FILE PHOTO: A pregnant woman receives a vaccine for the coronavirus disease (COVID-19) at Skippack Pharmacy in Schwenksville, Pennsylvania, U.S., February 11, 2021. REUTERS/Hannah Beier/File Photo Posted on 11/02/2021 1:05:14 PM PDT by SoConPubbie
BREAKING…After re-analyzing a study performed by Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) researchers, a peer-reviewed study has called for the “immediate withdrawal of mRNA COVID vaccines for pregnant women, those breastfeeding, those of childbearing age and children after their shocking study reveals stunning results of pregnant mRNA vaccinated women: 92% had a spontaneous miscarriage in the first 13 weeks…while 81.9% of women who received the mRNA COVID vaccine had a spontaneous miscarriage in the first 20 weeks.FILE PHOTO: A pregnant woman receives a vaccine for the coronavirus disease (COVID-19) at Skippack Pharmacy in Schwenksville, Pennsylvania, U.S., February 11, 2021. REUTERS/Hannah Beier/File Photo
The study warns that the conclusions of the Shimabukuro study that support the use of the mRNA vaccine in early pregnancy, which has now been hastily incorporated into many international guidelines for vaccine use, ignores the horrors of thalidomide, a drug commonly taken by pregnant women in the late ’50s and early ’60s to prevent nausea during pregnancy. Thalidomide ended up causing severe birth defects in thousands of children, including scores of children being born without limbs
From the Science, Public Health Policy and the Law report:
The use of mRNA vaccines in pregnancy is now generally considered safe for protection against COVID-19 in countries such as New Zealand, USA, and Australia. However, the influential CDC- sponsored article by Shimabukuro et al. (2021) used to support this idea, on closer inspection, provides little assurance, particularly for those exposed in early pregnancy. The study presents falsely reassuring statistics related to the risk of spontaneous abortion in early pregnancy, since the majority of women in the calculation were exposed to the mRNA product after the outcome period was defined (20 weeks’ gestation).
In this article, we draw attention to these errors and recalculate the risk of this outcome based on the cohort that was exposed to the vaccine before 20 weeks’ gestation. Our re-analysis indicates a cumulative incidence of spontaneous abortion 7 to 8 times higher than the original authors’ results
(p < 0.001) and the typical average for pregnancy loss during this time period. In light of these findings, key policy decisions have been made using unreliable and questionable data. We conclude that the claims made using these data on the safety of exposure of women in early pregnancy to mRNA-based vaccines to prevent COVID-19 are unwarranted and recommend that those policy decisions be revisited.The study indicates that at least 81.9% (≥ 104/127) experienced spontaneous abortion following mRNA exposure before 20 weeks, and 92.3% (96/104) of spontaneous abortions occurred before 13 weeks’ gestation
We question the conclusions of the Shimabukuro et al.[4] study to support the use of the mRNA vaccine in early pregnancy, which has now been hastily incorporated into many international guidelines for vaccine use, including in New Zealand.[1] The assumption that exposure in the third trimester cohort is representative of the effect of exposure throughout pregnancy is questionable and ignores past experience with drugs such as thalidomide.[38] Evidence of safety of the product when used in the first and second trimesters cannot be established until these cohorts have been followed to at least the perinatal period or long-term safety determined for any of the babies born to mothers inoculated during pregnancy. Additionally, the product’s manufacturer, Pfizer, contradicts these assurances, stating: “available data on Comirnaty administered to pregnant women are insufficient to inform vaccine- associated risks in pregnancy”, and “it is not known whether Comirnaty is excreted in human milk” as “data are not available to assess the effects of Comirnaty on the breastfed infant” (page 14).[39]
An unprecedented vaccine like any of the Covid vaccines TRADITIONALLY have fertility studies done before approval. This is one reason a real approval would take 10 to 12 years. There have been no such studies performed for these ‘vaccines’.
Seem they're getting a lot of help from every day doctors who dismiss the jab being a cause of anything. Hard to tell these would be moms that it's all in their head like they're doing to a lot of people about their side effects. Instead, they just tell them, these things happen.
I think you’re exactly right. Unfortunately, doctors have very little independence anymore. They almost all work for big corporate structures. And given what they need to say and do in order for (1) hospitals to receive Covid monies and more importantly (2) to treat Medicare patients, they’re in a box and must toe the party line.
Hopefully, some great news ping!
Vaccine Mandate PING List
Do you mean Novavax?
No. Novavax may be the one “vax’ that is Not a Notavax.
But I still won’t take it.
Reproductive toxicology testing had not been done when EUA was granted.
...was this the study with most of the pregnant women getting the jab in their 3rd trimester, and a whole bunch of women initially entered into the study being “lost to follow-up” ?
My daughter-in-law had the shot several months before she became pregnant.
I wonder now how that vax played into her recent loss of their child.
Whatever you do, don’t take the vax.
The research paper is entitled, ‘SARS–CoV–2 Spike Impairs DNA Damage Repair and Inhibits V(D)J Recombination In Vitro” and is authored by Hui Jiang and Ya-Fang Mei, at the Department of Molecular Biosciences, The Wenner–Gren Institute, Stockholm University, SE-10691 Stockholm, Sweden, and the Department of Clinical Microbiology, Virology, Umeå University, SE-90185 Umeå, Sweden, respectively.
Mike Adams references this study today on his website. Bad development if true.
It might have been. This may be what happened to the pregnancies of the women who were newly pregnant when they got the jab versus the ones who were far along.
Ok, just wondering. Then what do you mean by a “Notavax?” I’m not familiar with that term.
Women planning to get pregnant soon will appreciate this reminder.
These vaxxes are not really vaccines. They don’t work like vaccines. They are gene therapies. They don’t work period. People are still dying of Covid despite being vaccinated. “Protection” is not good and does not last.
Hence they are not vaccines= Notavax.
Thank you!
Face palm time for me! LOL
They’re forcing the women to have a 90% chance of having a major side effect during pregnancy -— all to protect you from a virus that has a 98% survival rate.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.