Stillbirth risks higher with Covid according to study

animalcule

Member
Joined
Oct 22, 2019
Messages
360
The point of this article is to scare pregnant women into getting the vaccine, not to help them make an accurate risk assessment. I don’t know how accurate the data they report is, but unless they compare the increase in stillbirth for women who contract covid to the increase in stillbirth for women who are vaccinated, it means NOTHING.

We should first look at the comparison of the percentage of pregnant women who actually contract covid compared to those who don’t, and the PCR thresholds at which they are said to have covid. The women who “had covid” and had stillbirths — did they have any other health issues? How acute was their case of covid? Or did they merely test positive but showed few or no symptoms? I’m guessing that the were symptomatic, and possibly had serious cases of covid. But of course, we don’t know, because the data presented doesn’t tell us this very necessary information. If we knew that highly symptomatic covid moms-to-be were the ones bumping up the stillbirth rate, that’s an important piece of info (Because how many healthy young women contract serious cases of covid? Very few. If you’re a healthy young mom, your assessment might begin to lean towards NOT getting the shot, because you chances of getting Covid AND it being a serious case are very small, therefore your risk of stillbirth isn’t increasing that much. If you’re an older mom with health issues, you may worry more, bc you fall into a riskier category.) Again, the point of this article is to scare pregnant women into getting the vaccine, not to help them make an accurate risk assessment.

Then we have to look at the rates of miscarriage among pregnant VACCINATED mothers. Is it increasing? Anecdotally, I’d say yes. But, we don’t really know. The vaccines were never trialed on pregnant women. So… WE DONT KNOW. But this article doesn’t care, and it would have you ignore the risks of miscarriage from vaccination … because the point is to scare pregnant women into getting vaccinated, not helping them make an accurate risk assessment of their option.
 

PxD

Member
Joined
Aug 13, 2020
Messages
402
My 2 cents:

Raw increase in stillbirths was ~5 per 1,000, but that's before controlling for the variables mentioned in the study, where it's implied that the difference would be lower if she isn't overweight or diabetic (comorbid). They mention race and socioeconomic status, but I think these are confounded with comorbidity factors (i.e. bad diet, diabetic, overweight, hypertension, etc.) In other words, women who don't have diabetes and low blood pressure are less at risk for stillbirths, just like how people who don't have comorbidities are at much lower risk of dying from Covid.

So, absolute risk increases by 0.5%, less if she doesn't have any comorbidity factors. This is how much additional risk there is of a stillbirth if she happens to be infected with SARS2 at time of birth. Now, on top of that, consider that only 1% of the women in the study tested positive for SARS2 at time of birth. That means that absolute increase in risk of stillbirth in the general population of pregnant women because of SARS2 floating around is 0.5% * 1% = 0.005%.

Caveat: on page 12 the authors admit that a potential shortcoming is that there may have been women in the cohort who may have been infected with SARS2 but didn't test positive because they didn't get a test (either no symptoms or didn't wish to test), so the "no infection" pool may in fact have had infected women in it, which would lower the relative risk ratios between infected and non-infected birth outcomes.

Another thing to note: for women who carried to term (>37 weeks), there were no differences in outcomes. It's not clear to me now how well they controlled for that and if what they're really measuring here then is the difference in outcomes between premature and full-term births, or SARS2-infected and non-infected births, or some combination of the two. For all they know a chunk of the additional risk from SARS2 infection may just be additional risks that come from preterm birth (confounding).

It's up to her to make a decision but to me this sounds like the additional risk is relatively small. Even the BBC article mentions the study authors stating that the risks are very low, either way.

All in all I don't see this study as a reason to justify taking a vaccine if one wasn't already planning on getting it. Keep in mind there have been reports, albeit mostly anecdotal, of women who get the vaccine having miscarriages and stillbirths. On top of that, no vaccine is claimed to prevent infection by SARS2, only a lessening of severe symptoms.
 

sugarisgreat

Member
Joined
Jun 18, 2016
Messages
261
I had "Covid" in March of last year (no test/treatment). Right away I went into menopause. It wasn't gradual at all-just over.
I didn't really think about it until I started hearing about the "vaccines" doing something to women's cycles.
There could be a "reproductive" factor to this virus/vaccine.
Financial system collapse/artificial prosperity cycle over=hence population control.
 
P

Peatness

Guest

Anyone have any thoughts on this study from the American journal of obstetrics and Gynecology? My pregnant sister is having extra pressure to take vaccine as a result. Thanks
Please, send your sister some of the info on the forum including this one which explains how dangerous spike protein is.

The spike protein alone can cause severe disease | Ray Peat Forum

On RNA Vaccines – Ray Peat.

Focus on the induction of antibodies by vaccines to define immunity has led to a dangerous disregard for the basic facts of health. The present testing of a vaccine containing the RNA that specifies the most destructive spike protein of the corona virus, the part that inactivates our protective ACE2 enzyme, is being done in a culture that avoids consideration of the meaning of our massive endogenous system of RNA-responsive reverse transcriptases and retro-elements. The consequences of incorporating the spike protein of the virus into our genetic repertoire are hard to imagine. The mindless activation of our huge epigenetic system of retro-elements, with no knowable benefits, should be stopped. – Ray Peat

The spike protein causes inflammation by inactivating the enzyme (ACE2) that inactivates angiotensin, so the spike protein essentially turns on our inflammatory system, the angiotensin system, and the RNA allows our own cells to manufacture spike protein, so we are being prepared to manufacture the activator of our own inflammatory system which is basically the only thing that causes people to die from Covid, if they die from it, mostly none of that diagnosis or determination of the cause of death, none of that has been done in a traditional scientific manner but to the extent that virus is harmful to week people, then is causing our body to produce the agent that kills people, and they ignore the fact that we have reverse transcriptase that can turn RNA to DNA and integrated it into our genes so that we can pass on the ability to destroy our defenses against inflammation. - Ray Peat

For years, corona viruses have been known to bind to the angiotensin converting enzyme 2 (ACE2), and that enzyme has been known to have protective effects, destroying angiotensin, and losartan, an angiotensin receptor blocker, has been known to be protective against corona viruses. Angiotensin increases intracellular calcium, and losartan lowers intracellular calcium. In reaction to the new corona virus, a few groups responded quickly, treating successfully with antiinflammatory things—losartan, cinanserin (a serotonin antagonist), aspirin, and azithromycin or erythromycin, which lower intracellular calcium. Aspirin’s effects overlap those of losartan, and it downregulates the angiotensin receptor, ATR1 (Mitra, et al., 2012). - Ray Peat

The problem is that our bodies can copy foreign RNA and DNA and incorporate the copies into our chromosomes. If they are genes for viral proteins, it’s possible that during a future stress, those foreign genes could be expressed throughout our body, creating overwhelming amounts of those toxic proteins. The copies could be inserted into sperm cells and eggs as well as body cells, forming part of future generations. No sane person would consider doing it, if they understood how our cells respond to alien nucleic acids.- Ray Peat
 

Rick K

Member
Joined
Feb 18, 2019
Messages
1,338

Anyone have any thoughts on this study from the American journal of obstetrics and Gynecology? My pregnant sister is having extra pressure to take vaccine as a result. Thanks
Just look into some of the recent threads here about vax injuries and you will see sterility and spontaneous abortion happening in alarming numbers. Look into the moderna ingredients. Connecticut and the government of Canada have released them and they contain sm-102 (whatever that is) and the msds for this says it's fatal if it contacts the skin, may harm fetus and cause sterility.
 

Rick K

Member
Joined
Feb 18, 2019
Messages
1,338

Anyone have any thoughts on this study from the American journal of obstetrics and Gynecology? My pregnant sister is having extra pressure to take vaccine as a result. Thanks
And if you do your homework you'll find that the only people getting "covid" are the one's who got vaxxed. Hospitals verifying this.
 
OP
miles

miles

Member
Joined
Jan 9, 2014
Messages
32
Thanks everyone. My sister was grateful for the feedback. She won’t be getting the vaccine while she is pregnant at least.
 

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom