- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
1
Posted on 8/20/22 at 6:39 pm to Adam Banks
I’m not sure where the follow up is. That’s all the lady in the video was suggesting - that there should be some follow up. If it mimics the part of our immune system that would naturally attack a placenta if you get a cold or viral infection while pregnant, we should probably worry. That’s all this lady seemed to be saying. It certainly is a hypothesis that someone needs to investigate.
Unfortunately- this point I think Covid science is much like the church of climate change. Apostate scientists need not apply. I’ve tuned out any official anything about either of those topics bc the only people authorized to do research about it, would have their lives wrecked if they came to the “wrong” conclusion. It’s so weird and sad and suffocating.
Unfortunately- this point I think Covid science is much like the church of climate change. Apostate scientists need not apply. I’ve tuned out any official anything about either of those topics bc the only people authorized to do research about it, would have their lives wrecked if they came to the “wrong” conclusion. It’s so weird and sad and suffocating.
Posted on 8/20/22 at 6:40 pm to Wednesday
Wednesday I’m getting tired of these people.
Posted on 8/20/22 at 6:44 pm to genuineLSUtiger
Which people? Me people??
Posted on 8/20/22 at 6:55 pm to Wednesday
Honestly this is infuriating. Many “friends”SHAMED their pregnant friends to get the vaccine that were clearly uncomfortable about it.
Posted on 8/20/22 at 6:57 pm to Strannix
I’ve already successfully bred 20 high quality genetically talented females as a pure blood over the past 4 months… Do the work … Save the Country!
Posted on 8/20/22 at 6:59 pm to Adam Banks
quote:
Where is the follow up?
Glad you asked. 230+ additional cases involving pregnancy had their follow up “paused”.
Posted on 8/20/22 at 7:02 pm to HonoraryCoonass
quote:
No way this is true. No GD way!
I don’t trust Pfizer’s self reported data either, I wonder his high the real percentage was.
Posted on 8/20/22 at 7:05 pm to BurntOrangeMan
When the original study that came out saying the vaccine was safe for pregnant women. There was a high # of miscarriages in the 1st/2nd trimester but instead of clearly documenting that they included the 3rd trimester women who received the vaccine in the results. 3rd trimester had very few miscarriages so when you added the high number from the 1st and 2nd with the extremely low # from the 3rd, it equaled that “normal” pregnancy miscarriage rate.
Posted on 8/20/22 at 7:09 pm to Wednesday
quote:
I’m not sure where the follow up is.
There’s been several studies that have been done on this
LINK
LINK
LINK
I would say that this is what they consider their follow up
To be clear I’m not advocating one way or the other for pregnant or soon to be pregnant women to get the shot.
In fact I’d be shocked if anyone hasn’t had Covid yet and if they have I don’t see the need regardless of its effectiveness (which I’m clearly not convinced that’s its effective)
I just think if you are alleging a massive cover up of causing women in the world to go barren either intentionally or unintentionally then that should be proven by more than 50 people
This post was edited on 8/20/22 at 7:14 pm
Posted on 8/20/22 at 7:15 pm to Wednesday
quote:
44% of the women in Pfizer’s trial/adverse events listing had miscarriages, by Pfizer’s own data.
You got a medical grind explanation for that?
It’s 22 cases. People emphasizing 44% as the important statistic here are obviously doing so for a reason. How about the multitude of other studies with much larger sample sizes that refute these findings? No comment on those?
Posted on 8/20/22 at 7:16 pm to Adam Banks
quote:
I just think if you are alleging a massive cover up of causing women in the world to go barren either intentionally or unintentionally then that should be proven by more than 50 people
This is the poliboard. No one here GAF about information; they all keep coming back for the affirmation.
Posted on 8/20/22 at 7:21 pm to Adam Banks
quote:at this point only a moron would advocate a pregnant woman getting the shot.
To be clear I’m not advocating one way or the other for pregnant or soon to be pregnant women to get the shot.
Posted on 8/20/22 at 7:27 pm to Wednesday
There is one problem with your thread title, Wednesday. It was not a Phizer study, it was their initial drug qualification test data. They knew this before the vaccine was released, and before it was approved for pregnant women. From what I remember, most of the miscarriages were labeled as "resolved". They mean after a dead baby is delivered the test subject no longer has a problem. I believe there is a special hell waiting for these people.
Posted on 8/20/22 at 7:30 pm to keakar
quote:
it is, and has always been about population reduction
I liked the original one better than the one Prime did.
Posted on 8/20/22 at 7:34 pm to Strannix
Good strategy, we may have to set up a “Pureblood Farm”, all pure bloods get their own breeding stalls.
Have you ever seen a true STUD HORSE, triple crown winner type horses daily routine.
Pimped out barn & they charge 6-figures to the females he’s mounting & it’s like a turnstile at the Carnival, dude has it made!
Have you ever seen a true STUD HORSE, triple crown winner type horses daily routine.
Pimped out barn & they charge 6-figures to the females he’s mounting & it’s like a turnstile at the Carnival, dude has it made!
Posted on 8/20/22 at 7:38 pm to Adam Banks
quote:
I just think if you are alleging a massive cover up of causing women in the world to go barren either intentionally or unintentionally then that should be proven by more than 50 people
That’s definitely NOT what I’m saying. All I’m saying is - what’s Pfizer’s explanation for the 44%? That’s what they observed in 50 women who were obvi such hardcore Covidians that they volunteered to get the shot. People are most honest when nobody is looking, and when the information is bad for them. I think It’s a bit of a statement against interest which is inherently believable.
There’s no way in hell if I were pregnant would I get that thing. In the risk/benefit analysis- I’d just wash my hands and avoid crowds. The shot is useless. There is no proven upside.
I have no faith at all in the CDC VERS database. The data is kept / tracked by hospitals who do have financial incentives with respect to how and what they report. The CDC has embarrassed itself and ruined its rep beyond repair. I’m always skeptical if any entity has a financial or repetitional stake in what the data says. Garbage in/Garbage out. I am not a scientist, but I am a litigator and I’ve met “scientists” who will say anything.
The New England Journal of medicine study in Norway is encouraging tho.
Posted on 8/20/22 at 7:43 pm to Adam Banks
quote:
I googled Pfizer Covid vaccine and miscarriages and all I got was trials saying no difference.
You are looking in the right place, but you need to find the actual trial data and not the summary. Once the baby was miscarried, most of the cases were marked as "resolved". The number of pregnant women in the trial was not high so the 44% is probably a little misleading - but it is one hell of a red flag.
Posted on 8/20/22 at 7:50 pm to Wednesday
quote:
That’s definitely NOT what I’m saying. All I’m saying is - what’s Pfizer’s explanation for the 44%?
I’m confused….what do you want their “explanation” to be when other studies with much, much larger samples show that this link doesn’t exist? Do you understand power, statistical significance, etc when looking at raw data?
Posted on 8/20/22 at 8:15 pm to Wednesday
quote:
That’s definitely NOT what I’m saying. All I’m saying is - what’s Pfizer’s explanation for the 44%?
Small sample size. Need more people and more time to make a final determination.
Just like I’m sure you would say regarding their claims from their initial study regarding the efficacy of the vaccine.
Y’all are two sides of the same coin. You want to make a strong implication of reproductive issues based on early data with a small sample size. They wanted to make a strong implication of efficacy based on a relatively small sample size with a low incidence of disease.
I would say that with time and larger sample size that the vaccine has been proven to be not very effective. It also has been seemingly shown to not affect miscarriage rates.
Page 3 of 4
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News