Comments (53)
sorted by:
bubble_bursts [M] 35 points ago +35 / -0 stickied

I have to quibble with this. The mortality rate is NOT 9%, the mortality rate is UNKNOWN. Data for 236 out of 270 patients is suppressed. This is the real outrage here. The fact that these jabs were pushed on pregnant women as "safe and effective" while actively suppressing 87.5% of the results.

Shifty [S] 16 points ago +17 / -1

I know its cringe to ask, but I'm requesting a sticky so the truth can be put in front of as many eyes as possible.

BarrBQ 14 points ago +15 / -1

It's not cringe... in fact, catsfive specifically requested more sticky requests. Good work Shifty!

HOSEQ 9 points ago +9 / -0

Which specific ""TRUTH"" are you wanting to push out there???

Is it the one where you show that your MATH SKILLS, combined with Your Reading Comprehension, are practically useless???

Or is it the one where you try to change the actual information provided???

Key Statement:::


This is the biggest CLUE in the whole story.....

270 MINUS 238 = 32.....

The ONLY relevant data we can work with is the 32 that IS reported.....

THAT is where you'll get your statistics......

Spontaneous Abortion -- 23


Outcome Pending -- 5


Intrauterine Death --2


NeoNatal Death -- 1


Normal Outcome -- 1

Add them all together and you get THIRTYONE DEAD.....

But only 1 survived.....

1 Survivor = 3.125%....

This is a Gargantuan difference to your stupid 9%.....

The entire rest of the report is FLUFF, it is meaningless words to fill in the paper, and an attempt to confuse the subject, meaning it is meant to confuse YOU, not just the facts.....

BeyondWithin 4 points ago +4 / -0

This is correct. The only data there is to work with is what was reported. The unreported must not be included in the analysis because they are inconclusive.

HOSEQ 1 point ago +1 / -0

Thank You....

farpointpatriot 7 points ago +7 / -0


LessSwampMoreMAGA 12 points ago +13 / -1

Maybe I'm reading it wrong but the "No outcome was provided for 238 pregnancies" concerns me. Yes, anyone citing 90% mortality is wrong and disingenuous. BUT, I would not put it past Pfizer to hide unwanted outcomes in patients who don't follow up. There were a significant number of patients in the phase 3 clinical trial that just didn't follow up as well.

In other words, the clinical trial for this product was a shit show.

Shifty [S] 7 points ago +8 / -1

I do not disagree, but going off the data presented, claiming a 90% mortality rate is disingenuous at best.

SaveAmerica2021 6 points ago +6 / -0

Yes but 9.6 is disingenous as well.....

TheTroof 4 points ago +5 / -1

How about a 90% mortality rate for those reported? But hell, even IF all the other 238 pregnancies were just fine, 9% is still a horrible, horrible, mind blowing number when it comes to "safety". There is no way it should ever be approved for ANYTHING with numbers that high, considering COVID itself is NO RISK to them.

Shifty [S] 9 points ago +10 / -1

I dont disagree, but normies are going to see "oh you said 27, but this actually says 270, why are you trying to be deceptive?"

I'm trying to prevent that scenario entirely. We have the truth on our side, and 9% is devastating enough to wake some people up.

HOSEQ 2 points ago +4 / -2


270 = FLUFF, Page Filler, words on Paper with the purpose of writing words and not giving real info.....

they Tested and got results for 32 Victims, of which ONLY ONE SURVIVED....

1 Survivor = 3.125% SURVIVABILITY RATE....

This leaves a 96.875 MORTALITY RATE.....

Stick to your guns MORON, maybe some day, when only MORONS run the world, YOU can teach them how to do New WOKE Maths.....

Now you'll say something Extremely STUPID::

Let me guess::

""Oh, but the 270 that didn't return or weren't Reported on SURVIVED.""

You don't know that, and that Information was NOT REPORTED.....

You have to IGNORE that junk, because it is NOT PART OF THE EQUATION....

SirPokeSmottington 1 point ago +3 / -2

I dont disagree, but normies are going to see "oh you said 27, but this actually says 270, why are you trying to be deceptive?"

What you are doing is worse... it means you don't understand studies.

Read it again.

Buttery -1 points ago +1 / -2

Is 9% horrible? What was the rate pre-vaccine? Probably higher than you think.

inquimous 4 points ago +4 / -0

90% out of the known outcomes would make any statistician expect a similar rate in the unknown ones if they were otherwise comparable. Which we have no way of knowing, from this. IF all the rest had no incident at all it would be a wonder. The one way this could reasonably happen would be if all the pregnancy losses came at the same time in fetal development and that was somehow critical. We don't know that either, but I do recall some other news from months ago about a cohort with very high losses in the first trimester. Even normally the very earliest weeks of pregnancy have a high loss rate. Still, it is alarming and unlikely that we are looking at the only losses.

LessSwampMoreMAGA 1 point ago +1 / -0

Pfizer is trying to prove their jab is safe with these studies. These are “controlled” studies from a fast tracked novel treatment, not randomized population data. From a company that has the largest criminal fine in history for false claims.

These types of statistica evaluations are intended to be predictive and that goes out the window when the source of the data is suspect.

Haramming_speed 10 points ago +10 / -0

Pfizer misreported Madde de Garay as not a vaccine injury so who knows what happened to the 238. The sheep are willing to accept all were normal but I am not willing to accept it. Maybe some were fine it seems odd to not have further follow up which should be available in the post marketing studies. If that study is not done it means to me they are looking away ie willfully ignoring a problem.

ABrainDisease 8 points ago +8 / -0

Im only counting 26. (23+2+1).

Also, thats pretty fucked they dont have any idea what happened to 238 of those pregnancies.

Shifty [S] 3 points ago +5 / -2

Right, but the TOTAL of pregnancies counted is 270, so 26 fatalities out of 270 studied pregnancies = 9.6%

TheTroof 9 points ago +11 / -2

Which by itself is a serious, serious problem. Not knowing the outcomes of 238 is just mind blowing. How can they not know? I have a really, really hard time believing they don't know, but rather they DO know and it makes their numbers that much worse.

SirPokeSmottington 4 points ago +4 / -0

Not knowing the outcomes of 238 is just mind blowing.

How can they not know?

Have you ever not answered the phone? Do you know anything about studies?

Patriot11Retiree 5 points ago +5 / -0

The 9.6% is based on an assumption that no outcome means a live birth. Is there an area in the report that claims the 238 were live births? The data in this blurb show 26 out of 27 were fatalities.

HOSEQ 3 points ago +3 / -0

It's actually 31 Dead out of 32....

But thanks for playing....

Patriot11Retiree 2 points ago +2 / -0


judypatriot 3 points ago +3 / -0

KNOWN outcomes should be added. I believe that is where the original poster got his number. "No outcome was provided for 238 pregnancies".

We cannot assume a good outcome for all the other babies.

BeyondWithin 1 point ago +1 / -0

9.6% is at best bare minimum. The data presents evidence for >90%. It doesn't mean the reality will be 90% but they are not wrong when they say that is what the measured data presents.

juicemoney9 1 point ago +1 / -0

This is bad stats work as there isn’t a full data set for all 270. Claiming a 9.6% fatality rate again you don’t know the outcome of ~243 of the cases is erroneous.

JeremiahKassin 1 point ago +1 / -0

10% of pregnancies resulting in a bad outcome is a horrifying statistic, no matter how it's framed.

ARandomOgre 0 points ago +2 / -2

Is it? 10-20% miscarriage rate isn’t unexpected regardless of vaccination status.


inquimous 3 points ago +3 / -0

A very good point. Their record keeping and follow-up is abysmally poor, at least from 5his report.

CanuHonk 2 points ago +2 / -0

You're counting wrong. It's 27. Read it very carefully. Without data on the 238. The meme is correct. If your data is trending towards the injection killing 26/27 infants, don't you think they would follow up on the 238

pchajek 1 point ago +1 / -0

+2 b/c "2 each"

gobby 3 points ago +3 / -0

Thank you. I just asked for further proof on another post with incorrect stats.

SirPokeSmottington 0 points ago +1 / -1

Thank you. I just asked for further proof on another post with incorrect stats.

You are the problem pal.

Sounds like you accept whatever people tell you.

OP is wrong. It's 27, he's just retarded and doesn't understand math or studies.

gobby 1 point ago +2 / -1

Um, pal, reading comprehension is your friend. Lol.

PatriotSkorzeny 3 points ago +3 / -0

They just add a zero to get the percent down? 🧐

CanuHonk 2 points ago +2 / -0

That seems like a good possibility. Pfizer has a rich history of faking data.

StormzAComing 3 points ago +3 / -0

It's not fact-checking, it's truth-checking!

Buttery 0 points ago +1 / -1

Under-rated comment. Facts can be true, but if they're presented while omitting other facts/context, they can be misleading and not truthful.

StormzAComing 1 point ago +1 / -0

And the fact I got 1 up vote is testament to the fact that we often prefer our opinions over the facts.

"It must be true" is not a valid argument.

gobby 2 points ago +2 / -0

This is just another good reminder that individually we should verify everything. I see tons of stuff posted here that is suspect, but people seem to accept it automatically.

tiffany46 2 points ago +2 / -0

They can drop anyone from the study at any time. They probably dropped anyone who became pregnant, and only those women who had already lost their baby were kept in. Something like 9% mortality is right in line with just normal pregnancy.

Ripsi 2 points ago +2 / -0

9% mortality rate is high in my opinion. This might also suggest that adverse effects the baby might obtain is high as well... growth abnormalities? Assumption is made based on adverse effects occurring more than deaths in Vaers.

Shifty [S] 2 points ago +2 / -0

We must be better that to spread bad information. 9% mortality rate is devastating in and of itself, we dont need to inflate the numbers. We spread TRUTH.

Here is the document, read it on your own, dont take a random tweets word for it.


CanuHonk 3 points ago +3 / -0

9% That's not out of the ordinary. The original meme is best but needs a qualifier that without the data on the other 238. This looks VERY bad. One would think they would have followed up and reported on the other 238.

yudsfpbc 2 points ago +2 / -0

9% too many

If I murdered 9% of babies, what would I be?

Buttery 1 point ago +2 / -1

Mother nature?

DrMcCoy 1 point ago +1 / -0

According to what I've seen, the less time the woman is pregnant, the higher the mortality rate.

For women less than 20 wks pregnant, the spontaneous abortion rate is about 80%.

Dr. Zelenko - 80% Miscarriage in first Trimester (@ 1:30 video miscarriage rate): https://www.bitchute.com/video/y2xHyDsSo0xi/

Tim Truth - 82% Miscarriage rate for women who are less than 20 weeks pregnant. https://www.bitchute.com/video/6dnnQZZUasK3/ Both are referring to the New England Journal of Medicine who skewed their results by adding women > 20 weeks pregnant to the group of women < 20 wks pregnant. When you only look at the women < 20 weeks pregnant, the rate was 82%.]

New mRNA Vaccine Could Cause Immune Cells To Attack Placenta Cells, Causing Female Infertility, Miscarriage Or BirthDefects

MuckeyDuck 1 point ago +1 / -0

The information cited above is from September 2021.

I can't find it, (did not look long) but I remember reading about the 90% spontaneous abortion rate back in early 2021.

RustyShackleford777 1 point ago +1 / -0

The 27 we're not expected pregnancies, whereas the rest were planned. That is the only difference if you read it right

ARandomOgre 1 point ago +3 / -2

Alright, let's crack this thing open.




This is a document discussing adverse events reported to Pfizer's reporting system. Anyone can submit.


As is the case in VAERS, adverse events are NOT confirmed vaccine side effects. They are medical things that came up in some period after being vaccinated.

The term "adverse event" never means "confirmed reaction." They are two different types of data. It takes a lot of work for an adverse event to become a confirmed reaction, and this report doesn't do that work.

Because at this stage of the data, all anyone knows is that these medical symptoms have been reported by someone who filled out a form on the internet.

An accumulation of adverse event reports (AERs) does not necessarily indicate that a particular AE was caused by the drug; rather, the event may be due to an underlying disease or some other factor(s) such as past medical history or concomitant medication.

I know this seems like an ass-covering cop-out, but like VAERS, this database is only a tip line. They collect this data to help point them in areas to investigate, not to confirm any particular side effect was actually caused by the vaccine.

All they know is that OF THE PEOPLE WHO REPORTED TO THE SYSTEM, some who got vaccinated also got sick with something, and that's all you can pull from this data.


So first off, when this report was gathering data, over one hundred million vaccine doses were shipped out.

It is estimated that approximately 126,212,580 doses of BNT162b2 were shipped worldwide from the receipt of the first temporary authorisation for emergency supply on 01 December 2020 through 28 February 2021.

And from those 100,000,000+ vaccines? They received a little over 40,000 reports that someone got sick after the vaccine.

Cumulatively, through 28 February 2021, there was a total of 42,086 case reports (25,379 medically confirmed and 16,707 non-medically confirmed) containing 158,893 events.

So right there, even if we wrongly assume all these reports are 100% proof of vaccine injury... well, you can divide 40,000 by 100,000,000.

And again, we're remembering that this is a tip line, and some people just get sick regardless of whether or not they're vaccinated. There is no way to differentiate those situations in this data, just like you can't differentiate which tips are worth following just by looking at 100,000,000 tips of a suspect's location


Probably, yes, but that line will ALWAYS be in reports like this, because again, this is a tip line.

When the police put out a tip line, they are going to get a LOT of incorrect tips, and a LOT of the people who saw the suspect are not reporting it. Both of those things are true.

The data is both flooded with garbage AND underreporting from the total desired dataset. This is expected. You get a lot of data you don't need, and you can never be sure you're getting the data you actually want.

This is not proof (or even implication) that the situation is much worse than we think. Only that we'd love to have EVERYONE who took the vaccine reporting in to the system, for every little boo-boo, but we don't have that.


Page 12.

So, OF THE 42,000 REPORTS, only about 400 of them involved someone who was pregnant. As stated in the report, this is less than 1% of all the data.

Of those, only 84 reported serious problems (which means that the other reports could include someone who was both pregnant and a sore elbow, which would not be considered serious).

Number of cases: 413a (0.98% of the total PM dataset); 84 serious and 329 non-serious;


Maybe? Maybe not. This report has ABSOLUTELY no way of telling us that.

Here's what it tells us.

  1. 100,000,000+ vaccines were out there.
  2. Of those, only 40,000 people complained about medical problems afterwards.
  3. Of those 40,000 people, 400 were pregnant.
  4. Of those 400 people, 27 pregnancies resulted in the death of the child.

So did 27 of those 100,000,000 vaccines cause 27 out of 400 pregnancies in this dataset to result in failure?

Perhaps. And that's why this report exists. That's why VAERS and this reporting system exist.

But this report can't prove anything about it. This report is the STARTING POINT for such research. Just like VAERS.

Which is why any assumption that adverse event reporting data can be used to prove vaccine damage is going to fall apart in the normieverse. It's a simple correlation/causation error.

An adverse event is a correlation, and you cannot assume causation from it. And the adverse event reports CANNOT establish causation. At all. Whatsoever. It's not a mathematical obstacle, despite what some people here insist.


Pregnancy outcomes for the 270 pregnancies were reported as spontaneous abortion (23), outcome pending (5), premature birth with neonatal death, spontaneous abortion with intrauterine death (2 each), spontaneous abortion with neonatal death, and normal outcome (1 each). No outcome was provided for 238 pregnancies (note that 2 different outcomes were reported for each twin, and both were counted).

This comes from Table 6, which discusses "missing information." What this means is that they don't have enough information to know much about these cases, but in the spirit of transparency, will provide that data anyway in the report. Just in case.

These reports are not part of the 400+ that were considered full reports.

Of these "missing data" reports, 238 of basically said, "I'm pregnant" and never followed up with additional information about the pregnancy. "No outcome" means "they could have been fine, or not, and they didn't tell us."

This is also normal. This information is essentially being collected by survey, and anyone who has run an enormous survey before knows that lots of data doesn't get filled out correctly or completely and can't be used. Most reports wouldn't even include it.

Hope this helps.