https://www.corbettreport.com/solutionswatch-vaccinemandates/

Corbett Report: Fighting Vaccine Mandates – #SolutionsWatch

While the UK is supposedly dropping their vaccine passport idea (for now), things are looking bleak in country after country as people all around the world are facing the threat of vaccine mandates. Today on #SolutionsWatch James explores the array of solutions that are on the table to thwart this threat.

https://www.bitchute.com/video/https://www.bitchute.com/video/d7IgVLCu23sN//

https://www.corbettreport.com/mp4/solutionswatch-vaccinemandates.mp4

>>94446

I don't understand why this should change anything.

They say 104 spontaneous abortions and then still pretend that there could be "spontaneous abortions" for all 827 pregnancies, which is simply not the case.

From the 2nd trimester onwards a death of the child is considered a "stillbirth", this means only the ones from the 1st trimester can be "spontaneous abortions". And these 104 deaths are around 80 or 90% of them all.

And they are still going with that. They just added (effectively inaccurate) percentages, still pretending.

See here from the paper:

"Among v-safe pregnancy registry participants,28.6% received vaccine in the first trimester, 43.3% in the second trimester, and 25.7% in the third trimester."

So nothing has really changed on the NEJM. They just DOUBLED DOWN on it, still playing pretend.

>>94450

Let me go through this once again:

"Among 827 registry participants who reported a completed pregnancy, 104 experienced spontaneous abortions and 1 had a stillbirth. A total of 712 pregnancies (86.1%) resulted in a live birth, mostly among participants who received their first vaccination dose in the third trimester."

So 712 pregnancies went through.

104 deaths at 1st trimester. 1 more death during 2nd or 3rd trimester, 105 deaths in total.

"the pregnancy resulted in a spontaneous abortion in 104 (12.6%) and in stillbirth in 1 (0.1%)"

This is pure nonsense. She's pretending that all 827 pregnancies COULD have resulted in a spontaneous abortion, which is simply not the case.

"Among v-safe pregnancy registry participants, 28.6% received vaccine in the first trimester"

This means ONLY 28.6% of all pregnancies (and probably even less than that depending on how many pregnancies were on the edge at that point) could have gotten that.

28.6% of 827 is 236,52, which is already weird, I would expected full pregnancies, but whatever.

So the max is 236.

104 of that died. So that is44%, It'sNOT12,6%

Is she retarded? Why would she double down on this nonsense?

Can a BV/BO please edit my 1st post on the pregnant females?

I wrote 80-90%, that's wrong. It seems to be 44%, which is of course still insanely high.

And please anyone check my numbers, I need some sleep.

>>94455

this post here: >>94450

"And these 104 deaths are around 80 or 90% of them all."

change that to 40% instead of 80 or 90%, thank you.

>>94453

And what I mean is that TECHNICALLY she is correct from a pure maths perspective, when you ignore what she is comparing and pretending. Logically it makes no sense. Further she claims that this would or could be normal.

When almost every 2nd pregnancy results in death during the first trimester, then that is DEFINITELY NOT NORMAL.

And she doesn't even acknowledge that.

I really don't get it.