- 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: There was a Pfizer data dump of 90,702 pages while people were arguing about RvW
Posted on 5/4/22 at 9:46 am to stout
Posted on 5/4/22 at 9:46 am to stout
quote:
I can't find the thread but I do recall it being something along those lines for the release from the LDH for that week. It was over 60%
63%. Been over 50% for a while.
Louisiana Department of Health Dashboard
2
Posted on 5/4/22 at 9:48 am to sgallo3
quote:
This study had 31 miscarriages out of 270 pregnancies. That is pretty close to 10 percent.
They are saying there were 31 miscarriages out of 32 pregnancies to get their 1500%, but in reality the 238 other pregnancies were still ongoing as normal so had no feedback.
No. It is a different study I linked but I know it will be discounted by some of you because they are using VAERS data
LINK
Posted on 5/4/22 at 9:48 am to sgallo3
quote:Possibly true, but an assumption.
but in reality the 238 other pregnancies were still ongoing as normal so had no feedback.
They had no feedback.
Which is why they had to disregard them from the data.
It makes that portion very unreliable.
ETA: You may be talking about a different study.
I’m getting confused as to which one we are talking about.
This post was edited on 5/4/22 at 9:51 am
Posted on 5/4/22 at 9:48 am to stout
quote:Not only that, but the math behind it is fricky.
Perhaps I worded that incorrectly
quote:Did you read their methodology here? From the outset it's based on voluntarily reported data, and it is well known that people did that far more for covid vaccines than they ever did for flu vaccines. But instead of correcting for that, they ignored it and did some wacky corrections the other way to inflate the numbers for covid vax.
A study of data found in the USA’s Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting system has revealed that per number of doses administered the Covid-19 injections are at least 16 times / 1,517% more likely to cause a pregnant woman to suffer a miscarriage than the Flu jab.
Posted on 5/4/22 at 9:49 am to stout
This is horrific. Nice breakdown of the key points.
Posted on 5/4/22 at 9:49 am to LSUfanNkaty
quote:
By whom? Facebook fact checkers? Show me
Posted on 5/4/22 at 9:49 am to Sisyphus
quote:
63%. Been over 50% for a while.
Louisiana Department of Health Dashboard
Thank you but I was told by OGtigerfan87 that I made that up
Posted on 5/4/22 at 9:52 am to Scruffy
quote:
ETA: You may be talking about a different study.
I’m getting confused as to which one we are talking about.
I was talking about a different study and he assumed I meant the data from the Pfizer dump.
That doesn't make what you said any less relevant.
Posted on 5/4/22 at 9:52 am to Sisyphus
quote:
63%. Been over 50% for a while.
Looks like they stopped updating these stats the week of 4/16-4/20
I wonder why?
This post was edited on 5/4/22 at 9:54 am
Posted on 5/4/22 at 9:53 am to Bunk Moreland
quote:
super anti-vax
In general or just as it pertains to Covid? There is a difference.
This post was edited on 5/4/22 at 9:53 am
Posted on 5/4/22 at 9:54 am to stout
quote:You quoted text which is an obvious misinterpretation of the data. It makes the claim that the data is from a trial but it's obviously not. And all the other shite is similarly twisted to arrive at big numbers that simple minds find hard to ignore.
Well, I linked it all for everyone to read and included some pages in my OP. I am not saying I agree with some interpretations of it so I am not "lapping it up" but when the data is there it is sort of hard to ignore.
Posted on 5/4/22 at 9:54 am to 3rdPart Tiger
quote:
3rdPart Tiger
This post was edited on 5/4/22 at 10:01 am
Posted on 5/4/22 at 9:55 am to stout
“They vaxxed 270 pregnant women.
There is no feedback on 238, but of the other 32 there was only one live birth.”
So, the Liberals have a perfect scenario!!! They can get vaxxed and get an abortion at the same time!!!
There is no feedback on 238, but of the other 32 there was only one live birth.”
So, the Liberals have a perfect scenario!!! They can get vaxxed and get an abortion at the same time!!!
Posted on 5/4/22 at 9:55 am to Korkstand
quote:
You quoted text which is an obvious misinterpretation of the data. It makes the claim that the data is from a trial but it's obviously not. And all the other shite is similarly twisted to arrive at big numbers that simple minds find hard to ignore.
The same can be said for both sides. Some of you get twisted like a pretzel to discount even the slightest negative info on the vaccine including that directly from the manufacturer that is now asking to vaccinate your 5-year-old so they can keep the revenue coming.
This post was edited on 5/4/22 at 9:56 am
Posted on 5/4/22 at 9:56 am to auwaterfowler
quote:
So, the Liberals have a perfect scenario!!! They can get vaxxed and get an abortion at the same time!!!
Posted on 5/4/22 at 9:56 am to Scruffy
quote:
I’m getting confused as to which one we are talking about.
I think thats important for the fear propaganda. a lot of these are different data points coming out at different points in time.
stout still trying to claim that miscarriages are increased like 1500% which is just absolutely bonkers. people with no data interpretation skills are doing gymnastics with the data and it shows.
This post was edited on 5/4/22 at 9:58 am
Posted on 5/4/22 at 9:57 am to stout
The original study pushing pregnant women to get vaccinated had more questions than answers for me. The conclusions was the miscarriage rate was the same. What they didn’t tell you was the vast majority of babies that were born were from people who got the vaccine in the third trimester. There was an alarming number of miscarriages for those who received the vaccine in the 1st trimester.
Posted on 5/4/22 at 9:59 am to stout
quote:
No. It is a different study I linked but I know it will be discounted by some of you because they are using VAERS data
a "study" of VAERS data.
Posted on 5/4/22 at 9:59 am to stout
quote:
The same can be said for both sides. Some of you get twisted like a pretzel to discount even the slightest negative info on the vaccine including that directly from the manufacturer that is now asking to vaccinate your 5-year-old so they can keep the revenue coming.
Yeah. I'll never get the vaccine and I'm pretty sure I'm not up to date on my tetanus shot, but I don't understand why you would post those misleading miscarriage numbers to freak out the folks on here that will only read the headline and dig no deeper. Most here don't need fake outrage to not get a vax they don't need for a virus that has been going around forever. If people were gonna get the vax they already would have 99% of the time
Posted on 5/4/22 at 9:59 am to STEVED00
quote:
What they didn’t tell you was the vast majority of babies that were born were from people who got the vaccine in the third trimester. There was an alarming number of miscarriages for those who received the vaccine in the 1st trimester.
Do you have a link for this? I would like to include it ITT.
Page 4 of 8
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News