COVIDvax and Pregnancy
In a recent post, we discussed reports of miscarriages which were submitted to VAERS. Read here:
There have been 9 reported miscarriages in pregnant women who have received the COVIDvax vaccines from Pfizer and Moderna.
While any pregnancy loss is traumatic to the mother and family, we also wanted to highlight and put this number into perspective.
Pregnancy loss in early pregnancy (weeks 2-4), we will see a pregnancy loss between 30 and 70%.
Most women who lose their pregnancy at week 2-4 have positive pregnancy tests and subsequently have bleeding and spotting, with the loss of the pregnancy.
Between weeks 4 and 6, the risk of pregnancy loss drops to between 15-30%. And then drops even lower between 6 and 10 weeks (between 5 and 15%).
Once we are past 10 weeks, pregnancy loss drops gradually to about 1% in the third trimester, with the 1% risk predominately being composed by placental abruption, which occurs in around 1 in 100 third trimester pregnancies.
So if we assume that the majority of women who reported being pregnant at the time of vaccination are predominantly second and third trimester (we assume this as these women would have the lowest risk of miscarriage), we would expect to see around 150 miscarriages in this dataset (this would be the lowest miscarriage rate of 1%).
Okay…. so we would expect to see around 150 miscarriages with 15,000 pregnancies.
But what about the Harvard report that “showed” only 1% of adverse events are submitted to VAERS?
This is a good question.
Let’s assume that only 1% of miscarriages have been reported to VAERS. While I think this is unlikely due to the newness of the vaccine, let’s just hypothetically consider this. If only 1% of the miscarriage have been reported, than we would expect 1 placental abruption (which we have seen). This is based on the absolute lowest risk of pregnancy loss (assuming all of the pregnancies reported are second/third trimester).
The reality is that Klompas and Lazarus (the two AMIA researchers who wrote the Harvard Report) continued their research with the ESP-VAERS tool. They found that while the tool did increase the number of reports that were filed with VAERS, it didn’t increase the number of serious adverse events being reported to VAERS (they noted increased reporting of things which are considered mild reactions, like fevers). Also, despite what is claimed by Anti-Vaxxers, the ESP-VAERS system is being used in multiple states, despite their claims that the report was trashed and not used.
But let’s circle bask and look at the pregnancies again. In reality, it’s likely that a moderate number of vaccinations are being given early in pregnancies, which changes our risk rating to considerably higher.
Let’s say we separate the 15,000 into three equal groups for each of the three trimesters.
Since the bulk of the VAERS reports are from pregnancies in the first 10 weeks, we could assume that there is a number of early pregnant women receiving the vaccine. If 5,000 of the reported pregnancies are first trimester, the likelihood of miscarriage is at a minimum of 6%, and likely closer to 20% between weeks 4-6.
So let’s pick a middle number, 10% to make it easy. If with have 5,000 pregnancies at a 5% pregnancy loss rate, we would expect to see 250 miscarriages in that groups of 5,000.
So even if we break out the data and just hypothetically calculate our expected miscarriage rates, what we can see is that what is being reported is less than what we would expect to see for this number of pregnancies.
So basically anyway that we hypothetically look at the numbers, the miscarriage rate is lower than what we would expect for the number of pregnancies.
If anyone has questions about the Harvard Report or the research of Klompas and Lazarus, feel free to send us a message.