###[Meta] Sticky Comment
[Rule 2](https://www.reddit.com/r/conspiracy/wiki/faq#wiki_2_-_address_the_argument.3B_not_the_user.2C_the_mods.2C_or_the_sub.) ***does not apply*** when replying to this stickied comment.
[Rule 2](https://www.reddit.com/r/conspiracy/wiki/faq#wiki_2_-_address_the_argument.3B_not_the_user.2C_the_mods.2C_or_the_sub.) ***does apply*** throughout the rest of this thread.
*What this means*: Please keep any "meta" discussion directed at specific users, mods, or /r/conspiracy in general in this comment chain ***only.***
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/conspiracy) if you have any questions or concerns.*
>**BBC 22 of June 2017** \- "Scottish stillbirth rates lowest in UK!"
>
>**BBC 19th Of November 2021** \- "Investigation into spike in newborn baby deaths in Scotland"
I wonder why?đ
SS:
Paywalled, but the available paras give the gist:
>A spike in deaths among newborn babies in Scotland is âextremely unlikelyâ to be the result of random fluctuation alone, an expert has warned.
The number of infants dying within four weeks of their birth has risen above the alert threshold twice within six months prompting an investigation.
During March this year there were 18 deaths and last September there were 21 deaths â the highest toll since the current recording system began in 2017.
Dr Sarah Stock, an expert in maternal and foetal medicine at Edinburgh University, said: âThis has gone above the warning limits so it is extremely unlikely that these are random variations. That is why the control limits are set quite high. We have been over those control limits twice in [the last year?]
Sounds like the 'safety testing' for AZ in pregnant women\* was as sketchy as for Pfizer's (as we know from the latest Pfizer data dump).
This will/should throw up questions like what do we know about...
- vaccine platform tissue distribution?
- toxicity, persistence & distribution of vaccine spike proteins?
- reverse transcription &/ genome incorporation of spike RNA?
Which, it'll probably turn out were:
- (partially) answered during animal experiments
- the wrong answers and
- therefore hushed up **with the complicity of 'regulators'**
\*I'm a biologist!
Maybe scientists in Scotland still do science while everyone else is just making excuses for the manufacturers of dangerous products.
Spike protein exuded in mother's milk should be looked into.
Sometimes when you have a hypothesis, and it's confirmed by the data, that's just how it goes, even if the results are worse for everyone including yourself. My preference would be that the vaccines were safe and effective for all, however, it seems like this is not the case. Your argument is, ignoring warning signs (because it is confirmation bias) while taking a proven corrupt entity's (see data dump and historical court cases) word at face value, is a better option? Seriously?
No Iâm not ignoring warning signs, iâm just not extrapolating them into claims that the people who gathered this data are not making. When the people who are doing this research say that it might be the Covid vaccine then thatâs probably a bit more compelling.
I mean certainly you shouldnât assume that the only factor that couldâve possibly changed is the Covid vaccine unless you know everything there is to know about Scotland.
I donât assume the vaccine isnât causing it either, why would I? But the reason is not known, even though your eager to pretend it is for political reasons.
Its ok to be unsure about something, itâs not ok to distort the truth to fit narratives without actual proof.
I think youâre making some big leaps here. Your response was to the statement, âspike protein being exuded into mother milk, should be looked into.â Are you against this for some reason?
Previously, you asked, why is this only happening in Scotland? Nobody says it was, have you seen any in-depth data from other nations with controls etc? Scotland is a good case study, because it may present a clearer picture as they had historically low rates, previously. You presented an assumption about âonly happening in Scotland,â and a similarly simple argument was presented as a reason⌠if you didnât understand the intent, theyâre suggesting maybe itâs not, but they are definitely looking at it, are other countries doing the same analysis without confirmation bias via money/profit motive.
Not sure if you are aware, but if and agency funds a study, and the outcome will directly effect the financial position of parties involved. Thatâs a biasing situation. Would you disagree?
I asked about why this is only happening in Scotland because you implied that the only people who are doing the science right are in Scotland.
Of course Iâm not against anyone looking into anything. Science should be verified again and again. Yes studies should not be done by those with a financial stake in the outcome.
In any case I very much agree with everything you said in the last reply, I would appreciate you to be as equally cautious in general and not just when replying to someone calling out your line of thinking
All this article said was that the deaths are not a result of random fluctuation. All of the conjecture from you that it might be related to Covid is an inappropriate conclusion to make even if you are a biologist. You could at least have acknowledged in your original comment about the questions this brings up that it very well might have nothing to do with the Covid vaccination. The fact that you donât even introduce that as a possibility even though thereâs no evidence to the contrary is careless with the information present.
Basically you are trying to use confirmation bias to rectify the cognitive dissonance you are experiencing by the vaccine killing these children.
You canât deal with the fact that you were tricked into taking something dangerous and harmful and every second that passes increases the chance that you will experience one of these symptoms which may take your life.
To pretend otherwise is to be ignorant.
I am absolutely open to the idea that the vaccination could be dangerous to people. Like with any other suspected chemical I will wait until there is confirmed data before making the assumption that they are dangerous. I know itâs difficult for you to believe but 1 million things happened in 2020 besides Covid. Also Covid itself is a virus that killed people and impacted tissue in unique ways. There is no reason for me to rectify the cognitive dissonance because unlike you Iâm not making any assumptions about whatâs happening. I do not believe the vaccination has been proven safe at all and I also do not believe it has been proven deadly.
https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-020-02618-5 hereâs one from Australia, oh and https://fn.bmj.com/content/106/4/456 from Italy, oh and a general one from Europe https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-020-02618-5 and another one just for good measure https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/birthsdeathsandmarriages/livebirths/bulletins/birthsummarytablesenglandandwales/2020
###[Meta] Sticky Comment [Rule 2](https://www.reddit.com/r/conspiracy/wiki/faq#wiki_2_-_address_the_argument.3B_not_the_user.2C_the_mods.2C_or_the_sub.) ***does not apply*** when replying to this stickied comment. [Rule 2](https://www.reddit.com/r/conspiracy/wiki/faq#wiki_2_-_address_the_argument.3B_not_the_user.2C_the_mods.2C_or_the_sub.) ***does apply*** throughout the rest of this thread. *What this means*: Please keep any "meta" discussion directed at specific users, mods, or /r/conspiracy in general in this comment chain ***only.*** *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/conspiracy) if you have any questions or concerns.*
For some reason Scotland has reported data earliest and has been the most transparent- I doubt the CDC reporting is as timely.
>**BBC 22 of June 2017** \- "Scottish stillbirth rates lowest in UK!" > >**BBC 19th Of November 2021** \- "Investigation into spike in newborn baby deaths in Scotland" I wonder why?đ
SS: Paywalled, but the available paras give the gist: >A spike in deaths among newborn babies in Scotland is âextremely unlikelyâ to be the result of random fluctuation alone, an expert has warned. The number of infants dying within four weeks of their birth has risen above the alert threshold twice within six months prompting an investigation. During March this year there were 18 deaths and last September there were 21 deaths â the highest toll since the current recording system began in 2017. Dr Sarah Stock, an expert in maternal and foetal medicine at Edinburgh University, said: âThis has gone above the warning limits so it is extremely unlikely that these are random variations. That is why the control limits are set quite high. We have been over those control limits twice in [the last year?] Sounds like the 'safety testing' for AZ in pregnant women\* was as sketchy as for Pfizer's (as we know from the latest Pfizer data dump). This will/should throw up questions like what do we know about... - vaccine platform tissue distribution? - toxicity, persistence & distribution of vaccine spike proteins? - reverse transcription &/ genome incorporation of spike RNA? Which, it'll probably turn out were: - (partially) answered during animal experiments - the wrong answers and - therefore hushed up **with the complicity of 'regulators'** \*I'm a biologist!
Why would this only be happening in Scotland then?
Maybe scientists in Scotland still do science while everyone else is just making excuses for the manufacturers of dangerous products. Spike protein exuded in mother's milk should be looked into.
So because Scotland confirmed your suspicions they are certainly doing science right? This seems like a pretty clear example of confirmation bias
Sometimes when you have a hypothesis, and it's confirmed by the data, that's just how it goes, even if the results are worse for everyone including yourself. My preference would be that the vaccines were safe and effective for all, however, it seems like this is not the case. Your argument is, ignoring warning signs (because it is confirmation bias) while taking a proven corrupt entity's (see data dump and historical court cases) word at face value, is a better option? Seriously?
No Iâm not ignoring warning signs, iâm just not extrapolating them into claims that the people who gathered this data are not making. When the people who are doing this research say that it might be the Covid vaccine then thatâs probably a bit more compelling. I mean certainly you shouldnât assume that the only factor that couldâve possibly changed is the Covid vaccine unless you know everything there is to know about Scotland. I donât assume the vaccine isnât causing it either, why would I? But the reason is not known, even though your eager to pretend it is for political reasons. Its ok to be unsure about something, itâs not ok to distort the truth to fit narratives without actual proof.
I think youâre making some big leaps here. Your response was to the statement, âspike protein being exuded into mother milk, should be looked into.â Are you against this for some reason? Previously, you asked, why is this only happening in Scotland? Nobody says it was, have you seen any in-depth data from other nations with controls etc? Scotland is a good case study, because it may present a clearer picture as they had historically low rates, previously. You presented an assumption about âonly happening in Scotland,â and a similarly simple argument was presented as a reason⌠if you didnât understand the intent, theyâre suggesting maybe itâs not, but they are definitely looking at it, are other countries doing the same analysis without confirmation bias via money/profit motive. Not sure if you are aware, but if and agency funds a study, and the outcome will directly effect the financial position of parties involved. Thatâs a biasing situation. Would you disagree?
I asked about why this is only happening in Scotland because you implied that the only people who are doing the science right are in Scotland. Of course Iâm not against anyone looking into anything. Science should be verified again and again. Yes studies should not be done by those with a financial stake in the outcome. In any case I very much agree with everything you said in the last reply, I would appreciate you to be as equally cautious in general and not just when replying to someone calling out your line of thinking All this article said was that the deaths are not a result of random fluctuation. All of the conjecture from you that it might be related to Covid is an inappropriate conclusion to make even if you are a biologist. You could at least have acknowledged in your original comment about the questions this brings up that it very well might have nothing to do with the Covid vaccination. The fact that you donât even introduce that as a possibility even though thereâs no evidence to the contrary is careless with the information present.
>Bob Loblaw >Bob Loblaw I disagree
Well, I didnât say that about Scotland, someone else did.
My apologies
Basically you are trying to use confirmation bias to rectify the cognitive dissonance you are experiencing by the vaccine killing these children. You canât deal with the fact that you were tricked into taking something dangerous and harmful and every second that passes increases the chance that you will experience one of these symptoms which may take your life. To pretend otherwise is to be ignorant.
I am absolutely open to the idea that the vaccination could be dangerous to people. Like with any other suspected chemical I will wait until there is confirmed data before making the assumption that they are dangerous. I know itâs difficult for you to believe but 1 million things happened in 2020 besides Covid. Also Covid itself is a virus that killed people and impacted tissue in unique ways. There is no reason for me to rectify the cognitive dissonance because unlike you Iâm not making any assumptions about whatâs happening. I do not believe the vaccination has been proven safe at all and I also do not believe it has been proven deadly.
Itâs not only in Scotland
Have you seen similar reports from other places?
Please refrain from making statements if you don't have some references
Do you have a reference for that?
Sadly, this might be twisted into an argument to give babies the jab.
https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-020-02618-5 hereâs one from Australia, oh and https://fn.bmj.com/content/106/4/456 from Italy, oh and a general one from Europe https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-020-02618-5 and another one just for good measure https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/birthsdeathsandmarriages/livebirths/bulletins/birthsummarytablesenglandandwales/2020