CDC team report obscures damaging results
A peer-reviewed paper, “Preliminary Findings of mRNA Covid-19 Vaccine Safety in Pregnant Persons”, in the New England Journal of Medicine1 reports on a study of pregnant women who had been given either the Moderna or Pfizer Covid-19 vaccine, in order to determine the initial safety of the vaccines for this population. Data from December 14, 2020, to February 28, 2021, was taken from the “v-safe after vaccination health checker” surveillance system, the v-safe pregnancy registry, and the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS). The 21 authors who are doctors and scientists are members of the CDC v-safe COVID-19 Pregnancy Registry Team.
The CDC team found that an alarming 82% of women vaccinated in the first two trimesters lost their babies. However, in the paper, 82% became 12.6% and a dangerous vaccine was made to seem safe. Here’s how they did it.
Wording crafted to mislead
The first thing that most people read when looking at a research paper is the abstract, with most attention paid to the conclusion. For many it is their only source of information about a study’s data.2 When the abstract distorts the paper’s conclusions, as is the case here, doctors and others who rely on the abstract can be tragically mislead. The CDC’s v-safe COVID-19 Pregnancy Registry Team wrote the following conclusion for the abstract (emphasis added):
“Preliminary findings did not show obvious safety signals among pregnant persons who received mRNA Covid-19 vaccines. However, more longitudinal follow-up, including follow-up of large numbers of women vaccinated earlier in pregnancy, is necessary to inform maternal, pregnancy, and infant outcomes.”
This is not the same conclusion as the one at the end of the discussion section in the full text paper. That one reads (emphasis added):
“Early data from the v-safe surveillance system, the v-safe pregnancy registry, and the VAERS do not indicate any obvious safety signals with respect to pregnancy or neonatal outcomes associated with Covid-19 vaccination in the third trimester of pregnancy. Continued monitoring is needed to further assess maternal, pregnancy, neonatal, and childhood outcomes associated with maternal Covid-19 vaccination, including in earlier stages of pregnancy and during the preconception period. Meanwhile, the present data can help inform decision making about vaccination by pregnant persons and their health care providers.”
While the conclusion of the abstract was totally deceptive, the conclusion in the paper itself, was also meant to mislead. Notice the insertion of the words “in the third trimester of pregnancy”. That sentence, perhaps more egregious for the omission – the results for women in the first and second trimesters, would never be known by anyone who relied solely on the abstract. Even those continuing on to read the full paper, can easily overlook the missing results for first and second trimester outcomes.3
There’s a good reason why they left it out. A reader would have to carefully study the tables and the explanatory information below them to understand why. And they know that most probably won’t.
Statistical sleight of hand changes a high percentage of miscarriages to a much lower one.
The study showed an astronomically high rate of miscarriage for pregnant women who received the vaccine in the first two trimesters. They worked hard to obscure the danger.
The table below, of birth outcomes, shows that of the 827 women with completed pregnancies, 104 miscarried before 20 weeks gestation. As you can see, by using a denominator of 827 they can claim a miscarriage rate of 12.6%. However, in the fine print below the table, we learn that 700 of the women received the vaccine in the third trimester. This means that 127 women received the vaccine in the first and second trimesters and 104 of 127 or 82% of those women miscarried. By using a denominator of 827 rather than 127, they made the vaccine seem safe for all pregnant women.
Additionally, the number of pregnant women after the 104 miscarriages is 723, not 725. After the one stillbirth, the remaining viable pregnancies are 722, not 724.4
Population incidence of miscarriages
In order to put these numbers into better perspective, it is important to know the ordinary miscarriage rate in the general population. The authors attempted to do this by inserting the Published Incidence column, which shows a 10-26% miscarriage rate. This means that the spontaneous abortion rate of 12.6% for women before the 20th week shown in the table above is on the low side, reinforcing the claim that the vaccines are safe for all pregnant women. This also means that the actual 82% rate of miscarriage should raise alarm bells and require that they stop vaccinating pregnant women, especially those in the first two trimesters, immediately.5 Conversely, this also means that only 18 out of 100 fetuses of women vaccinated before the 20th week survived.
Published research reports are often misleading
Researchers often write misleading abstracts in order to get published.
“Given a strong confirmatory bias to what gets published—a strong preference for only publishing positive findings—authors come to believe it is important that abstracts highlight the strength and significance of findings, even if that involves some distortion.” 6 (Emphasis added.)
Medical researchers often write misleading, exaggerated, and wrong conclusions in the body of the paper, as well.
“[John] Ioannidis … [has] become one of the world’s foremost experts on the credibility of medical research. He and his team have shown, again and again, and in many different ways, that much of what biomedical researchers conclude in published studies—conclusions that doctors keep in mind … is misleading, exaggerated, and often flat-out wrong. He charges that as much as 90 percent of the published medical information that doctors rely on is flawed …” Freedman, David. “Lies, Damned Lies, And Medical Science”. The Atlantic, 2010, https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2010/11/lies-damned-lies-and-medical-science/308269[/ref] (Emphasis added.)
Sometimes it’s not just that the conclusions are manipulated, but the actual data, as well.
“… it is likely, that, if on average 2% of scientists admit to have falsified research at least once and up to 34% admit other questionable research practices, the actual frequencies of misconduct could be higher than this.”7
Major health organizations can also not be trusted.
“[t]here is corruption and conflicts of interest in the CDC, FDA, WHO and NIH whereby big pharma has influence and power over the interpretation of the outcomes/science and the related safety of vaccines.
“Big Pharma is exerting influence over WHO, FDA and CDC to fast track and short cut safety studies in order to gain more profits faster.
“”A British Medical Journal editorial excoriates CDC’s sweetheart relationship with pharma quotes UCLA Professor of Medicine Jerome R. Hoffman “most of us were shocked to learn the CDC takes funding from industry… It is outrageous that industry is apparently allowed to punish the CDC if the agency conducts research that has potential to cut into profits.””8
Considering the above, it is understandable why this paper has an abstract with a misleading conclusion, why the paper itself has a misleading conclusion, and why the data is presented in a misleading fashion. Yet, for anyone who takes the time to sift through the material, the real conclusion, one that raises alarm bells, can be discerned.
A small sample size
Despite the 3,958 participants enrolled in the V Safe pregnancy registry, the actual data regarding pregnancy outcomes is from a very small subset of participants and, of those, the numbers who got the shot in the first two trimesters is a fraction of those who got it in the third trimester.
In the section of the paper, “V-Safe Pregnancy Registry: Pregnancy Outcomes and Neonatal Outcomes”, we learn that (emphasis added):
“Among 1040 participants … who received a vaccine in the first trimester and 1700 … who received a vaccine in the second trimester, initial data had been collected and follow-up scheduled at designated time points approximately 10 to 12 weeks apart; limited follow-up calls had been made at the time of this analysis.”
Although they had 1018 eligible participants who were vaccinated in the third trimester, they did not offer any explanation as to how they collected the data of the 700 women included in the analysis.
Even though the study authors identified 2,740 women who were vaccinated in the first two trimesters and eligible to participate in the study, the analysis only included data for 127 (4.6%) of those women.
Considering that there were so many more women vaccinated in the first two trimesters than the third, one has to wonder why they would report the data at such a premature juncture with such a relatively small sample size.
Could it be for the purpose of damage control? Since they could already see that the preliminary data was providing results contrary to the purpose of the study, they knew they had to prevent even worse, more damaging data from being reported, so they published a report with little actual information. And/or, perhaps they were so alarmed by what they were seeing that they wanted to publish the data they already had in the hope that those who would read the full report, would understand and publicize what the v safe team was not free to write, thereby saving some babies.
Clearly, if this rate of miscarriage is true for the remaining 2,613 of the 2,740 participants scheduled for follow-up, then the total would not be 104, but 2,648 fetuses that would have been “spontaneously” aborted. While we don’t know if the damage to fertility is temporary or permanent, repeated vaccinations are sure to diminish the population exponentially.
|↑1||”Preliminary Findings Of mRNA Covid-19 Vaccine Safety In Pregnant Persons | NEJM”. 2021, https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa2104983|
|↑2||For a variety of reasons, many clinicians and other healthcare practitioners only read abstracts and base medical and other decisions solely upon what’s written in them. One of many articles investigating the inherent inaccuracies of abstracts explains how dangerous this practice is. “Searching abstracts is convenient because it contains most of the article’s relevant keywords.11 Many clinicians continue to depend on journal abstracts in seeking answers to clinical questions despite the increasing availability of full-text articles from online archives like PubMed Central12 and other similar repositories. Clinicians and other healthcare practitioners also rely exclusively on abstracts due to lack of time to read the full-text article, poor critical appraisal skills or limited access to full-text articles, especially in resource-constrained settings.5–7 13–15 But there are inherent problems to this approach because dependence on abstracts alone assumes that it is complete and accurate. Incorrect reporting of data in the abstract could bias the reader and lead to misinterpretation of research findings.” https://ebm.bmj.com/content/18/6/207/|
|↑3||Although the results portion of the abstract did mention the fact that the live births were mostly in those vaccinated during the third trimester, the data presented was misleading.|
|↑4||The results section of the abstract states that there were 712 live births; the full text paper says there were both 724 and 712 live births, referring to 10 induced abortions and ectopic pregnancies which are not accounted for in the table.|
|↑5||Although this paper speaks directly to the issue of vaccinating pregnant women, there are many other adverse events associated with the Covid-19 vaccines that people should be aware of, such as the danger presented by the spike protein and the risk of ADE, among others.|
|↑6||Coyne, James C. PhD., “Investigating The Accuracy Of Abstracts: An Introduction”. Psychology Today, 2021, https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/the-skeptical-sleuth/201205/investigating-the-accuracy-abstracts-introduction.|
|↑7||Fanelli, Daniele. “How Many Scientists Fabricate And Falsify Research? A Systematic Review And Meta-Analysis Of Survey Data”. Plos ONE, vol 4, no. 5, 2009, p. e5738. Public Library Of Science (Plos), doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0005738. https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0005738|
|↑8||”CDC And WHO Corrupt Financial Entanglements With The Vaccine Industry”. Children’s Health Defense, 2021, https://childrenshealthdefense.org/cdc-who/|