in

What? New England Journal of Medicine Backtracks – Now Admits COVID Vax May Not Be Safe for Pregnant Women

what?-new-england-journal-of-medicine-backtracks-–-now-admits-covid-vax-may-not-be-safe-for-pregnant-women
Uncategorized

By Jim Hoft

Published September 20, 2021 at 8:08am

The esteemed New England Journal of Medicine posted a correction last week and now admits the COVID vaccine may not be safe for pregnant women.

The study was updated after it found that 104 of 827 pregnant participants experienced a spontaneous abortion after receiving the COVID vaccine. That is roughly 1 of 8 pregnant women losing their baby after getting the vaccine.

Via Revolver News.

NEJM published a correction… they now admit that there is no evidence that the vaccines are safe for pregnant women. Whoops. Took them months to respond to our group. Look for the “1” at the VERY top of the page. https://t.co/6nQ5h9fftx

— Steve Kirsch (@stkirsch) September 17, 2021

TRENDING: What’s Going On? Arizona Recently Processed 673,000 Voter Identities with the Social Security Administration – 58% Had NO MATCH FOUND

Here is the corrected update from September 8, 2021:

At the time of publication of preliminary findings in the Original Article related to this editorial, the number of spontaneous abortions was 104 and there was 1 stillbirth. However, no proportion could be determined for the risk of spontaneous abortion among participants vaccinated before 20 weeks of gestation because follow-up information was not yet available for the majority of those persons. The article has now been updated. In the fifth paragraph of this editorial (page 2342), the first sentence should have read, “Among 827 registry participants who reported a completed pregnancy, 104 experienced spontaneous abortions and 1 had a stillbirth,” rather than, “…a completed pregnancy, the pregnancy resulted in a spontaneous abortion in 104 (12.6%) and in stillbirth in 1 (0.1%); these percentages are well within the range expected as an outcome for this age group of persons whose other underlying medical conditions are unknown.” In the same paragraph, in the sentence beginning “Among live-born infants” (page 2343), the expression “were also consistent” should have read, “were consistent.” In the seventh paragraph, beginning “Given that,” the first sentence should have ended, “…limitations in their ability to draw conclusions about spontaneous abortions, congenital anomalies, and other potential rare neonatal outcomes,” rather than “…to draw conclusions about congenital anomalies and other potential rare neonatal outcomes.” The editorial is correct at NEJM.org.

What do you think?

Written by Newsman

Leave a Reply

GIPHY App Key not set. Please check settings

us-stocks-plummet-as-“china’s-lehman”-evergrande-reaches-brink-of-collapse

US Stocks Plummet as “China’s Lehman” Evergrande Reaches Brink of Collapse

“he’s-still-sleeping”-–-elon-musk-mocks-sleepy-joe-biden-for-not-congratulating-spacex’s-first-ever-all-civilian-space-mission

“He’s Still Sleeping” – Elon Musk Mocks Sleepy Joe Biden for Not Congratulating SpaceX’s First Ever All Civilian Space Mission