COVID-19 Viruses and Vaccines

[Deranged Rhino]

2 minutes ago, Nouseforaname said:

I explained why I challenged the study.  What I said isn’t inaccurate about miscarriages.

 

Your hate is very strong.  You should probably walk away from referring to me and vice versa because it really does bring out the worst in you.

 

I don't hate you. I feel sorry for you because you've become

 

 

 

Edited August 17, 2022 by Deranged Rhino

[Nouseforaname]

Just now, Deranged Rhino said:

 

I don't hate you. I feel sorry for you because you've become

 

 

 

I take that as you agree ?

[Deranged Rhino]

Just now, Nouseforaname said:

I take that as you agree ?

 

 Of course you misinterpret something. Because you're 

[Nouseforaname]

1 minute ago, Deranged Rhino said:

 

 Of course you misinterpret something. Because you're 

[Deranged Rhino]

 

[Deranged Rhino]

 

All this because the People dared to voice their displeasure at the establishment... now millions are dead and generations have had their development stunted. 

 

 

[Deranged Rhino]

 

[Ann]

2 hours ago, Nouseforaname said:

No, my point is that the link lacks context.  Miscarriage happens often and for many reasons, it’s difficult to derive what the actual cause is. 

Yes, they do. But if the average is 25% and then a new "vaccine" is given to all and it is now 44%... that is a reason to not give that shot to pregnant women.

When the vaccines first came out a very good friend of mine was pregnant, and one of my niece's was pregnant. I asked both of them if they were getting it, and both said their OB/GYN (they do not go to the same practice) said "absolutely not."  Hesitancy was prudent, and it looks like it was the correct choice. 
 

[Nouseforaname]

1 minute ago, Ann said:

Yes, they do. But if the average is 25% and then a new "vaccine" is given to all and it is now 44%... that is a reason to not give that shot to pregnant women.

When the vaccines first came out a very good friend of mine was pregnant, and one of my niece's was pregnant. I asked both of them if they were getting it, and both said their OB/GYN (they do not go to the same practice) said "absolutely not."  Hesitancy was prudent, and it looks like it was the correct choice. 
 

Maybe, I think it’s certainly a reason to pause but I’m also very skeptical about studies without context.  
 

Of course it’s a personal choice and I’ve never been someone who advocated that vaccines should be mandated.

[Crap Throwing Clavin]

3 hours ago, Nouseforaname said:

Did you download the document ? 
 

Also, 25% of women lose their child in the first trimester, historically.

 

You found the document?  I couldn't find it in that mess of a story.  

 

I'm curious how the trial was done, which also impacts - greatly - what the numbers mean.

[Crap Throwing Clavin]

36 minutes ago, Nouseforaname said:

Maybe, I think it’s certainly a reason to pause but I’m also very skeptical about studies without context.  
 

Of course it’s a personal choice and I’ve never been someone who advocated that vaccines should be mandated.

 

It's not even a "study" without context right now.  It's a number.  44%.  

[Nouseforaname]

Just now, Crap Throwing Clavin said:

 

You found the document?  I couldn't find it in that mess of a story.  

 

I'm curious how the trial was done, which also impacts - greatly - what the numbers mean.

This is what the article is referring to.

 

https://pdata0916.s3.us-east-2.amazonaws.com/pdocs/070122/125742_S1_M5_5351_c4591001-interim-mth6-adverse-events.zip

[Nouseforaname]

3 minutes ago, Crap Throwing Clavin said:

 

It's not even a "study" without context right now.  It's a number.  44%.  

Good enough for Naomi wolf apparently.

[Crap Throwing Clavin]

2 hours ago, Deranged Rhino said:

 

 

The national emergency, however, will continue.

[shrader]

4 hours ago, IDBillzFan said:

.

NOTE: 3 sited on pg. 291; 2 cited on pg. 561; 2 cited on page 708; 2 cited on page 1071; 2 cited on page 1146; 3 cited on page 1179; 2 cited on page 1749; 2 on page 1758; 2 on page 1806; 1 on page 1809; 2 on page 3519; 2 on page 3526; 6 on pages 3536, 3537, 3538...

 

Are you sure you just don't want to believe this?

When you say X cited on page Y, is X a count of miscarriages? I’m on a phone so I can pull a document that size (or don’t know how to anyway). Is there any chance there’s overlap between those pages, they’re referring to the same person multiple times? I ask because those number you listed add up to 31, and that doesn’t include pages 3536-3538. 

[Ann]

1 hour ago, Nouseforaname said:

Good enough for Naomi wolf apparently.

There are other works from her in this thread, and that might be part of it (I didn’t look). She has been red-pilled on Covid and the bureaucratic response. Her work on this has been in depth and quite comprehensive.

[Spartacus]

4 hours ago, Ann said:

 

So what's another 19% more? Is that your argument?

the correct response is where in the hell did you get your 25% from?

must be gospel

[Nouseforaname]

7 minutes ago, Spartacus said:

the correct response is where in the hell did you get your 25% from?

must be gospel

It’s 31% here first 6 weeks.

[Spartacus]

31 minutes ago, Nouseforaname said:

It’s 31% here first 6 weeks.

well Canada likely includes abortion numbers in their count

[Nouseforaname]

17 minutes ago, Spartacus said:

well Canada likely includes abortion numbers in their count

Forgot to include the link.

 

https://www.medicinenet.com/what_week_is_the_highest_risk_of_a_miscarriage/article.htm