673
Comments (83)
sorted by:
29
DrMcCoy 29 points ago +29 / -0

82% OF WOMEN < 20 WEEKS PREGNANT HAD MISCARRIAGE AFTER THE COVID VAX.

Medical Study published by the New England Journal of Medicine shows 82% Miscarriage Rate For Pregnant Women Vaxxed In First 2 Trimesters.

A study was done on women less than 20 weeks pregnant and the effect of the jab. But if you look at the women who participated, the majority were in their last trimester, but included in the results. Most of the women in the study were NOT < 20 weeks pregnant. The study and the New England Journal of Medicine are compromised.

Out of the 127 women who WERE < 20 weeks pregnant, 104 had miscarriages. That's how the 82% was arrived at. https://www.bitchute.com/video/cjQ2L5V8RO67/

4
AnonymousFrog 4 points ago +4 / -0

This is incorrect. They didn’t read the study. They only read the table, which is misleading.

https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa2104983

If you read the article you’ll notice that there were thousands of women in the study who had not completed their pregnancy. Of course those who had a spontaneous abortion would have. But there were many other women in their cohort who were still pregnant.

The denominator is not in that table. Which is why you can’t calculate the percent. Of the over eight hundred women who had a pregnancy outcome, the women who had the vaccine after the first trimester could not* have had a miscarriage by definition.

-1
NeedMoarPillows -1 points ago +1 / -2

Do you have a non bitchute link to this?

6
DrMcCoy 6 points ago +6 / -0

If you listen to the whole video, it shows the actual numbers and describes the study group. It appears to be sound information.

3
NeedMoarPillows 3 points ago +5 / -2

It really doesn't. Theres no real source given.

1
Im-Wide-Awake 1 point ago +2 / -1

But where is the actual documentation? Not just an Infograph

1
SmolPedeBestPede 1 point ago +1 / -0

The Infograph looks pretty convincing to me tbh.

3
Im-Wide-Awake 3 points ago +3 / -0

I can make any numbers look convincing with enough time in powerpoint. I want to see the raw data

1
DrMcCoy 1 point ago +1 / -0

I don't trust ANY report from Pfizer.

2
Im-Wide-Awake 2 points ago +2 / -0

…great. Thanks for your input?

4
aquasmurf 4 points ago +4 / -0

It took literally 30 seconds to find.

https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/nejmoa2104983

2
NeedMoarPillows 2 points ago +3 / -1

That literally says the opposite.

1
aquasmurf 1 point ago +1 / -0

Yet, here we are.

0
NeedMoarPillows 0 points ago +1 / -1

Yet here we are what? He's just making up numbers that are not in that article. What he is saying is just wrong.

1
aquasmurf 1 point ago +1 / -0

I know. GAW anons don't give a shit about vetting information. It's astounding how much shit gets passed off as "truth" and/or "fact" on here.

Yet, here we are.

0
NeedMoarPillows 0 points ago +1 / -1

It makes us all look like idiots and I think there are people on this forum that do it on purpose, they post sensational headlines and screenshots they know will get people worked up then run with it. If it's false, they shrug and post the next false thing over and over again. Meanwhile everyone here has the memory of a goldfish and just gets angry about the next link that is also false. We're all kept fat and busy.

3
Cheesemaker 3 points ago +3 / -0

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33882218/ is actual journal publication. Note that the authors are intentionally misleading so if you read the summary it "appears" to say the exact opposite.

Infowars did a pretty good article on this a while back: https://www.infowars.com/posts/depopulation-alert-shocking-new-study-reveals-covid-vaccine-terminates-4-out-of-5-pregnancies-via-spontaneous-abortions/

0
NeedMoarPillows 0 points ago +1 / -1

You need to stop watching infowars, it's controlled opposition

2
Cheesemaker 2 points ago +2 / -0

I'm not disagreeing especially for a lot of their videos, but this particular article is a good article looking at firm data.

0
NeedMoarPillows 0 points ago +1 / -1

Actually it's not. He's misreading the data and changes it to meet his needs. He says that the total sample size is 824, but then if you remove 700 of them (for some reason?) you have 124 left. The 100 miscarriages in the group then means that it is Eighty Percent.

That's like saying I have 10 cheeseburgers in front of me. One of them has shit instead of a hamburger patty. That means 10% of cheeseburgers are actually shit sandwiches. Now if we remove eight hamburgers for no particular reason, that means 1 out of 2 are shit sandwiches. That means 50% of all sandwiches are actually shit sandwiches!

It's called misrepresenting data.

We all know the vax is a death shot and horrible, but don't just make stuff up to make it look bad. But, I'm guessing that's not what he's doing, he probably thinks he's actually being clever and uncovering information instead of just making stuff up.

1
Cheesemaker 1 point ago +1 / -0

Lets build upon your burger example. Assume you have a 100 burgers eaten by 100 people, 10 cooked rare and 90 cooked well done. 8 people catch food poisoning eating your burgers. Assume all 8 people who got food poisoning also ate a rare burger.

You can either say "8% of the people that ate a burger got food poisoning" or "80% of the people that ate a rare burger got food poisoning" depending upon what you are looking at.

So yes, you remove the "700" because they are people who received the vaccine during the third trimester. The entire point of the infowars article is that the risk was in the early trimesters (1st and 2nd). If you remove the 700 and only look at the 124 the ratio is abysmal.

The conclusion should be do not vaccinated during first or second trimester as there is a very high chance of losing the baby.

0
NeedMoarPillows 0 points ago +1 / -1

But you can't actually assume they only ate rare burgers. That's just an assumption you've made and not scientific data. You can get sick eating well done meat if the meat was already rancid.

That's the exact point, it's arbitrary to remove those 700 people, he just makes an assumption based on something he says. There's no data to back up what he is saying.

I agree with the conclusion, but you can't just make shit up.

1
Cheesemaker 1 point ago +1 / -0

Umm you clearly misread the entire article. Most of the article is about why the 700 are removed.

The entire purpose is that the evidence is showing a ridiculously high miscarriage/spontaneous abortion rate for the first (and second) trimesters but not in the third trimester.

Therefore if you look only at first trimester it has an 82% chance of losing the baby.

0
NeedMoarPillows 0 points ago +1 / -1

It's not at all about that. It specifically says they are all in the study group, the dude making the video just arbitrarily says let's remove these 700 people because I feel like it based on this one number I misread.

1
polish_snausage 1 point ago +1 / -0

When you find one please share, I'm sure others would appreciate your research

1
NeedMoarPillows 1 point ago +2 / -1

I spent about two hours last night looking, but couldn't find anything but this guy saying it's true, no research, no actual study. He mentions a paper, but it doesn't seem to exist and he is just misreading the one he's looking at. If you listen to what he says, he just doesn't understand what he's reading.

1
polish_snausage 1 point ago +1 / -0

There's quiet a few things out there now... some are repeating this bloggers findings and others saying what your saying. Fog of war I guess.

I hope what your saying is the correct reading of the data 🙏.

1
NeedMoarPillows 1 point ago +2 / -1

It's not fog of war, listen to what this guy says. He literally misinterprets the data and just makes shit up. See my other comment above about that.

12
FlyingScotzman 12 points ago +12 / -0

Is there more context? it says the normal rate for spontaneous abortions is around 10-20% for normal people anyway (pre-covid) https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK560521/

13
DrMcCoy 13 points ago +13 / -0

I believe this report from Pfizer is very incorrect. For women <20 weeks pregnant the miscarriage rate was 82%.

2
FiveDogs 2 points ago +2 / -0

I was wondering if the count included ALL women, regardless of being pregnant or not.

1
WinkingPede 1 point ago +1 / -0

By "ALL women", are we still talkin' just women?

3
FiveDogs 3 points ago +3 / -0

Lol, depends how low they want the stats.

3
Mcmurdo32 3 points ago +3 / -0

This is my thing with all these articles. I never followed these subjects before all this, so I don't know what is "normal". So I look for the comparison with what was before covid, or covid vaccines.

1
deleted 1 point ago +1 / -0
6
Dutchendtimes 6 points ago +6 / -0

Do you have the link for the complete document please?

7
deleted 7 points ago +7 / -0
5
DrMcCoy 5 points ago +5 / -0

Real info: 82% of women < 20 weeks had miscarriage after the Covid jab.

3
AndrewJaqqson 3 points ago +3 / -0

I made a thread similarly to this and discussed the other day:

https://greatawakening.win/p/140c07Fsn6/vaccinated-moms-giving-birth-any/

I'm very confused. We all know about the spike protein, and the gene therapy mRNA that has altered and killed people. however many people who replied in my thread reported that they've seen vaccinated mothers give birth and "seemed healthy and okay." Then we see this study here that OP posted. I'm confused, but I'm really worried about what may happen to the future of human nature from these vaccines. On the contrary, some frens on here said "things seem ok so far." idk

7
SneakyWino 7 points ago +7 / -0

A lot of people got saline and not the real vaxx.

4
AndrewJaqqson 4 points ago +4 / -0

I'm happy to hear that. Like the based nurse in Germany that got arrested for giving like 90,000 placebo shots to protect the patients. However, how do we know if that is happening on a wide scale in the U.S. ?

4
Tewdryg 4 points ago +4 / -0

The unvaxxed are the control group. The placebo percentage of the vaxxed population could be as high as 50% according to Dr. Judy Ruth.

2
DrMcCoy 2 points ago +2 / -0

I wonder why they would miss an opportunity to maim and kill using normal saline?

I'm sure the big cheeses get the saline, but why would they have saline for the "common people"?

Perhaps these "placebo" jabs have something in them not yet discovered. Something that will injure or kill the person a long time from the jab or produce an unusual injury.

This is a huge worldwide experiment on humans. I think they are putting different ingredients in different lots to see what the different outcomes will be. Also collecting information on who was affected by what. Race, age, sex, etc.

4
Delphi373 4 points ago +4 / -0

Because the signal would be too CLEAR. In order to BLUR the signal, you have to spread out the deaths...hence...placebos.

1
deleted 1 point ago +1 / -0
6
Delphi373 6 points ago +6 / -0

You can't tell anything from this paper - this is just pulled from Pfizer's database of adverse event reporting. In other words, Pfizer collected information on adverse events to the jab (these reports are collected passively - meaning...people have to KNOW to even report on it). Anyway - so then they have their lame database which they then classify the reports as "serious" or not (what they base this distinction on is anyone's guess). Then from there you get this paper. So to say a certain % of jabbed who are pregnant lose their babies - based on THIS data at least - is wrong.

What you'd need to know is: how many pregnant women got the jab, and how many then lost their baby.

I have no idea where you can get that data. They make it damn near impossible to know what the h*ll is going on. And this is by design - because the jab is without question in my mind, maiming and killing people in record numbers.

5
corrbrick 5 points ago +5 / -0

The real question, how many of the vaxxed men spontaneously aborted? I mean, it is gene therapy.

5
bubble_bursts 5 points ago +5 / -0

Wait until you get the first reports that men who took 6 jabs suddenly got pregnant

4
tstr 4 points ago +4 / -0

I was waiting for this info to get posted here thank you for posting it

3
FiveDogs 3 points ago +3 / -0

You just revealed you are ready to step up a notch! Join the fray and post what is laid on your heart!

3
NeedMoarPillows 3 points ago +3 / -0

We all know the vaxx is deadly, but is there more context because 10 to 15 in 100 pregnancies (10 to 15 percent) end in miscarriage in the United States.

3
DrMcCoy 3 points ago +3 / -0

The report is from Pfizer. I think it's incorrect. This may be a deliberate leak right now from Pfizer.

1
NeedMoarPillows 1 point ago +1 / -0

Why?

1
msgtlefty 1 point ago +1 / -0

Twofold. One to prove to the public they told the Biden administration , to regain some public trust. Bigger reason, they made their money, they get called out, the GOVT cancels their contracts. Johson and Johnson steps up. Sheople fall for another round of deadly shots, Oh Pfizer were bad, these are the good vaccines.

1
NeedMoarPillows 1 point ago +1 / -0

wut

1
msgtlefty 1 point ago +1 / -0

Public relations , maintaining a decent enough image to keep the sheople taking the shot. The vaccine was / is never about preventing Covid, it's about global population reduction. Some of the sheep are waking up to Pfizer, so puppet masters will do the blame game shuffle on Pfizer and Biden, then roll out the new safer Vaccine. The sheople will line up to get it instead.

-2
deleted -2 points ago +1 / -3
2
deleted 2 points ago +2 / -0
2
NeedMoarPillows 2 points ago +2 / -0

10-15% of women have miscarriages normally, that's just a fact. My wife and I had two before our first kid was born.

1
SmolPedeBestPede 1 point ago +1 / -0

That doesn’t matter though. The fact is the vax caused all these women to miscarry.

1
NeedMoarPillows 1 point ago +1 / -0

Maybe, but that evidence isn't clear.

3
BlipBlopBloop 3 points ago +3 / -0

To be fair, this isn't 8% of all vaccinated pregnant women. This is 8% of vaccinated pregnant women who reported an adverse event.

Of all their adverse events, 413 (0.98%) were by pregnant women. This is a breakdown of the adverse affects of those 413 women.

2
67Vert 2 points ago +2 / -0

8% seems pretty low. What's the normal abort rate?

2
Okcchief 2 points ago +2 / -0

Tell us again how this isn’t about population control

2
deleted 2 points ago +2 / -0
2
All1000wombats 2 points ago +2 / -0

The vaccine's effect on fertility and pregnancy has been a major concern since the very beginning. Only in the more recent months have we started seeing the true effects, and its terrifying.

1
deleted 1 point ago +1 / -0
1
deleted 1 point ago +1 / -0
1
sillBag 1 point ago +1 / -0

8% actually isn't that... unbelievable...

Something like 10-15% of all pregnancies are miscarriages.

I do not for a minute believe this 8% number.

1
CokeOrPepe 1 point ago +1 / -0

Who are the conspiracy theorists now?

1
HopefulSkeptic 1 point ago +3 / -2

Don’t worry catsfive will repost this and sticky it so he can claim all the karma and credit

1
deleted 1 point ago +1 / -0
1
deleted 1 point ago +1 / -0
0
Aunt_Tifa 0 points ago +1 / -1

Curious how my friend is going to pan out. Told him not to get his 30y/o fully vaxxed girl pregnant, goes and does it anyways. quit talking to him after 15 years. She was vaxxed 3-4 months prior, i know she wasnt feeling well after taking the vax. Real curious to see how it plays out.

edit: he knows and believes the same thing, or so i thought, about the vaccine. his father, the guy he lives with, is HARDCORE into not taking the vax and studies it lmao. so i was mind blown

2
NeuroticFisherman 2 points ago +2 / -0

Seems like a really shitty reason for you to end a 15 year friendship with them over.

0
Aunt_Tifa 0 points ago +1 / -1

Imagine having a baby with a vaccinated women. stillbirths and miscarriages are going rampant with the shot. She has a job that's going to require a booster. You are deliberately doing it to yourself at that point. Especially when they come crying to you. YOU risked the chance of killing your kid, and i can't stand behind that.

-2
RedAppleG4L -2 points ago +1 / -3

Your friend with their new bundle of joy will be fine , it is you who will continue to be unhappy.

-1
RedAppleG4L -1 points ago +1 / -2

Please refrain from posting about women and pregnancy when you have no clue the likelihood of losing a child ( in any manner) in the first or second trimester. Trying to group this with that is very misleading. Women experience miscarriages all the time for MANY different reasons other than a shot. It’s very lazy.

1
penisse [S] 1 point ago +1 / -0

If you’re here to lecture the world, then join the Antifa wannabe vigilantes and leave us in harmony. You don’t know crap about my failed fatherhood.

1
CokeOrPepe 1 point ago +1 / -0

It's irresponsible to inject yourself with a "vaccine" that is still in trial. It's even more irresponsible to inject your child to a medical experiment.