TruthArchive.ai - Related Video Feed

The FDA, NIH, and CDC recommended vaccinating pregnant women at any time, leading to a rise in maternal mortality. A recent paper showed a concerning increase in maternal deaths in the US, erasing decades of progress in obstetrics. Pregnant women are dying with no mention of COVID or vaccines in the report. This alarming trend should be a cause for concern for everyone.

The COVID-19 vaccines are safe and effective for pregnant women, with no impact on fertility. Clinical trials did not initially include pregnant women, but there is no biological reason for concern. Data shows that antibodies are passed through breast milk to infants. Health organizations like Health Canada and the FDA recommend vaccination for pregnant women to protect themselves and their babies. There is no evidence of negative effects on fertility or pregnancy outcomes from the vaccines.

The COVID-19 vaccines are safe and effective for pregnant women, with no impact on fertility. Clinical trials did not initially include pregnant women, but there is no biological reason for concern. Data shows antibodies are passed through breast milk. Health authorities worldwide recommend vaccination for pregnant individuals to protect themselves and their babies. There is no evidence of negative effects on fertility or pregnancy outcomes from the vaccines.

The CDC recommended increasing flu shot coverage for babies and pregnant women, despite evidence suggesting it could be harmful to fetuses. The flu shots contained thimerosal, a mercury-based preservative. The CDC's decision was criticized because mercury exposure during pregnancy can have catastrophic effects. Some doctors and patients questioned the safety of the flu shot, especially for pregnant women. Studies showed that thimerosal increased the abortion rate in animals, and it was found to be more toxic to males than females. A woman shared her personal experience of suffering a miscarriage and having her daughter diagnosed with severe autism after receiving a flu shot while pregnant. The government agencies involved defended their recommendations, but some people doubted their credibility.

Vaccine recommendations typically come from the Advisory Committee of Immunization Practices (an outside consulting committee at CDC) and VRBPAC (within FDA), which recommends vaccine licensure. These committees only adopted evidence-based medicine about twelve years ago. The speaker states that during their administration, they want safety studies prior to vaccine licensure and recommendation. They claim vaccines are exempt from pre-licensing safety testing, and the COVID vaccine was the only one tested in a full placebo trial. They assert that the other 76 shots children receive between birth and 18 have not been safety tested against a placebo, meaning the risk profile is not understood. The speaker intends to remedy this.

The CDC recommended increasing flu shot coverage for babies and pregnant women, despite evidence suggesting that fetal exposure to mercury is harmful. The FDA advised pregnant women not to consume mercury-containing fish, making it contradictory to recommend thimerosal-containing vaccines. Flu shots have never been tested on pregnant women, and the manufacturer's product insert states that it is unknown whether the vaccine can cause harm to fetuses. Animal studies have shown that thimerosal increases the abortion rate. Thimerosal is also more toxic to males than females. A woman's personal experience with a flu shot resulted in a miscarriage and her daughter being diagnosed with severe autism. Despite these concerns, the government agencies insist on getting vaccinated.

We found that the FDA lied about a maternal rat study that was testing the safety of mandating a vaccine to pregnant women. In every litter, individual pups had horrible bone deformities. This signal was extremely prominent. Moderna submitted the rat study, as they were required to do. The FDA then lied about the study results by claiming there were no problems. It was a huge enterprise in lying.

Doctors administered untested gene therapy to infants, toddlers, and pregnant women, claiming it was safe. However, the mRNA jab was deemed the most dangerous medical product for pregnant individuals. Traditional medical principles were disregarded, including giving experimental drugs to pregnant patients and assuming any death or injury post-intervention was related. Regulatory authorities worldwide dismissed adverse events as unrelated until proven otherwise, leading to disastrous consequences.

Despite it being treated as an obligation to do so, physicians reportedly do not know these facts. The speaker expresses strong frustration about the situation. The speaker cites a famous medical journal, the New England Journal of Medicine, describing a study of vaccine researchers and stating that “the 12.6 percent user rate” was reported, and that the paper claimed there was no problem with the vaccine based on that figure. Using that paper as a basis, the San Fujikawa Society or a similarly named organization promoted vaccination for pregnant women. However, the actual content of the data is described as follows: of 827 people, 700 were in the late stage of pregnancy, and 127 were in the early stage (first trimester). For the subgroup limited to those under 20 weeks’ gestation, i.e., the 127 individuals, the reported miscarriage rate was 82 percent. From this, the speaker argues that the vaccine is dangerous, given the result for the early-stage group. It is claimed that the data were hidden or obscured, and that the later report combined the late-pregnancy group of 700 with the early-pregnancy group of 127 to produce a 12.6 percent miscarriage rate, which was then published. The speaker concludes that even a major medical journal could be influenced by external financial pressures, resulting in biased reporting that supports the other side’s interests.

Clinical trials for the COVID-19 vaccine didn't include pregnant women initially, but there's no biological reason the vaccine wouldn't be effective and safe during pregnancy. The National Advisory Committee on Immunization recommends vaccination for pregnant individuals. Data supports that COVID-19 vaccines are safe and effective in pregnancy, and protective antibodies are transmitted through breast milk to the infant. The vaccines do not affect fertility in women or men, and there's no way they can. There's no reason to worry about impacts on fertility from the COVID-19 vaccines, theoretically or based on over a year's worth of data. Good safety data exists for vaccines in pregnancy, with no reason to believe there will be concerns related to pregnancy. The vaccine is safe, tested, and recommended by the World Health Organization and the FDA for pregnant women for their own protection and the safety of their loved ones.

We couldn't find any prelicensing safety trials for the 72 vaccines doses that are recommended for American children. Unlike other medications, vaccines were exempt from conducting safety trials that compare health outcomes between a placebo group and a vaccine group. This lack of safety trials is concerning considering the widespread use of these vaccines.

Speaker 0 explains that even the obstetrics and gynecology association has reportedly pushed to vaccinate pregnant women as a duty, but doctors are the ones who do not know the facts. They reference a highly regarded medical journal, the New England Journal of Medicine, which published a study claiming a 12.6 percent user rate for the vaccine’s research results. Based on that paper, the 三 富 士 川 学 会 then attempted to vaccinate pregnant women. In reality, among the 827 individuals involved, 700 were in the postpartum period, 127 were in the antepartum period, and initial data were from that group. Specifically, for the group limited to those under twenty weeks (twenty weeks or less), which is 127 people, the miscarriage rate was 82 percent. Therefore, the argument is that, going forward, one can see how dangerous the vaccine is from those numbers. The speaker contends that data were hidden and later mixed into the 700-person postpartum group, yielding a miscarriage rate of 12.6 percent. Because of this, the claim is that even a leading medical journal has been influenced by money to publish such conclusions. Overall, the points presented are: - The obstetrics field is described as advocating vaccination of pregnant women as a duty, while physicians allegedly lack awareness of the underlying facts. - The NEJM published a study deemed to show a 12.6 percent user rate, which the speaker implies is problematic. - The 三 富 士 川 学 会 vaccinated pregnant women, but the data show that among 127 women under twenty weeks, the miscarriage rate was 82 percent. - The speaker asserts that this information was hidden and later combined with data from the 700 postpartum cases to produce a 12.6 percent miscarriage rate. - The implication is that even a top medical journal can be swayed by financial influence, resulting in biased reporting.

We couldn't find a prelicensing safety trial for any of the 72 vaccines doses recommended for American children. Unlike other medications, vaccines were exempt from conducting safety trials that compare health outcomes between a placebo group and a vaccine group.

A clinical trial had an age cutoff, likely around 14, and initially excluded pregnant women due to safety concerns. However, many pregnant women received the vaccine unknowingly, showing no adverse effects. It was argued that young women in healthcare should have access to the vaccine, as it appeared safe. Despite resistance from regulators who insisted on a traditional double-blind trial, it was pointed out that data from millions of vaccinated individuals was more compelling than a smaller trial. After extensive discussions, the regulators ultimately agreed to approve the vaccine for pregnant women.

Children and pregnant women were used as shields to protect the elderly, which was a violation of human ethics. Despite pregnant women being excluded from randomized trials, thousands of them were vaccinated when the vaccine program started in the United States. The maternal mortality rate in the country reached an all-time high, with women dying while pregnant or within 42 days after giving birth. The CDC reported that 65% of women who had a baby in the United States received a vaccine either before or during their pregnancy.

The speaker claims the pertussis vaccine, recommended for pregnant women and family members to protect newborns, does not prevent infection or transmission. They state the pertussis vaccine is combined with tetanus and diphtheria, and now pregnant women are also urged to get the COVID and RSV vaccines, and sometimes hepatitis B, bringing the total to seven. The speaker asserts that none of these vaccines have been tested for safety on pregnant women and their fetuses.

The speaker states they searched for years for a pre-licensing safety trial of the 72 vaccine doses effectively mandated for American children. They claim that every other medication requires a safety trial comparing health outcomes in a placebo group versus a vaccine group before FDA licensing. The speaker assumed this was also done for vaccines. They state they found out that vaccines were exempt from this requirement.

The speaker says that even for obstetrics and gynecology societies, vaccination during pregnancy has been pursued as a duty, but physicians do not know the actual facts. They reference the New England Journal of Medicine, a famous medical journal, where a study of a vaccine’s adverse outcomes claimed that the user rate was 12.6%. Based on that paper, the Sanpeshikawa (Sanbushikawa) Association reportedly promoted vaccination for pregnant women as well. In reality, the data were as follows: of 827 people, 700 were in late pregnancy, and 127 were in the early stages (first trimester). When restricting to the 127 people who were under 20 weeks, the usage rate was 82%. Therefore, the speaker argues that this data reveals how dangerous the vaccine is, and that the data were hidden and mixed with high-profile 700-person data to produce the 12.6% miscarriage rate that was published. This is presented as evidence of a situation where even in medical journals, information was handled to favor the other side due to money and other influences.

Excitement surrounds the discussion of Pfizer's top-selling drugs as of 2019, which includes four medications and one vaccine. The clinical trials for these drugs involved long-term safety follow-ups, often lasting several years with placebo control groups to assess various health impacts. In contrast, the vaccine Prevnar had only a six-month safety review, using another vaccine as a control rather than a true placebo. This raises concerns about the thoroughness of safety evaluations for childhood vaccines, which are administered multiple times in the first six months of life. The disparity in study lengths suggests that economic interests may drive pharmaceutical companies to minimize safety testing to expedite market entry, raising questions about regulatory oversight.

Vaccines have never undergone true placebo controlled trials, unlike other medical products. The DTP vaccine was pulled due to numerous lawsuits against drug companies, including Pfizer. In 1986, Pfizer asked the Reagan administration for immunity from liability, as they were losing more money in downstream liability than they were making in profits. Reagan suggested making vaccines safer, but Pfizer claimed they were unavoidably unsafe, a phrase now in the statute and upheld by the Supreme Court. The industry convinced the president and congress that vaccines are unavoidably unsafe, despite claims of their safety and effectiveness.

For pregnant people who are at higher risk of severe illness from COVID-nineteen, we are strengthening our guidance and recommending that all pregnant people or people thinking about becoming pregnant get vaccinated. We now have new data that reaffirm the safety of our vaccines for people who are pregnant, including those early in pregnancy and around the time of conception. These data build on previous evidence from three safety monitoring systems that did not find any safety concerns for pregnant people who were vaccinated late in pregnancy or for their babies. Now, these new data found no increase in the risk for miscarriage among people who received an mRNA COVID-nineteen vaccine before twenty weeks of pregnancy. Clinicians have seen the number of pregnant people infected with COVID-nineteen rise in the past several weeks. The increased circulation of the highly contagious Delta variant, the general low vaccine uptake among pregnant people, and the increased risk of severe illness and pregnancy complications related to COVID-nineteen infection among pregnant people make vaccination for this population more urgent than ever.

Pregnant women who received COVID-19 shots experienced concerning effects, according to maternal fetal medicine expert Dr. Against Thorpe. The shots quickly spread throughout the body, crossing barriers like the placenta and blood-brain barriers in both the mother and fetus. Compared to the flu vaccine, COVID-19 shots led to more adverse events in women of reproductive age. Data showed a 27-fold higher risk of miscarriage and over twice the risk of negative fetal outcomes across six categories. Additionally, birth rates in several European countries dropped significantly after widespread COVID-19 vaccination. As a result, researchers are urging the immediate suspension of COVID-19 vaccination for individuals of childbearing and reproductive age.

None of the vaccines, including the COVID vaccine, have undergone proper testing. No childhood vaccine has completed a placebo-controlled clinical trial with sufficient duration and power to confirm its safety before being administered to millions of children in America. This is not an opinion; it can be verified by anyone visiting the FDA website, where the package inserts and clinical trial documents are available for review.

Doctors at the Federal Communicable Disease Center acknowledge that the flu vaccine and its recommended dosage are ineffective; in a larger dose, it can be harmful. Nevertheless, the flu vaccine is still recommended for older people and the chronically ill. A senate subcommittee headed by Abraham Rebikoff charged that the federal government wasn’t doing a good enough job of informing the public about ineffective vaccines. Scientists at the Division of Biologic Standards test vaccines for potency and safety before licensing them for public use. However, the division does not determine the effectiveness of the vaccine. That is left to the manufacturers. A case in point is the influenza vaccine. Four scientists in charge of work on the flu vaccine during the 1960s found it to be ineffective, and they refused to give it to their own families. Two were transferred to other work, a third left the division, and over the entire ten-year period, not one word of their unfavorable findings was allowed to be published. But a more serious case involving the relationship between the leaders of the division and their scientists involves the adenovirus vaccine, a vaccine given to thousands of American soldiers to prevent certain cold-like symptoms. When it was shown that the vaccine contained a contaminant which caused cancer in laboratory animals, it was taken off the market. But that was three years after the division’s own scientists had pointed out the danger. Doctor Murray justifies the use of the vaccine by saying it took three years to examine the evidence against it. "It is more important to use the vaccines than to take them off the market and remove the agent." "It is more important to use the vaccines" "than to take them off the market" "and to remove the agent." Thus, for three years, American troops were injected with a cold-preventing vaccine, which was causing cancer in laboratory animals. And some of the division’s scientists who charged they were prevented from publishing results of experiments which show some of the vaccines to be ineffective. "It's the control officer in 1960 who has grave doubts about the potency of influenza vaccine. These doubts were made known to the director of the division and through the proper channels."

On COVID, there's a perception that credit isn't given where it's due. While the vaccines were developed quickly, they don't prevent infection or transmission and may have serious side effects. In hindsight, would anything be done differently? Studies on the vaccines are ongoing, and results will emerge over time. It's important to note that Pfizer marketed its vaccine as safe for pregnant women, but reports indicated that over half of the 458 pregnant women who received the vaccine experienced adverse events. The ongoing studies will help clarify these concerns.