Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Politics for Pros- moderated -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Maurice Winn who wrote (773664)	12/12/2022 8:24:00 AM
From: jpdunwell	7 Recommendations Recommended By alanrs FJB frankw1900 isopatch pak73 and 2 more members Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 793624

"Among 46,079 pregnant women with live births and gestational age available, 10,064 (21.8%) received =1 COVID-19 vaccine doses during pregnancy and during December 15, 2020–July 22, 2021" I never noticed that when that quote was cut & pasted from the linked site I gave it changed "received>= 1 Covid-19 vaccine doses" to the above, so it's not quite as bad as you think. We essentially have % uptake stats for live births with 78% of mothers refusing any covid vaccine. Still, as I said from the beginning, I agree the data leaves lots to be desired. I do think it gives us a reasonable guesstimate of the Covid vaccine uptake % in expectant mothers, and in the worst case, it at least helps bracket the results. Even taking into accont the things you suggest, I think it's clear Jacob's assessment of the graph being "very misleading" is not a fair characterization in the way he hoped to spin it, and that was my main point. The relative comparison between past vaccine pregnancy VAERS data and Covid vaccine pregnancy VAERS data seems a valid enough comparison to me to demonstrate the Covid vaccines are huge outliers, and if anything, I would say it's understated. The best argument that the graph is overstating things is that it could be true that those women that experienced miscarriages may be more likely to blame it on a new vaccine than for more proven vaccines. How true that is, we'll never know, but given the way most Dr's have worked to deny any vaccine-related injuries so far, I feel nearly certain the vast majority would have done their best to shut down any ideas of this the mother would have entertained. If we further recognize that something along the lines of more than 80% of VAERS reports are filled out by physicians (from my memory), then I have my doubts that this factor is significant, much less compensates for the larger % uptake of all the other vaccines. In your hypothetical "100% of miscarriage took the spike vax" case, then we have an even bigger problem than any of us thought. :)