TTAV is experiencing heavy censorship on many social media channels since we’ve been targeted by the mainstream media sellouts, social media bullies, and political turncoats. Be sure to get the TRUTH by subscribing to our email list. It’s free.
In the face of a global health crisis like the COVID-19 pandemic, public trust in health institutions and professionals is paramount. These entities guide us in navigating the sea of information and misinformation that inundates us daily. However, recent revelations have raised concerns about the influence of financial ties on health recommendations, especially regarding the promotion of COVID-19 vaccinations among pregnant women.
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), a trusted national public health institute, granted $11 million to the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG), a leading professional organization for OB-GYNs. The purpose? To promote COVID-19 vaccinations among pregnant women. What is troubling about this is the absence of safety studies conducted specifically for this demographic and the overall effectiveness of these vaccines.
A Concerning Nexus: Money and Medical Recommendations
This situation mirrors another unsettling trend we’ve previously discussed, where nutritional advice was influenced by corporate funding. In both cases, the intertwining of financial interests and health recommendations muddies the waters of trust. Is the advice given truly in the best interest of public health, or is it swayed by a financial agenda?
Here, we must question whether the $11 million from the CDC influenced ACOG’s recommendation to vaccinate pregnant women against COVID-19. Furthermore, we must consider the implications of pushing this vaccine when it was presented to the public as a preventative measure against infection and transmission, a claim that has been widely disputed.
A Closer Look at the Funding
The $11 million awarded by the CDC to ACOG is not a small amount. It’s crucial to scrutinize this kind of funding and ask: what is the intended purpose, and more importantly, what impact could it have on the impartiality of the recommendations made by the organization receiving the funds?
When money changes hands, especially such a considerable sum, it inevitably creates a connection between the two parties involved. In an ideal world, this would not affect the integrity of the advice given by the funded party. However, we live in a world where financial incentives can, and often do, sway decisions and statements.
This concern is magnified when the funded entity is a trusted healthcare organization, whose words carry considerable weight in shaping public health decisions and policy. We must, therefore, scrutinize this relationship and its potential implications on the impartiality of health advice given.
CDC, ACOG Knew Risk to Pregnant Women
Dr. James Thorp, board-certified obstetrician-gynecologist and maternal-fetal medicine physician who also contributed to the research, thought it was particularly troubling that regulatory agencies and medical associations were aware of risks to pregnant women and yet pushed the vaccines.
Red flags in Pfizer’s data regarding the possible adverse effects of the vaccines for pregnant women were leaked in 2021. According to Thorp:
“They had the data. So they must have said, ‘Okay, we’re not going to be transparent with the data. We’re going to denigrate their data and our own data (VAERS and Pfizer 5.3.6), and suggest that — all the morbidity and danger signals and mortality, we’re just gonna brush it off.
‘And we’re going to spend $13 billion on psychological operations, fifth-generation war, to convince everybody in the world that it is safe and effective and necessary in the most vulnerable populations: pregnant women, pre-born and newborn babies, and the next most vulnerable population, children.'”
“It’s one thing when you’re trying to pull off this mass marketing campaign using marketing tactics that companies have been using for years to sell regular products such as candies, foods or clothing,” James Thorp said, “But they’re doing this with untested gene therapy products in pregnancy.
“The Department of Defense, HHS, CDC, ACOG, the Society for Maternal-Fetal Medicine, the American Board of Obstetrics and Gynecology and others are unequivocally attempting to abolish a highly-revered, God-ordained, gold standard doctrine that has been memorialized and honored and has withstood the scientific test of time over millennia: Never give novel substances in pregnancy without short-term and long-term outcome studies in the offspring.
“I will not allow this charade to continue. The reproductive toxicology studies are damning as evidenced by Alexandra Latypova, a 30-year veteran of the pharmaceutical industry demonstrating major problems — miscarriages, birth defects and many other concerns.
“Did not these governmental agencies and medical organizations learn their lessons from the thalidomide and diethylstilbestrol [DES] disasters of the last century? The COVID-19 gene therapies make thalidomide and DES look like prenatal vitamins.
“If one does not understand history they will be destined to repeat it on an even grander scale.”
Maggie Thorp, another researcher, added that if the HHS and CDC were directing people’s behavior as they explicitly sought to through these grants, “Then there is no informed consent happening.”
Ignoring the Safety Gap
Pregnant women have historically been excluded from the initial phases of clinical trials for new drugs or vaccines due to potential risks to both mother and child. The COVID-19 vaccines were no exception. However, in this case, ACOG began advocating for COVID-19 vaccinations among pregnant women without specific safety studies conducted for this group.
Furthermore, the absence of long-term safety studies for these vaccines compounds the concern. It’s a significant issue when we consider the potential for adverse effects not just on the pregnant women but also on their unborn children.
The Erosion of Trust
Trust in healthcare is a cornerstone of effective public health interventions. The public relies on institutions like the CDC and professional bodies like the ACOG to provide accurate, balanced, and evidence-based health advice. But the revelation of this financial relationship, paired with the promotion of a vaccine without demographic-specific or long-term safety data, can jeopardize that trust.
It begs the question: are these recommendations genuinely based on solid, unbiased scientific evidence, or are they influenced by financial interests and broader agendas? Are we, the public, being given the full picture to make informed decisions about our health and the health of our unborn children?
As we move forward, we must hold these institutions accountable. We must demand transparency and insist on thorough, demographic-specific safety studies for new medical interventions. We must question the influence of financial ties on health recommendations. Only by doing this can we ensure that our health and the health of our future generations are not compromised by conflicting interests.
Follow, Subscribe, & SHARE:
1. Telegram: https://t.me/TheTruthAboutCancer_Vaccines
2. GAB: https://gab.com/TyCharleneBollinger
3. GETTR: https://gettr.com/user/cancertruth
4. TruthSocial: https://truthsocial.com/@TheTruthAboutCancer
5. CloutHub: https://app.clouthub.com/#/users/u/TheTruthAboutCancer
6. Bitchute: https://www.bitchute.com/channel/vX3lcHH4Dvp0/
7. Rumble: https://rumble.com/c/TheTruthAboutCancerOfficial
8. Brighteon: https://www.brighteon.com/channels/thetruthaboutcancer
Leave a Reply