The United Kingdom’s Health Security Agency (UKHSA) has finally updated the “Vaccination in pregnancy” dataset in its “COVID-19 Vaccine Surveillance Report,” showing that the birth rate in England plummeted by 11.9 percent in 2022.
For more than six months, said data was simply missing, which many believed was the UKHSA’s way of hiding the truth from the public. It turns out these suspicions were accurate as the latest data shows that Wuhan coronavirus (Covid-19) “vaccines” are progressively depopulating England. (Related: Throughout 2022, the birth rate in Taiwan similarly plummeted by 23 percent, largely due to covid injections.)
Compared to England’s birth rate in 2021, the 2022 data for the UK shows a steep drop-off in new births ever since the launch of Operation Warp Speed. Between January and November of 2021, there were 478,382 births in England. During that same time period in 2022, the number of new births was only 421,284.
“That’s 57,098 fewer births in 2022, which is a drop of 11.9 percent,” reports The Daily Sceptic.
UKHSA padded its “unvaccinated” control group with women who got injected BEFORE they got pregnant
In 2022, the worst month in terms of new births occurred in September. Compared to September 2021, September 2022 saw a birth rate decrease of 15.7 percent, a substantial drop-off.
The timing makes sense because this is when England saw peak uptake among pregnant women of the first dose of Fauci Flu shots. In other words, the month that saw the highest uptake of covid injections among pregnant women also saw the biggest plunge in birth rate compared to the same month a year prior.
Amazingly, the UKHSA still claims, despite the new data, that covid shots are perfectly safe and effective, including during pregnancy. The agency hopes to get away with this by toying with the data and the way it is presented to make it seem as though there is little difference in birth rates between vaccinated and unvaccinated pregnant women.
“Its graphs attempt to show that there isn’t much difference between vaccinated and unvaccinated mothers,” The Daily Sceptic reported about this data anomaly.
“However, in my opinion, these data don’t show much and could be considered disingenuous because the authors never compare with unvaccinated women. Instead they use the term ‘no doses in pregnancy.’ This means instead of being a purely unvaccinated control group, women who were vaccinated before they were pregnant are lumped in the same group.”
It is a common tactic in the vaccine industry to never compare health outcomes in vaccinated people to a truly unvaccinated control group. Either they create a control group where members are vaccinated with a different injection or they do what the UKHSA appears to have done here, which is deceptively include “unvaccinated” women in the control group who were vaccinated before they got pregnant.
“The beginning of the drop coinciding with the peak in first vaccinations is worrying, as is the chart showing that the more wealthy and more vaccinated women are having fewer babies,” The Daily Sceptic notes.
In the comments, someone cited Arkmedic data showing that the experimental gene therapies they are calling “covid vaccines” resulted in an approximate doubling of pregnancy loss before 20 weeks – and that the authorities knew about this before they approved the shots for pregnant women.
“It’s a travesty that pregnant women who didn’t benefit from this treatment at all were coerced into taking an investigational product that was known to have a higher rate of fetal loss … which was known by the FDA and the CDC at subsequent safety assessments,” this person wrote.
by: Ethan Huff
Join: 👉 https://t.me/acnewspatriots
The opinions expressed by contributors and/or content partners are their own and do not necessarily reflect the views of AC.NEWS
Disclaimer: This article may contain statements that reflect the opinion of the author. The contents of this article are of sole responsibility of the author(s). AC.News will not be responsible for any inaccurate or incorrect statement in this article www.ac.news websites contain copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available to our readers under the provisions of “fair use” in an effort to advance a better understanding of political, health, economic and social issues. The material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving it for research and educational purposes. If you wish to use copyrighted material for purposes other than “fair use” you must request permission from the copyright owner. Reprinting this article: Non-commercial use OK. If you wish to use copyrighted material for purposes other than “fair use” you must request permission from the copyright owner.
Disclaimer: The information and opinions shared are for informational purposes only including, but not limited to, text, graphics, images and other material are not intended as medical advice or instruction. Nothing mentioned is intended to be a substitute for professional medical advice, diagnosis or treatment.
Discussion about this post