But... But... Doctors would say something if the vax was dangerous!
(media.greatawakening.win)
You're viewing a single comment thread. View all comments, or full comment thread.
Comments (76)
sorted by:
If a woman is < 20 weeks pregnant and gets the shot, she has an 82% of miscarriage.
A 5 month old breastfeeding infant died after the mom got her second jab.
Another woman finally got pregnant after IVF. The baby was about to be born. She got the jab and miscarried the baby, that was full term and dead.
This pregnant doctor lost her baby after the jab: https://www.bitchute.com/video/lhHU3naCGMFU/
I’ve heard a lot of anecdotes but haven’t seen a ton of solid data. 82% chance of miscarriage seems excessively high. As in, even the mockingbirds couldn’t hide that level. I think the rate is something like 10 or 15%, if the mother knows about it.
Here is the evidence. The New England Journal of Medicine Skewed the Results.
SHOCKING: Medical Study Shows 82% Miscarriage Rate For Pregnant Women Vaxxed In First 2 Trimesters: https://www.bitchute.com/video/cjQ2L5V8RO67/
They SAID they were studying pregnant women < 20 wks gestation, but when you look at the selection of participants, MOST women were pregnant in their THIRD TRIMESTER gestation. That's how they came up with 10-15%.
If you only look at only the women < 20 weeks, their statistic was 82%.
The statistics for miscarriage < 20 weeks was 82%. From the 127 women pregnant < 20 wks, 104 lost their babies.
I see what you’re talking about. Hadn’t watched the video previously... too many videos on my watchlist. But now caught up. I remember reading the paper when it first came out.
Here’s my only quibble: there is a selective bias at play. The 700 mothers who received the vaccine in the third trimester already were selected as having had successful pregnancies up till that point. As in, there could have been a larger pool of women, some of whom already had spontaneous abortions in the first or second trimester, who were taken out of the study because they aborted prior to receiving the jab. That then keeps the stats for abortions down, by making the denominator a much larger number in reality than that which they reported. I’m not saying that the percentage still would have been equal to the normal reported rate of 10-26%, but it may be lower than 82% since the denominator is artificially lowered.
Again- I think it’s a terrible idea to get the jab at all due to the narrowness of the spike protein motif for which it encodes and the potential for adverse effects, especially in pregnant women.
Could the researchers really have missed such a discrepancy? Are they being malicious? Or are we missing something? I don’t know
It was intended DISINFORMATION by the New England Journal of Medicine.
The jab interferes with Syncytin which in women forms and maintains the placenta for the baby. And also affects sperm development in men. That is the main factor in resulting in miscarriage and sterility after the jab.
So at this point, the New England Journal of Medicine is compromised and part of the MSM. But, so is the AMA.
The people pushing it have no excuse for NOT KNOWING what is happening.