Covid vaccine TERMINATES 4 out of 5 pregnancies via “spontaneous abortions”

[BADecker]

More ways to depopulate. Now it's to never let the population start in the first place.


DEPOPULATION ALERT: Shocking new study reveals covid vaccine TERMINATES 4 out of 5 pregnancies via “spontaneous abortions”

A shocking new study published in the New England Journal of Medicine reveals that when pregnant women are given covid vaccinations during their first or second trimesters, they suffer an 82% spontaneous abortion rate, killing 4 out of 5 unborn babies.

This stunning finding, explained below, is self-evident from the data published in a new study entitled, "Preliminary Findings of mRNA Covid-19 Vaccine Safety in Pregnant Persons." Just as disturbing as the data is the fact that the study authors apparently sought to deliberately obfuscate the truth about vaccines causing spontaneous abortions by obfuscating numbers in their own calculations.

Originally brought to our attention by a Life Site News article, we checked with our own science contacts to review the data and double check all the math. In doing so, we were able to confirm two things:

Yes, the study shows an 82% rate of spontaneous abortions in expectant mothers given covid vaccines during their first or second trimesters.

Yes, the study authors either deliberately sought to hide this fact with dishonest obfuscation (explained below) or they are incompetent and made a glaring error that brings into question their credibility.

In other words, this study was almost certainly a cover-up to try to claim vaccinating pregnant women is perfectly safe. But the study data actually show quite the oppose.

...

[1714947039]

1714947039

[BADecker]

Here is what Covid and the pandemic is all about.

People, especially in the USA, seem to love abortions... killing their babies.

Covid and the vaccine is God's response. Kill the kids? You want that?

Why didn't you push your government to stop the abortions? Now you get it.

https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=Rand+Paul+on+the+Life+at+Conception+Act

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gbjk4BRd3e8

[Tash]

FDA know from the very beginning of the potential adverse reactions, due to the Vaccine.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1XTiL9rUpkg go to 2:33:40 change play speed to 0.25

[Gyfts]

I'm surprised that the article on that site linked to the actual journal entry, they usually don't!

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33882218/

Here's what the study says in conclusion:

Preliminary findings did not show obvious safety signals among pregnant persons who received mRNA Covid-19 vaccines. However, more longitudinal follow-up, including follow-up of large numbers of women vaccinated earlier in pregnancy, is necessary to inform maternal, pregnancy, and infant outcomes.

Bummer, not quite the 4 out of 5 terminations the article claims. So as with most things, the fringe news sites twist what the journal entry actually says. Another point, CDC recommends consulting your doctor before getting the shot if you're pregnant. The vaccine seems to be relatively safe on pregnant women, but the clinical trials didn't seem to have many pregnant women participating, so take the vaccine if you really need it. But, your baby's not going to die if you take the vaccine, no evidence to suggest so.

[Cnut237]

More ways to depopulate

If you understood how population change works, and the reasons behind it, then you'd understand that there is no need to devise an artificial mechanism to reduce population.

Besides, how does this fit with other conspiracy theories? I do agree to an extent that the rich and powerful manipulate and control the rest of us... but this has always been the case, and they always prefer to have more ordinary people to exploit, as this increases their wealth and power. I mean, going back to the days of slavery... someone who owns 100 slaves isn't going to come up with some secret plan to reduce his own slave population, is he?

[Mauser]

First time I am reading about this. That is insane, so many poor babys. How is this not being picked up by the main stream media? Such articles should be on the cover page of all the major news papers. And how is it that, the big pharma companies aren't liable for all the deaths? I would expect that many young mothers would sue the companies. The jury would easily side with the mother who just lost their child instead of the pharma companies.

[tvbcof]

First time I am reading about this. That is insane, so many poor babys. How is this not being picked up by the main stream media? Such articles should be on the cover page of all the major news papers. And how is it that, the big pharma companies aren't liable for all the deaths? I would expect that many young mothers would sue the companies. The jury would easily side with the mother who just lost their child instead of the pharma companies.

Lol!  Have you not been paying any attention at all?  The pharma companies have complete indemnity.  Getting sued is the least of their worries.

The agreement that Pfizer was working with Argentina had it so that Argentina's central bank reserves and military bases served as collateral to be forfeited to Pfizer if any Argentinian court at some point in the future found Pfizer was guilty of negligence.  Including criminal negligence!

These agreements are state secrets and covered by confidentiality clauses.  We know about Argentina because Argentina ultimately had enough and told Pfizer to shove off.  They don't use that gene therapy in that country.  And someone leaked some of the negotiation details.

I would say that if Pfizer is used in your country there is a good chance that your government has signed secret agreements with similar terms.  Probably most of the 'vaccines' come with similar terms, and especially if the country is not a wealthy or powerful one, and even more especially if your countries owe a lot of money to the IMF and World Bank and relies upon these institutions for funding.

https://childrenshealthdefense.org/defender/pfizer-demands-collateral-vaccine-injury-lawsuits/

[Cnut237]

How is this not being picked up by the main stream media?

It's weird, isn't it? Almost as if it's not true at all...

[tvbcof]

How is this not being picked up by the main stream media?

It's weird, isn't it? Almost as if it's not true at all...

Almost as if the chairman of the board of Reuters sits on on the board of Pfizer...

That's a little side tid-bit I picked out of quite a good interview with one of Dr. Robert Malone, although it's by no means the only example of such a thing in our corp/gov political system.  Ryan is and outstanding interviewer and it seems like the sane people welcome an opportunity to come on his show lately.  Dr. Malone clearly knows his shit.  I disagree with Malone and believe that there probably are a great many significant and deep 'conspiracies' around this whole scamdemic.  He seems to be in denial about that, or else he is clever enough to 'play normie' so that normies will have no real choice but to dis-agree with him in the other direction.

(I might add that a technique similar to that described above was one which the corp/gov establishment used to royally fuck the 'leftists' with regard to Trump...and to this day they don't have a clue what hit them.  They were only given idiotic things to hit Trump over the head with, and as a result a ton of thinking people walked away from 'the dems' in disgust.  Or even in some cases felt compelled to defend a person they detest simply because he was being attacked illegitimately.)

Anyway:  https://www.thelastamericanvagabond.com/dr-robert-malone-interview-inventor-of-mrna-technology-censored-for-speaking-out-on-vaccine-risks/

[Vatimins]

     This is exactly why as a patient, you should be honest with your doctor whatever the reason for your check up is. If you lie about anything, it can cause a lot of problems not only for you but for the people around you. This type of thing happens a lot here in my place where people do not tend to be honest when being consulted by the doctor either for vaccines or for other things. But still though, there is a chance that the patients that wanted to be vaccinated were deprived of the correct information regarding the vaccines that will be injected to them which is very alarming. So as a safety precaution, everyone should really do enough research about anything that they are about to put into their bodies and not rely solely on others.

[OgNasty]

4 out of 5 does seem unrealistically high as others have stated.  However, I think if the true numbers were known and it was a virus causing this and not a vaccine, we would be forced to shelter in place and wear masks to keep it from spreading.  Hell, we'd probably even be forced to take a vaccine.  See the irony?  Trump was right, the response is worse than the problem.  This is just one potential side effect.  Seriously sit and think about this for a minute.  With all the known side effects of the vaccine, if it were a virus and those were symptoms, you know everyone would be freaking out.  This is all fine though, because it's all part of the plan...

[just_Alice]

First time I am reading about this. That is insane, so many poor babys. How is this not being picked up by the main stream media? Such articles should be on the cover page of all the major news papers. And how is it that, the big pharma companies aren't liable for all the deaths? I would expect that many young mothers would sue the companies. The jury would easily side with the mother who just lost their child instead of the pharma companies.

Because it's all bs. Though mainstream media also posts bs news, this fake is too much trash even for them. Follow the link in the article and you will find no evidence there, nothing about 82% and 4 out of 5. It's just some sort of "evolution" for these stinky websites. They used to just put random info and expect people to believe that, now they're trying to look cool and provide links to the real studies, knowing that no one will go through the real article to check the validity of provided data.

Here is the full original article btw: https://www.nejm.org/doi/10.1056/NEJMoa2104983?url_ver=Z39.88-2003&rfr_id=ori%3Arid%3Acrossref.org&rfr_dat=cr_pub++0pubmed
 
That's where that table behind the link comes from, everything is fully explained here, and no dishonesty in presenting the findings. Interesting, if the study is so horrible and "dishonest", why didn't they provide the link for it, only to the abstract and used a picture of one particular table and went on with their own explanations, hmmm.

[nutildah]

4 out of 5 does seem unrealistically high as others have stated.  However, I think if the true numbers were known and it was a virus causing this and not a vaccine, we would be forced to shelter in place and wear masks to keep it from spreading.  Hell, we'd probably even be forced to take a vaccine.  See the irony?  Trump was right, the response is worse than the problem.  This is just one potential side effect.  Seriously sit and think about this for a minute.  With all the known side effects of the vaccine, if it were a virus and those were symptoms, you know everyone would be freaking out.  This is all fine though, because it's all part of the plan...

Aren't you the slightest bit ashamed spreading lies about a topic like this? BADecker is a disgrace and he's here to make bitcoiners look bad, but he's not a forum treasurer, so what are you doing exactly?

If you read the abstract you would have realized the study found no difference between vaccinated and unvaccinated mothers. It's right in the abstract. That's the "beginning" if you didn't know.

Although not directly comparable, calculated proportions of adverse pregnancy and neonatal outcomes in persons vaccinated against Covid-19 who had a completed pregnancy were similar to incidences reported in studies involving pregnant women that were conducted before the Covid-19 pandemic.

Let me break this down into simpler terms for you:

There is no statistical difference in rates of negative events during childbirth between vaccinated and unvaccinated mothers.

All I can say is thank god most people are smarter than this.

[kxwhalexk]

Aren't you the slightest bit ashamed spreading lies about a topic like this? BADecker is a disgrace and he's here to make bitcoiners look bad, but he's not a forum treasurer, so what are you doing exactly?

If you read the abstract you would have realized the study found no difference between vaccinated and unvaccinated mothers. It's right in the abstract. That's the "beginning" if you didn't know.

Of the 127 women who received the vaccine in the first three months or the second trimester, 104 had a spontaneous abortion before reaching 20 weeks of pregnancy. These are referred to as “Spontaneous abortions”in the table.

Using simple mathematics, 104 spontaneous abortions (in the first 20 weeks) were performed on 127 women who had been vaccinated in the first or second trimester of pregnancy, and the spontaneous abortion rate was calculated to be 82 per cent for those who had been vaccinated.

This is equivalent to saying that adolescents before the age of 18 have a 0% chance of suffering from Alzheimer’s. What a miraculous thing！！

I think OgNasty did not read carefully what OP mentioned.

[tvbcof]

...
If you read the abstract you would have realized the study found no difference between vaccinated and unvaccinated mothers. It's right in the abstract. That's the "beginning" if you didn't know.
...

Reminds me of a study I read before the scamdemic about giving premies the childhood vaccines 'on schedule for birth age'.  About a quarter of them needed mechanical resuscitation after the event so as not to die.

At least the babies in their incubators are protected against a disease like Hep-B which is only caught by having unprotected sex and sharing drug needles...which begs the question of what exactly are they doing in the NICU...

Anyway, reading the conclusions is where you find that the study finds 'no reason' to defer the vaccine schedule.  Publishers are well aware that it's the 'abstract' and the 'conclusion', and only these two,  which 99% of the readers will bother to read.

---

I would point out that losing 80% of pregnancies and the promotion of a procedure which results in this outcome are not necessarily inconsistent.  It just depends on what your goals are.

[nutildah]

Anyway, reading the conclusions is where you find that the study finds 'no reason' to defer the vaccine schedule.  

No, it doesn't say anything remotely close to that. Whatever study you're reading isn't the one that's being discussed here.

Publishers are well aware that it's the 'abstract' and the 'conclusion', and only these two,  which 99% of the readers will bother to read.

"Publishers" as in The New England Journal of Medicine? It is one of the oldest and most highly esteemed medical journal in the world, and their articles follow a rigid format for a reason.

I would point out that losing 80% of pregnancies and the promotion of a procedure which results in this outcome are not necessarily inconsistent.  It just depends on what your goals are.

Again, the study doesn't say that or anything remotely close to it.

[BADecker]

I'm surprised that the article on that site linked to the actual journal entry, they usually don't!

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33882218/

Here's what the study says in conclusion:

Preliminary findings did not show obvious safety signals among pregnant persons who received mRNA Covid-19 vaccines. However, more longitudinal follow-up, including follow-up of large numbers of women vaccinated earlier in pregnancy, is necessary to inform maternal, pregnancy, and infant outcomes.

Bummer, not quite the 4 out of 5 terminations the article claims. So as with most things, the fringe news sites twist what the journal entry actually says. Another point, CDC recommends consulting your doctor before getting the shot if you're pregnant. The vaccine seems to be relatively safe on pregnant women, but the clinical trials didn't seem to have many pregnant women participating, so take the vaccine if you really need it. But, your baby's not going to die if you take the vaccine, no evidence to suggest so.

Note that the conclusion - https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33882218/ - says "Preliminary findings..." Note that if you go to the link in that Pubmed site - https://www.nejm.org/doi/10.1056/NEJMoa2104983 (listed as DOI: 10.1056/NEJMoa2104983) - you will find that the preliminary findings in Pubmed are contradicted and explained. The explanation doesn't match what Pubmed said originally.

This is confirmed in the Pubmed site, linked to another site by the words "PMCID: PMC8117969" - https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8117969/.

Internal contradictions and mixups. Got a college education? You might be able to wade through the Pubmed mess. Otherwise, simply get it in straight, easy to read language from Natural News - https://www.naturalnews.com/2021-07-01-depopulation-alert-shocking-new-study-reveals-covid-vaccine-terminates-4-out-of-5-pregnancies-via-spontaneous-abortions.html#.

[tvbcof]

...
"Publishers" as in The New England Journal of Medicine? It is one of the oldest and most highly esteemed medical journal in the world, and their articles follow a rigid format for a reason. And that reason is its readers aren't exactly the caliber of slobbering clickbait tard that is standard for this section of the forum.
...

The scamdemic has exposed NEJM and Lancet for the frauds they are.

https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2020/06/two-elite-medical-journals-retract-coronavirus-papers-over-data-integrity-questions

They just publish fraudulent crap long enough for to give cover to corp/gov for a policy objective, then quietly retract it later when nobody is looking.  This instance is how the got hydroxycloroquine shut down and made sure there were no options before they rolled out the jabs.

[Gyfts]

I'm surprised that the article on that site linked to the actual journal entry, they usually don't!

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33882218/

Here's what the study says in conclusion:

Preliminary findings did not show obvious safety signals among pregnant persons who received mRNA Covid-19 vaccines. However, more longitudinal follow-up, including follow-up of large numbers of women vaccinated earlier in pregnancy, is necessary to inform maternal, pregnancy, and infant outcomes.

Bummer, not quite the 4 out of 5 terminations the article claims. So as with most things, the fringe news sites twist what the journal entry actually says. Another point, CDC recommends consulting your doctor before getting the shot if you're pregnant. The vaccine seems to be relatively safe on pregnant women, but the clinical trials didn't seem to have many pregnant women participating, so take the vaccine if you really need it. But, your baby's not going to die if you take the vaccine, no evidence to suggest so.

Note that the conclusion - https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33882218/ - says "Preliminary findings..." Note that if you go to the link in that Pubmed site - https://www.nejm.org/doi/10.1056/NEJMoa2104983 (listed as DOI: 10.1056/NEJMoa2104983) - you will find that the preliminary findings in Pubmed are contradicted and explained. The explanation doesn't match what Pubmed said originally.

This is confirmed in the Pubmed site, linked to another site by the words "PMCID: PMC8117969" - https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8117969/.

Internal contradictions and mixups. Got a college education? You might be able to wade through the Pubmed mess. Otherwise, simply get it in straight, easy to read language from Natural News - https://www.naturalnews.com/2021-07-01-depopulation-alert-shocking-new-study-reveals-covid-vaccine-terminates-4-out-of-5-pregnancies-via-spontaneous-abortions.html#.

Hmm, so I might pass on reading Natural News, for reasons.


But Pubmed is just a database of published research literature, it's not meant to be an authoritative source on anything. You can find wacky publications on any topic, even many with flawed methodology. I see the same conclusions in the original article that I linked and the article you linked from the New England Journal of medicine. Both said there isn't any obvious evidence that Covid's mRNA vaccine showed any safety concern to pregnant women.

Again, any pregnant women needs to consult their doctor before taking a vaccine, doesn't mean the Covid vaccine's gonna kill their child. Study says there needs to be more research into the matter regardless. So even if you do think the vaccine's not safe for pregnant women, you can't use this research article without the caveat that we need more studies.

[Gyfts]

How about he can't use this research article because it concludes the opposite of what he wants to say?

That too.