Stop sharing nonsense about the jab and dead babies
Ninety-seven per cent of vaxxed pregnancies are not ending in miscarriage – and repeating such only undermines credible concerns about vaccine safety
By Adam Edwards
IF YOU want to discover the truth, anecdotal evidence is often a good place to start. That is how many of us knew the Covid threat was being overhyped.
I, for example, did not know a single person who had died either “of” or “with” Covid in the whole of 2020. Nobody at the supermarket where I worked had had so much as a sniffle. And everyone I knew with connections to the NHS said the hospitals were empty and the staff bored.
Of course some people did catch Covid, some hospitals did get busy (ish) and many sadly did succumb. But the statics now prove the health service was never close to collapse and we have not just survived a mass die-off, no matter whether you label every death “with Covid” or not.
By the same token, it is now widely accepted that the jabs are not "100 per cent safe and effective” and people's anecdotal evidence that you could not only still get sick from Covid despite getting jabbed, but might also end up with clots or a heart condition was, again, a pretty good bellwether.
REF: UK HSA COVID-19 vaccine surveillance report - Week 19 (12 May 2022): SOURCE
That is why I know there are not maternity units full of dead babies, as some reports suggest.
I know plenty of people who have had babies since the jab rollout and I'm pretty certain most, if not all, of them are “fully vaccinated”.
This is why I'm so disheartened by people spreading what are clearly nonsense stories suggesting nobody vaccinated can have a baby.
This week, the story was of a London hospital that, it is claimed, saw a nine-fold increase in stillbirths in 2021; the graph even misspelled the word stillbirth.
Previously, people have leaped on a report released by the FDA about adverse reactions, to falsely claim that up 97 per cent of women vaccinated with the Pfizer jab lost their babies.
What the stories fail to mention is that most of the 270 vaccinated women never recorded the outcome of their pregnancies. Of the 34 who did, 28 tragically lost the foetus or suffered a neonatal death.
Of course, we should be able to ask why more than 10 per cent of the women mentioned in the report lost their baby and whether this is a statistically significant figure, based on the women's ages and medical history if, indeed, that is known.
Likewise, we should be asking why some people are purposely misrepresenting such statistics – and why?
The obvious answer (and the one being offered by the Big Pharma-owned “fact checkers”) is that they are being spread by so-called “anti-vaxxers” (whatever this actually means). It could be true.
The opposite may also be likely. Indeed, what better way to discredit your opponent than to propagate nonsense stories that you know they will run with – and discredit themselves with in the process.
And that is what people who share these stories are doing.
They are discrediting the very real stories of vaccine damage reported by millions of people.
What is worse, they are using the same tactic – hyperbole – that the mainstream media used when it belittled the deaths of those genuinely killed by Covid by knowingly miscategorising those who did not.
The truth is some women may have lost babies because of the vaccine, just as other women may be struggling to conceive.
But sadly no one will believe them if others cry wolf.
Adam Edwards is a British journalist and editor of NewsAfrica Magazine.
News Uncut says: Trying to figure out vaccine status of pregnant women and then seeing how many miscarriages and stillbirths there were is difficult to track down. UK ONS claim they don’t have that level of breakdown: Freedom of Information Request
Disinfo agents have long run amok in the truth community with the purpose of discrediting real concerns. Cointelpro has allegedly ended long ago, but the methods and tactics are still very much in use. Doesnt help that the majority only read headlines and an equally large majority couldnt properly analyze data if their lives depended on it.
Please cite a handful of the most-damaging reports that you believe are so far from the unstudied truth that they bring into disrepute those campaigning to wake people up to the wider global deception.
I agree that misrepresenting the risks of injury & death damages the credibility of those opposing the perpetrators’ plans.
However, I would say that, if those of us on this side are guilty of anything, it is to have pulled our punches almost all the time.
I despair at how uncommon it is that a critical review makes the claim that it’s being done on purpose, that we’ve been told things which aren’t true are lies & that it’s impossible for example for any of the c19 vaccines have completed an appropriate package of non-clinical & clinical tests (there’s been far too little time; the regulatory filings are appallingly skinny & those who understand the complexity of process R&D are certain that their award of EUAs is strong evidence of fraud).
When there’s error, I believe it’s that critics of policy have been far too cautious.
Please also note that some rather extreme views about what % of c19 vaccinated people will die have been attributed to me. To be clear, I have never made any prediction of this. We’ve no proper basis to make a prediction.