Actually, I look at your avatar and laugh my ass off you sad twat. It speaks volumes as to what kind of simple minded schmuck you really are.Is that because you don't want to put a dirty dick in your mouth?
What's with your husband fetish? You're looking at my avatar, and fantasizing about another man all over that aren't you, you freak
The other 242 are doing just fine.Never said that the release is not real.
The problem with this new "claim" you guy are running with is it's deeply flawed, and a misrepresentation of the data.
The report in question says out 270 women, only 34 of the outcomes were reported. Out of the 34 reported 28 miscarried.
THE FLAW: You don't know the outcome of the 238 non-reported
Of course, if you want it to fit your narrative you just assume the 238 non-reported have the same miscarriage rate as the 34 reported, which is what you guys are doing.
A more logical way to look at it is the 238 women had no problems, so they didn't bother reporting. That would put the actual miscarriage rate around 12% which is in line with the normal/typical miscarriage rate.
Regardless, this study is worthless, and we cannot draw a conclusion either way.
The other 242 are doing just fine.
so you're saying 5-27% is basically the same as Pfizer's documents showing 82-97%?Sorry for your friend, but that story is a sample size of 1.
Miscarriage is extremely common. The rate is anywhere from 5 to 27% depending on the mothers age.
Man, I bet your conversations around the family dinner table are stimulatingYou sick bastard
No Dave. What I'm saying is the Pfizer document has only 34 reported out of the 270. We don't know the outcome of the the other 236. It's a major flaw for you to assume the 236 non reported reflect the same rate as the 34 that were reported.
OkI bet your conversations around your family are nauseating
Which would make reporting all of the outcomes for mother and fetus all the more important to follow up on everyone that was enrolled in the trial especially since they are testing a new genetic therapy disguised as a vaccine. Not reporting the outcomes of these 236 is highly suspect. If you didn't report on these 236 then the margin of error of miscarriages would then fall in line with somewhat the normal averages but that is gaming the system to get the % outcomes you want and not a truly scientific clinical trial. At this point you are defending what appears to be fraud of which you are a victim as well.
We could assume they didn’t report the other because it was detrimental to Pfizer. I say this since Pfizer wasn’t very forthcoming with releasing these documents.
Exactly…
You are right about one thing...it does appear to be conspiracy, corruption and fraud at very high levels.
I mean perhaps, but I can't look at this report, and draw the conclusion you guys are. Most people wouldn't either, unless you're predisposed to conspiratorial thought.
Everyone is entitled to review the data and reach their own conclusions. Plenty of people have posted direct links to the FDA's posting about adverse side effects and the 1291 side effects listed from the court ordered document releases and the current vaers deaths which only represent 1% of deaths and adverse reactions according to a HARVARD study and the most deaths ever caused in 30 plus years of vaccine recordkeeping for all vaccines in 18 months since the injection rollout in the USA. Along with the damning month court ordered releases. You can disagree with the some of the opinions and tact but the data suggests otherwise. Somebody is lying to you and the man that has been touting world depopulation for many years publicly is the majority investor in Pfizer Biontech...coincidence? How come the adverse side effects reported to vaers mirror the October 22, 2020 FDA meeting listing. Did you ever think they can come out and say well we did make that information public but you chose not to read it. For all intents and legal purposes those that have taken the injection are either knowingly or unknowingly participating in a phase 3 clinical trial( did you read your consent form...its in there) of which it could be years before we know what the medium and long term outcomes are just like FDA approved Thalidomide debacle. Sometimes Past is Prologue. I don't know what you want for hard facts...I don't think anyone wishes harm on anyone else but I have friends that have just been diagnosed with stage 4 cancers with absolutely no prior history, and a few more who are sick with many of the FDA listed adverse side effects and the only common denominator is the injection at this point and just about everyone I know that took the shot got covid anyway and some got pretty ill. There are safety indicators in the data, if one doesn't think so then that is an individuals prerogative. So you should ask yourself... where did this FDA list of side effects come from, did is just magincally appear? No... many of the adverse side effects listed were noted when other coronavirus vaccines were actually tested on animals, they never got past the animal trials phase because of the results...Moderna's cancers treatments are also included in this history as well. Why are young men and teenagers getting myocarditis at rates never seen before???? Just a coincidence that too is on the FDA list of adverse events. Unfortunately the VAERS data confirms the concerns published by the FDA in October 22, 2020...you can dismiss it all you want... it is the 800 pound gorilla in the room about to sit on you. Are you aware the latest UK and Israeli data and study show the injections have negative efficacy at this point.. do you understand what that means for those who took them?
If you can say that then you can say that the total number of "covid deaths" are also skewed and inflated for many other reason too then, right?Never said that the release is not real.
The problem with this new "claim" you guy are running with is it's deeply flawed, and a misrepresentation of the data.
The report in question says out 270 women, only 34 of the outcomes were reported. Out of the 34 reported 28 miscarried.
THE FLAW: You don't know the outcome of the 238 non-reported
Of course, if you want it to fit your narrative you just assume the 238 non-reported have the same miscarriage rate as the 34 reported, which is what you guys are doing.
A more logical way to look at it is the 238 women had no problems, so they didn't bother reporting. That would put the actual miscarriage rate around 12% which is in line with the normal/typical miscarriage rate.
Regardless, this study is worthless, and we cannot draw a conclusion either way.