Getting COVID-19 Vaccine during Pregnancy Helps Protect Newborns? New Canadian "Study" Alert!

They're at it again...

Here’s the link to a just-in study out of the Land of the Jabbed, Canada, “Maternal mRNA covid-19 vaccination during pregnancy and delta or omicron infection or hospital admission in infants: test negative design study” (BMJ, 2023.02.08).

While the title of the study is uninspiring, here’s the spin the Big Media is putting on it:

• “mRNA Covid vaccines taken during pregnancy found effective in protecting infants” (News18)

• “Getting COVID-19 vaccine during pregnancy helps protect newborns: study” (Global News)

• “COVID-19 vaccination during pregnancy helps protect newborns, Canadian study suggests” (The Canadian Press)

• “COVID vaccination in pregnancy found to protect infants against infection and hospital admission” (Medial Express)

We’ve seen similar “studies” before, proving “unequivocally” that Covid jabbinations protect against:

• car accidents (“Covid Jab Hesitancy and Car Crashes - We Have Study for That!”, 2022.12.24),

• myocarditis (“"COVID-19 is SEVEN Times More Dangerous for Myocarditis Than Vaccine?" Follow-Up”)

• the spread of Covid (“"Vaccinated" As Rabid Dogs - Counterview”)

• ICU admissions with pneumonia (“"Study" from Lombardy: Association of COVID-19 Vaccinations With ICU Admissions and Outcomes”)

And just to prove, to the remaining doubters, the preeminence of Canadian $cience one time too many (“Worried About Stroke? Don't Rush to Get Your Flu Shot Just Yet...”):

Dawn Walton @CTVdawnwalton

Annual flu shot can greatly reduce risk of stroke in adults say researchers @UCalgary

calgary.ctvnews.caAnnual flu shot can greatly reduce risk of stroke in adults, Canadian researchers sayGetting the flu shot can significantly reduce the chances of having a stroke, according to a new Canadian study.

If they put their minds to it the right way, there is nothing they cannot prove. Or is it the other way around?

Back to the latest-greatest. The “study” does the usual trick of counting freshly-vaccinated mothers of the SARS-CoV-2 diagnosed infants as unvaccinated:

We included infants younger than six months of age who were born between 7 May 2021 and 31 March 2022 and who were tested for SARS-CoV-2 between 7 May 2021 and 5 September 2022. The unvaccinated group was defined as not having received a covid-19 vaccine dose up to 14 days before the infant’s SARS-CoV-2 test; we, therefore, excluded infants of mothers who received: one or two mRNA covid-19 vaccine doses before conception and no doses during pregnancy; a first or second mRNA covid-19 vaccine dose less than 14 days before delivery; or a first or second mRNA covid-19 vaccine dose postpartum and at least 14 days before the infant’s SARS-CoV-2 test.

We considered infants who tested positive for delta or omicron to be cases and infants who tested negative to be controls. Because the omicron and delta periods overlapped, some infants with negative tests served as controls in the vaccine effectiveness analyses for both variants.

What not to like in this interpretation of the “vaccination” status? How about the propensity of freshly jabbed to fall ill with said SARVS-CoV-2 and pass it on? So much so that they are up to 1,467% more likely to die “of Covid” following the jab (almost 15 times) than the unvaccinated, as we can clearly see from this Swedish study, “2021 Swedish Data: 90% Jab Efficacy”:

Of course, those first 14 days after the jab are so crucial that any “study” that turns a blind eye to this fact, or, even “better”, exploits this circumstance, by miscategorizing freshly jabbed as unvaccinated, belongs, as they put it in North Korea, at the pillar of eternal shame for the scientific process subverters.

Look again at the “study” setup chart above. It states that if a mother received a Covid jab and her child has been diagnosed with SARV-CoV-2 within 14 days of that ominous maternal jab, welcome to the unjabbed club! Also, they specifically excluded 2362 cases (red box) where mothers were jabbed after the child’s birth, but more than 14 days away from the child’s positive PCR test. Therefore, they kept only children of mothers jabbed post partum within 14 days of the child’s positive PCR test. Such mothers, being times more prone to catching Covid and passing the virus to their children within those 14 dayswere then used to compare their stats to the cases where mothers were jabbed more than 14 days before giving birth. And the obvious conclusion from this rigged setup was that were those mothers jabbed well before the child’s birth, their chances of passing the virus to the child would have been lower. Dah, “einsteins”!

Just so we don’t forget them and their contribution, the undersigned authors of the “study” are:

Sarah C J Jorgensen, doctoral student, Alejandro Hernandez, data analyst, Deshayne B Fell, associate professor of epidemiology, Peter C Austin, senior scientist, Rohan D’Souza, associate professor of maternal-fetal medicine6 , Astrid Guttmann, professor of paediatrics, Kevin A Brown, assistant professor of public health, Sarah A Buchan, assistant professor of public health, Jonathan B Gubbay, associate professor of laboratory medicine, Sharifa Nasreen, postdoctoral fellow, Kevin L Schwartz, infectious diseases physician, Mina Tadrous, assistant professor of pharmacy, Kumanan Wilson, professor of medicine, Jeffrey C Kwong, professor of family medicine

And their [disclosed] competing interests are:

Competing interests: All authors have completed the ICMJE uniform disclosure form at https://www.icmje.org/disclosure-of-interest/ and declare: support from the Public Health Agency of Canada, the Canadian Institutes of Health Research, and the Ontario Ministry of Health and the Ministry of Long term Care for the submitted work; KW is chief executive officer of CANImmunize and serves on the data safety board for the Medicago covid-19 vaccine trial.

Please notify me if you notice other “irregularities” in this eye-opening “study”.