Number of Births in England Falls by 11.9% in 2022
After months of waiting, the U.K. Health Security Agency (UKHSA) has updated its ‘Vaccination in pregnancy’ tables in its ‘COVID-19 Vaccine Surveillance Report’.
Many of us have been complaining that the tables have not been updated for over six months, with the last set of data inputted in June 2022. Maybe it was working together with the ONS, which updated its ‘deaths by vaccination status’ data last week. The UKHSA data have now been updated to November 2022. I don’t understand why there is still such a big delay, but any update is better that nothing.
Previously, it has been noted that there were big drops in births when comparing 2022 with 2021. I can recall reading someone connected with the UKHSA or ONS saying that this was probably due to a data lag. Well, the updated data are here and they are still as worrying as before. The updated data have slightly decreased the number of births in 2021 and slightly increased the number in 2022, but not by much.
As the data only run until November 2022, I compared the number of women giving birth up to November 2021 with the number in 2022. In total between January and November there were 478,382 births in 2021 and 421,284 in 2022. That’s 57,098 fewer births in 2022, which is a drop of 11.9%.

This next chart shows the percentage decrease in births by month. As you can see, the biggest decrease occurred in month 9 (September) with a decrease of 15.7%

The vaccine surveillance report’s own graph shows this drop. I have drawn a red line to show where the drop off starts, which coincidentally matches the peak of the first dose in pregnancy figures.

The report emphasises that there is nothing to worry about and that studies have shown the vaccine is safe in pregnancy. It presents a number of graphs showing:
- percentage of live-born babies at term without low birthweight;
- percentage of live-born babies at term without low birthweight by age;
- stillbirths;
- low birthweights; and
- premature births.
Its graphs attempt to show that there isn’t much difference between vaccinated and unvaccinated mothers. However, in my opinion, these data don’t show much and could be considered disingenuous because the authors never compare with unvaccinated women. Instead they use the term “no doses in pregnancy”. This means instead of being a purely unvaccinated control group, women who were vaccinated before they were pregnant are lumped in the same group.
Next, I analysed the drop in births by ethnicity. I used the September to November 2021 data from the week 11 2021 vaccine surveillance report and compared with the September to November 2022 data in this latest report.
(A note to the UKHSA – your table columns are still labelled “April to June 2022” whilst the table heading says “September to November 2022”. Clearly a cut and paste job which doesn’t instil confidence with such an important dataset.)
The report compares births in Asian, black, mixed, other, unknown and white women.

There is a big increase in ‘other’ births but in reality the difference is just a few thousand. The rest of the categories show drops ranging from -2.5% in black women to -38.7% in mixed race women. The vaccination rates at the time of delivery are as follows: Asian (75.9%). Black (53.9%), Mixed (62.1%), Other (64.9%), White (78%) and Unknown (58.9%).
So there is no clear pattern between percentage of women vaccinated and changes in number of births.
Next, looking at deprivation with 1 being most deprived and 5 the least deprived.

This time there is a clear pattern between deprivation status, vaccination status and decrease in births. Vaccination rates by deprivation status are as follows: 1 most deprived (63.7%), 2 (71.2%), 3 (77.8%), 4 (83.3%), 5 least deprived (87.2%).
Interestingly, the more deprived, the lower the birth rate drop. This is also coincides with a lower percentage of women vaccinated.
And finally by age.

Here the under 20s show an increase whilst the other age groups drop in number of births. The greatest drop is in the 30-34 year olds at minus-17.7%. Vaccination rates for this group are as follows: under 20s (46.8%), 20-24 (61.7%), 25-29 (69.8%), 30-34 (79.8%), 35-39 (82.7%), 40+ (81.8%).
Hopefully this massive drop in births can be explained by a data lag or maybe because there was a post-lockdown bounce in 2021, so numbers dropped back down in 2022. However, if this was due to a data lag you would expect the drop to be consistent in the different categories highlighted above.
Perhaps the drop is due to the ‘cost of living crisis’ – but then would you not expect the drop in numbers to be in poorer or younger women? Maybe it shows how the middle class are being hit the hardest?
But the effects of vaccination should not be dismissed and if I had the raw data I would want to look at this closer. The beginning of the drop coinciding with the peak in first vaccinations is worrying, as is the chart showing that the more wealthy and more vaccinated women are having fewer babies.
This post first appeared on the Naked Emperor’s Substack page. Subscribe here.
To join in with the discussion please make a donation to The Daily Sceptic.
Profanity and abuse will be removed and may lead to a permanent ban.
Well regarding miscarriages, Arkmedic does a great job of demonstrating the evidence supporting the fact that these gene therapies resulted in an approx doubling of pregnancy loss before 20 weeks and the authorities *knew* the risk to pregnant women *before* the toxic shots were fanatically pushed on this particular cohort;
”It’s a travesty that pregnant women – who didn’t benefit from this treatment at all
https://arkmedic.substack.com/p/the-miscarriage-of-medicine
Prof. Norman Fenton does a brilliant job of exposing the sadly normal and historic shenanigans employed by bigpharma and their newish partners – the ONS and the UKHSA :-
https://wherearethenumbers.substack.com/p/fact-check-the-covid-vaccine-is-safe
And in addition to this one should always remember the 14, or is it 21 or is it 28 day Schrodinger – vaccinated but not vaccinated – effect on all the “data” which these esteemed bodies would have you believe.
I don’t understand why he has to speculate on whether there was a bounce in births in 2021. Don’t we have figures for previous years?
Is this kind of fluctuation something that has happened in the past? What is the typical yearly variation?
Do medicines get checked for their effect on ability to conceive/get women pregnant?
You absolutely cannot trust the official analysis of data with respect to vaccination during pregnancy. Here Professor Retsef Levi of MIT shows how reports that purport to show no effect of the vaccines in pregnancy fail to take into account significant biases in the data which actually presents very worrying signals about stillbirth.
Not directly on-topic, but a question that occurred to me this morning and thought that I’d wait for a suitable time to ask, and that time could be now. 🙂 Daughter-in-law is four months pregnant. She’s double-vaccinated. Anyone know whether the vaccine/spike protein would pass to her baby?
I don’t immediately have a link but I was reading yesterday that it is reported that male foetuses are susceptible to having the sperm-producing cells in the testes damaged by the spike protein while in utero.
Good question and I’m not sure any definitive evidence of this exists yet. I think it’s just theoretical at the moment because it is known that the mRNA circulates for at least 28 days ( so how long ago was her last jab? ) and that spike can still be expressed in tissues several months after the latest jab, but people like Dr McCullough speculate that this might be a permanent feature. Lack of long-term data is the problem. We know the mRNA/spike gets everywhere so I guess that includes the placenta, which means it then could go on to the baby.
It doesn’t directly answer your question but the paper by Dr Thorpe that Dr McCullough cites here may be worth delving in to, as perhaps he covers the mechanisms somewhere in this recent study. Also any videos by Drs Thorpe, McCullough and Yeadon are worth watching as I know they’ve all spoken about this particular topic in the past.
https://petermcculloughmd.substack.com/p/covid-19-vaccines-remain-pregnancy
Thank you so much for taking the time to reply, Mogwai (and to Tyrbiter too). It was quite long ago – when the 30-somethings were having their second jabs – all a blur now! Will look at the link.
if it can pass through breast milk then it can certainly pass in-vitro.
In vivo?
Lumping together women vaccinated before pregnancy with women not vaccinated during pregnancy makes no sense to me and is most likely done for dishonest reasons
These statistics seem to only be collated for dishonest reasons now, the name should be changed to the Office of National Subterfuge.
I like that, I might borrow it…
For context, one needs birth numbers for 2018, 2019 and 2020. Comparing just against 2021 is not very informative. As Ivor says, there may have been a post-lockdown bounce in 2021, so that numbers dropped back down in 2022.
Something else ignored by Isabel Fakeshott
Stand in the Park
Make friends & keep sane
Sundays 10.30am to 11.30am
Elms Field
near Everyman Cinema & play area
Wokingham RG40 2FE
Can it be any clearer that the cause is vaccine genocide ?
Exactly. The intent to cause harm can hardly be called a baseless accusation or conspiracy can it, when the evidence of what was known right at the start, plus the obscene amount of harms/deaths post-deployment that have manifested ( and counting.. ) is out in the open for all to see. We’re in ‘irrefutable fact’ territory now so it’s pure , pre-meditated mass murder and severe injury as far as I’m concerned. And still it carries on..
“The number of women giving birth up to November 2021“
I don’t think you’re allowed to say that. It implies that only women can get pregnant! [sarc]
You really couldn’t make this up…
https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2021/07/27/woke-doctor-apologizes-for-using-term-pregnant-women/
A name change is in order perhaps: ONS to be rebadged as ODNS.
The Office of Disingenuous National Statistics. The whole dodgy corrupt venal arras covering structure needs to be swept away. At this point, the National Shaman Service would probably offer much better health outcomes.
What are they good for? ODNS has calculated the answer to be 0.1.
For F.U.K.S.H.A.
The dramatic fall in fertility throughout the western world has been temporally linked to mRNA therapy campaigns. In the transcript below a Director of Pfizer acknowledges menstrual irregularities in women who have submitted to the company’s mRNA Covid therapy. He claims to understand the significance of these disturbances but does not understand the biological mechanism that could cause them. As such, he accepts the need for an investigation. He appears confident Pfizer will not be held legally liable for any injuries caused by known side effects to their mRNA Covid therapy. His concerns rest with the potential damage to Pfizer’s reputation if unforeseen side effects emerge following the brutal pressure to do the right thing to stop the spread. Speaking of Pfizer’s reputation he says, “…..if something were to happen downstream, and it was really bad, the scale of that scandal would be enormous.” His interlocutor speculates, “I hope nobody is growing three legs or something like that?” To which he replies, “Or the next generation’s super fucked up! Could you imagine the scandal? Oh my God! I would take Pfizer off my resume.” The conversation is part of an expose by the investigative journalists at Project Veritas, published on… Read more »