Why Pregnant PEOPLE Should Get COVID-19 Vaccines As Soon As Possible

All info related to the new biggest hoax of our time.
User avatar
dirtybenny
Posts: 1573
Joined: Fri Sep 04, 2020 2:52 pm
Has thanked: 922 times
Been thanked: 733 times

Why Pregnant PEOPLE Should Get COVID-19 Vaccines As Soon As Possible

Unread post by dirtybenny »

QUESTION: How many social engineering attacks on manKIND can the AI get into one article?
ANSWER: Never enough.

From TIME magazine, a well-known trusted source for decades...

Why Pregnant People Should Get COVID-19 Vaccines As Soon As Possible

COVID-19 poses health risks during pregnancy for everyone involved. Pregnant people are at higher risk for severe disease, and the chances of negative outcomes for mother and baby—such as preeclampsia, preterm birth, and stillbirth—increase with infection. However, pregnant people were excluded from the original vaccine trials, so when the vaccines first became available, many soon-to-be-mothers were unsure about taking them.

Thousands of pregnant people have now been vaccinated in the U.S., and an abundance of data show that getting vaccinated during pregnancy is safe and protective for both mothers and babies, giving babies anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibodies and, according to a study published in June, a 69% lower chance of being hospitalized with the disease in their first 6 months of life.

Now, research published in the journal Nature Communications on June 28 shows that getting the COVID-19 vaccine during any of the three trimesters of pregnancy confers measurable benefits to the mother and child, and there may be ways to optimize protection based on when the shots are given.

Dr. Andrea Edlow says that while it’s important for unvaccinated women to get vaccinated as soon as possible, the study shows how to maximize the benefits for both mother and fetus. “If I were an unvaccinated pregnant person, I would definitely get vaccinated in the first trimester. But I would also probably use the opportunity then to be boosted in the third trimester,” says Edlow. (However, she emphasizes that during the pandemic, the priority is getting vaccinated as soon as possible, no matter what trimester you’re in.)


“The important message for pregnant people is: by protecting yourself, you’re doing the best thing that you can do to protect your baby,”

...says the demon, tricking a pregnant mother, using her love and care for her child as a weapon to assault that same child.

https://time.com/6192385/pregnant-covid ... en-to-get/

Edlow was a MEAD JOHNSON speaker.....

https://perinatalresearchsociety.org/wo ... -final.pdf

https://www.meadjohnson.com/

Mead Johnson makes Enfamil

https://www.enfamil.com/

FORMULA is linked with developmental delays.....

https://medcraveonline.com/JPNC/breast- ... sleep.html





Attachments
AGE+head+shot.jpg
User avatar
rachel
Posts: 3769
Joined: Thu Oct 11, 2018 9:04 pm
Location: Liverpool, England
Has thanked: 1312 times
Been thanked: 1611 times

Re: Why Pregnant PEOPLE Should Get COVID-19 Vaccines As Soon As Possible

Unread post by rachel »

That quote does sound like AI writing and no one actually bothered to act as an editor to test how well it reads. Rather, someone just did a find-and-replace on "women" with "people" but totally missed the instances of "mother", then didn't actually read the article to see how well it scanned.

I like pulling this up to show how widespread this practice now is.

436 Randomly Generated ‘Peer Reviewed’ Papers Published by Springer Nature
https://alethonews.com/2021/10/04/436-r ... er-nature/
The most plausible explanation is that these papers are being auto-generated using something called a context-free grammar. The goal is probably to create the appearance of interest in the authors they cite. In academia promotions are linked to publications and citations, creating a financial incentive to engage in this sort of metric gaming. The signs are all there: inexplicable topic switches half way through sentences or paragraphs, rampant grammatical errors, the repetitive title structure, citations of real papers and so on. Another sign is the explanation the journal supplied for how it occurred: the editor claims that his email address was hacked.

In this case, something probably went wrong during the production process that caused different databases of pre-canned phrases to be mixed together incorrectly. The people generating these papers are doing it on an industrial scale, so they didn’t notice because they don’t bother reading their own output. The buyers didn’t notice – perhaps they can’t actually read English, or don’t exist. Then the journal didn’t notice because, apparently, it’s enough for just one person to get “hacked” for the journal to publish entire editions filled with nonsense. And finally none of the journal’s readers noticed either, leading to the suspicion that maybe there aren’t any.

The volunteers spotting these papers are uncovering an entire science-laundering ecosystem, hiding in plain sight.

We know randomly generated papers can get published because it’s happened hundreds of times before. Perhaps the most famous example is SCIgen, “a program that generates random Computer Science research papers, including graphs, figures, and citations” using context-free grammars. It was created in 2005 by MIT grad students as a joke, with the aim to “maximize amusement, rather than coherence“. SCIgen papers are buzzword salads that might be convincing to someone unfamiliar with computer science, albeit only if they aren’t paying attention.

Looking at her eyes I wondered if she too was an AI character, but with the video, I would instead go in the direction of actor an actor paid a fee to turn up and pretend to be a white coat. It looks like she's wearing contacts and her teeth are capped.

75012092_12_image.jpg

This is what I mean about the eye. On neither eye is the pupil in the centre, that points to either computer generated or circle lenses.

A13-77.jpg

This gives a clue how circle lenses can drift to give an apparent off-centre pupil.

b geo-tricolor-grey-beforeafter.jpg
User avatar
Unreal
Posts: 166
Joined: Sun Jan 24, 2021 8:06 am
Has thanked: 237 times
Been thanked: 226 times

Re: Why Pregnant PEOPLE Should Get COVID-19 Vaccines As Soon As Possible

Unread post by Unreal »

rachel wrote: Fri Jul 01, 2022 12:48 pm That quote does sound like AI writing and no one actually bothered to act as an editor to test how well it reads.
-
Thats a very good pick-up, Rachel. And the links to AI research papers pretty scary.
-
Only when i read the statement again did "pregnant people" really stand out.
-
I mean no human ever would call pregnant women "people" which means that AI today is deployed as a working tool. The mere fact that we suspect more and better AI is deployed seems to be confirmed. If we suspect AI is deployed on places Discord servers, Twitter and Insta - seeing AI show up being actively deployed in Science and research is even more scary. After all, the standard of proof in science is "Peer Reviewed Science" and if those papers are written and reviewed by AI...
-
Oh, and completely agree Dr Edlow's smile looks fishy. A well educated woman in her thirties today would not have a big chance of walking around with a pronounciated overbite. On the other hand if she wore some type of dental prostehtics this would come atop her natural teeth and gum thus creating an inhabitual overbite and overlap for the upper teeth.
-
Image
The upper front teeth are protruding significantly compared to front lower teeth from the perspective and shadow in this photo
-
And of course, they clearly hope to create empathy and sympathy with the name of the doctor too - Andrea means "man" and Edlow is just an obvious anagram of loved aka "low-Ed". Clearly a wordplay to subconsciously please women. Lure them indeed.
User avatar
rachel
Posts: 3769
Joined: Thu Oct 11, 2018 9:04 pm
Location: Liverpool, England
Has thanked: 1312 times
Been thanked: 1611 times

Re: Why Pregnant PEOPLE Should Get COVID-19 Vaccines As Soon As Possible

Unread post by rachel »

Good catches @Unreal. Overbites, once you start noticing them...it's like, what the hell world am I actually living in.

Here's an update from the writer of that article, it's dated last month.

Fake Science: The Threat Posed by AI-Generated Research Papers to Scientific Publishing
https://dailysceptic.org/2022/06/08/fak ... ublishing/
User avatar
rachel
Posts: 3769
Joined: Thu Oct 11, 2018 9:04 pm
Location: Liverpool, England
Has thanked: 1312 times
Been thanked: 1611 times

Re: Why Pregnant PEOPLE Should Get COVID-19 Vaccines As Soon As Possible

Unread post by rachel »

Time to assume that health research is fraudulent until proven otherwise?
https://blogs.bmj.com/bmj/2021/07/05/ti ... otherwise/
Health research is based on trust. Health professionals and journal editors reading the results of a clinical trial assume that the trial happened and that the results were honestly reported. But about 20% of the time, said Ben Mol, professor of obstetrics and gynaecology at Monash Health, they would be wrong. As I’ve been concerned about research fraud for 40 years, I wasn’t that surprised as many would be by this figure, but it led me to think that the time may have come to stop assuming that research actually happened and is honestly reported, and assume that the research is fraudulent until there is some evidence to support it having happened and been honestly reported. The Cochrane Collaboration, which purveys “trusted information,” has now taken a step in that direction.

As he described in a webinar last week, Ian Roberts, professor of epidemiology at the London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine, began to have doubts about the honest reporting of trials after a colleague asked if he knew that his systematic review showing the mannitol halved death from head injury was based on trials that had never happened. He didn’t, but he set about investigating the trials and confirmed that they hadn’t ever happened. They all had a lead author who purported to come from an institution that didn’t exist and who killed himself a few years later. The trials were all published in prestigious neurosurgery journals and had multiple co-authors. None of the co-authors had contributed patients to the trials, and some didn’t know that they were co-authors until after the trials were published. When Roberts contacted one of the journals the editor responded that “I wouldn’t trust the data.” Why, Roberts wondered, did he publish the trial? None of the trials have been retracted.

Later Roberts, who headed one of the Cochrane groups, did a systematic review of colloids versus crystalloids only to discover again that many of the trials that were included in the review could not be trusted. He is now sceptical about all systematic reviews, particularly those that are mostly reviews of multiple small trials. He compared the original idea of systematic reviews as searching for diamonds, knowledge that was available if brought together in systematic reviews; now he thinks of systematic reviewing as searching through rubbish. He proposed that small, single centre trials should be discarded, not combined in systematic reviews.

Mol, like Roberts, has conducted systematic reviews only to realise that most of the trials included either were zombie trials that were fatally flawed or were untrustworthy. What, he asked, is the scale of the problem? Although retractions are increasing, only about 0.04% of biomedical studies have been retracted, suggesting the problem is small. But the anaesthetist John Carlisle analysed 526 trials submitted to Anaesthesia and found that 73 (14%) had false data, and 43 (8%) he categorised as zombie. When he was able to examine individual patient data in 153 studies, 67 (44%) had untrustworthy data and 40 (26%) were zombie trials. Many of the trials came from the same countries (Egypt, China, India, Iran, Japan, South Korea, and Turkey), and when John Ioannidis, a professor at Stanford University, examined individual patient data from trials submitted from those countries to Anaesthesia during a year he found that many were false: 100% (7/7) in Egypt; 75% (3/ 4) in Iran; 54% (7/13) in India; 46% (22/48) in China; 40% (2/5) in Turkey; 25% (5/20) in South Korea; and 18% (2/11) in Japan. Most of the trials were zombies. Ioannidis concluded that there are hundreds of thousands of zombie trials published from those countries alone.

Others have found similar results, and Mol’s best guess is that about 20% of trials are false. Very few of these papers are retracted.
User avatar
Unreal
Posts: 166
Joined: Sun Jan 24, 2021 8:06 am
Has thanked: 237 times
Been thanked: 226 times

Re: Why Pregnant PEOPLE Should Get COVID-19 Vaccines As Soon As Possible

Unread post by Unreal »

rachel wrote: Fri Jul 01, 2022 11:24 pm Time to assume that health research is fraudulent until proven otherwise?
-
Indeed - and the BMJ (British Medical Journal) blog article still seems misleading as it points to just small trials an obvious fraud such as doctors who do not exist or were "suicided". Give me a break - doctors are frauds, and they do not get suicided anymore than there are real whistleblowers around, or schoolshootings.
-
What these people - here jewish doctors (Ben Mol) and institutions (Cochrane) - are trying to sell is that we still have an immune systen although viruses do no exist. I'm sorry but the real problem isn't the small, untrustworthy-when-controlled studies from some countries* only.
-
The real problem is that the big, verifiable studies from prestigous names and institutions are falsified*, which is how vaccines can even exist in the first place.
-
The fact there is back-pedalling from reputed institutions such as the British Medical Association (who publishes the BMJ) is good to see nevertheless, because it means they are working hard to keep credible. Meaning the are aware of loosing credibility. And may that trend be continued...

* quite conveniently the suspect countries who provide untrustworthy research are all among the habitual foes for the Occident such as Egypt, China, India, Iran, Japan, South Korea, and Turkey
-
[...] and confirmed that they hadn’t ever happened. They all had a lead author who purported to come from an institution that didn’t exist and who killed himself a few years later [...] None of the co-authors had contributed patients to the trials, and some didn’t know that they were co-authors until after the trials were published [...] particularly those that are mostly reviews of multiple small trials [...] John Carlisle analysed 526 trials submitted to Anaesthesia and found that 73 (14%) had false data, and 43 (8%) he categorised as zombie. When he was able to examine individual patient data in 153 studies, 67 (44%) had untrustworthy data and 40 (26%) were zombie trials [...]
-
So, by adding the numbers here of untrustworthy data and zombie trials, we get 22% for Anaesthesia and 70% for individual patient data. In other words the numbers break down to 22/7...
-
For utrustworthiness, those number are indeed very hard to trust from the BMJ who therefore seems to do exactly what they contend only small studies and untrustworthy researchers, countries and institutions do : cook their reviews and reports...
User avatar
rachel
Posts: 3769
Joined: Thu Oct 11, 2018 9:04 pm
Location: Liverpool, England
Has thanked: 1312 times
Been thanked: 1611 times

Re: Why Pregnant PEOPLE Should Get COVID-19 Vaccines As Soon As Possible

Unread post by rachel »

Yes it is an interesting dynamic. Trying to make sense of it, I think there are different motives at play.

Having worked in a university environment in three different disciplines, I can't say I saw anything that wasn't predominantly self-centred. I can trace everything to funding or reputation. What I mean, the primary motivation was never 'let's do this to help mankind" or "let's do this to kill mankind'. And everything was siloed, no one stepped on anyone else's patch. I think this is why it is so hard to stamp out the corruption, because at the lowest denomination, it is absolutely about the money. Even the people at the very top, it is still about the money, not so much for them, but because everyone below them is motivated by what the money allows them to do for their own gain.


A Telegraph report from 2009 on the leaked emails from University of East Anglia Climategate scandal. I remember reading a section of the email trail was a couple of the researchers having a fit because they couldn't show warming and they were concerned about the implications for ongoing funding for their unit.

Climate change: this is the worst scientific scandal of our generation
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/col ... ation.html
The third shocking revelation of these documents is the ruthless way in which these academics have been determined to silence any expert questioning of the findings they have arrived at by such dubious methods – not just by refusing to disclose their basic data but by discrediting and freezing out any scientific journal which dares to publish their critics' work. It seems they are prepared to stop at nothing to stifle scientific debate in this way, not least by ensuring that no dissenting research should find its way into the pages of IPCC reports.

Back in 2006, when the eminent US statistician Professor Edward Wegman produced an expert report for the US Congress vindicating Steve McIntyre's demolition of the "hockey stick", he excoriated the way in which this same "tightly knit group" of academics seemed only too keen to collaborate with each other and to "peer review" each other's papers in order to dominate the findings of those IPCC reports on which much of the future of the US and world economy may hang. In light of the latest revelations, it now seems even more evident that these men have been failing to uphold those principles which lie at the heart of genuine scientific enquiry and debate. Already one respected US climate scientist, Dr Eduardo Zorita, has called for Dr Mann and Dr Jones to be barred from any further participation in the IPCC. Even our own George Monbiot, horrified at finding how he has been betrayed by the supposed experts he has been revering and citing for so long, has called for Dr Jones to step down as head of the CRU.

And from a Daily Mail report from 2010. I actually have a grudging respect for the Daily Mail, while maybe not our friend, it is not on script with the agenda, instead it appears to use doublespeak to stop inconvenient information being totally deleted off the internet and memory-holed so people who can read between the lines can always reference back to the original facts. And I think this is definitely why what we would term 'the left' wants it destroyed.

Head of 'Climategate' research unit admits sending 'pretty awful emails' to hide data
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/articl ... mails.html

Scientists at the heart of the Climategate row were yesterday accused by a leading academic body of undermining science's credibility.
The Institute of Physics said 'worrying implications' had been raised after it was revealed the University of East Anglia had manipulated data on global warming.

The rebuke - the strongest yet from the scientific community - came as Professor Phil Jones, the researcher at the heart of the scandal, told MPs he had written 'some pretty awful emails' - but denied trying to suppress data.

The Climategate row, which was first revealed by the Daily Mail in November, was triggered when a hacker stole hundreds of emails sent from East Anglia's Climatic Research Unit.

They revealed scientists plotting how to avoid responding to Freedom of Information requests from climate change sceptics.

Some even appeared to show the researchers discussing how to manipulate raw data from tree rings about historical temperatures.

In one, Professor Jones talks about using a 'trick' to massage figures and 'hide the decline'.

I looked to see what Professor Philip Jones was doing now, I can't believe how the narrative has been turned on its head. from October 2021, just in time for COP 21:

THE TRICK: WHO IS PROFESSOR PHIL JONES AND WHERE IS HE NOW?
https://www.hitc.com/en-gb/2021/10/18/w ... n-watkins/
BBC One’s newest drama, The Trick, tells the story of the 2009 ‘Climategate’ controversy, a scandal that is attributed by many as a major factor in delaying measures that could have slowed down climate change.

The feature-length drama focuses on the story of Professor Phil Jones who was a key figure during the controversy that saw the University of East Anglia fall victim to a hack that saw hundreds of emails and files get leaked by climate change deniers.

But just who is Professor Phil Jones and where is he now, following the events depicted in The Trick?
User avatar
Unreal
Posts: 166
Joined: Sun Jan 24, 2021 8:06 am
Has thanked: 237 times
Been thanked: 226 times

Re: Why Pregnant PEOPLE Should Get COVID-19 Vaccines As Soon As Possible

Unread post by Unreal »

rachel wrote: Sat Jul 02, 2022 9:38 am But just who is Professor Phil Jones and where is he now, following the events depicted in The Trick?
-
Well, Phil Jones still has the same job as back when he was accused of fraud - now a research fellow since 2017. We can call that a revolution - going in a circle only to come back to the exact same position - one revolution.
-
There are many recurring tools in PsyOps, and the "benevolent anonymous hacker" must be one of the most useful ones in modern times. The hacker just shows up out of nowhere, remains anonymous but always has the common good in mind making documents available for us all cost free. It's Robin Hood hackery - all done in our interest and as the media needs it.
-
Its not easy to produce news on a daily basis keeping to certain scripts that in themselves are very boring and insignificant. Like the climate. We can't even get a three day weather report right. And everyone can attest for themselves that it gets hotter one year and colder another. To keep the climate crisis even remotely interesting for news reporting, hackers once more save the day. At no cost even for Phil Jones, probably to his benefit even with a film, some books and copyrights too one might suspect.
-
As for the motivation and planning behind fraudulent research, its clear most have no clue really about their role in the much larger system they actually are part of. Most people will as you say defend their income and position, without thinking of saving the world in any way. The actual Trick - not the film from BBC One - is to set a system in motion.
-
Once an organisatinal pattern is creaed, the cogs in the wheel will continue working just out of routine. The fact is, most people do not like working. Their passion resides in their private lives. When people work, they often therefore go into work-mode which is some type of automation where their mind is only partly present just doing enough to ensure the status quo or recurrent tasks. No saving the world thinking or suspecting some far fetched conspiracy...
User avatar
rachel
Posts: 3769
Joined: Thu Oct 11, 2018 9:04 pm
Location: Liverpool, England
Has thanked: 1312 times
Been thanked: 1611 times

The sickness of government actors

Unread post by rachel »

Just looking through my twitter feed and I see this, and straight away, that looks like a man, and there is something odd about the skin, the way it moves.



So let's look who the person is who is smiling while talking about covid vaccines, still births and miscarriages. Right, apparently one of the satanists at the UK's Department of Health and Social Care. Fancy that.

Dr Viki Male | COVID vaccines in Pregnancy


COVID 19 and Pregnancy: Vaccines, Fertility, & Breastfeeding
I'm sure Mark would say, "one of those tranny voices". And another plastic skin look.



Funny how the video quality gets progressively worse as she continues to speak. From Royal Imperial College, a Performing Arts College it would appear.

viki-male-1.png

Reminds me of this...

Celes female mask 11.jpeg

Let's cut out the distracting detail.

viki-male-2.png
User avatar
rachel
Posts: 3769
Joined: Thu Oct 11, 2018 9:04 pm
Location: Liverpool, England
Has thanked: 1312 times
Been thanked: 1611 times

Re: The sickness of government actors

Unread post by rachel »

Viki works at Imperial College, the same Imperial College tha employs Neil Ferguson.

Image

Sitting in a bedroom scene, is this to give us a sense this is a real person? A personal rather than a corporate feel? We can trust Viki, can't we...the background is probably fake and she is sitting in front of a green wall.

viki-male.gif
viki-male.gif (3.96 MiB) Viewed 2652 times

There is a blue strip at the top of her jumper and this merges with the blue seat behind her, I wonder if that is purposeful. It acts to reduce the width of her shoulders as they merge together. That goes with the way she is shaking her head in a bit of an over-the-top way as she speaks. I've noticed this before in a war documentary, an expert telling us about a historic record, I clocked it was a man playing the woman. Straight up, just an actor playing a character of the opposite sex.

Also, there is a reason she keeps smiling; her face at rest, she doesn't look feminine at all.

viki-male-6.png
A11-6.png
Post Reply