Very interesting stuff. How legitimate is this organization that did the paper on miscarriages? I see in their conclusion they stated, "Considering the evidence presented here, we suggest the immediate withdrawal of mRNA vaccine use in pregnancy (Category X)[41] and those breastfeeding, alongside the withdrawal of mRNA vaccines to children or those of child-bearing age in the general population".
It's bad analysis on the part of the IPAK authors - I assume this is why Jordan Schachtel has already deleted his tweet referenced above. The data they analyze is of 3,958 pregnant women over a 11-week period which included 827 completed pregnancies (which is both successful live birth and miscarriage). Since this was only an 11-week period, most pregnancies will not have completed in this short of a window given a wide initial sampling of women at various stages of gestation. Their error is then in extrapolating miscarriages within the first 20 weeks in the set of 827 completed pregnancies to mean that there are 7-8 times higher, unaccounted for likely miscarriages. But in reality those unaccounted for pregnancies simply hadn't completed in the 11-week period of data collection.
To put it another way, it's like having 100 women get pregnant at the same time, then observing that after 20 weeks a dozen had miscarried. And because no pregnancies were successfully completed with a live birth yet, somehow that must mean that we should continue to expect this 100% failure rate of [miscarriages/completed pregnancies].
This sort of thing is unfortunate. Even if the TPTB are playing fast and loose with the truth, opponents should be 110% rigorous IMO, as it only weakens the position otherwise.
Scroll down to Table 4: Pregnancy Loss and Neonatal Outcomes in Published Studies and V-safe Pregnancy Registry Participants.
Read there this: "Data on pregnancy loss are based on 827 participants [...] and who reported a completed pregnancy. A total of 700 participants (84.6%) received their first eligible dose in the third trimester. A total of 96 of 104 spontaneous abortions (92.3%) occurred before 13 weeks of gestation."
This would infer most women receiving the vaccine in the first trimester aborted, but now I see they added this correction on October 14: "No denominator was available to calculate a risk estimate for spontaneous abortions, because at the time of this report, follow-up through 20 weeks was not yet available for 905 of the 1224 participants vaccinated within 30 days before the first day of the last menstrual period or in the first trimester. Furthermore, any risk estimate would need to account for gestational week–specific risk of spontaneous abortion.”
Looking at athletes alone -- the only way (maybe) we can prove that the vaccines are dangerous and causing serious injuries is to compare before and now. Meaning, looking at a small subset -- athletes -- we can possibly find the data for the average number of professional athletes who died or were out for a season because of a serious medical issue over the last ten years -- then the number THIS year alone. Reading the stories (and there are many) of young, healthy (mostly) men dying or having heart attacks/serious medical issues on the field or right after a game it seems like a huge number ... but with nothing to compare this year to it falls on deaf ears. Does anyone have that data?
I believe the Re-Analyzed and Correctly Evaluated date comes from James Lyon-Weiler's IPAK. They used 3rd trimester numbers to compare and did not stae that these spontaneous aborions were Actually occuring in the first 20 weeks of pregnancy. They fudged the data and basically lied to pull it off.
Very interesting stuff. How legitimate is this organization that did the paper on miscarriages? I see in their conclusion they stated, "Considering the evidence presented here, we suggest the immediate withdrawal of mRNA vaccine use in pregnancy (Category X)[41] and those breastfeeding, alongside the withdrawal of mRNA vaccines to children or those of child-bearing age in the general population".
It's bad analysis on the part of the IPAK authors - I assume this is why Jordan Schachtel has already deleted his tweet referenced above. The data they analyze is of 3,958 pregnant women over a 11-week period which included 827 completed pregnancies (which is both successful live birth and miscarriage). Since this was only an 11-week period, most pregnancies will not have completed in this short of a window given a wide initial sampling of women at various stages of gestation. Their error is then in extrapolating miscarriages within the first 20 weeks in the set of 827 completed pregnancies to mean that there are 7-8 times higher, unaccounted for likely miscarriages. But in reality those unaccounted for pregnancies simply hadn't completed in the 11-week period of data collection.
To put it another way, it's like having 100 women get pregnant at the same time, then observing that after 20 weeks a dozen had miscarried. And because no pregnancies were successfully completed with a live birth yet, somehow that must mean that we should continue to expect this 100% failure rate of [miscarriages/completed pregnancies].
This sort of thing is unfortunate. Even if the TPTB are playing fast and loose with the truth, opponents should be 110% rigorous IMO, as it only weakens the position otherwise.
The study is here: https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa2104983
Scroll down to Table 4: Pregnancy Loss and Neonatal Outcomes in Published Studies and V-safe Pregnancy Registry Participants.
Read there this: "Data on pregnancy loss are based on 827 participants [...] and who reported a completed pregnancy. A total of 700 participants (84.6%) received their first eligible dose in the third trimester. A total of 96 of 104 spontaneous abortions (92.3%) occurred before 13 weeks of gestation."
This would infer most women receiving the vaccine in the first trimester aborted, but now I see they added this correction on October 14: "No denominator was available to calculate a risk estimate for spontaneous abortions, because at the time of this report, follow-up through 20 weeks was not yet available for 905 of the 1224 participants vaccinated within 30 days before the first day of the last menstrual period or in the first trimester. Furthermore, any risk estimate would need to account for gestational week–specific risk of spontaneous abortion.”
Looking at athletes alone -- the only way (maybe) we can prove that the vaccines are dangerous and causing serious injuries is to compare before and now. Meaning, looking at a small subset -- athletes -- we can possibly find the data for the average number of professional athletes who died or were out for a season because of a serious medical issue over the last ten years -- then the number THIS year alone. Reading the stories (and there are many) of young, healthy (mostly) men dying or having heart attacks/serious medical issues on the field or right after a game it seems like a huge number ... but with nothing to compare this year to it falls on deaf ears. Does anyone have that data?
I have been wondering the same.
Where did that UK comment come from? What was the source?
simply click on UK....it comes up...
TheExposeUK link is there. In that link they use the UK Govt's vaccine surveillance reports weekly data tracking per week to show this conclusion.
I believe the Re-Analyzed and Correctly Evaluated date comes from James Lyon-Weiler's IPAK. They used 3rd trimester numbers to compare and did not stae that these spontaneous aborions were Actually occuring in the first 20 weeks of pregnancy. They fudged the data and basically lied to pull it off.
Man, You Are Good Justin! God Bless You and Yours and please keep up the fantastic research
data ! : ) Thanks again, so much. Dawn
Wow.