Instead of Taunting Us, Help Us: Who Will Address Jab Concerns and Pregnancy?

If there is anyone who still thinks there isn’t a political element to the overwhelming thrust to keep the mRNA jabs coming, consider this:

A new study reported on the website for the Center for Infectious Disease Research and Policy (CIDRAP) finds that “many younger U.S. women say flu and COVID vaccines are not safe in pregnancy.”  The first thing we notice is that the report nonchalantly groups the flu vaccine in with the COVID jab.  Linking these two is obvious propaganda to force an association between an actual vaccine and the mRNA jab, with the hope of convincing the public that there is no difference between them.   

The study begins by telling us that 17% of women of child-bearing age do not believe the flu vaccine is safe for women and their fetuses during pregnancy.  However, “skepticism was even more evident in the COVID-19 vaccine findings” with 31% saying the jab is not safe.

They go on to report that the results depend on vaccination status:  The unvaccinated are more likely to believe a flu vaccine or COVID jab are unsafe, and the vaccinated are more likely to think they’re safe.  Apparently, they needed a study to figure that out.

But it doesn’t end there.  The lead author of the report probably plans to use the data to support a new public health push that hasn’t been revealed yet:

In the report, lead author Kathleen Hall Jamieson, PhD, called the results worrisome.  "Because the Covid and flu vaccines help protect both those who are pregnant and their infants, dispatching misconceptions about them should be a public health priority," she said.

How these folks and their misconceptions are going to be dispatched is not specifically outlined.

The study goes on to tell us a few more things about the respondents:

  • Older adults and those with more education were more likely to have been vaccinated.
  • 47% of respondents “aren’t sure” whether the COVID infection carries a higher myocarditis risk than the jab. (Isn’t that a trick question?)
  • 55% suspect that the CDC is covering up side effects and deaths associated with the jab, or are “unsure” if they are reporting them accurately.  (A huge finding that was glossed over.)

Then we navigate to an even more befuddling part of the study which states that:

Among all respondents, 42% said a family member has been diagnosed as having a mental illness, while 24% said they themselves have such a diagnosis, and 59% indicated that they know someone with a mental illness.

Reading between the lines, we can conclude that the unvaccinated are uneducated, mentally ill (or associating with someone who is), and are conspiracy theorists suspicious of the CDC and likely have access to guns.

With this telltale reasoning, we should not be surprised to learn that the report comes from the Annenberg Public Policy Center at the University of Pennsylvania.  The center is a project of the Annenberg Foundation, funded in part by the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation.

The lead author of the report, Kathleen Hall Jamieson, PhD, is a longtime liberal activist who created; her teaching has influenced generations.  In later years, her 2018 book, Cyberwar, supposedly documents how Russian hackers and trolls helped elect Donald Trump, (which means she writes fiction too.)  I must stop here and urge you to check out her Wikipedia entry.  At 76, she’s definitely in the same league with other disturbing globalists like Nancy Pelosi and George Soros … the kind that keep fighting on the wrong side of history beyond any normal retirement age -- making one wonder if they’ve made some Faustian pact with the devil.

Most recently, Jamieson collaborated with her Annenberg posse on “Democracy amid Crises: Polarization, Pandemic, Protests, and Persuasion.”  (Surprisingly, alliteration is still hip with this crowd.) The book looks at the pandemic, “racial justice concerns” and how the “president of the United States refused to accept the results and incited his followers to storm the US Capitol.”

The American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) named Jamieson a 2021 Fellow for “her invaluable contributions to promoting factual discourse regarding public issues and developing the science of science communication.”  In an interview for the AAAS website, Jamieson said that systematic dissemination of misinformation about science is a recent phenomenon, as is the politicization of science.

“No one would have anticipated 50 years ago that the science of COVID-19 would be politicized in the way that it has been,” she said.

With that statement we see these so-called learned leaders continuing to taunt the public in the face of increasing evidence for vaccine injuries and unexplained, or excess deaths.

Instead of subtly mocking those with concerns about the jabs effects on pregnancy, Jamieson and her Annenberg cohorts should be helping humanity by seriously investigating all vaccine injuries and deaths, including gynecological/reproductive complaints like those logged in at the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS).

In September of 2022, a global study found that COVID jabs could affect the menstrual cycle.  Oregon Health and Science University (OHSU) found that “A range of menstrual cycle changes after COVID-19 vaccination have been reported, including longer and shorter cycles, missed cycles, heavier and lighter menstrual flow, and intermenstrual spotting.”  Oddly, the study concluded these were “not a cause for concern.”  They were certainly concerning to the women who experienced them; and let’s be clear, these should be categorized as “vaccine injuries.”

With so many women realizing the jab affected their menstrual cycles, it is hardly irrational of them to be concerned with possible effects on pregnancy.  I personally knew a young woman who had previously had normal menstrual flows but ended up in the ER with uncontrolled bleeding just days after her COVID jab.  After that unexplained ordeal, she was necessarily concerned about not only her own health during a possible pregnancy, but the health of the baby she planned to have.

We need answers because there is another kind of “long haul” ahead of us:  Long after people have suffered through their own vaccine injuries, long after questionable or sudden deaths and their ensuing funerals, there are going to be pregnant mothers and babies being born.  We should probably not expect the same people who let our elderly die alone in nursing homes to care about mothers and babies, but we should keep praying for courageous men and women to come out of the current corrupt medical cabal and give the next generation a fighting chance.  

Susan D. Harris can be reached at

Photo credit: Berkman Center for Internet and Society CC BY 2.0 license

If you experience technical problems, please write to