Dr. Shimabukuro implicated in concealing an 82% miscarriage rate among COVID-19 vaccinated pregnant women in NEJM study — records reportedly “remain lost.”
Yes indeedy. Every single one of those who were involved! Govt, research, pharma, bureaucracy, medical, police, transport, education, every single one of them, the world over. I won't be satisfied until this is done. It was crime against humanity on an epic scale.
This was intentional, indifferent murder. So wickedly evil. My heart breaks for these mothers and lost babies. These monsters killed my husband with their deadly hospital protocol. Forcing deadly Remdesivir into my husband , without consent or being informed that it was deadly. 70% deadly. They knew it and did it anyway . Hospital Homicide. There needs to be accountability! True stories here : chbmp.org
William Thompson was the CDC whistleblower who revealed the organized destruction of data that showed a significant risk factor for autism associated with the MMR vax. There is NOTHING new about the hallowed CDC making data that undermine their official narrative simply go away.
We just got dismissed from the pediatricians office for suggesting I delay MMR in my 12m old son with eczema. I provided evidence to support potential flare up and apparently they don’t do patient centered care. The fear mongering and the bullying is incredible. I’m positive the aluminum from Vaxelis gave him eczema.
In the 1960s and 70s, we used to sell Tri Vi Sol And Poly Vi Sol from Mead Johnson as a vitamin supplement for infants. It included Vitamin D in it’s formula. Then it all disappeared and I don’t know why.
There are Pfizer's Cumulative Analysis Report dated February 28, 2021 . The pregnancy tests are there as well and 13 children who were not supposed to have entered the trial. At the same time 11 of the 13 children were severely disabled. If I received them by digging 3 years ago and I'm a lay person I'm sure these can be found. 🇨🇦
Before everyone gets excited--and as a warning to Mr. Hulscher that he should himself carefully read published papers before he criticizes them, and not just take someone else's word--the critique offered by the Thorps is flat-out wrong. I am not a supporter of the mRNA vaccines, so it pains me to say this, yet we need to be honest. I have examined the NEJM paper and the Thorps misrepresent what it says. I'll briefly summarize the key errors here:
1. Thorp et al (as quoted by Hulscher) says: "Based on their statistical sleight-of-hand, authors [of the NEJM paper] pegged the spontaneous abortion rate at 12.6% (104/827) when, in fact, it was actually 82% (104/127). This astonishing miscarriage rate is equivalent to the efficacy of the so-called abortion pill, RU486, which carries an FDA black box warning to alert consumers to major drug risks." The problem is that the NEJM paper was **not** reporting a spontaneous abortion **rate** but rather the **proportion** of pregnancy terminations that were spontaneous abortions (vs. live births, etc.). If it were truly an examination of the **rate** of spontaneous abortions during pregnancy, ALL of the 3958 women would need to have been included in the denominator, or at least all the 1132 first trimester and perhaps the 1714 second trimester vaccinees. The NEJM authors explained why they didn't look at rate (the study only covered 2.5 months, not 9) and thus reported only the proportion. So, for Thorp et al to compare the **proportion** of terminal pregnancies due to spontaneous abortions to the RU486 pills abortion **rate** is an improper comparison of apples vs. oranges. The mRNA vaccines did not induce a spontaneous abortion in a majority of women as RU486 would have.
2. The other reason no **rate** was reported was because many of the women had not yet been contacted via follow-up calls. Rather than the "sleight of hand" they were accused of, the NEJM authors noted in a footnote to Table IV: "A total of 96 of 104 spontaneous abortions (92.3%) occurred before 13 weeks of gestation. No denominator was available to calculate a risk estimate for spontaneous abortions, because at the time of this report, follow-up through 20 weeks was not yet available for 905 of the 1224 participants vaccinated within 30 days before the first day of the last menstrual period or in the first trimester. Furthermore, any risk estimate would need to account for gestational week–specific risk of spontaneous abortion." They couldn't have been more clear, yet the Thorps (and Hulscher) did not report this statement.
3. The conclusion in the abstract said, "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." Thus, they again acknowledged the issue of follow-up of the women vaccinated earlier in pregnancy. And their findings did not show an obvious safety signal, so the conclusion is correctly stated; of course, absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, to which I'm sure the NEJM authors would agree. The conclusion in the paper itself (where more room is allowed for nuance, whereas editors may limit the length of an abstract) says in part: "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." Thus, this conclusion limits the safety signal conclusion to the third trimester and again calls for completing assessment of the impact in earlier stages.
4. Perhaps the Thorps got their idea from a letter to the editor of NEJM published Sept. 8, 2021 (DOI: 10.1056/NEJMc2113516), by Hong Sun, Ph.D. (If they did get the idea there, they failed to acknowledge Sun). Sun offered a criticism quite similar to that offered later by the Thorps, noting the matter of 700 of the 827 having been vaccinated in the third trimester. Sun wrote of Shimabukuro et al's NEJM study, "They reported that among 827 participants with a completed pregnancy, the pregnancy resulted in spontaneous abortion by week 20 in 104 (12.6%), and the authors indicated that this proportion was similar to that in the general population." I won't quote the entire letter here, but Sun was mistaken to say that the NEJM authors said that. In their Results section, the NEJM authors wrote, "Calculated proportions of pregnancy and neonatal outcomes appeared similar to incidences published in the peer-reviewed literature (Table 4)." Table 4 does show similar neonatal statistics, but does not compare the number of spontaneous abortions (for the reason given in the footnote--see above). So while Sun did not confuse proportion and rate in the egregious way the Thorps did, he did misquote Shimabukuro et al, who never claimed what he says they did.
In summary, the Thorps (and Hulscher) unfortunately have mispresented the NEJM paper by Shimabukuro et al. If this is the basis for Sen. Johnson's subpoena, then sadly, he'll have egg on his face. There are enough pieces of solid evidence pointing to issues with the mRNA vaccines that we don't need to create fake ones by misrepresenting the findings of others. In this case, ironically, this has been done while accusing the NEJM authors of themselves misrepresenting their results. This kind of criticism undermines the credibility of the medical freedom movement. We are as susceptible to finding what we want to see as are those who support the mRNA vaccines. Bias cuts both ways.
I encourage Mr. Hulscher to acknowledge his (and Thorps') mistake and retract this article. (Preferably leaving it posted but with a bold warning at the top, thereby helping readers to learn from the experience). We all make mistakes; it is our ability to acknowledge them, especially when they lead to unjust criticism of others, that sustains our trustworthiness. I appreciate what the authors of Focal Points provide; that's why I'm a paying subscriber, and that's why I offer this as constructive criticism.
OTOH, If I understand your comment correctly, there may have been some mis-classification or terms not correctly used by Thorp. But, contrary to Shimabukuro et al's findings, the vax is dangerous to early stage pregnancies.
All of that is overshadowed by the mystery- where is the data? Was it improperly and likely unlawfully deleted?
This statement by the authors in the abstract is NOT true: "Among 3958 participants enrolled in the v-safe pregnancy registry, 827 had a completed pregnancy, of which 115 (13.9%) were pregnancy losses and 712 (86.1%) were live births (mostly among participants vaccinated in the third trimester)."
Unless these 3958 women are in a state of perpetually pregnancy (ie ridiculous), all of them had a "completed pregnancy" (definition = "live-born infant, spontaneous abortion, induced abortion, or stillbirth"), What they MEANT to say was, out of the 3958 participants who enrolled during their pregnancy, we have OUTCOME DATA on 827 of these women.
This statement by Robert is NOT true: " If it were truly an examination of the **rate** of spontaneous abortions during pregnancy, ALL of the 3958 women would need to have been included in the denominator, or at least all the 1132 first trimester and perhaps the 1714 second trimester vaccinees."
Robert is making a semantic argument about rate vs proportion to obscure the truth about the data - we only have outcomes data on 827 women. That's the denominator, not 3958 or 1132.
The outcomes analysis is based on 827 participants with an outcome. Everything else is VAERS and V-safe data about side effects. But they only have completed pregancy data on 827. According to the paper, "Data on pregnancy loss are based on 827 participants in the v-safe pregnancy registry who received an mRNA Covid-19 vaccine (BNT162b2 [Pfizer–BioNTech] or mRNA-1273 [Moderna]) from December 14, 2020, to February 28, 2021, and who reported a completed pregnancy. A total of 700 participants (84.6%) received their first eligible dose in the third trimester. Data on neonatal outcomes are based on 724 live-born infants, including 12 sets of multiples."
Let's do the math again. They have outcome data on 827 pregnancies. 700 were vaccinated in the 3rd trimester, leaving 127 vaccinated before 26 weeks.
Of these, we have another data point - 104 of the 827 had "spontaneous abortions" before 20 weeks.
Assuming all the these 127 were vaccinated before 20 weeks, the spontaneous abortion rate/proportion for <20 weeks would be 104/127 - 82%.
Thank-you for your thoughtful response to my critique of this article. I’d like to respond to the two main points I understand you to be making.
Whether the quoted statement from the abstract is “false” depends on how you define “false.” (Sorry if this sounds like a Clintonesque argument over the meaning of “is”!) Though not explicitly stated, it is obvious from the context that the authors are referring to the situation at the time in which this preliminary report was prepared. This is made clear in the body of the report, and even in the abstract they say it is “preliminary,” but I agree that taken in isolation the quoted statement might be misinterpreted. But is it “false”? I’m reluctant to say that because in context it can be interpreted as a true statement. But if you want to call it false, I won’t say you are wrong, just that you apply a more literal reading without regard to context than I do. Would you agree with the accuracy of this statement, where I have inserted in brackets what I think is contextually implied? "Among 3958 participants enrolled in the v-safe pregnancy registry, 827 had a completed pregnancy [at the time this preliminary analysis was performed], of which 115 (13.9%) were pregnancy losses and 712 (86.1%) were live births (mostly among participants vaccinated in the third trimester)."
Aside from whether the authors’ statement should be labeled false or not, I think the more important question you’ve raised is whether I am wrong to argue that “rate” and “proportion” are not interchangeable. For that, let’s review the details in the paper. First, by way of definitions (as seen in the supplementary table S1), a spontaneous abortion (miscarriage) is restricted to terminations <20 weeks. (At or above 20 weeks it is a stillbirth). So, by definition, no spontaneous abortions can occur in the third trimester. Since a pregnancy enters the third trimester at Week 28, this definition also means that the latter half of the second trimester is also excluded from spontaneous abortions by definition.
Second, let’s review the V-safe system as described in the body of the paper. It is a voluntary system; they don’t describe exactly how vaccinees were invited to participate, but presumably some or all vaccinees were invited to, whether in a region or nationwide. Those that agreed to participate received automated surveys via smartphone during the first week of vaccination of any dose of a COVID-19 vaccine. “From December 14, 2020, to February 28, 2021, a total of 35,691 v-safe participants identified as pregnant.” Then, “Persons who identify as pregnant are then contacted by telephone and, if they meet inclusion criteria, are offered enrollment in the v-safe pregnancy registry. Eligible persons are those who received vaccination during pregnancy or in the periconception period (30 days before the last menstrual period through 14 days after) and are 18 years of age or older.” At the time of this preliminary report, the call center was backlogged on making such contacts. They attempted to call 5230 women (I refuse to say “persons” as in the report!); they “enrolled 3958 participants with vaccination from December 14, 2020, to February 28, 2021,” 94% of whom were healthcare workers.
The breakdown by trimester was as follows: “Receipt of a first dose of vaccine meeting registry-eligibility criteria was reported by 92 participants (2.3%) during the periconception period, by 1132 (28.6%) in the first trimester of pregnancy, by 1714 (43.3%) in the second trimester, and by 1019 (25.7%) in the third trimester.”
“Among 827 participants who had a completed pregnancy, the pregnancy resulted in a live birth in 712 (86.1%), in a 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.”
OK, those are the facts reported in the article. 92.3% of the spontaneous abortions occurred in the first trimester. To simplify this discussion, let’s ignore the 2nd trimester abortions. Then, we have 96 spontaneous abortions out of 1132 women. IF all the rest of these pregnancies proceeded to term with live births, then the RATE of spontaneous abortion would be 96/1132 = 8.5%. But the authors didn’t claim that because they correctly said that the rate of spontaneous abortion couldn’t be determined until all the pregnancies had terminated (Table IV). (It should be noted that in their Sept. 8, 2021 response to Sun’s letter to the editor of NEJM, they said that they now had the data and there wasn’t a difference vs. the expected rate of spontaneous abortion, but this was just a statement and they didn’t provide the supporting data that would be expected in a complete paper).
Because they couldn’t calculate the RATE, they calculated the PROPORTION of spontaneous abortions in the pregnancy terminations at the time of publication. That was 104 out of 827, or 96 out of 827 if you consider only the first trimester. But since this includes mostly 3rd trimester vaccinees and births, it doesn’t say what the RATE is for first trimester and first few weeks of second trimester vaccinees, which are the only ones that could lead to spontaneous abortions as defined by <20 weeks.
You argue that 827 is the number of OUTCOMES, but I disagree. All of the v-safe pregnancy registry participants had “interim outcomes” at the time of the analysis. Though the authors reported the number of terminations, the outcome for the rest is implied: they did not have terminations (by the time of the analysis). Thus, for example, of the 1132 first trimester pregnancies, since there were 96 spontaneous abortions, there were 1036 who had not had spontaneous abortions by the time of the analysis. These are “outcomes” too. Yes, there may have been additional spontaneous abortions among this cohort by the time they reached the 20th week, but even if you argued in the extreme that there were just as many in the first half of the second trimester, that would still be only 2*96/1132 = 17%.
Contrast this with RU486, the comparison made by the Thorps. Suppose it has an 82% rate of “successful” termination, causing spontaneous abortion within 2 days for most women. If all the first trimester vaccinees had taken RU486 instead of the vaccine, they would have lost 82% of their babies, or 928 spontaneous abortions.
The only way to argue as Thorps do that the effect of the vaccine was similar to RU486 is to assume that the 96 out of 1132 in the first trimester would have been accompanied by a further 832 losses within the next 7-8 weeks! That’s just not credible.
I’ve tried to be thorough here to make sure we are using common definitions and shared data and assumptions, but it has led to an excessively long comment. So, to summarize, I think our disagreement is twofold: (1) I think the authors’ statement of results in the abstract is not “false” because I infer the context, but you don’t, and thus apply a literal reading to the relevant sentence to arrive at “false”. It is a difference in approach to interpretation of the sentence. (2) We disagree on “outcome” and thus how the “rate” should be calculated.
I hope this is helpful. I am happy to discuss further if you wish.
Thanks for you thoughtful reply, but I have to respectfully disagree about the denominator.
They're explicit that they only have data on the "completed pregnancy" of 827 participants. They say this several times. Please explain how you can come to any other conclusion.
They're also explicit that the 104 spontaneous abortions are a subset of completed pregnancies (827).
Now one could argue that, since their success at getting completed pregnancy data was so poor, there's the possibility of a reporting bias. Were participants who had a "bad" outcome (ie. spontaneous abortion) MORE likely to fully report their outcome? Maybe. Unfortunately, the numbers are what they are.
Also, I find it weird that, of the 127 particpants who received the vaccine in the 1st two trimesters, 96 were reported to have been vaccinated in the 2nd trimester. 31 vaccinated in the 2nd trimester vs 96 in the 1st trimester (when you're MOST careful not to do medical interventions that could potentially cause birth defects)??
The fact that the CDC can't find the original data for this study is terribly suspect. Hopefully someone can find or reclaim this data.
Frankly, I think there's something rotten at the CDC regarding "research". I'd welcome for RFK Jr to open the databases and share all this publicly funded research data.
From the bottom. Agree on CDC studies; remember the masking study too? Research aimed at achieving the desired conclusion is suspect.
I have no information or opinion on the availability of the data for this study. That's obviously a problem in any scientific research; data is supposed to be retained. But my focus here is not on the data availability issue but on the Thorp's misrepresentation of the NEJM paper, repeated by Mr. Hulscher.
I think you err to focus on the 127 participants and the 96 vs. 31 (1st/2nd trimester). These are not the number of vaccinees; these are just the number of terminated pregnancies in those periods. So it doesn't say anything about medical interventions in the highest risk period. The actual number of vaccinations (in this study group) were 1132 for first trimester and 1714 in the second trimester--not nearly as unequal as 96 vs. 31.
I agree that we must use the numbers as they are. If there was any self-selection bias, it isn't known. But that's one reason I think the fact that this population was so heavily weighted with health care workers is important; I suspect they would be more likely to report results. (Just a hunch; can't prove it!). But this has nothing to do with my concern about Thorps' misinterpretation of the paper or the underlying disagreement between you and I over it.
Which brings us to the key issue again, the denominator. I tried in my extended response to you to explain it, but obviously I failed to do so adequately. I'm struggling to come up with a better way. Again, my view is that while they only have "completed pregnancy" data on 827 participants (women!), they also--by difference--have in-progress interim data on the rest of the participants. That is essential to recognize. Otherwise, one is calculating a proportion of completed pregnancies that were spontaneous abortions, not the rate of spontaneous abortions.
Please reread carefully the last part of my 2nd response and explain how/why you disagree with the following and the fact that the Thorps' interpretation would require a huge increase in the rate of spontaneous abortions in the 7-8 weeks after the first trimester. That is, whereas 96 occurred in the first trimester, 832 would have to occur in the first 7-8 weeks of the second trimester if Thorp's interpretation is correct:
You argue that 827 is the number of OUTCOMES, but I disagree. All of the v-safe pregnancy registry participants had “interim outcomes” at the time of the analysis. Though the authors reported the number of terminations, the outcome for the rest is implied: they did not have terminations (by the time of the analysis). Thus, for example, of the 1132 first trimester pregnancies, since there were 96 spontaneous abortions, there were 1036 who had not had spontaneous abortions by the time of the analysis. These are “outcomes” too. Yes, there may have been additional spontaneous abortions among this cohort by the time they reached the 20th week, but even if you argued in the extreme that there were just as many in the first half of the second trimester, that would still be only 2*96/1132 = 17%.
Contrast this with RU486, the comparison made by the Thorps. Suppose it has an 82% rate of “successful” termination, causing spontaneous abortion within 2 days for most women. If all the first trimester vaccinees had taken RU486 instead of the vaccine, they would have lost 82% of their babies, or 928 spontaneous abortions.
The only way to argue as Thorps do that the effect of the vaccine was similar to RU486 is to assume that the 96 out of 1132 in the first trimester would have been accompanied by a further 832 losses within the next 7-8 weeks! That’s just not credible.
Thanks for your respectful exchange of views.
(BTW, from Grok3 AI, citing "the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) and general medical literature," about 80% of miscarriages occur in the first trimester. So, the 96 vs. 8 (1st/2nd trimester) spontaneous abortions observed in this study are roughly in line with expectations.)
You might be right on the denominators. Who knows.
But I still disagree. The "interim outcomes" may include side effects (nausea, rash, DVT, etc), but they can't include spontaneous abortions, stillbirths, etc. By definition a spontaneous AB or stillbirth is a "completed pregnancy", and they said over and over there were only 827 completed pregnancies for which they have data.
Or I'm wrong and they're just sloppy with terminology, which we know they are. But then, how is anyone to find reassurance about their conclusion that the vaccine is safe in pregnancy (if you focused on the Abstract). Or, sorry, it's only safe if given in the 3rd trimester (if you focus on the Discussion)?
We know the CDC has issues with research - their reputation is not good. What I find more alarming is this was published in the prestigious NEJM.
Well, NEJM and Lancet published Surgisphere HCQ studies and other nonsense too. So there's that.
To speak precisely, the conclusions stated in the main body of the paper don't say that it is "only safe if given in the 3rd trimester" but rather that early data from v-safe etc. "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." So, they are not saying it isn't safe earlier than the 3rd trimester; their preliminary data doesn't show one way or the other, and they called for further monitoring (which they summarily reported in their response to Sun Sept. 8, 2021).
Yes, of course, there were other outcomes besides spontaneous abortions/stillbirths/etc., and these are tabulated in their paper and supplemental data (nausea, rash, etc.). But I'm focused on what the Thorps' claimed and that was high spontaneous abortion rates. And for that, hopefully I've shown that to get from 96 out of 1132 to 82% spontaneous abortions would require 832 more in the 7-8 weeks after the first trimester. In other words, an 867% increase in the number of spontaneous abortions in those 7-8 weeks compared to the first 12. Or on a weekly basis, about a 1400% increase in the weekly rate of spontaneous abortions compared to what was observed in the first trimester.
It's bedtime for me, so I'm going to sign off. Thanks for the exchange!
Great Points Robert. Unfortunately I don't think that either Mr Hulscher or Dr McCullough read the comments, but your post is very valuable.
it is possible that the situation is far worse than anyone knows. I know a lot of very unhappy midwives who are shocked and distressed at what is happening today and the problems they are facing - not just miscarriages, but labor delivery and post-natal. A lot are leaving - particularly the older ones who know what pre-covid normal was. Most of them got mandated out, but some were brought back recently because of staff shortages, and they can't handle what they are seeing.
Most of the young midwives don't have pre-covid experience, so they think what they are seeing is normal.
It couldn't have been a "truly an examination of the **rate** of spontaneous abortions during pregnancy" without following them all for the entire up to 9 months from their date of injection.
In a 2.5 month study, the tranches are roughly by trimester, or by crossover from one trimester to the next.
I haven't sat down and unpacked either the original study, Thorp or your critique, but my quick read through tells me you may well be on to something. During this last 5 years there has been a lot of this sort of obfuscation, sometimes in error, sometimes not. Your summation of the political ramifications is excellent, if you are correct, and in any event grounds for all concerned to take a good hard look at what they have before them. Nic and senator Johnson are on shaky ground right now, it's time for real due diligence to come back into the equation.
Investigate, indict and prosecute, to the fullest extent of the law!
Yes indeedy. Every single one of those who were involved! Govt, research, pharma, bureaucracy, medical, police, transport, education, every single one of them, the world over. I won't be satisfied until this is done. It was crime against humanity on an epic scale.
Go. Away.
They can be reported for spam
Call in the DOGE boys. If the records CAN BE FOUND, they can find them when others who are not high-powered computer whizzes don’t have a clue.
Yes!! Exactly!!!
Not the first time the CDC has been implicated in destroying records.
This was intentional, indifferent murder. So wickedly evil. My heart breaks for these mothers and lost babies. These monsters killed my husband with their deadly hospital protocol. Forcing deadly Remdesivir into my husband , without consent or being informed that it was deadly. 70% deadly. They knew it and did it anyway . Hospital Homicide. There needs to be accountability! True stories here : chbmp.org
Wishing you so much strength, peace and justice, Janet. ❤️
Sorry for your loss 💔
So sorry for your loss Janet. Justice will ultimately prevail, but probably not in this lifetime 💕
Some thoughts about records getting “deleted”:
1. It’s a federal crime to destroy federal property such as records.
2. Offsite backups or archives exist for most records.
3. Forensic retrieval on storage media can often retrieve files deleted by average users.
4. You can bring these points up around you.
5. Let’s start asking for all official records, files, data to be stored, duplicated and archived so this type of scenario cannot happen again.
6. Transmissions are archived in Utah and other datacenters overseen by select agencies.
William Thompson was the CDC whistleblower who revealed the organized destruction of data that showed a significant risk factor for autism associated with the MMR vax. There is NOTHING new about the hallowed CDC making data that undermine their official narrative simply go away.
The character assassinated Dr Wakefield because he unveiled the truth about MMR!
Wow another rph with their eyes open
Took many years to open them up! I believed they were going down the true path! Nope! The path to hell!
We just got dismissed from the pediatricians office for suggesting I delay MMR in my 12m old son with eczema. I provided evidence to support potential flare up and apparently they don’t do patient centered care. The fear mongering and the bullying is incredible. I’m positive the aluminum from Vaxelis gave him eczema.
Consider it a blessing to be dismissed. Now you’re free from the medical establishment
You wouldn't want to stay now
Keep looking for another doctor you like. They're out there. Good luck.
In the 1960s and 70s, we used to sell Tri Vi Sol And Poly Vi Sol from Mead Johnson as a vitamin supplement for infants. It included Vitamin D in it’s formula. Then it all disappeared and I don’t know why.
I don't believe this is Dr. Shimabukuro's first rodeo.
There must be justice.
Sickening.
He’s an accessory to murder.
This is criminal and outrageously immoral! Investigate, find out who else is involved and prosecute - NOW!
There are Pfizer's Cumulative Analysis Report dated February 28, 2021 . The pregnancy tests are there as well and 13 children who were not supposed to have entered the trial. At the same time 11 of the 13 children were severely disabled. If I received them by digging 3 years ago and I'm a lay person I'm sure these can be found. 🇨🇦
These are presumably in The Pfizer Papers?
Before everyone gets excited--and as a warning to Mr. Hulscher that he should himself carefully read published papers before he criticizes them, and not just take someone else's word--the critique offered by the Thorps is flat-out wrong. I am not a supporter of the mRNA vaccines, so it pains me to say this, yet we need to be honest. I have examined the NEJM paper and the Thorps misrepresent what it says. I'll briefly summarize the key errors here:
1. Thorp et al (as quoted by Hulscher) says: "Based on their statistical sleight-of-hand, authors [of the NEJM paper] pegged the spontaneous abortion rate at 12.6% (104/827) when, in fact, it was actually 82% (104/127). This astonishing miscarriage rate is equivalent to the efficacy of the so-called abortion pill, RU486, which carries an FDA black box warning to alert consumers to major drug risks." The problem is that the NEJM paper was **not** reporting a spontaneous abortion **rate** but rather the **proportion** of pregnancy terminations that were spontaneous abortions (vs. live births, etc.). If it were truly an examination of the **rate** of spontaneous abortions during pregnancy, ALL of the 3958 women would need to have been included in the denominator, or at least all the 1132 first trimester and perhaps the 1714 second trimester vaccinees. The NEJM authors explained why they didn't look at rate (the study only covered 2.5 months, not 9) and thus reported only the proportion. So, for Thorp et al to compare the **proportion** of terminal pregnancies due to spontaneous abortions to the RU486 pills abortion **rate** is an improper comparison of apples vs. oranges. The mRNA vaccines did not induce a spontaneous abortion in a majority of women as RU486 would have.
2. The other reason no **rate** was reported was because many of the women had not yet been contacted via follow-up calls. Rather than the "sleight of hand" they were accused of, the NEJM authors noted in a footnote to Table IV: "A total of 96 of 104 spontaneous abortions (92.3%) occurred before 13 weeks of gestation. No denominator was available to calculate a risk estimate for spontaneous abortions, because at the time of this report, follow-up through 20 weeks was not yet available for 905 of the 1224 participants vaccinated within 30 days before the first day of the last menstrual period or in the first trimester. Furthermore, any risk estimate would need to account for gestational week–specific risk of spontaneous abortion." They couldn't have been more clear, yet the Thorps (and Hulscher) did not report this statement.
3. The conclusion in the abstract said, "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." Thus, they again acknowledged the issue of follow-up of the women vaccinated earlier in pregnancy. And their findings did not show an obvious safety signal, so the conclusion is correctly stated; of course, absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, to which I'm sure the NEJM authors would agree. The conclusion in the paper itself (where more room is allowed for nuance, whereas editors may limit the length of an abstract) says in part: "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." Thus, this conclusion limits the safety signal conclusion to the third trimester and again calls for completing assessment of the impact in earlier stages.
4. Perhaps the Thorps got their idea from a letter to the editor of NEJM published Sept. 8, 2021 (DOI: 10.1056/NEJMc2113516), by Hong Sun, Ph.D. (If they did get the idea there, they failed to acknowledge Sun). Sun offered a criticism quite similar to that offered later by the Thorps, noting the matter of 700 of the 827 having been vaccinated in the third trimester. Sun wrote of Shimabukuro et al's NEJM study, "They reported that among 827 participants with a completed pregnancy, the pregnancy resulted in spontaneous abortion by week 20 in 104 (12.6%), and the authors indicated that this proportion was similar to that in the general population." I won't quote the entire letter here, but Sun was mistaken to say that the NEJM authors said that. In their Results section, the NEJM authors wrote, "Calculated proportions of pregnancy and neonatal outcomes appeared similar to incidences published in the peer-reviewed literature (Table 4)." Table 4 does show similar neonatal statistics, but does not compare the number of spontaneous abortions (for the reason given in the footnote--see above). So while Sun did not confuse proportion and rate in the egregious way the Thorps did, he did misquote Shimabukuro et al, who never claimed what he says they did.
In summary, the Thorps (and Hulscher) unfortunately have mispresented the NEJM paper by Shimabukuro et al. If this is the basis for Sen. Johnson's subpoena, then sadly, he'll have egg on his face. There are enough pieces of solid evidence pointing to issues with the mRNA vaccines that we don't need to create fake ones by misrepresenting the findings of others. In this case, ironically, this has been done while accusing the NEJM authors of themselves misrepresenting their results. This kind of criticism undermines the credibility of the medical freedom movement. We are as susceptible to finding what we want to see as are those who support the mRNA vaccines. Bias cuts both ways.
I encourage Mr. Hulscher to acknowledge his (and Thorps') mistake and retract this article. (Preferably leaving it posted but with a bold warning at the top, thereby helping readers to learn from the experience). We all make mistakes; it is our ability to acknowledge them, especially when they lead to unjust criticism of others, that sustains our trustworthiness. I appreciate what the authors of Focal Points provide; that's why I'm a paying subscriber, and that's why I offer this as constructive criticism.
You may well be right.
OTOH, If I understand your comment correctly, there may have been some mis-classification or terms not correctly used by Thorp. But, contrary to Shimabukuro et al's findings, the vax is dangerous to early stage pregnancies.
All of that is overshadowed by the mystery- where is the data? Was it improperly and likely unlawfully deleted?
This statement by the authors in the abstract is NOT true: "Among 3958 participants enrolled in the v-safe pregnancy registry, 827 had a completed pregnancy, of which 115 (13.9%) were pregnancy losses and 712 (86.1%) were live births (mostly among participants vaccinated in the third trimester)."
Unless these 3958 women are in a state of perpetually pregnancy (ie ridiculous), all of them had a "completed pregnancy" (definition = "live-born infant, spontaneous abortion, induced abortion, or stillbirth"), What they MEANT to say was, out of the 3958 participants who enrolled during their pregnancy, we have OUTCOME DATA on 827 of these women.
This statement by Robert is NOT true: " If it were truly an examination of the **rate** of spontaneous abortions during pregnancy, ALL of the 3958 women would need to have been included in the denominator, or at least all the 1132 first trimester and perhaps the 1714 second trimester vaccinees."
Robert is making a semantic argument about rate vs proportion to obscure the truth about the data - we only have outcomes data on 827 women. That's the denominator, not 3958 or 1132.
The outcomes analysis is based on 827 participants with an outcome. Everything else is VAERS and V-safe data about side effects. But they only have completed pregancy data on 827. According to the paper, "Data on pregnancy loss are based on 827 participants in the v-safe pregnancy registry who received an mRNA Covid-19 vaccine (BNT162b2 [Pfizer–BioNTech] or mRNA-1273 [Moderna]) from December 14, 2020, to February 28, 2021, and who reported a completed pregnancy. A total of 700 participants (84.6%) received their first eligible dose in the third trimester. Data on neonatal outcomes are based on 724 live-born infants, including 12 sets of multiples."
Let's do the math again. They have outcome data on 827 pregnancies. 700 were vaccinated in the 3rd trimester, leaving 127 vaccinated before 26 weeks.
Of these, we have another data point - 104 of the 827 had "spontaneous abortions" before 20 weeks.
Assuming all the these 127 were vaccinated before 20 weeks, the spontaneous abortion rate/proportion for <20 weeks would be 104/127 - 82%.
Jk,
Thank-you for your thoughtful response to my critique of this article. I’d like to respond to the two main points I understand you to be making.
Whether the quoted statement from the abstract is “false” depends on how you define “false.” (Sorry if this sounds like a Clintonesque argument over the meaning of “is”!) Though not explicitly stated, it is obvious from the context that the authors are referring to the situation at the time in which this preliminary report was prepared. This is made clear in the body of the report, and even in the abstract they say it is “preliminary,” but I agree that taken in isolation the quoted statement might be misinterpreted. But is it “false”? I’m reluctant to say that because in context it can be interpreted as a true statement. But if you want to call it false, I won’t say you are wrong, just that you apply a more literal reading without regard to context than I do. Would you agree with the accuracy of this statement, where I have inserted in brackets what I think is contextually implied? "Among 3958 participants enrolled in the v-safe pregnancy registry, 827 had a completed pregnancy [at the time this preliminary analysis was performed], of which 115 (13.9%) were pregnancy losses and 712 (86.1%) were live births (mostly among participants vaccinated in the third trimester)."
Aside from whether the authors’ statement should be labeled false or not, I think the more important question you’ve raised is whether I am wrong to argue that “rate” and “proportion” are not interchangeable. For that, let’s review the details in the paper. First, by way of definitions (as seen in the supplementary table S1), a spontaneous abortion (miscarriage) is restricted to terminations <20 weeks. (At or above 20 weeks it is a stillbirth). So, by definition, no spontaneous abortions can occur in the third trimester. Since a pregnancy enters the third trimester at Week 28, this definition also means that the latter half of the second trimester is also excluded from spontaneous abortions by definition.
Second, let’s review the V-safe system as described in the body of the paper. It is a voluntary system; they don’t describe exactly how vaccinees were invited to participate, but presumably some or all vaccinees were invited to, whether in a region or nationwide. Those that agreed to participate received automated surveys via smartphone during the first week of vaccination of any dose of a COVID-19 vaccine. “From December 14, 2020, to February 28, 2021, a total of 35,691 v-safe participants identified as pregnant.” Then, “Persons who identify as pregnant are then contacted by telephone and, if they meet inclusion criteria, are offered enrollment in the v-safe pregnancy registry. Eligible persons are those who received vaccination during pregnancy or in the periconception period (30 days before the last menstrual period through 14 days after) and are 18 years of age or older.” At the time of this preliminary report, the call center was backlogged on making such contacts. They attempted to call 5230 women (I refuse to say “persons” as in the report!); they “enrolled 3958 participants with vaccination from December 14, 2020, to February 28, 2021,” 94% of whom were healthcare workers.
The breakdown by trimester was as follows: “Receipt of a first dose of vaccine meeting registry-eligibility criteria was reported by 92 participants (2.3%) during the periconception period, by 1132 (28.6%) in the first trimester of pregnancy, by 1714 (43.3%) in the second trimester, and by 1019 (25.7%) in the third trimester.”
“Among 827 participants who had a completed pregnancy, the pregnancy resulted in a live birth in 712 (86.1%), in a 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.”
OK, those are the facts reported in the article. 92.3% of the spontaneous abortions occurred in the first trimester. To simplify this discussion, let’s ignore the 2nd trimester abortions. Then, we have 96 spontaneous abortions out of 1132 women. IF all the rest of these pregnancies proceeded to term with live births, then the RATE of spontaneous abortion would be 96/1132 = 8.5%. But the authors didn’t claim that because they correctly said that the rate of spontaneous abortion couldn’t be determined until all the pregnancies had terminated (Table IV). (It should be noted that in their Sept. 8, 2021 response to Sun’s letter to the editor of NEJM, they said that they now had the data and there wasn’t a difference vs. the expected rate of spontaneous abortion, but this was just a statement and they didn’t provide the supporting data that would be expected in a complete paper).
Because they couldn’t calculate the RATE, they calculated the PROPORTION of spontaneous abortions in the pregnancy terminations at the time of publication. That was 104 out of 827, or 96 out of 827 if you consider only the first trimester. But since this includes mostly 3rd trimester vaccinees and births, it doesn’t say what the RATE is for first trimester and first few weeks of second trimester vaccinees, which are the only ones that could lead to spontaneous abortions as defined by <20 weeks.
You argue that 827 is the number of OUTCOMES, but I disagree. All of the v-safe pregnancy registry participants had “interim outcomes” at the time of the analysis. Though the authors reported the number of terminations, the outcome for the rest is implied: they did not have terminations (by the time of the analysis). Thus, for example, of the 1132 first trimester pregnancies, since there were 96 spontaneous abortions, there were 1036 who had not had spontaneous abortions by the time of the analysis. These are “outcomes” too. Yes, there may have been additional spontaneous abortions among this cohort by the time they reached the 20th week, but even if you argued in the extreme that there were just as many in the first half of the second trimester, that would still be only 2*96/1132 = 17%.
Contrast this with RU486, the comparison made by the Thorps. Suppose it has an 82% rate of “successful” termination, causing spontaneous abortion within 2 days for most women. If all the first trimester vaccinees had taken RU486 instead of the vaccine, they would have lost 82% of their babies, or 928 spontaneous abortions.
The only way to argue as Thorps do that the effect of the vaccine was similar to RU486 is to assume that the 96 out of 1132 in the first trimester would have been accompanied by a further 832 losses within the next 7-8 weeks! That’s just not credible.
I’ve tried to be thorough here to make sure we are using common definitions and shared data and assumptions, but it has led to an excessively long comment. So, to summarize, I think our disagreement is twofold: (1) I think the authors’ statement of results in the abstract is not “false” because I infer the context, but you don’t, and thus apply a literal reading to the relevant sentence to arrive at “false”. It is a difference in approach to interpretation of the sentence. (2) We disagree on “outcome” and thus how the “rate” should be calculated.
I hope this is helpful. I am happy to discuss further if you wish.
Thanks for you thoughtful reply, but I have to respectfully disagree about the denominator.
They're explicit that they only have data on the "completed pregnancy" of 827 participants. They say this several times. Please explain how you can come to any other conclusion.
They're also explicit that the 104 spontaneous abortions are a subset of completed pregnancies (827).
Now one could argue that, since their success at getting completed pregnancy data was so poor, there's the possibility of a reporting bias. Were participants who had a "bad" outcome (ie. spontaneous abortion) MORE likely to fully report their outcome? Maybe. Unfortunately, the numbers are what they are.
Also, I find it weird that, of the 127 particpants who received the vaccine in the 1st two trimesters, 96 were reported to have been vaccinated in the 2nd trimester. 31 vaccinated in the 2nd trimester vs 96 in the 1st trimester (when you're MOST careful not to do medical interventions that could potentially cause birth defects)??
The fact that the CDC can't find the original data for this study is terribly suspect. Hopefully someone can find or reclaim this data.
Note, this is not the first time that the CDC was guilty, in my opinion, of publishing research with suspicious data and conclusions. Remember the CDC study on vaccine immunity being 5x better than "natural" immunity? It's awful. I won't even call it research, but it got picked up and reported around the world. https://web.archive.org/web/20211118080709/https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/70/wr/mm7044e1.htm?s_cid=mm7044e1_w
Frankly, I think there's something rotten at the CDC regarding "research". I'd welcome for RFK Jr to open the databases and share all this publicly funded research data.
From the bottom. Agree on CDC studies; remember the masking study too? Research aimed at achieving the desired conclusion is suspect.
I have no information or opinion on the availability of the data for this study. That's obviously a problem in any scientific research; data is supposed to be retained. But my focus here is not on the data availability issue but on the Thorp's misrepresentation of the NEJM paper, repeated by Mr. Hulscher.
I think you err to focus on the 127 participants and the 96 vs. 31 (1st/2nd trimester). These are not the number of vaccinees; these are just the number of terminated pregnancies in those periods. So it doesn't say anything about medical interventions in the highest risk period. The actual number of vaccinations (in this study group) were 1132 for first trimester and 1714 in the second trimester--not nearly as unequal as 96 vs. 31.
I agree that we must use the numbers as they are. If there was any self-selection bias, it isn't known. But that's one reason I think the fact that this population was so heavily weighted with health care workers is important; I suspect they would be more likely to report results. (Just a hunch; can't prove it!). But this has nothing to do with my concern about Thorps' misinterpretation of the paper or the underlying disagreement between you and I over it.
Which brings us to the key issue again, the denominator. I tried in my extended response to you to explain it, but obviously I failed to do so adequately. I'm struggling to come up with a better way. Again, my view is that while they only have "completed pregnancy" data on 827 participants (women!), they also--by difference--have in-progress interim data on the rest of the participants. That is essential to recognize. Otherwise, one is calculating a proportion of completed pregnancies that were spontaneous abortions, not the rate of spontaneous abortions.
Please reread carefully the last part of my 2nd response and explain how/why you disagree with the following and the fact that the Thorps' interpretation would require a huge increase in the rate of spontaneous abortions in the 7-8 weeks after the first trimester. That is, whereas 96 occurred in the first trimester, 832 would have to occur in the first 7-8 weeks of the second trimester if Thorp's interpretation is correct:
You argue that 827 is the number of OUTCOMES, but I disagree. All of the v-safe pregnancy registry participants had “interim outcomes” at the time of the analysis. Though the authors reported the number of terminations, the outcome for the rest is implied: they did not have terminations (by the time of the analysis). Thus, for example, of the 1132 first trimester pregnancies, since there were 96 spontaneous abortions, there were 1036 who had not had spontaneous abortions by the time of the analysis. These are “outcomes” too. Yes, there may have been additional spontaneous abortions among this cohort by the time they reached the 20th week, but even if you argued in the extreme that there were just as many in the first half of the second trimester, that would still be only 2*96/1132 = 17%.
Contrast this with RU486, the comparison made by the Thorps. Suppose it has an 82% rate of “successful” termination, causing spontaneous abortion within 2 days for most women. If all the first trimester vaccinees had taken RU486 instead of the vaccine, they would have lost 82% of their babies, or 928 spontaneous abortions.
The only way to argue as Thorps do that the effect of the vaccine was similar to RU486 is to assume that the 96 out of 1132 in the first trimester would have been accompanied by a further 832 losses within the next 7-8 weeks! That’s just not credible.
Thanks for your respectful exchange of views.
(BTW, from Grok3 AI, citing "the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) and general medical literature," about 80% of miscarriages occur in the first trimester. So, the 96 vs. 8 (1st/2nd trimester) spontaneous abortions observed in this study are roughly in line with expectations.)
You might be right on the denominators. Who knows.
But I still disagree. The "interim outcomes" may include side effects (nausea, rash, DVT, etc), but they can't include spontaneous abortions, stillbirths, etc. By definition a spontaneous AB or stillbirth is a "completed pregnancy", and they said over and over there were only 827 completed pregnancies for which they have data.
Or I'm wrong and they're just sloppy with terminology, which we know they are. But then, how is anyone to find reassurance about their conclusion that the vaccine is safe in pregnancy (if you focused on the Abstract). Or, sorry, it's only safe if given in the 3rd trimester (if you focus on the Discussion)?
We know the CDC has issues with research - their reputation is not good. What I find more alarming is this was published in the prestigious NEJM.
Well, NEJM and Lancet published Surgisphere HCQ studies and other nonsense too. So there's that.
To speak precisely, the conclusions stated in the main body of the paper don't say that it is "only safe if given in the 3rd trimester" but rather that early data from v-safe etc. "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." So, they are not saying it isn't safe earlier than the 3rd trimester; their preliminary data doesn't show one way or the other, and they called for further monitoring (which they summarily reported in their response to Sun Sept. 8, 2021).
Yes, of course, there were other outcomes besides spontaneous abortions/stillbirths/etc., and these are tabulated in their paper and supplemental data (nausea, rash, etc.). But I'm focused on what the Thorps' claimed and that was high spontaneous abortion rates. And for that, hopefully I've shown that to get from 96 out of 1132 to 82% spontaneous abortions would require 832 more in the 7-8 weeks after the first trimester. In other words, an 867% increase in the number of spontaneous abortions in those 7-8 weeks compared to the first 12. Or on a weekly basis, about a 1400% increase in the weekly rate of spontaneous abortions compared to what was observed in the first trimester.
It's bedtime for me, so I'm going to sign off. Thanks for the exchange!
Great Points Robert. Unfortunately I don't think that either Mr Hulscher or Dr McCullough read the comments, but your post is very valuable.
it is possible that the situation is far worse than anyone knows. I know a lot of very unhappy midwives who are shocked and distressed at what is happening today and the problems they are facing - not just miscarriages, but labor delivery and post-natal. A lot are leaving - particularly the older ones who know what pre-covid normal was. Most of them got mandated out, but some were brought back recently because of staff shortages, and they can't handle what they are seeing.
Most of the young midwives don't have pre-covid experience, so they think what they are seeing is normal.
It couldn't have been a "truly an examination of the **rate** of spontaneous abortions during pregnancy" without following them all for the entire up to 9 months from their date of injection.
In a 2.5 month study, the tranches are roughly by trimester, or by crossover from one trimester to the next.
I haven't sat down and unpacked either the original study, Thorp or your critique, but my quick read through tells me you may well be on to something. During this last 5 years there has been a lot of this sort of obfuscation, sometimes in error, sometimes not. Your summation of the political ramifications is excellent, if you are correct, and in any event grounds for all concerned to take a good hard look at what they have before them. Nic and senator Johnson are on shaky ground right now, it's time for real due diligence to come back into the equation.
THANK YOU!!!! This egregious error makes us all look bad!
A computer tech can always find what was wiped off any computer
Grounds for contempt of Congress? So. A nothingburger. Again
They will be found.