whataboob 1 point ago +1 / -0

It’s not an atypical response from someone that is wrong.

Why would the CD be “completed pregnancies” when some of the pregnancies are totally irrelevant from the others, in regards to some of the results on which we already have data?

What relevance does a woman who took vaxx in third trimester have to a woman who had the vaxx and a miscarriage in the first or second trimester? None. Hence you can’t address this question that exposes their fraud of adding those 700 women to the D.

Sorry you’re such a fan of junk science and arrogant incompetence.

whataboob 1 point ago +1 / -0

“Which is worse?”? Beside the point.

10% would show a remarkable improvement from the norm, so though it would be better, it would be one indicator that this drug helps prevent miscarriages and that would be front page news.

And look, they did divide 104 by 827, and it used to be right in the table until people pointed out their fraud and they removed it from that one spot, but not the paragraph. https://patriots.win/p/13zgX0qyOq/x/c/4JH5F6Xz5Yw

whataboob 1 point ago +1 / -0
  1. That’s true, partially, on this new table only, not in the paragraph below.
  2. It used to be there, I think, and they removed it.
  3. Regardless of whether it used to be there or not, it’s irrelevant, because they still left it in another place.
  4. I put up a new post and left in the paragraph immediately below the table - look, 12.6%. https://patriots.win/p/13zgX3999Q/-8189-miscarriage-rate-with-the-/
  5. How did they get that 12.6%? 104 / 827.

They either made a ridiculous, high school level error, which they won’t fix, or they’re frauds.

EDIT: Yup! It used to be there, look at this screenshot from the LeadStories “fact check,” with 104/827 right in the table https://leadstories.com/assets_c/2021/07/xScreen,P20Shot,P202021-07-09,P20at,P2010.53.44,P20PM-thumb-900xauto-3078999.png.pagespeed.ic.gikblRSakB.png

This is the source article https://leadstories.com/hoax-alert/2021/07/fact-check-study-did-not-find-82-percent-miscarriage-rate-among-pregnant-women-vaccinated-against-covid.html

whataboob 1 point ago +1 / -0

Holy shit lol , they’re “over estimating” eh?

You didn’t divide by 827, but they did. And that’s what I’m saying they did wrong.

Look, I put it up as new post, and I left their paragraph from right below the table in — “12.6%” wrong, they’re wrong. https://patriots.win/p/13zgX3999Q/-8189-miscarriage-rate-with-the-/c/

That 12.6% is complete nonsense except for the purpose of making it look like

miscarriage rate looks normal so far.”

Mission accomplished I guess.

But it’s still bullshit.

whataboob 1 point ago +1 / -0

And look at my new post, I left their paragraph this time that says 12.6%.


They got that bs 12.6% by incorrectly dividing 104 by 827. The 700 women are irrelevant to the 104 miscarriages.

whataboob 1 point ago +1 / -0


Common denominator is not “completed pregnancies.”

Common denominator is “completed pregnancies that are otherwise similar, especially in regards to schedule of the drug/vaxxine being tested.”

  • The 700 women took vaxx in 3rd.

  • All miscarriages were in 1st or 2nd.

it couldn’t possibly be any of the 700 — they have no relevance of the 104 miscarriages.

Of 127, 104 had miscarriages!!

whataboob 1 point ago +1 / -0

Umm, I’m not the NEJM.

Mine is t wrong. They divvied by 827. I pointed out how that’s wrong and could be corrected using their logic.

They’re an internationally renowned institution, and getting it silly wrong, couldn’t even be bothered to check or correct when pointed out.

whataboob 1 point ago +1 / -0

I understand.

But they already explained in the table that all 104 were before 20 weeks.

And only 127 of the 827 women took the vaxx before 20 weeks.

The calculation of “104 : 827 = 12.6%” is wrong. It’s incorrect logic and obfuscates reality.

If the real number shown by the study was 3.6%, that would raise alarms but it would be an abnormally low rate, and would show this drug to be a miracle against miscarriages. The normal rate is around 12-13%.

What they are saying is

of the thousands of women in the study, 827 have finished pregnancy, and of those 827, 104 have had miscarriages, which shown a normal 12.6% miscarriage rate so far

I get that. But it’s wrong.

If the 827, 700 are irrelevant and shouldn’t be in the calculation. It’s 104 / 127 = ~82%

whataboob 1 point ago +1 / -0

Hint: it's way more than 827. In fact it's 3958.

Okay, so then why did they divide 104 by 827 to come up with 12.6%?

whataboob 1 point ago +1 / -0

My mistake?

How did they get 12.6%? Lying? Or mistake?

Cuz those 104 miscarriages have no relation to the 700 third trimester women.

But they are directly related to the 127 pregnancies. But that isn’t the point.

The point is, they divided 104 by 827 and that’s fraud, and they’ll have to answer for it.

I was just trying to let y’all know that NEJM fraud, potentially murderously trying to hide miscarriages.

whataboob 1 point ago +1 / -0

Maybe 82% isn’t correct.

The point is, theirs is wrong, and yet there it is, despite many attempts by people to get the to change it.

I got 82% because only the 127 first/second trimester women could have possibly had any of the 104 miscarriages before the 20 weeks of gestation, hence 104 / 127. The 700 women are irrelevant, might as well as men, would be just as faulty.

whataboob 1 point ago +1 / -0

Everything else aside

OF THESE 700 got it in the third trimester and 127 in the first. So spontaneous abortions from the vaccine during pregnancy was.... 104 by 827. Total abortions vs total pregnancies gives rate of abortion.

FALSE. That’s the crux. It doesn’t.

Those 700 women 0 relevance to the 104 miscarriages. YOU MIGHT AS WELL ADD 700 MEN TO THE TOTAL.

Why not 700 men? It’s the same thing. The third trimester women couldn’t possibly have any relation to the 104 miscarriages. That’s the point. That’s it.

whataboob 1 point ago +1 / -0

I’m not. Look at their own math.

How did they arrive at 12.6%? They divided 104 by 827. Cmon.

whataboob 1 point ago +1 / -0


But it doesn’t show which proportion is spontaneous abortions. They lied.

They took 127 in 1st/2nd and added 700 in 3rd.

But all the miscarriages were in 1st/2nd, so it couldn’t possibly have been any of the 700. You see? They lied.

They should have divided 104 by 127.

whataboob 1 point ago +1 / -0

Yeah, except 827 is

  • 127 1st and 2nd trimester pregnancies
  • and 700 3rd trimester pregnancies

How could any of the 104 1st or 2nd trimester pregnancies come from women who only took vaxx in the 3rd? They couldn’t.

This, dividing 104 by 827 is wrong.

104 should be divided by 127, because that’s what actually happened.

104 of the 127 women who took the vaxx in the 1st or 2nd trimester had miscarriages. ~82%.

And I’m not saying my math is correct. I’m saying theirs is wrong. It may be that 104 / 127 is also wrong. But 104 / 827 is 100% incorrect regardless of what it says on any other table.

whataboob 1 point ago +1 / -0


Are you ....

So, why did they divide 104 by 827? Why were the 700 women included in the 827 in that equation?

Y’all got big paragraphs, 0 explanation.

whataboob 1 point ago +1 / -0

I think it’s their math that’s wrong.

Look, I included the paragraph immediately below Table 4, which takes numbers from the table. https://patriots.win/p/13zgX3999Q/x/c/4JH5EsPQwcS

They did overs 104 by 827, including 700 irrelevant women, not me.

whataboob 1 point ago +1 / -0

Why did they divide 104 by 827 when the 104 1at and 2nd trimester miscarriages couldn’t possibly come from the 700 3rd trimester women?

EDIT: on my previous post, people overwhelmingly upvoted u/GrumpyGrumps debunk https://patriots.win/p/13zgX0qyOq/x/c/4JH5Ej4NndO, but it’s wrong. It completely fails to address and answer the basic question I ask here — why did they divide 104 by 827, when the 700 women couldn’t possibly be related to the 104 miscarriages?

view more: Next ›