That’s not true. If it was 1 in a million, a 366% increase would now be 4.6 in a million.
Anytime you see very rounded numbers like “366” you can assume sample size was very small, because if it were large the fraction would be more volatile, like 319.7 —- in this case if you look at the article it’s indeed small, I think they had data on only 4 additional miscarriages or something w Pfizer, I skimmed this article earlier.
Prepare to get barraged if you share this w a pro-vaccine person, this is not a good article at all and is misleading which only makes us look worse imo
Consider you have a shot that prevents miscarriages. If 10 people took the shot at 1 had a miscarriage, then they made the shot even more effective and 1000 people took it and 3 had a miscarriage, a headline of “miscarriages increase 200% under new modified shot” would be factually correct, even though the shot is now 3,333% more effective. (Note: still suffering from low sample size but I am just giving an example of how to mislead w statistics)
Thank you for sharing this, was about to mention it myself. Sharing this article would make one look like an idiot. Now, if the next results reportedly showed a significant increase in number in relation to vaccines administered, then you have a trend.
Secondly, what is reported is far less than the actual occurrence. Only way to capture data is asking females that miscarry if they had the vaccine, then compare the difference between the two groups.
At that % you effectively neuter anyone who takes the vaccine, the effects probably wain in time tho... unless of course it's programmed not to.
That’s not true. If it was 1 in a million, a 366% increase would now be 4.6 in a million.
Anytime you see very rounded numbers like “366” you can assume sample size was very small, because if it were large the fraction would be more volatile, like 319.7 —- in this case if you look at the article it’s indeed small, I think they had data on only 4 additional miscarriages or something w Pfizer, I skimmed this article earlier.
Prepare to get barraged if you share this w a pro-vaccine person, this is not a good article at all and is misleading which only makes us look worse imo
Consider you have a shot that prevents miscarriages. If 10 people took the shot at 1 had a miscarriage, then they made the shot even more effective and 1000 people took it and 3 had a miscarriage, a headline of “miscarriages increase 200% under new modified shot” would be factually correct, even though the shot is now 3,333% more effective. (Note: still suffering from low sample size but I am just giving an example of how to mislead w statistics)
Thank you for sharing this, was about to mention it myself. Sharing this article would make one look like an idiot. Now, if the next results reportedly showed a significant increase in number in relation to vaccines administered, then you have a trend.
Secondly, what is reported is far less than the actual occurrence. Only way to capture data is asking females that miscarry if they had the vaccine, then compare the difference between the two groups.