I discovered this page quite early on & I was concerned when the push towards vaccinating pregnant women started up. There appeared to be no logical reason to experiment on pregnant women. This is dated Dec 2020.
That's just bad biostatistics from Brigham. If they wanted to assess the impact of Covid on pregnant women, they should have made a comparison between matched cohorts (same age, weight, race, etc) of pregnant women with Covid and pregnant women without Covid. You can't compare pregnant with Covid and not pregnant with Covid because you can't compare two groups that are not the same! That's biostatistics 101! You can't determine if the outcome (hospitalization) was a result of complications from pregnancy alone or an interaction between pregnancy and Covid. It's like saying "cancer patients with Covid have a higher risk of ICU admission than people of the same age without cancer".
I cannot look at this impartially, as I have two daughters of childbearing age, and one grandson (so far ...more would be nice).
Neither of them - both well educated ladies - have the faintest idea why I am so sceptical (despite having spent a career in public health management) but they both know their own mind: I have chosen to let them do their own research and leave them be even though I know they will believe the official nonsense, because I wish to continue to have a decent relationship with them, not browbeat them.
Any father who is wise knows that his daughters are always right.
Grrr - the more I say, the more I am labelled a conspiracy theorist !
Thank you for the care with which you analyse the data so that nn-medical people understand the terrible effects of these gene therapies. Let's hope the truth spreads and the damage can be limited.
Thank you so much for this amazing analysis and pulling together of the data.
Please may I ask…
• Would you be able to provide a link to the ICNARC data / report where you sourced your data for the table showing ICU admissions per 28 days and deaths per 100 days for those two time windows? (I’ve scoured their website, but can’t seem to find the report.)
• Would be able to provide a link(s) to the source(s) you used to build the big graph. I’m especially thinking of the stillbirths, preterms and EMCS lines? (This is probably asking you to do too much work. But you might have it handy.)
Several people have emailed me this morning (some with screenshots) showing that the ICNARC reports page where I sourced several years worth of their reports had magically gone 'blank' overnight. To resolve the issue and make sure the report can't disappear, I have added the PDF into the article above.
The links for the ONS and NHS data that was used in the big graph were actually already in the post (with a link to each of the three years maternity services reports and further on, a link to the vaccine uptake report used to build the three vaccine lines.
"It means that fewer pregnant and recently postpartum women were being sent to ICU in 2020 and early 2021 during the main Covid-19 period."
Isn't the reason for this that as many people as possible were kept out of hospitals because those were filled over capacity with Covid patients, and were also a possible source of Covid infection ?
Well done for looking at it but please understand you have completely misunderstood and misinterpreted what that graph means. The graph, as I have said in my post here on substack, is 'days supported' (as in how many person days were used by pregnant and recently postpartum patients) and has nothing to do with the number of patients. As I state, it would only take ONE patient being in the ICU a significantly longer amount of time than the norm (the norm, for reference, is 0.8 to 3.4 days). Pregnant women with bacterial pneumonia or flu normally spend more than 3 days in ICU - so that in and of itself is not something to get excited about. We found a single patient in one hospital in england that had a 130 day stay on ECMO - which is highly unusual AND explained the entire rise for 'days supported' for the London district. Think about that... One. Single. Patient. Therefore what we need to know is how many patients went to ICU and for how long... not the sum total of days supported. The graph is misleading and entirely irrelevant as a measure for covid or anything else
Yes and no. The actual comparison to numbers pre 'pandemic' (2019) are accurate as displayed. eg- currently pregnant 2021 cardiovascular support >+4000% vs 2019.
Also a 30% increase in babies needing extra care at Edinburgh Royal Infirmary in 2021.
Pregnant women needing ICU care increased by 37% in 2021 vs 2020.
If the pre-covid level was 0.8 hours (48min) and the post-covid was 4000% higher, that's only an increase to 13.33 days. Which could still only be one woman.
A 30% increase in babies could simply be a rise from 3 to 4 (approx).
We need to know how many, not some arbitrary and misleading aggregate for simply telling us it was 3, 7, or 15 patients.
Until they are willing to be honest and upfront and give us proper raw numbers, their claims are nonsense
They will NEVER be honest and upfront though. That's the whole point. The numbers i portrayed are accurate vs pre pandemic from their own data and as 'irrelevant' as they are there is enough of a signal here to warrant some raised eye-brows. I appreciate the critique and that other people are doing their best to independently analyse these reports. I agree most offical reports are very evasive and conclusions drawn often arbitrary.
Yes... the misuse of terms (and miscategorisations) are the most damning indictment on our government and health services. That they are misclassifying people as unvaccinated after they have received a jab is immoral. That they think they can get away with calling an empty or inconclusive record in a system that is famous already for being incorrect 'unvaccinated' is fraud. And everyone forgets that not ONCE but TWICE the UK govt had to reverse (reduce) the number of Covid-19 deaths because of misclassification and double-counting between the ONS and PHE... but they want us to trust whatever number they come up with today even though history shows they were manipulating and misleading us before. Are we that damaged that we will let them beat us black and blue like a battered spouse and then turn around and accept it when they tell us it is our fault?
I couldn't agree more ! And i share your frustrations with the data. I know much of it is garbage but i will be using is the same way they used it to promote nonsensical COVID paranoia ! We are ar at war ! Fire all cannons !! No time to hold back !! In Scotland the ''unvaccinated'' scam was even worse as was 21 DAYS vs typical 14 days. I won't be accepting any of the COVID nonsense and have been calling it out since 2020 hence why i was expelled from twitter and even post Musk era i have 4 appeals rejected ! We need so many more people looking at the data and where i make some mistakes due to time/life constraints accuracy is really important when challenging the narrative of lies !! We are at the stage now when i can submit National Records of Scotland data to my MSP's and they will reply i shit you not saying it is misinformation.
Anecdotal but important. We have a charity here in the US called Now I Lay Me Down to Sleep. Its a collection of photographers who volunteer their time to go to local hospitals to photograph stillbirths so that the parents have some visual memories of their dead children. My friend works for their local chapter here in Idaho. She said in all the years she's done it, she's never been MORE busy.
Never before has there ever been encouragement to take or do anything questionable while you are pregnant, not ever!
this is a heinous crime! 
I wasn’t even allowed to take Tylenol or Advil, just told to take prenatal vitamins and drink tons of water that’s all!! 
I had to give up COFFEE during pregnancy, because docs are so paranoid.
But sure, go sign up for the new drug experiment with no safety track record in *any* population, forget pregnant women...
Indeed. But yet novel experimental gene therapy jabs are somehow good to take while pregnant, according to the "experts". Riiiiight.
What a thorough analysis of complex information! With damning conclusions.
Thank you.
I wanted to post a cogent response to this.
But all that comes to mind are swear words.
Thanks, though. This is really important.
My thoughts exactly. The main word rattling unshakeably in my head is - BASTARDS!
Health "authorities" have utterly destroyed whatever credibility they once enjoyed.
So true
The ‘KoolAid’ was the propaganda that drove millions to deadly injections. The survivors are paying the price.
I discovered this page quite early on & I was concerned when the push towards vaccinating pregnant women started up. There appeared to be no logical reason to experiment on pregnant women. This is dated Dec 2020.
https://www.nih.gov/vast-majority-pregnant-women-covid-19-wont-have-complications-study-finds
Absolutely excellent, Joel
Lies.
Damned lies.
And statistics.
The Truth ALWAYS outs. :)
That's just bad biostatistics from Brigham. If they wanted to assess the impact of Covid on pregnant women, they should have made a comparison between matched cohorts (same age, weight, race, etc) of pregnant women with Covid and pregnant women without Covid. You can't compare pregnant with Covid and not pregnant with Covid because you can't compare two groups that are not the same! That's biostatistics 101! You can't determine if the outcome (hospitalization) was a result of complications from pregnancy alone or an interaction between pregnancy and Covid. It's like saying "cancer patients with Covid have a higher risk of ICU admission than people of the same age without cancer".
I cannot look at this impartially, as I have two daughters of childbearing age, and one grandson (so far ...more would be nice).
Neither of them - both well educated ladies - have the faintest idea why I am so sceptical (despite having spent a career in public health management) but they both know their own mind: I have chosen to let them do their own research and leave them be even though I know they will believe the official nonsense, because I wish to continue to have a decent relationship with them, not browbeat them.
Any father who is wise knows that his daughters are always right.
Grrr - the more I say, the more I am labelled a conspiracy theorist !
Thank you for the care with which you analyse the data so that nn-medical people understand the terrible effects of these gene therapies. Let's hope the truth spreads and the damage can be limited.
Thank you so much for this amazing analysis and pulling together of the data.
Please may I ask…
• Would you be able to provide a link to the ICNARC data / report where you sourced your data for the table showing ICU admissions per 28 days and deaths per 100 days for those two time windows? (I’ve scoured their website, but can’t seem to find the report.)
• Would be able to provide a link(s) to the source(s) you used to build the big graph. I’m especially thinking of the stillbirths, preterms and EMCS lines? (This is probably asking you to do too much work. But you might have it handy.)
Thanks again very much for the amazing work.
Paul
Hi Paul,
Several people have emailed me this morning (some with screenshots) showing that the ICNARC reports page where I sourced several years worth of their reports had magically gone 'blank' overnight. To resolve the issue and make sure the report can't disappear, I have added the PDF into the article above.
The links for the ONS and NHS data that was used in the big graph were actually already in the post (with a link to each of the three years maternity services reports and further on, a link to the vaccine uptake report used to build the three vaccine lines.
Oh yes! Thank you.
Thank you very much for this. Well done for keeping the docs.
"It means that fewer pregnant and recently postpartum women were being sent to ICU in 2020 and early 2021 during the main Covid-19 period."
Isn't the reason for this that as many people as possible were kept out of hospitals because those were filled over capacity with Covid patients, and were also a possible source of Covid infection ?
(Just asking - for myself, not for a friend.)
So is the MONTHLY STILLBIRTHS UK graph actually ONLY the Scottish data ?
I did a post last week on the Scottish ICU audit data here - https://gettr.com/comment/c1pa269455c
❌Significant increases in days spent in ICU vs pregnant women needing organ support in ICU 2021 (post💉) vs pre pandemic levels.
(recently pregnant)
❌Advanced respiratory +110%
❌Cardiovascular support +70%
(currently pregnant)
❌Advanced respiratory +220%
🆘Cardiovascular support +4000%
Well done for looking at it but please understand you have completely misunderstood and misinterpreted what that graph means. The graph, as I have said in my post here on substack, is 'days supported' (as in how many person days were used by pregnant and recently postpartum patients) and has nothing to do with the number of patients. As I state, it would only take ONE patient being in the ICU a significantly longer amount of time than the norm (the norm, for reference, is 0.8 to 3.4 days). Pregnant women with bacterial pneumonia or flu normally spend more than 3 days in ICU - so that in and of itself is not something to get excited about. We found a single patient in one hospital in england that had a 130 day stay on ECMO - which is highly unusual AND explained the entire rise for 'days supported' for the London district. Think about that... One. Single. Patient. Therefore what we need to know is how many patients went to ICU and for how long... not the sum total of days supported. The graph is misleading and entirely irrelevant as a measure for covid or anything else
Yes, days supported not number of patients. But the number differnce still stands vs 2019.
Yes and no. The actual comparison to numbers pre 'pandemic' (2019) are accurate as displayed. eg- currently pregnant 2021 cardiovascular support >+4000% vs 2019.
Also a 30% increase in babies needing extra care at Edinburgh Royal Infirmary in 2021.
Pregnant women needing ICU care increased by 37% in 2021 vs 2020.
No... they are still irrelevant.
If the pre-covid level was 0.8 hours (48min) and the post-covid was 4000% higher, that's only an increase to 13.33 days. Which could still only be one woman.
A 30% increase in babies could simply be a rise from 3 to 4 (approx).
We need to know how many, not some arbitrary and misleading aggregate for simply telling us it was 3, 7, or 15 patients.
Until they are willing to be honest and upfront and give us proper raw numbers, their claims are nonsense
They will NEVER be honest and upfront though. That's the whole point. The numbers i portrayed are accurate vs pre pandemic from their own data and as 'irrelevant' as they are there is enough of a signal here to warrant some raised eye-brows. I appreciate the critique and that other people are doing their best to independently analyse these reports. I agree most offical reports are very evasive and conclusions drawn often arbitrary.
Yes... the misuse of terms (and miscategorisations) are the most damning indictment on our government and health services. That they are misclassifying people as unvaccinated after they have received a jab is immoral. That they think they can get away with calling an empty or inconclusive record in a system that is famous already for being incorrect 'unvaccinated' is fraud. And everyone forgets that not ONCE but TWICE the UK govt had to reverse (reduce) the number of Covid-19 deaths because of misclassification and double-counting between the ONS and PHE... but they want us to trust whatever number they come up with today even though history shows they were manipulating and misleading us before. Are we that damaged that we will let them beat us black and blue like a battered spouse and then turn around and accept it when they tell us it is our fault?
I couldn't agree more ! And i share your frustrations with the data. I know much of it is garbage but i will be using is the same way they used it to promote nonsensical COVID paranoia ! We are ar at war ! Fire all cannons !! No time to hold back !! In Scotland the ''unvaccinated'' scam was even worse as was 21 DAYS vs typical 14 days. I won't be accepting any of the COVID nonsense and have been calling it out since 2020 hence why i was expelled from twitter and even post Musk era i have 4 appeals rejected ! We need so many more people looking at the data and where i make some mistakes due to time/life constraints accuracy is really important when challenging the narrative of lies !! We are at the stage now when i can submit National Records of Scotland data to my MSP's and they will reply i shit you not saying it is misinformation.
Anecdotal but important. We have a charity here in the US called Now I Lay Me Down to Sleep. Its a collection of photographers who volunteer their time to go to local hospitals to photograph stillbirths so that the parents have some visual memories of their dead children. My friend works for their local chapter here in Idaho. She said in all the years she's done it, she's never been MORE busy.