I compare the abortion efficacy rate of the COVID vaccine with the morning-after pill, RU-486, aka mifepristone. The V-Safe Surveillance System was developed by the CDC V-Safe COVID-19 Pregnancy Registry Team for monitoring of the COVID vaccination program in pregnancy.
You're missing another outcome: still pregnant. Note that the study was performed prior to March 31, which means the vast majority of the 1st and 2nd trimester patients would not have completed their pregnancies yet. That's why the live birth rate is so low. So now, it is not true that 90% of pregnancies will end in miscarriage or stillborn if the vaccine is taken in the 1st or 2nd trimester; it is just that this study is too early to draw final conclusions.
Please see the 2nd paragraph under the table. Those who are still pregnant are not included in the calculation. This is only a consideration of the completed pregnancies.
You don't know that a 90% estimate is not true from any of the data given by the authors; not enough information was provided in the original study. I qualified my claim by saying that following all pregnancies through to the end would adjust estimates up or down, and potentially by a lot. However, the data that we are given by the authors seem sufficiently alarming as to contraindicate vaccination during at least early or mid-pregnancy.
Thank you for sharing this. This is definitely concerning, but after looking over the study itself it seems to be lacking enough data to draw the extreme conclusion you reached. The authors do seem to downplay the severity of these results, but the small sample size and reliance on self reporting makes this study lackluster in my eyes.
I agree that the study was careless, small and reliant on subjective reporting. It was the earliest indication we had of consequences of vaccinating during pregnancy. The results were lethal enough to contraindicate the vaccinations that pregnant women are so relentlessly pressured to receive.
Hi Colleen, it would be worth addressing for us the claims of the study conclusion in footnote 1 which say that the overall SAB rate was about the same as the overall SAB rate in the normal population, as well as the more recent CDC study with a larger sample size which drew the same conclusion, though from their Figure 1 I see opportunities to manipulate conclusions about the data e.g. potentially too short a time between receipt of the vaccine and the 20 week mark.
I followed your logic and I believe you are correct, and I don't know how the authors of the published study do not see what you're seeing - they're essentially diluting the SAB counts with a larger number of third-trimester reports, which are apparently much lower risk for SAB. This seems like an attempt to hide the numbers you're seeing here.
One minor correction - in your table you show 700 live births plus one still birth for women vaccinated in the third trimester (total 701), whereas the original paper says there were a total of 700 women who were vaccinated in the third trimester (total 700 - including the one stillbirth.)
An error is addressed, but a larger error now surfaces:
" . . . follow-up information was missing for the majority of pregnancies in which exposure to vaccination occurred in early pregnancy."
It may be true that data collection was too sporadic to determine the abortive effect of COVID vaccines. However, given the court ordered release of documents on Pfizer vaccine injuries this past week, it is possible that not all information has been shared.
The goal is very simple:
Reaching
Maximum
Possible
Damage
And
Suffering.
The term I’m hearing is ‘philanthropaths’. Billionaires selflessly spending their billions harming as many people as they can.
Thank You, Dr. Huber, for this refined and to-the-point presentation, point and counterpoint.
John Day MD
You're missing another outcome: still pregnant. Note that the study was performed prior to March 31, which means the vast majority of the 1st and 2nd trimester patients would not have completed their pregnancies yet. That's why the live birth rate is so low. So now, it is not true that 90% of pregnancies will end in miscarriage or stillborn if the vaccine is taken in the 1st or 2nd trimester; it is just that this study is too early to draw final conclusions.
Please see the 2nd paragraph under the table. Those who are still pregnant are not included in the calculation. This is only a consideration of the completed pregnancies.
You don't know that a 90% estimate is not true from any of the data given by the authors; not enough information was provided in the original study. I qualified my claim by saying that following all pregnancies through to the end would adjust estimates up or down, and potentially by a lot. However, the data that we are given by the authors seem sufficiently alarming as to contraindicate vaccination during at least early or mid-pregnancy.
Thank you for sharing this. This is definitely concerning, but after looking over the study itself it seems to be lacking enough data to draw the extreme conclusion you reached. The authors do seem to downplay the severity of these results, but the small sample size and reliance on self reporting makes this study lackluster in my eyes.
I agree that the study was careless, small and reliant on subjective reporting. It was the earliest indication we had of consequences of vaccinating during pregnancy. The results were lethal enough to contraindicate the vaccinations that pregnant women are so relentlessly pressured to receive.
agree 100%
Hi Colleen, it would be worth addressing for us the claims of the study conclusion in footnote 1 which say that the overall SAB rate was about the same as the overall SAB rate in the normal population, as well as the more recent CDC study with a larger sample size which drew the same conclusion, though from their Figure 1 I see opportunities to manipulate conclusions about the data e.g. potentially too short a time between receipt of the vaccine and the 20 week mark.
I followed your logic and I believe you are correct, and I don't know how the authors of the published study do not see what you're seeing - they're essentially diluting the SAB counts with a larger number of third-trimester reports, which are apparently much lower risk for SAB. This seems like an attempt to hide the numbers you're seeing here.
One minor correction - in your table you show 700 live births plus one still birth for women vaccinated in the third trimester (total 701), whereas the original paper says there were a total of 700 women who were vaccinated in the third trimester (total 700 - including the one stillbirth.)
un freaking believable
The letter pointing out the error and the author’s response is here - https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMc2113516?query=recirc_curatedRelated_article
An error is addressed, but a larger error now surfaces:
" . . . follow-up information was missing for the majority of pregnancies in which exposure to vaccination occurred in early pregnancy."
It may be true that data collection was too sporadic to determine the abortive effect of COVID vaccines. However, given the court ordered release of documents on Pfizer vaccine injuries this past week, it is possible that not all information has been shared.
Another question is what is the comparative risk of contracting Covid during pregnancy? Not that these vaccines actually stop that any way