The Beast System (Project Montauk, Nephilim mothers, & End Times Programming) w/Dan Duval

Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r7yKfXDwWEY

Bitchute: https://www.bitchute.com/channel/YBM3rvf5ydDM/

Gab: https://gab.com/hopegirl

Telegram: https://t.me/Hopegirl587

EMF Protection Products: www.ftwproject.com

QEG Clean Energy Academy: www.cleanenergyacademy.com

The post The Beast System (Project Montauk, Nephilim mothers, & End Times Programming) w/Dan Duval appeared first on HopeGirl Blog.

An official study has revealed a alarming 43% surge in miscarriage rates among vaccinated mothers, with women receiving COVID-19 vaccines in early pregnancy (weeks 8-13) experiencing significantly higher fetal losses. The data, drawn from electronic health records of a major Israeli health insurance fund, shows 3.9 additional losses per 100 women after the first dose and 1.9 after the third, raising serious concerns about vaccine safety.

The pre-print study, available as a PDF for detailed review, underscores the elevated risk of miscarriage linked to vaccination during this critical pregnancy window. Researchers analyzed comprehensive health records to uncover these troubling trends, prompting urgent calls for further investigation into the impacts of COVID-19 vaccines on maternal and fetal health.

Modernity.news reports: Late pregnancy losses were a big part of the signal.

Among all women, 1.1% lost their pregnancy after week 24, compared to 2.7% of women who received dose 1 in early weeks, and 1.8% of women who received dose 3 in early weeks.

In fact, most of the excess losses occurred later in pregnancy, including nearly half after week 24.

In Israel, abortions after week 24 are very rare and must be medically justified. This strongly suggests biological, not behavioural, mechanisms are involved.

Influenza Vaccination

In stark contrast, women vaccinated for influenza in the same weeks (8-13) saw fewer foetal losses than expected, about five per 100 women vaccinated.

What’s the significance of that? Comparing both types of vaccines helps control for bias in who chooses to get vaccinated.

For example, if women vaccinate in early pregnancy because they have health problems, the elevated foetal loss risk for COVID-19 vaccines could simply be due to that bias.

But people who get vaccinated are usually healthier and more health conscious to begin with. This is called healthy vaccinee bias and can make vaccines look safer than they really are. It’s a known – but often ignored – issue in vaccine safety research based on real-world data.

Influenza vaccination during pregnancy showed lower-than-expected foetal losses — likely due to healthy vaccine bias. So it’s even more striking that mRNA COVID-19 vaccination in early pregnancy showed higher-than-expected foetal losses, despite healthy vaccinee bias.

The problem with biases like this is that they can be difficult to control for even with a rich dataset. They can be due to unmeasured factors or characteristics, which can be stable or transient. But if we assume that women who vaccinated for Covid and influenza in early pregnancy are similar, then comparing them is a way of checking that our findings are not due to these (unmeasured) characteristics.

If that assumption is correct, it means that the number of foetal losses per 100 women vaccinated for COVID in weeks 8-13 should be compared to the number among women vaccinated for influenza. That would make the observed-to-expected number closer to nine per 100.

Previous Research

So why have previous studies missed this? There are several possible reasons. First, few other studies have looked at vaccination in early pregnancy. Second, other studies tend to separate early vs late foetal losses based on faulty assumptions, meaning they are more likely to miss the signal. Finally, almost all other studies compare vaccinated vs unvaccinated women during vaccination campaigns. That approach is vulnerable to bias — especially if healthier women are more likely to vaccinate (a.k.a. ‘healthy vaccinee bias’).

Our approach was different. We used detailed medical records to estimate expected foetal loss rates for each vaccinated woman — based on her individual risk factors and pregnancy timing — using data from pre-Covid years. What this means is that we used data from 2016-2018 to develop a statistical model predicting a woman’s chances of experiencing foetal loss given her (measured) individual characteristics and gestational week. We then applied the results from that model to women in the 2020-2022 to predict their chances of foetal loss based on their characteristics and gestational week. This is how we come up with the expected number of foetal losses.

The model does a very good job of predicting foetal losses for the population overall, and also for unvaccinated women and women vaccinated before pregnancy. But when we look at women vaccinated during pregnancy, our predictions fall apart: women vaccinated for Covid in early pregnancy were much more likely to have a foetal loss compared to what was predicted and women vaccinated for influenza were much less likely. In the paper’s conclusions, we discuss why this is lower-than-expected rate for influenza is likely to be due to the healthy vaccinee effect.

ODDS AND ENDS

Research Team

The research team was incredible. First off, I worked hand-in-glove with Professor Retsef Levi of MIT, who was recently appointed to the US Advisory Council on Immunisation Practices (ACIP). We previously worked together to expose the Process 1 vs Process 2 bait-and-switch. Retsef is a data hawk who is incredibly sharp. I couldn’t think of a better person to sit on the committee and assess the data in a sober and balanced way.

We were also joined by several tremendous clinicians and researchers from Maccabi Health Services, the insurance fund from which our data originate: Tal Patalon, Sivan Gazit and Yaakov Segal (the latter of whom is the had of OBGYN services at Maccabi). And rounding out our team are two clinician researchers, Tracy Beth Hoeg and Joseph Fraiman. Tracy has co-authored many important studies casting a critical light on many pandemic measures (like masking children) and now has a position at the FDA. Joseph was the lead author of the reanalysis of the mRNA covid vaccine trial safety data that found an alarmingly high number of adverse events.

None of the co-authors (me included) would agree to put their name on such a controversial paper without being extremely confident that the results are rock solid. And they are: we did our absolute best to make them go away or think of alternative explanations, but everything we did just made them stronger.

86% Miscarriage Rate

One statistic that is often thrown about is that there was an 86% or 82% abortion rate. This is nonsense. One of the things we note in the conclusion of the paper is how easy it was to miss the safety signal, in part because relatively few women are vaccinated in early pregnancy and the calamitous results of that were spread out over the entire pregnancy, encompassing both miscarriages and stillbirths. But a miscarriage rate of 80% would have been impossible to miss.

Arkmedic has addressed why these numbers are wrong in a very clear and thorough post.

I addressed the 82% rate from the ‘Pfizer papers’ in point number 3 of my takedown of Stupiders’ Died Suddenly. (This post has been substantially revised. For the unrevised version see here.)

If you keep repeating those numbers after reading those posts, then you are intentionally misleading people.

The Jewish Question

Our analysis draws on data from Israel. The effects we find mainly involved Jewish Israeli women. But there are still far too many people who think that the Covid vaccines are some kind of Jewish depopulation conspiracy and that Israeli Jews were given a placebo. If you still think that after reading this paper, I don’t know what to tell you.

Israel was one of the very first countries to vaccinate the population. Israelis were also among the first to document the manifold harms caused by these vaccines. One of the bravest and loudest voices was Avital Livny, who put her life on hold to document these harms, including the chilling account from a woman who experienced a bloody miscarriage. Her documentary was released in 2021 and was far ahead of the curve. You can watch it here for free.

Source: https://thepeoplesvoice.tv/official-study-reveals-miscarriage-rates-surge-43-for-vaccinated-mothers/

Bitchute: https://www.bi,tchut,e.com/channel/YBM3rvf5ydDM/

Gab: https://gab.com/hopegirl

Telegram: https://t.me/Hopegirl587

EMF Protection Products: www.ftwproject.com

QEG Clean Energy Academy: www.cleanenergyacademy.com

Forbidden Tech Book: www.forbiddentech.website

The post Official Study Reveals Miscarriage Rates Surge 43% for Vaccinated Mothers appeared first on HopeGirl Blog.

Pfizer has been forced to admit that expectant mothers who receive their COVID-19 mRNA jab are 400% more likely to give birth to a deformed baby.

Pfizer made the stunning admission in data released from their randomized clinical trial of the COVID shots on pregnant women entitled “To Evaluate the Safety, Tolerability, and Immunogenicity of BNT162b2 Against COVID-19 in Healthy Pregnant Women 18 Years of Age and Older. ClinicalTrials.gov ID NCT04754594.

Steve Kirsch reports: This prompted me to have a second look at these results which were first posted on July 14, 2023, over a year ago.

Did you know that the study showed that if you were assigned the vaccine, your child had a stunning 4.2X higher rate of AESIs such as MAJOR congenital abnormalities and developmental delays in just the first 6 months after birth?

Because the trial enrolled fewer women than planned, the effect size reached only the 90% level of significance. Based on just this trial, we are 90% certain that the vaccines made things worse. However, when you look at other data, the certainty approaches 100%.

4.2X is jaw dropping for an effect size for these types of major birth defect adverse events.

Was there a benefit? Nope. Moms in both groups got the same number of COVID infections (2 in each group). Vaccine efficacy estimated at a measly 3.8 (because the groups were different sizes). A perfect vaccine is 100. A vaccine which does nothing is 0. The 3.8 value was both tiny and NOT statistically significant. It’s entirely possible that the vaccine increased your risk of getting COVID. We can’t tell from the study.

This was all known more than 5 months ago when the results were first posted.

Why didn’t the CDC warn women that they were wrong?

This double-blinded placebo controlled trial which is considered to be the best evidence in medicine shows that it’s 90% likely it made things worse.

It’s Pfizer’s own data published on Clinical Trials.gov using gold-standard DB-RCT methodology. Anyone can analyze it. It’s in plain sight. Doesn’t get any better than this.

Today, more than 5 months after the lack of any COVID benefit was published on the NIH website (clinicaltrials.gov), the CDC is still silent on this.

Is the entire medical community blind, ignorant, or just corrupt? NOT A SINGLE MAINSTREAM doctor is speaking out. NOT ONE.

Dr. James Thorp got fired for speaking out about the vaccine harms to pregnant women so he’s not mainstream anymore since he’s out of the system. One of the few honest doctors and he gets fired. What does that tell you? His research which has been published in peer-reviewed journals, confirms the results of the Pfizer trial. In spades.

We have a very corrupt medical system where everyone is afraid to tell the truth.

About the Pfizer study on women getting the COVID shots during pregnancy

ClinicalTrials URL: NCT04754594
Start date: Feb 16, 2021
Announced date: February 18, 2021.
Planned enrollment: 4000
Actual enrollment: 683
First results posted: July 14, 2023
Results including COVID rates posted: June 24, 2024

Participants in the study were enrolled between 24 and 34 weeks of gestation, as part of the inclusion criteria. The trial specifically required healthy women with uncomplicated, singleton pregnancies within this range. 348 maternal participants were enrolled and randomized to receive either the vaccine or placebo. Blinded follow-up: From Day 1 to one month post-delivery. Unblinded follow-up: Extended up to 6 months post-delivery for participants initially vaccinated with BNT162b2.

Why they didn’t do the same for the people who got the placebo is a mystery to me. The reason usually given is that it’s unethical to withhold the COVID vaccine from those that got the placebo.

The study showed it’s 90% certain that the shots increased the rate of special interest adverse events like MAJOR congenital abnormalities and developmental delays in the first 6 months of life, most likely by a factor of 4.2X.

Read the description of AESI which I highlighted in purple for you:

Let’s do our own statistical analysis on these numbers using a Fisher exact test.

What this means is:

1. We are 90% certain that women who got the shots had higher AESIs than those getting the placebo
2. The most likely estimate of the magnitude of the effect is that it was 4.2X more likely in pregnant women who got Pfizer COVID shot

What mother wants that? MAJOR congenital abnormalities and developmental delays??!!

Was there a benefit? Nope.

The trial also showed that the COVID vaccine did NOT work; both groups got EXACTLY the same number of COVID infections!

Here you go, right from the document:

In short, the number of cases (which they don’t actually disclose, just the person years in each group) was statistically identical in both arms.

Don’t take my word for it though. It’s right in their statistical analysis:

The VE estimated value was 3.8. Their VE is based on 100. So a perfect vaccine is 100. A vaccine which doesn’t do shit is 0. Their best estimate is 3.8 and the confidence intervals are so huge that it means that there was NO detectable efficacy. They could have had 100X more people and still it’s likely they wouldn’t have been able to find a signal.

There were other COVID infection incidence outcomes (see Outcomes 10 and 11) included in the results and those also were not statistically significant (2-Sided 95% CIs were -466.5 to 94.6 and -104.9 to 86.5, respectively).

It took over 3 years to tell us that there was no COVID infection rate difference!

The trial was announced on February 18, 2021.

The results were first published on clinicaltrials.gov on July 14, 2023, nearly 2.5 years later (see version 21), but many parts were not reported at the time. But the birth defects were reported (section 19) at that time. So we’ve known about the AESIs for 16 months now.

Section 9 (COVID incidence) was first reported in version 24 which was published on June 24, 2024 which was nearly one year later. So we’ve known it didn’t work for the last 5 months.

Notably, since the results were first published, it took almost a full year to count up the 2 COVID cases in each of the two groups (a total of 4 COVID cases) before they were reported. Why did that take so long?

This is truly the “speed of science” that they were able to do this in just over 3 years! Remarkable.

Bottom line: no difference in risk of COVID.

The Pfizer press release

They simply forgot to issue one!

So the mainstream media will not cover it.

They expect everyone to monitor clinicaltrials.gov and then read through gobs of pages to figure out what happened.

Fortunately, I don’t have a problem with reading through the data, because sometimes you stumble on stuff that they don’t want you to see.

Papers by Dr. James Thorp showing similar harms to vaccinated women

One doctor is speaking out. So they fired him.

COVID-19 Vaccines: The Impact on Pregnancy Outcomes and Menstrual Function
”When normalized by time-available, doses-given, or number of persons vaccinated, all COVID-19 vaccine AEs far exceed the safety signal on all recognized thresholds. These results necessitate a worldwide moratorium on the use of COVID-19 vaccines in pregnancy.”

Are COVID-19 Vaccines in Pregnancy as Safe and Effective as the U.S. Government, Medical Organizations, and Pharmaceutical Industry Claim? Part I
“Compared to influenza and all other vaccine products, COVID-19 vaccines in pregnancy have demonstrated unacceptable breaches in safety signals across all 37 AEs investigated, 27 antepartum and 10 postpartum/newborn. All 37 AEs breach CDC/FDA limits for safety and are consistent with the authors’ extensive clinical observations. Summary statistics for the deviation of safety signal breaches are described here: mean (n, range) of the PRR was 69.3 (46, 5.37 – 499), z statistic 9.64 (46, 3.29 – 27.0), and Chi-square was 74.7 (26, 28.9 – 148). The magnitude of these safety deviations is unparalleled given the CDC/FDA guidelines defining a PRR ≥ 2 or a Chi-square ≥ 4 as a cause for alarm. The z statistic is informative as it describes the standard deviation of AEs in the COVID-19 vaccines above other vaccines. Most p-values were in the range of one in a million or less.”

The final version of this paper was accepted for publication in a peer-reviewed journal and will be out soon. The new conclusion is at the start of this article. It is stunning to have this published in a peer-reviewed journal.

Increased risk of fetal loss after COVID-19 vaccination
“When normalized by time-available, doses-given, or number of persons vaccinated, all COVID-19 vaccine AEs far exceed the safety signal on all recognized thresholds. Specifically for miscarriage we found the global relative risk was 177 (95% CI 114.4–283.5) compared to influenza vaccination.”

Summary

The vaccine is a total shit show for pregnant women.

We now know that Pfizer’s own study shows no infection benefit, but a stunning 4.2X higher rate of AESIs such as major congenital abnormalities and developmental delays in just the first 6 months after birth. From Pfizer’s study alone, we are 90% certain the vaccine is harmful. Dr. Thorp’s work cited above reduces the chance of error to close to zero. In his study, all p values were ≤ 0.001 with the majority being <0.000001.

With no benefit and clear harms, the medical community should immediately stop recommending these shots for pregnant women.

Since these results have been known for 5 months and the medical community is still pushing the shots on pregnant women, I believe I can confidently predict that we should expect no changes will happen.

What will Trump’s proposed Surgeon General say? Will anyone dare ask?

Source:  https://thepeoplesvoice.tv/pfizer-admits-jabbed-mothers-400-more-likely-to-have-deformed-babies/

Bitchute: https://www.bitchute.com/channel/YBM3rvf5ydDM/

Gab: https://gab.com/hopegirl

Telegram: https://t.me/Hopegirl587

EMF Protection Products: www.ftwproject.com

QEG Clean Energy Academy: www.cleanenergyacademy.com

Forbidden Tech Book: www.forbiddentech.website

The post Pfizer Admits Jabbed Mothers 400% More Likely To Have Deformed Babies appeared first on HopeGirl Blog.