Fact check: Covid Vaccines Cause Miscarriages
Arkmedic, Igor Chudov and Doctors for Covid Ethics outlined the evidence of a massive coverup.
There is a great deal of evidence now that the Covid vaccines cause miscarriages and menstrual irregularities in women, and that they knew this when they authorised the vaccines for Emergency Use.
Some of the images in this post mysteriously failed to appear. I’m emailing it out again with the missing images included.
I’ll be adding this to my main article on the topic:
I am only looking at some of the data here, much of it related to some FOI requests to the Australian TGA, and some, from the American VAERS data.
Here is the TGA document referenced in this article, the Nonclinical Evaluation Report BNT162b2 [mRNA] COVID-19 vaccine (COMIRNATY™) Submission No: PM-2020-05461-1-2 Sponsor: Pfizer Australia Pty Ltd January 2021.
I am basically looking at the data from this article of Ah Khan Syed’s in this fact check, which is a great article you should read it:
The Historical Control Group
Dr Ah Khan Syed (Arkmedic) looked into the TGA Pfizer document release for TGA approval of the Pfizer experimental injection and found evidence that they were definitely massaging the data to make it look good. The laughable methodology they use in this study is to compare the BNT162b2 group not to the control group in the study, but to another mythical entity called the “historical control group.”
This would probably be because BNT162b2 doesn’t look too good if you compare it to the actual control group in the study.
What the “historical control group" is, is a bunch of rats from other studies. The document doesn’t actually tell us if they were the control group rats in the other studies, or the rats that were given other poisonous medications. My guess is, both. I could be wrong. But the study doesn’t specify, unless I missed it.
But before we look at that, we need to look at the Feb 2021 Doctors for Covid Ethics FOI request to the TGA.
The FOI request
In February 2021, Doctors for Covid Ethics made a FOI request to the Australian drugs regulator, the TGA, asking three questions about the TGA approval of the Pfizer injectable products:
Did the TGA request the raw data from Pfizer.
Did any of the committees approving the vaccine look at the raw data and/or discuss it
What were the “studies” referred to in the approval document relating to teratogenicity (risk of harm to a fetus)
The TGA replied initially that such a request was too voluminous.
After a bit more prodding, they sent a letter agreeing to provide ‘documents’ that contained the following startling admissions:
After this the TGA requested an extension of time; because obviously providing the one document was an extraordinarily difficult and onerous task that was taxing their resources to the limit, given the voluminous nature of the data requested.
The voluminous nature of this request as it turned comprised a single document, with the full contents and 7 additional pages of actual content - pp 8-13 & p 38 - of a 1145 page study into the effects of the vaccines on Wistar rats. About half the pages provided were largely redacted, like this:
Maybe they were really big pages, and to lift them up and put them into the A0.5 photocopier meant they had to hire a forklift, and all the forklift drivers were busy or off with Covid or something. I can’t really think of any other reason that it took them five months to find one document.
These studies found no fertility effects apparently, which is quite startling considering the rest of this tawdry tale.
Part 2: The real documents released.
On July 15th 2021, in response to another FOI request, the actual documents relating to the evaluation of the Pfizer COVID-19 vaccine were released. Document 6 is rather interesting in a number of ways.
Firstly, funnily enough, someone left “show corrections” on when they made the pdf.
Note below, they changed the Pregnancy Category from
“B2 - should only be considered when the potential benefits outweigh any potential risks for the mother and fetus”
to
“B1 - no embryofetal effects have been noted - vaccine is safe for pregnant women.”
In the section below (Page 15) is where the “Show Changes” was still enabled and it still says in one place “should only be considered when the potential benefits outweigh any potential risks for the mother and fetus” but as you’ll see below this wasn’t supposed to be the final draft of this section, if you look at page 5.
(This image keeps disappearing for some reason. Hopefully it won’t this time.)
Indeed, on Page 5, all doubts removed:
And this was actually a complete lie.
Here are the birth defects/abnormalities, both the fetal incidence and the litter incidence. Strangely enough there are 28 abnormalities are in the BNT162b2 litters, even though there were only 21 rats. Only 11 in the control. That’s an increase of 250% actually.
However, they say, we are not to compare the BNT162b2 to the control; no, we are to compare BNT162b2 to a distant song from a far off land called “historical control data range.”
Yes, BNT162b2 certainly was born with abnormalities.
Furthermore Ah Khan Syed graphed the data for miscarriages and it is pretty concerning; again it is more than double the rate for the control group.
Again they use the far off song, the “historical control data range”, to justify to the TGA that double the miscarriage rate doesn’t matter.
Ah Khan Syed points out how abnormal this is too.
Note that there is another footnote included here with an (a) and directs the reader to look at historical data for comparison. It looks like the Dunnett test was using historical data as a comparator, but this is not the case - the semicolon separates the statements
It was in fact totally disingenuous to include any reference to historical controls in this table. If you perform a study, your control is your contemporary control (because that controls for the factors that are relevant to the study at the time - each arm being treated equally). The only time you use a historical control is if you are doing a single-arm observational study and don't have a comparator group.
It strikes me that their historical control data range might well be from all the rats in all the studies mentioned, including the other rats given poisonous concoctions like BNT162b2, and not just the control rats, as this could really make it much easier to pass things like this through the approval process.
And there was once a Jesuit document I read from the sixteenth century, a sort of moral instruction manual for spreading the Jesuit counter-reformation, that outlined what a lie is and what isn’t: in it the author said that if you said something to someone and you knew that they believed you were saying one thing, but in your own mind you were saying something different, even completely opposite, that it wasn’t a lie.
Well of course it’s a lie. And you know, looking at this, I think we have to assume the historical control data actually does include rats that were given other medications, as the footnotes don’t indicate otherwise, and usually these scientists are pretty careful to be carefully exact and rule out whatever nefarious assumption they can without actually lying (I guess it’s fraud otherwise and the risks they are willing to take for the company probably stop at the line of criminal culpability.)
Yes, this is so typical of those sorts of studies that have the stench of falsehood about them, justifying everything with a footnote that no one can verify.
Ah Khan Syed also talks about the mysterious disappearing rat as well: this was rat number 22, who somehow imitates Schrödinger’s cat at an unknown point in the study, and disappears from the data. I found rat 22 in the Pfizer BNT162b2 group but couldn’t find rat 22 in the control group, but I guess once they’d removed rat 22 from the BNT162b2 group they just figured well, you can’t have 22 rats in one group and not the other.
I think rat 22 must have been one that had to be put down - the poor thing showed prominent lobular architecture of the liver (what the heck does this mean? The medical dictionary tells me that architecture of the liver is lobular) (I think it probably means the whole liver was highly inflamed), puke on the muzzle and irregular breathing, then raised hackles and a hunched body. And they must have banged the cage to wake it up and startled the poor thing, before they put it down, for it says, “hypersensitivity to noise stimulus”.
But what’s worse is that after that poor rat died, its sacrifice was in vain, for they still gave the 𝒇&*%^ thing to people.
And what’s even worse, to pregnant women.
Part 3 the VAERS data compared to the Influenza vaccine.
The clincher here is that Dr James Thorp compared the Covid vaccine to the influenza vaccine VEARS data and found that the Covid vaccines had:
1200-Fold higher rate of Severe Menstrual Abnormalities
57-Fold higher rate of Miscarriage
38-Fold higher rate of Foetal Death / Stillbirth
15 other major pregnancy complications far exceeding the regulator’s safety threshold
Miscarriages needed to treat.
If you want to be sickened even more by all this, you can read Dr Ah Khan Syed’s article that works out how many miscarriages are needed to prevent one hospital visit for Covid.
The miscarriages needed to treat to prevent one hospitalisation is 5/0.18 (or 34712/(2527*0.5)) = 27.4
The miscarriages needed to treat to prevent one ICU admission is 5/0.01 (or 24712/(139*0.5)) = 500
Disclaimer: this article is not medical advice - go and see a Doctor who takes the Hippocratic Oath seriously to get medical advice. This article is not to be taken as reflecting the opinions of Submarine Media Pty Ltd.