Disagreement With Former Spirit Airlines CEO On Vaccine Mandate Exception

In the Airlines Confidential podcast last week, former Spirit Airlines CEO Ben Baldanza – talking about vaccine requirements and dismissal of employees who don’t get vaccinated – offered that it’s reasonable to exclude pregnant woman. United Airlines has said that anyone who gets a medical or religious exemption to vaccine requirements won’t be allowed to work (and won’t get paid).

The big airlines have been told they risk federal subsidies if they do not require vaccination without a testing alternative. And several carriers have gotten in line threatening to terminate any employee not vaccinated. They’d also face an expected OSHA emergency mandate for employers to require vaccination (a rule still not released a month after the President announced it).

However the ‘pregnant women shouldn’t get vaccinated’ line Baldanza offers is troubling.

I’m also concerned about pregnant women, especially if they’re early in their pregnancy and may not be affecting their job performance in any way yet and so they can still go to work gainfully every day. And yet they’re probably told not to get the vaccine if they’re not yet vaccinated, and I would hate to see people like that lose their job because they can’t. I would like in that sort of case as well when your doctor says it’s safe after the birth we’ll give you two months after the birth or something like that.

When you tell a story about potential risks, especially relying on “this is new, we don’t know” you bear some responsibility for at least explaining the biomedical mechanism through which supposedly bad effects might happen.

In any case, people are bad at evaluating risk, because while there’s little in the world that’s risk free (people die every year from buckets) you have to weigh risks of not taking an action as well. In this case the CDC is clear in its vaccination recommendation for women seeking to get pregnant, who are pregnant, or who are breastfeeding. It’s important to know,

  • There’s no observed increased risk of miscarriage
  • There have been billions of vaccine doses administered, including to pregnant woman and indeed women early in their pregnancy without unique problems identified
  • Actually getting Covid-19 during pregnancy appears worse
  • Vaccination during pregnancy has conferred antibodies that should be protective for newborns

The risk of Covid substantially outweighs any theoretical vaccination risk against Covid for pregnant women.

[C]ompared with nonpregnant symptomatic people with Covid-19, those who are pregnant and symptomatic have a more than twofold increased risk of being admitted into an intensive care unit, the C.D.C. reports, and a 70 percent increased risk of death from the disease. Pregnant women with Covid are also at a higher risk of complications like preterm birth or stillbirth or their newborns being admitted to an intensive care unit compared with pregnant people without Covid-19.

Repeating narratives like pregnant women shouldn’t get vaccinated is dangerous – only around a third of pregnant women have taken shots, and they appear to be putting themselves and their unborn children at greater risk as a result. To be sure, public health has failed pregnant women by insufficiently studying them, and the CDC has failed to do the kind of data collection that would be reassuring. It’s understandable why Mr. Baldanza might have these misconceptions, but his statements aren’t based on the best available evidence nor do they do a good job weighing relative risk.

About Gary Leff

Gary Leff is one of the foremost experts in the field of miles, points, and frequent business travel - a topic he has covered since 2002. Co-founder of frequent flyer community InsideFlyer.com, emcee of the Freddie Awards, and named one of the "World's Top Travel Experts" by Conde' Nast Traveler (2010-Present) Gary has been a guest on most major news media, profiled in several top print publications, and published broadly on the topic of consumer loyalty. More About Gary »

More articles by Gary Leff »

Comments

  1. Gary,

    He’s just stating his opinion as a former CEO more from the viewpoint he would rather not to fire said pregnant woman if they has such misgivings until a little later. The title of your article is meant to stir up the mob when there is quite a different angle he seems to be coming from. In short giving a bit of accommodation for his employees who might buy into “vaccine myths” who would otherwise have no issues with taking the shot once they deliver. But I guess any hesitancy of an expecting mother (rightly or wrongly) is enough to cue up outrage, let alone a former executive that might be sympathetic.

  2. Dan777: I don’t see any outrage. It’s just being pointed out how uniformed statements, however sympathetic in nature, are dangerous. I’ll keep it simple. Vaccinated: probably save your life.
    Unvaccinated: probably kill you.
    The evidence is CLEAR! There is no discussion about it!

  3. Meanwhile, the CDC continues to change its stance on guidelines, oftentimes reversing previous ones. While my family is vaccinated we did not have to face the vaccine vs pregnancy issue that other women are struggling with. Gary, please confine your coverage to issues in which you are knowledgeable.

  4. After teaching college for several decades I’ve come to the conclusion that most Americans who graduate from high school know little science, history, or civics. And as access to information increases many seem to be getting worse at looking things up and critically thinking about what they find out. Don’t expect any better of those in government or business who aren’t specialized in an area requiring scientific knowledge. Such people often do not seem to have the ability to see a point of view outside their comfort zone either. It’s unfortunate when they use their positions as podiums for ill-informed opinions others listen to them. How we’re going to have a functioning democratic society in another generation is a real question.

  5. Jorge:

    “Unvaccinated: probably kill you” is an uniformed statement in itself. Just as uniformed as your unhinged statement from last week – “ And they can kill my child by breathing on them with their diseased unvaccinated breath!”. So as anyone can see from your “dangerous statement” you are pretty unhinged when it comes to this issue and clearly lack perspective.

  6. Just a thought: you might confine your writings to subjects about which you are knowledgeable. It is clearly rational for pregnant women (and anyone else concerned about the ever shifting sand pronouncements of the CDC and other agenda-driven “authorities” to be hesitant inject themselves with such untested and potentially dangerous substances. This is NOT “settled science” by any stretch.

  7. I agree with Dan777!
    And jeez I follow this blog for travel information. I wish you’d lay off your perspective of vaccines. Just report what is happening not your opinion of it. Just my 2 cents…

  8. “There’s no observed increased risk of miscarriage”
    “There have been billions of vaccine doses administered, including to pregnant woman and indeed women early in their pregnancy without unique problems identified”
    “Actually getting Covid-19 during pregnancy appears worse”
    “Vaccination during pregnancy has conferred antibodies that should be protective for newborns”

    You are leaving out: What happens in 20 years?

    Don’t forget that just a few years ago, (50 or so), doctors gave Tetracycline to pregnant mothers thinking it was safe. It was safe for the woman, but the child? They would have gray teeth and weakened enamel. It took years and years before the link was confirmed.

    Just because it seems safe to us now does not mean it will not be harmful 5, 10 or 20+ years from now.

    And NO ONE knows for sure. Even the vaccines we use today are NOT approved. They are being administered under an emergency use provision.

    Being over 65, I could not wait to get the vaccine. But if you do not have any underlying health problems and are 40 or younger, it is a elevated risk to get the vaccine because it is still not approved. For children the risk of death or serious complications, even if they contract Covid, is almost not there.

    ST

  9. Honestly this is the opinion of a sheep. You nothing is wrong with what he said & your trying to demonize it with your provax stance. What I hate to see is unbiased reporting acting like your opinions are the truth. You might as well with for CNN Gary.

    Keep this about the travel not about your unwanted opinions.

  10. I was so disappointed to hear that comment on Airline Confidential. Misinformed, misleading, and factually incorrect- thank you for calling it out, Gary.

  11. Being mandated to take a drug against your free will is not liberty. If the vax is so great, why do we still have to mask? Biden said the unvaxed is a safety issue to the vaxed? That makes sense. Stick to what you know about; I’m vaxed and have a Ph.D., so much for the educated and the uneducated. It’s a personal decision, and I’m looking forward to the following lawsuits because of these unconstitutional mandates.

  12. Steve, your comments are spot on, and in fact they address the very thing Gary is pointing out…the lack of accurate or informed risk assessment by many. There is no doubt that for most age groups the risks are low, and most of the time pregnant woman are younger, but pregnancy itself is a health risk factor and as Steve points out most of the time doctors have restricted medical treatments during pregnancy. Most doctors severely restrict OTC medicine and won’t prescribe medicines during pregnancy unless there is severe health risk involved. This ‘vaccine’ is being administered at drug stores, breweries and sports stadiums and it would be wrong and dangerous as Gary puts it to flippantly advice all pregnant woman to get this vaccine without careful review and discussion with more than one health professional. What I find interesting is Gary is himself straying from his expertise and offering medical advice on his blog today that if followed by some may be a severe risk… the very thing he accuses the ex CEO of. Perhaps instead of offering hyperbole like several commenters and Gary did himself, we might all just revert to offering our opinions freely rather than the current order that classifies some opinions as requiring censure while other opinions if they follow group think despite sometimes being void of logic are rendered scientific fact. There are many who should pause before taking a vaccination especially for some where the risks don’t outweigh the possible benefits especially when alternatives may exist.

  13. @Sam Crager
    The vaccines have undergone rigorous testing and safety monitoring, in full public view. They are not “untested and potentially dangerous”.

    @Copernicus
    Many commonly occurring illnesses have effects on the female reproductive system. Simply getting a cold or flu can cause similar transient disruption to menstruation. Right there in the abstract to the paper you linked, it says, “Changes to menstrual bleeding are not uncommon nor dangerous.”

    @Steve Thornton
    You’re confusing potential side effects of a continuous therapeutic treatment with a vaccine that is given once or twice. The mRNA in the vaccines is fully broken down by the body within a few days. Nothing will happen “in 20 years” to vaccinated people as a result of COVID vaccination. In all of recorded vaccinology, there has never been a vaccine that had long term side effects that first showed up later than 4 months after administration. If there will be long term side effects, they show up right away or never at all. (COVID-19, like other coronaviruses, does not have ADE as a problem.)

    The Pfizer mRNA vaccine has received full FDA approval and licensing for people ages 16+. COVID is much more dangerous and lethal in pregnant women then in non-pregnant people of the same age. And the maternal antibodies provide helpful protection to infants who can not get vaccinated yet.

  14. I switched back to this blog because I couldn’t take Lucky’s super progressivism anymore and for your particularly informative info on Thailand in the past. Please stop with all of the non-professional advice on what people should do with their own bodies and medical care and stick to informative and inspirational travel and destination topics. It’s your blog but half the people think you’re just plain wrong on your stance. Thank you

  15. Effective vaccination coverage, globally, gets us all back to traveling comfortably and safely that much quicker. Gary, you’re right on highlighting vaccine misinformation, all the more so when it comes from the C suite.

  16. Why do we have to argue about vaccine vs not vaccine here on what I thought was a travel information site. I’m ready to unsubscribe. I hate lectures. Makes me sad.

  17. What’s dangerous is a reliance on the CDC (a government entity) for determining health choices. The former ceo makes a good point that the risks of a new vaccine for pregnant women outweigh the risks of not getting a vaccine. Calling his well reasoned view dangerous is dangerous editorializing.

  18. I am about to unsubscribe from your emails. Stop pushing the V propaganda. Like everyone else I am here for travel news, not your opinions pushed as facts about covid and vaccines. Enough already!

  19. To all those out there who implicitly trust whatever government agencies say about vaccines, just do a very simple logic reasoning exercise —

    How long does it take for a pregnancy to achieve full term? 9 months?

    How long have the vaccines been available to the public now? Since (realistically) January, 2021? So that means we’ve just passed the 9 month period of general availability …

    How long does a normal clinical trial of such importance realistically take to complete? Certainly more than the 9 months that vaccines have been widely available!

    What does that tell us? Many of the claims by government agencies about safety of vaccinations during pregnancy were *not* based on actual evaluations of side-effects through full-term pregnancies and are, *at best,* conjectures, at this point!

    So think about this issue for just one moment — if a woman gets pregnant at the onset of vaccines being available and is only now reaching, or just passed, her delivery date, exactly *how* can those government agencies claim that everything is “just fine” with vaccinating during pregnancy? Consider *when* clinical trials or studies were actually started on this crucial topic — way after general availability of vaccines to the public. So how many full term pregnancies have actually been evaluated for vaccine side effects, to date? They can *not* make their claims of total safety based on *inadequate* amounts of full-term pregnancy data being available for data-driven factual analyses! Furthermore, some side effects *within* the newborn may *not* manifest for some time (as yet to be determined but perhaps months to years), so that’s yet another *unknown* that has *not* even been able to get studied, given the full-term pregnancy time frame constraints that have already been mentioned!

    Just look at the VAERS database (despite its incompleteness in capturing the vast majority of actual cases) and look at what have already been recorded with respect to side effects among pregnant women and how many of them very unfortunately suffered miscarriages shortly after getting their jabs!

    Must everyone just take whatever government agencies claim at face value? Are we not educated sufficiently to make independent assessments about the veracity of those claims, based on actual reality and common sense?

  20. @Jackson Waterson “the risks of a new vaccine for pregnant women outweigh the risks of not getting a vaccine”

    In fact the absolute opposite is true. The risks to the mother and fetus of contracting COVID while pregnant are very high and vaccination is much more safe and highly recommended. This is why COVID vaccination for pregnant women is recommended by both the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists and the Society for Maternal-Fetal Medicine. https://www.acog.org/covid-19/covid-19-vaccines-and-pregnancy-conversation-guide-for-clinicians https://s3.amazonaws.com/cdn.smfm.org/media/3175/Covid_Vaccine_Info.V6_hand_revision_10-13-21.pdf

    @StrictlyFacts
    The FDA and CDC make recommendations about vaccination based on scientifically rigorous trials based on the scientific method. Their decision making processes and the hearings where they decide are open to the public.
    The reason the trials for this vaccines went quicker than usual is that there was billions of dollars of funding pre-allocated to run them. Most drugs or therapeutics researchers have to go hat-in-hand to get their Phase 1 trials funded, then if they get positive results they go again hat-in-hand to get the Phase 2 trial funded, etc. In a global pandemic governments and charities were willing to fund the entire trial sequence upfront, which made them move much faster.

  21. Red, some of what you posted doesn’t square with the facts of how the ‘vaccines’ work. According to a virologist and expert in the field of vaccines….

    Traditional vaccines use weakened or killed virus to stimulate an immune response. The Moderna and Pfizer-BioNTech vaccines do not. They are purported to consist of an intramuscular shot containing a suspension of lipid nanoparticles filled with messenger RNA. The way they generate an immune response is by fusing with cells in a vaccine recipient’s shoulder, undergoing endocytosis, releasing their mRNA cargo into those cells, and then utilizing the ribosomes in those cells to synthesize modified SARS-CoV-2 Spike proteins in-situ. These modified Spike proteins then migrate to the surface of the cell, where they are anchored in place by a transmembrane domain. The adaptive immune system detects the non-human viral
    protein being expressed by these cells, and then protein being expressed by these cells, and then forms antibodies against that protein. This is purported to confer protection against the virus, by training the adaptive immune system to recognize and produce antibodies against the Spike on the actual virus. The J&J and AstraZeneca vaccines do something similar, but use an adenovirus vector for genetic material delivery instead of a lipid nanoparticle.

    SARS-CoV-2 Spike is a highly pathogenic protein on its own. It is impossible to overstate the danger presented by introducing this protein into the human body. It is claimed by vaccine manufacturers that the vaccine remains in cells in the shoulder, and that SARS- CoV-2 Spike produced and expressed by these cells from the vaccine’s genetic material is harmless and inert, thanks to the insertion of prolines in the Spike sequence to stabilize it in the prefusion conformation, preventing the Spike from becoming active and fusing with other cells. However, a pharmacokinetic study from Japan showed that the lipid nanoparticles and mRNA from the Pfizer vaccine did not stay in the shoulder, and in fact bioaccumulated in many different organs, including the reproductive organs and adrenal glands, meaning that modified Spike is being expressed quite literally all over the place. These lipid nanoparticles may trigger anaphylaxis in an unlucky few, but far more concerning is the unregulated expression of Spike in various somatic cell lines far from the injection site and the unknown consequences of that.
    Messenger RNA is normally consumed right after it is produced in the body, being translated into a protein by a ribosome. COVID-19 vaccine mRNA is produced outside the body, long before a ribosome translates it. In the meantime, it could accumulate damage if inadequately preserved. When a ribosome attempts to translate a damaged strand of mRNA, it can become stalled.
    When this happens, the ribosome becomes useless for translating proteins because it now has a piece of mRNA stuck in it, like a lace card in an old punch card reader. The whole thing has to be cleaned up and new ribosomes synthesized to replace it. In cells with low ribosome turnover, like nerve cells, this can lead to reduced protein synthesis, cytopathic effects, and neuropathies.
    Certain proteins, including SARS-CoV-2 Spike, have proteolytic cleavage sites that are basically like little dotted lines that say “cut here”, which attract a living organism’s own proteases
    (essentially, molecular scissors) to cut them. There is a possibility that S1 may be proteolytically cleaved from S2, causing active S1 to float away into the bloodstream while leaving the S2 “stalk” embedded in the membrane of the cell that expressed the protein.
    SARS-CoV-2 Spike has a Superantigenic region (SAg), which may promote extreme inflammation.
    Anti-Spike antibodies were found in one study to function as autoantibodies and attack the body’s own cells. Those who have been immunized with COVID-19 vaccines have developed blood clots, myocarditis, Guillain-Barre Syndrome, Bell’s Palsy, and multiple sclerosis flares, indicating that the vaccine promotes autoimmune reactions against healthy tissue.
    SARS-CoV-2 Spike does not only bind to ACE2. It was suspected to have regions that bind to basigin, integrins, neuropilin-1, and bacterial lipopolysaccharides as well. SARS-CoV-2 Spike, on its own, can potentially bind any of these things and act as a ligand for them, triggering unspecified and likely highly inflammatory cellular activity.
    SARS-CoV-2 Spike contains an unusual PRRA insert that forms a furin cleavage site. Furin is a ubiquitous human protease, making this an ideal property for the Spike to have, giving it a high degree of cell tropism. No wild-type SARS-like coronaviruses related to SARS-CoV-2 possess this feature, making it highly suspicious, and perhaps a sign of human tampering. SARS-CoV-2 Spike has a prion-like domain that enhances its infectiousness.
    The Spike S1 RBD may bind to heparin-binding proteins and promote amyloid aggregation. In humans, this could lead to Parkinson’s, Lewy Body Dementia, premature Alzheimer’s, or various other neurodegenerative diseases.

  22. A rushed, revolutionary vaccine injected into a pregnant mother. Can’t imagine why they would be concerned.

    Don’t need a PhD to see that in cases with a developing child caution might be best. And FYI – if you’re not over 55 with a Comorbidity you’ll be just fine.

    Gary being a disgusting pig is uniquely vulnerable though. Keep stuffing your face.

  23. Gary,
    StricklyFacts has the ability many of your readers do not understand, critical thinking. There have been very few children born to “fully vaccinated” women . . . not enough to claim the vaccine is safe for the unborn.
    It took “government health experts” ten years to determine Agent Orange caused birth defects and another thirty to determine the results of the same dioxins in Roundup. I don’t think a handful of births is a reliable indication that the current Covid shots are completely safe for pregnant women and their children. I urge healthy young women to RESIST the failing government narrative until real science replaces political science.

  24. My wife is an OB/GYN. This vaccine is safe and encouraged for all women, and has been safely administered to those trying to conceive, mid-pregnancy, and breastfeeding. No baby of a mother that got vaccinated in any of these timelines has shown any ill effects. In case anyone needed anecdotal experience to back up the overwhelming stats.

  25. Let me get this straight: The airlines are mandating the vaccine, not for public health reasons, but because they might lose their government funding if they don’t.
    “The big airlines have been told they risk federal subsidies if they do not require vaccination without a testing alternative.”
    Such a policy is both unreasonable and irresponsible:
    1-The vaccine won’t prevent a person from getting covid;
    2-The vaccine won’t prevent a person from dying from covid; and
    3-The vaccine won’t prevent a person from spreading covid.
    In short, the vaccine appears no better than a placebo!
    But that is not the worst part.
    Vaccine side effects range from mild to horrific, and include blood clots, amputation and death
    How many deaths? The government’s reporting system VAERS, reports over 16,000 dead to date.

    Some say that that is just the tip of the iceburg; and that only a fraction of the total vaccine related deaths and injuries is being reported.
    Terrific! Just the thing to inject into pilots, mechanics and pregnant women! What could possibly go wrong? What’s more important anyway? Fiscal health of the airline or the physical health of its passengers, pilots and crews?

    Weighing the Risks:
    The issue is not one of “weighing relative risk”; rather, the issue is avoiding known risks. In the case of pregnant women, the vaccine is a known risk. CDC says:
    “Pregnant people with COVID-19 are also at increased risk for preterm birth and some data suggest an increased risk for other adverse pregnancy complications and outcomes, such as preeclampsia, coagulopathy, and stillbirth, compared with pregnant people without COVID-19. Sep 29, 2021”

    The MAX and the VAX:
    Both were rushed into production, with predicable results. The MAX crashed twice and killed 346 people before it was grounded and its flaws addressed as they should have been before it began service. The VAX too, was released to the public before the approval process was completed. The result has been over 16,000 deaths, but it is still “flying”, while FAA and DOT turn a blind eye to the growing list of deaths and injuries associated with these vaccines.

    Recklessness:
    Recklessness is the state of mind accompanying an act that either pays no regard to its probably or possibly injurious consequences, or which, though foreseeing such consequences, persists in spite of such knowledge.
    Recklessness transcends ordinary Negligence. To be reckless, conduct must demonstrate indifference to consequences under circumstances involving peril to the life or safety of others, although no harm is intended.

    I’m sure that the Airlines, FAA, and DOT intend no harm, but the vaccine mandate for airline crews pays no regard to the known risks associated with the current vaccines. This policy should be recinded immediately. Murphy is alive and well, and the airlines, FAA, and DOT would do well not to ignore him or his law.

  26. Sorry, gotta side with Gary on this. Reasonable, factual, based on our collective worldwide up-to-date experience with billions of doses. Yes, medical advice has changed over time as more data is accumulated and more experience is gained. Normal progression. But some of you appear to be saying that everything about covid treatment and vaccines should have been 100% known in May 2020 (just to pick a date), rather than evolving as we learn more, so that anything updated/changed later is suddenly suspect advice and wrong in your eyes. (i.e. “Fauci said this, but later he said that!!!). That’s a pretty ignorant illogical position. Gary’s statements are factual whereas – and the simple point of his article – the Spirit guy’s is based on misinformation. Pregnant or wishing to get pregnant women will consult with their doctors and not rely on Gary, but Gary’s points are very reasonable. The risk for mom and child is much higher from covid-19, plus “long covid” from infections so far appears to hit up to 50% of the recovered. Not just permanent lung damage and decreased function. Symptoms like Chronic Fatigue Syndrome. The mRNA vaccines, as someone here already pointed out, are likely safer than the viral vector type since the latter types deliver the “package” using another virus. Like AstraZeneca (modified chimpanzee adenovirus) and J&J (modified human adenovirus). Or TWO adenoviruses like the Russian Sputnik V vaccine. That’s why Russians are a little more reluctant to get Sputnik V (their only choice) because so many get strong fevers after that first jab. Ad26 & Ad5 adenoviruses. Pfizer and Moderna mRNA are much more elegant vaccines and technology. BTW, a virus is used to grow the spike protein in the upcoming Novavax vaccine, but the resulting spike protein is then encapsulated in a nanolipid particle, sort of like the mRNA ones, along with an adjuvant.

  27. Hey @dogmatix, and others, let me quantify the phrase “known risks” that keeps popping up in your responses, just so people don’t swallow misinformation unchallenged. The documented adverse events risk associated with these vaccines – and certainly the mRNA ones – are something like on the order of 0.0026% of all those getting vaccinated. That is comparable to and less than other standard vaccines your children and you have been taking for decades for school, travel, etc. So you ARE spreading misinformation by saying “known risks” repeatedly, as if there is a huge problem, and implying that people are dropping like flies after being vaccinated. Not only is that false, it is incredibly ignorant and dangerous misinformation. Just ask any of the 10,947 who died in the past week (per Johns Hopkins dashboard), if you could, who were mostly unvaccinated, and the thousands of unvaccinated who have been overflowing hospitals in many States for the past many months. Don’t behave like ignorant clowns spreading misinformation. And don’t spout out about the CDC’s VAERS system – anyone can submit any kind of claim to it. I have actually used it for its intended purpose, but I could have easily reported that a covid vaccine magnetized me and coins and spoons started sticking to my chest and forehead (note: actual numerous news reports…for a while until laughed out of existence).

  28. Study finds Covid-19 Vaccines do not work after vaccinated patient sparked hospital outbreak among fully vaccinated leaving many in a critical condition whilst the unvaccinated were fine.

    “Of the infected, 23 were patients and 19 were staff members. The staff all recovered quickly. However, eight vaccinated patients became severely ill, six became critically ill and five of the critically ill died. The two unvaccinated patients tracked had mild COVID cases.”
    https://www.cracknewz.com/2021/10/study-finds-covid-19-vaccines-do-not.html

  29. @Red
    “The FDA and CDC make recommendations about vaccination based on scientifically rigorous trials based on the scientific method. Their decision making processes and the hearings where they decide are open to the public.”
    —————-
    This is the *theory* behind what they’re *supposed* to be doing … but lately those agencies have been caught acting with political hackery rather than sticking strictly to “Science”! Need examples? Just look at their prior flip-flops on masking mandates, and now their irrational actions on vaccine mandates that do *not* follow scientific rigors to consider *all* relevant parameters (eg, Natural Immunity) in formulating vaccination policies — there is something seriously *wrong* within those agencies! Recent scientific studies from Israel reported that Natural Immunity is up to 27X *more powerful* in conveying wide-spectrum protection against SARS-CoV-2 than *any* available man-made vaccines can … yet this *fact* is totally *ignored* in formulating vaccination policies — does a coercive “Vaccines or Punishment” policy make *any* sense, at all?
    ————————————————————————————————–
    “The reason the trials for this vaccines went quicker than usual is that there was billions of dollars of funding pre-allocated to run them.”
    —————-
    Let’s look at some *facts* rather than blind adherence to government agencies’ *dogma* with agenda — please explain exactly *how* those government agencies can make *any* credible claims about the *safety* of such jabs with pregnant women when, as I stated in my post above, there has *not* been a sufficiently long period of *time* (*not* funds) for enough full-term “subjects” to get evaluated on *actual* consequences of getting jabs during their pregnancies … those government agencies are relying solely on projections based on *no* sufficient amounts of *real-life* data!

    However, your statement *does* confirm one *truth* about how our medical trials are done … just ask yourself — *who* funds those trials? Typically those funds come from government agencies and/or Big Pharma companies, themselves … any concerns about “conflicts of interests” with the purported integrity of those trials and subsequent FDA approvals (emergency or otherwise)? Recall how two high-level and very experienced FDA vaccine approval officials recently actually resigned, presumably in *protest* against premature authorization of “booster” jabs? I actually wonder how many of those with such principles and integrity still remain at FDA, after their departures?

  30. @Mark Rascio — excellent presentation! Could also explain the prevalence of Antibody Dependent Enhancement (ADE) inflammatory syndromes being experienced by too many jab recipients?
    ————————————————————————————————–
    @One Trippe — Thanks! We can all become better aware and educated about all aspects of vaccine issues by going through the effort to do independent research instead of just accepting Establishment Dogma at face value!
    ————————————————————————————————–
    @Sean — kudos for your wife being an OB/GYN, but can you actually provide *real* scientific documentation that backs up *all* of your claims, given that, as I had previously posted, there just has *not* been a long enough elapsed time period to evaluate sufficient numbers of full-term cases? How can you claim that those jabs are totally safe *without* real life corroborating evidence that spans the entire pregnancy term (of 9 months)? Have you, yourself, looked up the VAERS reported cases of those women who, very unfortunately, suffered miscarriages after getting their jabs?

  31. Hey, @Narcissistic Psychopath FG says:
    After reading your reply, I get the impression that you would accuse the little boy who said the Emperor was naked of spreading misinformation. All of the “adults in the room” said the Emperor’s new clothes were fantastic!
    Your figure of .0026% sounds great – until you realize that this translates into over 16,000 dead and does not take into account the countless thousands of those injured by the vaccines. Nor does it take into account the number of vaccine related deaths and injuries that are not reported to the system – and studies suggest that the number of deaths and injuries that are not reported far outnumber those that are. So the vaccine is a known risk – like playing russian roulette.

    So far I’ve seen little to suggest that the vaccines are anything more than saline solution bottled under conditions of questionable quality control. Both the vaccinated and the unvaccinated can contract, die from, and spread the “virus”. Some batches of the vaccine appear to be contaminated with all sorts of s**t, which would account for the vaccine related deaths and injuries.
    So the taking the vaccine appears to represent a lose/lose proposition. It appears to offer no real protection while presenting a definite risk of death and injury. So yeah, the Emperor is naked, and if you want to call that misinformation so be it.

  32. @StrictlyFacts, thanks! Without getting into articles or statistics, please understand that women were pregnant in 2020 before the COVID-19 vaccines were released. Therefore, women who were already in their 2nd or 3rd trimester safely received the vaccines and delivered in early or mid 2021. If you’re referring to fully vaccinated women who then got pregnant in 2021, we’ve seen this happen with no issues (dozens of instances in my personal life alone). Many of these women are already well into their 2nd or 3rd trimester with no complications as well. And, risk of miscarriage in the first trimester is high, vaccine or not – there is no correlation shown between receiving the vaccine and miscarrying.

    Now, unfortunately the internet provides a mechanism for anyone to get an article that proves their point, but I hope you’ll understand that the medical community (including my wife) takes this very seriously and encourages all women to get vaccinated.

  33. @Sean — certainly there have been women who have gotten jabbed and were at various stages of pregnancy throughout pandemic times during 2021, but that’s *not* sufficient to qualify those “vaccines” as being “safe,” since government agencies theoretically *must* assure safety throughout the *entire* term of pregnancies and also account for any after-effects for some prescribed period of time after delivery, with those newborns! Otherwise, those pronouncements of “safety” are based on *incomplete* data and amount to *unfounded projections*!

    As for “correlations,” that is the *standard* retort of those in government that want to deflect news of potential harms that have been imparted by their “vaccines”! Those unfortunate women who miscarried most likely underwent normal/regular check ups during their pregnancy and, when things look totally A-OK, but they then miscarry within a couple/few days after getting jabbed, we can suspect with pretty fair confidence that those jabs did “something” bad, especially if the prevalence of such occurrences are *not* isolated! If those women would be willing to undergo some exhaustive testing, allow their miscarried fetuses to undergo autopsies, then we might have more concrete data upon which to confirm, or deny, causation. But it’s my understanding that medical insurance and government agencies do *not* want to pay for such post-event evaluations, so don’t lose any sleep waiting for large amounts of those procedures to get done!

    I would encourage you to do independent research on the *latest* data regarding the safety and efficacy of those “vaccines” with respect to the Delta Variant adverse events, rather than blindly relying on what government agencies or social/mass media spew in their self-interests for their own agendas! With all due respect, you wife might *not* have come across a sufficiently broad-enough cross section of patients that experience adverse reactions to getting jabbed while pregnant … does she keep up with actual medical trial research papers from overseas? I find those to be more truthful and forthright in presenting *actual* situations, than many of those from USA. With respect to the “medical community,” please understand that those who *have treated* many thousands of infected patients as front line responders (nurses and doctors) would beg to *disagree* with your claim that they all agree with the “safety” of jabs for pregnant women, after their front line experiences! You might not have heard from that crowd because of social/mass media *censorship* of their views that do *not* toe establishment dogma, so do some more thorough independent research and you will be totally shocked and astounded!

    Hint — medical research results from the UK and Israel are very enlightening in debunking what our social/mass media keep spewing to cover up for Big Pharma and our government agencies! Just as examples, UK government reports have recently revealed that “… official data shows 80% of COVID-19 deaths in England in September were people who had been vaccinated” … and reports from Israel have recently reported that Natural Immunity (ie, getting infected with COVID-19 and then recovering) yields 27X *stronger* and *longer lasting* protection than possible with vaccines! Note that Israel is now mandating that its citizens get their *fourth* Pfizer/BioNTech jabs due to proven *lack* of protective efficacy and longevity after their first two jabs plus an additional third booster jab! You probably did *not* hear about such news from social/mass media outlets, huh?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *