Jim Stone – 16 Sept 2017

Two subsequent years of receiving the flu vaccine boosts miscarriage rates from a baseline of 14 percent to 77%


More than just the abstract was hidden behind a paywall, but the abstract had all the key info!

The abstract proves that every time you get the flu shot after the first shot, it is only a booster shot to make the anti fertility component work even better. This study only shows what happens after two subsequent years of getting the shot. The numbers are not obvious to the lay person, but by cross checking different data sources to make sure I understood what they were saying, I was able to extract the real miscarriage rate from a sea of planned parenthood inspired B.S. and then put the numbers this abstract states into terms anyone can understand.

FINAL OUTCOME: Normal miscarriage rates are 14 percent after pregnancy is confirmed (when you are not calling induced abortions miscarriages.) After ONE flu shot, a woman’s chance of miscarriage increases to 37 percent. If the next year she gets another flu shot (which is obviously an anti fertility vaccine booster shot), her chances of miscarriage increase to 77 percent. The study did not go to the third year of getting the flu shot.

The abstract is so damning that the numbers look impossible! If you use planned parenthood’s numbers which are greatly overstated and plug them into the numbers in this abstract, the miscarriage rate would have to be over 200 percent (which we all know is not possible). My corrected numbers make sense when plugged into this abstract and match pre abortion era medical stats.


Association of spontaneous abortion with receipt of inactivated influenza vaccine containing H1N1pdm09 in 2010-11 and 2011-12

James G. Donahuea, , , Burney A. Kiekea, , Jennifer P. Kinga, , Frank DeStefanob, , Maria A. Mascolac, , Stephanie A. Irvingd, , T. Craig Cheethame, , Jason M. Glanzf, ,

The original source is at ScienceDirect, HERE

Abstract introductions

Inactivated influenza vaccine is recommended in any stage of pregnancy, but evidence of safety in early pregnancy is limited, including for vaccines containing A/H1N1pdm2009 (pH1N1) antigen. We sought to determine if receipt of vaccine containing pH1N1 was associated with spontaneous abortion (SAB). Methods.

My comment – the bolded text means that this was a study to see if the flu vaccine really was an anti fertility vaccine, hence the phrase “spontaneous abortion methods”. This proves they had a reason to be suspicious, because they only did this study to see if the flu vaccine was an anti fertility vaccine, which causes spontaeous abortions.

We conducted a case-control study over two influenza seasons (2010-11, 2011-12) in the Vaccine Safety Datalink. Cases had spontaneous abortion and controls had live births or stillbirths and were matched on site, date of last menstrual period, and age. Of 919 potential cases identified using diagnosis codes, 485 were eligible and confirmed by medical record review. Exposure was defined as vaccination with inactivated influenza vaccine before the SAB date; the primary exposure window was the 1-28 days before the SAB.

My comment – This paragraph establishes the legitimacy of the test, by stating the test conditions.


The overall adjusted odds ratio (aOR) was 2.0 (95% CI, 1.1-3.6) for vaccine receipt in the 28-day exposure window; there was no association in other exposure windows. In season-specific analyses, the aOR in the 1-28 days was 3.7 (95% CI 1.4-9.4) in 2010-11 and 1.4 (95% CI 0.6-3.3) in 2011-12. The association was modified by influenza vaccination in the prior season (post hoc analysis). Among women who received pH1N1-containing vaccine in the previous influenza season, the aOR in the 1-28 days was 7.7 (95% CI 2.2-27.3); the aOR was 1.3 (95% CI 0.7-2.7) among women not vaccinated in the previous season. This effect modification was observed in each season.

My comment: The above states the ratios of what happened between unvaccinated women and vaccinated women, with the maximum possible error swings also stated. The error swings are reported in a way that is way out of whack to leave near mentally deranged margins of error. In this case the margin allowed was 2.0, when the normal rate of miscarriage was 1.4, which represents a margin of error that allows a result more than double normal miscarriage rates to simply be called “error” to help conceal how bad the damage from the vaccines was. This fails because the damage was too much to bury even with that huge error swing allowed.

The first numbers outside of quotes – 3.7 followed by 1.4, shows 3.7 as the rate of miscarriage after vaccination in the first year (before their “error margins” were applied, and 1.4 as the baseline miscarriage rate in unvaccinated women for the same year. For the second subsequent year of women getting the flu shot, the rate of miscarriage in vaccinated women was 7.7, and the rate of miscarriage in unvaccinated women was 1.3


Spontaneous abortion was associated with influenza vaccination in the preceding 28 days. The association was significant only among women vaccinated in the previous influenza season with pH1N1-containing vaccine. This study does not and cannot establish a causal relationship between repeated influenza vaccination and spontaneous abortion, but further research is warranted

My comment: It is clear they tried to lie here by leaving margin of errors so high that they buried the first year stats, but in the second year the damage was so much they could not hide it, no matter how they fudged the data. After showing an increase in miscarriage from 14 percent to 77 percent, they then say it is no big deal and can be ignored until further research proves the vaccine is actually a veiled anti fertility vaccine. But the numbers more than obviously speak for themselves.

This abstract was discovered by Their report is very different from mine, because I saw what they were talking about, and then re-did all the confirmation my own way, in much easier to understand terms.

The problem with their report, (even though they stated the same thing in a different way) is that if anyone tries to confirm what they said, and then gets mired in a pool of Planned parenthood fact rigging bullshit which dominates the infosphere, they won’t make any sense of the abstract because inserting planned parenthood’s numbers into it would put the miscarriage rate after two years of flu vaccination at over 200 percent, and almost every source out there is using planned parenthood’s numbers.

But Greenmedinfo found this buried abstract to begin with and should be commended for that, and may have made the mistake of not clearing up the issue of planned parenthood fact rigging because they know planned parenthood has obscured the real miscarriage stats badly and as a result never got ensnared by them and then had to filter fact from bullshit. You can read their report HERE Their report is well worth reading also, because it goes into the politics of the issue, and my report was a basic fact check.

SO MY FINAL NUMBERS: The flu vaccine, after two subsequent years, boosts the miscarriage rate to 77 percent, which is a 592 percent increase over normal. Green Med Info came up with a final answer of a 640 percent increase. The difference is negligible. Two decent sites looked at the same abstract and reached the same conclusion. OBVIOUS ANSWER: There is no way the flu vaccine is anything but an anti fertility vaccine, and I’d bet the kids who do get through pregnancy after their mom takes the jab have a hugely higher autism stat.

The original abstract is at ScienceDirect, HERE USE IT EVERY TIME A VACCINE TROLL SAYS YOU CANT HANDLE SCIENCE. That is the control mechanism they use – to call you ignorant. This will shut them up!