Did 82% of pregnant women who received the COVID “vaccine” prior to 20 weeks actually miscarry their babies? That’s what we are now being told… and this statistic has been circulating for nearly a week, unchallenged. Those of you who subscribe to my email list already know the truth, or better stated the half truths on being sold on both sides by way of manipulated statistics and an incomplete study.
More Fauci texts, more public facing lies
First, where did this statistic come from and why are we talking about it now? (actually, for those who followed COVID closely, we’re talking about it again) Apparently, access to more of Fauci’s text messages and emails has been made available and on August 10, Senator Ron Johnson made sure to highlight one of these texts in particular. This text from Fauci noted that the second dose of the COVID shot was associated with fever and “cytokine storm” which he said, “theoretically could be associated with miscarriage in the first trimester.”
Cytokine Storm – potential problem for everyone, not just pregnant women
Cytokine storm, so you understand the full context and seriousness of that associated reaction, is basically an overzealous immune response that can be life threatening. This “cytokine storm” is the same inflammatory cascade that landed people with “wild” COVID in the ICU. It can lead to organ failure, clotting issues and respiratory distress.
Knowledge of a link between the second dose and cytokine storm and not openly disclosing it is extremely dangerous for everyone not just pregnant women. For example, imagine someone who has an underlying autoimmune condition unwittingly injecting a vaccine that initiates the overzealous immune response to which they are already predisposed.
Did 82% of women miscarry in the first trimester?
So, we now have proof that Fauci knew there was a risk for miscarriage (among other things), and did not disclose it. The question remains how did we get the 82%, before 20 week, miscarriage rate and is it accurate?
The answer is yes, it is … and also ultimately NO, it is not.
**Before you get mad at me for my answer, remember, this is why you have trusted my insight. I take my time and seek truth over sensationalism or my personal bias. In this case my bias is: the shot was and IS dangerous, the CDC and media lied about it’s ability to prevent transmission and safety data and I lost my career not backing down from that.**
HERE is the full study this number comes from and HERE is the rebuttal that generated the 82% number and the original study’s author’s response.
The answer is initially complicated and yet, as you will see, ultimately very straightforward.
The initial study and the revised numbers, what happened?
What happened? The original study was published with the conclusion that out of 827 women who had “completed pregnancies”, 104 (12.6%) miscarried in the first trimester. The problem is, someone noticed that 700 of the 827 women had received the vaccine in the THIRD trimester. In other words, in order to conclude the miscarriage rate was 12.6% the study’s authors included 700 women who didn’t meet the criteria to be included in that risk calculation, thus creating a diluted result.
In turn, Hong Sun, PhD, issued a complaint. The 700 women were rightly removed from the calculation, changing the denominator to 127 which rightly (using the numbers presented within this initial study) changed the miscarriage rate to 82%.
This is where it gets tricky, if you are an honest person who has taken time to actually look at the numbers presented, you quickly realize both miscarriage rates, 12.6% and 82%, are wrong. This is the only truthful conclusion and the perfect example of what it looks like to “lie with statistics.” You can present an outcome that appears to be true because the numbers and calculations back it up while not disclosing the manipulations made to get the numbers that would prove the outcome to be false.
You might be saying, but, this isn’t exactly a lie. 82% is the rate, given the numbers they had. Right, but it’s not exactly true either.
Lying with Statistics…
The study was not complete. It is my understanding, that the 827 number was the number of “completed pregnancies.” In other words, there were still women enrolled in the study with pregnancies not yet “completed,” meaning women who had received the COVID “vaccine” in their first trimester, were still pregnant and had not been included in the risk calculation because they simply had not yet had their babies at the time these early results were published.
Essentially, 82% is an improper calculation of risk and rate and the initial 12.6% risk calculation is as well. 12.6% is wrong because it included women who didn’t even meet the criteria for a possible miscarriage before 20 weeks and 82% is wrong because it excluded the women who did meet the criteria and would go on to have healthy “completed” pregnancies (babies).
After actually completing the study with proper follow-up the published result was a 14.1% miscarriage rate.
The study never should have been published
Bottom line this study NEVER should have been published and shared when it was. It was incomplete yet passed around as a risk analysis worth using as a basis to inform decisions. I think that was probably the point, achieve a low risk profile so pregnant women feel safe getting the vaccine. But, who cares if they actually are?
I’m not sure anyone on either side calculating risk based on the initial numbers provided in this study was seeking the truth. It appears both sides had an agenda. The authors goal: show the vaccine as safe. But, then, someone else came along with the opposite goal and used the exact same numbers to present an incredibly dangerous, statistic where the majority of the women miscarried.
You have to look past the numbers and think for yourself on this one. Anecdotally, I don’t think 12.6%, 14.1% or 82% is likely to be accurate when compared with what I saw within the largely vaccinated population I worked with in the ICU and heard from the population of women messaging me online. It’s likely we will never actually know the whole truth. For one thing, in order to know the truth people have to have a desire for it. Currently, what the majority on both sides of this argument crave is confirmation bias.
Trust the science… even when it’s manipulated?
Regardless of the rate of miscarriage for women who received the vaccine (it matters, but we may never know) or that there was privately disclosed known potential risk of miscarriage, I hope that you take away these two things: 1. These “vaccines” did come with risks, risks that were not publicly disclosed and not limited to pregnant women. 2. If you want to know the truth or at the very least not take on lies as the truth you must be willing to look for yourself. Because, people on all sides are capable of manipulating information and “lying with statistics.”
Some of us who looked closely at the vaccine, how it was made and how it was designed to “work” understood the risks well enough on our own regardless of what we were being told. For me, the massive risk of initiating an inflammatory cascade coupled with the fact that I was very low risk for serious illness, that the vaccine would not prevent transmission and multiple avenues outside of vaccination to help myself overcome covid should I get it, informed my decision. This, along with my basic foundational beliefs about the human body and illness.
We are continually told to “trust science,” asked to have a study to back everything up and told anecdotal evidence isn’t really evidence at all. It’s not enough to observe our own and other’s experiences and make correlations from those observations. But when “science” continually embraces agenda and studies are initiated with a set outcome as the end goal, is the power of observation actually inferior? When our knowledge absent any study sees us safely through with choices that even in hindsight we are very satisfied with, anecdotal evidence, our insights and experiences might just be our best bet.
If you’d like to join my free email list fill out the form below. I provide thoughtful insight often with added link to original text, studies, bills, interviews and information that’s discussed in short-form on social media. Allowing you a better look at the original sources keeps you more informed. I also host a weekly podcast highlighting cultural and political issues rooted back to a Christian worldveiw, I’d love to have you join the conversation! Follow on Spotify and Apple Podcasts
