Igor Chudov ran a fascinating piece this week where he looked at two studies on Covid vaccines and miscarriages. While the studies had a number of problems that make some of their conclusions hard to credit – for instance, in one the vaccinated were excluded at a rate 75 times greater than the unvaccinated (7.5% vs 0.1%) – Igor spotted that both studies give an estimate of the miscarriage rate in women after the sixth week of pregnancy. Notably, the figures are very different. In one study the miscarriage rate is 8% and in the other it is 14.1%, almost twice as high.
Importantly, the higher figure was from a study where all the women were vaccinated during the pregnancy itself, while the lower figure was from a study where not all the women were vaccinated and those who were were jabbed at any point before the miscarriage (some would probably have been vaccinated during the pregnancy but we don’t know how many).
Assuming the data in each study are reliable and comparable (one is a prospective cohort study and the other based on CDC V-Safe survey data) then this is strongly indicative that being vaccinated during pregnancy almost doubles the risk of miscarriage, at least after the sixth week.
We can’t be sure – there are always potential pitfalls in comparing data from different sources. However, these are two studies published in top journals where each gives an estimate of miscarriage risk after the sixth week of pregnancy, and the one where the women were all vaccinated during the pregnancy is nearly double the one where many of the women were unvaccinated or were vaccinated before pregnancy. That should ring alarm bells for anyone. Particularly when we know the vaccines have caused widespread menstrual abnormalities and were shown in animal biodistribution studies to accumulate in the ovaries and uterus.
To join in with the discussion please make a donation to The Daily Sceptic.
Profanity and abuse will be removed and may lead to a permanent ban.
Excellent work. Really like to see similar data for other countries – as many as possible – and look at any correlations between this, “vaccination” rates and lockdown stringency.
Here’s Norman Fenton and Martin Neil’s analysis, including a very interesting and thorough 25min video;
https://wherearethenumbers.substack.com/p/the-devils-advocate-an-exploratory?utm_source=substack&utm_campaign=post_embed&utm_medium=web
I say it’s clearly too cold or too hot, too dry or too wet, decreasing or increasing ice in the arctic, bleaching or not bleaching of the coral reefs, too much or too little wind. I have all the receipts from the trusted fact checker sites. The debate is settled, now move on and show your support for the ‘current thing’ as explained by the BBC.
Head of international vascular society demands stop of the gene therapies.
And this GP. There’s more and more gradually appearing isn’t there? This chap has actually been speaking out for ages and has appeared on many different shows, inc The Delingpod, if you search Rumble. He’s still in a job because he’s got the data to back up everything he says.
https://rumble.com/v1hwck3-dr.-tess-lawrie-interviews-dr.-david-cartland-no-more-injections.html
Dr Malhotra and indeed anybody who is sceptical about the value of the vaccines and the lockdown attracts Wikipedia sabotage from the team of bots and smear-authors. It’s just like the good old days of Climategate, when W M Connolley’s disciples removed “off-message” Wiki edits or smeared authors who were sceptical of the Catastrophic Anthropogenic Warming Hypothesis.. They would strike within minutes of a new post. The new generation of saboteurs call themselves “fact-checkers” but the tactics are the same.
So most people are slowly coming to realize that the initial predictions that thrombosis would be a recognized complication of mRNA therapies are correct. There will be enormous resistance in government and much of the media to this conclusion. In the end the truth will emerge.
The data is collated with consistency by our records team for just this sort of analysis. It’s a shame that the organisations tasked with doing so seem to have forgotten their purpose. Leaving it to others which also weakens the trust in those negligent agencies.