Amongst the deluge of reveals today is a post from Igor that I might have missed if it hadn’t been for the tenacious Josh Guetzkow (🐭) pointing it out.
Thank you for commenting and showing the Viki Male "debunking", I did not know she commented on my post!
It is amazing how the CDC says "no differential signal was found" in Slide 37, when the differential signal was in Slide 33. (and note the induced abortion 50% difference! Worth another substack post really, I purposely did NOT address it --want to pick it up?)
I believe that Lauren is "inexperienced" and did not realize the damning nature of Slide 33. Nobody at the CDC realized it either and released the slide set. But we found it
I think Lauren is inexperienced and was one of many inexperienced people targeted with the promise of rapidly climbing the career ladder - Sheldrick, Gideon, Deepti, Bottley etc etc. But they fell into it voluntarily.
The interesting thing is that our posts seem to have been read by the CDC. But instead of coming clean they chose to whitewash the data. That is damning. Inexperienced or not. I have laid out very clearly the (narrow) path to transparency and they have chose the (wide) path of dishonesty.
Thanks! The foot is not okay and I will need surgery -- too many breaks.
However we got very lucky that Lauren is inexperienced and released the super damning Slide 33 -- they will NOT be able to explain it away! I can see NO way to explain away that slide and the dose-response relationship is too obvious.
What you showed in your above post is also great -- the picture of CDC malfeasance, hiding miscarriages etc. There is so much to pick from and the dead unborns are getting impossible to hide.
But they will deny it anyways, as they have with every data piece that they have been predented with all along. Nonetheless, thank you for your work. The truth is appreciated very much by the rest of us
They don't care about the signal that appears from their distortion of the data because they are only worried about obscuring whatever the real data is. The goal is just to say 'it was monitored' without actually monitoring it. Whatever we think from the numbers they put together is irrelevant.
I'm still on Male's side on this one btw, haha. Voluntary brand choice cannot be assumed random.
What you are saying is that women would say "I am early in pregnancy so I would prefer Moderna for now" and another woman would say to herself "I am late into pregnancy so I will take Pfizer". There is no plausible path to such decision making
"There is no plausible path" are just words, not a fact.
Moderna had more cultural status in the period we're worried about. More affluent, PMC women could have been more likely to seek out Moderna and more trusting of The Science and likely to get injected while early in pregnancy. Less affluent women more likely to accept Pfizer and to wait until they were pressured by obgyn. The 'preliminary findings' cohort was overwhelmingly healthcare workers so these biases wouldn't apply, but afterward they would.
And once again it's impossible for a disparate fertility impact, if there was one, not to have affected the periconception cohort makeup in some additive fashion.
How do you come to every one of those conclusions? I'm not sure it matters, but since you offer a counter to something you think is just words and not a fact, you do spark my curiosity.
Well, by having "plausible paths" that I could already imagine and give examples of... Really my comment about words vs fact was just a turn of phrase since the words in question are all subjective.
my recollection is that early on, the shots were in "short supply" and you had to fight to get an appointment, any appointment, possibly driving a long distance, and you were told to take whatever shot was offered -- Moderna or Pfizer -- "does not matter."
I'm referring to early on, when the shots were first offered to the elderly and essential workers. Could this have been the case earlier, when offered to first responders?
The early enrollees had no difference between brands in percentage that were preconception or first trimester upon injection. But, these were almost all healthcare workers because they were injected in winter, before availability to conception-age women in general public.
Affluent PMC would have been more likely to not "take whatever" and seek out what was briefly considered the premium product in the media / PMC class. And with pregnancy the biases that go with income are huge, though often contradictory (better care, but older, etc.). So it's never safe to make any conclusions about the results without the raw data.
Any pregnant woman who allows herself to be vaccinated with anything is both foolish and ignorant. I recall when my wife was pregnant in 1964, she would not even take an aspirin. Just a few years later quite few English women took Thalidomide, and their babies were born without arms and legs.
Dr Clare Craig pointed out "ectopic pregnancy", that is NOT vaccine-related for vaccines given after first couple of weeks, also indicates that early-pregnancy vaccines were also predominantly Pfizer (just like overall).
Right - sorry for plugging in the wrong numbers, was on my way out the door.
So actually suggestive of a early bias for Pfizer - however, like I pointed out yesterday, that could actually reflect a higher fertility impact from Moderna!
I think that Slide 33 is totally scandalous and deserves a serious conversation, and your questions (and Vikis Male's attempt at debunking) and my search for answers were very useful in considering possible counterarguments and finding data that answers such counterarguments.
I love disagreements and healthy discussions and I always value your input!!!
Lauren is experienced in preaching and teaching the accepted narrative. I am sure her background in Peace Studies has been helpful in doing her part for the Great Reset.
As FL-based attorney Jeff Childers proposed in his recent article:
“We need a federal law removing vaccine injury liability shields.
If we do that, if we reverse the state and federal protections for vaccine makers, our long national nightmare will be over. It would instantly kill every single mandate. One tiny federal law would do it. “
Let’s do it! How can I help?
Let's get Children’s Health Defense & others like them involved and pull our intelligence, passion, and tools together.
It seems really simple and obvious to me, but if the birth defect rate went up for those who got the injections earlier in pregnancy compared to later (as that last chart shows) isn't that a screaming red safety signal? It clearly indicates that the shot caused birth defects. There's no ambiguity about it even if we ignore background rates. If the rate goes up from earlier receipt of the shot, it was caused by the shot.
I think we will soon see more 'news' articles about covid causing miscarriages and birth defects as they scramble to confuse the issue.
Injected-later has survivorship bias for everything - spontaneous abortion because totally after the definitional window, but also stillbirth, preterm, and detected defects (potentially leading to voluntary abortion).
The real story here remains that because of all these bias-paradoxes, v-safe could never tell us whether the injections are safe to begin with.
I think arkmedic is right that the being-higher-than-developed-world-baseline is a signal though. 3.5 is too high on its own.
Well as for what v-safe can or can't do, I don't think any of the post marketing data collection is intended to be used to find safety signals at all. They are just there to have something to point to and claim it is evidence of safety. Seems that it is getting harder and harder for officials to make that game keep working though.
I read a book titled Crooked and the author theorized that inflammation triggered white blood cells with toxic metals from vaccines like aluminum and mercury to migrate into the brain. They would deposit the toxic loads there and the result was cranial nerve damage and possibly other brain damage. There also seems to be evidence that tylenol makes the blood-brain barrier more permeable and exacerbates this.
The novel physical mechanism of the mRNA injections seems to involve widespread inflammation. Then imagine after they are born they continue to be exposed through breastmilk. If they make it to six months, they may start getting injected directly.
It is all quite horrible to think about. I only hope the dam breaks and people start to realize what is being done to them.
This is a great article, thank you for posting it!
Would you be open to giving me your. thoughts on two articles I wrote at the very start of my substack since I was greatly concern this would turn into a large issue in the future? I didn't go into the actions of the Gates foundation as much as I could have for space considerations and because that was a relatively well known topic.
You might be interested in looking at the Australian data for cervical cancer incidence which is stable since the HPVv was introduced, having previously been on a downward trend since screening was introduced. In other words there has been no improvement to cervical cancer rates since it was introduced (and Australia was, again, the test bed first to roll out in the whole population of boys and girls).
It would also have been interesting to look at the POFs in the HPV recipients. One explanation could be that these girls received the vaccine after already having been exposed to HPV and there was HPV debris present in the ovary (which can happen). This would be a rare event but could account for the handful of cases. You would never see this incidence on a clinical trial of 30,000 people (FUTURE 1,2,3 studies)
Thank you, I didn't know this about the HPV v that cervical cancer was on a downward trend before the v was introduced. I refused it for my girls. Later on I refused it for my son as well. None of my kids have had it, and at the time my instincts told me not to trust it. My kids all thought and sometimes told me they knew I was anti-vaccine, but I told them it wasn't that and I would wait 5 years and then analyse the data. The data didn't look good.
Thank you for explaining this so clearly. For getting this work out, and for doing this work that our trusted experts should have been presenting to the public all along.
As a layperson, the glaringly obvious things to me have been that women participating in the trials were expressly told to not get pregnant or plan pregnancy, nor to have sex with a vaccinated male. Then there is the massive list of substances that pregnant women are to avoid but an untested and unproven gene therapy is okay? Perhaps I am delusional.
Thanks. Increased miscarriage rate from the mRNA vaxx is to be expected from medical first principles.
Research I've seen deliberately underweighted the first trimester, with the expected result of under-reporting miscarriages. The real data are relatively under-weighted with first trimester anyway (the first 6 months of vaxxing included women already in second and third trimester - their first trimester was outside the study period).
Given clear, strong, consistent government bias in treating "The Science" as pro-vaxx propaganda, we should probably assume the worst about their claims until safety is proven otherwise.
I think you've made a great point too. All it takes to underplay the miscarriage risk is to include more women from later in pregnancy in your data. Bingo. Looks safe
This looks oddly familiar. Pfizer study did the same and included all trimesters in calculating miscarriage. When this was found the miscarriage rate was 82%.
2 questions. Doesn’t other medical professionals look at this and question it? How/why are so many people knowingly manipulating data to make these things appear safe??
No one has morals/integrity anymore! They are reprehensible!
Thank you for commenting and showing the Viki Male "debunking", I did not know she commented on my post!
It is amazing how the CDC says "no differential signal was found" in Slide 37, when the differential signal was in Slide 33. (and note the induced abortion 50% difference! Worth another substack post really, I purposely did NOT address it --want to pick it up?)
I believe that Lauren is "inexperienced" and did not realize the damning nature of Slide 33. Nobody at the CDC realized it either and released the slide set. But we found it
I think Lauren is inexperienced and was one of many inexperienced people targeted with the promise of rapidly climbing the career ladder - Sheldrick, Gideon, Deepti, Bottley etc etc. But they fell into it voluntarily.
The interesting thing is that our posts seem to have been read by the CDC. But instead of coming clean they chose to whitewash the data. That is damning. Inexperienced or not. I have laid out very clearly the (narrow) path to transparency and they have chose the (wide) path of dishonesty.
By the way, hope your foot is OK!
Thanks! The foot is not okay and I will need surgery -- too many breaks.
However we got very lucky that Lauren is inexperienced and released the super damning Slide 33 -- they will NOT be able to explain it away! I can see NO way to explain away that slide and the dose-response relationship is too obvious.
What you showed in your above post is also great -- the picture of CDC malfeasance, hiding miscarriages etc. There is so much to pick from and the dead unborns are getting impossible to hide.
But they will deny it anyways, as they have with every data piece that they have been predented with all along. Nonetheless, thank you for your work. The truth is appreciated very much by the rest of us
By the way, Lauren is not a "good inexperienced person", she is a "bad inexperienced person" -- who slipped big time in releasing slide 33
Same
They don't care about the signal that appears from their distortion of the data because they are only worried about obscuring whatever the real data is. The goal is just to say 'it was monitored' without actually monitoring it. Whatever we think from the numbers they put together is irrelevant.
I'm still on Male's side on this one btw, haha. Voluntary brand choice cannot be assumed random.
What you are saying is that women would say "I am early in pregnancy so I would prefer Moderna for now" and another woman would say to herself "I am late into pregnancy so I will take Pfizer". There is no plausible path to such decision making
"There is no plausible path" are just words, not a fact.
Moderna had more cultural status in the period we're worried about. More affluent, PMC women could have been more likely to seek out Moderna and more trusting of The Science and likely to get injected while early in pregnancy. Less affluent women more likely to accept Pfizer and to wait until they were pressured by obgyn. The 'preliminary findings' cohort was overwhelmingly healthcare workers so these biases wouldn't apply, but afterward they would.
And once again it's impossible for a disparate fertility impact, if there was one, not to have affected the periconception cohort makeup in some additive fashion.
The issue is that they should have produced that data, no?
They should have released the anonymized pregnancy dataset.
No chance they will do so without a court order
Indeed - As with every other pregnancy+vaccine study / gov. report in the world. It's all omerta.
I believe most of those women are medical workers
45%
How do you come to every one of those conclusions? I'm not sure it matters, but since you offer a counter to something you think is just words and not a fact, you do spark my curiosity.
Well, by having "plausible paths" that I could already imagine and give examples of... Really my comment about words vs fact was just a turn of phrase since the words in question are all subjective.
my recollection is that early on, the shots were in "short supply" and you had to fight to get an appointment, any appointment, possibly driving a long distance, and you were told to take whatever shot was offered -- Moderna or Pfizer -- "does not matter."
I'm referring to early on, when the shots were first offered to the elderly and essential workers. Could this have been the case earlier, when offered to first responders?
The early enrollees had no difference between brands in percentage that were preconception or first trimester upon injection. But, these were almost all healthcare workers because they were injected in winter, before availability to conception-age women in general public.
Affluent PMC would have been more likely to not "take whatever" and seek out what was briefly considered the premium product in the media / PMC class. And with pregnancy the biases that go with income are huge, though often contradictory (better care, but older, etc.). So it's never safe to make any conclusions about the results without the raw data.
Any pregnant woman who allows herself to be vaccinated with anything is both foolish and ignorant. I recall when my wife was pregnant in 1964, she would not even take an aspirin. Just a few years later quite few English women took Thalidomide, and their babies were born without arms and legs.
Dr Clare Craig pointed out "ectopic pregnancy", that is NOT vaccine-related for vaccines given after first couple of weeks, also indicates that early-pregnancy vaccines were also predominantly Pfizer (just like overall).
https://twitter.com/ClareCraigPath/status/1583380862670098434
*edit: nvm this whole comment, I did the wrong maths because hurrying:
Right, but with a ratio that clearly suggests a huge early bias for Moderna.
Overall enrollee ratio Moderna/Pfizer .656, ectopic "estimated early" ratio Moderna/Pfizer .896 -
However, if this actually just reflects another disparate outcome rate for the brands, then it doesn't affirm an early bias after all.
Overall pfizer/moderna ratio: 12751/8356 = 1.52
Ectopic Pfizer/moderna ratio (early pregnancies, unrelated to vax impact, but shows vax uptake early in pregnancy): 17/10 = 1.7
Both very close numbers suggesting early pregnancy vax mix is the same, more or less, as overall mix
Right - sorry for plugging in the wrong numbers, was on my way out the door.
So actually suggestive of a early bias for Pfizer - however, like I pointed out yesterday, that could actually reflect a higher fertility impact from Moderna!
Happens to me all the time too!!!
I think that Slide 33 is totally scandalous and deserves a serious conversation, and your questions (and Vikis Male's attempt at debunking) and my search for answers were very useful in considering possible counterarguments and finding data that answers such counterarguments.
I love disagreements and healthy discussions and I always value your input!!!
Lauren is experienced in preaching and teaching the accepted narrative. I am sure her background in Peace Studies has been helpful in doing her part for the Great Reset.
Yes, her "Peace Studies" we now know to refer to those she has relegated to being six feet under -- the "peace of the grave".
Yup
As FL-based attorney Jeff Childers proposed in his recent article:
“We need a federal law removing vaccine injury liability shields.
If we do that, if we reverse the state and federal protections for vaccine makers, our long national nightmare will be over. It would instantly kill every single mandate. One tiny federal law would do it. “
Let’s do it! How can I help?
Let's get Children’s Health Defense & others like them involved and pull our intelligence, passion, and tools together.
https://open.substack.com/pub/coffeeandcovid/p/c-and-c-news-friday-october-21-2022?r=ow9vg&utm_medium=ios&utm_campaign=post
It seems really simple and obvious to me, but if the birth defect rate went up for those who got the injections earlier in pregnancy compared to later (as that last chart shows) isn't that a screaming red safety signal? It clearly indicates that the shot caused birth defects. There's no ambiguity about it even if we ignore background rates. If the rate goes up from earlier receipt of the shot, it was caused by the shot.
I think we will soon see more 'news' articles about covid causing miscarriages and birth defects as they scramble to confuse the issue.
Injected-later has survivorship bias for everything - spontaneous abortion because totally after the definitional window, but also stillbirth, preterm, and detected defects (potentially leading to voluntary abortion).
The real story here remains that because of all these bias-paradoxes, v-safe could never tell us whether the injections are safe to begin with.
I think arkmedic is right that the being-higher-than-developed-world-baseline is a signal though. 3.5 is too high on its own.
Well as for what v-safe can or can't do, I don't think any of the post marketing data collection is intended to be used to find safety signals at all. They are just there to have something to point to and claim it is evidence of safety. Seems that it is getting harder and harder for officials to make that game keep working though.
I read a book titled Crooked and the author theorized that inflammation triggered white blood cells with toxic metals from vaccines like aluminum and mercury to migrate into the brain. They would deposit the toxic loads there and the result was cranial nerve damage and possibly other brain damage. There also seems to be evidence that tylenol makes the blood-brain barrier more permeable and exacerbates this.
The novel physical mechanism of the mRNA injections seems to involve widespread inflammation. Then imagine after they are born they continue to be exposed through breastmilk. If they make it to six months, they may start getting injected directly.
It is all quite horrible to think about. I only hope the dam breaks and people start to realize what is being done to them.
You guys are legends! I am proud to be part of this 🐭 army. Some exceptionally smart and good people! Bravo!
This is a great article, thank you for posting it!
Would you be open to giving me your. thoughts on two articles I wrote at the very start of my substack since I was greatly concern this would turn into a large issue in the future? I didn't go into the actions of the Gates foundation as much as I could have for space considerations and because that was a relatively well known topic.
https://amidwesterndoctor.substack.com/p/the-history-of-population-control
https://amidwesterndoctor.substack.com/p/the-complete-history-of-depopulation
Excellent articles, and essential for archiving.
You might be interested in looking at the Australian data for cervical cancer incidence which is stable since the HPVv was introduced, having previously been on a downward trend since screening was introduced. In other words there has been no improvement to cervical cancer rates since it was introduced (and Australia was, again, the test bed first to roll out in the whole population of boys and girls).
It would also have been interesting to look at the POFs in the HPV recipients. One explanation could be that these girls received the vaccine after already having been exposed to HPV and there was HPV debris present in the ovary (which can happen). This would be a rare event but could account for the handful of cases. You would never see this incidence on a clinical trial of 30,000 people (FUTURE 1,2,3 studies)
Those are great points that help the thought processes I've had on them. Thank you for sharing; you have a lot of really good insights.
Thank you, I didn't know this about the HPV v that cervical cancer was on a downward trend before the v was introduced. I refused it for my girls. Later on I refused it for my son as well. None of my kids have had it, and at the time my instincts told me not to trust it. My kids all thought and sometimes told me they knew I was anti-vaccine, but I told them it wasn't that and I would wait 5 years and then analyse the data. The data didn't look good.
Why does the CDC push the covid vaccines on pregnant women when the FDA has had this in their docs since the rollout?
**
"Available data on Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 Vaccine administered to pregnant women are insufficient to inform vaccine-associated risks in pregnancy."
https://www.fda.gov/media/153713/download
Thank you for explaining this so clearly. For getting this work out, and for doing this work that our trusted experts should have been presenting to the public all along.
That ' Series' is an In Your Face Series!! Disgusting and Disturbing!
As a layperson, the glaringly obvious things to me have been that women participating in the trials were expressly told to not get pregnant or plan pregnancy, nor to have sex with a vaccinated male. Then there is the massive list of substances that pregnant women are to avoid but an untested and unproven gene therapy is okay? Perhaps I am delusional.
Excellent article
Thanks. Increased miscarriage rate from the mRNA vaxx is to be expected from medical first principles.
Research I've seen deliberately underweighted the first trimester, with the expected result of under-reporting miscarriages. The real data are relatively under-weighted with first trimester anyway (the first 6 months of vaxxing included women already in second and third trimester - their first trimester was outside the study period).
Given clear, strong, consistent government bias in treating "The Science" as pro-vaxx propaganda, we should probably assume the worst about their claims until safety is proven otherwise.
I think you've made a great point too. All it takes to underplay the miscarriage risk is to include more women from later in pregnancy in your data. Bingo. Looks safe
Jikky,
Be careful accepting V-safe data as if we know anything about the reporting bias, or even whether or not we're being given real numbers.
cool info. thx. i blog here about covid and australia in particular. https://blog.justgeorgeous.net/
Well, thank Gilead for Pfizer......I mean thank goodness for Pfizer....."imagine if we were vaccinated".....
This looks oddly familiar. Pfizer study did the same and included all trimesters in calculating miscarriage. When this was found the miscarriage rate was 82%.
2 questions. Doesn’t other medical professionals look at this and question it? How/why are so many people knowingly manipulating data to make these things appear safe??
No one has morals/integrity anymore! They are reprehensible!
Is it possible to get the raw data? Do they offer it?
no and no - what I and arkmedic are doing is prying the data from the cryptic slides that they release