That happens and It just happened to me, the reason being this tweet. Now, that does not me the given facts are true, but I am willing to go on faith here and the setting becomes a weirdly unsettling one.
So here we see the setting that 4 out of 5 women had a miscarriage. That’s 80% and that number should scare anyone. Is it true? We want to reject it, just like we want to reject “What was in the water” but in all honesty we cannot dismiss either, unless you can prove that the 80% statement is wrong. One untested source gives me “For women who know they’re pregnant, about 10 to 20 in 100 pregnancies (10 to 20 percent) end in miscarriage. Most miscarriages – 8 out of 10 (80 percent) – happen in the first trimester before the 12th week of pregnancy”, this is for the USA. Not sure what other nations are and there is no telling how bad it gets, but the statement is there. To take a little trip in my memory lane, I have known hundreds of women and I am aware of only 3 cases. This does not mean that there were only three, I reckon that most women will not talk about things like that other than to another woman and I get that. But from less than 2% to 80% is a jump and that gives validity to “What was in the water?” You see when these numbers add up to 80% something is driving this and the water is an option. We only need to look back to the Erin Brockovich story to see that things end up in the water and that was BEFORE Shale gas drilling became a fact. Now? I have no way of telling, but in the US big business tends to make policy, not the actual policy makers.
The second statistic comes into play now. I cannot tell if that number is normal, but it wasn’t and now we see “Most miscarriages – 8 out of 10 (80 percent) – happen in the first trimester before the 12th week of pregnancy” this does not seem natural, something drives this and water makes sense, but the environment is a lot bigger than water and as I understand it pregnancy is a setting of checks and balances and the balances is where it is at. So what is causing that level of imbalance? I do not know but the data puzzler in me is going into overdrive. In this age of overpopulation I shouldn’t be, but consider that the next two generations are lost to us, what will we be left with? If 35% is entering the ‘old fart’ stage, and we lost the bulk of 2 generations. This implies that our population will dwindle down to a little over 5 billion before 2070, not a bad setting as the planet could use a breather, but what we neglect is that any environmental impact on us could remain for the next 5 generations, and in this who remains? That is a much larger question and a much larger issue to deal with. So is this over-hyped? Perhaps, but can we afford to ignore this setting? I don’t think so. This planet needs relief and I am not willing to set it up a species that has destroyed its own balance to procreate. I do not have any answers and any answer I uncover only needs to more questions. For one, the ‘official’ number is debatable, but there is nothing countering it. One answer was “Most pregnancy losses are due to factors that the person cannot control”, I understand the answer, I merely refuse to accept it. The environment (and the water) is something we do not control, but someone is allowing it to contain toxins. I also see that several ‘official’ sources have EXACTLY the same text, so there is a common source there. Yet In Australia I saw “One study that tracked women’s hormone levels daily to detect very early pregnancy determined a miscarriage rate of 31 per cent.” 31% is a long way of 80% and that should have led to a lot more questions, but I do not see them, do you?