The New England Journal of Medicine recently published a study entitled “Preliminary Findings of mRNA Covid-19 Vaccine Safety in Pregnant Persons“, and it is being used everywhere to demonstrate that these experimental vaccines are safe for pregnant women. If you do a search on “COVID vaccine pregnancy”, you are likely to find this study cited in the first slew of results, all articles proclaiming that the shot is completely safe and totally necessary for pregnant women.
I actually took the time to read the study, and was shocked right away at the number of “spontaneous abortions”: 104. Out of a group of 4000 women, this seemed like a lot to me! The study assures us, however, that there’s no cause for concern, as the “published incidence” of spontaneous abortion is between 10 and 26 percent. So the 104 out of 827 in this group—or 12.6%—is totally normal.
Thanks to a letter from a group of Canadian MD’s, my suspicion that something was fishy about the data in the study are confirmed:
The article by Shimabukuro et al. 2021 presents preliminary safety results of coronavirus 2019 mRNA vaccines used in pregnant women from the V-Safe Registry. These findings are of particular importance, as pregnant women were excluded from the phase III trials assessing mRNA vaccines. In table 4, the authors report a rate of spontaneous abortions <20 weeks (SA) of 12.5% (104 abortions/827 completed pregnancies). However, this rate should be based on the number of women who were at risk of an SA due to vaccine receipt and should exclude the 700 women who were vaccinated in their third trimester (104/127 = 82%). We acknowledge this rate will likely decrease as the pregnancies of women who were vaccinated <20 weeks complete but believe the rate will be higher than 12.5%. However, given the importance of these findings we feel it important to report these rates accurately. Additionally, the authors indicate that the rate of SAs in the published literature is between 10% and 26%. However, the upper cited rate includes clinically-unrecognized pregnancies, which does not reflect the clinically-recognized pregnancies of this cohort and should be removed.
I couldn’t have said it any better myself!! A two-month study like this gives us just a snapshot of pregnant women, and naturally, of the “completed pregnancies”, most will be those that were further along in their pregnancy when they got the shot. But to calculate that 12.5% number off of this snapshot, and compare it to a population-wide statistic is absolutely downright sheisty! This is what we call comparing apples to oranges.
Let’s say you were trying to figure out if blonde women were more likely to have a miscarriage than brunettes. To do this, let’s say you decided to pick a random day and say “today there are lots of pregnant blonde women, and at the end of the day there were 85 children born and 15 miscarriages, therefore blonde women don’t seem to be obviously more likely to have a miscarriage”. One might ask: “Okay great, but of those 100 completed pregnancies, how many blonde women were there?”. “Ummmmmm let me see…. twelve?”.
Not very convincing!
Why, pray tell, did the authors settle on the date range of December 14, 2020, to February 28, 2021? Is there something special about this window? And what became of the “scheduled follow-ups” with the women who received the vaccine in the first and second trimester. It’s now July, and the paper has yet to be updated with that data. I wonder why?
I’m no scientist, but it seems to me that the way to determine whether this experimental gene therapy is safe for pregnant women is to use something called a control group: un-vaccinated women. You would get two identical groups of women, of roughly the same age, health, and gestation period, and give one group the shot and the other a placebo. Then you would follow them for—heaven forbid—six months!!! Six months!!! Can you imagine spending that much time trying to figure out if this vaccine increases your risk of miscarriage?!?! While a pandemic is raging?!?!? I must be out of my mind!!!
We will probably never see this study. In fact, we will probably never see a single mainstream scientific study involving vaccinated and unvaccinated groups. We will see hundreds of meaningless papers like this that pretend to prove exactly what they set out to prove (which is precisely the reverse of the scientific method), and you will never see one that uses an unvaccinated placebo control group.
What a bunch of trash. Shame on all twelve of these fools for putting their names on a piece of absolute garbage balogna like this, and for wasting our time as we try to wade through their mess of meaningless jumbled unrelated numbers and cohorts to try and figure out why it smells like garbage. Please just do the goddamn study already if you actually care to determine or demonstrate anything.