The Naert study ignored pregnancy losses prior to 6 weeks.
No event time was recorded for this claim — the text gave nothing to anchor it to, and a guessed date would be worse than none.
Standing
lens: Evidence-weighted Structural
No belief has been computed for this claim under Evidence-weighted yet.
What bears on it
Nothing supports or challenges this claim yet — untested, which is not the same as refuted.
Voices
- Arkmedic's blog independent
Voices are counted, never weighed. How many people say a thing is structure worth seeing; it is not, by itself, a reason to believe it.
What the documents actually said
The verbatim text each extraction read before resolving it into this canonical claim. Quoted, never republished.
- The Naert study ignored pregnancy losses prior to 6 weeks.
One criticism levelled against the Naert paper ... is that it ignores pregnancy losses prior to 6 weeks.
Sources
- A miscarriage of statistics: The thalidomide sequel cited evidence
Who and what it involves
Origin: extracted from A miscarriage of statistics: The thalidomide sequel · 2026-09-11 21:57