Covid Vaccine Miscarriages Scandal Goes Nuclear - Four Years After I Smelt The Rat

Oh well, better late than never I suppose. The lead author of the now discredited NEJM ‘v-safe’ study of Covid vaccines in pregnant women stands accused of destroying the data which revealed an 82% miscarriage rate in vaccinated women and his fraudulent study is now under the full glare of public scrutiny:

Here’s how Shimabukuro misrepresented the data in his study, formally published in June 2021, but available a month before and used by Matt Hancock to justify injecting pregnant women:

The most blatant example of data-doctoring, eerily similar to the fraudulent Pfizer study conducted during the same time frame, was published by NEJM in June, 2021 [85]. In a study intended to evaluate vaccine safety during pregnancy, Shimabukuro et al. followed outcomes in 3958 vaccinated pregnant women between mid-December 2020 and the end of February 2021.

During the two and-a-half-month period 827 women completed their pregnancy of which 712 (86.1%) were live births and 115 (13.9%) pregnancy losses. Of the pregnancy losses, 104 were spontaneous abortions the vast majority of which (92.3%) occurred before 13 weeks of gestation.

Upon review of the data, however, 700 (84.6%) of women weren't vaccinated until the third trimester, long after the spontaneous abortions would have occurred. Nonetheless, authors included these 700 third-trimester vaccinations in the denominator when they calculated the spontaneous abortion rate.

Based on their statistical sleight-of-hand, authors 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.

And yet Shimabukuro et al. concluded there were no obvious safety concerns. This is disinformation plain and simple and cannot be written off as accident. There were 21 named authors on the study, 8 of whom were physicians, including 3 Ob-Gyn specialists, and others with expertise in public health and epidemiology. It is inconceivable that an error of this magnitude could escape the scrutiny of such a stellar cast. And how could it have been overlooked by the NEJM editorial staff and reviewers unless by intention?

That formal debunking of Shimabukuro’s study was published in 2022. On May 9th 2021, I wrote about Shimabukuro’s dodgy ‘v-safe’ data analysis here, which was being glowingly and cravenly reported on at the time by the Daily Mail:

Those bastards should also be made to take responsibility for scandalously promoting this fraudulent study which inevitably resulted in thousands of women losing their babies.

I said at the time:

What is the basis for the bold safety claims made by the Fail? Let us be in no doubt whatsoever. At their introduction, just a few months ago, these ‘vaccines’ had not been tested on pregnant women:

In November, Pfizer became the first company to announce that its vaccine was effective against Covid-19 – but the company also said it hadn’t yet been tested on pregnant women.

This is entirely normal for vaccine trials, says Dr O’Brien, adding: ‘Traditionally, pregnant women are excluded from these studies as a precaution.’

Early studies of the vaccine on animals also showed no issues around pregnancy. Nonetheless, due to a lack of data, the Government warned expectant women not to have the jab – NHS leaflets circulated at the start of the rollout reiterated this. The effect, experts say, was to entrench worries in a group already naturally cautious about what medicines they take.

Then, in April, suddenly, everything changed and Wanksock went public to advise pregnant women that the jab was safe and they should seriously consider getting it after the JCVI changed its advice to allow pregnant women to book the Pfizer or Moderna jabs following a trial in the US. Here is what the Fail reports about that trial, which allegedly demonstrates that the Pfizer and Moderna jabs are ‘safe’ for pregnant women:

“Instead, the JCVI decided to wait for data from America to filter through before making a call.

In early April, that data arrived in the form of a major study published by the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). It had tracked the condition of more than 90,000 pregnant women who had received a vaccine, the majority of them in their third trimester.

This is the important part: most of the women who took part were injected very late in their pregnancies (during the Third Trimester) and they didn’t miscarry and this was used to claim that the vaccine was ‘safe’, but as I pointed out, most miscarriages occur early on in pregnancy, in the First Trimester:

Pay particular attention to the bold. 90,000 women were tracked but only 900 or so were monitored closely and of those, one in eight lost their unborn child. But it’s all OK according to the Fail (and presumably also the NHS, the JCVI and the British government) because this is the same as the rate of spontaneous abortion in the population at large. Right. So, silly me, I went and checked, didn’t I and this is what I found:

Miscarriage accounts for 42,000 hospital admissions in the UK annually^[1].

Miscarriage occurs in 12-24% of recognised pregnancies; the true rate is probably higher as many may occur before a woman has realised she is pregnant^[1].

85% of spontaneous miscarriages occur in the first trimester.

The risk falls rapidly with advancing gestation^[2]:

9.4% at 6 complete weeks of gestation.

4.2% at 7 weeks.

1.5% at 8 weeks.

0.5% at 9 weeks.

0.7 % at 10 weeks.

85% of miscarriages occur in the First Trimester. As the pregnancy term progresses the risk of miscarriage diminishes rapidly. The First Trimester covers weeks 0-13, the Second Trimester 14-26 and the Third Trimester 27-40. Miscarriages don’t even technically occur in the Third Trimester; they are known as stillbirths.

I don’t know where the Fail gets the figure of 90,000 from because I have read the study in question and it only mentions a total of 35,691 participants. It is obvious where their figures of 712 and 115 come from though:

A total of 35,691 v-safe participants 16 to 54 years of age identified as pregnant. Injection-site pain was reported more frequently among pregnant persons than among nonpregnant women, whereas headache, myalgia, chills, and fever were reported less frequently. Among 3958 participants enrolled in the v-safe pregnancy registry, 827 had a completed pregnancy, of which 115 (13.9%) resulted in a pregnancy loss and 712 (86.1%) resulted in a live birth (mostly among participants with vaccination in the third trimester).

A ‘completed pregnancy’, contrary to what it suggests, is not a completed pregnancy as such, resulting in a live or tragic still birth, it is a pregnancy which goes either full term or is aborted at an earlier stage. Hence:

For analysis of pregnancy outcomes in the v-safe pregnancy registry, data were restricted to completed pregnancies (i.e., live-born infant, spontaneous abortion, induced abortion, or stillbirth)

There was the ‘statistical sleight of hand’ in plain sight. Had the Shimabukuro study properly analysed the data on vaccine administrations during the First Trimester, it would have revealed the 82% miscarriage rate, which is way above normal, even during the period when the vast majority of natural miscarriages occur.

The Covid vaccine data botherers are scum and should be prosecuted. Matt Hancock, who, wittingly or otherwise, used their manipulated data to justify injecting pregnant British women with a dangerous and useless chemical concoction, is scum and should be prosecuted.