Doing a double take with a vax study pushing jabs for pregnant women
No reply re: BASIC FLAWS in a study that becomes a basis for the "Safe & Effective" Narrative
Safety of COVID-19 vaccines in pregnancy: a Canadian National Vaccine Safety (CANVAS) network cohort study. Published August 11, 2022
https://www.thelancet.com/journals/laninf/article/PIIS1473-3099(22)00426-1/fulltext
This email was sent on August 28, 2022 to three of the authors of the study published in the Lancet. I raised a number of points and questions and let them know I would be interested in sharing their responses on this substack - as a way to open dialogue, to understand whether how and why certain decisions in the study design were made. It has now been two months and I have had no response. I am now turning this letter into a public post so that the general public can be informed about the need to carefully look behind the headlines when they hear that “studies show….”
Hello Drs. Sadarangani, Top and Bettinger
As an educator I have been attempting to bridge the gap between adherents of and critics of the statement that C-19 vaccines are Safe, Effective and Necessary. In keeping with the Canadian Association of Journalists' Ethics Guidelines, every attempt should be made to bring both sides of every controversial issue to the fore. As such, I look forward to receiving any responses you can provide. Hopefully you can also provide the OK that they are posted on the site. This letter can be seen as a follow up to three posts I had previously written:
and
I opened the link to your study with interest, having recently been made aware of the death of a pair of three day old twins of a mother who had previously shared with me her lengthy history of pregnancy losses pre-COVID. She had been so excited to finally be able to have her pregnancy remain viable into the third trimester but recently needed to plan a double funeral instead. As a trainee within the healthcare field, policies required she document her proof of vaccination status which also meant taking the shot during her pregnancy. When employers point to provincial & territorial offices of public health, who in turn point to PHAC, who themselves purport to be “following the science” pointing to papers such as yours, you have a very grave ethical obligation to ensure that you are correctly informing the public and not participating in the “safe and effective” jingoism we have been exposed to ad nauseam and that was debunked by international Nobel prize level specialists even before it rolled out.
I was particularly interested in your study given its very recent publication date, as I was assuming its design would have been informed at the very least by current knowledge of poor maternal-fetal health outcomes in association with COVID-19 vaccination products as reported by means of various long-standing pharmaco-vigilance tools.
And then I was shocked!
that your LANCET publication does not include a careful weighing of the potential risks to pregnant mothers of NOT taking the injections weighed against the potential risks of taking the injections alongside of the potential benefits of NOT taking the injections against the potential benefits of taking the injections;
that your entire publication focused around only a 7 day period post injection and that from only that small snapshot in time you would speak so strongly in favour of COVID-19 shots for pregnant mothers moving forward;
that your team is missing the expertise of those who understand the biochemistry at a cellular level of what happens with “the rubber meets the road” i.e. how EXACTLY the various components of the injection (the lipid nanoparticles, the mRNA, and all the associated liquids, etc.) interact with cell membranes, nuclei and all other cellular components within different tissue types, etc. And how EXACTLY the body’s immune cells interact with the spike protein that is either generated by or included with the injection. And EXACTLY what is happening to induce VAIDS in those who have undergone repeated injections (Vaccine Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome). And, given your awareness that SARS-CoV-2 can cross over through the placenta allowing its spike protein component to negatively impact the fetus, how EXACTLY the very same process can be repeated with ease for the spike protein generated by the vaccines. I would have assumed that by now you would be aware that the very thing you are hoping vaccination will prevent (maternal and fetal damage from the spike protein part of the SARS-CoV-2 virus) has the very real potential to occur repeatedly (maternal and fetal damage due to the spike protein generated by the vaccine products.)
As a layperson trying to understand the constraints under which professionals in different corners of the healthcare field are working, I will embed my questions to you in bold and hope that one of your team members can reply.
Given a lengthy publication cycle, when was the latest date that you could have made revisions to your concluding comments in order to still have it get published at this time? In other words, assuming you had been following the data while your manuscript was at the preprint stage, in which month could you still have added text like:
While the data was gathered in a 7 day pre-Omicron period, the risks to a pregnant mother of severe illness now in the era of Omicron are much lower than the risks were when the original data was gathered.
And
While we provided study participants with a list of possible known allergic reactions as per the Canadian Coding Standards of such and such date https://secure.cihi.ca/free_products/COVID-19_Addendum_Pandemics_Epidemics-en.pdf we did not provide study participants with a list showing the 8 categories of post Covid Injection Syndrome Disease (See bottom of this letter). Since our study relied primarily on self-reporting, it is likely that participants who experienced a range of pCoIS symptoms that appeared unrelated to actions at the injection site might not have made the association.Study results might have been significantly different had participants been aware that they could have reported other issues.
And
While the onset of certain cardiac and neurological adverse effects can be sudden, many of the pCoIS adverse events take longer to manifest themselves. A definite limitation of this study design is the very short time frame that was used, so the study’s findings need to be considered with caution.
I am curious about how Canadian scientists come together to jointly launch research projects. I note that among the authors of this study, a number of you work out of the Vaccine Evaluation Centre at the BC Childrens’ Hospital Research Institute. I note that collectively, you bring a range of expertise to the table: an infectious disease background (C Difficile), Influenza surveillance, antibiotic resistance, health policy management, adverse reactions in pediatric vaccinations prior to COVID, issues around the role of pharmacists in prescribing, and “the interface between mathematical modelling, biostatistics, and machine learning.”
But a quick scan of your bios appears to indicate a lack of expertise related to the biochemistry around what actually happens in the body when the gene-based injections known as “COVID vaccines” enter as described for example here: Michael Palmer: Summary of the evidence – irrefutable proof of causality https://doctors4covidethics.org/video-replays-d4ce-symposium-iv-session-i/
There also appears to be no indication that the team is aware of the large body of evidence around maternal and pediatric health outcomes in international reporting systems such as VAERS, as interpreted by Canadian computational biologist Dr. Jessica Rose
and
https://worldcouncilforhealth.org/multimedia/jessica-rose-demystifying-data-better-way-conference/.
There is no representation on your committee of colleagues in the various subspecialties that work directly with the vaccine injured continually being spun out at the other end of pro-vax recommendations such as yours. In fact, possibly still unbeknownst to you, but documented in the literature for quite some time, it is known that in the case of the injected ONLY, long, rubbery clots of indeterminate nature are being found within the blood vessels of the deceased (and in living as seen in this possibly off putting video of open heart surgery.) https://www.bitchute.com/video/2jGJx2qRnrYY/ ) This needs to give us all pause.
And finally, it appears there is no one on your team who represents a hands-on understanding of fetal and maternal health among the living, or post mortem.
Pathologist Dr. Roger Hodkinson explains that the dearth of confirmation of vaccine related deaths in the records is not due to the lack of vaccine related deaths themselves but to systemic barriers precluding the performance of autopsies using the right tools. (You don’t find what you are not looking for.) And, knowing as you do, of the potential for spike protein to cross over to the fetus, he posits, as you do not, the very real possibility that the resulting scarring can lead to the sterility of any female fetus. It is not common knowledge to most that a woman’s entire store of unfertilized eggs develops in utero, before she is born. This long term adverse event of the vaccine injections that you are advocating will not be known for at least 2 decades when daughters of injected mothers seek to become pregnant. Please listen in particular to the last third of this recording where Dr. Hodkinson addresses this topic: :https://brightlightnews.com/interview-there-could-be-a-significant-reduction-in-human-ability-to-populate-dr-roger-hodkinson/
To hear from someone who deals with over 7000 high risk pregnancies annually, please listen to this recording by Dr. James Thorp (Board Certified Obstetrician and Gynecologist and also Board Certified Maternal Fetal Medicine Physician.)
https://worldcouncilforhealth.org/multimedia/ga-48/
In his comparison of pregnant women who received the COVID shots vs. the influenza vaccine in prior years, he and a team of high level statisticians noted a much higher level of adverse reporting with regards to COVID-19 injections.
ahttps://totalityofevidence.com/dr-james-thorp/
“Following the science” needs to include eyes wide open from all vantage points.
To your credit, you do recognise that your small sample size is an important limitation (as do your colleagues with NIAID backing in the study you cite re: the risk to the mother of getting COVID during her pregnancy https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/35176002/) But you may not be aware of how the headline hungry compromised press will amplify the one-liner takeaways and run with ANY pro-vax recommendation without bothering with any stated limitations and caveats.
Looking at the information from a maternal-fetal, computational biological and other vantage points shared above, how will you now review and update your 6-month follow up study before it too, goes to publication and dissemination?
How can you justify the exclusion of these crucial areas of expertise to the government funders of this study who would be relying directly on your work to develop further policy, not to mention to taxpayers like myself?
I would like to assume that the issue might be as simple as continually circulating within a niche-specific CANVAS bubble. Are you aware of mechanisms through which cross-disciplinary connections can be made, such as via membership in the Canadian Covid Care Alliance? If not, you may not know of their weekly Science Round Tables at which participants can hear directly from and speak directly to colleagues across the spectrum of medical research and clinical practice. The majority of these professionals would heartily support your stance on all the major childhood vaccines, yet at some point within the past 1 - 2 years, their eyes have been opened to the very definite LACK of safety, necessity and efficacy of the COVID-19 vaccine products that have been skillfully marketed as vaccines but which have NOT been tested commensurate with their true nature? (See https://phmpt.org/)
Without a recognition of what actually happens “where the rubber meets the road” (i.e. where toxic spike protein impacts maternal, placental and fetal cells) your work is akin to that of Skinner and his back box. Overall population level statistical analysis NEEDS to be partnered with a micro level look at processes involved in order for any study to drive decision making, whether at the government, or employer or educational level.
Nothing less than that can be used to make recommendations with life and death consequences.
Moving forward, I urge you to work with subject specialists from the Canadian Covid Care Alliance, to issue some sort of press release to provide additional context and up to date guidance. This is crucial NOW, as governments and educational decision makers are gearing up for the new school year. With the high preponderance of women in education - NOT to warn the population that your study is severely limited and should NOT be acted open without further field specific knowledge is unconscionable.
Thank you
Sincerely Hannah Luise
(Concerned Citizen, educator, mother and and friend)
As mentioned above, here for your consideration is the information provided by the World Council for Health on pCoIS.
Post Covid-19 Injection Syndrome or pCoIS (also called Post Covid-19 Vaccine Syndrome or pCoVS) is a new complex multi-system inflammatory syndrome. A syndrome is a collection of symptoms that may differ from person to person. Emerging data show that pCoIS is similar to Long Covid or Chronic Fatigue Syndrome and manifests as a combination of the following symptoms:
muscle and joint pain
gastrointestinal upset
weakness
numbness and tingling in the extremities
intense fatigue
poor sleep
brain fog
Unlike Long Covid, pCoIS does not appear to necessarily progress from a Covid-19 like illness but may arise spontaneously weeks after a Covid-19 injection. As pCoIS is a new condition, we don’t know the long-term significance of the symptoms.
Eight categories of pCoIS disease
Categorization
Description
Cardiac Complications (pCoIS-Car)
For post-injection symptoms affecting the heart such as inflammation or myocarditis, heart attack, or heart failure
Neurological Complications (pCoIS-N)
For post-injection symptoms affecting the brain and nervous system such as Guillain Barre Syndrome, encephalitis, Parkinson's Disease, memory loss, and dementia
Haematological Complications (pCoIS-H)
For post-injection symptoms affecting the blood cells such as blood clots, thrombocytopenia and lymphoma
Vascular Complications (pCoIS-V)
For post-injection symptoms affecting blood vessels such as stroke, blood vessel thrombosis, and pulmonary embolism
Immune System Complications (CoIS-IS)
For post injections symptoms affecting the immune system including autoimmune diseases (e.g. Diabetes Mellitus, Multiple Sclerosis and Chrohn's Disease) and infections (e.g. Shingles, Herpes, Epstein Barr Virus)
Reproductive Health Complications (PCoIS-RH)
For post-injection complications affecting pregnancy and the reproductive organs such as adverse pregnancy outcomes, heavy periods, post-menopausal bleeding, and infertility
Cancer Complications (PCoIS-Can)
For post-injection appearance of cancers such as breast cancer, lymphoma, leukemia, and brain cancer
Congenital Complications (pCoIS-Con)
For post-injection congenital complications such as diseases/abnormalities present from birth (e.g. bleeding and clotting abnormalities, deformities)
Also, are you aware of work done by Dr. Steven Pelech and Co re: antibody testing and the high prevalence of Sars-CoV-2 immunity in the population?
If not, please view his explanation of his work here: https://www.bitchute.com/video/4UNQCMFOHA12/
UBC PROF OF MEDICINE STEPHEN PELECH SPEAKS OUT ON COVID IMMUNITY IN VACCINATED VS UNVACCINATED
Contact information can be found here: https://www.kinexus.ca/contact/contact.html
Consider how many miscarriages and of course other vaccine related injuries could have been prevented had employers known how their employees could demonstrate long lasting immunity instead of “proof of vaccination” in order to keep their jobs?