A new clinical trial based in the U.K. will seek to determine the most suitable gap between the first and second Covid vaccine jabs for pregnant women, as well as the potential side effects on their unborn children. Those running the trial hope it will make pregnant women feel more comfortable about getting vaccinated. The Guardian has the story.
Last week, Professor Jacqueline Dunkley-Bent, Chief Midwifery Officer for England, urged expectant mothers to get vaccinated as soon as possible, with evidence suggesting the Delta variant poses a significantly greater risk to pregnant women than previous forms of the virus.
A clinical trial called Preg-CoV has been launched to help determine the best gap between doses for pregnant women as well as exploring in greater detail potential side-effects and the impact on babies – something the researchers hope will offer reassurance. …
Asma Khalil, Lead Obstetrician for the trial and Professor of Obstetrics and Maternal Fetal Medicine at St George’s, said that while the U.K. Covid vaccination programme had been a success, uptake has been low among pregnant women.
According to research in her own hospital, “among pregnant women who’ve given birth between March this year until beginning of July, less than one third – 28% – of women who were eligible according to the guidance actually received [at least one dose of] the Covid vaccine” during pregnancy, said Khalil. …
“Pregnant women are still concerned because pregnant women were not included in initial Covid vaccine trials,” said Khalil.
In the first phase of the Preg-CoV trial, the team hope to recruit 600 pregnant women, aged between 18 and 44, from 13 sites across England.
Two groups of 200 unvaccinated pregnant women at different gestation times will be randomised both with respect to whether they receive a Moderna or Pfizer/Biontech jab and to whether they are given their second dose four to six weeks or at eight-12 weeks after the first dose.
Participants will not know which Covid jab they are given… while a routine vaccination to protect against whooping cough will also be included in the schedule so that participants are not aware which dosing regime they are following.
A third group of about 100 pregnant women will be given one dose of a Covid jab at 28-34 weeks gestation, with the second dose of the same vaccine given after delivery, while the fourth group of 100 women will already have had their first dose of any Covid jab before or very early in pregnancy and will get the second dose of the same vaccine.
All the women will have follow-up visits and blood tests, and fill in an electronic diary to help the researchers monitor any potential vaccine side-effects. The team will also track outcomes for the babies up to 12 months of age to explore safety and impact on their development. …
“I think there will be some lessons learned from this pandemic,” said Khalil. “And one of them is that we should consider including pregnant woman at a relatively early stage for vaccine trials.”
Worth reading in full.
Discussion
Comments
This week across the site:
To join in with the discussion please make a donation to the Daily Sceptic.
Profanity and abuse will be removed and may lead to a permanent ban.
Dear Lord, when pregnant women are not allowed to drink alchohol, eat certain foods, they will now be injected them (and their child) with an experimental biological with minimal safety and efficacy data and no long term data. Didn’t this type of experimentation used to be done on animals? What on earth had happened to our world, our scientists, our medics, our legal profession?
You’d have to be either completely brainwashed, completely stupid or both to participate in this trial.
They hope to recruit 600 pregnant women. For god’s sake let common sense prevail. Only 28% uptake of the jabs previously so there’s hope.
You’d have thought the start point for this would be the results from the animal testing carried out on these jabs – but the lab rats seem to be waiting for the results of the human trials.
just got back and haven’t had time to read the comments
I expect its been mentioned that standard procedure would be to do the trials before the mass roll out rather than vice-versa?
So… conduct a trial after 80 million vaccines (in the UK alone) have already been administered.
Having your life dictated by someone else is bad enough. But to be dictated by complete morons is just so depressing.
Professor Jacqueline Dunkley-Bent – that’s another name to add to the list.
Bent?
Yes, into hoops.
Jacky would love to hear from you!
Jacqueline.Dunkley–Bent@nhs.net
This is too awful for words. I look forward to HART group’s reaction, because I am lost for words. Desperate times for humanity.
New website – apologies for any teething issues – feedback appreciated – portal for information and links: https://www.LCAHub.org/
It’s crazy taking an experimental genetic jab anyway but to take it when pregnant is particularly insane. I shudder to think what the outcome will be!
Let’s see if these variants actually come to fruition.
Tin-foil hattery is injected into real facts that leak in order to discredit them.
The FDA already know what side effects these jabs will have on pregnant women, children and humans in general. Dr Bryan Ardis has found a slide pack from the FDA’s website, dated prior to the roll out of the jabs, with details of the side effects. Please see his recent interview with Reiner Fuellmich here – https://www.bitchute.com/video/MQ9aNLgwdoPT/.
EXCEPT that all ignores longer term effects, which are, of course, totally unknown.
Um… Shouldn’t there have been a complete safety study and risk analysis performed prior to releasing this ‘vaccine’ into the public domain? And not now, 18 months later…
People, and in particular pregnant women, are being used as test subjects.
We live in evil times.
Would you agree to perform an experiment on your unborn baby? Surely a mother and father value their child above all else (including any benefit to the wider society!).
What if the results of this trial show up adverse effects in the baby? (which is the principle concern here). They are going to have to live with the fact that they harmed their child, perhaps irreversibly, in the name of deploying a few more vaccinations – a ritualistic sacrifice to serve the god of Scientism
I seriously hope nobody signs up to this madness.
Plus, if you really must get the vax, can’t you just wait nine months and get it after the child is born? Are people SO desperate for the jab that they absolutely must have it DESPITE any potential harms on their child?
I’m in a breastfeeding WhatsApp group (I’m a new mum) and you wouldn’t believe the number of mothers in the group who couldn’t wait to get their jabs so they could pass the precious antibodies on to their babies through their breastmilk. I’m sure they would have been up for having the jabs while pregnant if they had been available at the time. It made me feel physically sick when I read their messages encouraging each other to book their jabs. Who knows what else will pass across in their breastmilk – again, no studies have been performed! Any medical professional who tries to jab me or my baby will have to walk over my dead body first!
hard for antibodies to flow across a placenta clotted with blood from the jabs.
Moloch is the Globalist idol of worship.
Child sacrifice Here’s Anderson Vanderbilt
Cooperand mother and brother.Your free doughnut might be a bit stale after 9 months. And the free ice cream would have melted.
I’m surprised the NHS doesn’t offer two jabs for the price of one, that’d get ’em sold!
I feel like such a mug for getting vaxed with no reward. If I’d only waited I could have at least negotiated a free pizza, I mean that would have made it worth it!
“…with evidence suggesting the Delta variant poses a significantly greater risk to pregnant women than previous forms of the virus.”
Based on what evidence? “suggesting” means nothing! So…go and get your jabs, there’s a good girl (or pregnant person.) By the way, don’t drink, smoke, eat soft cheese, raw eggs or shellfish or pate, or any OTC drugs, but take this untested (you and your unborn baby are the test) gene modifying therapy, for a disease you will probably easily recover from, should you get it.
WHO in their right would offer themselves to do this? What little incentives are going to go their way to try and coerce them? They’re all in on it. This is beyond evil now.
Free doughnut or ice cream.
“urged expectant mothers to get vaccinated as soon as possible, with evidence suggesting the Delta variant poses a significantly greater risk to pregnant women than previous forms of the virus.”
Is anybody aware of where this evidence can be found?
In that bubbling cauldron over in the corner labelled ‘Science‘ with the tagline ‘Trust us – we’re here to help you!’
Labelled The Science, surely?! The definite article is very important when promoting mislabelled propaganda.
Surely to adequately check side effects they’d need 200 women to volunteer to join the study and NOT to get the vaccine?
Scientism.
I do understand the concept of trials and statistical evaluation of the results, but even if the risk is high, say one in 10k, then how does a trial of 600 help?
I suggest a read of internet material on the subject of ‘sampling’.
The reliability of results is partially dependent on the size of a sample, but the representativeness of that sample is also crucial.
I understand the concept of sampling, but this approach is much more valid for opinions where it is fair to assume a distribution of sample criteria across the population, but when you are looking for the occurrence of a single unusual event that rarely occurs it is prone to extremely high error levels.
For example, do you deduce that it is 100% safe if no-one dies during the trial, even though there is evidence that people have died, albeit rarely, in the real world?
I agree. It’s too complex an issue. Let’s take one of the worse pregnancy specific adverse outcomes a woman could have – miscarriage. 25% of pregnancies end in miscarriage (if we include all of them), but although there are known risk factors that could be adjusted for eg age, the others causes already go under-investigated. A woman can’t even get a referral until they’ve had three miscarriages. So how many more of 150/600 women have to have a miscarriage before it’s statistically significant? They rarely ever know what causes it anyway so they’re unlikely to attribute any of them to the “vaccine”.
It is sad that my first reaction was “Is there any truth in the implication that it is entirely safe and the only thing at issue is the time between doses for maximum efficacy?”
Oh yes, kill two with one shot, saves time.
“Those running the trial hope it will make pregnant women feel more comfortable about Covid vaccination.”
Good to see the commitment to neutrality – we can rest assured that the outcome of this trial will be free from all bias.
Here’s the give-away: “Those running the trial hope it will make pregnant women more comfortable about Covid vaccination.”
So the conclusions have been drawn before the trial begins? More deception and coercion!
nah, it’s The Science, in our Alice in Wonderland : “sentence first, verdict afterwards”.
they shouldn’t be anywhere near the trial. science has to be objective
Watching this video last night Dr Ardis explained that although the mother is at some risk to the spike protein a female foetus is far more so potentially making a generation infertile. Horrendous!
https://www.bitchute.com/video/KvjdPBDvfyuN/
Yes, watched that too. Very upsetting. Dr Ardis explained that the developing females in the womb may appear unharmed when they are born and while growing up but come the time to start a family they will not have any eggs and will be infertile.
Who the hell would allow their developing baby to be used as an experiment anyway? What lies are they told to persuade them?
A free ice cream or a doughnut will do the trick. Also the NHS tells you to ‘Grab-a-Jab’:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AZy3xDOtslI
The results have already been decided, it’s a wonder they’re even bothering to go through a token pantomime before declaring them. What if the facts contradict the pre-settled science?
It does look like the study is there to find that the jabs are “safe”, not to find IF the jabs are safe.
The facts will be fact-checked and found not to be facts.
“less than one third – 28% – of women who were eligible according to the guidance actually received [at least one dose of] the Covid vaccine” during pregnancy, said Khalil.”
On a more positive note, it’s of some comfort to me to know that over two thirds of the pregnant women were sensible enough to turn down the jab!
I think it’s even better than that! Those early stats may have been skewed by women who were eligible through being clinically vulnerable.
Latest PHE stats put it at around 50k double jabbed and 20k single jabbed out of over 600k currently pregnant.
No mention of the placebo group though? So what is the study actually trying to find?!
Obviously there’s already a reason that studies aren’t carried on pregnant women and rightly so. But what is a total participation group of 600 going to prove? It’s the same as what Mike Yeadon says about the child studies. Say there’s a 1 in 1000 chance of a serious adverse reaction – well this study is unlikely to find it!
Gosh, proper experimental isint it, used to read about this sort of stuff
Sadly they do not care about pregnant women or there unborn babies. We need to make a stand “Nazi & Communists not welcome here!!”
UK employers warned forcing vaccine passports in the workplace could be a criminal offence
https://reclaimthenet.org/uk-vaccine-passports-criminal/
Stand in South Hill Park Bracknell every Sunday from 10am meet fellow anti lockdown freedom lovers, keep yourself sane, make new friends and have a laugh.
Join our Stand in the Park – Bracknell – Telegram Group
http://t.me/astandintheparkbracknell
‘We need to make a stand … ‘
That is unlikely since the weight of public opinion favours drinking more Kool-Aid and a significant number favour compelling us all to drink it. They see those of us who would make a stand as a threat to their existence.
I wonder how many will actually get a full dose of the poison.