6park.com生育医生,娜塔莉克劳福德。 MD,回顾了不接种 COVID 疫苗的主要原因。这是观看视频以了解为什么有些人没有接种疫苗,并聆听教育和科学以了解更多信息。与您生活中需要有关 COVID 疫苗安全性和有效性的数据和科学的任何人分享这一集。 6park.com 6park.com不接种 COVID 疫苗的主要原因: 6park.com1.新冠疫苗研发太快。 6park.com2. 我不想接种 COVID 疫苗,因为它会导致 DNA 变化。 6park.com3. COVID疫苗是实验性的。 6park.com4. COVID疫苗疫苗尚未被证明是安全的。 COVID疫苗的副作用太多了。 6park.com5. 没有关于 COVID 疫苗的长期数据。 6park.com6. COVID 疫苗会损害我的生育能力。我想将来要孩子,所以我不想要疫苗。 COVID 疫苗会导致绝育、流产、胎盘问题和生殖问题。接种 COVID 疫苗后您将无法怀孕。 6park.com7. 孕妇不包括在疫苗研究中。没有关于该疫苗在怀孕期间的安全性的数据。 6park.com 6park.com**COVID 可导致严重危及生命的疾病,尤其是孕妇。所有照顾孕妇(22 岁以上)或试图怀孕的医疗机构都一致推荐接种疫苗。疾病预防控制中心建议所有试图怀孕或怀孕的人接种疫苗。接种 COVID 疫苗可安全有效地预防 COVID 引发的严重疾病。怀孕的人都快死了。在这一点上,死亡是可以预防的结果。 6park.com 6park.com这不是医疗建议,而是教育。请向您的医生提问,以便您能够获得个性化的医疗护理。 6park.com
The esteemed New England Journal of Medicine posted a correction last week and now admits the COVID vaccine may not be safe for pregnant women. 6park.com
The study was updated after it found that 104 of 827 pregnant participants experienced a spontaneous abortion after receiving the COVID vaccine. That is roughly 1 of 8 pregnant women losing their baby after getting the vaccine.
6park.comHere is the corrected update from September 8, 2021:
At the time of publication of preliminary findings in the Original Article related to this editorial, the number of spontaneous abortions was 104 and there was 1 stillbirth. However, no proportion could be determined for the risk of spontaneous abortion among participants vaccinated before 20 weeks of gestation because follow-up information was not yet available for the majority of those persons. The article has now been updated. In the fifth paragraph of this editorial (page 2342), the first sentence should have read, “Among 827 registry participants who reported a completed pregnancy, 104 experienced spontaneous abortions and 1 had a stillbirth,” rather than, “…a completed pregnancy, the pregnancy resulted in a spontaneous abortion in 104 (12.6%) and in stillbirth in 1 (0.1%); these percentages are well within the range expected as an outcome for this age group of persons whose other underlying medical conditions are unknown.” In the same paragraph, in the sentence beginning “Among live-born infants” (page 2343), the expression “were also consistent” should have read, “were consistent.” In the seventh paragraph, beginning “Given that,” the first sentence should have ended, “…limitations in their ability to draw conclusions about spontaneous abortions, congenital anomalies, and other potential rare neonatal outcomes,” rather than “…to draw conclusions about congenital anomalies and other potential rare neonatal outcomes.” The editorial is correct at NEJM.org. 6park.com