1093
Comments (224)
sorted by:
You're viewing a single comment thread. View all comments, or full comment thread.
1
BoughtByBloomberg2 1 point ago +1 / -0

I just explained. It is FINISHED PREGNANCIES.

827 during the study. Meaning if you want to know the percentage of adverse events out of finished pregnancies, it's Adverse events divided by Total.

Now if you just want FIRST TRIMESTER adverse events you are missing >905 pregnancies that have no recorded outcome during the study.

So which is it going to be? Are you going to rethink what you said or going to ignore the study telling you they don't have data jet on 9/10 subjects who got vaxxed in first trimester.

1
deleted 1 point ago +1 / -0
1
BoughtByBloomberg2 1 point ago +1 / -0

And 905 are still pending. so let's actually break the data down. They state that 905 women still had no data on outcome of pregnancy. Out of >1200 who had gotten it 30 days before last menstrual or in first trimester.

Because you didn't actually copy paste the methods I have no idea how many of these were in the first trimester. This would be your next task. Go look in materials and methods because I have no clue which study this is how many there actually were in the first trimester that got the shot. Or post the link and let me look past a badly interpreted screenshot of a single graph.

For now because they state the number 905 as being unknown outcomes to possible first trimester vaccinations let's use that.

127+905 = 1032

So miscarriages in the first trimester currently stand at.... 104 out of 1032 or ~10%

As the study continues this number might go up as the 905 get an OUTCOME to their PREGNANCY! CAUSE IT TAKES TIME FOR BABIES TO BAKE!

They are actually OVER estimating by dividing through KNOWN OUTCOMES which is lower than the (estimated because I have no link) number of first trimester pregnancies.

So you got your wish. I didn't divide by 827 and the number went down and so did your argument.

Basic bitch science here.

1
deleted 1 point ago +1 / -0