Experts Label Govt Department A "Disgrace" For Targeting Pregnant Women With New Covid Vaccine

Double standards, negative short-term prognosis, and the lack of long-term research transcends negligence, say censored scientists.

Dame Jenny Harries, Chief Executive of UK Health Security Agency.

Recent events in Israel and Palestine overshadowed this story. Yet, the repercussions from it could be as equally tragic.

Last week, the U.K. Health Security Agency (UKHSA) launched its promotional campaign for the latest Covid vaccine. Except, they didn’t address all those eligible. They made a beeline for a certain demographic - pregnant women.

The department posted on X:

“If you're pregnant, it's important to protect yourself and your baby this winter by getting your #COVID19 vaccine.

Book now and get winter strong.”

The announcement followed the UK’s Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency’s (MHRA) approval of Pfizer/BioNTech’s adapted COVID-19 vaccine (Comirnaty) on 5th September 2023, targeting Omicron XBB.1.5 variant.

All Brits aged 6 months and up are technically eligible after MHRA decided the product met its “standards of safety, quality and effectiveness”.

The National Health Service (NHS), however, specified certain cohorts for vaccination: residents in care homes for older adults, all adults aged 65 years and over, people aged six months to 64 years in a clinical risk group, frontline health and social care workers, people aged 12 to 64 who are household contacts of people with weakened immune systems, people aged 16 to 64 who are carers and staff working in care homes for older adults and pregnant women.

Dr Joseph Mercola, a seasoned physician, raised concerns over the approval, particularly with testing. In early September 2023, he published a report on U.S. Food and Drug Administration’s approval of the same vaccine, finding that Pfizer’s testing has again only involved mice - 10 mice to be exact.

Moderna, at least, with their latest vaccine, conducted trials on humans but only 50. One person in their XBB.1.5 treatment group reportedly experienced a serious adverse event, suggesting a 1 in 50 risk.

Dr David Cartland responded to UKHSA’s post, calling the agency a “disgrace to science” while linking screenshots of the OpenVAERS database. As of September 2023, there have been 1,595,001 self-reported adverse events, including 5,040 miscarriages.

Dr Peter McCullough, the most published cardiologist in history, estimated that VAERS could have an underreporting factor by as much as 30. If his estimations hold, as many as 151,200 miscarriages could have occurred due to the Covid vaccines in the U.S. alone since 2020.

Cardiovascular specialist, Dr Dean Patterson referenced Pfizer’s lack of long-term research in response to UKHSA. Pfizer’s press release page does not list when they started trials for the vaccine. It is likely to be earlier this year when XBB.1.5 omicron variant made headlines.

Indeed, Pfizer’s lack of long-term research has been widely covered. They haven’t published any long-term research on the risks associated with this new vaccine and recipients of multiple prior boosters. Nor have regulators analysed the long-term effects of receiving multiple doses from different manufacturers. Vaccine cocktails, if you will.

Investigative journalist Sonia Elijah called UKHSA’s promotion “dangerous”, pointing to troves of Freedom of Information Act released documents showing devastating harms to the unborn.

For the initial Pfizer/BioNTech shot, a preclinical DART (Developmental and Reproductive Toxicology) study conducted on rats by BioNTech in early 2021 showed a dramatic increase in miscarriage (preimplantation loss) rates compared to the control group.

In the same year, Pfizer submitted their original 'Cumulative Analysis of Post-Authorization Adverse Event Reports' to the FDA. Out of the 270 monitored pregnancies, 23 cases were recorded as spontaneous abortions. (Both the FDA and Pfizer wanted to hide this information from the public eye until 2096).

Then comes the risk of Covid infection in pregnant women.

Research is lacking but in a recent study described as “one of the most comprehensive analyses of immune features in SARS-CoV-2 infection and pregnancy to date”, the authors concluded “pregnant women show robust and variable immunity during Covid-19”.

Published in JCI Insight back in April, the authors examined the immune responses to Covid in unvaccinated pregnant and non-pregnant women. They found both groups had comparable levels of antibodies, as well as T and B cell responses, which are vital for long-term protection.

Jennifer Habel, the lead author and a PhD Candidate at the University of Melbourne, noted that healthy pregnant women naturally display a heightened innate cell response than their non-pregnant counterparts. This response does not amplify further during acute Covid infection, likely because it's already elevated.

While the immune responses were similar in both sets of women, they saw notable difference in the behaviour of innate immune cells, which serve as the initial defence against viral infections. Dr Louise Rowntree, a researcher at the Doherty Institute, admitted she is unsure if these “pre-activated innate cells are protective or detrimental to disease progression”.

---

If you like The Stark Naked Brief and want to see the rest of this article - including past exposés, factsheets, and exclusives - paid subscriptions work out to £3 per month.

Every subscription helps immensely in bringing you better, more frequent content and comes with the added benefit of stripping power away from legacy media putting it into the hands of citizen journalists like myself.

Every paid subscriber will also receive a gift subscription to Project Stark - a new whistleblower organisation dedicated to exposing ideological grooming occurring in schools - and will be able to access its reports. Our first exclusive is dropping very soon.

In short, the very best research signals ambiguity. Researchers can’t overtly state if pregnant women cope better with infection. What they say is that pregnant women illustrate a strong immune response to Covid infection - a conclusion that undermines the benefit of vaccination, or so one might think.

According to the gov.uk, over 250,000 women have been vaccinated before giving birth, mainly with Pfizer and Moderna vaccines since early 2021.

An annual report by researchers at Oxford and Leicester universities found perinatal mortality and stillbirth rates increased slightly across the UK in 2021 after a near decade of decline. 3.54 stillbirths per 1,000 births was recorded in 2021, up from 3.33 per 1,000 in 2020, and the rate of neonatal deaths, (when a baby dies within 28 days of birth) rose to 1.65 per 1,000 in 2021 from 1.53 in 2020.

A similar correlation is echoed in live birth data. Last month, Office for National Statistics (ONS) revealed that the number of babies born in England and Wales in a year dropped in 2022 to the lowest level in two decades.

The most recent analysis we have in the UK corroborates the possible extremity of vaccine injury in pregnant women.

Two days ago, a preprint published in the British Medical Journal (BMJ) found that not only do vaccinated mothers experience more Covid than unvaccinated mothers, but neonatal deaths are 27-32% higher in vaccinated mothers. Investigative journalist Igor Chudov further revealed in his breakdown that these numbers could be higher due to the fact that the authors excluded 88,237 pregnancies due to “missing NHS numbers”.

UKHSA perhaps knows about this but we can only guess. Bit by bit, they’ve slowly removed information in their once-provided monthly vaccine surveillance reports. In April, they said they would published them quarterly. The last one was published 18 weeks ago.

Consultant surgeon, Dr Anthony Hinton, a man with with 30 years of experience, perhaps made the most salient of points regarding UKHSA’s campaign:

“We advise pregnant women to avoid alcohol, avoid smoking, avoid unpasteurised cheese and raw egg.

Yet some are advising healthy pregnant women to take the Covid vaccine with no long-term trial data on the effects on the mother or their unborn child.

Am I missing something?”