Most of you will have seen that yesterday I posted Part 2 of the work we are doing with Pregnant Women, Covid-19 and the ICU (you can read Part 1 here, and Part 2 here).
A couple of interesting things happened after that post…
First:
Several of you contacted me both in the comments (thanks Paul K) and by email (thanks LeslieP, MichEWall, ToryK and BunnyGal) to tell me that some of the reports pages at ICNARC had mysteriously ‘gone blank’ overnight.
Someone even took a photo of their screen and emailed it to me…
Yup… that looks pretty blank. Apparently they have now completed nothing!?!
In response I added the ICNARC report I had downloaded from their previously not so blank website to my substack.
Second:
The comments thread of the Part 2 post lit up with messages from a user called ‘Caz’.
‘Caz’ certainly appeared to have an axe to grind… and as the thread went on it was clear she was obsessed enough to grind it down to the handle.
She clearly became unsatisfied with not getting the answers she wanted, and it was clear she was failing in her attempt to expose me as misrepresenting the data - data that I did something almost NONE of the covidians do… I linked you all to it so you can go verify it for yourself!
Eventually she got to the point…
She posted a link to this preprint… and in doing so exposed herself as a COMPLETE fraud.
The Preprint
Before I expose ‘Caz’, let’s have a little wander through the preprint.
As Caz wants people to believe, the preprint does indeed say:
And the statistics do suggest that most of the and recently postpartum women were unvaccinated - But NOT the 98% Caz claims in her comment on my Part 2 post.
The table below is taken from the preprint - with unvaccinated in GREEN, one dose in YELLOW and two or more doses in RED. Simple math (or Microsoft Excel) tells us that the unvaccinated portion (1282) of the total number of pregnant and recently postpartum women (1652) is 78%. So that is Caz’s FIRST mistake.
Note that the boxes under the yellow column say N<5 for the categories Currently Pregnant and Recently pregnant. The health data standard is (usually) not to release actual numbers if there were less than five patients in a given category. That means there were 5 OR LESS women in each of those categories and we are not allowed to know exactly how many there were - YET somehow they show a total of 72 and 298 for those columns respectively. Something is up with that. Nothing else in the paper actually explained why these numbers were ‘missing’ nor how four squares with N<5 add up to such large amounts.
Did someone forget to carry the 1 and check their working out?
How can these supposed altruistic and experienced scientists expect you to believe the conclusions they draw from numbers that just magically appear and disappear in their tables?
BUT… and wait for it…
Thank you Mr Newton. Maybe, like our Mr Newton, you need to avoid Oxford and Nottingham universities in order to do credible and accurate science? (Sir Isaac Newton was a Cambridge man)
The devil is always in the detail.
How do you think they decided which pregnant women were unvaccinated?
Let’s go back to the preprint and look at their ‘Exposure Definitions’.
Firstly, they make the now infamous vaccination classification mistake. If someone sticks a needle in your arm and injects you with its contents… no… the clock does not start ticking in 14 days time. It starts ticking from the moment they push the plunger. Several prominent and credible researchers have pointed out that the official statistics from the ONS (and other governments) somehow seem to think you aren’t vaccinated until 14 days after the plunger was depressed and the needle withdrawn from your flesh. You can read about this issue and how it is used to create the illusion of vaccine efficacy in the UK here, here, and watch a video explaining how the con works here.
But secondly, and perhaps more damning for Caz and her preprint, if a woman had no linked Covid-19 vaccine record at all in NIMS - she was simply presumed to be unvaccinated and counted in the unvaccinated group.
There are a LOT of valid reasons why someone who IS vaccinated might not have a Covid-19 vaccine record in NIMS (and we know a good percentage don’t), which is also discussed in this paper. The authors even give us a pretty diagram showing all the possible ways that Covid-19 vaccination status can be over and under reported in NIMS which, with their permission, I reproduce here:
Even prominent mathematician Professor Sir David Spiegelhalter has said that NIMS is hopeless and biased.
Thirdly, and as I pointed out to Caz. Several of the authors have recieved or are currently working with funding from the single largest Covid-19 vaccine manufacturer shareholder in the world - the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation (BMGF)…
But do they declare this huge flag-waving conflict of interest? Anywhere?
It seems not.
Who is Caz?
Over the course of the day I have had several private messages from someone who works in the same department and group with one of the authors of the preprint… Prof Carol Coupland.
The person who messaged me seemed entirely convinced that ‘Caz’ was Carol and apologetically warned me off wasting any more time on her. They suggested I look at Carol’s publication list, and give attention to the fact that she has been named on many tens of published papers during the Covid-19 period (I lost count and ran out of give-a-effs at 60). Some stood out though - and suggested that the research group she was involved with, Recovery Collaboration - had a much larger (possibly financial) axe to grind. Recovery had been involved in trials that applauded the use of the new vaccines and other in-patent and expensive new drugs for Covid-19… whilst simultaneously roasting the use of cheap and off-patent HCQ.
Something else that was interesting happened at this point.
I threw Carol Coupland’s name into Google.
And this happened…
I went through four pages of search results and saw the same thing each time that an academic paper came up with her name in it…
What the heck does that even mean?
I followed the link and went to each journal’s web page… and searched for ‘Brought to you by Pfizer medical affairs’… but found nothing.
I downloaded and opened the PDF of the first half-dozen papers and searched them. Nothing.
But it does seem interesting…
Tell me what you think in the comments below.
Addendum:
The paper does make the claim:
However, this is entirely unverifiable AND is extremely unlikely. It also still ignores the glaring issue that, as I mentioned above, there are a LOT of reasons why a Covid-19 vaccination might not end up in NIMS even while the patient has a record in NIMS for other vaccinations.
In discussing with midwives HOW they record covid vaccination when a pregnant mother either has her booking visit or turns up to deliver, I was told:
If the midwife was disposed to do it (that is to say, many did not) the mother was simply asked “Have you had you Covid-19 vaccination”. No checks of vaccine passports, no looks in EMIS. Just a verbal question. That’s it.
Apparently there were a lot of mothers who simply answered “yes” because they either hoped that would negate further questions about why they were not vaccinated, or would negate being asked and having to refuse to be jabbed. Also, the midwives reported that several mothers they talked to responded that they had seen headlines saying that some people were (or should) be refused care if they were unvaccinated - and didn’t want that to happen. Saying ‘yes’ was easier.
The midwives were required to leave the EHR/EMR screen they were in and go through a convoluted process to get to the harriedly installed Covid-19 Vaccination Status page. I personally talked to midwives from three different obstetric units… all said the same thing. Very often they simply didn’t have time to do this. At best they may have added a narrative note on the page they were recording the patient’s history on… at worst they just didn’t bother to record it in the computer at all. The hospital system ONLY uploaded it to NIMS if it was entered in the correct screen. If it wasn’t… then no Covid-19 Vaccination status update to NIMS.
Given that everyone from prominent mathematicians, the ONS and DG of Statistics has said that the vaccine data cannot be used to calculate efficacy and is unreliable and biased… why do these people want us to believe that somehow magically they suddenly have only a 1% missing data rate? That is entirely unlikely and improbable.
NOTE: I also asked her point blank if she was Coupland… and if you go back to yesterday’s post and look at her responses… SHE HASN’T DENIED IT!
Well done. Some truly bizarre revelations here
Outstanding forensic analysis. Thank you for doing so. In one sense, science is supposed to happen like this, with arguments and factual empirical evidence used to consider what is happening. But science is not meant to involve secrecy, obfuscation and gaslighting, with conflicts of interest kept obscured. Great work!