- 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: Fauci Texts: "Second Covid Dose Associated with Miscarriage"
Posted on 8/10/26 at 4:48 pm to Cito2point0
Posted on 8/10/26 at 4:48 pm to Cito2point0
quote:
who had to pay out 700+ million dollars for spreading false information
Incorrect
1
Posted on 8/10/26 at 4:48 pm to lsupride87
quote:
math levels of 2nd graders
don't talk bad about drs like that....having done statistical consulting in the wild, wild world of the medical community...plenty just straight up run bad analyses or make the data say whatever they want to say to justify more funding
ETA: anytime you see the word "meta-analysis"
This post was edited on 8/10/26 at 4:51 pm
Posted on 8/10/26 at 4:49 pm to RFK
quote:
I’m all for transparency but there’s a privacy element here.
The entire Covid scam was one big invasion of privacy
Posted on 8/10/26 at 4:50 pm to lsupride87
quote:
Well you can rest easy that the vaccine group of pregnant women and non vaccinated pregnant women have the same miscarriage rate
Hey there brainiac, did you not read where he said, first trimester? Many, many women miscarry before they even know they're pregnant. So, how do you know that the two groups were EXACTLY the same If this was causing it in some way and it was happening in the first trimester.?
Explain..
Posted on 8/10/26 at 4:50 pm to dgnx6
quote:Do you no who is included in “at least one dose” people? People with TWO DOSES
Speaking of shite math.
Posted on 8/10/26 at 4:52 pm to Tigahs24Seven
quote:Well, it’s pretty easy
Hey there brainiac, did you not read where he said, first trimester? Many, many women miscarry before they even know they're pregnant. So, how do you know that the two groups were EXACTLY the same If this was causing it in some way and it was happening in the first trimester.? Explain..
They take a group of known pregnant women unvaccinated and follow them
They take a group of known pregnant women vaccinated and follow them
They then compare the two groups and if rates are the same they extrapolate both groups evenly for how it would equate to the population quantifying for unknown pregnancies
Posted on 8/10/26 at 4:52 pm to lsupride87
quote:
This story and even Fauci’s text here is absolutely nothing. People are falling for horrible journalism and reporting here. I fully expect now to be downvoted for posting just the actual facts.
If there was evidence (even non-confirmed evidence) and Fauci decided the greater good was more important than notifying the public, it's grounds for him to be shot.
He did the same thing with children. He decided to hide the fact that children weren't in danger and pushed the shot because he thought (at best) it was for the greater good. At worst, he gets his rocks off at playing God and potentially killing a lot of people.
Posted on 8/10/26 at 4:53 pm to lsupride87
quote:it was never a vaccine
This is just false, but how can I even argue with you? I can post all the data in the world showing how much the vaccine lowered death and severe complications and you will just say “fake data”
it was rushed through too quickly and it looks like the damned thing was part of the plan all along; this disease was released on purpose & my tax dollars funded it
real measures were scoffed at and prohibited from being distributed
young and healthy people NEVER needed any shots; this has been substantially proven
there have been more problems with the "vaccine" than the original disease
but feel free to keep your head in the sand
Posted on 8/10/26 at 4:54 pm to moneyg
But there wasn’t evidence. He was saying it was “theoretically possible”. The term theoretically possible is thrown out all the time for things we thing is basically impossible
You know what you do for something theoretically possible? You test it to find EVIDENCE one way or the other, which we did
You know what you do for something theoretically possible? You test it to find EVIDENCE one way or the other, which we did
This post was edited on 8/10/26 at 4:55 pm
Posted on 8/10/26 at 4:55 pm to Rainier Fog
quote:
Incorrect
Dominion vs Fox
quote:
Fox News agreed Tuesday to pay Dominion Voting Systems nearly $800 million to avert a trial in the voting machine company’s lawsuit that would have exposed how the network promoted lies about the 2020 presidential election.
Posted on 8/10/26 at 4:56 pm to lsupride87
quote:
They then compare the two groups and if rates are the same they extrapolate both groups evenly for how it would equate to the population quantifying for unknown pregnancies
Did they do this cleanly? As in differentiating between no doses, dose(s) prior to conception, dose(s) while pregnant, dose prior AND while pregnant? Etc… week by week pregnancy losses?
One thing I noticed with Covid studies was the absolute confusion and confounding of variables.
Posted on 8/10/26 at 4:57 pm to Lsut81
And Covid tards will still wonder why people were so skeptical of the shot
Posted on 8/10/26 at 4:58 pm to SallysHuman
quote:
Man… they really pushed this shot for pregnant women.
The evil rat bastards eventually recommended giving the MRNA Juice to babies just a few months old.
Posted on 8/10/26 at 5:00 pm to lsupride87
quote:
You know what you do for something theoretically possible? You test it to find EVIDENCE one way or the other, which we did
Theoretically possible based on evidence of fevers and cytokine storms in the period following the shot, moreso with subsequent shots.
Having that possibility and not informing women is criminal.
Posted on 8/10/26 at 5:10 pm to lsupride87
quote:
But there wasn’t evidence
That's probably false. More than likely they were having the discussion based on some report (unconfirmed). We all heard the rumors even way back then.
quote:
You know what you do for something theoretically possible? You test it to find EVIDENCE one way or the other, which we did
You sure as hell don't push the vax if there's testing/studies that needs to be done. Even if only on paper this is a possible (theoretical) downside of the vaccine, you HAVE to notify the public.
And, as I said, it's the same behavior we saw with children. He put the best interest of older people in front of the well being of children.
This post was edited on 8/10/26 at 5:11 pm
Posted on 8/10/26 at 5:25 pm to SallysHuman
quote:
Ailsa, that made me spit my water!
We need a laugh once in a while.
I wonder if that was part of the plan to cause miscarriages along with covid deaths...he and gates are both eugenicists.
Posted on 8/10/26 at 5:50 pm to moneyg
Also, not the anyone cares about the facts, but at the time Fauci sent the text saying risks were theoretically possible, the covid vaccine had yet to be recommended for pregnant women….
It was after the trials were finished before that happen
So isn’t that exactly how everything should happen?
It was after the trials were finished before that happen
So isn’t that exactly how everything should happen?
This post was edited on 8/10/26 at 5:51 pm
Posted on 8/10/26 at 5:51 pm to Lsut81
Posted on 8/10/26 at 5:58 pm to Night Vision
That "study" is fricking retarded and definitively does not say 82% of women miscarried. It's a misreading of the results by some moron on Twitter
quote:
These spontaneous abortion (miscarriage) numbers are exactly in line with what we typically see, meaning the miscarriage rate (loss before 20 weeks) is typically 10-26%.
So where does this supposed 82% rate of miscarriage come from? Well, 700 of 712 pregnancies that produced a live birth were vaccinated in the third trimester, so what these armchair epidemiologists did was remove those 700 from the data and claim that instead of miscarriage rate being 104/827 it is now 104/127 or 82%. But you can’t do that because the data set is looking at all pregnancy outcomes. Of course when you remove those 700 pregnancies the miscarriage rate looks artificially high, because the only way a person got into the data set for table 4 was if the pregnancy had ended and they had been vaccinated.
Posted on 8/10/26 at 6:01 pm to Ingeniero
Here is the thing. How absolutely braindead dumb does a human have to be to even believe it’s plausible 82% had miscarriages? It’s insane to even for a milisecond to read that and think it’s accurate
And it’s worse that some republic politicians are getting duped. It’s their Guam tipping over moment
And it’s worse that some republic politicians are getting duped. It’s their Guam tipping over moment
Page 6 of 7
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News