Likely true, indifferecnt to harm to the developing infant to the time of its birth. And, they are doing vaccine experiments of possible unknown stuff or strengths in both regular flu and Covid-19 injection(s), and any booster jabs.
The policies or research studies that I have personally read, or had personally experienced in births, or those of families and friends, often end in a conclusion that the study needs more money because more research is required. They are often leaving out the duty to the patient or client for their true risk consent, best taken in written form, witnessed, too.
Any human experiments by using any drug or an alleged vaccine or a treatment for prevention of spreading a virus or disease must have informed risk consent.
If the treatment, drug, or injection is being imposed by an academic, know it all as a fact policy, with no true required risk consent, there must be local, Provincial, State, Territory and Federal accountability if the medical care imposed has caused bodily harm or a premature death.
This injury or death is to any one person of any age group, or the gestation period of harm in the womb. I firmly belief "all" life must start at conception for all species.
One, JAMA just released a "study" trying to correlate abortion "bans" with higher infant mortality. This study should be construed as evidence of COVID 19 vaccination and infant mortality. It's impossible to trust what comes from these journals anymore. Evidence was relegated to Texas, which showed a rise in infant mortality from approx. 1900 per year to 2200 failing to mention VT, OR, and other states with marked increases and no 'abortion bans'. The study period was 2021 to 2022. VT during that time went from 0 infant deaths to 30 (I'm going by memory so it may be a bit less). Here's the study, if you want to call it that. It's more support for abortion. You just have to go to CDC wonder to find infant mortality. Talk about confounding factors being completely ignored. https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamapediatrics/article-abstract/2819785
Two, one just needs to start looking at NICU babies to realize congenital abnormalities went up precipitously during vaccine rollout and use, which wasn't seen to this extent even WITH the flu vaccine.
Three, I raised the question of vaccinating during pregnancy with the flu vax which started in 2005 with a big push in and around 2012. We see MATERNAL deaths tick upwards and still do today, say nothing of infant mortality.
All these lives lost and no science done PRIOR to just jabbing people. It's criminal. No informed consent to these pregnant mothers either. The safety is sorely lacking and they are all (including the babies of course) one big fat experiment.
Matching older siblings is exactly what not to do. If there is an older sibling, your parents have had an opportunity to observe atypical development in them. If they see it, their younger children will:
1) Have lower vaccination rates due to parental concerns
2) Have background higher risk of the adverse outcomes owing to heritdability, shared environmental exposures, or both.
This is confounding by contraindiucation and will stuff sicker children in the control group. It's the single most important reason all the "good" vaccine-autism studies are wrong. Analysis should be restricted to oldest children. And even this is far from enough to handle all flavors of this confounding.
They throwing the baby out with the bathwater?
Likely true, indifferecnt to harm to the developing infant to the time of its birth. And, they are doing vaccine experiments of possible unknown stuff or strengths in both regular flu and Covid-19 injection(s), and any booster jabs.
The policies or research studies that I have personally read, or had personally experienced in births, or those of families and friends, often end in a conclusion that the study needs more money because more research is required. They are often leaving out the duty to the patient or client for their true risk consent, best taken in written form, witnessed, too.
Any human experiments by using any drug or an alleged vaccine or a treatment for prevention of spreading a virus or disease must have informed risk consent.
If the treatment, drug, or injection is being imposed by an academic, know it all as a fact policy, with no true required risk consent, there must be local, Provincial, State, Territory and Federal accountability if the medical care imposed has caused bodily harm or a premature death.
This injury or death is to any one person of any age group, or the gestation period of harm in the womb. I firmly belief "all" life must start at conception for all species.
Without reading the study, I have a few comments.
One, JAMA just released a "study" trying to correlate abortion "bans" with higher infant mortality. This study should be construed as evidence of COVID 19 vaccination and infant mortality. It's impossible to trust what comes from these journals anymore. Evidence was relegated to Texas, which showed a rise in infant mortality from approx. 1900 per year to 2200 failing to mention VT, OR, and other states with marked increases and no 'abortion bans'. The study period was 2021 to 2022. VT during that time went from 0 infant deaths to 30 (I'm going by memory so it may be a bit less). Here's the study, if you want to call it that. It's more support for abortion. You just have to go to CDC wonder to find infant mortality. Talk about confounding factors being completely ignored. https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamapediatrics/article-abstract/2819785
Two, one just needs to start looking at NICU babies to realize congenital abnormalities went up precipitously during vaccine rollout and use, which wasn't seen to this extent even WITH the flu vaccine.
Three, I raised the question of vaccinating during pregnancy with the flu vax which started in 2005 with a big push in and around 2012. We see MATERNAL deaths tick upwards and still do today, say nothing of infant mortality.
All these lives lost and no science done PRIOR to just jabbing people. It's criminal. No informed consent to these pregnant mothers either. The safety is sorely lacking and they are all (including the babies of course) one big fat experiment.
Matching older siblings is exactly what not to do. If there is an older sibling, your parents have had an opportunity to observe atypical development in them. If they see it, their younger children will:
1) Have lower vaccination rates due to parental concerns
2) Have background higher risk of the adverse outcomes owing to heritdability, shared environmental exposures, or both.
This is confounding by contraindiucation and will stuff sicker children in the control group. It's the single most important reason all the "good" vaccine-autism studies are wrong. Analysis should be restricted to oldest children. And even this is far from enough to handle all flavors of this confounding.