According to CDC, 'people' can get pregnant and should be injected with COVID shots
For a limited time only! As of November 7th, 2023, who knows...
I have been digging a bit into the reports in VAERS of “Maternal exposure during pregnancy” and “Exposure during pregnancy” to see what the rates of miscarriage are when comparing the COVID shots to others. Along the way, when searching for information (according to the mighty and all-knowing CDC) about injection rates in pregnant women using the Brave browser, I located a tab called “New CDC Data: COVID-19 Vaccination Safe for Pregnant People | C…” on the official CDC website. So I clicked.
I was promptly disappointed when I found an ‘Oops!’ message. They are really considerate about making sure that this ‘Oops!’ message is understandable in any language, however. How very multicultural.
Looks like maybe pregnant ‘people’ aren’t able to find out if the CDC recommends their COVID shots anymore.
Luckily, I’ve become even more annoying in my persistence and lines of questioning when it comes to missing data and information - since so much goes missing without a reason. I used the Wayback Machine to find out how long ago it was that infinite wisdom had been imparted on this CDC webpage, as opposed to an ‘Oops!’ message. I want the wisdom.
The most recent screenshot someone took of this webpage on their website was taken on November 7, 2023 (at 17:07:33) and it confirms the ‘Oops!’ message according to the Wayback Machine.
Another screenshot was taken the previous day (November 6, 2023 at 16:00:54), so I wondered, did their website switch from imparting wisdom on pregnant ‘people’ instead of simply an ‘Oops!’ message just one day prior?
Welly well well. According to the Wayback Machine, it turns out it was literally the previous day that wisdom was in fact still being imparted to the public on their website. Geez! Missed it by one day!
Sometime between November 6, 2023 and November 7, 2023, the website was changed to return the following ‘information’ as opposed to an ‘Oops!’ message.
So what wisdom had been being imparted to pregnant ‘people’?
Well first of all, CDC is imparting a message that ‘people’ can get pregnant. I am sorry, I must ask, how can the CDC be the resounding authority on health and wellness advice when they are promoting that anyone other than WOMEN can get pregnant?
Medical professionals, I ask you, do you honestly believe, after all your years in medical school, after all of your training in human anatomy and physiology, that anyone other than a female of the human species could get pregnant? And if not, then why would you take advice from an organization that doesn’t explicitly recognize that only WOMEN can get pregnant by explicitly writing pregnant WOMEN in reference to who can get pregnant and who should be injected on an official webpage?
And what of the body of the content?
You’ll notice that this wisdom was imparted as part of a Media Statement issued on Wednesday, August 11, 2021 when Walensky was director of the CDC. She stated:
“CDC encourages all pregnant people or people who are thinking about becoming pregnant and those breastfeeding to get vaccinated to protect themselves from COVID-19,” said CDC Director Dr. Rochelle Walensky. “The vaccines are safe and effective, and it has never been more urgent to increase vaccinations as we face the highly transmissible Delta variant and see severe outcomes from COVID-19 among unvaccinated pregnant people.”
This statement is twisted and fallable in so many ways. Here’s a list of things that stood out for me:
pregnant ‘people’ - get injected
thinking about getting pregnant - get injected
breastfeeding - get injected - why?
safe and effective - this has been completely debunked
urgent - fear mongering - there was never an emergency
increase vaccinations - why so fervent about getting everyone injected?
highly transmissible Delta variant - the shots don’t stop transmission - “They wouldn’t have been expected to generate sterilising immunity and block transmission.”1
On point 3., breastfeeding is a way to pass shot contents onto newborns, by the way, as per the peer-reviewed literature.23
Safety data, unblinded trials and COVID-19 products in breast-feeding mothers, infants and pregnant women in the United States
Reminder of relevant papers: Detection of Messenger RNA COVID-19 Vaccines in Human Breast Milk published by Hanna Nazeeh et al. in JAMA in 2022 Biodistribution of mRNA COVID-19 vaccines in human breast milk published by Hanna Nazeeh et al. in eBiomedicine (The Lancet) in 2023
What other wisdom can we no longer have access to?
Previously, data from three safety monitoring systems did not find any safety concerns for pregnant people who were vaccinated late in pregnancy or for their babies. Combined, these data and the known severe risks of COVID-19 during pregnancy demonstrate that the benefits of receiving a COVID-19 vaccine for pregnant people outweigh any known or potential risks.
Weirdly, the link in this quote takes one directly to an archived page. They claim that there were no safety signals in the context of pregnant WOMEN who were injected late in pregnancy. Ok. What about women who were injected early, or who got pregnant just after an injection?
There are MedDRA codes for maternal and paternal exposure to pregnancy as per VAERS and there are indeed 588 reports of exposure just prior to announcement of pregnancy whereby 32% experienced and reported a miscarriage.
One last thing. They wrote:
A new CDC analysis of current data from the v-safe pregnancy registry assessed vaccination early in pregnancy and did not find an increased risk of miscarriage among nearly 2,500 pregnant women who received an mRNA COVID-19 vaccine before 20 weeks of pregnancy. Miscarriage typically occurs in about 11-16% of pregnancies, and this study found miscarriage rates after receiving a COVID-19 vaccine were around 13%, similar to the expected rate of miscarriage in the general population.
Miscarriages happen in women about 13.5% of the time and these guys say that the miscarriage rate was 13% in the context of the ‘COVID-19’ shots, so no increase due to modified mRNA shots. But again, I don’t trust these guys and I don’t think they should be the ones doing the studies concerning the risk of these shots because they are promoting them: they have no incentive to NOT promote their ‘safety’.
According to VAERS reports, and remember, VAERS is under reported, 32% of the women who reported exposure (or who’s male partner experienced exposure) to the COVID shots experienced a miscarriage.
32%
Also according to VAERS, miscarriage rates are much higher when comparing influenza shots and COVID shots for 2020 and 2021 per million doses, respectively, in women who were exposed during pregnancy. There were 2.6 times as many COVID shots doled out than flu shots, but a 30 times higher rate of miscarriage in exposed women per million doses.
Kind of makes you think, doesn’t it?
Backtracking on websites by substituting in the word ‘Oops!’ for bad and potentially harmful advices, is not a good optic. I believe that a much better strategy to promote PUBLIC TRUST and perhaps even to reduce vaccine hesitancy (if that is your goal) would be to be honest and transparent. People are not stupid and we are also not animals to be herded.
Please treat humans - your fellow humans - (and all living beings) with respect and dignity, or you just might find that you have a problem on your hands. Mutiny happens for a reason, after all.
Stokel-Walker C. What do we know about covid vaccines and preventing transmission? BMJ 2022; 376 :o298 doi:10.1136/bmj.o298
Hanna N, Heffes-Doon A, Lin X, et al. Detection of Messenger RNA COVID-19 Vaccines in Human Breast Milk. JAMA Pediatr. 2022;176(12):1268–1270. doi:10.1001/jamapediatrics.2022.3581
Hanna N, De Mejia CM, Heffes-Doon A, Lin X, Botros B, Gurzenda E, Clauss-Pascarelli C, Nayak A. Biodistribution of mRNA COVID-19 vaccines in human breast milk. EBioMedicine. 2023 Sep 19;96:104800. doi: 10.1016/j.ebiom.2023.104800. Epub ahead of print. PMID: 37734205; PMCID: PMC10514401
try it by typing "pregnant people cdc vaccinated new data" into Brave browser
This „person” thing is really interesting. Until recently, it used to be widely used for legal persons (as if you were illegal) or incorporated entities (and you thought that movies about aliens snatching human bodies were fiction). December 2019 marked the beginning of reframing commonly used concepts. Along with “dying from” and “dying with” new classification of disease vs. not important disease, “asymptomatic” changing the meaning of the a- prefix to “not yet diagnosed with PCR”, persons finally became the eye of the psyclone.
Check the etymology (https://www.etymonline.com/word/per-), and you will find that the prescribed meaning of “pre-“ is “through” or “entirely”. “Son” is obvious, despite weird explanations of language “scientists” turning it into “sound”. Thus, when you weld per and son, you get “through the son”, a concept common in all major tribes, marking the importance of heirdom through the male bloodline. This may have a side meaning of restoring the “natural” order of importance of women in the society, when they had the freedom of taking care of the household (and a huge advantage of being exempt from taxation, a major glitch finally recognized by overlords and corrected with feminism movements which ultimately imposed taxes on women who came to be accepted as employees).
In this context, a pregnant person would mean anyone who comes through the son and has an important role to play (like in “a pregnant statement”). Strange, for sure, but not stranger than “tracking and tracing” innocent people for their pre-crime capacity to spread dis-ease. No wonder that even key persons in the crème de la crème government positions are unable to define what “woman” means.