COVID-19 Vaccine Drugs and Miscarriage
Back to Adverse Reaction Data / Back to Home
"What the F.D.A. is doing and what the public thinks it's doing are as different as night and day."
Dr. Herbert E. Ley, former FDA Commissioner
You may have been informed by the U.S. Center for Disease Control (CDC) that “Preliminary findings did not show obvious
safety signals among pregnant persons who received mRNA Covid-19 vaccines.” That is based on a rushed research conducted by the
CDC and published here
(Backup: here, Tables: 2, 4).
What this publication really shows is that
certain authors and entities (namely, the CDC) should be banned from being involved in drug safety for at least four years to help
preserve the faith of the general public in the scientific process and in government agencies.
- The study was designed so that 86.1% of the final study population (712 women) could not possibly have had a miscarriage
during the study period!
Yes, the CDC actually published a paper calculating miscarriage rates after COVID-19 vaccine drug injection where 712 of the 827 subjects
could not possibly have gotten a miscarriage during the study! This is easy to see by looking at the published paper. Please follow along
with the paper in front of you or on the screen. On page 8, in Table 4, you will see that miscarriage is defined in the study as having a
"spontaneous abortion" less than 20 weeks after the start of pregnancy. Now go to page 4, second column. I will reprint the two key
“Among 827 participants who had a completed pregnancy, the pregnancy resulted in a live birth in 712 (86.1%), in spontaneous abortion in
104 (12.6%), in stillbirth in 1 (0.1%), and in other outcomes (induced abortion and ectopic pregnancy) in 10 (1.2%). A total of 96 of 104
spontaneous abortions (92.3%) occurred before 13 weeks of gestation (Table 4), and 700 of 712 pregnancies that resulted in a live birth (98.3%)
were among persons who received their first eligible vaccine dose in the third trimester.”
Do you see the part that is highlighted above? 700 of the 712 persons who had a live birth received their first vaccine in the third trimester
which starts at the 28th week. Therefore, it is impossible for these people to have had a miscarriage (before the 20th week) that was caused by the vaccine
when they did not receive the vaccine until the 28th week or later! Please look again at Table 4 on page 8. You can see in the 3rd column how they use
these 712 women as part of the total of 827 women in the calculation of miscarriage rates (104/827 = 12.6%). What they should have said is that at least
700 and likely 712 women could not possibly have gotten a miscarriage during the study because they received their vaccine well after the 20th week.
If this is still not clear, let me give you an analogy using a tobacco researcher:
Let’s say you were a tobacco researcher and wanted to follow 400 elderly people for 10 years to prove that second-hand smoke did not cause
lung cancer. So you start enrolling people into your program over time and following those people, waiting for the study period to end for each subject.
There is no difference between my example and the CDC’s publication. In my case I used trees, that couldn’t get lung cancer, in my cancer
rate calculation. In their case they used human subjects, who could not physically have had a miscarriage during the study period, in their
miscarriage rate calculation. Rather than using 712 subjects who could not have gotten a miscarriage, the CDC could have simplied their abuse of the scientific method and used
the number of COVID-19 vaccine drug-injected jelly beans in a jar. Jelly beans, by the way, also cannot have miscarriages. The danger of using jelly beans,
however, is if there were only 250 jellybeans in the jar, the miscarriage rate would have been 104 / (104+10+1+250) = 28.5%, outside the
“normal” rate of miscarriages they present in Table 4, page 8: 10%-26%.
After 5 years and a few cases of lung cancer, you really want to publish something! The 10-year study period is far from over, but you have a
brilliant idea, “There are probably 100’s of trees that were exposed to 2nd hand smoke for 10 years. Sure, those trees can’t get lung cancer
just like 86.1% of the CDC study couldn’t have had a miscarriage. But they are numbers, so let’s use them!” So you take your 3 lung cancer cases
divided by 400 subjects (3 humans + 397 trees) to get a lung cancer rate of 0.75%. You compare that number to the overall, “expected” rate of
lung cancer and then your ready to publish your preliminary findings in the New England Jounal of Medicine. Welcome to #Science2021.
There is a very serious ethical problem when the CDC claims to be looking at possible miscarriage outcomes and 86.1% of their study population could
not have gotten a miscarriage.
- The study population that have live births and the population that had miscarriages received the drug in a different trimester.
Even if we could ignore all of behavior in the first item above, there is another very serious problem when comparing the group with live births
to the group with miscarriages. Namely, each group was following a different experimental protocol by receiving their drug dose at a completely
different time during pregnancy and fetal development. 98.3% of the population who had live births received their first drug dose in the third trimester.
The group of 104 individuals who had miscarriages in the first 20 weeks of pregnancy must have received their drug dose in the first trimester, or no later than
early in the second trimester.
- Second dose vaccine drug toxicity
This item and the next item will look closely at Table 2 on page 5.
Look closely at the number of adverse reactions in Table 2, paying close attention to the differences in the number and percentages of people reacting to
the first dose as compared to the second dose. You can see that joint pain, muscle pain (myaglia) and fatigue, for example, are several times higher numbers
after the 2nd dose. But when looking at miscarriages, there is absolutely no breakdown as to how many women got each dose and especially when they got the
doses during their pregnancy.
- Fever and Birth Defects
Look at Table 2 on page 5 again, specifically the lines related to “Fever of felt feverish” and “Measure temerature >= 38C [100.4F].”
Notice the high numbers of persons in each category after the 2nd dose. Now keep in mind, that someone in the first category who felt feverish may not have
measured their temperature to see if they qualify for the second category (> 100.4F). The second category may be undercounted.
Now go to this CDC web page on
Maternal Fever During Early Pregnancy May Be Linked to Birth Defects regarding research that the CDC co-authored. It discusses possible
dangers of maternal fever early in the pregnancy. Given the enormous increase in fever after the second dose of vaccine drugs and their own
research warning about the dangers of maternal fever early in pregnancy, you would think that they would mention this as an item of very serious concern.
But, alas, it’s the CDC.
- Limited follow-up.
In the first sentence of the last paragraph on page 3, you will see that the study looked at women vaccinated up through February 28, 2021 and they started
calling these women on March 30, 2021. Later in that paragraph, you can see their intention to follow-up after 10 to 12 weeks. On page 4, in the left-hand column,
you will see that 1,132 women received the vaccine drugs during the first trimester. The study was published in the New England Journal of Medicine on April 21, 2021.
How many follow-up calls 10 to 12 weeks after March 30, 2021 could have been made to find out information about a change in pregnancy status for the women given the
drug in the first trimester (or any of the women for that matter)? Apparently not many as the publication states (page 4, second column), “limited follow-up calls
had been made at the time of this analysis.” It appears that the only data they have is their initial calls and no follow-up calls as of yet.
- 998 possible test subjects in the V-Safe Pregnancy Registry were unreachable (912) or declined to participate (86).
What percentage of these women did not want to answer a call or participate because they were distraught due to a recent miscarriage? Perhaps some of these
women had already reported a COVID-19 vaccine drug-induced miscarriage to VAERS.
- Women who have had miscarriages in the past or are already on drugs may not want to risk a pregnancy problem.
It is important to acknowledge that the study population was a subset of all pregnant woman and not simply because 94% were in the healthcare profession. Woman
who have had miscarriages in the past or who are already on drugs may not want to risk taking a new, experimental drug while pregnant.
- The “V-Safe” program is a CDC vaccine public relations campaign cleverly disguised as a safety testing program.
- No serious researcher wanting to collect data in an unbiased way would name their program “V-Safe” any more than a researcher would name it “V-Death” or
“V-Poison-In-A-Bottle.” If the CDC claims that the name won't subtely affect some of the experimental subjects' perceptions of the drug, then just rename the
program “V-Poison-In-A-Bottle” and see if the results change over a year or two. Similarly, V-Safe is used to remind test subjects to get their vaccine drugs,
but they could just as easily include a reminder for the test subject to update their Will.
- Any participant of V-Safe who connects to the CDC website (the entity purportedly testing for safety) is inundated with statements that the COVID-19 vaccine
drugs are already “safe” and “effective.” Would any serious researcher looking at safety, risk telling all of the participants either in advance or during
the test period that the drugs are “safe”?
- You can see an image of the V-Safe input screen on page 13 of
this Pdf document. You may notice that V-Safe tends to focus on reactions such as joint pain,
muscle pain, headaches, etc. and not so much on very serious reactions seen in VAERS such as death, blood clots, seizures, etc. If a V-Safe user dies or is incapacitated
from a COVID-19 vaccine drug, they will be very unlikely to log in to V-Safe to report the reaction. Even though the form does mention how to contact VAERS, it is a way
to siphon off some of the minor adverse reactions away from VAERS.
- V-Safe is primarily for patient self-reports of minor adverse effects, while VAERS cases are for all types of reactions and are primarily submitted by medical professionals.
- The V-Safe database is hidden from the public. The public is left to the whims of reporting from government bureaucrats. The VAERS database is open to the public,
journalists, physicians and researchers.
There are four (4) items that are very important to discuss:
- While COVID-19 vaccine drugs are certainly not tested appropriately for anyone including pregnant women, these drugs may be more dangerous
for pregnant women in the first trimester. Be careful of reading too much into research (and the inevitable barrage of public relations media articles)
where the drugs were given in the second or third trimester. Pfizer is conducting a study of the mRNA drug on pregnant women injected late in their
pregnancy. The CDC will likely publish more data in September or October, 2021. There are two studies being conducted in Canada.
But this article is mostly not about the COVID-19 vaccine drugs and pregnancy. It is a demonstration of the lengths that certain government
agencies (CDC & FDA) will go to abuse the scientific process and manipulate the data and results of an experiment to benefit their pharma partners. It is likely that
they will be more careful in their next publication to eliminate the more obvious errors. But after what they did with this study, I don't think it is
appropriate to trust anything they publish -- which brings us to the next item below.
- Just like athletes can get a 4-year ban for performance-enhancing drug use, researchers and organizations should be banned for years for publications such as this. Of
particular concern is that same people and organizations involved in this study, the CDC and FDA, are telling people to not be concerned about data such as
this and this.
- The drug business is partly based on public relations rather than science. After this CDC article was published, many media organizations picked up the
5, etc.). Some of these articles
imply that there were 35,000 test subject in this study. I would be very wary of any article that has sentences like, “a growing body of evidence....”
or “Factcheck: .... ” or “Experts say....”
- What is unclear to many who do not read the scientific literature is that it can be very difficult to see flaws in data and publications if the scientists choose to hide
some of the raw data. Within the next six months, there is no doubt that these same CDC authors and others will publish more “research,” some of which may look
fine on the surface, but may be severely flawed. That is why I propose banning researchers and entities who have abused the scientific method in the past and who do so in the
future. To not do so, risks droves of people turning away from “science” which has partly become a cult of public relations.
Back to Adverse Reaction Data / Back to Home