04/10/2026
It is incredibly important to dig deep and not follow the mainstream ESPECIALLY when putting things into your body.
https://www.facebook.com/share/p/18Xb5wL6MJ/
The release of thousands of internal Pfizer documents, initially slated by the FDA for a 75-year gradual disclosure before a federal judge ordered an expedited release in 2022, has fueled an intense debate over vaccine safety during pregnancy. Central to this firestorm is a "Post-Authorization Adverse Event Report" covering the first two months of the vaccine rollout. Critics and researchers associated with the "DailyClout" task force claim these documents reveal a "catastrophic" cover-up, alleging that of 270 pregnant women vaccinated, the vast majority of outcomes were hidden, and of those tracked, nearly 80% to 90% resulted in fetal loss.
These claims have led to accusations of "Crimes Against Humanity" and a deliberate effort by the FDA, CDC, and Pfizer to bury data that proved the risks were known from day one.However, medical experts and fact-checkers from the AP and FactCheck.org have highlighted significant context missing from these viral interpretations. They point out that the 270 reports were voluntary adverse event reports (passive surveillance), not a controlled clinical trial of 270 women. In passive reporting, "no news is good news"; thousands of women were vaccinated during that period without reporting an issue, meaning they wouldn't appear in this specific database of problems.
The high percentage of loss (the "80% figure") was calculated by looking only at the small subset of women who called in to report a specific outcome, which naturally skews toward negative events. Furthermore, comprehensive peer-reviewed studies published in The New England Journal of Medicine and The Lancet, tracking tens of thousands of pregnancies, have found that miscarriage rates among vaccinated women remained consistent with the background rate of the general population (roughly 10% to 20%). While the fight for full transparency continues, the scientific consensus remains that the primary data does not support a "massacre" of the unborn, but rather a complex system of safety monitoring that is now more public than ever before.