For those enquiring about whether hospital episode statistics confirm an increase in miscarriages... the data is early.
NHS data only goes up to March 2022.
It's massively confounded but read on.
Here is "bleeding in early pregnancy" (O20)
7-sigma increase
NHS episode statistic 2017-2022:
"Maternal care for fetal problems"
ICD code O36. 4.7 sigma increase
There are others, e.g. diabetes (7.1 sigma increase)
But there are two codes which behave very oddly, that based on the other codes you would expect a rise but are either the same or lower number of episodes.
There is an explanation so hold on...
Here is "spontaneous abortion" aka miscarriage.
The miscarriages are higher than the previous year (when there were more pregnancies) but lower than the previous years.
What's going on?
Why did miscarriages fall so dramatically in 2020?
The clue lies in O04 - complications of induced abortion. These *halved* suddenly in 2020. Why?
In 2020, the same NHS who told you to stay at home if you had pneumonia also told you to keep out of the hospital for your abortion.
Where abortion care moved to the community it did not generate a hospital episode, so the number of hospital episodes went down.
Good luck getting the information on miscarriage numbers outside of hospital since 2020. Conveniently the ONS "do not hold this information" ons.gov.uk/aboutus/transp…
So all we can say is that under the likely same circumstances, hospital managed miscarriages are 5% up on the previous year, and we do not know how many were managed in the community.
We can try and adjust for the drop in 2020 which would look a bit like this...
What we can say though is that many of the complications of #pregnancy that must be managed in hospital, such as ectopic pregnancy, have increases that are unprecedented (7-sigma).
Despite a drop in birth numbers.
That's a massive safety signal.
And remember that most of the COVID vaccinations given in pregnancy were in the 2nd-3rd trimester, where they don't influence miscarriage rates.
A *doubling* of the miscarriage rate from 10% to 20% in 10% of pregnancies would give a graph that looked something like...
Yep.
And even without adjusting for community cases, if 5% of women received a COVID vaccine in the first trimester and the miscarriage rate doubled from 5% to 10% you would get a 5% rise from the previous year's numbers.
Exactly the figure seen (see ALT text for calculation)
Source for the above all taken from NHS digital hospital admitted care activity:
Recently released Australian Road Deaths data confirm that the @epiphare study claiming that COVID vaccination reduced road deaths by 32% was, as suspected, a complete fake.
Here are the actual road deaths data plotted from the Australian BITRE data repository using a trendline for 2000-2019 (excluding 2020 as it was a quiet year)
The pink area shows the inflection and increase in road deaths over the predicted number.
Note that road deaths have a downward trend despite an increase in population (due to safety measures and slowing of traffic).
So the question becomes...
"what is the probability that - if the @epiphare study was real (showing a 32% reduction in road deaths after vaccination) - the Australian road deaths (where nearly 100% of the adult population was vaccinated) would increase by 36%"?
Debbie's tweet was about her case against @HHSGov when her son developed Type 1 Diabetes after a routine vaccine, when he had a negative glucose test prior.
So it was clearly vaccine linked, but her case was denied.
Not only was the case denied (despite clear evidence of a new diagnosis immediately after vaccination) but the case was used by the "judge" to essentially ban ANY further cases that alleged a link between new diabetes and a routine vaccine.
I'll say it again. The vaccine industry [KNOWINGLY] hijacked cell pathways that cause cancer in order to induce antibody responses so that they can claim that their product "worked" by demonstrating those antibodies - even if they offered zero protection.
To explain, when you induce an immune response you have an immune debt to pay. You can't just keep creating an immune response - or, as in the case of cancer, you will die.
A vaccine creates an artificial immune response...
Which might be fine if it was done every now and again. But what they didn't tell you was that the human body will not respond to an injected antigen alone. It will ignore it (thankfully) and the generic immune system will mop it up, no antibodies required.
Just putting this into context. @DrCatharineY was originally DOD then published on a DARPA grant. One of her few co-authors is Stephanie Petzing of the "Center for Global Health Engagement"
All one big OneHealth family to nudge you into believing this @epiphare slop is real.
For the explanation as to why these "real world data" with "data not available" publications are absolutely junk and shouldn't be accepted to any major journal please see arkmedic.info/p/pharma-hell-…
Dr Young (DARPA/DOD) is clearly now working as an ambassador to cover for the actions of the corrupt Biden regime who we are learning covered up huge amounts of adverse events from their COVID program whilst funding pharma in the "cancer moonshot"
It looks like we found our vector.
They moved from spraying live (cloned) viruses to putting them in drinking water.. which we thought wasn't possible due to chlorine.
Well, it turns out that it is, if you use a stabiliser.
The @NIH told us that they stopped funding GOFROC research but they clearly didn't.
This is a modified live virus. That is, they took a pathogenic influenza and genetically modified it and propagated it using infectious clones (reverse genetics). nature.com/articles/s4154…
"MLVs were diluted in distilled water containing Vac-Pac Plus (Best Veterinary 418 Solutions, Columbus, GA, USA) to neutralize residual chlorine and adjust the pH"