This is easy-to-debunk. People who spread this fake news say that the vaccine was not tested with pregnant women. That's only half true: none of the women who participated in the trials were pregnant at the start of the trials. In the trials of both of the mRNA vaccines, some women got pregnant. Almost equal numbers in the vaccinated group and the placebo group. There is no difference with or without vaccination.
The Moderna trial was with 30k people, the Pfizer trial with 43k. 5 to 6 pregnancies occurred in each group (vaccinated and placebo). The mass trials (phase 3) began in July, so we will see in a few moths if the vaccines are safe for pregnant women. What we have already seen is that the vaccines don't suppress pregnancy.
A sample size of 12~ is not enough to draw that conclusion. All it proves is that it's not a 100% suppression rate. Unfortunately you've already made the claim that "There is no difference with or without vaccination." and it's premature
Yes, we should wait with mass vaccinations until we can see the long term effects. But the pregnancies have proven that the inferile-scaremongers are flat wrong.
Even I, as a German, don't need a dictionary to look up "infertile" - how comes that you need one? A woman is infertile if she has not conceived after 6-12 months of contraceptive-free intercourse. If a woman is pregnant she has conceived, if she can conceive she is not infertile. If women get pregnant after they got the first shot in the trials, they could conceive and the vaccine hasn't made them infertile. Already got 11 downvotes for this simple English lesson, is this the Voat kindergarten here?
view the rest of the comments →
verboten ago
This is easy-to-debunk. People who spread this fake news say that the vaccine was not tested with pregnant women. That's only half true: none of the women who participated in the trials were pregnant at the start of the trials. In the trials of both of the mRNA vaccines, some women got pregnant. Almost equal numbers in the vaccinated group and the placebo group. There is no difference with or without vaccination.
Wattersun ago
What's the sample size of women who got pregnant you're basing your scientifically derrived opinion from
verboten ago
The Moderna trial was with 30k people, the Pfizer trial with 43k. 5 to 6 pregnancies occurred in each group (vaccinated and placebo). The mass trials (phase 3) began in July, so we will see in a few moths if the vaccines are safe for pregnant women. What we have already seen is that the vaccines don't suppress pregnancy.
Wattersun ago
A sample size of 12~ is not enough to draw that conclusion. All it proves is that it's not a 100% suppression rate. Unfortunately you've already made the claim that "There is no difference with or without vaccination." and it's premature
ilovejuices3 ago
Getting pregnant doesn’t mean the same as maintaining a pregnancy with a healthy placenta and healthy baby.
verboten ago
Yes, we should wait with mass vaccinations until we can see the long term effects. But the pregnancies have proven that the inferile-scaremongers are flat wrong.
ilovejuices3 ago
Both of those sentences are contradictory
verboten ago
Even I, as a German, don't need a dictionary to look up "infertile" - how comes that you need one? A woman is infertile if she has not conceived after 6-12 months of contraceptive-free intercourse. If a woman is pregnant she has conceived, if she can conceive she is not infertile. If women get pregnant after they got the first shot in the trials, they could conceive and the vaccine hasn't made them infertile. Already got 11 downvotes for this simple English lesson, is this the Voat kindergarten here?
ilovejuices3 ago
Cool. Now change the word “infertile” for the phrase “recurrent pregnancy loss” and that should ease your anal retention