Discover more from Igor’s Newsletter
121 Breastfed Infants Had "Issues" After Maternal Vaccination in Just ONE study!
Pfizer and Moderna-paid Scientists Did not Even Look Into It
Another interesting article!
The point of that article was to provide a strong confirmation that Covid-19 vaccination in pregnant or lactating women is “safe and effective”.
Yeah, it is safe and effective… except for one small problem mentioned in passing… 121 breastfed infants were having problems after their mothers received their booster shots. The nature of the problems is not being disclosed.
Before we go on, please appreciate the “conflict of interest” disclosures in the article. Most of the scientists in the study are sponsored by vaccine companies, but specifically Dr. Kachikis and Dr. Englund report being sponsored by Covid vaccine makers Pfizer, Moderna, and AstraZeneca.
Pfizer and Moderna-sponsored Dr. Kachikis and Dr. Englund are not minor participants in this scientific work: they are the key persons in the study, involved in concept, design, and writing, all the way to critical revisions of the manuscript.
Dr. Kachikis, sponsored by Pfizer specifically, is always at the forefront of the effort to vaccinate pregnant and lactating women against Covid.
What did the study find?
Most of the study was devoted to showing how safe Covid boosters are for pregnant and lactating women. Some of the ways the information was presented seemed odd to me.
Nearly half (7683 of 16 913 [45.4%]) of participants were at work or planned to go to work on the day of the booster or third dose, and only 5.7% (434 of 7672) either left work or called out of work because of vaccine reactions.
Only 6.3% (1067 of 16 989) reported that the vaccine reactions significantly affected their ability to perform activities of daily living.
Somehow, the fact that 5.6% of pregnant or lactating mothers were unable to work, is considered to be a vaccine success. Similarly, I am not sure why they say that “only” 6.3% of such women could not perform their daily activities. It seems to be a lot to me!
More importantly, the text in “Results” above does not agree with Table 2.
The text in “Results” says “Of those who did work, most (6659 of 7672 [86.8%]) reported minimal or no effect of the vaccine on work.” So, the authors say, 7672-6659=1,013 reported a significant effect in reducing their ability to work.
Table 2, meanwhile, says the opposite: 3,164 women (out of 7,672 who were at work), had “had a significant impact on ability to work on the day of the booster” (so they were at work):
So, is that 1,013 women whose ability to work was significantly impacted (as per Results), or 3,164 women (as per Table 2)?
And if 3,164 women were unable to work (that’s 41% of all women who were at work) then is the vaccine actually unsafe?
How does the sentence in Results, agree with the study data? Unless I am missing something, it does not agree. I hope someone explains.
What about the Infants?
Strangely enough, the study did not even look in detail at what the vaccine does to the developing fetuses or breastfed infants. The authors declared that the vaccines are “safe in pregnancy and breastfeeding” only by considering the immediate reactions of the women involved — not the effect on their children.
However, the authors slipped up in one sentence:
Among lactating individuals, … , 355 of 10 278 (3.5%) reported a decrease in breast milk supply, and 121 of 10 278 (1.2%) reported any issues with their breastmilk-fed infant after vaccination.
So, we have 121 infants (out of 10,278) having “issues” after their mothers were vaccinated.
Did the study authors ask the women what the problems were that impacted their infants? No. There was literally not one single sentence, in the entire study, that showed any level of concern or interest in the “infants”.
Now, I am not saying that mothers are not important. Of course, they are! But what about the infants? Should they be ignored? Are 121 infants, having “issues” after maternal vaccination, not material to determining vaccine safety?
We have no idea how severe, or mild the “issues" with infants were. The authors do not appear to be concerned. They could have asked the women involved. The booster shot caused 121 breastfed infants to have unspecified “issues” that the authors did not investigate. (We discussed some quite severe events recently)
Instead, Dr. Kachikis is presenting the (contradictory) data as proof that the booster is “safe for pregnant or lactating persons”.
Well, it was not safe for 121 infants.
Why did these scientists not ask what happened to them?