Naturally, this is concerning:
Covid Vaccine mRNA In Breast Milk Shows CDC Lied About Safety— Michael Shellenberger (@shellenberger) September 20, 2023
US government lacked scientific evidence before recommending mRNA vaccines to pregnant and breastfeeding women
Facebook censored those sharing accurate information
It is safe for pregnant and… pic.twitter.com/2fWxDdGXaw
The text cut off from the second post reads:
It is safe for pregnant and breastfeeding women to get vaccinated against Covid-19, according to the Centers for Disease Control. In fact, according to the CDC, vaccination during pregnancy benefits the baby, and ‘reports have shown that breastfeeding people who have received mRNA COVID-19 vaccines have antibodies in their breastmilk, which could help protect their babies.’
The CDC wasn’t alone. The American College of Obstetrics and Gynecology repeatedly urged pregnant and breastfeeding women to get vaccinated.
There was no reason to worry, experts said, because injected mRNA stays in the arm and does not travel around the body. ‘It is unlikely that the vaccine lipid would enter the bloodstream and reach breast tissue,’ the Academy of Breastfeeding Medicine assured mothers in a statement on December 14, 2020. ‘If it does, it is even less likely that either the intact nanoparticle or mRNA transfer into milk.’
But now a pivotal new study, published in the Lancet yesterday, reveals that this was always a lie.
Millions of women were compelled to get multiple doses of the mRNA vaccines under threat of losing their jobs and, in some cities like San Francisco, Los Angeles, Chicago, and New York City, being excluded from public life through vaccine passports.— Michael Shellenberger (@shellenberger) September 21, 2023
Other women who willingly…
The text of the third post reads:
Proponents of vaccine mandates may argue that none of this matters because there have not been adverse events in breastfeeding children.
But one of Pfizer’s own postmarketing surveillance reports contradicts this assertion. Due to legal action, the FDA was forced to release the report last year. It showed that in 133 cases of breastfeeding babies tracked by the company, 17 experienced clinical adverse events, and 3 of these events were reported to be serious.
Another Pfizer document released by the FDA under court order found that there were 215 cases of ‘Exposure via breast milk/maternal exposure during breastfeeding’ reported to Pfizer’s voluntary pharmacovigilance database. Of these, 41 infants experienced adverse events, and six experienced serious adverse events.
The fourth post:
Millions of women were compelled to get multiple doses of the mRNA vaccines under threat of losing their jobs and, in some cities like San Francisco, Los Angeles, Chicago, and New York City, being excluded from public life through vaccine passports.
Other women who willingly got vaccinated were told that it would have no effect on pregnancy and breastfeeding. But experts did not actually have the data to assert that this was the case, and they still don’t have it.
Mandating pregnant and breastfeeding women to take an experimental medical product that had not completed clinical trials in their cohort undermined the bedrock principle of medical ethics: informed consent.
In May 2021, Dr. Paula Hillard, a pediatric and adolescent gynecologist of Stanford Children’s Health, told the San Francisco Chronicle that it was “biologically impossible” for the vaccine to impact menstrual cycles. The virus, she claimed, was far more likely to change women’s…— Michael Shellenberger (@shellenberger) September 21, 2023
The full text:
In May 2021, Dr. Paula Hillard, a pediatric and adolescent gynecologist of Stanford Children’s Health, told the San Francisco Chronicle that it was ‘biologically impossible’ for the vaccine to impact menstrual cycles. The virus, she claimed, was far more likely to change women’s cycles.
‘So far, there’s no data linking the vaccines to changes in menstruation,’ two doctors from the Yale School of Medicine wrote in the New York Times in April 2021.
The next year, a large study in the journal Science Advances found that reports of changing cycles were far from anecdotal. 42% of women, in a survey of 39,000, reported that their menstrual cycle was heavier after vaccination. In October 2022, the European Union’s drug regulator recommended adding heavy periods as a side effect of mRNA COVID-19 vaccines.
Shellenberger doesn’t link directly to it, but he is referencing an article on the substack called ‘Public’ that is only available to paid subscribers.
Still, we are getting a pretty awful picture from the free portion of the article. And he is right to focus on the issue of consent. Maybe the vaccine isn’t dangerous, or the dangers are outweighed by the benefits, so that if people are given the opportunity to have informed consent, they would still give that consent. However, the right to informed consent should never have been compromised. Yet for some reason, the ‘my body, my choice’ crowd suddenly doesn’t believe in choice with this very new type of vaccine.
Further, freedom of choice on a subject is not merely a matter of lack of coercion. It also means that you have the right to freedom of information about that choice. ‘Consent’ when you are forced into ignorance is false consent. So, when the government leans on social media to silence people raising concerns that the vaccine might not be as safe as advertised or otherwise stop the free flow of information, the government is violating one’s right to choice.
(And to address an obvious retort, the truth is that most pro-lifers are pro-choice on most topics, including medicine. We just don’t think that you have a right to ‘choose’ to murder an unborn baby. Agree or not, that is a consistent worldview.)
Every Government agency lied. These drugs were and still are NOT safe for pregnant women! I remember Doctors telling pregnant they shouldn’t take an aspirin.— Rob Schneider (@RobSchneider) September 21, 2023
That’s how far the corrupt and captured @CDC and @NIH and the Biden regime has sunk… https://t.co/Lc1BVJmf2v
“Because the mRNA stayed in the arm and did not travel through the body.”— The Redheaded libertarian (@TRHLofficial) September 20, 2023
That does seem like a ridiculous claim.
Death penalty for all of them https://t.co/TmAtBM717V— Marc Lobliner - IFBB Pro (@MarcLobliner) September 21, 2023
We read that as a call for a fair trial, first, but even then that seems a bit much. Still, the anger is understandable.
We had several doctors tell my wife while she was pregnant that she should get the vaccine. We declined every single time.— 🪶Native Patriot 🇺🇸 (@LaNativePatriot) September 20, 2023
Are they going to be held accountable? No.
This is why I took the lead in this debacle in my marriage. It’s my duty to protect my wife. Pressure from the… https://t.co/PPBmEYZzHm
The remaining text:
This is why I took the lead in this debacle in my marriage. It’s my duty to protect my wife. Pressure from the ‘experts’ convinced many moms to take the experimental treatment they called a vaccine.
I will never give in to medical tyranny
Not one inch
We admit that one earned a follow from us.
The body language in that clip ... wow.
When the US government & pharmaceutical companies profiting have zero financial liability for lying about side effects — this is going to happen a lot.— An0maly (@LegendaryEnergy) September 21, 2023
Hopefully people learned why this happened & why it was always going to happen. https://t.co/du1FAotv52
One guy tried to rebut this by citing … a government website:
“Only a small percentage of milk samples from women who received an mRNA vaccine contained trace amounts of mRNA. Thirty-six of 40 milk samples in one study and 5 of 309 milk samples in another had detectable mRNA levels; the highest concentration found was 2 mcg/L in one study…— Gerry Payne (@gerrypayne) September 21, 2023
The full text (sans link):
“Only a small percentage of milk samples from women who received an mRNA vaccine contained trace amounts of mRNA. Thirty-six of 40 milk samples in one study and 5 of 309 milk samples in another had detectable mRNA levels; the highest concentration found was 2 mcg/L in one study and the median concentration was 70 ng/L in another. mRNA has not been detected in the serum of any breastfed infants. mRNA has an estimated serum half-life of 8 to 10 hours and was not detected in milk beyond 48 hours in one group of women. The tiny amount of polyethylene glycol-2000 in Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine is not found in breastmilk or absorbed orally, so breastmilk PEG exposure from maternal immunization is not a concern. Neither of the mRNA vaccines available in the US contains a preservative or adjuvant.”
That led to this back and forth:
mcg/l is 1 millionth of a gram per litre. So the highest concentration found was 2 millionths of a gram per litre. On average a baby consumes 75ml per feed, but let’s say 100ml to keep the maths simple. That’s 0.0000002 of a gram per feed. The mRNA lasts 8 hours at most which is…— Gerry Payne (@gerrypayne) September 21, 2023
That seems like more than zero, sparky. How much of a risk should a person be forced to take? How much of a risk should a person be tricked into taking?
Another person offered this retort to Payne:
Another person offered a graphical defense:
Pregnant women were more susceptible to serious complications during the delta surge of the pandemic.— Dustin (StudMuffin.eth) (@dustinthedad) September 20, 2023
I witnessed dozens of otherwise healthy unvaccinated mothers die in the intensive care unit.
The vaccines are imperfect, but they did save lives. https://t.co/wZJK64eWli
Even if true, he is missing the point. The point is people should freely choose their risks.
My daughter was pressured heavily at college and wound up in the ER two days later. No reason found, Dr said potentially heat related on a cool morning. There is no measuring my anger two years later.— East Drink Coaster (@shorefresh01) September 20, 2023
My Friend lost her baby because her nursing job coerced her into getting the shot. Her husband had been laid off due to lockdown, & she was the only income. They made sure she had no choice but to get it, & they didn’t care it killed her child, & continue to gaslight her over it— El Tappo (@LizardKangz_95) September 21, 2023
Wife was prego when they were pushing the shot. We refused. The OBGYN was a female Cornell grad. I asked for data and she couldn’t provide it. We’re both scientists and knew it’s “safety” was BS. We have a healthy (unvaxxed across the board) little girl.— Indig-Naytv (@Indig_Naytv) September 21, 2023
Historically it’s always been advised against for pregnant woman … always.— Yogini (@Yogini_MJ) September 20, 2023
I remember this and knew … something was up😢
We admit we missed that Free
Bacon Beacon article at the time, but it includes this remarkable passage:
The FDA did not sign off on Pfizer's proposed clinical trial on pregnant women until July 1—just weeks before the agency gave the pharmaceutical giant full approval. Pfizer has until 2025 to return results of the study to the agency.
But pardon us if we are ignorant, but what about a woman who gets vaccinated and then later gets pregnant? Will that have any effect on her baby? Even if the government says the answer is ‘no,’ we are not sure we can trust it.
There has been a lot of talk recently about how supposedly ‘misinformation’ has cost the government credibility. But it really wasn’t misinformation that costs it credibility nearly as much as the censorship. When someone says ‘I’m right, and you are not allowed to question me,’ that immediately makes a person wonder if they are right. It’s a phenomenon very similar to the Streisand Effect (an attempt to suppress information draws attention to that exact information). Americans correctly believe that the best way to find the truth is in the free marketplace of ideas and are rightly suspicious when someone wants to shut it down. To pull out one of our favorite quotes from President John F. Kennedy:
We welcome the view of others. We seek a free flow of information across national boundaries and oceans, across iron curtains and stone walls. We are not afraid to entrust the American people with unpleasant facts, foreign ideas, alien philosophies, and competitive values. For a nation that is afraid to let its people judge the truth and falsehood in an open market is a nation that is afraid of its people.
The most charitable interpretation of the left’s recent turn against freedom of expression is that they are so convinced they are right that they don’t want to allow people to even consider that they might be wrong. But even in that charitable interpretation, it is a fundamentally arrogant view and it carries with it the danger that any mistakes they make will be magnified a thousand-fold. The less charitable view is that they know they are wrong, and hope to manufacture a false consent. The tried and tested approach of a free marketplace of ideas is always the best approach.
Editor's Note: Do you enjoy Twitchy's conservative reporting taking on the radical left and woke media? Support our work so that we can continue to bring you the truth. Join Twitchy VIP and use the promo code SAVEAMERICA to get 40% off your VIP membership!