December 5, 2022

“Disturbed and Alarmed”: 66 Medical doctors, Clinicians and Scientists Call for Stop to Covid Vaccination of Pregnant Women Over Major Safety Concerns

Now there follows an open letter by 66 doctors, scientists and even clinical practitioners to the Noble College of Obstetricians and also Gynaecologists (RCOG), the Hoheitsvoll College of Midwives (RCM) and the U. K. Wellbeing Security Agency (UKHSA) regarding safety concerns about COVID-19 vaccinations in pregnancy. Where by is the evidence, they you can ask. Obstetricians and gynaecologists from the U. K. have placed […]#@@#@!!

There follows an open notice from 66 doctors, experts and clinical practitioners towards the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists (RCOG), this Royal College of Midwives (RCM) and the U. Ok. Health Security Agency (UKHSA) regarding safety concerns concerning COVID-19 vaccinations in having a baby. Where is the evidence, these people ask.

Obstetricians and gynaecologists in the U. K. have got put their faith within and adjusted their process according to guidance from their Regal College (RCOG). However , current advice from the RCOG has been doing complete contradiction to all that it itself and tutorial institutions have been teaching regarding evidence-based medicine. This advice is that: COVID-19 vaccines are not only dependable but strongly recommended to find pregnant women.

Like advice is not grounded through robust data based on ethically conducted research – plus anyone who is medically and academically trained should take serious issue with this.  

Ethics of scientific research

Clinical researchers, especially when completing trials to investigate pharmaceutical goods, are required to update themselves any two years on the principles of Good Clinical Practice, which use the Nuremberg Code as well as Declaration of Helsinki. Based on those principles, it is deceitful to violate a study process by  under-reporting damaging events , by  removing subjects   with adverse events from the study and by unblinding analysis participants prematurely with the intent behind administering the product under investigating to everyone and therefore correctly ending the trial – as have all happened from the COVID-19 vaccine trials. It can be unethical to prevent the public from accessing raw trial data files for 75 years and to only release some of it to obtain independent scrutiny after a  lawsuit . Its unethical to extrapolate the particular conclusions of a prematurely broken trial to vulnerable different types not represented in the experiment – such as pregnant women.

To obvious reasons, pregnant women usually are excluded from clinical trials. The exact British National Formulary regularly advises against the use of a pharmaceutical solution in pregnancy as a precaution safeguard due to lack of data. Throughout pregnancy, lack of data is enough to be hesitant. Two some in the not-too- distant last remind us how disastrously wrong it can go any time a new product is given to expectant mothers: thalidomide caused severe arm or leg defects in the foetus, as well as diethylstilbestrol (DES) increased the risk of certain cancers after vulnerability in utero, requiring life-long surveillance for more than one age group. It was indeed the thalidomide scandal which led to often the establishment of the U. Ok. Yellow Card system to adverse event reporting. Nevertheless suddenly all of this seems to be overlooked.

A shortage of robust and reliable safe data

A recent public controversy devoted to MHRA advice updated on  August 16th 2022   stating in the toxicity conclusions that “ sufficient reassurance of safe and sound use of the vaccine (mRNA BNT162b2/Pfizer/BioNTech) cannot be provided at the present time” and “ women who are breastfeeding should also not be vaccinated”. The Government and the RCOG happen to be very quick to express their things about the circulation of this evident misinformation and to reinforce their particular advice that pregnant women need vaccinated. This document was initially originally from December 2020, and so the claim is that this area is outdated. The question keeps why this section was not corrected if this document was recently updated. The answer is of course since there is nothing to update it with: studies regarding genotoxicity, carcinogenicity, reproductive and developmental toxicity, and prenatal and postnatal development have still not necessarily been conducted.

It cannot possibly be acknowledged whether it is safe to give the products to pregnant and nursing women. Clinical research principles dictate close and extended observation of trial clients, documenting any and all observed surgical effects following administration on the trial compound. This has not even been done. There are certainly no trials that last the particular duration of a pregnancy. COVID-19 vaccines were on the market for any mere four months after the initial advice to avoid these people in pregnancy changed by way of 180 degrees and they are declared safe. Potential side effects for the offspring have not perhaps been considered.

It is profoundly unethical to provide a completely novel compound in order to pregnant women on a mass scale without the strict protocols associated with clinical research to just see where the night takes us and then pretend that this is science. Yet this is exactly what is happening.

Incorrect interpretation of available information

Well being data are largely depending on retrospective and observational cohort analyses and registries, including the CDC’s V-Safe COVID-19 Vaccine Pregnancy Registry. Voluntary departments are not equivalent to well-designed future clinical trials, as follow-up is certainly inconsistent and incomplete with no standardisation or systematisation and no tracking of participants.

Other data usually are from short-term studies everywhere outcomes are determined in  post hoc  analyses, with little or no étendue of gestational age for the duration of vaccination. A large  Canadian study   published in the  Lancet  concluded that “ COVID-19 vaccines have a fantastic safety profile in pregnancy” based on a follow-up period of a whole seven days. Conflicts of interest reputation on this paper is desired. Publications are clearly prejudiced towards reaching the conclusions about affirming safety and efficiency of COVID-19 vaccines during pregnancy even when their investigation data do not allow such results. The U. K. Medical-related Freedom Alliance (UKMFA) seems to have published on its webpage open letters to the You. K. -based authors  of two   such studies   with a critique within their conclusions. Both papers had been widely propagated to the public court.

The systematic review and meta-analysis of your effectiveness and perinatal effects of COVID-19 vaccination in  pregnancy   was co-authored by the present president of the RCOG, that shared this headline from the RCOG membership: “ COVID-19 vaccination associated with 15% reducing of stillbirths in pregnant women. ” The prompt within the personal message to “ Find out more” linked not to the original regular for everyone to scrutinise not to mention recognise the flawed method, but to the  Guardian  propagating the same qualité. The work of Professor Norman Fenton (Professor of Danger Information Management) on the “ statistical illusion of better carrying a child outcomes for vaccinated women” is worth considering for a wide-ranging analysis of the  available data .

Currently, any quantitative assessment of the risks for adverse events in gestation is mostly stymied by the not enough reliable denominators, prohibiting complete interpretation of existing files.

Shimabukuro  et al.   published their preliminary information of mRNA COVID-19 vaccine safety in pregnancy within the  NEJM  based on the  V-Safe registry , reporting a good miscarriage rate of 16. 6% – consistent with the general population. This was based on your denominator of 827 completed pregnancies. The conclusion was completely wrong as only 127 ladies had been vaccinated in the for starters or second trimester, while by definition the remaining 700 women could not possibly have had an early pregnancy loss.

According to post-marketing data from Pfizer, 42, 086 adverse events were revealed to the manufacturer during the to begin with three months of the vaccination course. Amongst these were reports by 270 pregnant women. Only thirty-two pregnancy outcomes were noted. This should have been but in fact was not a study with focused follow-up. These data ended up collected as part of post-marketing surveillance and are insufficient for complete analysis.

Consequently , there are no reliable studies at this time – but you will discover plausible mechanisms of probable harm and there are glaring protection signals.

Mechanisms of potential ruin

Regardless if pregnant women were at elevated risk from COVID-19, you can find no conclusive data demonstrating that those risks are mitigated by vaccination. Regarding quickness of effect, it is worth considering the data progress COVID-19 vaccination and disease in pregnancy in Ireland, which do not indicate vaccination to get been beneficial, indeed these people suggest quite the opposite (Figure 1).

Figure 1

Independent of the potential threats to the pregnancy itself, these day there are well-acknowledged risks of COVID-19 vaccines for women of childbearing age in general, including perils of cardiac and heart morbidities, which may well impact a pregnancy.

Pfizer’s own  pharmacokinetics studies   confirmed that the lipid nanoparticles utilized to carry the mRNA are allocated to and accumulate from the ovaries at significant concentrations  (Table 1) .

Table 1

A recent research mail in  JAMA Pediatrics   highlighted that COVID-19 vaccine mRNA could be detected  in busts milk . The scientific significance of this has not been looked over, but the conclusion advises warning against breastfeeding for the before anything else 48 hours after vaccination, and previous studies have described unfavorable events in 7. 1% of  breastfed infants .

A report published in  PLOS Pathogens   showed that throughout mice “ the mRNA-LNP vaccine platform induces long-term immunological changes, some of which might be inherited by the offspring”. The result on the immune system in our offspring – including support against infections as well as the tendency to allergies and autoimmune disorders – is at this kind of stage completely unknown.

Concern regarding prospective autoimmunity is also based on  molecular mimicry . mRNA vaccines induce our cells to produce antigens (spike proteins) in order to elicit a particular immune response. Similarities involving spike protein and human being proteins may lead to an adverse autoimmune reaction. It is potentially pertinent for pregnant women that the SARS-CoV-2 spike glycoprotein was observed to share similarities with twenty-seven human proteins that relate to oogenesis, uterine receptivity, decidualisation and placentation in a learn published in the  American Journal for Reproductive Immunology .

Safe practices Signals

Most concerning are the accumulating safety signals – along with the apparent reluctance to fully research them. All four major data source for adverse event confirming ( VAERS ,   MHRA Green Cards ,   EudraVigilance ,   WHO Vigiaccess ) contain significant numbers of pregnancy-related adverse outcomes, including miscarriages and stillbirths (Table 2).

Table 2: Pregnancy-related harmful events on international data source

Research – currently in preprint – by Dr . Adam Thorp (U. S. consultant in foeto-maternal medicine) compares  pregnancy-related adverse consequences   reported after COVID-19 vaccination to those announced after influenza vaccinations. Even considering the limitations of the review and the perhaps questionable validity of this comparison, the number of studies following COVID-19 vaccines from miscarriages, foetal chromosomal abnormalities, foetal malformation, foetal cystic hygroma, foetal cardiac issues, foetal arrhythmia, foetal stroke, foetal vascular mal-perfusion, foetal growth abnormalities, foetal unpleasant surveillance, foetal placental thrombosis, low amniotic fluid together with foetal death and stillbirth are extremely concerning.

In addition , there are reports about unexplained phenomena. Birth rates in the first half of 2022 appear to have fallen substantially in highly vaccinated countries in Europe based on endorsed figures, with a decline of more than 4% in 15 areas and more than 10% in  seven countries . The rates of cumulative annualised infant mortality in Ireland show 2021 as a major outlier (Figure 2). Due to the fact data are cumulative, your variation usually evens out at the end of the year, although not so in 2021. The rise mostly relates to spikes in neonatal deaths, which may have occurred in temporal association along with COVID-19 vaccination (Figure 3). This correlation is especially extraordinary considering not all pregnant women were being vaccinated.

Figure 2: Newborn girls mortality in Scotland 2015-2022
  Figure two:   Neonatal deaths in addition to COVID-19 vaccination (Dose 1-3) in pregnancy in Scotland

All these spikes in neonatal demise have been publicly acknowledged as  concerning . Doctor Sarah Stock, expert on maternal and foetal remedy at the University of Edinburgh, commented in May 2022: “ The numbers are really unpleasant, and I don’t think we know reasons why yet”, but “ anxious the Covid vaccine, which studies have consistently shown to be safer in pregnancy, was  not a factor ”. This cannot possibly be used unless it is investigated minus the bias that has afflicted nearly all publications on this subject to this day. The need for investigation is imperative, and whilst this should are generally with clinical trials, there should now be a moratorium concerning COVID-19 vaccines to allow for thoughtful retrospective analysis and re-evaluation.

If we carry on and ignore these safety symptoms, we are not doing our own due diligence to protect patients right from harm. According to the principles of Good Medical Practice outlined because of the General Medical Council, we’re supposed to take action when we are related to compromised patient safety.

We are not just troubled but deeply disturbed together with alarmed at the widespread distortion of science and the blatant omissions in the process of having a newly developed pharmaceutical drug product to market.

We have a collective work to restore the principles of clinical ethics to our practice and then to clinical research to protect one of the most vulnerable groups from ruin, and this includes pregnant women and the babies.

Inside absence of data on long lasting outcomes of mRNA COVID-19 vaccination in pregnancy regarding either women or their very own infants, vaccination of expecting mothers should be paused while an entire safety enquiry is practiced and until results of long term studies on animals in addition to pregnant women and their offspring solidly and unequivocally establish the fact that benefits of vaccination clearly surpass the risks to both moms and babies.

We look forward to an early response to our concerns.

  1. Dr Julia Wilkens, FRCOG, MD, Consultant throughout Obstetrics & Gynaecology
  2. Dr John Williams, FRCOG, retired Consultant within Obstetrics & Gynaecology
  3. Professor Angus Dalgleish, MD, FRCP, FRACP, FRCPath, FMed Sci, Principal, Start for Cancer Vaccines &   Immunotherapy (ICVI)
  4. Professor Richard Ennos, MA, PhD, Honorary Professorial Fellow, University of Edinburgh
  5. Professor Mark Fairclough, FRCS, FFSEM, retired Honorary Consultant Surgeon
  6. Professor Dennis McGonagle, PhD, FRCPI, Consultant Rheumatologist, University of Leeds
  7. Professor Karol Sikora, MA, MBBChir, PhD, FRCR, FRCP, FFPM, Honorary Mentor of Professional Practice, Buckingham University
  8. Lord Moonie, MBChB, MRCPsych, MFCM, MSc, retired member of the House of Lords, former parliamentary under-secretary of state 2001-2003, former Consultant in Public Health and fitness Medicine
  9. Doctor Victoria Anderson, MBChB, MRCGP, MRCPCH, DRCOG, General Practitioner
  10. Julie Annakin, REGISTERED NURSE, Immunisation Specialist Nurse
  11. Helen Auburn, Plunge ION MBANT NTCC CNHC RNT, registered Nutritional Therapist
  12. Dr James Bell, MBBS, PhD, FRCP(UK), Public Health Physician
  13. Dr Mark A Bell, MBChB, MRCP(UK), FRCEM, Therapist in Emergency Medicine
  14. Dr Michael D Bell, MBChB, MRCGP, launched onto General Practitioner
  15. Dr Alan Black, MBBS, MSc, DipPharmMed, retired Pharmaceutical Healthcare professional
  16. Dr Gillian Breese, BSc, MB ChB, DFFP, DTM& H, General Practitioner
  17. Dr They would Burger, MRCGP, DRCOG, General Practitioner
  18. Dr Donald Cartland, MBChB, BMedSci, Doctor
  19. Caroline Cartledge, RM, BA (hons), Midwife
  20. Angela Chamberlain, BSc (hons), Midwife
  21. Dr Peter Chan, BM, MRCS, MRCGP, NLP, General Practitioner, Functional Medicine Medical specialist
  22. Michael Cockayne, MSc, PGDip, SCPHNOH, HANDBAG, RN, Occupational Health Practitioner
  23. James Cook, NHS Registered Nurse, Bachelor of Nurses (Hons), Master of Public well-being (MPH)
  24. Dr Clare Craig, BMBCh, FRCPath, Pathologist
  25. Doctor David Critchley, BSc, PhD in Pharmacology, 32 years’ experience in Pharmaceutical R& D
  26. Doctor Sue de Lacy, MBBS, MRCGP, AFMCP, UK Integrative Medicine Doctor
  27. Dr Jayne LM Donegan, MBBS, DRCOG, DCH, DFFP, MRCGP, General Practitioner
  28. Dr Jonathan Eastwood, BSc, MBChB, MRCGP, General Practitioner
  29. Dr Elizabeth Evans, MA(Cantab), MBBS, DRCOG, Co-founder UKMFA
  30. Doctor Christopher Exley, PhD FRSB, retired Professor in Bioinorganic Chemistry
  31. Dr John Flack, BPharm, PhD, retired Director of Health and safety Evaluation, Beecham Pharmaceuticals, Mature Vice-president for Drug Discovery SmithKline Beecham
  32. Sophie Gidet, RM, Midwife
  33. Dr Ali Haggett, Mental health area work, 3rd sector, previous Lecturer in the history of medical care
  34. Dr Keith Johnson, BA, D. Phil cannella (Oxon), IP Consultant with Diagnostic Testing
  35. Dr Rosamond Jones, MBBS, DRCOG, MD, FRCPCH, upon the market Consultant Paediatrician
  36. Dr Tanya Klymenko, PhD, FHEA, FIBMS, Senior Lecturer in Biomedical Sciences
  37. Dr Caroline Lapworth, General Practitioner
  38. Doctor Branko Latinkic, BSc, PhD, Reader in Biosciences
  39. Dr Theresa Lawrie, MBBCh, PhD, Director, Evidence-Based Medicine Consultancy Ltd, Bathrooms
  40. Dr Felicity Lillingstone, IMD, DHS, PhD, ANP, Doctor, Urgent Due care, Research Fellow 
  41. Dr Geoffrey Maidment, MBBS, DRCOG, MD, FRCP, retired Consultant Physician
  42. Dr Ayiesha Malik, MBChB, General Practitioner
  43. Doctor Kulvinder S. Manik, MBChB, MRCGP, MA(Cantab), LLM, Gray’s Inn
  44. Doctor Franziska Meuschel, MD, ND, PhD, LFHom, BSEM, Natural, Environmental and Integrated Medicinal drugs
  45. Dr Graham Milne, MBChB, DRCOG, MRCGP, General Practitioner
  46. Doctor David Morris, MBChB, MRCP(UK), General Practitioner
  47. Margaret Moss, MA(Cantab), CBiol, MRSB, Director, The Nutrition as well as Allergy Clinic, Cheshire
  48. Theresa Ann Mounsey, BSc (hons) in midwifery studies
  49. Dr Sarah Myhill, MBBS, Holistic Physician, retired General Practitioner
  50. Dr Chris Newton, PhD, Biochemist working in immuno-metabolism
  51. Dr Rachel Nicholl, PhD, Medical Researcher
  52. Sue Parker Hall, certified transactional expert (CTA, psychotherapy), MSc (Counselling & Supervision), MBACP (senior accredited practitioner), EMDR doctor, Psychotherapist
  53. Revolution Dr William J U Philip, MBChB, MRCP, BD, Senior Minister The Tron Church, Glasgow, formerly doctor  working in cardiology
  54. Anna Phillips, RSCN, BSc Hons, Clinical Lead Coach Clinical Systems (Paediatric Serious Care)
  55. Doctor Angharad Powell, MBChB, Doctor
  56. Dr Jessica Righart, MSc, MIBMS, Resident Biomedical Scientist
  57. Mr James Royle, MBChB, FRCS, MMedEd, Colorectal Operating specialist
  58. Dr Salmaan Saleem, General Practitioner
  59. Dr Rohaan Seth, BSc (hons), MBChB (hons), MRCGP, retired General Practitioner
  60. Dr Noel Thomas, MOVING AVERAGE, MBChB, DObsRCOG, DTM& They would, MFHom, retired Doctor
  61. Dr Livia Tossici-Bolt, PhD, Clinical Scientist
  62. Tanya Wardle, RM, Registered Midwife
  63. Dr Helen Westwood, MBChB, MRCGP, DCH, DRCOG, Doctor
  64. Dr Carmen Wheatley, DPhil, Orthomolecular Oncology
  65. Mr Lasantha Wijesinghe, FRCS, Consultant Vascular Surgeon
  66. Doctor Lucie Wilk, MD, Professional Rheumatologist

This letter was previously published by the  Health Advisory and Healing Team (HART) .

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *