By late 2021, adult women, including pregnant women, were losing their jobs because they chose not to get vaccinated. Those who signed up for COVID-19 vaccines did so because they trusted health authorities, especially since the vaccines wouldn't have been approved if the evidence was not clear.
Thanks to a Freedom of Information (FOI) request, a lengthy vaccine evaluation report sponsored by Pfizer and submitted to the Australian regulator, the Therapeutic Goods Administration (TGA), on January 2021 was released.
The report revealed new data that had been suppressed by the TGA and Pfizer about the safety of the COVID vaccines for pregnant women and their effects on the fertility of women of childbearing age.
Here are four key points from the report:
Concerning the first point, the report revealed that antibodies and T cells in monkeys declined within five weeks after the animals were given a second dose of BNT162b2 (V9), raising concerns over long-term immunity.
The first point highlights the fact that the regulators should have anticipated the rapid decline in vaccine efficacy. They also must have known that the initial two-dose "course" was unlikely to give lasting immunity and would eventually need multiple repeat doses.
The three remaining points should be a major cause for alarm with the pharmaceutical regulatory system.
With regards to vaccine impact on fertility and fetal abnormalities, the report referenced a study involving 44 rats that describes two main metrics: pre-implantation loss rate and the number of abnormalities per fetus. In both cases, the metrics were much higher in vaccinated rats compared to the unvaccinated rats.
The pre-implantation loss ratio compared the estimated number of fertilized ova and the ova implanted in the uterus. According to a table from the report, the loss rate for the vaccinated (BNT162b2) rats is more than double the unvaccinated control group.
In a case-control study, a doubling of pregnancy loss in the intervention group point to a serious safety signal.
But instead of taking the matter seriously, the authors of the report compared the outcomes to historical data on other rat populations, specifically 27 studies of 568 rats. The study authors also ignored the outcome because other populations had recorded higher overall losses.
But the analysis is worrying because it remains below the highest previously recorded pregnancy loss levels in populations elsewhere. It is not a safe outcome, particularly when the intervention is also linked to twice the harm observed in the control group.
A similar pattern was observed for fetal malformations, with higher abnormality rates in all of the 12 categories studied. Out of the 11 categories where Pfizer confirmed the data is correct, there are only two total abnormalities in the control group, compared to 28 with the mRNA vaccine.
In the category that Pfizer labeled as unreliable (supernumerary lumbar ribs), there were three abnormalities observed in the control group and 12 in the vaccinated group. (Related: Ben Armstrong: Pfizer knows the COVID vaccine is dangerous for pregnant women.)
Pfizer also ignored the trend and compared the results with historical data from other rat populations.
The case-control nature of the study design was again ignored, perhaps to hide the negative outcomes demonstrated. The data from the report suggests that there is no reliable basis for claiming that the COVID-19 vaccine is safe for pregnant women.
The concentration of lipid nanoparticles (LNP) in the ovaries, a doubled pregnancy loss rate and raised fetal abnormality rate across all measured categories suggest that designating a safe-in-pregnancy label (B1 category in Australia) was contrary to the evidence presented in the report.
The data suggests that the government’s "safe and effective" claims were not only inaccurate, they were also misleading.
Despite the negative nature of these outcomes, the classification of the Pfizer vaccine as a "safe" vaccine seems to have precluded further animal trials. In the past, new medicines, especially those never tested or used in humans before, needed a very rigorous assessment.
But vaccines have a lower burden of proof requirement than ordinary medications. Therefore, classifying mRNA injections as "vaccines" ensured regulatory approval with less stringent safety requirements, as noted by the TGA.
mRNA gene therapies function more like medicines than vaccines because they modify the internal functioning of cells instead of stimulating an immune response to the presence of an antigen.
Labeling these gene therapy products as vaccines implies that, as far as the public is aware, no genotoxicity or carcinogenicity studies have been carried out to ensure their safety.
The report, which was only released after an FOI request, is alarming because it reveals that the authorities knew of the major risks associated with mRNA COVID-19 vaccination yet still told the public the vaccines were safe.
It seems that mainstream media is working with Big Pharma and the authorities to ignore the newly released data. Don't fall prey to those in power and be cautious when listening to public health messaging about coronavirus vaccination.
After all, it's obvious that regulators, drug companies and the government knew that vaccine-induced immunity trails off rapidly just as it was observed in real-world data, with efficacy against infection recorded as falling to zero.
The single point-in-time figures of 95 percent and 62 percent efficacy quoted for Pfizer and AstraZeneca, respectively, implies almost nothing since a rapid decline was to be expected.
The concept of a two-dose "course" was also inaccurate since more boosters would have been required due to the rapid decline in antibodies and T-cells observed in monkeys.
The data also does not support the "safe" conclusion concerning pregnancy; rather, it should be considered harmful for pregnant women. The assurances of safety were misleading, as proven by data disclosures in the recent FOI release.
Regulatory authorities knew that animal studies provided evidence of both pregnancy loss and fetal abnormalities, consistent with the systemic distribution of the mRNA vaccines. Pfizer decided not to follow up on the vast majority of pregnancies in the original human trials, despite high miscarriage rates in the minority they followed.
With all the evidence about vaccine efficacy and safety, the administration of these products to pregnant women and those of childbearing age was a high-risk move and certainly not justified.
Watch the video below to learn how COVID-19 vaccines are causing health issues in pregnant women.
This video is from the GalacticStorm channel on Brighteon.com.