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.
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.
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.
Do you have a non bitchute link to this?
If you listen to the whole video, it shows the actual numbers and describes the study group. It appears to be sound information.
It really doesn't. Theres no real source given.
But where is the actual documentation? Not just an Infograph
The Infograph looks pretty convincing to me tbh.
I can make any numbers look convincing with enough time in powerpoint. I want to see the raw data
It took literally 30 seconds to find.
https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/nejmoa2104983
That literally says the opposite.
Yet, here we are.
Yet here we are what? He's just making up numbers that are not in that article. What he is saying is just wrong.
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/
You need to stop watching infowars, it's controlled opposition
I'm not disagreeing especially for a lot of their videos, but this particular article is a good article looking at firm data.
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.
When you find one please share, I'm sure others would appreciate your research
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.
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 đ.
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.