HTML problems — not correctly closed?
Hmmm.... I can paste it on this thread and you can link to it in your post. Your post would be primarily your reason for posting (what it includes) and a link to the content of the thread 'out here'.
~~~~~
Or offer: "click the link to view the report on UK.gov" link goes here "Click the link to view the report on FR"
It displays correctly for me.
You could post without active links (no html) and link to it wherever you have me post the HTML version on FR and also provide the link to read it on UK.gov.
Or just no HTML and invite them to read the article at the link. We’d still have the html out here (please record the lcoation) if the article is deleted. :)
Thank you to Fractal Trader for finding the linked information.
Fractal Trader is going to post the original UK.gov data upon which the story I'll link and describe below was based.
I'm going to post some information from the article Fractal Trader found first, and decided not to post, while tracing the path back to the UK.GOV article f.
I am not familiar with the the website and 'expose' in the title of the blog doesn't ensure validity, but we report data from official sources, too).
The article content I'm sharing did link to the UK.gov report Fractal will post, and references data in the UK version of standard CDC VAERS type software.( I've reviewed data in the CDC's VAERS and found reports of lost pregnancies.)
It's important to know that since the 'vaccines' are just being introduced these past few months, the overall numbers of lost pregnancies are very low, but they are so much higher than normal (percentage increase), it's likely to increase rapidly as more receive it. Often in animal trials negative effects start showing up 3 - 6 months after 'vaccination'.
I'll post some CDC snippets below and summarize a few the article comments where relevant.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
The author wondered why pregnanant women were receiving the 'shots' in the first place, since the UK government had advised against it.
Here's an excerpt:
BY ON MARCH 21, 2021 • ( 26 COMMENTS )
Well we started digging and found that the Government has since updated it’s original advice to the following –
4.6 Fertility, pregnancy and lactation
Pregnancy
There is limited experience with use of the COVID-19 mRNA Vaccine BNT162b2 in pregnant women.
Animal studies do not indicate direct or indirect harmful effects with respect to pregnancy,
embryo/foetal development, parturition or post-natal development. Administration of
the COVID-19 mRNA Vaccine BNT162b2 in pregnancy should only be considered when the potential
benefits outweigh any potential risks for the mother and foetus.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Ah, the old risk vs. benefits excuse to recommend the fake vaccines. Particularly galling because all risk information is suppressed.
I'll reword the author's text around the charts so I don't have to keep quoting.
Data inputted to the MHRA Yellow Card Scheme up to the 24th January 2021 a total of 4 women had suffered a miscarriage as a result of having the Pfizer/BioNTech vaccine.
As well as a total of 2 women losing their unborn child as result of having the Oxford/AstraZeneca vaccine.
The author notes the government advised against giving the vaccine to pregnant women, but still the vaccine was administered. The same is true in the US. Pregnant women are advised not to get the 'vaccine' but there are lost pregnancies.
Between January 24, 2021 and March 7th, there has been a 475% increase in the number of women who have lost their unborn child after having the Pfizer vaccine, bringing the total to 23. This is devastating.
Sadly there's 1 report of a premature baby dying after the mother had the Pfizer vaccine. This could have happened as a result of other factors, but we need to watch and take note to try to head off any negative patterns for further investigation.
I understand that this is observed data (they noted when the vaccine was given, and when the event occured) and not causal data (the result of years of biomedical analysis to determine if other factors were entirely or partly responsible for the event), but we best make use of what we observe because it's all we have right now. The CDC and Co. are steering us onto the rocks.
The AstraZeneca 'shot' is also reported to have observations of lost pregnancy events. Between January 24, 2021 and March 7th, there has been a 150% increase in the number of women to suffer a miscarriage, bringing the total to 5.
Unfortunately, 1 still birth was reported to the MHRA Yellow Card Scheme after the mother had the AstraZeneca vaccine, but for some reason this has not been labelled as a fatality
Well we started digging and found that the Government has since updated it’s original advice to the following –
4.6 Fertility, pregnancy and lactation
Pregnancy
There is limited experience with use of the COVID-19 mRNA Vaccine BNT162b2 in pregnant women.
Animal studies do not indicate direct or indirect harmful effects with respect to pregnancy,
embryo/foetal development, parturition or post-natal development. Administration of
the COVID-19 mRNA Vaccine BNT162b2 in pregnancy should only be considered when the potential
benefits outweigh any potential risks for the mother and foetus.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Below is a screen capture of the CDC's advice (3/29/2021) to pregnant women in the United States. Note the CDC defers to a pregnant woman's 'personal choice' whether or not to get the 'vaccine'. Isn't that favoritism in the work place requiring employees to get the 'vaccine'. ( I DON'T WANT ANYONE TO GET THE VACCINE. My comment about favoritism is a play on the Woke-ism driving people from employment)
Information about COVID-19 Vaccines for People who Are Pregnant or Breastfeeding | CDC
Here's an image originally linked by defconw in a prior post.
The above image was taken from FReeper defconw's link to a large .jpg collection of social media posts detailing negative experiences. I dont' recall if there was more than one from a pregnant woman, and again, these are just observations, not the results of 10 years of medical study. It does show an example of a pregnant woman who, encouraged to consider the risks and benefits by the content on the CDC's website, decided she should get the vaccine.
The following post includes defconw's montage of all the images in one image file (.jpg). Below her link, I broke the images up into smaller pieces which can be read in a single column.
https://freerepublic.com/focus/chat/3942345/posts?page=1999#1999 (freerepublic.com)
I am a skeptic; I doubt pregnant women are being sufficiently informed of the risks (example below)