This coming Sunday, July 14th, is Bastille Day, the annual celebration of the royal prison-fortress in question being stormed by a radical mob back in 1789, marking the real beginning of the French Revolution. In 2024, the political revolution had occurred upon the previous two Sundays, June 30th and July 7th, when the French electorate had rebelled against the 21st-century ancien régime of President Emmanuel “Let Them Eat Cake” Macron, first of all by voting for the supposedly “far Right” National Rally of Marine Le Pen, and then for a more authentically far-Left “New Popular Front” electoral alliance between Communists, Greens, Islamists and other assorted racaille, to keep the Rally out of office. Come the next French Presidential election due in 2027, King Macron himself may well be electorally guillotined and Le Pen become the nation’s new Queen.
Or, then again, maybe something else revolutionary in nature could occur – France may descend into outright civil war. At least, that was the warning of Jupiter Macron: vote for anyone other than the grown-up, rational centrists like him, and there would be immediate bloodshed. Strange, really. When Donald Trump warned of a “bloodbath” in the U.S. car industry should Biden win America’s own Presidential election earlier this year, he was spuriously accused of inciting mass violence. Why wasn’t Macron monstered by the media similarly? Because, unlike with Trump, the mainstream Western media are overwhelmingly on Macron’s side.
To read the rest of this article, you need to donate at least £5/month or £50/year to the Daily Sceptic, then create an account on this website. The easiest way to create an account after you’ve made a donation is to click on the ‘Log In’ button on the main menu bar, click ‘Register’ underneath the sign-in box, then create an account, making sure you enter the same email address as the one you used when making a donation. Once you’re logged in, you can then read all our paywalled content, including this article. Being a donor will also entitle you to comment below the line, discuss articles with our contributors and editors in a members-only Discord forum and access the premium content in the Sceptic, our weekly podcast. A one-off donation of at least £5 will also entitle you to the same benefits for one month. You can donate here.
There are more details about how to create an account, and a number of things you can try if you’re already a donor – and have an account – but cannot access the above perks on our Premium page.
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.
Utter madness. What are these medical professionals on?
So you have to be aged 18 to be included in the trial. A pregnant 16 or 17 year old is excluded because they are too young. What about the foetus/baby in utero?
Monitor side effects on the baby. NO. An unborn child, or any child, should not have to tolerate a single side effect for a disease of adulthood.
it used to be that the pregnant woman was seen as something that needed to be protected that the last thing you would want was to do anything that would risk harm to her or the foetus, seems like the chance for fame and money for both scientists and politicians has blown that out of the water. Do you think these people ever had a moral compass?
Clearly not.
It still is, we are always exceptionally careful with pregnant women. Oh, except with vaccines, because we know they are safe. In fact, because we know they are safe we really don’t need to do any studies. In fact, doing studies like this might make pregnant women think there might be problems. We definitely do not want that.
/S
When rapid global depopulation is the intention pregnant women are the primary target. In a world in which overpopulation and overconsumption are seen as the most urgent of threats to the planet, taking out those who produce the babies and consume a disproportionate share of resources is the top priority.
Well they could start with ‘unable to keep it in his pants’ Johnson.
How like a woman to blame a man for the inability of the women in his life to keep their legs shut.
Don’t blame BIG BLUBBER for the decisions of the women he has inseminated, unless you wish to claim that they were raped.
I think he’s the only one with 6 children and another cooking, whereas there are at least three women involved.
How like a certain type of man to feel he is blameless and it’s all somebody elses fault.
Your post tells me alot about you as a person.
As does yours about you, and none of it flattering. Yours is the all too common female position that whatever a woman does, or cannot do, it’s always a man’s fault. Johnson is not responsible for the decisions of the women he attracts, they are. If a woman becomes pregnant she alone is responsible, unless she was raped. She could have said no or taken precautions.
Your immature response is all too typical of irresponsible women who demand to be treated like responsible adults while insisting on the childish privilege of being absolved of any agency in the decisions they make. Grown-ups know that actions have consequences. You are clearly not a grown-up.
Can you imagine Boris on top of you, sweating and grunting? Was Princess Nut Nuts thinking of Britain?
unborn child.
These medical professional have no scruples. 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
I was going to say, is it ethical to experiment on children?
Yes and could someone also explain why this trial is not unethical, knowing as we now do that there will be miscarriages. I’m also having difficulties understanding why any pregnant woman would volunteer to take part in such a trial?
Why would any pregnant woman sign up to a medical experiment on herself and her unborn child, especially for a virus that 99.96 percent of the population survive.
Will Carrie Johnson you think be appearing in Newspapers signing up for the drug or the trial to encourage all the other pregnant women to get with the programme? And if she does would anyone believe that what she is injected with is actually anything but saline.
suggest that the Professor takes the suggestion that pregnant women take the still in trial drug to the wall.
The Karens of this world will happily sign up and keep everyone tracked via Instagram.
I wouldn’t worry about that.
Worrying about Karens and what kind of children they mold is a different story.
Have you noticed that Karens want everyone compelled to follow rules they dictate while reacting badly when told to follow the actual rules?
The forced sterilisation of Karens would be beneficial for society.
Why on earth would you want to be involved in a trial for a drug which has known material consequences for women who are pregnant? This is almost worse than Dr Mengele operating on the Jews captured during the Holocaust.
Typical of the utter evil stupidity of those pressing the vaccines on pregnant women. Have the vaccine now, then we’ll do studies to see how it affects you and your baby…..truly these people are some of the stupidest, moronic, vile people in existence.
Unless it’s deliberate genocide, in particular of white people.
(Only)Then it all starts to make sense.
Of course it’s genocide and it’s not just white people.
Which is why I wrote ‘in particular’.
The early geographic distribution and known BAME scepticism in such matters meet CRT/BLM agendas and the Bilderberger’s 2012 document.
That’s what I am suggesting.
Historically “black” people appear to have been a target of eugenicists. And what about the millions facing starvation in the third world due to lockdowns? One of the biggest arguments against them.
“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.”
Nah. Let’s keep on flying blind and trusting trial and results manipulating Big Pharma and the many people on its payroll in ‘science’, ‘medicine’, ‘journalism’ and politics under all circumstances.
That a sentence like Khalil’s here can even be fathomed to be muttered would have been unimaginable pre the plandemic.
Call me old fashioned, but should they not be undertaking these studies before they start vaccinating hundreds of thousands of pregnant women?
I know -it’s just sheer (insert expletive here) madness.
You’re old fashioned!!
Stable, door, shutting, horse, bolted, after. Arrange as appropriate!
The fact that it is now recognised that trials are requires should be more than enough to immediately suspend the use of these drugs on any pregnant woman.
“… should they not be undertaking these studies before they start”
(Let’s generalize the statement)
Precisely. You need only two things to reject the jabbing out of hand :
I can see where you’ve gone wrong: your approach is to determine whether or not an object or substance is inflammable before throwing it on the bonfire whereas theirs is to throw it on the bonfire simply to see how well it burns.
What could go right?
Also this made me laugh out loud.
https://techxplore.com/news/2021-08-ap-reuters-twitter-elevate-credible.html
Twitter has signed a deal with The Associated Press and Reuters to help elevate accurate information on its platform.
Good luck with that one…
And when they find that the vaccines are causing damage to both mother and foetus/baby they will supress the evidence.
Anyone willing to go on these trials has questionable parent material.
Nothing remotely questionable about their parent potential.
YES
No need to suppress the evidence when the unjabbed can be held responsible.
The withdrawal of emergency authorization is what is required before any further testing. We know the snake oil is pretty useless – and dangerous.
The only way they will withdraw the emergency use authorisation is by giving them a full license, rather like 007 they will be licensed to kill and maim.
Any award of a full license now will have to bypass normal protocols, as the unblinding of the trials means that it’s impossible for them to meet the accepted criteria for full authorisation.
Not that this will pose a problem to governments, I’m sure – they’ve already demonstrated on countless occasions over the past 18 months that they are quite happy to ignore long-established protocols when it suits.
“Those running the trial hope it will make pregnant women feel more comfortable about Covid vaccination.”
Medical studies should be based on ascertaining facts, not fulfilling hopes – except, perhaps, the hope that vaccines do no actual harm. Pregnant women should, and probably would, feel more comfortable if vaccines are proven to be safe for them. Until then, they have very good reason not to be comfortable about them.
Yes. That statement implies they know that vaccines are safe and the trial is just to demonstrate that. So much for Science ….
Decide the outcome then run the trial accordingly to achieve that outcome. About as unscientific and as unethical as you could get.
The vaccines probably wont harm your baby but if they do, we’ve got treatments for that, and if those treatments harm, we’ve got more …
Booster treatments?
“The team will also track outcomes for the babies up to 12 months of age to explore safety and impact on their development. …”
If I were a pregnant woman or even a woman thinking of getting pregnant any time soon I would wait as a minimum the 12 months mentioned above, though 2-3 years would be more prudent. I’d also be trying to find trustworthy data regarding actual outcomes for pregnancies and child development for people who’ve had the vaxx and comparing those to baseline data from before the vaxx (as the control groups have largely been eliminated).
Will this be another one of those “We determined that the results of this investigation are not of public interest, so we won’t release them.” like they did with the investigation into grooming gangs?
Also, end of this year, start of 2022 is when we will start seeing a lot of these issues come to light, as that is when a lot of pregnancies will reach full term. Get ready for them to blame the downfall on the virus, and not the vaccine, even though the virus has been around for 2 years by that point.
What a great idea! A little bit of research on pregnant persons, often women. Who knows when that might come in useful?
Would also like to see more brutal experiments conducted on the pyjama wearing unvaxxed, preferably behind barbed wire, maybe involving pressurised cylinders with viewing windows. Hope Jim can fix it! Why not use old Butlins and Pontins camps.
Hi de hi!
Daily Mail rejected this comment as too moderate.
They could have done rigorous pharmacovigilance on the pregnant women jabbed to date.
It is extraordinary that they didn’t.
Well, it is extraordinary that they’ve not been doing rigorous pharmacovigilance on everyone jabbed using this vaccine that has had the bare minimum of safety testing, that uses new methods and where previous attempts to create vaccines against coronaviruses have ended in increased risk to those vaccinated.
It is extraordinarily extraordinary that they’ve not done this with pregnant women,.
All it would have taken is to actively monitor the health outcomes (including risk of disease) for those vaccinated.
I just cannot understand why they wouldn’t do rigorous pharmacovigilance. It was certainly recommended by scientists last summer. It is as though some people at the top decided that it might be best for them if there was as little evidence as possible that might make them look bad. And if people die because of this — well, that’s fine, just so long as no-one knows.
Yes good point. According to PHE only 50k pregnant women have had one jab and 20k two jabs (out of over 600k currently pregnant) so it wouldn’t have been administratively overwhelming or too costly to follow these up.
It’s almost as if they don’t want to collate any useful data…
The ‘extraordinariness’ only exists if the motivation is driven by good faith. Ergo ….
Absolutely pathetic. Apart from the known effects of smoking and alcohol during pregnancy, especially in the first trimester, there seems to be little difference between asking women to drink, smoke or be injected with these substances of unknown value and possible (probable?) adverse effects.
To suggest that tracking outcomes of babies to 12 months is in any way satisfactory is outrageous. The long-term effects of these novel “vaccines” may well reveal themselves far into the future, and even monitoring the effects into young adulthood and the children of these babies is likely to be inadequate. It really is Mengele territory now.
Good point. I am currently pregnant and the list of things you can’t do have/do is immense! It’s the most risk averse approach ever. Can’t even have more than two cups of tea nowadays.
Good luck to you and the baby.
I wonder how many will actually get a full dose of the poison.
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.
Gosh, proper experimental isint it, used to read about this sort of stuff
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!
“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.
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.
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
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
“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.
Oh yes, kill two with one shot, saves time.
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?”
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”.
Scientism.
Surely to adequately check side effects they’d need 200 women to volunteer to join the study and NOT to get the vaccine?
“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.
“…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.
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!
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.
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.
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.
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!
New website – apologies for any teething issues – feedback appreciated – portal for information and links: https://www.LCAHub.org/
This is too awful for words. I look forward to HART group’s reaction, because I am lost for words. Desperate times for humanity.
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
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.
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?
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.
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 to be either completely brainwashed, completely stupid or both to participate in this trial.
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?