Courtesy of The Highwire. Perhaps saying false is euphemistic. It is a blatant lie.
A study published in the New England Journal of Medicine “Preliminary Findings of mRNA Vaccine Safety in Pregnant Persons" [not pregnant woman?]
“Preliminary findings did not show obvious safety signals among pregnant persons who received mRNA vaccines”. The findings of spontaneous abortions [during 1st 20 weeks of pregnancy] are normally 10 to 26% and the study found the rate to be 12.6% after the jab, so completely normal. But …
If they eliminated the participants who did not receive their jab until their 3rd trimester (way, way, after the 20 week period), the rate of spontaneous abortions after the 1st jab would be 82%. I’ll repeat that. In actual fact the rate of spontaneous abortions in the 1st 20 weeks of pregnancy after receiving the mRNA jab, was 82%. Not as the lying New England Journal of Quackery reported.
Seems like it - 700 late semester jabbers thrown in to muddy the water, counted among the 1st semester jabbers. It does look blatant.
And that’s not the only thing causing outrage:
Muddying the waters is a vaccine-study speciality.
As Del Bigtree points out there is a clue in the language
“Preliminary findings did not show obvious safety signals among pregnant persons who received mRNA Covid-19 vaccines.”
Yes if you cover your eyes and ears there is no obvious risk.
In this case, the study didn’t evaluate any relevant risk groups, like people who had had covid.
Even at face value the study is being spun. That eye-catching
“A total of 35,691 v-safe participants 16 to 54 years of age identified as pregnant.”
sounds good doesn’t it? but only 4,000 were in the system and only 800 had completed a pregnancy, of which only 100+ were jabbed in their 1st trimester.
The Heil reports
CDC officially recommends Covid vaccines for pregnant women after large study shows no safety concerns for expectant mothers who got shots made by Pfizer or Moderna
Leaving aside that saying “CDC officially recommends” is like saying Matt Hancock officially says you must socially distance, the Mail picks up it’s cue from the study with those “35,000” women getting a misleading mench in the bulleted bylines.
The ‘no obvious safety signals’ caveat has been dropped, it has done its work - to absolve the author from the blame.