Is "Anything But the Shot" Woven into Legislation?
if so, let's change that
If we continue to look for answers everywhere but on the vaccine schedule, that’s where we’ll find answers.
I’m looking to find a way into the fact-finding missions. Our regulators seem to need help with missing context.
On Monday, December 5, NJ’s Assembly Health Committee will be meeting to discuss A1994, a bill that "would require that the Department of Health (DOH) to establish a maternity care evaluation protocol that every hospital and every birthing center would be required to follow in order to collect hospital discharge data relevant to maternity care.”
The Department of Health shall evaluate the data collected under the maternity care evaluation protocol for the purposes of… (6) researching the association between clinical practices, the quality of maternal care, and maternal health care outcomes. (emphasis mine)
You can read the text of the bill here. Details regarding collected data are as follows:
The de-identified hospital discharge data collected pursuant to the maternity care evaluation protocol shall include, but not be limited to:
(1) the race and age of the mother, maternal and paternal family history, comorbidities, prenatal care history, antepartum findings, history of maternal pregnancy complications, and history of past obstetric complications;
(2) the number and percentage of maternal patients who were treated for hypertensive disorders, including preeclampsia and associated conditions, during the reporting period;
(3) the number and percentage of maternal patients who experienced an obstetric hemorrhage accompanied by an adverse event, as defined by the guidelines established by the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, during the reporting period;
(4) the number and percentage of maternal patients who underwent non-medically indicated labor induction procedures, and the number and percentage of maternal patients who delivered after 37 weeks gestation but before 39 weeks gestation, and who underwent medically indicated induction procedures;
(5) the number and percentage of maternal patients who underwent non-medically indicated cesarean section procedures, and the number and percentage of maternal patients who underwent medically indicated cesarean section procedures;
(6) the number and percentage of maternal patients who underwent vaginal deliveries;
(7) the number and percentage of maternal patients who delivered at 41 or more weeks of gestation;
(8) the number and percentage of maternal patients who delivered at 39 or more weeks of gestation;
(9) the number and percentage of maternal patients who delivered after 37 weeks of gestation, but before 39 weeks of gestation;
(10) the number and percentage of maternal patients who delivered after 34 weeks of gestation, but before 37 weeks of gestation;
(11) the number and percentage of infants born with birth defects, broken down by the specific birth defect;
(12) the number and percentage of infants born weighing five pounds, eight ounces or more;
(13) the number and percentage of infants born weighing less than five pounds, eight ounces; and
(14) any other information related to a maternal patient's prenatal, postnatal, labor, and delivery care that is deemed necessary.
Can you think of anything else we may want to include if we want a broader understanding of maternal health care and birth outcomes?
For reasons I’ve written about, A1994’s primary sponsor, Asm Herb Conaway, is unlikely to ask inconvenient questions about vaccine safety or the impacts of shots on maternal and/or child health outcomes.
But that doesn’t mean we can’t.
Is there an opportunity here?
I'm thinking that, as long as they're proposing to collect all of this data about age, race, family history, complications, gestation, adverse events, hemorrhaging, induction procedures, pre and antenatal care, etc... we can propose that they include and integrate data about vaccines given during pregnancy, newborn vaccination status and cases of sudden infant death.
New Jersey already has the NJIIS (New Jersey Immunization Information System) per the Statewide Immunization Registry Act.
A HCP (health care practitioner) that immunizes children less than seven (7) years of age is required by State regulation to enroll as an authorized user of NJIIS and report vaccinations to NJIIS. Mandatory participation is stipulated in New Jersey Administrative Code, N.J.A.C. 8:57- 3.16…
…Since 2004, all children born in New Jersey, on or after January 1, 1998, are automatically enrolled through the electronic birth certificate.
So we’re already collecting plenty of vaccination data. We just need to be able to integrate it into a bigger picture to see how vaccination status may be correlated to health outcomes.
NJ’s A440 introduced an important idea. Sometimes referred to as the “SIDS Surveillance Bill”, A440 "provides for identification and study of infant fatalities and near fatalities resulting from vaccination; requires inclusion of vaccination information in sudden infant death reports; and requires use of federal infant death reporting form.”
*Notice this bill has been introduced in the Women and Children committee, NOT the Health Committee. The seems to be one way legislators try to get bills like these past the BigPharma gatekeepers within their ranks.
Why would the Department of Health create protocols to collect all of this data and miss an opportunity to answer important questions about the impact of both COVID-19 shots and the childhood vaccination schedule when we are currently confronted with a devastating spike in fetal demise, miscarriages and infertility?
People now have more concerns than ever about the potential health impacts of all of these shots. Why not collect the data so we can either put those fears to rest or make the necessary changes?
Does anyone remember doctors panicking in 2020 that kids had fallen behind on their vaccines because of lockdowns? Does anyone remember a conspicuous drop in SIDS deaths? If there’s a connection, shouldn’t we look at the correlation (instead of remaining baffled)? Maybe we should do this in the name of preventing SUDDEN INFANT DEATH? Seems worthwhile.
Wouldn’t it be helpful if, instead of simply playing the selective “correlation is not causation” game, we could examine these links and figure out why fewer kids died during the same period when kids weren’t getting shots… and why fewer healthy babies are being born now?.. and why so many people are dying suddenly in general?
If the NJDOH is so confident in their daily assertions that these shots are so safe and effective, why not take this opportunity to access supporting data?
Perhaps -if our legislators are going to propose medical data collection for research purposes - they can include data about COVID vaccination status of mothers and vaccination status of infants.
I haven’t really thought this through, so I welcome ideas about what might be possible here. If you have a suggestion, I’d love to hear it in the comments.
“Wouldn’t it be helpful if, instead of simply playing the selective “correlation is not causation” game, we could examine these links and figure out why fewer kids died during the same period when kids weren’t getting shots… and why fewer healthy babies are being born now?.. and why so many people are dying suddenly in general?”
Bingo! The questions that must be asked but are only coming from those who haven’t been afflicted by the 3 B’s (Bribery, Blackmail, Brainwashing). When you watch this criminal negligence unfold, the only explanation that sticks is our entire healthcare system, the regulators overseeing it and the law enforcement bodies assigned to protect us are compromised by something so evil that must be extinguished. In my opinion I cannot happen soon enough.
Really good work here!!! 🙌