Pregnant pause
Do Pfizer/Moderna/AstraZeneca magic science shots harm pregnant women or their children?
Can the Big Pharma magic health juice for COVID-19, over which our formerly free societies are now being turned upside-down, harm pregnant women or their unborn babies?
I don’t know the answer, and it may well be no. But there seems to be a surprising absence of up-to-date data on the topic, along with a surprising presence of wagon-circling and propaganda from the media and government sources who control most information we are allowed to consume. It might be that these people have been propagandizing so long they just no longer know how to communicate even truthful information without misleading, or there may be something else to it.
(As an incident of media propaganda, consider this article from the Canadian province of British Columbia. The central claim the article purports to refute is that thirteen injected women suffered stillbirths in a 24-hour period at one hospital. That claim may well be as false as the article implies it is, or it may well be true and yet have no broader meaning, but the article doesn’t provide the information we need to assess this. Instead it is just the usual package of arguments from authority, misdirects, and talking points repeated ad nauseum.)
It seems to me that the academic studies on COVID-19 injection risks in pregnancy all wind up with the same results: nothing to see here, move along, oh and go get your injection pronto, because we struggle to separate our scientific conclusions from our political positions. Maybe they all get the same results because they’re right. Or maybe—like the early studies done with 2-month observation periods to cheerlead “vaccine” efficacy—they are structurally flawed and designed to come to certain conclusions, and indeed arriving at those certain conclusions is a necessary prerequisite to publication. We will see.
Eventually the only thing that will matter is real-world data.
On that note, the UK Health Security Agency, in its week 47 report up to November 21, 2021, for the first time added a section entitled Vaccination in pregnancy. This section states the analysis was done on November 16, 2021. It runs to 10 pages in length, all full of reassurances that there’s nothing to see here and these aren’t the droids you’re looking for. Subsequently in the week 48 and week 49 reports, they include the same 10 pages verbatim: same data, same graphs, same tables, same words, same everything.
The Methods subsection (identical reports 47–49, just like all the others) tells us they are relying a NHS Immunization Management Service (NIMS) dataset called Hospital Episode Statistics (HES) from January through August, 2021.
We may see an update next week in the UKHSA report, because it appears the HES dataset now includes a release with data up to October 31, 2021. But for the time being what we have in the UKHSA report is data from January to the end of August, and in that timeframe only about 7% of women giving birth had been injected* with the COVID-19 Science juice. This gives us a total of 24,759 injected UK women giving birth in that timeframe (of which only 695 were injected in the first trimester) versus 329,158 not injected. Even in August, where the plurality of the injected numbers come from, only 22% of the women giving birth in that month had been injected.
To my mind, this is not enough data to establish a clear signal for 1-in-10,000 or 1-in-100,000 type risks which most intelligent risk assessors wanting to give birth to a healthy child might be interested in. (It does seem expectant mothers in the UK are somewhat intelligent risk assessors, as women expecting in August were injected at well below the two-dose “uptake” rate of 75% which the overall 45-and-under age group including men and non-expectant mothers had achieved by the end of August.)
Considering the UK data in isolation from the rest of the world, I don’t see any indication currently that anything is amiss, but at the same time there is so relatively little data on injected mothers giving birth that it seems unwise to draw firm conclusions. With another six months’ data through the end of February 2022 we will probably start to get a clearer picture.
*: The UKHSA report uses the word “vaccinated” and doesn’t clearly indicate whether this means “injected at least once” or “very Scientifically Protected according to the vaccine manufacturer’s definition” with all the doses and waiting periods that entails.