New Report Suggests Potential Adverse Effects on Pregnancy After mRNA COVID Vaccination

New Report Suggests Potential Adverse Effects on Pregnancy After mRNA COVID Vaccination

Legal Insurrection readers may recall my report detailing the potential adverse effects on female fertility revealed by an animal study. The research suggested that both mRNA and inactivated COVID-19 vaccines negatively affect ovarian reserve in rats, and that the effects are more pronounced with the mRNA vaccine.

A pre-print article in MedRxiv entitled “Observed-to-Expected Fetal Losses Following mRNA COVID-19 Vaccination in Pregnant Women” provides additional evidence that the mRNA COVID-19 vaccines may adversely impact pregnancy, especially in the critical developmental window of gestational weeks 8-13.

The study reviewed the outcomes of over 200,000 Israeli women between March 2016 and February 2022. It focused on women who got an mRNA COVID-19 vaccine (mostly Pfizer) during weeks 8–13 or 14–27 of their pregnancy, and compared the number of fetal losses (miscarriages) in these groups to what would usually be expected.

For comparison, it also examined women who received a flu vaccine during weeks 8–27 of pregnancy, as well as women who received COVID-19 or flu vaccines before becoming pregnant.

The expected number of fetal losses was calculated using historical data (2016–2018) and took into account each woman’s personal risk factors and her stage of pregnancy. This helped researchers see if the vaccines had any effect on the risk of miscarriage.

Greg Piper of Just the News provides additional details on the study.

Pregnant women who took a booster between 8-13 weeks lost an additional two pregnancies per 100, a “potential dose-response relationship,” the study said.

By using pregnant women who got flu vaccines between 8-27 weeks and women who received either vaccine before their pregnancy as “comparative controls,” the authors said they were able to show the association is unique to COVID vaccines.

The former had a “consistently lower-than-expected observed number of fetal losses, likely the result of healthy vaccinee bias” – in which people with overall better health tend to have higher vaccination rates – while the latter had “according-to-expected or lower-than-expected numbers of fetal losses,” the study found.

It said “almost all” mRNA doses were made by Pfizer, whose own 2021 report to the FDA – which the agency hid for 16 months until a court made it public – shows 44% of women in Pfizer’s clinical trial lost their pregnancies.

The conclusion from the pre-print is short and scary:

Conclusion: “The results provide evidence for a substantially higher-than-expected number of eventual fetal losses associated with COVID-19 vaccination during gestational weeks 8-13.”

However, the paper must still undergo peer review.

I would like to note that these findings align with the testimony offered by Dr. James A. Thorp, MD (Obstetrician, Gynecologist, and Maternal-Fetal Medicine Specialist), when he appeared before the United States Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs, presenting a highly critical perspective on COVID vaccination campaigns targeting pregnant women.

In his testimony, Thorp asserted that pregnant women were deliberately chosen for vaccine promotion because they are the primary healthcare decision-makers in families and are considered especially vulnerable and influential. He described the campaign as a calculated breach of medical ethics, arguing that it was rooted in behavioral science and public perception management rather than robust biological evidence, and that emotionally charged, misleading messaging was used to reassure pregnant women of vaccine safety despite what he claimed were early indications of risk.

It is difficult to conceive of a more egregious breach of medical ethics by the government controlled, medical-industrial complex than the systematic promotion of COVID-19 vaccination to pregnant women—thereby, through transplacental transfer, effectively vaccinating their unborn and newborn children.

This campaign was not accidental. It was calculated. Pregnant women were targeted deliberately for two reasons:

1. Women are the primary decision-makers in healthcare across the human lifespan—a known marketing principle.
2. Pregnant women are the most vulnerable patients. If they could be convinced that the vaccination was safe and effective, it would imply that it was safe and effective for everyone.

Thorp’s testimony and related commentary pointed to what he described as significant harms to pregnant women and infants following COVID-19 vaccination. He cited analyses of data from the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS), claiming that COVID vaccines were associated with much higher rates of adverse pregnancy outcomes—such as miscarriage, stillbirth, fetal malformations, and placental complications—compared to influenza vaccines.

Thorp also reviewed July 2023 Pfizer’s: Randomized, Double-Blind, Placebo-Controlled Clinical Trial in Pregnant Women, COVID-19 vaccine versus Placebo. This was a summary of Pfizer’s Phase 2/3 clinical trial, completed in July 2022 and results published in July 2023, which specifically investigated the covid vaccine in pregnant women.

However, the trial was underpowered, enrolling only 324 participants (161 vaccine, 163 placebo). It exclusively included healthy, low-risk pregnant women between 24 and 34 weeks of gestation with uncomplicated, singleton pregnancies.

The study design’s narrow inclusion criteria mean its results cannot be generalized to other pregnant populations, such as those with obesity, diabetes, hypertension, multiple gestations, or other medical conditions. Importantly, the trial does not address vaccine safety before 24 weeks of pregnancy, including risks of miscarriage. Despite these limitations, the study reported at least eight serious newborn outcomes in the group whose mothers received the vaccine.

1. A 100% increase in low Apgar scores (indicating depressed newborns);
2. A substantial increase in meconium aspiration syndrome;
3. An 80% increase in neonatal jaundice;
4. A 70% increase in congenital malformations;
5. A 220% increase in atrial septal defects;
6. A substantial increase in fetal growth restriction;
7. A 200% increase in congenital nevi; and
8. A 310% increase in congenital anomalies with developmental delays at 6 months of age.

When making decisions about health, it is important to have all the data … not just the data that supports the preferred outcome. These recently revealed data points are troubling, indeed.

Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.