In my last column, we reviewed the philosophical underpinnings of why the Covid shot could be a depopulation agent. If this injection is indeed a mechanism for population reduction, while that mechanism still needs to be elucidated, there is – as you will see below – ample reason to suspect this may well be the case. As a brief review from last week, as to the “whys” behind how the Covid shot could be a depopulation agent, the issue is simple: the Malthusians now running the world, including those behind the shot, have a profound inability to comprehend the simple dictum of Julian Simon: The most important benefit of population size and growth is the increase it brings to the stock of useful knowledge. Minds matter economically as much as, or more than, hands or mouths.

This is the same Julian Simon that bet former catastrophic global cooler, later to become catastrophic global warmer, Paul Ehrlich that the price of chromium, copper, nickel, tin, and tungsten would go down, not up, by September 29, 1990. All five commodities – which Ehrlich selected – went down by the targeted date. In Oct. 1990, Ehrlich mailed Julian Simon a check for $576.07 to settle the wager. In short, more people means more ideas and innovations, which includes the ability to solve environmental problems. The bet was proposed a second time, but in the typical intellectual dishonesty of the left, Ehrlich tried to game the bet (adding in things that had nothing to do with human flourishing), so the bet did not occur. If you want to read further, Vincent Geloso discusses this wonderfully at the American Inst. for Economic Research here.  

Will the population overwhelm the planet?

Truth is, many scientists state the population is already leveling off, and will then start to drop in our lifetimes. As just one example, Sadanand Dhume wrote, in his December 23, 2021 article India May Face a Population Implosion that India’s total fertility rate, the average number of children a woman will bear during her lifetime, has fallen to 2—below the replacement level of 2.1 for the first time, and added that Malthusians such as Mr. Ehrlich were spectacularly wrong. Thanks to new varieties of wheat and rice developed by the American scientist Norman Borlaug and the International Rice Research Institute, India went from being dependent on food aid in the 1960s to a major agricultural exporter by the early 2010s. As in many countries, urbanization, rising income, and female literacy, and increased contraception have led to plummeting fertility. India’s population is expected to peak at 1.6 billion by mid-century… then decline. 

This is all consistent with what has been an open secret for years. E.g., in April 2012, the Royal Society published People and the Planet, calling for the West to be de-industrialized, as well as for a drastic population reduction based on their preposterous “modeling” analyses. Paul Ehrlich baldly put it: They (population and resources) multiply together. You have to deal with them together. We have too much consumption among the rich and too little among the poor. That implies that terrible thing that we are going to have to do, which is to somehow redistribute access to resources away from the rich to the poor…you might be able to support about 4 or 5 billion people in the long term. But you already have 7 billion. So we have to humanely and as rapidly as possible move to population shrinkage. And $100 to the first person who guesses who will be in charge of that redistribution process, as well as who will be exempted because they are “special” (hint: they will be the same people who took private jets to the recent COP26 global warming confab; or think instructive examples like entitled Chelsea Clinton taking a private jet to a clean energy round table a few years ago, which would normally have been just a 5-hour drive for most of us poor unwashed masses?). 

Why could the elites try to use gene therapy shots to reduce fertility? In addition to the senseless Malthusian presuppositions, see the two tidy little graphs below by way of explanation. Now you know why Obamacare architect Ezekiel Emanuel penned Why I Hope to Die at 75 in the Atlantic, and why the Covid shots as a depopulation agent should at least be considered as possible, coming out of those deep, dark, not-so-think tanks:

  

Unfortunately, the Malthusians not only have their presuppositions wrong, and their facts wrong, but they also aren’t even able to harmonize their lies. E.g., the UN, as of this very month, has the following population projection at their website here, or as below. As you can see, population growth is leveling, then will drop. We may not get to the “let’s replace the 10 Commandments” Georgia Guidestone’s 500 million in population, but we will still be well within the carrying capacity of the earth. 

 

With the above in mind, let’s start the examination of the science and the data behind the threat to fertility to Covid shots pose, which will be continued in a subsequent article due to the amount of material to cover. 

Health Impact reported as far back as Sept. 2021: There have also now been 1,490 recorded fetal deaths following COVID-19 injections of pregnant women. By way of contrast, (they) performed the same search in the VAERS database for fetal deaths due to the flu shots, and for 2021 (up to that date), there are ZERO. For last year, 2020, there were 16 fetal deaths following flu shots taken by pregnant women, per the National Vaccine Information Center. This is just an initial clue for you about what is going on. 

Of course, as the CDC continues to recommend that pregnant women get a COVID-19 shot, but if the baby does make it past pregnancy, the shots also seem to be also killing and crippling teenagers in record numbers, not to mention the lockdowns destroying lives, finances, educations, and the future of the young. Exhibit A for this? Take a moment to download and review this report, CG REPORT 3: The Impact of Pandemic Restrictions on Childhood Mental Health, which provides detailed evidence showing the impact of COVID-19 restrictions on children and adolescents’ mental health and well-being. It’s not pretty.

Threats to Pregnancy from the Shot

But let’s return to issues about pregnancy itself. Under the label of “missing information,” Pfizer itself told the FDA that it had no information about “Use in Pregnancy and lactation” nor “Use in Paediatric Individuals < 12 Years of Age.” “Vaccine Effectiveness” was also listed as “Missing information” by Pfizer.

It appears, then, that Pfizer told the FDA its vaccines might kill people, but that it had no information about the impact on pregnancy and nursing. All while, at the same time, the FDA pushed the vaccine as “safe and effective” anyway. Getting the “warm and fuzzies” about the shot yet? Certainly – following the Nuremberg code about informed consent, shouldn’t we all have been informed about risks for those who want to become pregnant?

You can do a refresher on the right to informed consent from the Nuremberg trials in this article at the British Medical Journal. In fact, FDA News says The package insert reveals that there is no safety reassurance for pregnant women because all available data is “insufficient to inform vaccine-associated risks in pregnancy.” The FDA also says that they do not know if the spike proteins produced by the vaccine can be produced in breast milk, harming a newborn. The lipid nanoparticles used to deliver the messenger RNA consist of Distearoyl-sn-glycerol-3-phosphocholine, which is only approved for research purposes and is not for human or veterinary use. This ingredient is known to irritate mucous membranes and the upper respiratory tract. 

None of this should have been a shock. A 2011 study in the journal Vaccine, entitled Inflammatory Responses to Trivalent Influenza Virus Vaccine Among Pregnant Women, showed even in the “regular” flu vaccine, inflammatory adverse events, such as pre-eclampsia and preterm birth, among pregnant women taking the trivalent influenza vaccine.

But returning to the present, as of August 20, 2021, 3,190 pregnant women reported adverse events related to COVID vaccines, including 982 reports of miscarriage or premature birth. Just before that, June 11, 2021, the U.S. Vaccine Adverse Events Reporting System (VAERS) had posted 358,379 adverse events, including 5,993 deaths and 29,871 serious injuries. In the 12-to-17-year-old age group, there were 271 serious injuries and seven deaths. There were 2,136 adverse events among pregnant women, including 707 miscarriages or premature births. This all was over half a year ago, with numbers much larger now; also, all of these are clearly massive undercounts as, historically, less than 10% of vaccine side effects are reported to VAERS. The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services investigation put underreporting as low as 1%. Dr. Peter McCullough summarized it all by stating the Covid shot is killing babies in the first trimester at an astonishing rate, which he calls “an atrocity.”

Life Site News Damning Analysis

Lifesite News has an utterly damning report on miscarriages in their December 23, 2021; its report FOIA docs reveal Pfizer shot caused an avalanche of miscarriages, stillborn babies. I would encourage you to read this in full, but I summarize salient parts below: 

When a group called Public Health and Medical Professionals for Transparency asked Pfizer to share the raw data from their COVID vaccine trials and post-marketing surveillance that was used to license the injection, the pharma giant linked up with the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to refuse the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests. In fact, the FDA (meant to serve and protect public health) hired Justice Department lawyers and went to court to shield the pharmaceutical giant from having to reveal its data – for 55 years. That’s right. The FDA and Pfizer did not want anyone to see the numbers behind their COVID vaccine until 2076. Fortunately, a judge ruled that the FDA and Pfizer would have to answer their FOIA requests. Among the first reports handed over by Pfizer was a Cumulative Analysis of Post-authorization Adverse Event Reports describing events reported to Pfizer up until February 2021. It reveals that the drug behemoth received more than 150,000 serious adverse event reports within three months of rolling out its COVID shot, but here we will focus on Table 6 of the data on pregnant and lactating women who received the shots in the first few months of the rollout, which began December 11… As the clinical trials preceding the rollout excluded pregnant women, these would have been the first pregnant and lactating women to have ever received the vaccines. Table 6 states that of 270 “unique pregnancies” that were exposed to the vaccine, “no outcome was provided for 238 pregnancies.” This leaves 32 pregnancies with known outcomes. Pfizer’s report states that there were 23 spontaneous abortions (miscarriages), two premature births with neonatal death, two spontaneous abortions with intrauterine death, one spontaneous abortion with neonatal death, and one pregnancy with “normal outcome.” That means that of 32 pregnancies with known outcomes, 28 resulted in fetal death. Pfizer’s report states that there were five pregnancies with “outcome pending” as well as the 238 with “no outcome provided.” But 32 minus 28 equals four, not five. Because of this confusion, (the author from LifeSite) called Pfizer and emailed questions to their media rep. As their report suggests, were 28 of 32 known pregnancy outcomes actually fatal in the first 10 weeks that the vaccine became available? That’s an 87.5% pregnancy loss rate? And only one pregnancy outcome was “normal”? Please correct me if I’m wrong about this.

No reply. The FDA would have had this data in their hands by the end of April. Maybe this is why they wanted to hide it for 55 years?

Do you still want to trust the life of a newborn to an organization that wants to suppress data involving the life or death of your baby that refuses to come clean on even basic data relevant to your conception and successful carrying to term? 

In Canada, whistleblower reports have claimed spiking stillborn death rates after COVID injections. A retired doctor in British Columbia, Dr. Mel Bruchet, claimed in November 2021 there had been 13 stillbirths in a 24-hour period at the Lion’s Gate Hospital in Vancouver. A grandmother whose grandbaby was stillborn at the hospital tweeted November 21: My daughter got that damned poison vaccine one month ago because she couldn’t go to a restaurant, and people were freaking out because that she was unvaxxed. I want to sue the government. Of course, that message was scrubbed from Twitter. In the same article as Bruchet’s claims, Dr. Daniel Nagase, an Alberta doctor who was ordered to leave his hospital for treating three COVID patients (all of whom who went home from hospital alive) with ivermectin, told a reporter that he had been informed of 86 stillbirths in Waterloo, Ontario between January and July. Per Nagase: Normally, it’s only five or six stillbirths every year. So, about one stillbirth every two months is the usual rate. So, to suddenly get to 86 stillbirths in six months, that’s highly unusual. But, the most important confirmation that we have from the Waterloo, Ontario report was that all of the [mothers of the] 86 stillbirths were fully vaccinated.

One woman reported in the article: I just had my baby girl in July [and] the amount of pressure I felt from my doctors to get the [vaccine] while pregnant almost made me go against my morals, and I almost got it. My OBGYN’s exact words to me were, ‘you are stupid for not getting it. You will die in ICU.” If doctors are fearmongering like that to patients, is it unreasonable to think there is at least a problem of under-reporting of adverse events following vaccination? What doctor who is so dogmatic about his latest pharma cocktail is going to consider (let alone admit) there could be a problem with it?

Science. Or not. 

VigiBase, the database of the World Health Organization, reports pregnancy complications – obtained from FOIA documentation,` here –  including:

• 3,952 spontaneous abortions
• 353 fetal deaths
• 189 missed abortions
• 166 premature labors
• 160 premature babies
• 154 abortions
• 150 slow movement of unborn baby
• 146 hemorrhages in pregnancy
• 132 premature deliveries
• 123 fetal growth restriction
• 120 stillbirths
• 105 ectopic pregnancies
• 90 pre-eclampsia

These dangers are justified in that women are supposedly more likely to die or experience severe illness (up to and including losing the baby) due to Covid, but as usual from Big Pharma, no evidence is provided… just the same old hackneyed narrative, “It is safe and effective” that is by now extremely threadbare. The one CDC study used is a comparison of stillbirth rates in 1,249,634 deliveries at 736 hospitals March 2020–September 2021 among women with and without COVID infections. In fact, it tells us there was an increase in stillbirths… except it was not during the height of the first viral wave. Rather, the surge came after Delta got established and – importantly – was after pregnant women had been being pressured into vaccines. The fact that the Phase IV experimental shots could have been the cause was not even considered, despite the fact that CDC stillbirths were 0.98% of pre-Delta/vaccine usage deliveries, versus 2.70% after the vaccines the shots became widespread. CDC told us: Vaccination status was unable to be assessed in this analysis… COVID-19 vaccination coverage among pregnant women was approximately 30% as of July 2021; most women with COVID-19 at delivery were likely unvaccinated. “Likely?? How likely? “Kinda sorta” likely? “We guess” likely? “Maybe we haven’t the foggiest idea,” likely? This is supposed to be science? 

This is the same CDC that wants to track how many times a day you blow your nose… or if you are in Australia, their version of the CDC will track you via your cell phone to see if you have complied with their latest edicts, and even uses facial recognition to ensure you have been a good little drone, per this EuroNews article. 

Citing from the must-read LifeSite News article above, the next gambit was a New England Journal of Medicine study. But just like all the other fakery in our science (cf. The Lancet’s retraction of their hydroxychloroquine article, which was filled with outright bogus information), more retractions were in order here too, when it was found data calculations showed the possibility of an 82% miscarriage rate in early pregnancy, in contrast to its initial conclusion that – you guessed it – COVID shots were safe and effective.

Even Bernie Madoff Would Be Embarrassed by Big Pharma’s Gambits

Here’s LifeSite News again, outing the fakery on pregnancy. I am leaning heavily on LifeSite, simply because what they have uncovered should be read by the whole world; but if not, at least you, dear reader, as you weigh possible impacts not only to your own pregnancy, but also to what may be being currently foisted on an unsuspecting world. Read the below and weep… exactly as Matthew 2:8 says about the first Christmas and another genocide of the infants –  Rachel was crying for her children. She refused to be comforted, because they no longer existed.

Initially, the study was published with Table 4 showing “Spontaneous Abortion” after vaccination. The authors claimed that 104 pregnancy losses divided by 827 pregnancies resulted in a 12.6% pregnancy loss rate, which is within a normal range. However, as Deanna McLeod, a professional cancer data analyst from Kaleidoscope Strategic Inc. in Toronto, and her colleagues pointed out in a letter to the NEJM, in the tiny print below the table was a statement that a “total of 700 participants received their first eligible dose in the third trimester.” Since the definition of spontaneous abortion pertains to pregnancy loss under 20 weeks gestation, that meant 700 women didn’t belong in the denominator because when they were vaccinated, they were already past the point of being able to have a spontaneous abortion. So, properly read, the fraction changed from 104/827 to 104/127 (81.9%). Hence, an 82% pregnancy loss rate for the first trimester pregnancies.

The CDC experts wrote a correction, but the New England Journal of Medicine actually just erased the faulty denominator from the original publication and kept all the same conclusions. The 82% figure has been bandied about quite a bit, and McLeod told LifeSite that it is likely an overestimate, but the true pregnancy outcome is still not available. In fact, other scientists have looked at the data and calculated a 91.2% early pregnancy loss rate. These figures fit with Pfizer’s hidden data.

Researchers published a follow-up to the study, but that was equally flawed. “First, they start with the absurd premise that ‘there is no compelling biological reason to expect that mRNA COVID-19 vaccination (either preconception or during pregnancy) presents a risk to pregnancy’” says Jeremy Hammond, an independent journalist and political analyst who has analyzed flu shot data in pregnancy. “That’s a bald-faced lie, of course, since maternal immune activation in and of itself is a compelling biological mechanism known to be associated with fetal harm.” Next, Hammond says, “they confounded their analysis of the risk of vaccination during pregnancy by including women who were vaccinated up to 30 days before conception but offered no reason for this.” Then, they defined spontaneous abortion as pregnancy loss between six and 20 weeks, thereby excluding all losses in the first five weeks (when 90% of spontaneous abortions occur). “This means that if a woman got vaccinated, then 3 weeks later got pregnant, then made it through 6 weeks of gestation without a miscarriage, she was included;” says Hammond, “whereas if a woman got vaccinated, then 3 weeks later got pregnant, then 5 weeks later had a miscarriage, she was excluded. This obviously biases their data in favor of finding no increased risk of miscarriage.”

We are just starting down the rabbit hole of the issue of fertility and the threat to women’s health. Stay tuned for the next installment, where we will look at more studies on the Covid shot on pregnancy.