https://www.nejm.org/doi/10.1056/NEJMoa2104983?url_ver=Z39.88-2003&rfr_id=ori:rid:crossref.org&rfr_dat=cr_pub%20%200pubmed A shocking new study published in the New England Journal of Medicine reveals that when pregnant women are given covid vaccinations during their first or second trimesters, they suffer an 82% spontaneous abortion rate, killing 4 out of 5 unborn babies.This stunning finding, explained below, is self-evident from the data published in a new study entitled, “Preliminary Findings of mRNA Covid-19 Vaccine Safety in Pregnant Persons.” Just as disturbing as the data is the fact that the study authors apparently sought to deliberately obfuscate the truth about vaccines causing spontaneous abortions by obfuscating numbers in their own calculations. Originally brought to our attention by a Life Site News article, we checked with our own science contacts to review the data and double check all the math. In doing so, we were able to confirm two things: Yes, the study shows an 82% rate of spontaneous abortions in expectant mothers given covid vaccines during their first or second trimesters. Yes, the study authors either deliberately sought to hide this fact with dishonest obfuscation (explained below) or they are incompetent and made a glaring error that brings into question their credibility. In other words, this study was almost certainly a cover-up to try to claim vaccinating pregnant women is perfectly safe. But the study data actually show quite the oppose. Table 4 from the study reveals that a total of 827 pregnant women were studied. Out of the 827 women, 700 of them received their first vaccine in their third trimester of pregnancy. This means 127 women (which is 827 – 700) received a vaccine during their first or second trimesters. (You have to read the fine print below the table to see this disclosure.) Out of the 127 women receiving vaccines during their first or second trimesters, 104 spontaneous abortions occurred before their pregnancies hit the 20-week mark. These are indicated as “spontaneous abortions” in the table. In simple math, 104 spontaneous abortions (during the first 20 weeks) out of 127 women who received vaccines in their first or second trimesters calculates to an 82% rate of spontaneous abortions among these pregnant women who were vaccinated. It is important to note that deaths of unborn babies during the third trimester are known as “stillbirths” and not spontaneous abortions. Thus, the spontaneous abortions could not have possibly occurred in women vaccinated during their third trimester, by definition. Thus, the study authors dishonestly used the wrong denominator of 827 in their “spontaneous abortions” calculation, when they should have used a denominator of 127, which is the number of women receiving vaccines during their first or second trimesters. Put another way, it is impossible for a woman who was vaccinated for the first time during her third trimester to have a “spontaneous abortion” in the first 20 weeks, since they weren’t vaccinated during the first 20 weeks (and pregnant women aren’t time travelers). Thus, those women shouldn’t be included in the denominator used to calculate the spontaneous abortion rate. The authors of this study should receive an award in the category of, “How to lie with statistics,” because they apparently tried to pull a sleight-of-hand trick to make it appear that vaccines are safe for pregnant women. In reality, they seem to be killing more than 4 out of 5 unborn babies in the first 20 weeks of gestation, at least in this data set. (It’s a small set of 127 pregnant women, so we’d like to see a larger review of many thousands of pregnancies in order to get a more clear picture.)
https://www.nejm.org/doi/10.1056/NEJMoa2104983?url_ver=Z39.88-2003&rfr_id=ori:rid:crossref.org&rfr_dat=cr_pub%20%200pubmed A shocking new study published in the New England Journal of Medicine reveals that when pregnant women are given covid vaccinations during their first or second trimesters, they suffer an 82% spontaneous abortion rate, killing 4 out of 5 unborn babies.This stunning finding, explained below, is self-evident from the data published in a new study entitled, “Preliminary Findings of mRNA Covid-19 Vaccine Safety in Pregnant Persons.” Just as disturbing as the data is the fact that the study authors apparently sought to deliberately obfuscate the truth about vaccines causing spontaneous abortions by obfuscating numbers in their own calculations. Originally brought to our attention by a Life Site News article, we checked with our own science contacts to review the data and double check all the math. In doing so, we were able to confirm two things: Yes, the study shows an 82% rate of spontaneous abortions in expectant mothers given covid vaccines during their first or second trimesters. Yes, the study authors either deliberately sought to hide this fact with dishonest obfuscation (explained below) or they are incompetent and made a glaring error that brings into question their credibility. In other words, this study was almost certainly a cover-up to try to claim vaccinating pregnant women is perfectly safe. But the study data actually show quite the oppose. Table 4 from the study reveals that a total of 827 pregnant women were studied. Out of the 827 women, 700 of them received their first vaccine in their third trimester of pregnancy. This means 127 women (which is 827 – 700) received a vaccine during their first or second trimesters. (You have to read the fine print below the table to see this disclosure.) Out of the 127 women receiving vaccines during their first or second trimesters, 104 spontaneous abortions occurred before their pregnancies hit the 20-week mark. These are indicated as “spontaneous abortions” in the table. In simple math, 104 spontaneous abortions (during the first 20 weeks) out of 127 women who received vaccines in their first or second trimesters calculates to an 82% rate of spontaneous abortions among these pregnant women who were vaccinated. It is important to note that deaths of unborn babies during the third trimester are known as “stillbirths” and not spontaneous abortions. Thus, the spontaneous abortions could not have possibly occurred in women vaccinated during their third trimester, by definition. Thus, the study authors dishonestly used the wrong denominator of 827 in their “spontaneous abortions” calculation, when they should have used a denominator of 127, which is the number of women receiving vaccines during their first or second trimesters. Put another way, it is impossible for a woman who was vaccinated for the first time during her third trimester to have a “spontaneous abortion” in the first 20 weeks, since they weren’t vaccinated during the first 20 weeks (and pregnant women aren’t time travelers). Thus, those women shouldn’t be included in the denominator used to calculate the spontaneous abortion rate. The authors of this study should receive an award in the category of, “How to lie with statistics,” because they apparently tried to pull a sleight-of-hand trick to make it appear that vaccines are safe for pregnant women. In reality, they seem to be killing more than 4 out of 5 unborn babies in the first 20 weeks of gestation, at least in this data set. (It’s a small set of 127 pregnant women, so we’d like to see a larger review of many thousands of pregnancies in order to get a more clear picture.) oknu 发表于 2021-07-06 19:43
This article is from Infowars (re-interpreting the data from NEJM article), not from NEJM as the link implies... What''''s inforwars? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/InfoWars Even worse than BreitBart, which is saying something lol
回复 24楼urthur的帖子 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem Ad hominem (Latin for 'to the person'), short for argumentum ad hominem, refers to several types of arguments, some but not all of which are fallacious. Typically this term refers to a rhetorical strategy where the speaker attacks the character, motive, or some other attribute of the person making an argument rather than attacking the substance of the argument itself. This avoids genuine debate by creating a diversion to some irrelevant but often highly charged issue. The most common form of this fallacy is "A makes a claim x, B asserts that A holds a property that is unwelcome, and hence B concludes that argument x is wrong".
回复 24楼urthur的帖子 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem Ad hominem (Latin for ''''''''''''''''to the person''''''''''''''''), short for argumentum ad hominem, refers to several types of arguments, some but not all of which are fallacious. Typically this term refers to a rhetorical strategy where the speaker attacks the character, motive, or some other attribute of the person making an argument rather than attacking the substance of the argument itself. This avoids genuine debate by creating a diversion to some irrelevant but often highly charged issue. The most common form of this fallacy is "A makes a claim x, B asserts that A holds a property that is unwelcome, and hence B concludes that argument x is wrong". oknu 发表于 2021-07-06 20:11
本来是想弄明白文章里127这个分母从何而来。一搜，哇塞，"大名鼎鼎“的inforwars，我个人从来不看这种别有用心，名声狼藉，完全不尊重事实的网站，如果真要花时间，还不如看原本文献，至少得到的信息是对的 :P NEJM一共搜集了3958位接种疫苗的孕妇的信息，1132在孕早期接种，1714孕中期，1019孕晚期。若要分析vaccine-induced spontaneous abortion, 应该用的分母是2846（1132+1714），而不是127。作者在文献中写到：initial data had been collected and follow-up scheduled at designated time points approximately 10 to 12 weeks apart; limited follow-up calls had been made at the time of this analysis （废话，10月怀胎是需要时间去做tracking的，但至少在initial data collection时，我相信绝大部分都没有流产） 至于Infowars引用的Table 4, 是医疗作者针对827已经完成的孕事做分析。因为疫苗是去年年底、今年初才推出的，NEJM的文章发表于6月份，所以所谓的completed pregnancy里面会包括的1trimester，2trimester数据只可能有流产和still born， very very heavily skewed。这就是为什么infowars的分析会得出82%这种耸人听闻，但实际上完全没有意义的数据。 anyways, 花了30分钟阅读infowars以及NEJM的图表，证明我从来不看infowars这种网站是对的。complete waste of time...
本来是想弄明白文章里127这个分母从何而来。一搜，哇塞，"大名鼎鼎“的inforwars，我个人从来不看这种别有用心，名声狼藉，完全不尊重事实的网站，如果真要花时间，还不如看原本文献，至少得到的信息是对的 :P NEJM一共搜集了3958位接种疫苗的孕妇的信息，1132在孕早期接种，1714孕中期，1019孕晚期。若要分析vaccine-induced spontaneous abortion, 应该用的分母是2846（1132+1714），而不是127。作者在文献中写到：initial data had been collected and follow-up scheduled at designated time points approximately 10 to 12 weeks apart; limited follow-up calls had been made at the time of this analysis （废话，10月怀胎是需要时间去做tracking的，但至少在initial data collection时，我相信绝大部分都没有流产） 至于Infowars引用的Table 4, 是医疗作者针对827已经完成的孕事做分析。因为疫苗是去年年底、今年初才推出的，NEJM的文章发表于6月份，所以所谓的completed pregnancy里面会包括的1trimester，2trimester数据只可能有流产和still born， very very heavily skewed。这就是为什么infowars的分析会得出82%这种耸人听闻，但实际上完全没有意义的数据。 anyways, 花了30分钟阅读infowars以及NEJM的图表，证明我从来不看infowars这种网站是对的。complete waste of time...
urthur 发表于 2021-07-06 21:33
The text was not copied from infowars. Infowars shoud not be considered trustworthy. The same goes for any other media outlets for that matter. One needs to do his/her own research, looking into information from all aspects. It's called critical thinking. So forget about who said it, focus on the substance of the argument itself You did not show how the reasoning behind 127 is wrong or flawed Table 4 include data on the 827 patients, which was used as the denominator by the author. Your claim the denominator should be 2846 (1132+1714) is unsubstantiated, even if you take Table 4 at face value.
The text was not copied from infowars. Infowars shoud not be considered trustworthy. The same goes for any other media outlets for that matter. One needs to do his/her own research, looking into information from all aspects. It''''''''s called critical thinking. So forget about who said it, focus on the substance of the argument itself You did not show how the reasoning behind 127 is wrong or flawed Table 4 include data on the 827 patients, which was used as the denominator by the author. Your claim the denominator should be 2846 (1132+1714) is unsubstantiated, even if you take Table 4 at face value. oknu 发表于 2021-07-06 21:54
Based on Table 4, stillbirth was 1 out of 725 births (which includes live-born infants and stillbirths, as the table footnote states). It's therefore reasonable to infer that the 725 includes all infants born, regardless of the trimester during which the mother received the vaccine. This 725 number is an appropriate denominator because stillbirth occurs >=20 weeks (refer to definition in Table 4), which theoretically can occur regardless of during which trimester the mother received the vaccine. The situation with spontaneous abortion is distinctly different in that it must occur <20 weeks. Participants who received the vaccine in 3rd trimester (>=27 weeks) must've not experienced spontaneous abortion (<20 weeks) prior to vaccination, because otherwise they would not be considered pregnant at the time of vaccination. Hence it's reasonable to infer all 104 spontaneous abortions were from the participants among the 827 who received the vaccine during the 1st or 2nd trimesters. Table footnotes: † Data on pregnancy loss are based on 827 participants in the v-safe pregnancy registry who received an mRNA Covid-19 vaccine (BNT162b2 [Pfizer–BioNTech] or mRNA-1273 [Moderna]) from December 14, 2020, to February 28, 2021, and who reported a completed pregnancy. A total of 700 participants (84.6%) received their first eligible dose in the third trimester. Data on neonatal outcomes are based on 724 live-born infants, including 12 sets of multiples. ‡ A total of 96 of 104 spontaneous abortions (92.3%) occurred before 13 weeks of gestation. § The denominator includes live-born infants and stillbirths. ¶ The denominator includes only participants vaccinated before 37 weeks of gestation.
https://www.nejm.org/doi/10.1056/NEJMoa2104983?url_ver=Z39.88-2003&rfr_id=ori:rid:crossref.org&rfr_dat=cr_pub%20%200pubmed A shocking new study published in the New England Journal of Medicine reveals that when pregnant women are given covid vaccinations during their first or second trimesters, they suffer an 82% spontaneous abortion rate, killing 4 out of 5 unborn babies.This stunning finding, explained below, is self-evident from the data published in a new study entitled, “Preliminary Findings of mRNA Covid-19 Vaccine Safety in Pregnant Persons.” Just as disturbing as the data is the fact that the study authors apparently sought to deliberately obfuscate the truth about vaccines causing spontaneous abortions by obfuscating numbers in their own calculations. Originally brought to our attention by a Life Site News article, we checked with our own science contacts to review the data and double check all the math. In doing so, we were able to confirm two things: Yes, the study shows an 82% rate of spontaneous abortions in expectant mothers given covid vaccines during their first or second trimesters. Yes, the study authors either deliberately sought to hide this fact with dishonest obfuscation (explained below) or they are incompetent and made a glaring error that brings into question their credibility. In other words, this study was almost certainly a cover-up to try to claim vaccinating pregnant women is perfectly safe. But the study data actually show quite the oppose. Table 4 from the study reveals that a total of 827 pregnant women were studied. Out of the 827 women, 700 of them received their first vaccine in their third trimester of pregnancy. This means 127 women (which is 827 – 700) received a vaccine during their first or second trimesters. (You have to read the fine print below the table to see this disclosure.) Out of the 127 women receiving vaccines during their first or second trimesters, 104 spontaneous abortions occurred before their pregnancies hit the 20-week mark. These are indicated as “spontaneous abortions” in the table. In simple math, 104 spontaneous abortions (during the first 20 weeks) out of 127 women who received vaccines in their first or second trimesters calculates to an 82% rate of spontaneous abortions among these pregnant women who were vaccinated. It is important to note that deaths of unborn babies during the third trimester are known as “stillbirths” and not spontaneous abortions. Thus, the spontaneous abortions could not have possibly occurred in women vaccinated during their third trimester, by definition. Thus, the study authors dishonestly used the wrong denominator of 827 in their “spontaneous abortions” calculation, when they should have used a denominator of 127, which is the number of women receiving vaccines during their first or second trimesters. Put another way, it is impossible for a woman who was vaccinated for the first time during her third trimester to have a “spontaneous abortion” in the first 20 weeks, since they weren’t vaccinated during the first 20 weeks (and pregnant women aren’t time travelers). Thus, those women shouldn’t be included in the denominator used to calculate the spontaneous abortion rate. The authors of this study should receive an award in the category of, “How to lie with statistics,” because they apparently tried to pull a sleight-of-hand trick to make it appear that vaccines are safe for pregnant women. In reality, they seem to be killing more than 4 out of 5 unborn babies in the first 20 weeks of gestation, at least in this data set. (It’s a small set of 127 pregnant women, so we’d like to see a larger review of many thousands of pregnancies in order to get a more clear picture.) oknu 发表于 2021-07-06 19:43
我用中文解释一下 表4右边第一行得到流产spontaneous abortion比例为104/827=12.6%，左边显示这个比例一般是10-26%之间，所以得到结论说，mrna疫苗没有影响流产率 但是，表4下面用小字注明了，A total of 700 participants (84.6%) received their first eligible dose in the third trimester. 也就是说，在827名孕妇中，有827-700=127名孕妇是在第三个trimester之前打的第一针mrna疫苗。也就是27周之前。 而spontaneous abortion的定义，如表4显示，是Spontaneous abortion: <20 wk，也就是20周之前就流产了。所以这104个spontaneous abortion都是那127名在27周之前打了第一针mrna疫苗的孕妇。 所以，这127名孕妇的流产率至少是104/127=81.9% 说至少，因为20周以后的流产不叫spontaneous abortion, 叫still birth，表4显示有1例。但是无法判断这1例是不是27周之前发生的。 如果是20-27周之间发生的still birth，那么这127名在27周之前打了第一针mrna疫苗的孕妇，流产率为（104+1）/127=82.7%
我OB也一样 但不想打 感觉压力好大 特别是去lab抽血
感觉是样本太少的原因？
这个文章看了看，目前结果只能说third trimester打的话小孩不会loss。也没有report太多baby的数据
其它的还需要继续等后续文章
打了还能喂奶吗
谢谢share
请问这个数据分母是多少呢？而且这个得看对照组吧？
请问一般什么时候打啊？第二孕期还是第三？
真是不理解催人刚怀孕打的。。。
vaers是voluntary reporting，存在很大的under reporting的bias。数据分母可以说是打了疫苗的所有人。 可以说打了疫苗的孕妇，都在这个“实验”的experimental group里面。对照组是没有打的孕妇。但是政府没有在系统的收集数据也没有要比较这个数据得出结论的意思，因为“结论”似乎是已经定下来了，就是“很安全，大家都去打”。 反正我要是怀孕的话是肯定不会打的，这个疫苗就是个experimental疫苗，没有被正式批准，出事了医药公司也免责，打的都是自愿承担风险的。 我个人觉得孕妇最安全的就是尽量避免exposure，得上covid也不好，得上早治疗不要在家干等着自己扛。但是risk benefit只能每个人自己拿捏了。
A shocking new study published in the New England Journal of Medicine reveals that when pregnant women are given covid vaccinations during their first or second trimesters, they suffer an 82% spontaneous abortion rate, killing 4 out of 5 unborn babies.This stunning finding, explained below, is self-evident from the data published in a new study entitled, “Preliminary Findings of mRNA Covid-19 Vaccine Safety in Pregnant Persons.” Just as disturbing as the data is the fact that the study authors apparently sought to deliberately obfuscate the truth about vaccines causing spontaneous abortions by obfuscating numbers in their own calculations. Originally brought to our attention by a Life Site News article, we checked with our own science contacts to review the data and double check all the math. In doing so, we were able to confirm two things: Yes, the study shows an 82% rate of spontaneous abortions in expectant mothers given covid vaccines during their first or second trimesters. Yes, the study authors either deliberately sought to hide this fact with dishonest obfuscation (explained below) or they are incompetent and made a glaring error that brings into question their credibility. In other words, this study was almost certainly a cover-up to try to claim vaccinating pregnant women is perfectly safe. But the study data actually show quite the oppose.
Table 4 from the study reveals that a total of 827 pregnant women were studied. Out of the 827 women, 700 of them received their first vaccine in their third trimester of pregnancy. This means 127 women (which is 827 – 700) received a vaccine during their first or second trimesters. (You have to read the fine print below the table to see this disclosure.)
Out of the 127 women receiving vaccines during their first or second trimesters, 104 spontaneous abortions occurred before their pregnancies hit the 20-week mark. These are indicated as “spontaneous abortions” in the table.
In simple math, 104 spontaneous abortions (during the first 20 weeks) out of 127 women who received vaccines in their first or second trimesters calculates to an 82% rate of spontaneous abortions among these pregnant women who were vaccinated.
It is important to note that deaths of unborn babies during the third trimester are known as “stillbirths” and not spontaneous abortions. Thus, the spontaneous abortions could not have possibly occurred in women vaccinated during their third trimester, by definition.
Thus, the study authors dishonestly used the wrong denominator of 827 in their “spontaneous abortions” calculation, when they should have used a denominator of 127, which is the number of women receiving vaccines during their first or second trimesters.
Put another way, it is impossible for a woman who was vaccinated for the first time during her third trimester to have a “spontaneous abortion” in the first 20 weeks, since they weren’t vaccinated during the first 20 weeks (and pregnant women aren’t time travelers). Thus, those women shouldn’t be included in the denominator used to calculate the spontaneous abortion rate.
The authors of this study should receive an award in the category of, “How to lie with statistics,” because they apparently tried to pull a sleight-of-hand trick to make it appear that vaccines are safe for pregnant women. In reality, they seem to be killing more than 4 out of 5 unborn babies in the first 20 weeks of gestation, at least in this data set. (It’s a small set of 127 pregnant women, so we’d like to see a larger review of many thousands of pregnancies in order to get a more clear picture.)
诶感觉127好像也不太对，但是原文的827确实也不靠谱。
This article is from Infowars (re-interpreting the data from NEJM article), not from NEJM as the link implies...
What''''s inforwars? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/InfoWars Even worse than BreitBart, which is saying something lol
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem
Ad hominem (Latin for 'to the person'), short for argumentum ad hominem, refers to several types of arguments, some but not all of which are fallacious. Typically this term refers to a rhetorical strategy where the speaker attacks the character, motive, or some other attribute of the person making an argument rather than attacking the substance of the argument itself. This avoids genuine debate by creating a diversion to some irrelevant but often highly charged issue. The most common form of this fallacy is "A makes a claim x, B asserts that A holds a property that is unwelcome, and hence B concludes that argument x is wrong".
不知道P和M，台湾的疫苗有个打了疫苗之后哺乳，几个小时孩子过去了，但是也说得是怀疑，这个就看个人信仰吧。
台湾那个婴儿死亡好像是窒息导致的。
一般都是孕晚期
我刚搜了下， 网上报道的信息有互相不太一致的信息，也不知道具体什么情况。anyway，看个人preference吧。
本来是想弄明白文章里127这个分母从何而来。一搜，哇塞，"大名鼎鼎“的inforwars，我个人从来不看这种别有用心，名声狼藉，完全不尊重事实的网站，如果真要花时间，还不如看原本文献，至少得到的信息是对的 :P
NEJM一共搜集了3958位接种疫苗的孕妇的信息，1132在孕早期接种，1714孕中期，1019孕晚期。若要分析vaccine-induced spontaneous abortion, 应该用的分母是2846（1132+1714），而不是127。作者在文献中写到：initial data had been collected and follow-up scheduled at designated time points approximately 10 to 12 weeks apart; limited follow-up calls had been made at the time of this analysis （废话，10月怀胎是需要时间去做tracking的，但至少在initial data collection时，我相信绝大部分都没有流产）
至于Infowars引用的Table 4, 是医疗作者针对827已经完成的孕事做分析。因为疫苗是去年年底、今年初才推出的，NEJM的文章发表于6月份，所以所谓的completed pregnancy里面会包括的1trimester，2trimester数据只可能有流产和still born， very very heavily skewed。这就是为什么infowars的分析会得出82%这种耸人听闻，但实际上完全没有意义的数据。
anyways, 花了30分钟阅读infowars以及NEJM的图表，证明我从来不看infowars这种网站是对的。complete waste of time...
The text was not copied from infowars. Infowars shoud not be considered trustworthy. The same goes for any other media outlets for that matter. One needs to do his/her own research, looking into information from all aspects. It's called critical thinking. So forget about who said it, focus on the substance of the argument itself You did not show how the reasoning behind 127 is wrong or flawed Table 4 include data on the 827 patients, which was used as the denominator by the author. Your claim the denominator should be 2846 (1132+1714) is unsubstantiated, even if you take Table 4 at face value.
现在真的信仰大于一切
你还是没看懂吧 XD
我换个说法吧，那个127是因为医疗作者分析数据时针对time frame的划分，才造成104 < 127。按照infowars的逻辑和"数学”，1T/2T vaccine-induced abortion/still birth 应该是100%
借zl的帖子问一下，备孕期间会选择打疫苗吗？
看你的OB有多aggressive,他们医院治疗过多少重症covid孕妇患者。1T/2T/3T的建议我都听过，不建议打的也有。如果你完全没有感染风险，就等呗，如果有风险，哪怕1T估计OB都会推荐打。。。
目前文献没有显示孕妇副作用高于普通人群，但fetus的长期数据很少。 我觉得1T打的concern就是可能发烧，以及fetus最重要的development都是在1T完成的
104/2846肯定不行吧，只剩3点几个%了比不打的还低很多，疫苗保护流产？ 感觉这片文章就是啥结论也算不出来
2846还需要tracking，作者基本承认针对这个族群尚不能得出结论。但是综合目前的数据，prelim 结论是没看到特别严重的副作用
只能说明不会一打上就大批流产而已
也可以这么说，目前很多还是unknown。有些副作用要长时间tracking才能发现
是啊。希望他们能赶紧把剩下的track完report，不知道下一片什么时候了
Based on Table 4, stillbirth was 1 out of 725 births (which includes live-born infants and stillbirths, as the table footnote states). It's therefore reasonable to infer that the 725 includes all infants born, regardless of the trimester during which the mother received the vaccine. This 725 number is an appropriate denominator because stillbirth occurs >=20 weeks (refer to definition in Table 4), which theoretically can occur regardless of during which trimester the mother received the vaccine.
The situation with spontaneous abortion is distinctly different in that it must occur <20 weeks. Participants who received the vaccine in 3rd trimester (>=27 weeks) must've not experienced spontaneous abortion (<20 weeks) prior to vaccination, because otherwise they would not be considered pregnant at the time of vaccination. Hence it's reasonable to infer all 104 spontaneous abortions were from the participants among the 827 who received the vaccine during the 1st or 2nd trimesters.
Table footnotes: † Data on pregnancy loss are based on 827 participants in the v-safe pregnancy registry who received an mRNA Covid-19 vaccine (BNT162b2 [Pfizer–BioNTech] or mRNA-1273 [Moderna]) from December 14, 2020, to February 28, 2021, and who reported a completed pregnancy. A total of 700 participants (84.6%) received their first eligible dose in the third trimester. Data on neonatal outcomes are based on 724 live-born infants, including 12 sets of multiples. ‡ A total of 96 of 104 spontaneous abortions (92.3%) occurred before 13 weeks of gestation. § The denominator includes live-born infants and stillbirths. ¶ The denominator includes only participants vaccinated before 37 weeks of gestation.
谢谢分享。我本来也是想第三孕期。现在看都reopening了，我打算熬到22或者23周。等打完两针加两周，赶在我老公回office前。
没怀孕的我也不打。如果有人逼我，就说我要怀孕。 再逼我，我就生老三。 你感觉好点了吗？
谢谢谢谢！明天正好和ob有appointment可以再好好问问，包括医院对covid的治疗。我ob一直推荐打。但是还是很尊重我的想法。
忘了之前台湾哺乳母亲打疫苗，孩子死了的教训了？虽然那是AZ
拿是不是正式批准说事就没意思了。真心觉得两个mrna有可能不正式批准吗？
可尽量不要1t 打吧，
我也觉得，目前关于 1t 数据最少。很多州3月份才开放让高危群体 包括孕妇接种，这些人最早秋天生吧。
而且从胎儿发育来看，1t 的未知也最多
不要误导人！这篇文章把700个第三期孕程打疫苗的算在20周以前打了流产的，真是坏！减掉之后打疫苗流产率82%！
不是有个台湾妈妈打完喂奶小孩子死掉了
有病吃药。
我和我身边怀孕打疫苗的（都是20周以前打）一共六个，没人有严重反应，更别说流产了。这还是我认识的熟人。我不熟的身边朋友的朋友打的，也没有听说谁流产的。你这82%天方夜谭般的流产率，怎么着也得应验一两个在我身边这10+的data points里吧。打疫苗的孕妇都不是傻子，也都是前前后后到处问人看数据的。你要说孕妇打疫苗小心点、谨慎点，我都理解，而且我也完全理解选择不打疫苗的孕妇。但82%流产率？！麻烦过过脑子再编。
你应该问问她那个first trimester打最好的结论谁说的？谁研究出来的？我估计连fauci都不敢说。
hmm
这个想法好！
first trimester本来就风险很大啊 万一那啥了 就可以推到自然流产上吧
我们这医院还要求带口罩。坐标西海岸非宇宙中心。
我准备熬到生之后再说，我的OB没有给任何建议，完全自愿。我有些朋友打完疫苗发烧或者有其他比较难受的反应，家里其他人打了倒是什么大的反应也没有。
我对这种pushy的医护人员都直接了当的说，thanks for your concern but I’ve already made up my mind. The decision is final.
乳汁里的抗体在娃胃里细胞有专门受体搬运去娃血液，如果没记错是 FcRn.
我遇过一个ob每次遇到都让我放环 我每次都说no 最后她都不想再见我了…… 正好我也换保险了
不需要工作也需要定期去医院啊，最后生孩子还要在医院住几天，感觉孕妇比一般人风险高。
更不要说家里如果有老大要上学的，exposure就更大了。
我用中文解释一下
表4右边第一行得到流产spontaneous abortion比例为104/827=12.6%，左边显示这个比例一般是10-26%之间，所以得到结论说，mrna疫苗没有影响流产率
但是，表4下面用小字注明了，A total of 700 participants (84.6%) received their first eligible dose in the third trimester. 也就是说，在827名孕妇中，有827-700=127名孕妇是在第三个trimester之前打的第一针mrna疫苗。也就是27周之前。
而spontaneous abortion的定义，如表4显示，是Spontaneous abortion: <20 wk，也就是20周之前就流产了。所以这104个spontaneous abortion都是那127名在27周之前打了第一针mrna疫苗的孕妇。
所以，这127名孕妇的流产率至少是104/127=81.9%
说至少，因为20周以后的流产不叫spontaneous abortion, 叫still birth，表4显示有1例。但是无法判断这1例是不是27周之前发生的。
如果是20-27周之间发生的still birth，那么这127名在27周之前打了第一针mrna疫苗的孕妇，流产率为（104+1）/127=82.7%
我自己和身边好几个人去年根本没疫苗可打也这么过来的。我自己中间还去过一次急诊呆了八小时。我们这边医院现在也还要求戴口罩，其实去医院检查和生产而感染的风险是很低的。自己可以wfh的话家人也打疫苗风险真的很低了。
这么算是错误的。827是结束妊娠的：其中包括成功生产和流产的。因为时间关系，1t打疫苗就妊娠结束的，只能是流产的。参与者接近4000人，这里面肯定也有1t打疫苗还在怀孕的。可是由于妊娠没有结束，结果未知。所以不能算。
原文只比较827个里面生产和流产的比率，虽然数据小，但是基本是对的。
我可以理解3t前打疫苗的结果没有全部出来。但是作者计算的104/827，把0流产的700名3t之后第一针的孕妇加入分母，而分子的流产孕妇100％是20周之前打疫苗，这样是“基本对的”？