They both use Pfizer adverse event data.
Here is the Pfizer adverse event data used for the Reuters article I listed.
Here is the Pfizer adverse event date used in the article you posted. It’s literally linked to in the article, I’m guess you’d know that?
https://pdata0916.s3.us-east-2.amazonaws.com/pdocs/070122/125742_S1_M5_5351_c4591001-interim-mth6-adverse-events.zip
Literally the exact same section of the exact same Pfizer document. Just different dates.
It’s sad how much people hope vaccines hurt people to feel better about themselves.
Unfortunately, Canada is in on it it seems. Here’s a study they released just last week.
https://www.thelancet.com/journals/laninf/article/PIIS1473-3099(22)00426-1/fulltext#:~:text=Our%20data%20provide%20reassuring%20evidence,dose%20one%20and%20dose%20two.
5,626 pregnant women received the vaccine. The miscarriage rate was 1.5% regardless of vaccine type and was 1.5% when only looking at the Pfizer vaccine. The miscarriage rate for the control non-vaccinated group was actually higher, at 2.1%. 3,414 of them received the Pfizer vaccine. There were a total of 51 miscarriages. If the 44% number is correct, there should have been 1502 miscarriages. That’s 96.6% less than what should have happened based on your “article.”
Too funny…I can’t wait for the “rebuttal.”