Topic: Covid vaccine TERMINATES 4 out of 5 pregnancies via “spontaneous abortions” (Read 309 times)

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.

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

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.

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)

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.

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

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/.

That too.

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.

The scamdemic has exposed NEJM and Lancet for the frauds they are.

https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2020/06/two-elite-medical-journals-retract-coronavirus-papers-over-data-integrity-questions

They just publish fraudulent crap long enough for to give cover to corp/gov for a policy objective, then quietly retract it later when nobody is looking.  This instance is how the got hydroxycloroquine shut down and made sure there were no options before they rolled out the jabs.

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#.

No, it doesn't say anything remotely close to that. Whatever study you're reading isn't the one that's being discussed here.


"Publishers" as in The New England Journal of Medicine? It is one of the oldest and most highly esteemed medical journal in the world, and their articles follow a rigid format for a reason.


Again, the study doesn't say that or anything remotely close to it.

Reminds me of a study I read before the scamdemic about giving premies the childhood vaccines 'on schedule for birth age'.  About a quarter of them needed mechanical resuscitation after the event so as not to die.

At least the babies in their incubators are protected against a disease like Hep-B which is only caught by having unprotected sex and sharing drug needles...which begs the question of what exactly are they doing in the NICU...

Anyway, reading the conclusions is where you find that the study finds 'no reason' to defer the vaccine schedule.  Publishers are well aware that it's the 'abstract' and the 'conclusion', and only these two,  which 99% of the readers will bother to read.

---

I would point out that losing 80% of pregnancies and the promotion of a procedure which results in this outcome are not necessarily inconsistent.  It just depends on what your goals are.

Of the 127 women who received the vaccine in the first three months or the second trimester, 104 had a spontaneous abortion before reaching 20 weeks of pregnancy. These are referred to as “Spontaneous abortions”in the table.

Using simple mathematics, 104 spontaneous abortions (in the first 20 weeks) were performed on 127 women who had been vaccinated in the first or second trimester of pregnancy, and the spontaneous abortion rate was calculated to be 82 per cent for those who had been vaccinated.

This is equivalent to saying that adolescents before the age of 18 have a 0% chance of suffering from Alzheimer’s. What a miraculous thing！！

I think OgNasty did not read carefully what OP mentioned.

Aren't you the slightest bit ashamed spreading lies about a topic like this? BADecker is a disgrace and he's here to make bitcoiners look bad, but he's not a forum treasurer, so what are you doing exactly?

If you read the abstract you would have realized the study found no difference between vaccinated and unvaccinated mothers. It's right in the abstract. That's the "beginning" if you didn't know.


Let me break this down into simpler terms for you:

There is no statistical difference in rates of negative events during childbirth between vaccinated and unvaccinated mothers.

All I can say is thank god most people are smarter than this.

Because it's all bs. Though mainstream media also posts bs news, this fake is too much trash even for them. Follow the link in the article and you will find no evidence there, nothing about 82% and 4 out of 5. It's just some sort of "evolution" for these stinky websites. They used to just put random info and expect people to believe that, now they're trying to look cool and provide links to the real studies, knowing that no one will go through the real article to check the validity of provided data.

Here is the full original article btw: https://www.nejm.org/doi/10.1056/NEJMoa2104983?url_ver=Z39.88-2003&rfr_id=ori%3Arid%3Acrossref.org&rfr_dat=cr_pub++0pubmed
 
That's where that table behind the link comes from, everything is fully explained here, and no dishonesty in presenting the findings. Interesting, if the study is so horrible and "dishonest", why didn't they provide the link for it, only to the abstract and used a picture of one particular table and went on with their own explanations, hmmm.

4 out of 5 does seem unrealistically high as others have stated.  However, I think if the true numbers were known and it was a virus causing this and not a vaccine, we would be forced to shelter in place and wear masks to keep it from spreading.  Hell, we'd probably even be forced to take a vaccine.  See the irony?  Trump was right, the response is worse than the problem.  This is just one potential side effect.  Seriously sit and think about this for a minute.  With all the known side effects of the vaccine, if it were a virus and those were symptoms, you know everyone would be freaking out.  This is all fine though, because it's all part of the plan...

     This is exactly why as a patient, you should be honest with your doctor whatever the reason for your check up is. If you lie about anything, it can cause a lot of problems not only for you but for the people around you. This type of thing happens a lot here in my place where people do not tend to be honest when being consulted by the doctor either for vaccines or for other things. But still though, there is a chance that the patients that wanted to be vaccinated were deprived of the correct information regarding the vaccines that will be injected to them which is very alarming. So as a safety precaution, everyone should really do enough research about anything that they are about to put into their bodies and not rely solely on others.

Almost as if the chairman of the board of Reuters sits on on the board of Pfizer...

That's a little side tid-bit I picked out of quite a good interview with one of Dr. Robert Malone, although it's by no means the only example of such a thing in our corp/gov political system.  Ryan is and outstanding interviewer and it seems like the sane people welcome an opportunity to come on his show lately.  Dr. Malone clearly knows his shit.  I disagree with Malone and believe that there probably are a great many significant and deep 'conspiracies' around this whole scamdemic.  He seems to be in denial about that, or else he is clever enough to 'play normie' so that normies will have no real choice but to dis-agree with him in the other direction.

(I might add that a technique similar to that described above was one which the corp/gov establishment used to royally fuck the 'leftists' with regard to Trump...and to this day they don't have a clue what hit them.  They were only given idiotic things to hit Trump over the head with, and as a result a ton of thinking people walked away from 'the dems' in disgust.  Or even in some cases felt compelled to defend a person they detest simply because he was being attacked illegitimately.)

Anyway:  https://www.thelastamericanvagabond.com/dr-robert-malone-interview-inventor-of-mrna-technology-censored-for-speaking-out-on-vaccine-risks/

It's weird, isn't it? Almost as if it's not true at all...