GOV.UK shows that not only Pfizer, but also Moderna and Astra Zeneca show far more miscarriages than successful pregnancies in the vaccinated. Gov.UK data appear to be Yellow Card.
I just corrected a mistake with the Moderna numbers, but still the average of these shots are 10 to 1 odds against the life of the fetus. Can someone please inform pregnant moms?
I read the NIH study that showed 80% miscarriages and that was enough for me. I’ve went through infertility treatments to have my son and made up my mind that my place of work would not make fertility decisions for me (whether or not I would get the vax).
They use 827 women, 700 of which are in their third trimester and use all 827 women to calculate their miscarriage rate of ‘12.6%’ however, miscarriage is the loss of a baby prior to 20 weeks, thus the women in their third trimester would be ineligible to calculate the actual miscarriage rate. That leaves us with the 127 women who were vaccinated prior to their third trimester and 104 of them or 82% suffered a miscarriage.
The vax and associated injuries are unfortunate, but secondary to the fundamental problem of the concerted effort by governments and their medical and media enforcers to prevent investigation or even discussion of the pandemic disaster. The pandemic actually caused very little damage, as shown by all cause mortality data and competent analysis of incomplete and unreliable data, and would have been even less important if well known, effective early treatments for infections had not been widely prohibited by the government--pharma complex. The insane response to the routine virus caused millions of unnecessary deaths, enormous economic damage that will afflict us for years, and destruction of social constructs that form the basis for our civilization, from which we may never recover. Until we identify, remove, and punish those responsible for this disaster, our civilization will continue to degrade.
At some point the World will wake up realize this has been lead by Bill Gates, the world leading eugenicist, funding and profiting by making a deadly COVID variance and the mRNA injections. He is in his glory watching people die and the sterilization from injections. He and his friend Fauci are both mad. The depth and tragedy of what he has done is yet to be fully understood. He is picking up were the Nazis’s left off.
please could you explain better... surely these are the ones REPORTED as a reaction to the jabs
surely there have been thousands of births (successful or not reported) in that time.........(?)
why are normal births reported in the case series anyway?
are they just noted as part of a report on the mothers' adverse events?
And.... if you give a link e.g. GOV.UK...... if you cannot directly link to the actual page, please explain how to get to the page that shows 10 times the outcomes......coz if i search for births or live births and instead of numbers, all this other shit comes up.........
If these were only reported as reactions, then it would not make sense for normal pregnancies and normal childbirths to have been included. It is not clear from anywhere in the linked Gov.UK documents that this is exclusively Yellow Card data, although it appears to be. And if that were the case, then why report the normal pregnancies and childbirths?
I have been looking for other Gov.UK pages which would be connected to these pages, and I cannot find anything on two search engines. No government is making it easy to get vital statistics or other health data since 2019. The UK is at least a smidgen more transparent than the CDC, which has been ridiculously non-revealing of their data throughout the whole covid era, but even more so recently.
Please post if you see anything that clarifies the source(s) of these data.
I tend to concur. I think the only conclusion one can draw from this data is that for every 11 pregnancy related adverse reactions, 10 involve the loss of the fetus and 1 does not involve a death.
That seems a reasonable assumption, except for a few things:
Why is there such strong consistency among different brands of vaccines? 9 or 10 to 1 miscarriage to normal outcome? If these data were not reflective of the population's general experience with the COVID vaccines, wouldn't it be more likely for these proportions to vary wildly and randomly with respect to each other?
Also, how to explain the consistency with Pfizer's document dump data, showing 90% miscarriage for all post-vaccine pregnancies:
Because pregnant mothers will be more likely to report the loss of a child over other adverse events.
The best initial estimate we have is that 80% of first trimester pregnancies end in a miscarriage for mothers subject to the mRNA jab from the NEJM publication; however, follow up data lowered that rate to about 15% [1, 2]. Check out figure 1 in [2] and note how they are still missing 188 participants from the 12-20 week group and 65 participants from the < 12 weeks group.
I think with this data set you could assert that should a mother suffer from one of the many reported adverse reactions she will almost certainly loose her child.
Another good questions one could ask is does the proportion of reported events scale with the general population. I.e. does the reports of pregnant mothers scale with total reports.
Unfortunately you can only work with upper bounds here unless you have an estimate of proportion of pregnant mothers who get the jab.
The 10:1 ratio at least allows you to keep the upper bound for risk. I.e. at worst case one would expect that chance of loosing her child is 90%...
As you indicate, too many variables in too few equations, because these utterly irresponsible governments play cards close to their chests, when their primary allegiance should be to us, and to disclose to us the truth. (I mixed too many metaphors there.)
I agree with you. Knowing this document exists and not posting it would be unacceptable. Seeing the ratio of miscarried to good results without pointing it out is also unacceptable. However, your concerns are a major red flag for any discussion of a document with such gaping holes in the data.
If you were to write a disclaimer for this piece, what would it be, and, assuming I would agree with you, do I have your permission to copy or paraphrase it?
But i'm saying it's not 90% of post-vaccine pregnancies like you and the expose claim..... there are so many more that didn't have a problem or weren't reported... surely even more than the 270... (or 124...ahhhhhhh make it clear...... ) that they knew about up to the 28th feb 2021
And what the hell were they vaccinating pregnant women then unless they were 60 year olds..... ha... the vaccine had only been out 2 and a half months.... that was mighty quick.....
To put it in perspective, here in the US I know personally 15 people injured or killed soon after getting the Janssen, Pfizer or Moderna shots. Of them only my sister reported it to VAERS, and she did that without help of doctors. The rest either were too lazy or too ignorant to do it. I think that ratio of reported to unreported is typical here in US.
This may address your question as to how many total pregnant women in UK were shot up and injured that didn't connect the dots or bother reporting.
Neither of the women who miscarried of my acquaintance was even willing to tell me the lot number of the vaccine for me to report to VAERS. They seemed more eager to legally protect a bad vaccine than to report. Factors like this are likely involved in Harvard/MIT finding <1% of adverse events being reported to VAERS.
I have a friend, an ER admitting doc who just gave birth. She was so proud of getting shots and boosted. Was saying she'd take every booster offered. I prayed for her and the baby. But wondered how she could be so naive.
That would be interesting to see. I did not see data that could be compared to these, because these were all the reports of pregnancy outcomes under UK data analysis for each of the biggest 3 vaccine makers for the UK.
I would not say there is a clear signal here. It's possible that the risk is limited to a certain period of time (like you have to be at a certain stage of pregnancy when you get the shot.) This would be less likely to show up strongly in the monthly data, without emphasizing the correlation in time with injection.
It's also unclear how the pandemic and post pandemic psychology has affected people's intent to have more children, when comparing fertility rates.
I agree with you that it is really important to see in which trimester the shots were given. Pre-COVID vax, miscarriages were almost entirely in the first trimester, rare in the 2nd and 3rd.
The first of those documents is too early to be much use, because at July 2021, the covid vaccines had only been available for a few months, leaving a small portion of vaccinated pregnant women to have reached the end of 9 months. I had this problem when first writing about the CDC's data on vax-miscarriage correlation in August 2021, still too early to know much.
The second document does not break down unvaccinated vs vaccinated mothers, and it would be very helpful to know the proportion.
There was no control group to establish a normal baseline? If that is the case the numbers are just numbers without correlation to cause. What am I missing?
Government stinginess in data release is a worldwide problem in the whole COVID era. Many US states won't even given you vital statistics for after 2019, a bygone era. The CDC shares far less than the UK. You don't have any guarantee here of causality. The alternative is not even sharing these data and keeping it hidden for lack of comprehensive and full disclosure.
There is however, consistent 9 to 1 or 10 to 1 miscarriage exceeding normal outcomes in what appear to be Yellow Card data, across different brands of vaccines, which is a consistency signal. The vastly skewed numbers are a signal of strength of association, although with Yellow Card, maybe that's to be expected. The occurrence of these outcomes within the 9 months of pregnancy is a temporality signal. Right there you have 3 of the 9 Bradford Hill criteria for establishing causality.
I so wish this info was REQUIRED to be made known, posted, told to every woman of child-bearing age! It was hard to read these numbers of deaths that could have been prevented. Thank you for your dedication to truth.
I wish it were indicated for number of jabs and timing of jabs. I wish an unvaccinated control were available for comparison. This document seems to be self-contained, not referred to by any other document that I can find.
I just corrected a mistake with the Moderna numbers, but still the average of these shots are 10 to 1 odds against the life of the fetus. Can someone please inform pregnant moms?
I read the NIH study that showed 80% miscarriages and that was enough for me. I’ve went through infertility treatments to have my son and made up my mind that my place of work would not make fertility decisions for me (whether or not I would get the vax).
Do you have a link to that study?
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8117969/#!po=36.7647
They use 827 women, 700 of which are in their third trimester and use all 827 women to calculate their miscarriage rate of ‘12.6%’ however, miscarriage is the loss of a baby prior to 20 weeks, thus the women in their third trimester would be ineligible to calculate the actual miscarriage rate. That leaves us with the 127 women who were vaccinated prior to their third trimester and 104 of them or 82% suffered a miscarriage.
Thank you. Now I see that was the study I wrote about earlier.
Thank you for all you do to shed light & truth
Wow - stunning & so tragic
Thank you for explaining
This was in September of 2021
The vax and associated injuries are unfortunate, but secondary to the fundamental problem of the concerted effort by governments and their medical and media enforcers to prevent investigation or even discussion of the pandemic disaster. The pandemic actually caused very little damage, as shown by all cause mortality data and competent analysis of incomplete and unreliable data, and would have been even less important if well known, effective early treatments for infections had not been widely prohibited by the government--pharma complex. The insane response to the routine virus caused millions of unnecessary deaths, enormous economic damage that will afflict us for years, and destruction of social constructs that form the basis for our civilization, from which we may never recover. Until we identify, remove, and punish those responsible for this disaster, our civilization will continue to degrade.
Amen! I cannot like or agree with your comment enough.
At some point the World will wake up realize this has been lead by Bill Gates, the world leading eugenicist, funding and profiting by making a deadly COVID variance and the mRNA injections. He is in his glory watching people die and the sterilization from injections. He and his friend Fauci are both mad. The depth and tragedy of what he has done is yet to be fully understood. He is picking up were the Nazis’s left off.
Don't forget Gates was a regular customer of Jeffrey Epstein's 'Lolita' Island. Which makes him a pedophile as well.
You're a dear soul. Thank you for speaking for the vulnerable.
Pfizer and Planned Parenthood are divisions of conglomerate MURDER INC
please could you explain better... surely these are the ones REPORTED as a reaction to the jabs
surely there have been thousands of births (successful or not reported) in that time.........(?)
why are normal births reported in the case series anyway?
are they just noted as part of a report on the mothers' adverse events?
And.... if you give a link e.g. GOV.UK...... if you cannot directly link to the actual page, please explain how to get to the page that shows 10 times the outcomes......coz if i search for births or live births and instead of numbers, all this other shit comes up.........
If these were only reported as reactions, then it would not make sense for normal pregnancies and normal childbirths to have been included. It is not clear from anywhere in the linked Gov.UK documents that this is exclusively Yellow Card data, although it appears to be. And if that were the case, then why report the normal pregnancies and childbirths?
I have been looking for other Gov.UK pages which would be connected to these pages, and I cannot find anything on two search engines. No government is making it easy to get vital statistics or other health data since 2019. The UK is at least a smidgen more transparent than the CDC, which has been ridiculously non-revealing of their data throughout the whole covid era, but even more so recently.
Please post if you see anything that clarifies the source(s) of these data.
I tend to concur. I think the only conclusion one can draw from this data is that for every 11 pregnancy related adverse reactions, 10 involve the loss of the fetus and 1 does not involve a death.
That seems a reasonable assumption, except for a few things:
Why is there such strong consistency among different brands of vaccines? 9 or 10 to 1 miscarriage to normal outcome? If these data were not reflective of the population's general experience with the COVID vaccines, wouldn't it be more likely for these proportions to vary wildly and randomly with respect to each other?
Also, how to explain the consistency with Pfizer's document dump data, showing 90% miscarriage for all post-vaccine pregnancies:
https://expose-news.com/2022/05/09/confidential-pfizer-docs-90percent-pregnancies-miscarried/
Because pregnant mothers will be more likely to report the loss of a child over other adverse events.
The best initial estimate we have is that 80% of first trimester pregnancies end in a miscarriage for mothers subject to the mRNA jab from the NEJM publication; however, follow up data lowered that rate to about 15% [1, 2]. Check out figure 1 in [2] and note how they are still missing 188 participants from the 12-20 week group and 65 participants from the < 12 weeks group.
I think with this data set you could assert that should a mother suffer from one of the many reported adverse reactions she will almost certainly loose her child.
Another good questions one could ask is does the proportion of reported events scale with the general population. I.e. does the reports of pregnant mothers scale with total reports.
Unfortunately you can only work with upper bounds here unless you have an estimate of proportion of pregnant mothers who get the jab.
The 10:1 ratio at least allows you to keep the upper bound for risk. I.e. at worst case one would expect that chance of loosing her child is 90%...
1. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0165037822000328
2. https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMc2113891
As you indicate, too many variables in too few equations, because these utterly irresponsible governments play cards close to their chests, when their primary allegiance should be to us, and to disclose to us the truth. (I mixed too many metaphors there.)
Thank you
ok so the 90% is an average figure
28 died out of 29 equals 97%
OR.... 28 out of 34 (bcoz 5 are pending outcomes) .... equals 82%
but these are the ones out of 270 pregnancies (or 274 fetuses/babies)
that were reported as died (tho i don't understand why 1 live birth nor 5 pending are included)
so how is it 90% of all post-vaccine pregnancies???
the expose can be confusing/not make sense/sensationalize too........
And fucking pfizer.
What is "mistakenly exposed" anyway?
Didn't know they were pregnant? Exposed to a vaccinated person i.e shedding?
Fell on the pfucking needle?
This 270 are only the ones reported.......
How many others were vaccinated whilst pregnant that were never reported
bcoz they never had an adverse reaction or the doctors couldn't be bothered.....??
Btw... pfizer is evil... but i question everything "our side" says too...
I ONLY WANT THE TRUTH
I agree with you. Knowing this document exists and not posting it would be unacceptable. Seeing the ratio of miscarried to good results without pointing it out is also unacceptable. However, your concerns are a major red flag for any discussion of a document with such gaping holes in the data.
If you were to write a disclaimer for this piece, what would it be, and, assuming I would agree with you, do I have your permission to copy or paraphrase it?
But i'm saying it's not 90% of post-vaccine pregnancies like you and the expose claim..... there are so many more that didn't have a problem or weren't reported... surely even more than the 270... (or 124...ahhhhhhh make it clear...... ) that they knew about up to the 28th feb 2021
And what the hell were they vaccinating pregnant women then unless they were 60 year olds..... ha... the vaccine had only been out 2 and a half months.... that was mighty quick.....
Why don't you do some digging and write up what you think happened as honestly as possible?
To put it in perspective, here in the US I know personally 15 people injured or killed soon after getting the Janssen, Pfizer or Moderna shots. Of them only my sister reported it to VAERS, and she did that without help of doctors. The rest either were too lazy or too ignorant to do it. I think that ratio of reported to unreported is typical here in US.
This may address your question as to how many total pregnant women in UK were shot up and injured that didn't connect the dots or bother reporting.
Neither of the women who miscarried of my acquaintance was even willing to tell me the lot number of the vaccine for me to report to VAERS. They seemed more eager to legally protect a bad vaccine than to report. Factors like this are likely involved in Harvard/MIT finding <1% of adverse events being reported to VAERS.
Exactly
I have a friend, an ER admitting doc who just gave birth. She was so proud of getting shots and boosted. Was saying she'd take every booster offered. I prayed for her and the baby. But wondered how she could be so naive.
Naive or arrogant
Did your data set include data on non vaxxed mothers? It would be interesting to compare the rates.
That would be interesting to see. I did not see data that could be compared to these, because these were all the reports of pregnancy outcomes under UK data analysis for each of the biggest 3 vaccine makers for the UK.
It looks like there is some data here
https://www.ons.gov.uk/aboutus/transparencyandgovernance/freedomofinformationfoi/ukdataonmiscarriagesandstillbirths
and
https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/birthsdeathsandmarriages/livebirths/articles/provisionalbirthsinenglandandwales/2021
I would not say there is a clear signal here. It's possible that the risk is limited to a certain period of time (like you have to be at a certain stage of pregnancy when you get the shot.) This would be less likely to show up strongly in the monthly data, without emphasizing the correlation in time with injection.
It's also unclear how the pandemic and post pandemic psychology has affected people's intent to have more children, when comparing fertility rates.
Thank you.
I agree with you that it is really important to see in which trimester the shots were given. Pre-COVID vax, miscarriages were almost entirely in the first trimester, rare in the 2nd and 3rd.
The first of those documents is too early to be much use, because at July 2021, the covid vaccines had only been available for a few months, leaving a small portion of vaccinated pregnant women to have reached the end of 9 months. I had this problem when first writing about the CDC's data on vax-miscarriage correlation in August 2021, still too early to know much.
The second document does not break down unvaccinated vs vaccinated mothers, and it would be very helpful to know the proportion.
There was no control group to establish a normal baseline? If that is the case the numbers are just numbers without correlation to cause. What am I missing?
Government stinginess in data release is a worldwide problem in the whole COVID era. Many US states won't even given you vital statistics for after 2019, a bygone era. The CDC shares far less than the UK. You don't have any guarantee here of causality. The alternative is not even sharing these data and keeping it hidden for lack of comprehensive and full disclosure.
There is however, consistent 9 to 1 or 10 to 1 miscarriage exceeding normal outcomes in what appear to be Yellow Card data, across different brands of vaccines, which is a consistency signal. The vastly skewed numbers are a signal of strength of association, although with Yellow Card, maybe that's to be expected. The occurrence of these outcomes within the 9 months of pregnancy is a temporality signal. Right there you have 3 of the 9 Bradford Hill criteria for establishing causality.
I so wish this info was REQUIRED to be made known, posted, told to every woman of child-bearing age! It was hard to read these numbers of deaths that could have been prevented. Thank you for your dedication to truth.
Well done Colleen! Impressive numbers. But Uk Gov is there watching or acting about that?
You got the narrative right. Little else matters.
This is for at least one jab taken during pregnancy? Is the data available by pregnancy week?
I wish it were indicated for number of jabs and timing of jabs. I wish an unvaccinated control were available for comparison. This document seems to be self-contained, not referred to by any other document that I can find.
You seem so honest. I think I'm more likely to get a straight scoop from you than from almost anyone else. Thanks for your hard work