I have a friend who is vaccinated and subsequently had a miscarriage. I told her to report to VAERS. She went through the whole process. Submitted her vaccine lot numbers, the whole jam. She got a message that her report was incomplete and it required vaccine lot numbers which she submitted. She redid the report (I imagine many people do not) and has heard CRICKETS.
This is absolutely unconscionable. They know this is happening and aren’t doing anything about it.
If the rate is 2.7/100,000 women, that is for *all* women, not just pregnant ones, right? So the true number for pregnant women only is probably actually even more horrifying. Does the data include an indicator for pregnancy so this could be calculated?
I guess we'll have to apologize to our local conspiracy theorist again. It was all about population control after all. If you accept the premise that the world is overpopulated, children must be eliminated. The pieces are falling into place.
According to the linked article by Daniel Horowitz at The Blaze, the DMED data said there were 4,182 miscarriages reported during the first 10 months of 2021, representing a 300% rate increase compared to the five-year average. Isn't this the number that should be compared to the VAERS incident report rate in 2021?
But, wouldn't the DMED data have to be adjusted for the much larger percentage of military women who are of child-bearing age, compared to VAERS? And perhaps military women are less likely to be trying to get pregnant, compared to the general population?
What we really want to know, is whether the jabs are causing miscarriages. It seems that from the DMED data alone, the case is clear -- assuming that Renz's whistleblowers are reporting accurately.
sure, we can compare those 2 numbers. But I wanted to establish a baseline for the previous years so i could take a crack at the URF. no COVID shit. I don't think there's any doubt about causation here.
OK, I agree that this method can lead to an estimate of the URF. And I understand that you're trying to be conservative in avoiding "COVID shit". But it's interesting to see what happens if we compare VAERS 2021 to DMED 2021.
According to the Blaze article's claim that DMED saw a 300% increase from baseline to 2021, and with your correction for percentage of women under 40, we get a rate of about 915 spontaneous abortions per 100K in DMED 2021. Which would make the estimated VAERS 2021 URF jump all the way up to 120.
My proposed adjustment for "military women less likely to get pregnant" would only push the URF estimate even higher. Which of course seems nuts, but the old Harvard Pilgrim study came up with a URF over 100.
I’m presuming the DMED data set is mostly, if not all , women of child bearing years? If so, shouldn’t you be using the number of women of child bearing age times the rate of miscarriage not the total number of vaxxed women?
Jessica, I love your response to DM, and thanks for your input DM. This is exactly how this dialog should be going all around the world - working TOGETHER to figure out the REALITY of what we are facing.
The URF (the rate of miscarriages) is based on the DOMD data. That doesn't change. Multiplying that rate by a smaller number (women of child bearing age rather than all women) will yield a smaller total number of miscarriages.
Terrible, just terrible. On Steve Kirsch's substack today he pushed this video link, and said that Pierre Cory texted him the photos. The news just does not get any better... Worldwide Exclusive: Embalmers Find Veins & Arteries Filled with Never Before Seen Rubbery Clots
My neice is vaxxed and now expecting. In my mind there is nothing I can do. I feel any info I would give would only make it worse. So one sits and waits. The messenger of warning, like thousands of years ago,now is still not welcomed. Thanks Jessica for the data . We are all in this together. Ottawa Stand. Peace.
The spreadsheets of the data he provides (https://renz-law.com/dmed-data/) show a -10% increase (negative 10% increase, aka a 10% decrease) in SA: 2404 in 2020 down to 2164 in 2021.
What am I missing? Almost all of the other categories he provides show a dramatic increase in disease / symptoms.
Menopausal woman-I began bleeding after not having a period for over a year. I also developed breast cysts. Im unvaxd but dating someone who is dbl/boosted. And I know 2 other women that developed breast cysts (both vaxd) & a teenager that stopped her period after being vaxd.
what you NEED is access to the V-safe data, and access to CMS beneficiaries data. I doubt you'll get either (but AFLDs vs NIH/CDC/HHS/WH will get it, if they get to trial)
" From 2003 to 2014, the BIHR program captured 250,604 pregnancies among approximately 2.4 million active-duty women of reproductive age when limited to non-cadet Army, Air Force, Navy, and Marine Corps personnel. Approximately 15,000 live births occurred each year, and the live birth rate ranged from 76.9 per 1,000 in 2003 to 71.0 per 1,000 in 2014."
So over 12 years there were an average of 20,884 pregnancies per year of which 15,000 were live births. Midrange of live birth rate is 74 / 1000. So annual pregnancy rate is 20884/15000 * 74 = 103 per 1000.
Per this article: https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/products/databriefs/db136.htm, "The pregnancy rate for U.S. women in 2009 was 102.1 per 1,000 women aged 15–44" which is pretty similar. But there are very few pregnancies 15-17 and over 40. Focusing on the 20-24 and 25-29 age groups which constitute the vast majority of active-duty military women, their pregnancy rate in the generl population is about 157 per 1000. Perhaps drop that back to about 145 because of the presence of the other age groups in active-duty military.
This suggests that active-duty military women get pregnant only 71% as much as the general population of the same age distribution. This would bump up your VAERS spontaneous abortion rate URF to 49 / .71 = 69.
Edit: I wrote most of this Friday and only completed and submitted it now. I see that you've since updated your calculation... I was addressing your request to adjust for the likely lower pregnancy rate among active-duty military women of reproductive age as compared with the general population of reproductive age women. Its important to base the general population pregnancy rate on a similar age-distribution to the active-duty military when doing this estimation, and I have roughly done that, getting a result that active-duty military women of reproductive age are only 71% as likely to get pregnant as women of a similar age-distribution in the general population.
This would change your URF to 118 / .71 or 166, estimating that there have actually been 586,177 spontaneous abortions.
Is your denominator correct (military women) or do spouses of active duty military show up in this system too? I have no idea what the answer is, but I believe military spouses can use the same medical resources for the most part.
I have a friend who is vaccinated and subsequently had a miscarriage. I told her to report to VAERS. She went through the whole process. Submitted her vaccine lot numbers, the whole jam. She got a message that her report was incomplete and it required vaccine lot numbers which she submitted. She redid the report (I imagine many people do not) and has heard CRICKETS.
This sounds typical.
This is absolutely unconscionable. They know this is happening and aren’t doing anything about it.
If the rate is 2.7/100,000 women, that is for *all* women, not just pregnant ones, right? So the true number for pregnant women only is probably actually even more horrifying. Does the data include an indicator for pregnancy so this could be calculated?
Maybe compare the rate to the women coming across the border.
I guess we'll have to apologize to our local conspiracy theorist again. It was all about population control after all. If you accept the premise that the world is overpopulated, children must be eliminated. The pieces are falling into place.
According to the linked article by Daniel Horowitz at The Blaze, the DMED data said there were 4,182 miscarriages reported during the first 10 months of 2021, representing a 300% rate increase compared to the five-year average. Isn't this the number that should be compared to the VAERS incident report rate in 2021?
But, wouldn't the DMED data have to be adjusted for the much larger percentage of military women who are of child-bearing age, compared to VAERS? And perhaps military women are less likely to be trying to get pregnant, compared to the general population?
What we really want to know, is whether the jabs are causing miscarriages. It seems that from the DMED data alone, the case is clear -- assuming that Renz's whistleblowers are reporting accurately.
sure, we can compare those 2 numbers. But I wanted to establish a baseline for the previous years so i could take a crack at the URF. no COVID shit. I don't think there's any doubt about causation here.
OK, I agree that this method can lead to an estimate of the URF. And I understand that you're trying to be conservative in avoiding "COVID shit". But it's interesting to see what happens if we compare VAERS 2021 to DMED 2021.
According to the Blaze article's claim that DMED saw a 300% increase from baseline to 2021, and with your correction for percentage of women under 40, we get a rate of about 915 spontaneous abortions per 100K in DMED 2021. Which would make the estimated VAERS 2021 URF jump all the way up to 120.
My proposed adjustment for "military women less likely to get pregnant" would only push the URF estimate even higher. Which of course seems nuts, but the old Harvard Pilgrim study came up with a URF over 100.
I’m presuming the DMED data set is mostly, if not all , women of child bearing years? If so, shouldn’t you be using the number of women of child bearing age times the rate of miscarriage not the total number of vaxxed women?
right you are... hard to get my hands on that data. it will make the URF lower. gonna try.
Jessica, I love your response to DM, and thanks for your input DM. This is exactly how this dialog should be going all around the world - working TOGETHER to figure out the REALITY of what we are facing.
The URF (the rate of miscarriages) is based on the DOMD data. That doesn't change. Multiplying that rate by a smaller number (women of child bearing age rather than all women) will yield a smaller total number of miscarriages.
This might be the data you need. I remember downloading a spreadsheet several months ago with vaccination each day for each age group in the US. I went through my links, and I think this was where I found it: https://covid.cdc.gov/covid-data-tracker/#vaccination-demographics-trends
This is a horrifying development.
Terrible, just terrible. On Steve Kirsch's substack today he pushed this video link, and said that Pierre Cory texted him the photos. The news just does not get any better... Worldwide Exclusive: Embalmers Find Veins & Arteries Filled with Never Before Seen Rubbery Clots
https://rumble.com/vtcsgw-worldwide-exclusive-embalmers-find-veins-and-arteries-filled-with-never-bef.html
Well, all in all, we’re approaching the end of humankind, one way or another.
My neice is vaxxed and now expecting. In my mind there is nothing I can do. I feel any info I would give would only make it worse. So one sits and waits. The messenger of warning, like thousands of years ago,now is still not welcomed. Thanks Jessica for the data . We are all in this together. Ottawa Stand. Peace.
This is incredibly disturbing!
Also they're fitter. I'm sure that helps too.
Prior army… not sure that’s true. People aren’t as fit as you would guess. I guess the really really unfit people don’t exist.
I'm trying to find where Thomas Renz got his "279% spike" numbers in Miscarriages in the DMED data:
https://renz-law.com/attorney-tom-renz-whistleblowers-dmed-defense-medical-epidemiology-database-reveals-incredibly-disturbing-spikes-in-diseases-infertility-injuries-across-the-board-after-the-military-was-forced-to/
The spreadsheets of the data he provides (https://renz-law.com/dmed-data/) show a -10% increase (negative 10% increase, aka a 10% decrease) in SA: 2404 in 2020 down to 2164 in 2021.
What am I missing? Almost all of the other categories he provides show a dramatic increase in disease / symptoms.
Menopausal woman-I began bleeding after not having a period for over a year. I also developed breast cysts. Im unvaxd but dating someone who is dbl/boosted. And I know 2 other women that developed breast cysts (both vaxd) & a teenager that stopped her period after being vaxd.
what you NEED is access to the V-safe data, and access to CMS beneficiaries data. I doubt you'll get either (but AFLDs vs NIH/CDC/HHS/WH will get it, if they get to trial)
What the heck. How about the Vaccine Safety Datalink data also?
This article gives info which can be used to calculate pregnancy rate in the military:
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/31003250/
" From 2003 to 2014, the BIHR program captured 250,604 pregnancies among approximately 2.4 million active-duty women of reproductive age when limited to non-cadet Army, Air Force, Navy, and Marine Corps personnel. Approximately 15,000 live births occurred each year, and the live birth rate ranged from 76.9 per 1,000 in 2003 to 71.0 per 1,000 in 2014."
So over 12 years there were an average of 20,884 pregnancies per year of which 15,000 were live births. Midrange of live birth rate is 74 / 1000. So annual pregnancy rate is 20884/15000 * 74 = 103 per 1000.
Per this article: https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/products/databriefs/db136.htm, "The pregnancy rate for U.S. women in 2009 was 102.1 per 1,000 women aged 15–44" which is pretty similar. But there are very few pregnancies 15-17 and over 40. Focusing on the 20-24 and 25-29 age groups which constitute the vast majority of active-duty military women, their pregnancy rate in the generl population is about 157 per 1000. Perhaps drop that back to about 145 because of the presence of the other age groups in active-duty military.
This suggests that active-duty military women get pregnant only 71% as much as the general population of the same age distribution. This would bump up your VAERS spontaneous abortion rate URF to 49 / .71 = 69.
Edit: I wrote most of this Friday and only completed and submitted it now. I see that you've since updated your calculation... I was addressing your request to adjust for the likely lower pregnancy rate among active-duty military women of reproductive age as compared with the general population of reproductive age women. Its important to base the general population pregnancy rate on a similar age-distribution to the active-duty military when doing this estimation, and I have roughly done that, getting a result that active-duty military women of reproductive age are only 71% as likely to get pregnant as women of a similar age-distribution in the general population.
This would change your URF to 118 / .71 or 166, estimating that there have actually been 586,177 spontaneous abortions.
Is your denominator correct (military women) or do spouses of active duty military show up in this system too? I have no idea what the answer is, but I believe military spouses can use the same medical resources for the most part.