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/transpβ¦
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:
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-β¦
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/s4154β¦
"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"
There are a lot of pharma agents celebrating on twitter recently because the now-conflicted @cochranecollab dropped their standards and published something on HPV vaccination they didn't understand.
To explain it you need to understand the difference between the two studies quoted.
The first (Bergman) analysed a bunch of real studies (including RCTs) and concluded that the effect on cancer couldn't be seen - despite nearly 20 years of follow up.
The second (Henschke) cherry picked a bunch of "real world data" studies and concluded that the vaccine prevented a gazillion cervical cancers, pretending that it analysed 132 million patient records. It did nothing of the sort. What it did was look at two studies, take out the bit where it showed that the vaccine increased the risk of cancer (Kjaer 2021, over 20s) - replicated in multiple country statistics, split them into three studies, ignore the other studies showing the opposite, and ignore the fact that none of this data is verifiable.
Notably, one of the major studies (Palmer 2024, which was found to be seriously flawed) has been excluded from the meta-analysis because it did not show a cancer benefit in the under 16 age group.
It is very difficult to "fix" a randomised controlled trial.
It is very easy to "fix" a meta-analysis of observational studies where the data is "not available".
There is a huge difference between "real" studies and "real world data" studies because the latter are cherry picked or even fully synthetic, and the authors don't have access to the data. They are produced by vested interests groups to sell a narrative.
This was the most corrupted review that Cochrane have ever performed and this time they shot themselves in the foot by contradicting their own reviews. cochranelibrary.com/cdsr/doi/10.10β¦
your childish insults drew my attention to your lab's quite incredible paper confirming that chronic activation of cGAS-STING, as happens with plasmid-contaminated vaccines, causes cancer.
Retraction Watch busted for collusion with Rolf Marschalek, who is not only part of BioNtech's Goethe university..
but - get this - their Corona fund was pump primed by the Quandt family - infamous for their role in Nazi Germany.
The dude keeps going, but betrays that this is a copycat to a bunch of accounts linked to one dubbed "Penguin" that only appeared when I pointed out the Joe Sansone scam that is being coordinated by Sasha Latypova to derail legal cases.