Newly released texts, Pfizer’s own data, and buried registry numbers reveal what “the science” knew while promoting — and mandating — the novel shots on moms-to-be.
Dr. Anthony Fauci and top officials raised the theoretical risk of miscarriage from the COVID-19 vaccines early on. They privately discussed the real possibility that miscarriage was linked to the still-experimental injections, yet instead of caution or honest disclosure of enormous unknowns, they doubled down on the “safe and effective” marketing mantra.
Newly released texts show Fauci was flagged on concerns about the shots causing miscarriage and unknown risks in pregnant women as early as January 2021 — that’s before the heavy marketing push to pregnant and breastfeeding women.
Yet then-CDC Director Rochelle Walensky told the public on April 23, 2021, that no safety concerns had been observed for those vaccinated in the third trimester, or for their babies.
This came despite early safety signals and clear warnings from experts like virologist and immunologist Dr. Byram Bridle, who sounded the alarm on the mRNA platform and coinciding spike protein toxicity years ago.
A non-exhaustive review in the Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons by physicians including cardiologist Peter McCullough, critical care specialist Paul Marik, and obstetrician James Thorp catalogues the reproductive harms.
Pfizer’s own February 2021 post-market surveillance report (submitted under the interim “rolling” approval process) recorded pregnancy outcomes with an 81% miscarriage rate among cases with known results: 26 losses out of 32.
The widely cited New England Journal of Medicine article from the CDC-sponsored Shimabukuro et al and the CDC’s v-safe and pregnancy registry, and VAERS initially claimed a reassuring 12.6% miscarriage rate, which was said to be similar to the usual miscarriage rates.
However, independent researchers found that most of the “completed” pregnancies involved women vaccinated in the third trimester, long past the window when most miscarriages occur. Adjusting for this skewed data, the independent researchers parsed out 104 losses out of 127 pregnancies in earlier trimesters — representing an 82% miscarriage rate.
VAERS signals showed proportional reporting ratios for miscarriage skyrocketing compared to flu shots, plus elevated stillbirths and neonatal complications. Evidence later confirmed vaccine mRNA crossing the placenta and being transferred to babies via breast milk.
Alberta’s COVID-19 pandemic data review task force drew on Dr. Pierre Kory’s analysis of Pfizer’s data, which found an astonishing 87.5% fetal/neonatal mortality figure in the relevant cases.
Most notably, package inserts for both Pfizer and Moderna still state that “the safety and efficacy… in pregnant women have not yet been established.”
Official parliamentary documentation confirms that none of the manufacturers sought indications for use in pregnant or lactating women or submitted randomized clinical trial data in those groups for regulatory evaluation. Health Canada has not approved any safety claims with regard to pregnant and lactating women.
Ottawa police detective Helen Grus was subjected to years of professional isolation, a multi-year disciplinary process, personal financial ruin after her legal bills were not covered by the police association, and a guilty finding for investigating a 2-3x spike in infant deaths that occurred in the Sexual Assault and Child Abuse (SACA) unit following the rollout of mRNA vaccines that were never properly tested on pregnant or breastfeeding women.
The question now hangs over everything: Could Dr. Anthony Fauci be invoking the Fifth Amendment rather than answering, under oath, what federal health officials knew, when they knew it, and how those concerns were communicated to the public?
If officials privately discussed potential miscarriage risks, cytokine storms, and unanswered questions about vaccination in pregnancy while publicly offering broad safety reassurances, the public deserves the full record — who decided, what evidence was considered, and did the public truly get the complete picture.
When the people who sold the risk now refuse to answer under oath, the obvious question remains: What, exactly, are they afraid to answer?
