‘It has been four weeks since the Australian Bureau of Statistics published data showing a 70 per cent reduction in Australia’s monthly birthrate between July and December 2021 as compared to the long-term average – a startling decrease. I drew attention to this data during Senate estimates, hoping for some reassurance. None was forthcoming. Let me ask again: Minister [Gallagher], why has Australia’s birthrate declined from 30 June 2021 to 31 December 2021, revealing a 70 per cent reduction?’
After Minister Gallagher alluded to being in possession of a conflicting set of data – which is a concerning discrepancy that raises further questions about the quality of published statistical health data – I asked the follow-up:
‘Is there any systematic information-sharing between the Australian Bureau of Statistics and the Department of Health to keep an eye on key indicators reflecting on our Covid measures, or does the Australian Bureau of Statistics just publish critical data like this in due course and hope that somebody notices at some time?’
The answer offered was not concrete, but rather a reference to ‘working closely with’ or ‘if they saw something’ and other vague platitudes that fall short of an official and rigorous reporting schedule to keep an eye on the mandated roll-outs of a vaccine with no long-term safety data in Australia.
Given that other nations are reporting a decrease in birthrates and increase in miscarriages and stillbirths, the government shouldn’t need to be prodded into a due-diligence approach with nearly 300,000 women (yes, women) giving birth in Australia every year.
It’s always tricky when governments are trusted to ‘investigate themselves’ and their corporate partners. Perhaps Australians would ‘trust the science’ more openly if that ‘science’ was subjected to a little more scrutiny…
To that end, I have joined Senators Hanson, Antic, Rennick, and Canavan to sponsor a motion to force the government to publish its contracts with Pfizer. After all, they were made with public money – your money. It was the ‘my body, my choice’ Greens who joined with Labor to block the motion, ensuring that when it comes to health, the government gets to choose what’s best – not you.
Fact-checkers rarely concern themselves with the hopeless inconsistency of health promises issued by government and Big Pharma. They’d much rather attempt to invalidate the necessary questioning process.
‘CheckMate’ brands itself as a newsletter from RMIT FactLab, no doubt offering a similar quality of service as Twitter and Facebook ‘fact-checkers’. They swarmed after I shared a video where official data from the Australian Bureau of Statistics clearly showed a near 70 per cent decline in births for December of 2021 when compared to July of that year. It was a startling graph, shown below, that should have raised immediate questions or at the very least, come with an explanation.
‘Guess what significant event lines up roughly nine months prior to this data?’ I asked.
The fact-checkers at CheckMate had to concede the data quoted supports my question, with an article in the ABC stating:
The ABS data cited by Senator Roberts indeed shows that, after an uneventful first 10 months, registrations of births (by date of occurrence) were lower in the last two months of 2021.
Compared with roughly 25,000 births in June and 23,000 in October, it seems there were only 18,000 births in November then just 6,700 in December.
However, that same dataset cautions that these numbers are ‘incomplete due to [the] lag in registration’ of births. This is particularly noticeable in December (and to a smaller extent November) as births in these months are more likely to be registered in the following year.
While we can forgive the ABS for a ‘lag’ in data, let’s be real – we’re nearly 11 months out and any straggling registrations should have been cleaned up before July. It’s late November… I will also note that the ABS added an [*] to the data set in question, but only after I raised questions in the court or public opinion.
CheckMate further insisted that this birth data will not be revised until the next yearly release, presumably sometime after December. Really? Are we suggesting that our well-funded government department can’t release a straightforward set of data in a timely fashion? A year’s lag between the collection of birth data and its publication is almost as abysmal as the presentation of death data. The ABS can give provisional mortality data after 3 months, why can’t it give provisional birth data after 3 months as well?
Perhaps more worrying is that the ABS lists a second set of data for monthly births that differs wildly from the first. This has been excused by saying that the second is listed by ‘date of registration’ rather than ‘occurrence’ – although those offering the explanation are seemingly unaware that these data sets should contain identical numbers of births and originate from the same database. Re-indexing them does not explain tens of thousands of missing births.
Sluggish and incomplete data has become a staple of the ABS at a time when accurate health data should be their first priority. Say what you like about Victoria, but at least they publish their birth data in a timely fashion. That said, we are still waiting for stillbirth figures for the 2021-2022 period.
A lack of information (or the prevalence of out-of-date and inconsistent data) is a curious problem given we have one of the largest per capita public services in the world. Australia (like its sister nations) also have one of the largest unexplained rises in deaths this century that has happened in parallel to an unprecedented global roll-out of a rushed, never-used-before mRNA vaccine – data collection should be an obsession of the Health Department to make sure they haven’t made a mistake.
As for my question, there’s a good reason to demand greater scrutiny on birth rates for women following the Covid mRNA vaccination schedule.
Germany reported a sharp drop in births – something that CheckMate jumped on back in July. Despite insisting that ‘Germany’s birth rate isn’t proof that vaccines cause infertility’, the fact-checkers could not disprove it either, eventually admitting that the statistics cited were valid and that there had indeed been a significant drop in births.
In addition to a lack of births, the next natural question would be to ask, what does the stillbirth and miscarriage data look like? That’s hard to come by.
VAERS (Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System), has been the source of most data primarily because other official data sets either refuse to record vaccine injuries and deaths or are so slow releasing the data that their figures pre-date the pandemic. VAERS is meant to act as a warning system and has been trusted by ‘experts’ right up until the data pouring out of it rang alarm bells on mRNA vaccines.
‘Because VAERS data do not include an unvaccinated comparison group, it is not possible to calculate and compare rates of adverse events in vaccinated versus unvaccinated individuals and determine if vaccination is associated with an increased risk of an adverse event.’
Although that is rather the point. For something that has been marketed as ‘completely safe’ for pregnant women, there shouldn’t be a database full of side effects.
In February 2022, The Sydney Morning Heraldcarried an article titled Stillbirths and caesareans rise in NSW during first pandemic year, which doctors suggested was due to ‘disrupted maternal services’ but agreed that it was ‘too early to pinpoint a cause’.
The one thing we do know is that deaths went from 8 to 9.1 for every 1,000 births.
‘Six babies are stillborn each day in Australia, with rates almost unchanged in 20 years. There were 840 perinatal deaths in NSW in 2020, which is about 100 more stillbirths and newborn deaths than would have occurred based on the overall rate in the past 10 years.’
The article also noted that ‘the number of babies born in NSW during 2020 fell to their lowest in more than a decade’ and further noted ‘the rise in stillbirths has also been seen overseas, with studies in England, Nepal, and India linking it to a lack of maternity services during the pandemic’.
The data for that study ends in 2020, but reveals that the behaviour of government fear-mongering and locking down medical systems has probably resulted in the deaths of children.
The Destatis records extend to July 15, 2022 and report that the ‘number of stillbirths per 1,000 births rose from an all-time low of 3.5 in 2007 to 4.3 in 2021’ with the hike in deaths occurring in mothers of all ages and uniform across Western and Eastern Germany.
There are plenty of studies that are quick to suggest that Covid infection can raise the risk of stillbirth among mothers – but again, these mothers are not separated out between vaccinated and unvaccinated. Shouldn’t health experts be able to tell us, using real figures, if vaccination had an impact on the health of a mother during a Covid infection?
It has been conclusively shown that Covid vaccination can harm or interfere with a woman’s reproductive system. In August 2022, a firm link between Covid vaccination and menstrual irregularities was confirmed. Published in the Lancet, ‘63,815 respondents reported on menstrual irregularities or vaginal bleeding’ including increases to the severity of symptoms. Among reports were women who said this included ‘extreme menstrual cramping comparative to child labour and a much heavier menstrual flow’ and others who reported bleeding years after the onset of menopause. The vaccines used in the USA where the survey was conducted were mRNA vaccines Pfizer and Moderna. The results mirrored reports seen in VAERS.
If women reported this sort of thing after their last Tetanus shot, there’d be questions raised but we are told that ‘this is normal’. It’s not normal and we have to stop pretending that this menagerie of side effects is acceptable for a product that was forced upon nearly the entire population.
Health officials at institutions such as the NHS are demanding answers as to why these side effects are occurring. It is strange that the TGA and medical authorities in Australia are not more interested in unexplained side effects occurring in women.