>>11759>Is this statistics saying that the number of miscarriages skyrocketed after Covid vaccines came into the picture?
No, it is not. This is the example used in the article linked in OP. What you describe here is what the statistics appear
to say, but turn out to not actually
say; and that, according to Scott, is how misinformation enters the world.
Specifically, these statistics measure the number of reported miscarriage incidents in the VAERS database. The VAERS database tracks cases where adverse medical conditions happen to people shortly after
getting a medicine, or in this case a vaccine, such that it might plausibly
be related to the medicine. That it to say, it tracks suspicions
of possible side effects, not confirmed
And that makes all the difference in the world, because in the covid pandemic we have far more people of reproductive age than usual getting vaccine shots; which means that simply by the numbers, the number of people getting miscarriages after getting a vaccine shot
will also spike upwards even if the two events are completely unrelated. If there are 20 times as many adults getting vaccines in 2021 and 2022 than in regular years, and miscarriages are completely unrelated to this, then the number of miscarriages shortly after getting a vaccine is also going to be 20 times as high as in regular years. Because the VAERS database tracks cases where the timeline invokes a suspicion
of a relation between the two, not the number of actual linked cases.
And that is indeed a great example of misinformation. Nothing in these graphs is false; it just does not mean what it appears to mean at all.