(09-20-2021 12:04 PM)salukiblue Wrote:  

(09-20-2021 10:01 AM)BlueDragon Wrote:  They reported that among 827 participants with a completed pregnancy, the pregnancy resulted in spontaneous abortion by week 20 in 104 (12.6%), and the authors indicated that this proportion was similar to that in the general population. NEMJ

So if your wife is pregnant after reading this are you going to sign off the covid shot?

I’m asking you personally Tiger City. Do you have enough faith in an experimental covid shot to cost you and your wife your baby? You don’t have to answer because I already know what it would be.

That's kinda the point.

Just google "number of pregnancies that end in a miscarriage" and you'll learn that anywhere between 15-20% of US pregnancies are miscarriages.

So, actually, the number of miscarriages with the shot is LOWER than the "normal" rate.

BlueDragon has already said he's not interested in the numbers, the data. He doesn't care that the data shows that the vaccines are safe. He doesn't even care that all of this is already been responded to. All that information is already in the thread. He either doesn't care or he doesn't understand. I'm thinking he doesn't understand.

(09-20-2021 10:58 AM)BartlettTigerFan Wrote:  Stop calling it "Science" if we're not allowed to question it.

Call it a belief system.

Call it a religion.

Call it a cult.

But stop calling it Science.

I usually don't respond to rabbit hole **** like this --- but what in the Sam Hell are you talkin about LOL. And aren't you the same guy who claims the vaccine is not really a vaccine?

Nothing rabbit hole about it. Do you understand what the scientific method is? Obviously not.

And.... It's a shot. Just like the Flu shot. Do you call the Flu shot a vaccine? No, of course you don't.

NEJM corrected it because they had to. It was faulty.

And you need to look at when the miscarriage occurs to find out if it’s apples to apples. The percentage of miscarriages that occur within the 1st 12 weeks approaches 90% of all reported miscarriages.

(09-20-2021 12:32 PM)BartlettTigerFan Wrote:  Nothing rabbit hole about it. Do you understand what the scientific method is? Obviously not.

And.... It's a shot. Just like the Flu shot. Do you call the Flu shot a vaccine? No, of course you don't.

Yes rabbit hole. Scientists don't use the scientific method and the flu shot isn't a vaccine. From the guy who seems to be proud of the fact that he doesn't read.

I am a voracious reader, on subjects that interest me. All this silly sheep subject matter doesn't interest me.

(09-20-2021 12:33 PM)rath v2.0 Wrote:  NEJM corrected it because they had to. It was faulty.

And you need to look at when the miscarriage occurs to find out if it’s apples to apples. The percentage of miscarriages that occur within the 1st 12 weeks approaches 90% of all reported miscarriages.

This. Doesn't say when the miscarriages occurred. Did they occur a few days after the shot? Did they happen after 20 weeks. Just that they happened. A large number of miscarriages occur prior to the mother even knowing they are pregnant.

Children of Thalidomide

(09-20-2021 12:20 PM)Tigers2B1 Wrote:  

(09-20-2021 12:04 PM)salukiblue Wrote:  

(09-20-2021 10:01 AM)BlueDragon Wrote:  They reported that among 827 participants with a completed pregnancy, the pregnancy resulted in spontaneous abortion by week 20 in 104 (12.6%), and the authors indicated that this proportion was similar to that in the general population. NEMJ

So if your wife is pregnant after reading this are you going to sign off the covid shot?

I’m asking you personally Tiger City. Do you have enough faith in an experimental covid shot to cost you and your wife your baby? You don’t have to answer because I already know what it would be.

That's kinda the point.

Just google "number of pregnancies that end in a miscarriage" and you'll learn that anywhere between 15-20% of US pregnancies are miscarriages.

So, actually, the number of miscarriages with the shot is LOWER than the "normal" rate.

BlueDragon has already said he's not interested in the numbers, the data. He doesn't care that the data shows that the vaccines are safe. He doesn't even care that all of this is already been responded to. All that information is already in the thread. He either doesn't care or he doesn't understand. I'm thinking he doesn't understand.

That is where you and your kind are lacking in the cognitive gifts your brain affords you. Data shows one in 8 women will miscarriage after taking the shot. Kind of like Russian Roulette. There is only one bullet in the gun. 1 in 6 chance you will blow your brains out. You want to play?

Once again while will none of you cowards answer my question. It is not political. It’s a simple question that you can answer and attempt to allow me to understand why i or anyone would take the risk.

Life is about Risk/Reward.

Why do I see a risk much greater than the reward here.

It is simple you cowards will talk around the question attack me but you will never answer the yes or no question because you are cowards.

Please do I as say but not as I do peasants. You do realize only the Pigs were allowed in the house.

(09-20-2021 10:56 AM)JDTulane Wrote:  Something tells me BlueDragon still doesn't understand the results of the study.

No its clear he doesn't understand. But I really don't want to get bogged down endlessly responding to morons like him and Bartlett Tiger. They also make a habit of refusing to see what's right in front of them. Which gives you a hint LOL. The whole point of my original response was to the o p which claimed that the vaccine was harming pregnant women according to a New England Journal of Medicine study ---- when in fact it was the exact opposite. All you had to do was look at the study rather than some wacko third-party source. Just more of the same, ie misinformation, on this board.

(09-20-2021 12:33 PM)rath v2.0 Wrote:  NEJM corrected it because they had to. It was faulty.

And you need to look at when the miscarriage occurs to find out if it’s apples to apples. The percentage of miscarriages that occur within the 1st 12 weeks approaches 90% of all reported miscarriages.

Dude, did you even read the ******* report from them? There was no correction in it anywhere, PERIOD!

There was no official study results yet...and now there are...and they match up with the preliminary studies that did show the vaccines (or shots if you must) are safe for pregnant moms, and show no increase over the current rates of miscarriage.

Quote:Nonetheless, our findings suggest that the risk of spontaneous abortion after mRNA Covid-19 vaccination either before conception or during pregnancy is consistent with the expected risk of spontaneous abortion; these findings add to the accumulating evidence about the safety of mRNA Covid-19 vaccination in pregnancy

There was nothing for them to even correct!

(09-20-2021 01:03 PM)BlueDragon Wrote:  

(09-20-2021 12:20 PM)Tigers2B1 Wrote:  

(09-20-2021 12:04 PM)salukiblue Wrote:  

(09-20-2021 10:01 AM)BlueDragon Wrote:  They reported that among 827 participants with a completed pregnancy, the pregnancy resulted in spontaneous abortion by week 20 in 104 (12.6%), and the authors indicated that this proportion was similar to that in the general population. NEMJ

So if your wife is pregnant after reading this are you going to sign off the covid shot?

I’m asking you personally Tiger City. Do you have enough faith in an experimental covid shot to cost you and your wife your baby? You don’t have to answer because I already know what it would be.

That's kinda the point.

Just google "number of pregnancies that end in a miscarriage" and you'll learn that anywhere between 15-20% of US pregnancies are miscarriages.

So, actually, the number of miscarriages with the shot is LOWER than the "normal" rate.

BlueDragon has already said he's not interested in the numbers, the data. He doesn't care that the data shows that the vaccines are safe. He doesn't even care that all of this is already been responded to. All that information is already in the thread. He either doesn't care or he doesn't understand. I'm thinking he doesn't understand.

Data shows one in 8 women will miscarriage after taking the shot.

Okay... maybe if we take this super slowly...

What does data show for women who do NOT take the shot? What is their chance of suffering from a miscarriage?

And what is similar between the two data sets?

Well, no ****.

(09-20-2021 01:22 PM)JDTulane Wrote:  

(09-20-2021 01:03 PM)BlueDragon Wrote:  

(09-20-2021 12:20 PM)Tigers2B1 Wrote:  

(09-20-2021 12:04 PM)salukiblue Wrote:  

(09-20-2021 10:01 AM)BlueDragon Wrote:  They reported that among 827 participants with a completed pregnancy, the pregnancy resulted in spontaneous abortion by week 20 in 104 (12.6%), and the authors indicated that this proportion was similar to that in the general population. NEMJ

So if your wife is pregnant after reading this are you going to sign off the covid shot?

I’m asking you personally Tiger City. Do you have enough faith in an experimental covid shot to cost you and your wife your baby? You don’t have to answer because I already know what it would be.

That's kinda the point.

Just google "number of pregnancies that end in a miscarriage" and you'll learn that anywhere between 15-20% of US pregnancies are miscarriages.

So, actually, the number of miscarriages with the shot is LOWER than the "normal" rate.

BlueDragon has already said he's not interested in the numbers, the data. He doesn't care that the data shows that the vaccines are safe. He doesn't even care that all of this is already been responded to. All that information is already in the thread. He either doesn't care or he doesn't understand. I'm thinking he doesn't understand.

Data shows one in 8 women will miscarriage after taking the shot.

Okay... maybe if we take this super slowly...

What does data show for women who do NOT take the shot? What is their chance of suffering from a miscarriage?

And what is similar between the two data sets?

Your side doesn't like questions like that, and forced the shot on millions through illegal mandates. You don't get to ask questions while supporting mandates.

(09-20-2021 01:29 PM)ECUGrad07 Wrote:  

(09-20-2021 01:22 PM)JDTulane Wrote:  

(09-20-2021 01:03 PM)BlueDragon Wrote:  

(09-20-2021 12:20 PM)Tigers2B1 Wrote:  

(09-20-2021 12:04 PM)salukiblue Wrote:  That's kinda the point.

Just google "number of pregnancies that end in a miscarriage" and you'll learn that anywhere between 15-20% of US pregnancies are miscarriages.

So, actually, the number of miscarriages with the shot is LOWER than the "normal" rate.

BlueDragon has already said he's not interested in the numbers, the data. He doesn't care that the data shows that the vaccines are safe. He doesn't even care that all of this is already been responded to. All that information is already in the thread. He either doesn't care or he doesn't understand. I'm thinking he doesn't understand.

Data shows one in 8 women will miscarriage after taking the shot.

Okay... maybe if we take this super slowly...

What does data show for women who do NOT take the shot? What is their chance of suffering from a miscarriage?

And what is similar between the two data sets?

You don't get to ask questions while supporting mandates.

Are you mandating me? Mandates for thee but not for me.

(09-20-2021 01:32 PM)JDTulane Wrote:  

(09-20-2021 01:29 PM)ECUGrad07 Wrote:  

(09-20-2021 01:22 PM)JDTulane Wrote:  

(09-20-2021 01:03 PM)BlueDragon Wrote:  

(09-20-2021 12:20 PM)Tigers2B1 Wrote:  BlueDragon has already said he's not interested in the numbers, the data. He doesn't care that the data shows that the vaccines are safe. He doesn't even care that all of this is already been responded to. All that information is already in the thread. He either doesn't care or he doesn't understand. I'm thinking he doesn't understand.

Data shows one in 8 women will miscarriage after taking the shot.

Okay... maybe if we take this super slowly...

What does data show for women who do NOT take the shot? What is their chance of suffering from a miscarriage?

And what is similar between the two data sets?

You don't get to ask questions while supporting mandates.

Are you mandating me? Mandates for thee but not for me.

The thing is, your side has been screaming about the safety of the shot, demanding people take it, and taking away civil liberties from those who want to either not take the shot, or wait to see the long term effects.

Your side doesn't care about clinical trials... your side cares about compliance, even now that we're slowly finding out the shot isn't anywhere near as effective as originally promised.

Your side is officially "anti-debate" and are slowly being shown to be anti-science as well... so, why would we debate with you here?

(09-20-2021 01:49 PM)ECUGrad07 Wrote:  

(09-20-2021 01:32 PM)JDTulane Wrote:  

(09-20-2021 01:29 PM)ECUGrad07 Wrote:  

(09-20-2021 01:22 PM)JDTulane Wrote:  

(09-20-2021 01:03 PM)BlueDragon Wrote:  Data shows one in 8 women will miscarriage after taking the shot.

Okay... maybe if we take this super slowly...

What does data show for women who do NOT take the shot? What is their chance of suffering from a miscarriage?

And what is similar between the two data sets?

You don't get to ask questions while supporting mandates.

Are you mandating me? Mandates for thee but not for me.

... so, why would we debate with you here?

Ok. Then don't.

(09-20-2021 10:10 AM)JDTulane Wrote:  From the paper itself:

Quote:A total of 35,691 v-safe participants 16 to 54 years of age identified as pregnant. Injection-site pain was reported more frequently among pregnant persons than among nonpregnant women, whereas headache, myalgia, chills, and fever were reported less frequently. Among 3958 participants enrolled in the v-safe pregnancy registry, 827 had a completed pregnancy, of which 115 (13.9%) were pregnancy losses and 712 (86.1%) were live births (mostly among participants vaccinated in the third trimester). Adverse neonatal outcomes included preterm birth (in 9.4%) and small size for gestational age (in 3.2%); no neonatal deaths were reported. Although not directly comparable, calculated proportions of adverse pregnancy and neonatal outcomes in persons vaccinated against Covid-19 who had a completed pregnancy were similar to incidences reported in studies involving pregnant women that were conducted before the Covid-19 pandemic. Among 221 pregnancy-related adverse events reported to the VAERS, the most frequently reported event was spontaneous abortion (46 cases).

Quote:CONCLUSIONS
Preliminary findings did not show obvious safety signals among pregnant persons who received mRNA Covid-19 vaccines. However, more longitudinal follow-up, including follow-up of large numbers of women vaccinated earlier in pregnancy, is necessary to inform maternal, pregnancy, and infant outcomes.

Most of the data seems to be driven from 3rd trimester mothers and not 1st so the risk for early congenital defect remains unknown. They noted this and plans for further followup.
For the babies that did not make it: A total of 96 of 104 spontaneous abortions (92.3%) occurred before 13 weeks of gestation.


Glad we are finally getting data on this.

Yea, unless I'm misunderstanding the data this seems to be in line with "normal" miscarriags. However, if women in their third trimester are getting the shot and THEN having "spontaneouis abortions" that would be a hell of a terrible thing. I wonder if they have a way to seperate the "normal miscarriages" with women in their first twenty weeks versus that same group that got the shots and then had a miscarriage? Not sure if any of that makes sense to anyone else, but it makes sense to me.

(09-20-2021 02:26 PM)VA49er Wrote:  

(09-20-2021 10:10 AM)JDTulane Wrote:  From the paper itself:

Quote:A total of 35,691 v-safe participants 16 to 54 years of age identified as pregnant. Injection-site pain was reported more frequently among pregnant persons than among nonpregnant women, whereas headache, myalgia, chills, and fever were reported less frequently. Among 3958 participants enrolled in the v-safe pregnancy registry, 827 had a completed pregnancy, of which 115 (13.9%) were pregnancy losses and 712 (86.1%) were live births (mostly among participants vaccinated in the third trimester). Adverse neonatal outcomes included preterm birth (in 9.4%) and small size for gestational age (in 3.2%); no neonatal deaths were reported. Although not directly comparable, calculated proportions of adverse pregnancy and neonatal outcomes in persons vaccinated against Covid-19 who had a completed pregnancy were similar to incidences reported in studies involving pregnant women that were conducted before the Covid-19 pandemic. Among 221 pregnancy-related adverse events reported to the VAERS, the most frequently reported event was spontaneous abortion (46 cases).

Quote:CONCLUSIONS
Preliminary findings did not show obvious safety signals among pregnant persons who received mRNA Covid-19 vaccines. However, more longitudinal follow-up, including follow-up of large numbers of women vaccinated earlier in pregnancy, is necessary to inform maternal, pregnancy, and infant outcomes.

Most of the data seems to be driven from 3rd trimester mothers and not 1st so the risk for early congenital defect remains unknown. They noted this and plans for further followup.
For the babies that did not make it: A total of 96 of 104 spontaneous abortions (92.3%) occurred before 13 weeks of gestation.


Glad we are finally getting data on this.

Yea, unless I'm misunderstanding the data this seems to be in line with "normal" miscarriags. However, if women in their third trimester are getting the shot and THEN having "spontaneouis abortions" that would be a hell of a terrible thing. I wonder if they have a way to seperate the "normal miscarriages" with women in their first twenty weeks versus that same group that got the shots and then had a miscarriage? Not sure if any of that makes sense to anyone else, but it makes sense to me.

I'm guessing this detail is in the minutia of the study...and if it raised any flags...would have been disclosed.

The articles linked here just provide a high level overview.

If you looked hard enough, you can probably find the detail you're looking for.

(09-20-2021 02:32 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(09-20-2021 02:26 PM)VA49er Wrote:  

(09-20-2021 10:10 AM)JDTulane Wrote:  From the paper itself:

Quote:A total of 35,691 v-safe participants 16 to 54 years of age identified as pregnant. Injection-site pain was reported more frequently among pregnant persons than among nonpregnant women, whereas headache, myalgia, chills, and fever were reported less frequently. Among 3958 participants enrolled in the v-safe pregnancy registry, 827 had a completed pregnancy, of which 115 (13.9%) were pregnancy losses and 712 (86.1%) were live births (mostly among participants vaccinated in the third trimester). Adverse neonatal outcomes included preterm birth (in 9.4%) and small size for gestational age (in 3.2%); no neonatal deaths were reported. Although not directly comparable, calculated proportions of adverse pregnancy and neonatal outcomes in persons vaccinated against Covid-19 who had a completed pregnancy were similar to incidences reported in studies involving pregnant women that were conducted before the Covid-19 pandemic. Among 221 pregnancy-related adverse events reported to the VAERS, the most frequently reported event was spontaneous abortion (46 cases).

Quote:CONCLUSIONS
Preliminary findings did not show obvious safety signals among pregnant persons who received mRNA Covid-19 vaccines. However, more longitudinal follow-up, including follow-up of large numbers of women vaccinated earlier in pregnancy, is necessary to inform maternal, pregnancy, and infant outcomes.

Most of the data seems to be driven from 3rd trimester mothers and not 1st so the risk for early congenital defect remains unknown. They noted this and plans for further followup.
For the babies that did not make it: A total of 96 of 104 spontaneous abortions (92.3%) occurred before 13 weeks of gestation.


Glad we are finally getting data on this.

Yea, unless I'm misunderstanding the data this seems to be in line with "normal" miscarriags. However, if women in their third trimester are getting the shot and THEN having "spontaneouis abortions" that would be a hell of a terrible thing. I wonder if they have a way to seperate the "normal miscarriages" with women in their first twenty weeks versus that same group that got the shots and then had a miscarriage? Not sure if any of that makes sense to anyone else, but it makes sense to me.

I'm guessing this detail is in the minutia of the study...and if it raised any flags...would have been disclosed.

The articles linked here just provide a high level overview.

If you looked hard enough, you can probably find the detail you're looking for.

I wouldn't assume the bold. Heck, if I had that question I'm pretty sure those that know a heck of a lot more about this stuff had similar questions. Seems like noting something along those lines would have been a priority. Regardless, less favorable details are often buried in the details. Not saying that's the case here, but it's an age old trick to avoid presenting less favorable details.