Medical Journal Hides Alarming 82% Miscarriage Rate in Pregnant Women Injected with Experimental COVID-19 Jab
Do you know about Bill Gates’s favorite book is called How to Lie with Statistics?
People love to use numbers to interpret patterns, determine cause & effect, and make policy decisions. Since data can easily be manipulated to push an agenda, for making new policies. This is all we have witnessed with COVID-19 panic.
The behaviours that have been seeing with the experimental COVID-19 vaccines are really amazed each of us.
The medical masters are operating the data to lie about the care of the new jabs.
In early June, the New England Journal of Medicine unconstrained a study that analyzed mRNA COVID-19 vaccine safety in pregnant women.
Obviously, the study resolved that there were no clear safety signals for expecting women to receive the new jabs.
But the deeper data explains, it’s clear how the scientists have lied with statistics.
The newzworldtoday wrote that LifeSite News had the report:
A medical journal discovered that 82% of women who took an mRNA injection in the first 20 weeks of pregnancy had a miscarriage — and then it then buried the data.
In mid-June, the New England Journal of Medicine published a study called “Preliminary FIndings of mRNA Covid-19 Vaccine Safety in Pregnant Persons” by Tom T. Shimabukuro and others from the Center of Disease Control’s “v-safe COVID-10 Pregnancy Registry Team.”
The team wrote that there were “no obvious safety signals among pregnant [women] who received Covid-19 vaccines” even though it published a table which showed that 82% of women in the study who were injected with either the Pfizer or the Moderna vaccine during early pregnancy lost their babies. More prominent in their study was a claim that only 13.9% of all “completed pregnancies” had ended in miscarriage — but this figure included the women who were not vaccinated until they were in the second half of their pregnancies.
British oncologist Dr. Carmen Wheatley shared her information with LifeSiteNews saying the study’s abstract “reassuring,” Wheatley went on to discover “Table 4” and the fine print under it.
“The researchers inexplicably subsumed the first-trimester spontaneous abortions — before, and including, 20 weeks — into the completed pregnancy/losses as a whole—104 [miscarriages] out of 827 pregnancies,” she wrote to two leading British doctors, Dr. Peter Rabey, the medical director of the UK’s Channel Island of Guernsey, and Dr. Nicola Brink, Guernsey’s director of Public Health.
“However, since the aim was to discover whether Covid vaccination had any adverse effects in the different trimesters, the NEJM papers’ authors should have deducted the 700 women who were not actually vaccinated until the third trimester from the total 827, leaving only those vaccinated in the first 20 weeks, i.e. 127 women to figure in that part of Table 4.”
Wheatley highlighted that the “real rate” of impulsive miscarriages among women immunized in the first 20 weeks of their pregnancy was not 12.6% but 82% because 104 of these 127 pregnancies were lost.
She tinted the “small print” in the study that specified that a “total of 700 members (84.6) customary their first eligible dose in the third trimester” and that a “total of 96 of 104 spontaneous abortions (92.3%) occurred before 13 weeks of gestation.”
“So the evidence is actually there in the NEJM study, but completely misrepresented in the way the data was presented in general,” Wheatley stated.
She added the first-trimester norm for miscarriages without immunization, before COVID-19 began to the banquet, was allegedly between 10 to 26%. The frequency of 82% of conditions of women immunized in their first 20 weeks ending in miscarriage was thus “a more than 3-fold amplified occurrence of impulsive abortions directly linked to the mRNA vaccines,” Wheatley wrote.
“So, yes, there is a huge red flag [against] vaccinating pregnant women here.”