The following is a chapter of http://bit.ly/research2000 (reviewing 2000 papers proving the PLANdemic)
Many papers and medical societies were recommending vaccination to pregnant women, without trimester discrimination, with the false excuse that “COVID-19 infection: has a higher risk of causing severe disease, requiring more admissions to intensive care units; increases the need for mechanical ventilation; provokes more prematurity of neonates; and increases maternal and fetal mortality because of pregnancy” , and to make things worse, “treatment recommended for the non-pregnant population should not be withheld from pregnant persons. This includes treatment with remdesivir, dexamethasone, and monoclonal antibodies.” 
This showed guilty ignorance of the topic and was be lethal for many women and children:
1. Databases like Yellow Card (UK) and VAERS (USA) showed thousands of unborn babies dying after COVID vaccination.
2. They also showed an unnatural spike of deaths of already born babies when the mother took COVID shots during breastfeeding, which proves that the vaccines are not safe for babies.
3. Pfizer and Moderna discontinued their studies on infants due to the severe adverse reactions (and, statistically, zero benefit)
4. Pfizer added a cardiovascular drug to the vaccine ingredients for children to cloak the severe damage it was detecting already, recognized by the CDC myocarditis table.
5. All studies prove that vaccination doesn’t prevent contagion.
6. With i-Mask protocol, or one drop of ivermectin every 4 hours when outside home, there’s zero risk of getting sick with COVID.
7. After contagion, there's no increased risk to the mother, with over 30 effective drugs and early treatments, many harmless to the unborn baby (steam, melatonin, vitamin D, etc.), which should be indicted even if vaccinated. There’s no contraindication in the postpartum period, which is the most risky (n.b. age over 35 years and diabetes) , yet they were denied effective treatments.
8. “Direct transplacental transmission of Sars-Cov-2 does not seem to constitute a major argument in favor of Sars-Cov-2 vaccination.”  COVID does nothing to babies, who lack ACE2 receptors, plus intrauterine transmission is rare and breastfeeding transmission is not significant.
9. It takes 2 shots separated by at least a month and then a 2 week period for the vaccines to be supposedly effective. During that period, severe sickness is still possible.
10. There’s no statistically significant study proving that vaccination reduced maternal mortality.
All the studies which recommended vaccination to pregnants were flawed:
a. Relied on PCR tests without acknowledging its enormous rate of false positives.
b. Compared with un-pregnant women, when it is obvious that pregnancy would increase risk and hospitalization. 
c. In this study, pregnancy status was missing on more than half of reported cases. 
d. As vaccine benefit in theoretical COVID reduction, they compared to unhospitalized pregnant women, in spite that hospitalization could be a result of a risky pregnancy and not COVID. 
e. The alleged increased preterm risk, didn’t take into account that the preterm delivery was induced by the obstetrics and not COVID: women were pressured into C-section preterm for subjective fear of risk and not real risk.
f. Didn’t adjust for confounding factors like age, weeks of pregnancy, number of prior pregnancies/abortions, pre-eclampsia, “higher maternal age, high body mass index, non-white ethnicity, and pre-pregnancy comorbid conditions, such as diabetes and hypertension.” 
1 Sep 2020 “the odds for all-cause mortality were not increased.” (n=601,122) 
19 Aug 2021 most had mild symptoms
20 Set 2021, a Canadian cherry-picked study, which deliberately left out the first trimester to hide severe adverse events, showed no association with adverse peripartum outcomes such as postpartum haemorrhage or low Apgar scores among 22 660 vaccinated women. 
20 Apr 2022 CDC recognized that COVID “overall risks are low”. 
7 Aug 2022, another Canadian study by the same questioned leading author, involving 85 162 live births and stillbirths, from 1 May to 31 Dec 2021, recommended pregnancy vaccination, despite:
1. Excluded the majority of pregnancies: 110 000
2. Excluded “any records with gestational age <20 weeks and birth weight <500 g”, usually linked to 1st trimester vaccination.
3. Excluded 31 deaths in the first trimester without studying link to vaccination, even if it is a huge number when considering that only a hundred received 2 shots in the first trimester.
4. Excluded 121 procured abortions, without studying link to vax side effects which might have convinced mothers to murder their infant due to abnormality, lack of viability or increased risk to the mother’s life.
5. By placing a cherry picked rule of “last menstrual period date after 10 Mar 2021” they excluded “preterm births close to the end of the study period”, just when double vaxxing would have a greater impact.
6. By cherry picking the study time-frame, and rejecting follow ups after that period, they excluded 2-shot pregnants in the first trimester (over 99% were 1 dose).
7. “During the study period, the proportion of vaccines administered in the first trimester was relatively low (12.1%).”
8. 3% of the population was discarded because of lack of health card numbers matching the COVaxON database of COVID vaccination: no study was made to assess if those had much worse outcomes precisely for being poor or other confounding variables.
9. Almost 2 out of 3 had only 1 shot, which has a much lower adverse reaction
10. Only 1/3 had 2 shots and the majority was in the 3er trimester, where infant injury is lower.
12. “On 15 Dec 2021, all people older than 18 years, including pregnant people, became eligible to receive a covid-19 booster dose.” Yet the study period was cut 2 weeks after that: to reduce the impact of double vaxxing? “We were unable to evaluate booster doses because pregnant Ontario residents were not eligible until December 2021.”
13. Risk windows of up to 14 days, left many bad outcomes not accounted for, especially for “small for gestational age at birth”.
14. Excluded an important outcome: “Preterm birth subtype was considered spontaneous if it occurred after spontaneous onset of labour or preterm premature rupture of membranes.”
15. “Small for gestational age at birth was defined as a singleton live born infant below the 10th centile of the sex specific birth weight for gestational age distribution, based on a Canadian reference standard.” This means they excluded multiple births and a considerable number of very small babies above the 10th centile.
16. “Stillbirth was defined as an antepartum or intrapartum fetal death at ≥20 weeks”. Thus, leaving out those under 20 weeks, especially linked to 1st trimester vaccination and half of the 2nd trimester: “Pregnancies ending before 20 weeks’ gestation are not systematically captured in the birth registry and could not be evaluated.”
17. They “excluded individuals with a history of covid-19 during pregnancy” plus “individuals who did not seek testing could be misclassified as not having had covid-19 during pregnancy”. By excluding natural immunization and not treating it as a separate category, they were biased towards the less vaxxed.
18. The confounding models were tweaked to the desired results? “we adjusted for many potential confounders using a propensity score based approach, we cannot dismiss the possibility of residual confounding, particularly given the potential for healthy vaccinee bias in observational studies of vaccination”. “we cannot rule out residual temporal confounding, particularly given the complex temporal dynamics of the pandemic and vaccination programme.”
19. This might be the most eye-opening statement: “limited the unvaccinated group to those who received their first vaccine dose after pregnancy, because in an earlier study of this population their baseline characteristics were shown to be more similar to individuals vaccinated during pregnancy than to those never vaccinated at any time.” The “unvaccinated” were in fact vaccinated while the never-vaccinated were left out of the study?
20. The model didn’t take into account that 5% (2K/42K) of the alleged unvaxxed had births out of hospital settings, and without obstetrician/surgeon, which have worse outcomes.
21. For the first dose, 80% were vaccinated with Pfizer and 20% with Moderna, which has worse outcomes. For the second, 67% and 18% repectively, 15% being a combination.
Excessive cherry picking and tweaking? If they excluded COVID patients, how can they explain the alleged unvaxxed had slightly worse outcomes than the vaxxed?  The modelling bias is so patent that the vaccines show zero harmful adverse events, and only beneficial side effects related to pregnancy outcomes, which is completely unrealistic.
The conflicts of interests were evident: funding “from the Public Health Agency of Canada through the Vaccine Surveillance Reference Group and the COVID-19 Immunity Task Force; SEH and LO were partly funded by the Norwegian Research Council. KW is chief executive officer of CANImmunize, which hosts a national digital immunisation record, and is a member of the independent data safety board for the Medicago covid-19 vaccine trial.”
Ethical approval was not listed under conflict of interests: “This study was approved by the Children’s Hospital of Eastern Ontario research ethics board.” Who pays for the ethics board? The Hospital responsible for vaxxing thousands of pregnants, which would never recognize injury.
Could anybody expect that those responsible for vaccinating pregnant women with an experimental gen-jection to recognize they murdered hundreds of babies?
Could anybody expect that those responsible for vaccinating pregnant women with an experimental gen-jection to recognize they murdered hundreds of babies?
The strawberry in the pie: “dataset cannot be made publicly available”, blocking reproducibility/falseability.
After they did all they could to sort out problematic population, 1st trimester data and double vaxxing.The conclusion even lied: “We did not find evidence of an increased risk of preterm birth, small for gestational age at birth, or stillbirth after covid-19 vaccination during any trimester of pregnancy in this large population based study including more than 43 000 births to individuals vaccinated during pregnancy.”
It even continued with a pro-vax rave, in spite of not supporting it in the paper: “vaccination during pregnancy is effective against covid-19 for pregnant individuals and their newborns” and that all that gibberish was “evidence based decision making about covid-19 vaccination during pregnancy.”
Of course, the article received freemason global press coverage in all disinformation media. The good science warning about the extreme danger and proven injuries in pregnancy and breastfeeding vaccination had been shut up.
 Donders, G., Grinceviciene, & Covid-Isidog Guideline Group. ISIDOG Consensus Guidelines on COVID-19 Vaccination for Women before, during and after Pregnancy. 29 Jun 2021 Journal of clinical medicine, 10(13), 2902. https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm10132902
 Rasmussen, S. A., & Jamieson, D. J. COVID-19 and Pregnancy. 31 Jan 2022 Infectious Disease Clinics of North America, Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.idc.2022.01.002
 Knobel, R., Takemoto, M., et al. COVID-19-related deaths among women of reproductive age in Brazil: The burden of postpartum. 18 Jul 2021 International journal of gynaecology and obstetrics: the official organ of the International Federation of Gynaecology and Obstetrics, Oct 2021 155(1), 101–109. https://doi.org/10.1002/ijgo.13811
 Donders, G., Grinceviciene, & Covid-Isidog Guideline Group. ISIDOG Consensus Guidelines on COVID-19 Vaccination for Women before, during and after Pregnancy.29 Jun 2021. Journal of clinical medicine, 10(13), 2902. https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm10132902
 Rozo N, Valencia D, et al. Severity of illness by pregnancy status among laboratory-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infections occurring in reproductive-aged women in Colombia. 1 Set 2021 Paediatric and perinatal epidemiology. https://doi.org/10.1111/ppe.12808
 Zambrano LD, Ellington S, Strid P, et al. Update: Characteristics of Symptomatic Women of Reproductive Age with Laboratory-Confirmed SARS-CoV-2 Infection by Pregnancy Status - United States, January 22-October 3, 2020. 6 Nov 2020 MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. 2020;69(44):1641-1647. Published 2020 Nov 6. https://doi.org/10.15585/mmwr.mm6944e3
 Elsaddig, M., & Khalil, A. Effects of the COVID pandemic on pregnancy outcomes. Best practice & research. 18 Mar 2021 Clinical obstetrics & gynaecology, 73, 125–136. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bpobgyn.2021.03.004
 Nana, M., & Nelson-Piercy, C. COVID-19 in pregnancy. Sep 2021. Clinical medicine (London, England), 21(5), e446–e450. https://doi.org/10.7861/clinmed.2021-0503
 Papageorghiou AT, Deruelle P, et al. Preeclampsia and COVID-19: results from the INTERCOVID prospective longitudinal study. 26 Jun 2021 American journal of obstetrics and gynecology, 225(3), 289.e1–289.e17. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajog.2021.05.014
 Jamieson, D. J., & Rasmussen, S. A. An update on COVID-19 and pregnancy. 14 Sep 2021 American journal of obstetrics and gynecology, 2022 226(2), 177–186. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajog.2021.08.054
 Allotey J, Stallings E, et al. Clinical manifestations, risk factors, and maternal and perinatal outcomes of coronavirus disease 2019 in pregnancy: living systematic review and meta-analysis. 1 Sep 2020 BMJ. 2020;370:m3320. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.m3320
 Dawood, F. S., Varner, M., et al. Incidence, Clinical Characteristics, and Risk Factors of SARS-CoV-2 Infection among Pregnant Individuals in the United States. 19 Aug 2021. Clinical infectious diseases: an official publication of the Infectious Diseases Society of America, ciab713. https://doi.org/10.1093/cid/ciab713
 Fell DB, Dhinsa T, et al. Association of COVID-19 vaccination in pregnancy with adverse peripartum outcomes. 20 Set 2021 JAMA;327:1478-87. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2022.4255
 20 Apr 2022 https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/vaccines/recommendations/pregnancy.html
 Fell DB, Dimanlig-Cruz S, et al. Risk of preterm birth, small for gestational age at birth, and stillbirth after covid-19 vaccination during pregnancy: population based retrospective cohort study. 17 Aug 2022 BMJ 378 https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj-2022-071416
 Table 4 Association between covid-19 vaccination during pregnancy and study outcomes.
Re: "...20. The model didn’t take into account that 5% (2K/42K) of the alleged unvaxxed had births out of hospital settings, and without obstetrician/surgeon, which have worse outcomes." Not to nit-pick or anything, but having an OB present at births ONLY helps the 5-15%, TOPS, of births which actually benefit from surgical intervention. The countries with the best birth outcomes (highest % of mothers & babies surviving) have independent midwives providing primary maternity care, with mothers never seeing an OB until their particular situation warrants that. Canada (which has nowhere near the best birth outcomes) and the US (which have the worst birth outcomes of any developed country, and several developing countries as well) make it very difficult for independent midwives to practice legally, so poor outcomes in birth are at least as likely to result from inadequate access to independent midwifery, or even from mothers attempting to "go it alone" in order to avoid medically-unnecessary surgery, which has been rampant in the past several decades. "Though "worse outcomes" are more likely to be the result of inadequate birth certificate data, & unplanned home "births" (aka birth disasters, such as could happen anywhere, at any time) were totalled up with deaths at planned homebirths.