Avid readers may be wondering why there has been a pause in this substack recently and the answer is that I have been working on something significant that is taking a lot of work - and that means a lot of time. And this of course is not my main gig, so that work has to take a back seat.
I have, however, had to interrupt that work to write this, which is annoying but necessary when fake news is running rampant through our groups whilst the world is distracted by an even faker Kabuki theatre show involving the US president and his on-off buddy the Tesla Twitter guy. At least the fight spawned a new batch of memes for the weekend.
Don’t worry if you missed all this by the way, it’s just a distraction.
Let’s focus
The bigger issue is the attempts by glow operators to bury the story that I have been reporting about for over 3 years: that is, that the data that exists (mostly impossible to verify) clearly shows an increase in miscarriage rate following COVID vaccination in early pregnancy.
I showed that in this article and just for the record this is the only definitive statistical analysis of the available V-safe pregnancy data that I have seen. Remember that V-safe was the CDC’s proactive and prospective data collection following the COVID vaccines, and they had a special database for pregnant women.
It’s an article that concluded a whole series of articles I wrote on the subject of the COVID vaccine studies relating to miscarriage and I’m going to list them in this article today as an archive so that you can access them when you need, and you’re going to need them.
The Real Miscarriage Rate
Here is the final graph from that article showing how concerning the Zauche (V-Safe) pregnancy registry data is - from the little bits that we were allowed to see (because the CDC never actually published the final data). The red line is the historical cohort before the COVID vaccines and the blue line is the V-safe data that was after the COVID vaccines and which the CDC said was “normal”.
The results of this analysis show that the miscarriage rate in the vaccinated group was about double that of historical documented control groups that were followed up prospectively (that is, after they are confirmed to be pregnant and then followed up).
Somewhere around 5-10% risk historically, compared to 15-20% in the vaccinated group (depending on how you measure miscarriage as outlined in the article). That’s bad, but a lot of people still don’t know those figures. Instead you are being told fake figures “over 80% miscarriages” which is intended to obscure the real story.
BUT
Not Just Miscarriages
It actually gets worse because it isn’t just the miscarriages that were affected.
In this article I also showed how the rate of birth defects in V-safe was also about twice the expected rate.
It seems that I was right, unfortunately:
This was just published last month by the CDC (who run the V-safe registry) - three years after they knew about it.
The overall rate of birth defects, which should be less than 2%, was 3.8%. Just let that sink in.
One in every 26 pregnancies following COVID vaccination had a birth defect.
As I clearly outlined in my article, this is a thalidomide level event.
These are the defects that were above historical levels (noting that “historical levels” include the time before routine ultrasound was a thing, when abnormalities would be undetected until birth):
Fifteen birth defects had a prevalence higher than the upper CI from the literature (i.e., Dandy Walker anomaly, hydrocephaly, cataract or other lens anomalies, cleft lip alone, microtia, Pierre Robin sequence, atrial septal defect, esophageal atresia or stenosis, exstrophy of urinary bladder, kidney agenesis, dysplasia or hypoplasia, other disorders of sexual development, craniosynostosis, cutis aplasia or other skin anomalies, amniotic bands, sacral or coccygeal teratoma)
And what we also knew from the thalidomide disaster was that miscarriages were higher (about double) in the thalidomide group. Those pregnancies that made it to birth were affected by birth defects at a rate about twice normal. This is effectively the same situation as that which the CDC has just published.
It’s a thalidomide level event.
Why is this not front page news?
Now we come to the reason that I have had to write this article today.
The reason you are not hearing about this is because the pharma companies and the government who told pregnant women that these products were safe, when they knew they were a huge risk.
Yet they didn’t tell us this. Instead we got this:
Multiple times. From multiple “fact check” sources who were “fact checking” the claim that the “COVID vaccines caused miscarriages in 82% of women”. That of course is impossible because that would have caused an obliteration of the birth rate, not just the small but significant drop seen in most countries.
So how this works is that someone feeds a fake story into groups like ours who try to share scientifically correct and verifiable information, in order to poison the well. If you aren’t aware of this technique of malinformation here’s ChatGPT’s explanation:
“Poisoning the well” doesn’t just mean attacking someone’s reputation. It can also mean spreading a distorted or exaggerated version of the truth first, so that when the real story comes out, it looks like part of a conspiracy or fake news.
It’s like setting a trap: they release a ridiculous version of what’s about to be exposed, wait for people to laugh at it or debunk it, and then when someone comes forward with the real version, no one believes it — because it already sounds like that “crazy story” they heard earlier.
And this is EXACTLY what happened here. Someone deliberately poisoned the well such that I ended up having to write an article explaining what had happened and to debunk the fake story. All the way back in September 2021.
The original story was attributed to the Daily Expose but without a named author and later appears to have been claimed by Coleen Huber (note the date), who should have known better, or Sasha Latypova. Latypova in various guises claims to be an ex-pharma exec or pharma whistleblower but spends a lot of her time on her substack and twitter desperately to attack any member of the “mouse army” (a grassroots group on twitter whose ethos is to expose pharma corruption). At last count, over 1000 twitter accounts had a mouse emoji. She has her work cut out.
The problem with “ex pharma” whistleblowers is that there is no such thing. There are good guys like David Healy and Phil Altman from the regulatory side of things who (as far as I know) don’t have NDA’s with pharma companies - but once you sign a pharma NDA you are bought for life. Nobody who has signed a pharma NDA can afford to buy their way out of it, it would cost millions of dollars, so they just keep quiet. When you hear from a “ex-pharma company whistleblower” ask them to share their NDA and see what happens. Furthermore, this particular “ex” pharma person seems to be very good at getting herself involved in COVID vaccine cases that then coincidentally fail.
So, why are we hearing “82% miscarriage rate” from such people?
It’s to poison the well, obviously.
It got so bad on twitter last week with the deposition of James Thorp, a very good guy who recently published a paper showing how the COVID vaccines were associated with much higher risks of pregnancy related reported1 adverse events compared to all other vaccines.
Here he is courtesy of a clip from Champagne Joshi. And he is right on pretty much everything he says here, except for the miscarriage rate. Even a seasoned obstetrician got hoodwinked by the fake news of “82% miscarriages” prompting a long explanation tweet from the Jikkyleaks account quoting these articles (which I’ll post in order below). James even quotes the V-safe pregnancy registry and the Pfizer PSUR and the vaccine postmarketing study (a requirement for FDA approval) but then mixes them all up and ends up with the 82% figure again, partly because someone has been pushing this number around COVID sceptic groups for 3 years.
So, was this enough to quash the fake news? Not a chance. A false story will be round the world ten times before the real story has had a chance to spread organically. In this case the writer Naomi Wolf comes along to push the fake story more.
And guess who she calls on to repeat the fake story?
The miscarriages are glowing
Well before I show you the clip it’s worth knowing why the word “glowing” is the theme of this piece. You see, there are not just pharma accounts helping poison the well but government intelligence agencies (supporting DARPA, the US military branch that took it upon themselves to develop and spread viruses to sell vaccines).
A “glowie” is an infiltrator. Someone who is working for a government or other vested interest agency but pretending to be a grass roots activist. This is intel 101.
Of course it’s not just intelligence agencies that infiltrate grass roots organisations, the US military (DARPA) have to do it too because their psychopathic behaviour in relation to COVID was exposed and the UK 77th brigade are now infamous. The pharma organisations are also on to this infiltration malarkey with the “Shots heard” style harassment groups which include doctors such as Viki Male and Kevin Ault (part of the ACIP committee at the CDC who help approve these vaccines), who were the very people promoting the COVID vaccines in pregnancy - knowing the risks.
So, who should turn up this week - within days of the CDC publishing a paper showing a near doubling of birth defects in the V-safe registry?
Welcome to the Naomi and Sasha show to distract you from that important news (clip from Youtube):
Not only are we being told was the fake 82% miscarriage rate, but apparently there is also now a 300% increase in stillbirths! That’s four times the expected rate.
No agency anywhere in the world has reported a quadrupling of the stillbirth rate of course. It’s totally made up. Because that’s what glowies do. The purpose is to poison the well and cover up the dual story of a significant increase in miscarriages and a significant increase in birth defects following the roll out of the COVID vaccination program - two things that were known to be a risk but never monitored by the drug regulators.
Remember that in order to reinforce Naomi’s “82% miscarriage” story that she is repeating from the sources mentioned above, she has recruited an “expert™” here who has no expertise at all in the field of pregnancy or medicine and has never published a paper as a first author.
So it’s not a great surprise that the expert™ totally leads Naomi up the garden path with “mistakes” and misunderstandings.
The catalogue of errors
These are the things just in that clip that she gets wrong and why:
“Every trial patient received an app called VSAFE”
WRONGThe V-safe study was performed AFTER the vaccine trials, and was applied to the general public AFTER the vaccine rollout, starting 14th Dec 2020 [link]
“Pregnancy was an exclusion from the clinical trials”
MISSING CONTEXTThis is technically true but although participants were not allowed to be pregnant on entry to the trial there were 144 pregnancies recorded during the Pfizer trial follow-up (where the women became pregnant after vaccination) in the first safety report up to June 2021 - which covers all the possible miscarriages from the Pfizer trial in 2020 [link]
“There were 3500 pregnant women in the Pfizer clinical trial”
WRONGThere were 3958 pregnant women registered in V-safe (in 2021, after the Pfizer trial). In the trial itself, of 21,754 female participants in the Pfizer study, only 8,077 were of reproductive age. Approximately 5% of women in this age group fall pregnant every year which would be around 400 women in the study expected to get pregnant in the subsequent year, nowhere near the made up 3500 number [data link]
“Out of the 3500 something like 1000 women submitted their results for pregnancy outcomes”
WRONGIn the V-safe NEJM study that the expert™ has confused with the Pfizer study there were 827 completed pregnancies reported, most of which were of women in late pregnancy when they received their vaccine (and therefore couldn’t be included in miscarriage calculations). In total there were 1,132 women in the V-safe study who received their vaccine in the first trimester. Because she didn’t read the paper, the expert™ doesn’t know this. That is the denominator that was supposed to be used to calculate miscarriages
[v-safe paper here, explanation here]“Of which something like 800 women were included in the paper published on v-safe outcomes”
WRONGSee (3) and (4) above. There were a total of 3958 women in the V-safe publication referred to, of whom 1132 received their vaccine in the first trimester
“The paper was actually fraudulently constructed”
MIXEDThe paper was correctly reported, but in a way which allowed well-poisoners to misrepresent it. There were however missing participants who all could have had miscarriages but were excluded from the study for unknown reasons [explanation here]
“If you use the correct denominators to calculate the miscarriage rate the miscarriage rate was over 80%”
WRONGIf you use the correct denominator of pregnancies where the women received their vaccine in the first trimester (1132) then the 104 miscarriages clearly represent a miscarriage rate of 9.2%. There was however another missing 75 participants and including these may have pushed the rate up to a whopping 15% [explanation here]. Under neither of these circumstances could the miscarriage rate be anywhere near 80%. In fact, if the miscarriage rate was 80% there could not have only been a 3% drop in births in 2022 when most pregnant women had been forced to be vaccinated to keep their jobs [link]
“From the same data it is evident that still birth rates went up by about 300%”
WRONGAlthough the UKHSA reports initially denied a rise in stillbirths in vaccinated women it became clear that there was a rise in stillbirth rate overall in the population from 20212 when compared to a trend of reducing stillbirths the previous decade, and no explanation has been provided. Here is the graph from the data available at the ONS reproduced in R
As you can see, assuming the trendline (which might overestimate the rise slightly) there is about a 10-13% rise in the stillbirth rate over what might have been expected. A similar increase is seen in Australia in 2022. But a 10% increase is not a 300% increase. This is classic well poisoning and there is no source at all for the 300% claim. It’s nonsense and it’s easy to debunk by government and pharma, so good luck then trying to talk about a very significant 10% increase in the stillbirth rate. All that happens is the fact checkers lap up the fake story like this:
And the conversation is over.
So I’m going to give the expert™ two half marks, which is a total of 1 out of 8. That’s a big fat fail. And it’s so bad that if she had ever gone to medical school she would have likely been kicked out in the first term.
So at this point we can conclude the following
There are chaos agents who are seeding fake stories about the miscarriage rates following COVID vaccination into online groups in order to discredit any rational discussion of this problem.
The people behind those claims are very much aware of these articles and that the claims are false.
The only conclusion that can be drawn from this is that this activity is intentional.Just to make it clear, I have no idea who the people doing this are working for. I suspect that some of them are just carried away by the opportunity for click bait and sensationalism, like many journalists. Others are merely reposting what they see because they know that there is something wrong and because there was no prospective data released with transparency.
The remainder, well, they seem to be glowing as much as the placentas we encountered back in the last article I published on this subject.
Or even as much as the ovaries in the mice that were injected with the same lipid nanoparticles used for the COVID vaccines, all the way back in 2013
But maybe it’s just a misunderstanding.
If it is I sincerely hope that this (hopefully last) article on the subject stops the malinformation and we can get back to asking the right questions of the regulators without being burdened by fake news.
To make things easier I have listed below the full series of articles I have written on this subject with a short summary of what the focus of each was.
Please take a fraction of the time to read them as I have taken to write them, and please pass them on to a friend.
Full list of articles relating to miscarriage rates
[Sept 2021] The first article in the series, explaining how the 82% miscarriage rate was falsely calculated and how you can calculate correctly from the V-safe papers.
[Sept 2022] Comparing the theoretical “benefit” of the COVID vaccines to the established risk in terms of miscarriages needed to prevent one ICU admission (assuming they prevented any), assuming a conservative 5% increase in miscarriage rates
[Oct 2022] Updating the status of the suppressed V-safe pregnancy registry data, the involvement of the “mutton crew” and “shots heard” mafia in targeting anyone discussing miscarriages and a denied FOIA from the RCOG.
[Oct 2022] A super brief note highlighting how the neonatal death rate in Scotland jumped at the time of the COVID vaccine rollout in pregnancy, and public health Scotland thought it best not to investigate.
[Oct 2022] The first major article reporting not only on the huge increase in miscarriage rate associated with the Moderna vaccine but also on the 4% fetal abnormality rate, double the expected rate, in the V-safe data that was still being withheld and was within a suppressed report at the CDC. The slide set has since been removed from the CDC website (but is archived here).
A run down of the postmarketing surveillance document (PSUR) which contained pregnancy data from the Pfizer trial (C4591001) as well as data from pharmacovigilance. Includes a discussion of how the thalidomide scandal had very similar rates of miscarriage and birth defects to the COVID vaccine data being shown, as well as another discussion of James Thorps VAERS report paper, and how the TGA suppressed FOIA requests regarding the animal studies that showed an increase in fetal losses.
The first in a two part series performing statistical (survival) analysis on the available V-safe miscarriage data to confirm (again) that the miscarriage rate was double what it should be when analysed comparatively. And a dig into actually who is the US military affiliated Lauren Zauche, the consistent author on all the V-safe papers.
The second part of the series of statistical (survival) analysis with an in-depth look at how the thalidomide scandal unfolded and its similarities to the COVID vaccine rollout. Contains an introduction to #placentagate - where the regulators knew that these products reach the placenta. Finally it ties in together all the previous articles to prove that the miscarriage rate, when analysed in the same way as other studies, was double what it should have been.
A very important article outlining why all the studies used to “debunk” the increased miscarriage rate claim were falsely represented and plagued by conflicts of interest.
The second part in the “debunking Viki Male” series critiquing the largest paper claiming that miscarriages weren’t higher in the vaccinated cohorts. Huge conflicts of interest and bias underpinning the false claims, murky links to Jeffrey Epstein and Wellcome, and data laundering akin to the Surgisphere fake data scandal. Oh, and don’t forget a failed attempt to scrub the record.
Note that reported adverse events following release of a pharmaceutical product may not show causation. Adverse event reporting systems such as VAERS (USA) and DAEN (Aus) and the Yellow Card Scheme (UK) are repositories only for adverse events, so the denominators (the overall number of people who received a drug) are not known and the adverse events are 10-100x underreported according to multiple studies. Therefore it is not possible to get an absolute rate for an event reported under such systems. The systems CAN however show a relative increase compared to established vaccines, and that it what the Thorp study showed. That should have been enough to prompt a pause on the products and a full investigation of data comparing unvaccinated vs vaccinated women.
When compared to a trendline of falling stillbirth rates during 2010-2020
"Poisoning the well" is a very effective strategy, it can feed into the drama and hyped up emotional response to a bad situation, but when when it has been disproven it is mostly forgiven and seen as the perpetrators over commitment to the cause then all is forgiven until the next time. Now we have an ineffective loop that goes nowhere, this strategy has been repeated so many times, but no matter if they have malign or benign intentions the same damage occurs.
Have you ever reached out to either Naomi Wolf or Sasha Latypova about this bogus/planted 82% number? I don't know about Sasha, but Naomi seems sincere in her beliefs (even if I don't always agree with them or with her tactics).
Thanks for your tireless efforts on this front, very much appreciated!