STILLBORN BABIES
If you weren’t already convinced, you double your risk of cardiac incidents and the rate of stillborn babies is up by 29 times (but only if you are vaccinated). Does anyone in authority care? (STEVE KIRSCH)
I’m getting a lot of people telling me about this abstract that appeared in Circulation, which is arguably the top-rated journal on cardiology. This was incorporated in my latest slide deck (slide 26 and 27 at the time this is being written).
Yes, this is a big deal. But nobody is listening. Cardiac risk could go up 1,000X after vaccination and it wouldn’t matter. Nobody is listening. This article is proof of that.
Here’s the punch line from the abstract:
These changes resulted in an increase of the PULS score from 11% 5 yr ACS risk to 25% 5 yr ACS risk. At the time of this report, these changes persist for at least 2.5 months post second dose of vac. We conclude that the mRNA vacs dramatically increase inflammation on the endothelium and T cell infiltration of cardiac muscle and may account for the observations of increased thrombosis, cardiomyopathy, and other vascular events following vaccination.
STILLBORN BABIES
The punchline here:
There is a 29X increase in the rate of stillborn babies in Waterloo, Ontario that started after vaccination program rolled out. All the mothers of the stillborn babies were vaccinated.
I’m sure this is happening everywhere, but nobody in the US wants to lose their job over this.
So why the CDC is saying this is perfectly safe for pregnant women? I’m curious as to what the CDC has determined the cause of this. Obviously, it couldn’t be the “safe and effective” vaccine. Note: the CDC doesn’t have jurisdiction in Canada of course, but they could call over there and find out…
The good news of course is that this only appears to be happening in areas of the world where they release data to the public on what is going on.
One place is Scotland: Investigation launched into abnormal spike in newborn baby deaths in Scotland. This only started post-vaccine and I bet that all the moms were vaccinated. Isn’t it odd that they don’t list the vax status of the moms?
Another place is Canada, but only thanks to a courageous whistleblower (otherwise, we wouldn’t know)………
RPT’S Truncated Version Of Steve’s Linked Video
The below video is a truncated version found via STEVE KIRSCH’s Substack article. It comes by way of a Facebook video by Edmonton Freedom Central titled:
Dr. Daniel Nagase, and Dr. Mel Bruchet, ring the alarm on the alarmingly high rates of disasters that governments and the MSM don’t want to share.
Doulas that work in women’s and children’s hospitals raised the voice about the alarming rate of stillbirths in British Columbia, Canada!
The doulas had 13 stillbirths only in one day. There is another terrifying statistic from Waterloo, Ontario.
According to Dr. Nagase’s analysis, from January to July, there were 86 stillbirths, and the typical number of these cases is 5-6 per year. However, since the vaccine rollout, there have been 14 to 15 stillbirths per month in Waterloo.
Dr. Nagase shared that he has confirmed from the Waterloo, Ontario report that the stillbirths occurred only with vaccinated mothers…..
Misc. Odds-n-Ends
JEWISH COURT
“Absolutely forbidden to give COVID shots to kids, young men and women”, Jewish court rules
- Halachic stands for the legal part of the Old Testament, the principles of right and wrong that have worked for mankind for over 5,000 years, and upon which some of our most fundamental legal concepts are based. ….Mandatory COVID-19 “vaccines” transgress Halachic law, which means it could be anti-Semitic to enforce it on Jews who have no wish to take it. Given that the rabbinical courts in Israel are part of the formal legal system, further decrees forbidding mandatory Covid-19 vaccines might have the power to dissolve the infamous green pass system….. (Doctors for COVID Ethics)
MISSOURI COURT
Covid Restrictions and Mandates Imposed by “the whims of public health bureaucrats” are Illegal, Missouri Court Rules (PECKFORD42)
The Circuit Court of Cole County, Missouri, Judge Daniel R. Green presiding, has issued a sweeping judgement against Covid restrictions and mandates imposed by the Department of Health and Senior Services, November 22, 2021. Cole County is located in the center of the state and its largest city is Jefferson City, the state capital.
The decision begins: “This case is about whether Missouri’s Department of Health and Senior Services regulations can abolish representative government in the creation of public health laws, and whether it can authorize closure of a school or assembly based on the unfettered opinion of an unelected official. This Court finds it cannot.”
The case is decided on grounds that the edicts clearly violated the traditional separation of powers between the legislature and the executive. The legislature cannot surrender its power to make law to an unelected bureaucrat, either by constitutional tradition in a Republican form of government or under the Missouri Constitution.
“Separation of powers among the three branches of government – legislative, administrative, judicial – is fundamental to the preservation of liberty. DHSS regulations break our three-branch system of government in ways that a middle school civics student would recognize because they place the creation of orders or laws, and enforcement of those laws, into the hands of an unelected administrative official.”
“The state delegated rulemaking power to an administrative agency, and the administrative agency, has in sum, delegated broad rulemaking power to an unelected administrative official. This type of double delegation, which results in lawmaking by an administrative entity, is an impermissible combination of legislative and administrative power.”
See also the 5th Circuit Court Judgement Against OSHA
TOTALITRARIAN DREAMS
CDC Director Walensky Praised China’s “Really Strict Lockdowns” (BROWNSTONE INSTITUTE)
On October 20, 2020, with large parts of the country still in lockdown as a virus control measure, WBUR Radio Boston’s Tiziana Dearing conducted separate interviews with epidemiologist Martin Kulldorff of Harvard University and Rochelle Walensky, then at the Massachusetts General Hospital and later to be named by the Biden Administration as the Director of the Centers for Disease Control.
The station permitted Walensky to respond to Kulldorff but did not allow Kulldorff to respond back. The tone was obviously hostile toward the Great Barrington Declaration which pushed a program of focused protection over lockdown.
In her interview, Walensky praised the “really strict lockdowns” of China, and condemned Sweden’s policy of keeping schools and businesses open. She cited China’s good outcomes (deaths of 3 per million), though the data from China is highly suspect, and also cited Sweden’s high deaths, even though 74 counties in the world that locked down had higher Covid deaths per capita. She further cast doubt on the idea that natural immunity with Covid would be lasting or robust, though data has since shown her to be completely incorrect on this point too.
Finally, she opined without evidence that the mental health crisis was due not to lockdowns but instead “could be related to the fact that their loved ones have passed.”