UKHSA (sorta) answers my second question
Two questions on the data accuracy in the UKHSA reports were detailed here
The second, and more concerning question, involved the reported stillbirth rate among unvaccinated women as reported for the Jan-Aug period (3.60 per 1,000) vs. the Jan-Oct period (3.90 per 1,000). I showed that if both of those numbers are accurate, the implication is that the Sep-Oct rate would have needed to be ~ 5.58 per 1,000 which would be a very alarming number.
My strong suspicion was/is that the reported Jan-Aug number is inaccurate and the actual rate was higher. I wrote to the UKHSA to ask if they stood by their original number. The response below seems to support my suspicion but provides no detail on the correction. A cynical person might think they are being intentionally opaque.
The data is inaccurate. UKHSA "Scott" admits it's inaccurate. What we don't know is why it's inaccurate. It's unlikely UKHSA "Scott" knows why, from his perch deep in the PR room. It's always a safe bet that incompetence is involved. It's also a safe bet that incompetence is never the only explanation.
It seems that all of the mid-level bureaucrats are inserting weasel words and obfuscating data so they can try and escape from the Crime Against Humanity charges.
What sort of monster informs women that the vaxx is safe to take during pregnancy, AFTER there is data showing the opposite?