*UPDATE: Dr. Robert Malone has been locked out of his Linked In account
**UPDATE: The NEJM Letter to the Editor has been removed from the internet without explanation
By Jefferey Jaxen
Despite no pregnant women being enrolled in the trials used to obtain an emergency use authorization (EUA) for the mRNA Coivd shots, agency public health ‘experts’ came out the gates in a united front to defend product safety in this biologically-vulnerable group. Looking and sounding more like a religion, ‘experts’ asked populations to sidestep medical ethics to believe in an untested theory without science, research and long term safety studies.
Fact-checker organizations mindlessly followed suit with ham-fisted censorship campaigns to neutralize anyone daring to investigate or ask basic questions about the safety of these experimental gene therapy products.
Concern went mainstream after an urgent legal petition dated December 1, 2020 to the European Medicines Agency (EUA) by Dr. Wolfgang Wordarg and Dr. Michael Yeadon. The authors stated,
“Several vaccine candidates are expected to induce the formation of humoral antibodies against spike proteins of SARS-CoV-2. Syncytin-1, which is derived from human endogenous retroviruses (HERV) and is responsible for the development of a placenta in mammals and humans and is therefore an essential prerequisite for a successful pregnancy, is also found in homologous form in the spike proteins of SARS viruses.”
The authors then hypothesized “There is no indication whether antibodies against spike proteins of SARS viruses would also act like anti-Syncytin-1 antibodies. However, if this were to be the case this would then also prevent the formation of a placenta which would result in vaccinated women essentially becoming infertile.
Despite the fact-checkers attacking the legal motion, a recent study may have displayed signs that both Yeadon and Wodarg’s weren’t completely without merit. In the study preprint from May 25, 2021, researchers set out to directly address “the fertility and breastfeeding concerns fueling vaccine hesitancy among reproductive-age women” using Pfizer’s mRNA Covid shot.
In the body of the study, an accompanying chart (figure 2), appears to show that there is antibody binding to Syncytin-1 taking place.
Commenting on the study in a recent interview, Dr. Yeadon himself asked, “Is there an increase in signal? He went on to state, “The most prominent, early effect after vaccination is the raising of antibodies to Syncytin-1 – even before they raise it to the virus, the [SARS-CoV-2] spike. Dr. Yeadon continued, “I do not know whether that will have a physiological effect. But I’ll tell you what I’d do today…I’d contraindicate vaccination of pregnant women.”
Another study, released to the public via a freedom of information act request from Japanese health authorities, shows that Pfizer’s vaccine ingredient, lipid nanoparticles called ALC-0315 and ALC-0159 which travel with the spike protein, began to accumulate in the ovaries as quick as fifteen minutes after injection. Perhaps more concerning is that the nanoparticle accumulation showed a linear increase in the ovaries through the end of the study’s duration window of 48 hours.
Dr. Robert Malone, the original inventor of mRNA vaccines (and DNA vaccines) also discovering lipid mediated and naked RNA transfection technologies, was interviewed recently by FOX NEWS’ Tucker Carlson and had this to say:
“My understanding from colleagues within the FDA is that the CDC is overwhelmed. They aren’t even processing the data they have. And by the CDC’s own admission, their recent MMWR report on safety in pregnancy, that the V-Safe database, which is the one they hold internal, is so poor that they can’t draw any definitive conclusions about whether or not these vaccines are safe in pregnancy.”
In recent Congressional Testimony in the House Committee on Appropriations, the Director of the National Institutes of Health (NIH), Francis Collins and NIAID head Tony Fauci were asked about the safety of Covid shots for pregnant women. Fauci stated, “There is no red flag signal at all that there’s any concern about deleterious effects of the vaccine on pregnant women.”
Now, concerning issues have come to light in a study published in The New England Journal of Medicine (NEJM). Using several registries within government which track vaccine reactions looking for safety signals, the authors concluded that their “preliminary findings did not show obvious safety signals among pregnant persons who received mRNA Covid-19 vaccines.”
The NEJM’s study authors claim that out of 827 people, only 104 spontaneous abortions were observed after Covid vaccination during their observation window of twenty weeks or less. Yet fine print underneath their attached study table reads, “A total of 700 participants (84.6%) received their first eligible dose in the third trimester.”
A public letter to the editor of the NEJM quickly pointed out a concerning error and sought a correction. The letter stated, “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%)….given the importance of these findings we feel it important to report these rates accurately.”
In short, if 700 of the 827 people received their shot in the third trimester, why are they being included in the investigation window for spontaneous abortions during the first twenty weeks?
So far, the NEJM has not issued a correction or response to their paper’s glaring, basic error. The public has been left to formulate its own conclusions about why both the study’s authors and the NEJM decided to allow such sloppy research for a vital topic during a critical time in America’s pandemic response.
As public health officials rant about fringe groups purportedly ‘sowing doubt’ about vaccine science, perhaps those same public health officials should first show basic due diligence in their data reporting which makes up the ‘science consensus’ they genuflect to.