I've seen this misinfo repeated by doctors and PhDs which people think gives it credibility. Please read your source material before making such bold claims.
As much as I like Dr Sherri Tenpenny she still pushes this incorrect 65% figure allegedly from SAGE. Seems like no one is correcting these people and everyone is getting into their own echo chamber.
I read the abstract of the SAGE report when I first heard of it, and it says they predict approximately 65% of COVID patients in hospital will be vaccinated. Not that 65% of vaccine recipients will end up in the hospital. Huge difference, and the only way you could get that wrong is it you never read the study but only read a disinfo website claiming it said so, such as the headline of this article https://lichtnahrung2015.wordpress.com/2021/04/30/third-covid-wave-will-kill-or-hospitalize-60-to-70-people-who-took-both-the-vaccine-doses-says-official-uk-govt-model/
But even that article goes on to explain the reality of it. So she only read the clickbait headline or worse yet maybe she is just repeating something she heard from another doctor. How dumb can she be? Otherwise she seems very intelligent but this is just an annoying mistake.
Secondly for the 80% spontaneous abortion figure, this was a mistake brought about by someone looking at a section of a study where the graph doesn't show the true denominator.
"To calculate the actual miscarriage rate for those vaccinated in the first and second trimesters, you’d need to divide the number of miscarriages by the total number of completed pregnancies of those who were vaccinated before 26 weeks. But we don’t have that total yet because most of those people are still pregnant. "
Long story short the study didn't last long enough to determine how many women in the first trimester had a miscarriage.
That mistake seems like a more reasonable one, in fact when I first read the data that claim looked correct to me too, because I didn't realize there were women still pregnant in that study. But either way, corrections need to be made so our side can stop looking stupid on some of these points. Though it would be interesting to see if that study is following up with all the women so we could get a final result.
enter textThe Study reports that out of 127 pregnant women who received the Pfizer vaccine in the first or second trimester 104 of them lost the baby. 104! (That's 81%) they then try to obfuscate this by adding another 700 women into the study who were already in the 3rd trimester when they received the shot. It seems pretty straightforward to me. here is the link--table 4. please explain what I am missing if you could be so kind. (EDIT: corrected 129 women in study to 127.) enter text
I thought so at first too but I went over the original study when I was debating this on reddit. Here is an excerpt from the study:
"Among 1040 participants (91.9%) who received a vaccine in the first trimester and 1700 (99.2%) who received a vaccine in the second trimester, initial data had been collected and follow-up scheduled at designated time points approximately 10 to 12 weeks apart; limited follow-up calls had been made at the time of this analysis."
So the real denominator of first trimester participants is 1040 but these researchers admit they haven't properly followed up with anyone. So this is not good data, and we can in no way say with confidence it will produce miscarriage in 80%. Also the data in that table is stated to be only those with "completed pregnancy". So this isn't counting those who are still pregnant in the denominator.
I am not disputing this. Seems like it could be bad data, bad methods etc. but but based on the data provided in the table it is giving us a number of 127 to work with. The table states that "Data on pregnancy loss are based on based on 827 participants in the v safe registry." if 700 of these 827 joined the study in the third trimester as stated, that gives us 127 to work with. 127/104=81%...
I wish I could figure out how to post a screen shot--can anyone help?
Well not only incomplete data, we've been misinterpreting it.
That 827 are those who had a "completed pregnancy". It says "Among 827 participants who had a completed pregnancy" That's the key to seeing the error here. I see the table you are referring to, table 4.