn't seem to have many pregnant women participating, so take the vaccine if you really need it. But, your baby's not going to die if you take the vaccine, no evidence to suggest so.

Note that the conclusion - https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33882218/ - says "Preliminary findings..." Note that if you go to the link in that Pubmed site - https://www.nejm.org/doi/10.1056/NEJMoa2104983 (listed as DOI: 10.1056/NEJMoa2104983) - you will find that the preliminary findings in Pubmed are contradicted and explained. The explanation doesn't match what Pubmed said originally.

This is confirmed in the Pubmed site, linked to another site by the words "PMCID: PMC8117969" - https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8117969/.

Internal contradictions and mixups. Got a college education? You might be able to wade through the Pubmed mess. Otherwise, simply get it in straight, easy to read language from Natural News - https://www.naturalnews.com/2021-07-01-depopulation-alert-shocking-new-study-reveals-covid-vaccine-terminates-4-out-of-5-pregnancies-via-spontaneous-abortions.html#.

Hmm, so I might pass on reading Natural News, for reasons.


But Pubmed is just a database of published research literature, it's not meant to be an authoritative source on anything. You can find wacky publications on any topic, even many with flawed methodology. I see the same conclusions in the original article that I linked and the article you linked from the New England Journal of medicine. Both said there isn't any obvious evidence that Covid's mRNA vaccine showed any safety concern to pregnant women.

Again, any pregnant women needs to consult their doctor before taking a vaccine, doesn't mean the Covid vaccine's gonna kill their child. Study says there needs to be more research into the matter regardless. So even if you do think the vaccine's not safe for pregnant women, you can't use this research article without the caveat that we need more studies.

What you are saying is kinda the point. Table 4 in the Natural News article isn't found in the Pubmed article linked in the NN article. But it is found in two other articles that are linked in the Pubmed article that is linked in the NN article.

The Pubmed article is found here https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33882218/. No Table 4.

The links to the table are found in the Pubmed article. The links to the table are found here http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/pmc8117969/ and here https://doi.org/10.1056/nejmoa2104983. Wullah! Table 4.

In other words, whatever Pubmed is, it says something different than the two articles it supposedly takes its info from.

Do it one of two ways, or both. Believe NN, or believe the two articles Pubmed has listed in their article. Because the only different article is the Pubmed article at https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33882218/.

[franky1]

The Pubmed article is found here https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33882218/. No Table 4.

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

for easy maths
if you have 3650 pregnant woman. and there is usually a 15% miscarriage average(547)
then just out of that group alone is 3 women having a miscarriage in any 48 hour period
whether vaccinated or not

if there are 36000(pre covid) ~5400 will have a miscarriage vaccinated or not
thats 30 miscarriages in any 48 hour period
vaccinated or not

treating 2vaccines and a miscarriage within 48 hours as just coincidental unlinked math
means the chance of being vaccinated and within 2 days having a unlinked totally natural percentage miscarriage risk. becomes a 1 in 91 chance
the odd of having a miscarriage on any 2 random events. maybe valentines or easter. would be the same 1 in 91 odds. meaning not a cause . just mathematical coincidence.

so being vaccinated 2 times in 6 months.
in a study that 36000 report to vaers all their symptoms.

meaning just mathematical coincidence odds of 2 separate events just happen to occur in the same 48 hour period
puts the 5400 expected miscarriages as 59 miscarriages just happen to be within 48 hours of a vaccine

so vaers reporting only 46, which is lower than expected .. meaning good

for accuracy
3958 in the deeper study
   827 sub group of woman evaluated after their 9th month
       only 115 resulted in a pregnancy loss(13.9%)(at any time after a vaccine(days weeks months later)

oh and by the way 13.9% is
not 4-out of-5  
its 1-out of-7

[BADecker]

The Pubmed article is found here https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33882218/. No Table 4.

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

for easy maths
if you have 3650 pregnant woman. and there is usually a 15% miscarriage average(547)
then just out of that group alone is 3 women having a miscarriage in any 48 hour period
whether vaccinated or not

if there are 36000(pre covid) ~5400 will have a miscarriage vaccinated or not
thats 30 miscarriages in any 48 hour period
vaccinated or not

treating 2vaccines and a miscarriage within 48 hours as just coincidental unlinked math
means the chance of being vaccinated and within 2 days having a unlinked totally natural percentage miscarriage risk. becomes a 1 in 91 chance
the odd of having a miscarriage on any 2 random events. maybe valentines or easter. would be the same 1 in 91 odds. meaning not a cause . just mathematical coincidence.

so being vaccinated 2 times in 6 months.
in a study that 36000 report to vaers all their symptoms.

meaning just mathematical coincidence odds of 2 separate events just happen to occur in the same 48 hour period
puts the 5400 expected miscarriages as 59 miscarriages just happen to be within 48 hours of a vaccine

so vaers reporting only 46, which is lower than expected .. meaning good

for accuracy
3958 in the deeper study
   827 sub group of woman evaluated after their 9th month
       only 115 resulted in a pregnancy loss(13.9%)(at any time after a vaccine(days weeks months later)

oh and by the way 13.9% is
not 4-out of-5  
its 1-out of-7

franky1 went to the store to get some grapefruits. On his way, he had to cross a deep ravine that had only a footbridge across it. The sign said the bridge could take a max weight of only 200 lbs. f1 was safe because he weighed 198.

At the store, he bought 3 grapefruits, each weighing 1 lb. When he got to the bridge on his way home, he realized the grapefruits would put him over bridge max by a pound. He thought about it for a while, and then he got them all across at the same time. How did he do it?

He applied his same math numbers principle to grapefruits. He juggled them across.

The point? VAERS says 411,931 reports of vaccine injuries. Harvard says that VAERS gets less than 1% of the reports generated.That's at least 41,193,100 reports... including 698,500 deaths.

Keep juggling your puny numbers, f1. You just might make a few people forget that the vaccine is way worse than Covid.

[franky1]

The point? VAERS says 411,931 reports of vaccine injuries. Harvard says that VAERS gets less than 1% of the reports generated.That's at least 41,193,100 reports... including 698,500 deaths.

Keep juggling your puny numbers, f1. You just might make a few people forget that the vaccine is way worse than Covid.

no you dont multiply 7k deaths by 100

what you realise is that there are 7k deaths. 411k 'injuries'
and there are 149million missing reports of the minor things like a 2second pain in the arm

yes most people are not cry baby to complain about every minor/insignificant symptom
if i sneeze. it might be a symptom but its not what i would call an injury so im not going to report it
however if im in hospital then there is records of me being in hospital and records of me having a vaccine.
and where the symtoms cannot be explained by obvious cause. EG a gunshot wound.
where it looks like a symptom linked to infection/allergy/toxin. then that would be reported

so its not that there are 600k deaths.. its that there are 150million unreported symptoms of 'ouchy that needle hurt'
thats the kind of reports harvard is saying is missing . the minor stuff no one complains about
(well 1% are cry babies and would complain about such insignificant stuff)

[nutildah]

so its not that there are 600k deaths..

Great, this devolved into there being a silent Vietnam of vaccine deaths in the last six months.

So where are the bodies? Nameless, friendless, free of family... its almost like they never existed at all. 

I wouldn't have seen this coming because I will never take BADecker off ignore... you're utterly wasting your time here but then again who among us aren't.

[franky1]

I wouldn't have seen this coming because I will never take BADecker off ignore... you're utterly wasting your time here but then again who among us aren't.

its not about informing badecker.
its about correcting badecker and ridiculing him so that he cant recruit more idiots into his conspiracy cult community

badecker only believes what he believes because he has been recruited by radicalised radiculous idiot influencers
so its about breaking the chain.
giving other readers an objective counter-point to badeckers points. so that they see badeckers idiocies before they have a chance to even think he has a point

[BADecker]

I wouldn't have seen this coming because I will never take BADecker off ignore... you're utterly wasting your time here but then again who among us aren't.

its not about informing badecker.
its about correcting badecker and ridiculing him so that he cant recruit more idiots into his conspiracy cult community

badecker only believes what he believes because he has been recruited by radicalised radiculous idiot influencers
so its about breaking the chain.
giving other readers an objective counter-point to badeckers points. so that they see badeckers idiocies before they have a chance to even think he has a point

That's why BADecker needs to correct you by direction you to the article in the OP. VAERS Data Shows Dozens of Miscarriages, Stillbirths After COVID-19 Vaccination, Link Unconfirmed - https://www.visiontimes.com/2021/03/08/covid-19-vaccine-miscarriage-stillbirth-concerns-for-mothers.html.

The link isn't confirmed. It's all anecdotal coincidence. Just like Covid the virus.