CDC Scientists admit they did manipulate study data to show the Covid-19 Vaccines are safe for Pregnant Women as researchers discover 91% of pregnancies resulted in miscarriage following Covid-19 Vaccination

TheExpose.uk ^ | NOVEMBER 7, 2021 | THE EXPOSÉ

[ransomnote]

In July 2021, The Exposé exclusively revealed how data had been manipulated by scientists carrying out a real world study for the CDC to show that Covid-19 vaccines were safe for use during pregnancy.

The authors claimed that the number of people to suffer a spontaneous abortion (miscarriage) during the study was 104 out of 827 completed pregnancies, equating the risk of miscarriage at 12.6%; 7 – 12% lower than the risk of miscarriage in the general population.

Source

However, our analysis proved that these numbers were extremely misleading due to the fact that of the 827 completed pregnancies, 700 / 86% of the women had received a dose of either the Pfizer or Moderna Covid-19 vaccine during the third trimester of pregnancy, meaning it was impossible for them to suffer a miscarriage due to the fact they can only occur prior to week 20 of a pregnancy.

This meant that just 127 women received either the Pfizer or Moderna Covid-19 vaccine during the first / second trimester, with 104 of the woman sadly losing their baby.

Therefore the rate of incidence of miscarriage was 82%, not 12.6% as presented in the findings of the study, and the authors of the study have since admitted that they made a mistake, issuing a correction six months too late, because the study has been used to justify Covid-19 vaccination of pregnant women and new mothers around the world.

Source

But now two researchers from New Zealand have re-analysed the study and called for countries to halt the administration of Covid-19 vaccines to pregnant and breastfeeding women immediately due to extremely concerning findings.

The correction resolved some of the issues, but there are still more, according to Dr. Simon Thornley, a senior lecturer in the University of Auckland’s Section of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, and Dr. Aleisha Brock, another researcher in New Zealand.

According to Dr Thronley “The article’s conclusions haven’t changed substantially as we believe is warranted from our re-analysis of the association related to early exposure to the vaccine in pregnancy, which indicates a substantially increased risk from background.”

Thornley and Brock re-analysed the data and calculated the incidence of miscarriages in the first trimester was actually 82 percent (as concluded previously by The Exposé) to 91 percent in a paper (see here) published in Science, Public Health Policy, and the Law.

Source

Of the 827 pregnancies reported through the V-Safe registry, operated by the CDC, 712 resulted in a live birth. Nearly all of them were among women who were vaccinated in the third trimester. Of the other pregnancies, 104 resulted in miscarriage. Most of those occurred before 13 weeks of gestation.

Using data from the study and several estimates, the New Zealand researchers calculated that spontaneous abortions occurred in 81.9 percent to 91.2 percent of the women who were vaccinated before 20 weeks of gestation.

Thornley and Brock conclude in their analysis that they ‘question the conclusions of the Shimabukuro et al. study to support the use of the mRNA vaccine in early pregnancy, which has now been hastily incorporated into many international guidelines for vaccine use, including in New Zealand.’

‘The assumption that exposure in the third trimester cohort is representative of the effect of exposure throughout pregnancy is questionable and ignores past experience with drugs such as thalidomide. Evidence of safety of the product when used in the first and second trimesters cannot be established until these cohorts have been followed to at least the perinatal period or long-term safety determined for any of the babies born to mothers inoculated during pregnancy,” they added.

Pfizer, it was noted, says on its vaccine’s label that the available data on the vaccine “administered to pregnant women are insufficient to inform vaccine-associated risks in pregnancy.”

The CDC researchers concluded their findings didn’t show any obvious safety signals among pregnant women who received the Pfizer or Moderna vaccines. They said their findings did not necessarily represent the position of the CDC, but the agency links to the study on its website and used it to promote vaccination in pregnant women.

Dr Brock and Dr Thornley strongly disagree and state that considering the evidence presented in their analysis, that they suggest the ‘immediate withdrawal of mRNA vaccine use in pregnancy (Category X)[41] and those breastfeeding, alongside the withdrawal of mRNA vaccines to children or those of child-bearing age in the general population, until more convincing data relating to the safety and long-term impacts on fertility, pregnancy and reproduction are established in these groups.’

As per the latest MHRA Yellow Card data which includes reports of adverse reactions to the Covid-19 vaccines (estimated between 1 – 10% of adverse reactions are actually reported) submitted up to October 28th 2021, a total of 623 women have reported suffering a miscarriage as an adverse reaction to a Covid-19 injection.

This includes 369 reports made against the Pfizer mRNA injection.

Source – Page 73

Two-hundred-and-fifteen reports made against the AstraZeneca viral vector injection.

Source – Page 90

Thirty-seven against the Moderna mRNA injection.

Source – Page 35

And 2 where the brand of Covid-19 vaccine was no specified in the report.

Source – Page 26

The question is, how many of these spontaneous abortions were suffered following the use of a study in which CDC scientists manipulated the data to justify the safety of administering a Covid-19 vaccine during pregnancy?

[ransomnote]

You’re here running interference and trying to distort the article by quoting the CDC as a superior ‘official source’, along with ‘MSN’ and the least reliable paper, the New York Times. You’re pro Biden Regime narrative.

Your link at Alabama University, Birmingham shows that at the time the article was written, the University supported vaccine mandates. The lies they told about women flooding the ICU likely mean they simply didn’t collect vaccination status - that’s what other hospitals in the US are doing to claim tht their ICU’s are ‘flooded’ with unvaccinated. They just don’t ask and record all as unvaccinated and intubated people are not around to refute them.

That AUB link is horrifying because it means they denied women safe, effective medications and instead appear to be following the CDC’s lethal “Covid Policy”. Universities got used to living on Federal Funds, many continue to do so against their will. However one month after the AUB article you linked, AUB dropped vaccine mandates.

AUB has significant ties the the CDC (they are listed on the CDC’s website). Worse, their biocontainment lab is supported by NIAID, and as you know, ANthony Fauci is the Director of the NIAID.
https://www.niaid.nih.gov/research/alabama-regional-biocontainment-lab

“The regional biocontainment laboratory at University of Alabama at Birmingham (UAB), called Southeastern Biosafety Laboratory Alabama Birmingham (SEBLAB), is one of the NIAID-supported Biocontainment Laboratories. The Lab houses state-of-the art biosafety level 2 and level 3 laboratories as well as animal biosafety level 3 laboratories. SEBLAB’s design includes flexible and secure laboratories, animal housing and procedure space, and laboratory support space”

You’re here propping the failing CDC up, and using the dying legacy treasonous media to do it. You’ve chosen your side. Anyone Wuhan Fauci supports, you support, and you LOL while doing it.

[ransomnote]

I don’t think this article is over the top, Easy.

I do agree there’s an information war going on and things are not always as they seem and there is an effort to cloud real data.

A key decision by TheExpose’s Covid Reporting is sound, but overlooked or poorly understood.

The “vaccine” companies lied and made promises using Relative Risk calculations which are relatively useless when talking about ‘vaccines’. The CDC/NIH/Fauci/Walensky/FDA oligarchy allowe and encouraged the use of Relative Risk numbers.

Then I would see medical people, doctors simpering that ‘no vaccine is perfect’ and that ‘95% effective’ means 5 out of 100 people will get Covid - this is false. That ‘5 out of 100’ refers to the calculations that the pharmas should have used, but never did. Those are Absolute Risk values.

So it was bad enough that supposedly our ‘medical elites’ all agreed to use the wrong calculation (Relative Risk), but then in the media accounts, doctors and nurses chide the public while misleading them into believing they used the right calculations (Absolute Risk).

So the writers at Expose.uk and elsewhere are faced with what numbers to report. They’d like to use Absolute Risk, but if they did they would have to compare their data to the distorted Relative Risk data put out initially in the form of promises to the public.

TheExpose.uk needed to use Relative Risk to ensure the comparison is accurate “apples to Apples” comparison - what the pharmas promised updated with information about what the pharmas delivered, using the pharma’s choice of calcuation (Relative Risk).

Some people didn’t understand that, and some vax pushers helped push the FALSE assertion that the data TheExpose.uk was publishing was ‘meaningless’ because it uses Relative Risk. By finding fault with the Expose.UK’s data, they were indirectly pointing to the deception of the pharmas and our medical elites in marketing the fake ‘vaccines’ with a calculation that made the ‘shots’ look far better than they ever were.

This disinformation tactic of ridiculing reports on pharma’s ‘promises’ (Relative Risk) verses what they delivered has been has been deployed so often that now some readers confused and don’t know whether to trust TheExpose.uk. Some on more recent threads point back to their prior inaccurate denunciations to create a false history of supposed failure for TheExpose.uk which is in reality the treasonous actions of the pharmas and our medical elites.

Even on this thread, disinformationists are trying to distort theExpose.uk’s reportage by quoting the CDC, pointing to the NYT and MSN, and a lab that Fauci’s NIAID supports as ‘debunkers’. It’s the dog whistle meant to return us all to the narrative, over and over again, when the NYT/CDC/MSN/UAB are all corrupt and serving China’s interests.

SO in this instance, it’s not the ‘poison the well’ tactic (inject false over the top reporting). But it’s all psyop still working to conceal the truth and protect traitors.

[Fury]

Notice some of the language used:

You’re pro Biden Regime narrative.

Anyone Wuhan Fauci supports, you support, and you LOL while doing it.

when someone disagrees with the conclusions in the initial post

That’s not the sign of a strong argument.

[EasySt]

Thanks Ransomnote.

Perhaps not over the top.

Just horrifying.

There had better be a Nuremberg II.

[Carl Vehse]

The Editor of Science, Public Health Policy, and the Law recently published an editorial (Volume 3:81–86, August, 2021), "If Vaccine Adverse Events Tracking Systems Do Not Support Causal Inference, then ‘Pharmacovigilance’ Does Not Exist,” in which he refers to demands for censorship of scientific articles that contradict official [bureaucratic] positions:

The amount of time it takes for victims of vaccines to acquire a ruling on causality in the United States National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program, based on debates over highly granular details of evidence in support of or countering the hypothesis of causality, is befuddling. In some cases, the debates between experts, mediated by special masters, can last over 10 years.

This pace stands in stark contrast to the lightning — perhaps miraculous, perhaps magical — speed with which physicians involved in short-term randomized COVID-19 vaccine trials determined the noncausality of the deaths that occurred following exposure to the first-in-human experimental mRNA vaccines.

It is sad to bear witness to the fact that science has degenerated into a war against unwanted and inconvenient results, conclusions and interpretations via the process of post-publication retraction for issues other than fraud, grave error in execution, and plagiarism. The weaponization of the process of retraction of scientific studies is well underway, and it induces a bias that could be called “retraction bias”, or, in the case in which a few persons haunt journals in search of studies that cast doubt on their commercial products, a “ghouling bias”, which leads to biased systematic reviews and warped meta-analyses….

Viewed on the basis of a reader’s difference of interpretation, journals that retract to maintain a prescribed narrative are participating in the etiological equivalent of bookburning.

Rage-quitting [by some editorial board members when a peer-reviewed journal paper presented data showing vaccine risks was not retracted] is not Science.

In an Addendum the Editor also noted:

As this was going into production, we learned that the US FDA has approved the marketed version of the Pfizer COVID-19 vaccine for people over 16 years of age. These individuals did this without the required advisory committee meeting — a month after they were skewered in the media for approval of a drug for Alzheimer’s disease that has limited, if any, efficacy.

The stunning move by FDA decision on approval of the Pfizer vaccine was made by ignoring the massive number of post-market safety events reported to VAERS. Many physicians see this as FDA acting on <1% of the safety information available, and they note that Americans are being injured and killed by the vaccines. This is intolerable — and the entire HHS should undergo Congressional review.

We need a viable public health system that does not engage in profit incentive but instead uses science, logic and reason in the studies of what is causing poor health and killing people. A decentralized plan exists to replace the CDC (Plan B); perhaps now we need a similar plan to replace the FDA.

[qwerty1234]

>>91% of pregnancies resulted in miscarriage following Covid-19 Vaccination

Yea, OK.

At this point, the only people who read theexpose.uk do it with their tin-foil hats on.

[Axenolith]

Are you two docs? Or just a couple of the 15-20 remora’s per health care provider in the industry?

I could understand the fear and desperation that having your livelyhood (part of the 20+% GDP medical industry scam) potentially fall apart can bring on.

There’s a microcosm of it out here in California with “High Speed Rail”. If it actually gets built the first runs will be around 2163...
But the money already started trickling out a few years back...
And now there’s people who used to have a brain when it came to it who are all “Well golly jeepers I looked at the data again and concluded this here’s a right good idea”, because they got a taste.

And we’re at that level where it’s starting to get to the “We can’t quit now! That’ll mean all the money we already spent would have just gone to waste!”...

Lather, rinse, repeat...(But on a WAY larger scale and with larger stakes in medicine...)

[Axenolith]

I do see some promise here. 6 months ago you couldn’t swing a dead cat in a article post like this without hitting a dozen or more .gov pole smokers and this one isn’t even up to a hundred replies yet total in its second day...