Going for the Moderna today

[FreeBird]

On 8/5/2021 at 8:50 PM, imaGoodBoyNow said:

 

[Wildcat Will]

On 12/28/2022 at 11:39 AM, FreeBird said:

 

Stop smoking paint.

[Belly Bob]

On 7/15/2021 at 4:10 PM, Troll said:

OK Dumbass...

Now that you sat in the corner long enough, I'll give you a cookie 🍪

It's not your fault they try to hide the numbers on you...👍

(like how else you gonna call those REAL RESULTS an "outright lie" 👌)

 

NOW IT'S RIGHT THERE IN FRONT OF YOU !!!

Go ahead and remove your Dunce cap....make sure you READ THE FINE PRINT...

and you have just VERIFIED an 82% 1st and 2nd trimester spontaneous abortion rate for the jab. 👍

 

PS: Now your only problem is going to be having to EXPLAIN just EXACTLY WHY....you know...

...that they tried to 'bury' the number with their bullshit 💩 cover  'mistake'...

🍪

 

On 7/31/2021 at 9:21 AM, Belly Bob said:

The CDC conducted follow-up interviews with 3,958 women who had enrolled in the v-safe registry and who had received a first dose of the vaccine prior to 28 Feb. As of 30 March, 827 of those 3,958 women reported having completed pregnancy. Of those 827, 104 reported having had a spontaneous abortion. That's 12.6%. 10-26% of all pregnancies end in miscarriage. So, 12.6% falls within the normal range. ↳

https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/nejmoa2104983

Social media mathematicians, however, appeal to the footnote you've highlighted above and argue that, since 700 of the 827 received their first dose in the third trimester, they could not have had a spontaneous abortion by 30 March. Therefore, the "real" number is 127. So, the "real" math is that 104 of 127 women who had received the vaccine in their 1st or 2nd trimester miscarried, which "verifies" an 82% 1st and 2nd trimester spontaneous abortion rate.

But maybe we should wait to see what happens to the rest of the women who had not completed pregnancy by 30 March, since my guess is that many of those women will give birth to a living baby.

Here's a follow up article published in Sept of '21.

https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMc2113891

"Our findings suggest that the risk of spontaneous abortion after mRNA COVID-19 vaccination either before conception or after pregnancy is consistent with the expected risk of spontaneous abortion; these findings add to the accumulating evidence about the safety of mRNA COVID-19 vaccinations in pregnancy."

[Troll]

35 minutes ago, Belly Bob said:

 

Here's a follow up article published in Sept of '21.

https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMc2113891

"Our findings suggest that the risk of spontaneous abortion after mRNA COVID-19 vaccination either before conception or after pregnancy is consistent with the expected risk of spontaneous abortion; these findings add to the accumulating evidence about the safety of mRNA COVID-19 vaccinations in pregnancy."

Most published studies are bogus/slanted and funded by money not medicine...(Thought you knew that already)

Your article here is complete GARBAGE based off one of the first sentences...

"We analyzed data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) v-safe Covid-19 vaccine pregnancy registry " 

HERE in the REAL WORLD, we use REAL WORLD deaths,  not skewed "findings" with no real basis.

 

BTW: STILL does not explain the CDC's own published data...

OR how some "mistake was made" in their  reporting of it,  to declare 82% as "equal to average" as claimed now does it ?

 

 

 

  

[Belly Bob]

53 minutes ago, Troll said:

Most published studies are bogus/slanted and funded by money not medicine...(Thought you knew that already)

Your article here is complete GARBAGE based off one of the first sentences...

"We analyzed data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) v-safe Covid-19 vaccine pregnancy registry " 

HERE in the REAL WORLD, we use REAL WORLD deaths,  not skewed "findings" with no real basis.  

It's the same method they used in the article you claim verified an 82% spontaneous abortion rate.

👇

On 7/15/2021 at 4:10 PM, Troll said:

OK Dumbass...

Now that you sat in the corner long enough, I'll give you a cookie 🍪

It's not your fault they try to hide the numbers on you...👍

(like how else you gonna call those REAL RESULTS an "outright lie" 👌)

 

NOW IT'S RIGHT THERE IN FRONT OF YOU !!!

Go ahead and remove your Dunce cap....make sure you READ THE FINE PRINT...

and you have just VERIFIED an 82% 1st and 2nd trimester spontaneous abortion rate for the jab. 👍

 

From your article:

"We used data from the 'v-safe..' surveillance system...V-safe is a new CDC smartphone-based active surveillance system..."

https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/nejmoa2104983

[Belly Bob]

1 hour ago, Troll said:

BTW: STILL does not explain the CDC's own published data...

OR how some "mistake was made" in their  reporting of it,  to declare 82% as "equal to average" as claimed now does it ? ↳  

I've already explained it. I explained it to you back in July of '21. It's in the post you just replied to.

[Troll]

42 minutes ago, Belly Bob said:

I've already explained it. I explained it to you back in July of '21. It's in the post you just replied to.

you looking to argue bad statistics from years ago ??? LOLOL

here;s a clue...read the fine print

how come no answers to  any current questions?

There's a great argument ongoing for a lovely couple here about nuclear codes, and here I thought I told them that any silly bet was unwinable by either as any reporting of such would be as questionable as the NEJM (making any "proof" suspect)...

 

PS: Any one can be "wrong" when they themselves are not the actual source...

 

BTW: Would logic work for actual proof and win a bet though....

if someone never even had those codes, to begin with?

https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2023/01/treason-gen-mark-milley-hid-nuke-codes-trump-holding-secret-calls-china-armed-taliban-80-billion-us-weapons/