| | | Hi Maurice,
thanks for your thoughts.
Not really - we're now actually both making the same point that the graph is more likely understating the severity of the problem, rather than overstating it. To me, that graph didn't give useful information about the severity of the miscarriage problem. It didn't even show that miscarriages are worse with the vaxx than normal. I guess 5% increase in miscarriages for women who got vaxxed in the first 3 months of pregnancy and the prior month. If the vaxx gets through the placenta, I raise that to 10% extra mortality with vaxx than without. Well, I don't know what to say to that other than that we disagree. I think the data in the context given, and taking into account the factors we've discussed, including total vaccine uptake % in pregnant women of past vaccines vs. Covid vaccines, clearly sends a strong signal, and is likely understating the problem. Do we need more data and better investigation? Absolutely, but that's the way VAERS has always worked- it acts as a warning signal that we need further investigation. It has never been meant to be absolutely definitive. I don't see how it's possible to reasonably dismiss that data as not alarming. None of your arguments convinced me of that, and in fact, all your arguments seemed to point to this data being underestimated.
Following your logic, we should just disregard all VAERS data as it's not specific enough and therefore useless. In reality, we know very well that VAERS has worked to identify problems, so that argument is a non-starter. We'd all like a perfect world, and we all know that no study is perfect and there is always better data that could be collected, but sometimes you have to fish or cut bait on the information you do have.
What's needed is a count of women vaxxed in the first 3 months of pregnancy and their outcomes compared with those who were not. Should be super easy data to collect. Maternal obesity should also be counted along with the other risk factors such as zinc level, vitamin D level, HbA1c level, whether they got covid during their pregnancy and when and now bad it was. That's what a further study is for, which is what the VAERS data is calling for. That further data is needed does not justify totally dismissing the VAERS data as "too dramatic", as otherwise the whole system breaks down and we'd be stuck in a vicious cycle and get nowhere. It's an early warning system, and IMO has been sending out multiple clear signals of a magnitude we've never seen before that we have clear problems with these vaccines. To casually dismiss or ignore that based on the logic that the data is not complete enough is just sticking our heads in the sand. That's JMO and we can agree to disagree here, because we've beat this horse to death now. Thanks for the thought-provoking discussion! |
|
