There are concerns in Scotland because of infant deaths in March 2022. A large spike had also been signaled in September 2021 (4.9 neonatal deaths per thousand births, instead of 2.0 per thousand). March 2022 saw another spike "above the signal value": 4.6 instead of 2.0. A total of 38 babies were affected in these two months.
I'm familiar with the expression "above the signal value" from the excess mortality in NL. Scientists wait to see if the signal persists for a long time. If not, they go back to business as usual. I don't think that's the function of a signal, so I looked further. I couldn't find a newspaper article that linked to a study. However, the BBC did publish an informative graph that clearly shows how the September peak exceeds the signal value. In that graph I marked in green what caught my eye.
We see a normal fluctuation around 2.0 until 2021. So higher mortality and lower mortality (green fill) keep each other nicely balanced. The green dotted line indicates the moment after which you see no below-average mortality although you would expect it to be there. So that September spike was not as isolated as it seems. Especially now that six months later another similar spike is occurring. I am therefore very curious about the monthly figures for 2022. I read that they have been back in line since May but would like to see that for myself. I would not be surprised if it has been continuously elevated but remains below the peak signal value. (If anyone knows of a source: please let me know).
[Edit: Fortunately, the graph below from Public Health Scotland does not show this to be the case. Between the peaks it does not look alarming].
Unfortunately, the most recent table reporting of the Public Health Service unfortunately does not go beyond 2021. They are only annual figures. The total figures for 2021 have indeed been increased compared to the previous years. But in that data, a striking distribution between boys and girls could be seen:
What is striking is first of all the much lower mortality averages of girls compared to boys, shown with the dotted lines in this graph:
But then look at how 2021 compares to those averages. In 2021, on an annual basis (so not an occasional peak!) more than one and a half times as many girls died within 4 weeks of their birth than average. That's a lot.
In the reports, only the September peak is mentioned. The view below highlights what is going on over the whole of 2021 seen: the deviation from the average per gender.
Numbers in proportion
Scotland has 5.5 million inhabitants. To get an impression of what this would mean for the Netherlands, you can multiply the absolute numbers by three.
In Scotland, 23,244 girls were born in 2021. A neonatal mortality rate of an average of 0.19% (1.9 per thousand) is an average of 44 sad deaths of baby girls. At the September level of 0.3% (3 per thousand), it would be 70 infant deaths of girls annually: that is more than half more, an increase of 26 newborn daughters. A drama every two weeks.
The March and September peaks are around 0.45%: that would be 105 on an annual basis: 61 too many. Let's hope it doesn't go the way.
But why exactly does this affect girls, what makes that physical difference? On the contrary, they always had significantly lower neonatal mortality than the boys. What possible vulnerabilities do girls have that boys don't? Is there sometimes something about female reproductive organs? Do the mothers perhaps have something like disrupted cycles or other related symptoms...? We have to start looking somewhere, don't we.
The investigation will be initiated...
These all-time high numbers have only existed since September 2021, that is, after the start of the vaccination campaign. Wouldn't it show caution to also check mothers' vaccination statuses or do tissue testing for vaccine residues? Sarah Stock is professor of maternal and fetal health at the University of Edinburgh who led the "Covid-19 in Pregnancy in Scotland (COPS), however, already let it be known that it would not make sense to include Covid vaccines in the study. This is based on evidence she has in hand:
“If you think about how you’re going to do an investigation, you want to look for anything that could be plausibly linked to the sad increase in baby deaths that we saw. You can’t go looking for things that we know are not associated. . The global evidence is now very conclusive that vaccination is safe in pregnancy, and before pregnancy, and there is no association with baby deaths. There’s no plausible reason why you’d look at it in this small number of cases.“
"The right way to look at whether something causes something is to do it in big numbers, population data - that’s what we’ve done and that shows us that Covid-19 does cause problems in pregnancy, and vaccination does not. Covid-19 vaccination is the safest way to prevent complications in mothers and babies."
Prof. Stock also indicated that she would be uncomfortable making something as personal as vaccination status public in connection with infant mortality. In addition, for her, countering disinformation also plays a role in this. What exactly she means by this is not entirely clear from the articles. Apparently, the result of scientific research can produce disinformation. Imagine.
Previous research in response to the September spike has shown that there was no link to Covid-19. She says of this: "Now, they’ve said there’s no clear direct link - but that doesn’t give me any reassurance that Covid-19 doesn’t cause problems in pregnancy. It just makes me think that in this small number of cases it didn’t play a part. So that’s not the right way to look at it this."
So research showing that Covid-19 does not cause problems does not reassure her - maybe it is Covid-19 after all. In contrast, research that vaccines do not cause problems is sufficient reason to exclude the vaccine from further research.
Whatever this investigation is going to show - according to Stock, it's not going to mean much, because of the small numbers. Maybe she's thinking food poisoning or something local? So would that also be the cause of those excessive infant deaths throughout 2021?
Whoever still understands this line of thinking may say so. (By the way, the interview seems fabricated based on statements from Public Health Scotland.)
In case anyone feels that there is gynecological knee-jerk reaction here: the expectation is that the examination will not last longer than nine months. I am hoping for an early birth.
In this context, an added gynecologist video from Florida: This doctor observes decreased fertility, increased number of miscarriages, more cervical cancer and more positive pap smears since the vaccination rollout. Sure: n=1 and no carefully selected control group. So once again: nothing to see here.
The review will not duplicate any matters which are, or have been, the subject of other review, investigation or audit processes.Scottish Government orders review as neonatal deaths higher than expected | The Scotsman
Message from Florida:
The first paragraphs of the original article in The Herald (paywall):
Covid Scotland: Vaccines ruled out in case of rise in neonatal deaths
Public health experts ruled out any link between spikes in neonatal deaths and the Covid vaccine without checking whether any of the infants' mothers had received the jag during pregnancy. Experts stressed that there was no “plausible” link between the unusually high levels of mortality among newborns in September last year and March this year to justify investigating maternal vaccination status.
Public Health Scotland (PHS) said its consultants had given “careful consideration” to the “potential benefits and harms” of carrying out such as analysis as part of its probe into the tragic deaths of 39 infants, but concluded against doing so because “it was not possible to identify a scenario that would have resulted in a change to public health policy or practice” given that vaccination policy was already “appropriately informed by good-quality population-level evidence and safety data”. [...]
In a statement, PHS added that there was also a risk that “identifying the vaccination status of the mothers, even at aggregate level, would result in harm to those individuals and others close to them, through actual or perceived judgement of the effects of their personal vaccination decision”.
Furthermore “the outcomes of such analysis, whilst being uninformative for public health decision making, had the potential to be used to harm vaccine confidence at this critical time”.
The decision came to light after the Herald on Sunday obtained internal emails and reports under freedom of information tracking the PHS response, with one email dated November 24 2021 stating: “We do not have any plans to examine maternal vaccination status, as there is no public health reason to do so”.
Previously PHS had said would not be disclosing the information to protect patient confidentiality.
It comes days after the Scottish Government announced that Healthcare Improvement Scotland would carry out a review into all reported neonatal deaths between April 2021 and the end of March this year in order to identify "anything that may have contributed" to the spikes.
Be sure to check out the videos below.
A sequel to this article here: It appears that babies have been recorded as "miscarriage" who have indeed lived for days.
Message from Australia:
As for the safety of vaccinations in pregnant women, I recommend the following study. They have largely circumvented the survival bias here. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8427483/?report=reader#!po=30.5556
It is safe, the researchers said. However, I would always look at the numbers myself
That research in no way proves that vaccination is safe.
They found no increased mortality if the vaccine had been given in the previous 28 days compared to a vaccine.
Instead of doing the comparison right: rate of micarriage per vaccine status (0 to 5). That's the most obvious thing, they didn't. In other words, they participate in manipulation to make people think that it is safe. And just as long look for figures that can prove that.
From that study:
Conflict of Interest Disclosures: Dr Lipkind reported serving on the Pfizer independent external data monitoring committee for the COVID-19 vaccine. Dr Naleway reported receiving research funding from Pfizer for an unrelated study. Dr Vesco reported receiving research funding from Pfizer for an unrelated study. No other disclosures were reported.
The researchers previously worked for Pfizer, pfizer, pfizer.
En dan de rol van de funding source:
Role of the Funder/Sponsor: The CDC participated in the design and conduct of the study; collection, management, analysis, and interpretation of the data; preparation, review, or approval of the manuscript; and decision to submit the manuscript for publication.
Compleet niet te vertrouwen dus.
Ik heb het over de cijfers niet eens de opzet.
The confidence interval (apparently 95% and two-tailed) runs from 0.99 to 1.17 in the 9-13 week group. That is just not significant on the question: do the odds ratios differ from each other (positive or negative). A huge red flag. When asked, vaccination increases the odds on miscarriage then this result is already significant. Effectively, they have found here a 97% (?) chance that vaccinating correlates with increased odds (in this group)
Dr luke mclindon from Australia (I believe) talks about miscarriages and infertility, a bit in the same corner...
Put it there
If you want to have a textbook example of "bias", this is one.
With this conclusion, you also undermine any parenthood of the dead newborn babies. It will be your (dead) child.
The only positive is that the fertile generation is less and less willing to take a vaccine, so hopefully these effects will also be short-lived. Unless, of course, the spike protein has caused long-term damage.
The only problem is the government when it starts using 2G or 3G again to make travel possible.
The number of deceased babies can be even higher.
Because fraud is committed in the hospitals at the time of death!
Stillbirth or neonatal death? That's the question!
Stillborn or born alive? That's the big question.
This is what Dr. John Campbell found out.
See his video above. About the role of "Coroners". They do not want to involve the hospitals. Regarding registration and research into the cause of death: e.g. the vaccination(s) of the mothers.
The coroner must also be included if it concerns a "neonatal" a newborn death: that is when baby has lived for a while after birth. A few minutes or a few days.
There is a big difference with "stillbirth": when the baby is stillborn. Then the coroner doesn't have to come!
That is done deliberately to keep deceased babies out of the statistics. Babies who are no longer viable due to vaccinations of their mothers.
This is another great and horrific scandal.
Fraud with data of deceased babies.