by Mike Adams, Natural News:
A shocking new study published in the New England Journal of Medicine reveals that when pregnant women are given covid vaccinations during their first or second trimesters, they suffer an 82% spontaneous abortion rate, killing 4 out of 5 unborn babies.
This stunning finding, explained below, is self-evident from the data published in a new study entitled, “Preliminary Findings of mRNA Covid-19 Vaccine Safety in Pregnant Persons.” Just as disturbing as the data is the fact that the study authors apparently sought to deliberately obfuscate the truth about vaccines causing spontaneous abortions by obfuscating numbers in their own calculations.
TRUTH LIVES on at https://sgtreport.tv/
Originally brought to our attention by a Life Site News article, we checked with our own science contacts to review the data and double check all the math. In doing so, we were able to confirm two things:
- Yes, the study shows an 82% rate of spontaneous abortions in expectant mothers given covid vaccines during their first or second trimesters.
- Yes, the study authors either deliberately sought to hide this fact with dishonest obfuscation (explained below) or they are incompetent and made a glaring error that brings into question their credibility.
In other words, this study was almost certainly a cover-up to try to claim vaccinating pregnant women is perfectly safe. But the study data actually show quite the oppose.
700 of the 827 women were vaccinated in the third trimester
Table 4 from the study, shown below, reveals that a total of 827 pregnant women were studied. Out of the 827 women, 700 of them received their first vaccine in their third trimester of pregnancy. This means 127 women (which is 827 – 700) received a vaccine during their first or second trimesters. (You have to read the fine print below the table to see this disclosure.)
Out of the 127 women receiving vaccines during their first or second trimesters, 104 spontaneous abortions occurred before their pregnancies hit the 20-week mark. These are indicated as “spontaneous abortions” in the table.
In simple math, 104 spontaneous abortions (during the first 20 weeks) out of 127 women who received vaccines in their first or second trimesters calculates to an 82% rate of spontaneous abortions among these pregnant women who were vaccinated.
It is important to note that deaths of unborn babies during the third trimester are known as “stillbirths” and not spontaneous abortions. Thus, the spontaneous abortions could not have possibly occurred in women vaccinated during their third trimester, by definition.
Thus, the study authors dishonestly used the wrong denominator of 827 in their “spontaneous abortions” calculation, when they should have used a denominator of 127, which is the number of women receiving vaccines during their first or second trimesters.
Put another way, it is impossible for a woman who was vaccinated for the first time during her third trimester to have a “spontaneous abortion” in the first 20 weeks, since they weren’t vaccinated during the first 20 weeks (and pregnant women aren’t time travelers). Thus, those women shouldn’t be included in the denominator used to calculate the spontaneous abortion rate.
The authors of this study should receive an award in the category of, “How to lie with statistics,” because they apparently tried to pull a sleight-of-hand trick to make it appear that vaccines are safe for pregnant women. In reality, they seem to be killing more than 4 out of 5 unborn babies in the first 20 weeks of gestation, at least in this data set. (It’s a small set of 127 pregnant women, so we’d like to see a larger review of many thousands of pregnancies in order to get a more clear picture.)
Apples and oranges, lemons and limes
A simple way to explain this with a metaphor is to imagine a bag of 50 lemons and 50 limes, with a science study asking the question, “What percentage of lemons are yellow?” The scientists count all the yellow fruit and reach the number 50. They mistakenly divide 50 into 100 because there are 100 total piece of fruit, then they declare, “50% of lemons are yellow” because it’s 50/100.
But the other 50 pieces of fruit can’t possibly be included because they’re limes, not lemons. So the correct math is 50/50, which means 100% of the lemons are yellow. That’s the correct answer.
In this science paper, they are using 827 as the denominator, even when 700 out of those 827 women were only vaccinated in the third trimester, which is long past the time window during which a “spontaneous abortion” can occur. And since pregnant women aren’t time travelers, they can’t go back in time and report a spontaneous abortion from months earlier.
If vaccine scientists either can’t do this basic math — or are willfully deceiving the world with dishonest obfuscation of the numbers — then “science” has already failed its core promise: to offer “evidence-based” conclusions to understand the world around us.
Yet when 4 out of 5 pregnant women lose their babies in the first 20 weeks, these scientists falsely claim the spontaneous abortion rate is only 12.6%. Why? Because they’re covering up the atrocities of the vaccine for political reasons, most likely.
In fact, the key author of the study, Tom T. Shimabukuro, is also named in numerous other studies that claim to document adverse reactions in various vaccines, ranging from rotavirus vaccines to the H1N1 vaccine from 2009. It raises the obvious question: Did Shimabukuro make the same error in other studies that concluded vaccines posed no significant risk of adverse events? For example, here’s another study he co-authored: “Adverse events after Fluzone ® Intradermal vaccine reported to the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS), 2011-2013.”
That study concluded, “Review of VAERS reports did not identify any new or unexpected safety concerns after TIV-ID.”
But is that conclusion based on bad math, like the study on covid vaccines given to pregnant women? We call for a review of all his methods and conclusions. Perhaps this same study architect has made the same systematic error (or possibly a deliberate obfuscation) for many years, spanning many previous studies. It wouldn’t be the first time one author was found to have made systematic mistakes across dozens of papers and is forced to retract them.