[INFJ] - Coronavirus (Covid-19) vaccination and the magnetic phenomenon could be explained by Graphene Oxide | Page 23 | INFJ Forum

[INFJ] Coronavirus (Covid-19) vaccination and the magnetic phenomenon could be explained by Graphene Oxide

Hey @FiftySeven -

I have never been in that site before. I just internet searched, using duckduckgo as I would never use google, something like "covid 80% miscarriage rate."

If you look at the table (from the original paper in The New England Journal of Medicine) there were 104 spontaneous abortions, all occurring at less than 20 weeks of pregnancy. Now 827 women completed pregnancy and the study took the miscarriage rate as a ratio of 104 to the entire population size of completed pregnancies (827).

However, the article states that stillborns are specified as occurring before 20 weeks and so the percentage of stillborns has to exclude women who received their first eligible vaccine in the 3rd trimester, meaning after the duration that meets stillborn specifications (again, less than 20 weeks).

So, the true percentage of stillborns (meaning losing the child at < 20 weeks for women who received their first eligible vaccine within that same timeframe), in the study, is 100 x 104/(827-700) = 100 x 104/127 = 81.9%.

I cannot and will not vouch for the site I referenced save that for the content I used it for, which is 100% factual.

I don't think it's a good idea to critique a cite within the perspective of its relevance to what is being discussed, which content for that perspective is 100% spot-on.

Would you agree?
 
Last edited:
stop it
The paper was published June 17th. It had to be written and submitted before that If you were in the 1st trimester in February, you wouldn't be expecting due until possibly November.
 
"Some of the social media posts say the rate of miscarriage should have been calculated differently. They say that miscarriage generally only occurs in the first or second trimester while a stillbirth is a loss after the 20th week of pregnancy (here) and, therefore, the rate of miscarriage should only be calculated using figures of the women who had a vaccine in the first or second trimester and not the third.
By excluding the 700 (of 827 completed pregnancies) who had the vaccine in the last trimester, the 127 remaining becomes the denominator and the rate equates to 81.9%.
This is misleading as it exempts most of the women who took part in the study, who were either still pregnant or waiting for a follow-up." https://www.reuters.com/article/factcheck-vaccine-pregnancy-idUSL1N2OX1WL
 
Slice and dice it all you want @FiftySeven, but the fact is of 127 woman who got the jab while less than 20 weeks pregnant, 104, or 81.4%, had a miscarriage.

Does that not concern you?
 
sorry, the data reports 104 miscarriages in under 20 weeks of pregnancy of the woman who received vaccinations and were in their first 20 weeks of pregnancy at that time or tested positive after vaccination. There were 4,804 pregnancies subsequently reported to be added after they got vaccinated and the number of miscarriages that occurred happened to the group that was a) reported under 20 weeks of pregnancy when they were vaccinated, plus b) the 4,808 who were vaccinated and subsequently reported being pregnant. [whether they were pregnant at the time and did not know it or did not report it)
You claim an expertise in reading this data but persist in ignoring these facts. WTF?
upload_2021-10-26_0-46-11.pnghttps://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa2104983
 
^
I didn't "ignore" any facts. I heard about the 80% figure, did a quick internet search, found a site on it and posted it here (after the numbers appeared legit). Then, I had a full day of work.

This is an extremely small portion of the covid saga.

I do not understand how the table you posted disputes the 81.4% finding. It is not listing what happened with the pregnancies, just total numbers of pregnant women.
 
FiftySeven said:
The point being that the claim of over 80% miscarriages in the first trimester for pregnancies is a blatant mis-characterization of the data. But it is quite normal for anti vaxxers to cherry pick numbers and then push emotional buttons.
Click to expand...

I am not cherry picking ANY numbers and I could care less about emotional buttons.

Since you are so confident of your position try this. For 15 minutes accept the premise that the media is lying to you and prove THEM wrong and see what comes up.
 
FiftySeven said:
sorry, the data reports 104 miscarriages in under 20 weeks of pregnancy of the woman who received vaccinations and were in their first 20 weeks of pregnancy at that time or tested positive after vaccination. There were 4,804 pregnancies subsequently reported to be added after they got vaccinated and the number of miscarriages that occurred happened to the group that was a) reported under 20 weeks of pregnancy when they were vaccinated, plus b) the 4,808 who were vaccinated and subsequently reported being pregnant. [whether they were pregnant at the time and did not know it or did not report it)
You claim an expertise in reading this data but persist in ignoring these facts. WTF?
View attachment 84234https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa2104983
Click to expand...


So regardless of how it is figured, if the mis-carriage rate is below 80% you are OK with that?
 
Just thought I'd mention that Facebook had a group of folks who either got jab injured or died or who know of such people. It had 250,000 members.

Facebook deleted the group (nice!).

Hmmm...
 
yeesh...
o2b said:
....I do not understand how the table you posted disputes the 81.4% finding. It is not listing what happened with the pregnancies, just total numbers of pregnant women.
Click to expand...
um what can i say, I already said that the study posted conclusions before those women who got vaccinated could have come to term, I pointed out that the 80% number is erroneous because it uses a faulty denominator. I posted links to the study and links to multiple articles that point out the error of that 80% calculation. I refuse to let you have the last word on this. It is important that a bullshit stat not go unchallenged.So keep at it @o2b , you clearly don't want to hear that you are WRONG.
 
Apparently I did not have the time to properly digest what you have said and I don't have the time now.

I will have a look later and will be fine admitting I am wrong if I understand that I am.
 
I am not denying your claim, but I have not been able to verify it as well.

So, of the extra pregnant women:
1) How many had the vaccine after conception and at <20 weeks pregnant (call this a)?

2) How many of the extra women who fit #1 and b)miscarried at <20 weeks, c)had successful pregnancies, and d)lost their child but after 20 weeks? I believe the correct approach would be to add b to the numerator and add (a - c) to the denominator.

Does this sound correct to you?
 
FiftySeven said:
"Some of the social media posts say the rate of miscarriage should have been calculated differently. They say that miscarriage generally only occurs in the first or second trimester while a stillbirth is a loss after the 20th week of pregnancy (here) and, therefore, the rate of miscarriage should only be calculated using figures of the women who had a vaccine in the first or second trimester and not the third.
By excluding the 700 (of 827 completed pregnancies) who had the vaccine in the last trimester, the 127 remaining becomes the denominator and the rate equates to 81.9%.
This is misleading as it exempts most of the women who took part in the study, who were either still pregnant or waiting for a follow-up." https://www.reuters.com/article/factcheck-vaccine-pregnancy-idUSL1N2OX1WL
Click to expand...

Social media posts? Seriously? Based on what expertise? And you also want to quibble over a mis-carriage versus a still birth? They are both DEAD! We've already been down the Rueters bias hole before. I heard the man in the moon as reported by squiggle news says the earth is going to stop spinning tonight at 9.

https://www.aim.org/media-monitor/reuters-anti-american-bias/
 
Last edited:
The paper published the New England Journal of Medicine posted a correction, by the way. https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMx210016

Relevant part to this discussion:
“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.”
 
  • Like
Reactions: Stu and o2b
Lady Jolanda said:
The paper published the New England Journal of Medicine posted a correction, by the way. https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMx210016

Relevant part to this discussion:
“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.”
Click to expand...
Thanks @Lady Jolanda. If I understand correctly, we have no data for the extra numbers, pro or con. Correct?
 
o2b said:
@larry806q - to your sense of things, am I correct with my Post #454? Or is my thinking wrong?
Click to expand...
1. That is certainly not my Forte.
2. If post #456 is correct, would that not negate the entire problem?
3. Apparently a few mis-carriages and still births aren't an issue anyway.
4. The vaccine is perfect and this crowd will accept no other opinion, including if their own arms start falling off. It will of course be orange man bads fault.

I'd like to get confirmation of the latest Fauci horror stories.
 
o2b said:
Study Shows That Up To 8 In 10 Women Had A Miscarriage After Getting The Covid Vaccine Before The Third Trimester
Click to expand...
However, this study is focusing specifically on how the Covid vaccine impacts pregnancy, including by trimester. So to more precisely calculate the miscarriage rate, we have to remember that miscarriages, by definition, occur before the 20-week gestation mark. This means that all 700 women who received the vaccine in the third trimester must be excluded from the calculation because they were already past being able to have a technical miscarriage. So really, 104 out of 127 women experienced a miscarriage. This means the miscarriage rate of women who received the vaccine in the first or second trimester is actually 81.9%, or 8 out of 10 women – way, way above the national average.
Click to expand...
Lady Jolanda said:
The paper published the New England Journal of Medicine posted a correction, by the way. https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMx210016

Relevant part to this discussion:
“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.”
Click to expand...

o2b said:
Thanks @Lady Jolanda. If I understand correctly, we have no data for the extra numbers, pro or con. Correct?
Click to expand...
If I understand correctly, we have no data to back up the claim that 82% of vaccinated pregnant women are miscarrying
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back