Liberal Forum
Archive
‹
No Holds Barred Political Forum
‹
Study Shows 8 In 10 Women Had A Miscarriage After Getting The Covid Vaccine Before The Third Trimester
1 Dec 2021 10:20 am
Based on the CDC data, it recalculated a miscarriage rate for those who were vaccinated in their first and second trimesters: A shockingly high range of 82 per cent to 91 per cent.
Doing such a calculation, however, is mathematically meaningless. The only way for someone in their first – or early in their second – trimester to complete a pregnancy in three months is to have a miscarriage.
Thornley and Brock told Stuff they calculated and included that figure to highlight what they believed was an error in the original study – that it was wrong to make any miscarriage rate calculation based only on those who had completed their pregnancies in three months
Their figure was nevertheless plucked from the paper and shared widely as fact among anti-vaccination groups and associated media outlets.
It was even emphasised in the headline of the journal’s press release about the paper. The text of the release claims the paper “estimated that unexpected termination of pregnancies actually occurred at a rate 7-8 times higher in vaccinated pregnant women” than the baseline rate.
This conflicts with Thornley and Brock’s own explanation that the data could not be used to calculate any rate at all.
In remarks quoted in The Epoch Times, Thornley himself said his reanalysis showed vaccination early in pregnancy “indicates a substantially increased risk from background”, without noting that such a calculation is, by his own reasoning, useless.
https://i.stuff.co.nz/national/health/c ... rnley-says
Doing such a calculation, however, is mathematically meaningless. The only way for someone in their first – or early in their second – trimester to complete a pregnancy in three months is to have a miscarriage.
Thornley and Brock told Stuff they calculated and included that figure to highlight what they believed was an error in the original study – that it was wrong to make any miscarriage rate calculation based only on those who had completed their pregnancies in three months
Their figure was nevertheless plucked from the paper and shared widely as fact among anti-vaccination groups and associated media outlets.
It was even emphasised in the headline of the journal’s press release about the paper. The text of the release claims the paper “estimated that unexpected termination of pregnancies actually occurred at a rate 7-8 times higher in vaccinated pregnant women” than the baseline rate.
This conflicts with Thornley and Brock’s own explanation that the data could not be used to calculate any rate at all.
In remarks quoted in The Epoch Times, Thornley himself said his reanalysis showed vaccination early in pregnancy “indicates a substantially increased risk from background”, without noting that such a calculation is, by his own reasoning, useless.
https://i.stuff.co.nz/national/health/c ... rnley-says