The American Board of Obstetrics and Gynecology (ABOG) ignores allegations of vaccine injury in pregnancy
Dr. Pierre Kory wrote an article about the 87.5% miscarriage rates reported by Pfizer. Dr. James Thorp wrote a letter to the Exec Dir of ABOG about the issue and they ignored him. Entirely.
Executive Summary
Pierre Kory wrote an article, Massive Miscarriage Rates Among Vaccinated Pregnant Women Found Buried In The Pfizer Documents on August 20, 2022. He wrote: “So, of the 32 pregnancies they knew the outcome of, 87.5% resulted in the death of the fetus or neonate.”
In the comments to Kory’s article, James Thorp mentioned he wrote a letter to the Executive Director of American Board of Obstetrics and Gynecology (ABOG).
It’s now 6 months later, and we now know the response from the mainstream medical community including ABOG: silence.
The Kory Substack article
This is Kory’s article: Massive Miscarriage Rates Among Vaccinated Pregnant Women Found Buried In The Pfizer Documents.
The key paragraph:
So, of the 32 pregnancies they knew the outcome of, 87.5% resulted in the death of the fetus or neonate.
As far as I know, Pfizer has never provided updated information as far as I know.
That would be very troubling to people if they knew that.
Fortunately, the mainstream media makes sure that the issue is never talked about.
The James Thorp letter
In response to the Kory Substack, James Thorp mentioned he wrote to the Executive Director of American Board of Obstetrics and Gynecology (ABOG).
You can see Thorp’s letter here.
The response from ABOG
It is now six months later and Dr. Thorp has still not heard a response to his letter.
In short, ABOG’s approach has been to ignore the issue entirely.
That’s how science works. When people disagree with you, you now ignore them.
The Shimabukuro study
In Preliminary Findings of mRNA Covid-19 Vaccine Safety in Pregnant Persons, Tom Shimabukuro and other CDC authors used data from VAERS and v-safe to estimate pregnancy complications. They concluded that “Preliminary findings did not show obvious safety signals among pregnant persons who received mRNA Covid-19 vaccines.”
But they later admitted to a very serious error in this response. They admitted that they should NOT have used a denominator of 827 because 700 received their first eligible vaccine dose in the third trimester. Here is what they wrote:
We agree that the denominator used in that proportion — 827 completed pregnancies — is not an appropriate denominator for the calculation of a risk estimate or rate.
So this part, which is still in their original (now corrected) paper, is misleading:
104/827=12.5%.
So when you take out the 700 from the denominator, you get 104/127=81.8% which is now sounding a lot like Kory’s number from the Pfizer documents, isn’t it?
Whoa!
The follow up of the Shimabukuro paper
In Receipt of mRNA Covid-19 Vaccines and Risk of Spontaneous Abortion, the CDC submitted a new estimate for the rate of spontaneous abortion which they claimed was 12.8% (age-standardized), and in the worst case, no more than 18.5% on an age-standardized basis:
In the sensitivity analysis, under the extreme assumption that all 65 participants with most recent contact during the first trimester had a spontaneous abortion, the cumulative risk of spontaneous abortion from 6 to less than 20 weeks of gestation was 18.8% (95% CI, 16.6 to 20.9); after age standardization, the cumulative risk was 18.5% (95% CI, 16.1 to 20.8).
So their new best estimate was 12.8% which to me is remarkable since they admit they used the wrong denominator in their original study (827 vs. 127), yet are now able to get the same result (12.6% in the paper and 12.8% in their new analysis).
I found this article confusing and apparently I’m not alone.
Dr. Thorp’s view on the “follow up” letter
The Shimabukuro study was written very poorly - likely on purpose - to obfuscate danger signals in their data. This is exactly why inexperienced, naïve, and unsuspecting clinicians have such difficulty interpreting this study. While the duration of pregnancy is 40 weeks, this study only investigated a 10-week window (December 14, 2020 to February 28, 2021). Why? What was their rush? What could possibly be the justification for this inappropriate scientific method? Where is the follow-up? To this very day the authors refuse to provide it and their “erratum” later in 2021 was completely unhelpful and largely missed by the public and even the academicians. Good enough right? How could it possibly be flawed and manipulated as it was published in the NEJM.
Why is the follow-up data still missing? This is absurd. This small “window” of time is arbitrary and allows the authors the ability to manipulate data quite easily on both sides of this short window – a data manipulation not unexpected given the shenanigans described below. It appears that there was a “rush job” on publishing this manipulated data and stamping the “NEJM seal of excellence” with the sole purpose of browbeating obstetricians and eliminating vaccine hesitancy in pregnant women. There was zero safety data for this experimental gene product in pregnancy, NADA. The role out of this dangerous inflammatory product in pregnancy was a fait accompli, exactly as it was in children.
Inflammation in pregnancy has been known to be dangerous in pregnancy for decades.[1] Inflammatory mediators resulting from inflammation are known to be dangerous in pregnancies often leading to adverse outcomes, such as miscarriage, preterm labor, intrauterine fetal growth restriction, and fetal demise.[2] As one of the most inflammatory medical products ever rolled out, the experimental gene product predictably would have had adverse effects pregnancy. Preterm birth, preterm premature rupture of membranes are known to be associated with inflammation in the maternal and fetoplacental unit.[3] Pre-eclampsia, fetal growth restriction are also known to be associated with inflammation [4] and so too are fetal malformations. [5]
Of the 21 authors in the Shimabukuro article, all of them had conflicts of interest as they were Federal Employees. Shimabukuro was the head of the COVID-19 vaccine safety update by the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP). [5] This represents a major conflict of interest. This constitutes a gross and flagrant violation of ethical standards and should have never been allowed. This reeks of “regulatory capture” as recently boasted by the Pfizer research executive revealed by Project Veritas.
The rollout of this experimental gene therapy in pregnancy was not only a fait accompli exactly as it was in children – but so too were the unethical “gag orders” emanating from licensure and certification boards including American Board of Obstetrics & Gynecology (ABOG.org), American College of ObGyn (ACOG.org) and the Society for Maternal Fetal Medicine (SMFM.org).[8] Physicians were instilled with great fear of the loss of their financial standing and medical licensures/certifications, especially when laden with burdensome medical school debt. Simultaneous gag orders from many regulatory/licensing agencies of both physicians and nurses all occurred in September, 2021.
The Pfizer and Moderna injections constitute an effective “internal control” as they were both deemed “safe, effective and necessary” in pregnancy. Yet, Moderna COVID-19 “vaccines” (100 ug mRNA) compared with Pfizer (30 ug mRNA) carries a substantially greater risk of miscarriage. Why is that if both are “safe, effective and necessary in pregnancy)? The fact is that it is clear that the higher the dose of mRNA in the product the greater is the risk of miscarriage. In fact the miscarriage signal for Moderna is so high that by the time only 25% of this cohort of women had been recruited, there was a statistically significant increase with the Modernal product. [9]
References
1)
Romero R, Gotsch F, Pineles B, Kusanovic JP. Inflammation in Pregnancy:
Its Roles in Reproductive Physiology, Obstetrical Complications, and
Fetal Injury. Nutrition
Reviews December 2007:65(3):S194-S202. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1753-4887.2007.tb00362.x
2) Kalagiri RR, Carder T, Choudhury S, Vora N, Ballard AR, Govande V, Drever N, Beeram MR, Uddin MN. Inflammation in Complicated Pregnancy and Its Outcome. Am J Perinatol. 2016 Dec;33(14):1337-1356. doi: 10.1055/s-0036-1582397. Epub 2016 May 9. PMID: 27159203.
3) Gilman-Sachs A, Dambaeva S, GarciaMDS, Hussein Y, Kwak-Kim J, Beaman K. Inflammation induced preterm labor and birth. Journal of Reproductive Immunology 129:53-58. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jri.2018.06.029
4) Cotechini T, Graham CH. Aberrant maternal inflammation as a cause of pregnancy complications: A potential therapeutic target? Placenta. 2015 Aug;36(8):960-6. doi: 10.1016/j.placenta.2015.05.016. Epub 2015 Jun 4. PMID: 26094029.
5) Saleh N, Levine B. Five Infections That Cause Birth Defects. https://www.verywellfamily.com/infections-that-cause-birth-defects-4140389
6) COVID-19 vaccine safety update. Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) January 27, 2021. https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/acip/meetings/downloads/slides-2021-01/06-COVID-Shimabukuro.pdf?te=1&nl=well&emc=edit_hh_20210402
7) Naert MN, Khadraoui H, Muniz Rodriguez A, Fox NS. Stratified risk of pregnancy loss for women with a viable singleton pregnancy in the first trimester. J Matern Fetal Neonatal Med. 2022 Dec;35(23):4491-4495. doi: 10.1080/14767058.2020.1852212. Epub 2020 Nov 22. PMID: 33225797.
8) Thorp JA, Renz T, Northrup C, Lively C, Breggin P, Bartlett R, et al. Patient Betrayal: The Corruption of Healthcare, Informed Consent and the Physician-Patient Relationship. G Med Sci. 2022; 3(1): 046- 069. https://www.doi.org/10.46766/thegms.medethics.22021403
9) Syed AK. The Arkmedic’s blog. BREAKING: Igor just blew the lid off the V-safe pregnancy registry. https://arkmedic.substack.com/p/breaking-igor-just-blew-the-lid-off
The Naert study
Stratified risk of pregnancy loss for women with a viable singleton pregnancy in the first trimester:
Conclusion: In first trimester singleton pregnancies, the overall risk of pregnancy loss <20 weeks after confirmation of fetal heart activity is 5.4%.
Of course 5.4% and 12.8% are quite different.
The other elephants in the room
Could it be that the larger issue is either the inability to get pregnant or pregnancy loss very early in pregnancy? Or both? Where are the stats on that?
Ending the confusion
If you are confused by all the rhetoric, there is a bottom line: the steep birth rate declines that are happening in countries around the world. [I’m hoping someone in the comments will supply a good article on this…I haven’t had time to find the best article on this]
Compounding the problem is the inability for the fact checkers to ascertain a reason for this coincidence happening: they simply cite “hand-waving” arguments which are supported by no evidentiary basis whatsoever! In short, they say, “such a dramatic drop could instead be caused by <a plausible-sounding reason backed by NO DATA>.
Read the fact check and decide for yourself who to believe. Note how the fact checker is so easily swayed by the alternative arguments without bothering to ask for the evidentiary support to prove that it wasn’t the vaccine and it was the alternate explanation. And the experts seem not to agree on what the “other” explanation is!
And finally, if you are still confused, note that the CDC and ACOG will not engage on these issues with prominent experts in the field. That alone pretty much tells you all you need to know, doesn’t it?
Poll
Summary
It is unfortunate that we are not allowed to have a discussion between either ABOG or CDC and doctors such as James Thorp to resolve these important issues.
But this is just the way science works today. When you are in a position of power, you are supposed to ignore anyone who disagrees with you and keep the data under wraps so nobody can see it.
Can we have any transparency at all? If someone qualified would like to debate James Thorp on this issue 1:1 to help surface the data to resolve the issues, please use the Contact Me link and check “Debate Thorp.”
To me, the issue is simple: the shots kill more people than they save. They shouldn’t be used by anyone, of any age, regardless of comorbidities, even if there were no better alternatives. So we don’t even have to look at the pregnancy data to know that they should NEVER be used by women who are pregnant. If they are unsafe for everyone else, they are most certainly unsafe for pregnant women.
No comments:
Post a Comment