- 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
re: Newly obtained texts suggest Fauci privately worried about vaccine and miscarriage risk
Posted on 8/11/26 at 6:52 am to lsupride87
Posted on 8/11/26 at 6:52 am to lsupride87
quote:
Show me one person with even a morsel of credibility saying there are no potential side effects to the vaccine
Can you show us what Fauci and crew were saying publicly about side effects around the time they started mandating the vaccine and started talking about “winter of death” for the unvaccinated?
This post was edited on 8/11/26 at 6:54 am
0
Posted on 8/11/26 at 6:58 am to ell_13
Posted on 8/11/26 at 7:12 am to ell_13
quote:Please tell me you are posting that to mock people
ell_13
Because you are going to go on the not allowed to vote list due to failing basic math if not
By truly it would be terrifying. You aren’t what I would think of as dick in the dirt dumb, but if you are buying that post , well
This post was edited on 8/11/26 at 7:19 am
Posted on 8/11/26 at 7:33 am to ell_13
Y'all still aren't getting it. You can't just subtract 700 from the denominator and say "see, 82% miscarried!" That's not how the data set works.
Posted on 8/11/26 at 7:35 am to Ingeniero
I am really hoping ell was trolling.
Posted on 8/11/26 at 7:39 am to Ingeniero
quote:
Y'all still aren't getting it. You can't just subtract 700 from the denominator and say "see, 82% miscarried!" That's not how the data set works.
Serious question... why should shots given in the 3rd trimester count in a study of miscarriage risk which is a first trimester concern?
Posted on 8/11/26 at 7:41 am to SallysHuman
quote:Serious answer :
Serious question... why should shots given in the 3rd trimester count in a study of miscarriage risk which is a first trimester concern?
They were measuring all stages
Another serious answer :There was still 3,173 pregnancies not yet completed, which included 1st trimester vaccinated women that aren’t going to the denominator because the study was unfinished. In reality, 1,132 women were vaccinated during the 1st trimester in the study
This isn’t difficult. I’m sorry if it’s rude to say but anyone using the 82% number is a moron
This post was edited on 8/11/26 at 7:45 am
Posted on 8/11/26 at 7:44 am to lsupride87
quote:
Another serious answer :There was still 3,173 pregnancies not yet completed, which included 1st trimester vaccinated women that aren’t going to the denominator because the study was unfinished
Did those women ever get counted?
Why not finish up with all subjects?
Posted on 8/11/26 at 7:45 am to SallysHuman
quote:THEY DID FINISH THE STUDY
Did those women ever get counted? Why not finish up with all subjects?
Jesus Christ
Posted on 8/11/26 at 7:46 am to Ingeniero
For fun, let's do an analogy.
3958 pitchers enroll in a study to see the effect of Tommy John surgery, but we only have complete career data on 827 of them. Of those 827, 712 had a full career and retired without any issues. 104 of them had a career ending injury in their return. So 104/827=12.5% had a bad outcome.
But wait, 700 of the pitchers had the TJ surgery in the second half of their career. So throw those out of the denominator. Now 104/127=82% had a career ending injury right after surgery! TJ surgery is incredibly dangerous and is ending the career of pitchers, so they should stop having it immediately.
3958 pitchers enroll in a study to see the effect of Tommy John surgery, but we only have complete career data on 827 of them. Of those 827, 712 had a full career and retired without any issues. 104 of them had a career ending injury in their return. So 104/827=12.5% had a bad outcome.
But wait, 700 of the pitchers had the TJ surgery in the second half of their career. So throw those out of the denominator. Now 104/127=82% had a career ending injury right after surgery! TJ surgery is incredibly dangerous and is ending the career of pitchers, so they should stop having it immediately.
Posted on 8/11/26 at 7:47 am to lsupride87
quote:
THEY DID FINISH THE STUDY Jesus Christ
Breathe.
I was replying to your statement of first trimester pregnancies ongoing in the unfinished study.
Posted on 8/11/26 at 7:49 am to SallysHuman
quote:The study was only unfinished when the first moron decided to say the miscarriage rage was 82%. And it was because the women in the study were still pregnant
was replying to your statement of first trimester pregnancies ongoing in the unfinished study.
When the study finished, the rate was shown to be 12-14% miscarriage rage for the 1st trimester.
Don’t try and act like you are innocently looking for info here
You can easily find thisThis post was edited on 8/11/26 at 7:52 am
Posted on 8/11/26 at 7:49 am to SallysHuman
quote:
Why not finish up with all subjects?
Because they were still pregnant, meaning they hadn't had a miscarriage in the first or second trimester:
Gestational period when the vaccine was given:
Preconception: 92 (2.3%)
First trimester: 1132 (28.6%)
Second trimester: 1714 (43.3%)
You can see that even if you only count first trimester doses, 104/1132=9.2%. That's not exact because you'll still have some miscarry late, but that's rare. So again, you're still right around that 10-20% range that we expect for miscarriages in the absence of any kind of outside factor.
Posted on 8/11/26 at 7:55 am to lsupride87
quote:
Don’t try and act like you are innocently looking for info here You can easily find this
I'm replying to YOUR words in a thread, not doing a comprehensive deep dive.
That shot should never have been given to pregnant women. Period.
Posted on 8/11/26 at 7:56 am to lsupride87
quote:
The studies came out showing the shot was not a risk for pregnant women
The shot had not been out for even a year at that point.
So you going to tell me a shot developed and pushed out to the public all under a year at this point now has sufficient evidence to say pregnant women are fine?
Posted on 8/11/26 at 7:57 am to SallysHuman
quote:
That shot should never have been given to pregnant women. Period.
If it posed no additional risk why would singling out pregnant women matter?
Posted on 8/11/26 at 7:57 am to Ingeniero
Thank you, Ingeniero. 
Posted on 8/11/26 at 7:57 am to SallysHuman
quote:All data says otherwise. Period.
That shot should never have been given to pregnant women. Period.
The way they handled pregnant women was perfect
They were only allowed to take it for emergency use situations or if self enrolled in a study
Once the data showed it was safe they were allowed to take it with the rest of the population with non EUA
Posted on 8/11/26 at 7:58 am to fightin tigers
quote:
If it posed no additional risk why would singling out pregnant women matter?
Because pregnant women are carrying children.
Posted on 8/11/26 at 7:58 am to honeybadger07
quote:
The shot had not been out for even a year at that point
Are you asking for evidence on how women who were pregnant for over a year faired?
This post was edited on 8/11/26 at 8:00 am
Page 5 of 9
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News