Miscarriages, Fauci, and the COVID shot
I think Fauci was a plague on this country. He made things up regarding masks and distances, he promoted shutdowns that harmed people, and he was a self-aggrandizing narcissist.
And yet I will be defending him at least somewhat on the current topic, that of miscarriages and the COVID shot. The story:
Dr. Anthony Fauci privately raised concerns that the COVID-19 vaccine could “theoretically” be linked to miscarriages in expectant mothers, despite having publicly insisted there were “no red flags” for pregnant women.
“I asked around a bit more and another issue came up that you need to be aware of,” wrote Fauci in a Jan. 25, 2021, text exchange with then-Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) Director Dr. Rochelle Walensky and Surgeon General Vivek Murthy.
“Since many people have significant cytokines storm and fever after the 2nd dose, this theoretically could be associated with miscarriage in the 1st trimester,” added the then-National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases director.
So, there was a theoretical risk, but no data. Recall that there was the same or worse theoretical risk from getting COVID itself.
More:
Days later, on Feb. 3, Fauci said during a question-and-answer livestream with the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) that the FDA “found thus far, and we have to be careful, but thus far no red flags about that, about pregnant women.”
So, what’s a “red flag”? Is it a theoretical risk, or does there need to be actual data saying there’s a higher-than-normal risk after the shot? And to what should the risk be compared – healthy women or women who contract COVID itself? The shot doesn’t prevent COVID, but it did initially ameliorate the most severe symptoms of early strains, and early 2021 involved relatively early strains.
In the end, what we’re really debating here is how to inform the public of a theoretical risk without doing more harm than good. What if Fauci had said this to the public: “We have no data on the shot in pregnant woman, but there’s a theoretical risk that a second dose might precipitate a higher-than-normal number of miscarriages. However, so can getting COVID. So you need to make your decision based on that information or lack thereof”?
That would have been truthful. But since there was no evidence at all one way or another about the shot and miscarriages, would it have been best to say that? Or would it have discouraged pregnant women from getting a shot that, on the whole, might have done more good than harm for them at the time? I don’t have an answer, although I think the truth should have been told anyway.
And in no way do I think the shots should have been mandatory.
As for the actual evidence that later emerged on the topic of the COVID shot and miscarriages, there is no evidence that it increases the rates of miscarriage. Now, if you have come to distrust all science reports on this topic – and I could understand why you might have concluded that – you’ll just shrug that off and believe whatever you want. But that’s not science; that’s belief in anecdotal evidence on the order of “my friend got a COVID shot and a week later she had a miscarriage, therefore the shot caused the miscarriage.” That proves nothing, because miscarriage rates are very high and have been high even without COVID or the shot.
I was open to the idea that COVID shots might exacerbate miscarriages, and I looked and looked for evidence of that, but the overwhelming result of research is that the shots do not raise the miscarriage rates (see this for example, but there are plenty more studies of that type). The evidence on COVID itself is the following:
Pregnant women were initially excluded from the initial COVID-19 vaccine clinical trials, as they are from most trials. However, experts have recommended the vaccines for pregnant women since they were first released to the public because of the disproportionate risks this group faces compared to the general population. Pregnant women are at higher risk to experience severe illness from SARS-CoV-2 infection compared to nonpregnant women, and are at greater risk of needing to be hospitalized, admitted to the intensive care unit, and intubated. COVID-19 is also associated with pregnancy complications such as preterm birth or stillbirth.
Health authorities are supposed to give recommendations that balance the risks. Is full disclosure necessary? I’m in favor of it, but I realize that sometimes the risk/benefit ratio is difficult to process and understand. In the case of COVID, many lies were told and many errors made, increasing the suffering of many people and hurting society as a whole in a myriad of ways. But the miscarriage message turns out to have not been harmful, and compared to all the rest it’s very very minor.
[NOTE: If you’re interested, here’s an article on miscarriage rates in general, which occur in approximately 30% of pregnancies. The rates have been rising year after year at a rate of about 1% per year, but that trend started before COVID or COVID shots.]

They claim (dubiously) that Covid can cause the same exact side effects as the shot. So if you are a previously healthy 35 year old who suffered a stroke after the shot, they’ll just say it was more likely caused by an occult covid infection. The problem is that many people weren’t given the option to roll the dice and deal with covid unvaxxed, they had to get the shot and automatically upped their odds of a catastrophic side effect
Gottenham:
I agree no one should have been forced to take the shot or lose a job.
But the shots didn’t automatically up the odds of a catastrophic side effect. I’ve written a ton of posts on that topic, analyzing the data that people who say that think proves it. It does not (see this, just to take one example). I’m not going to recap the content of those posts here. Suffice to say I’ve covered it extensively and that’s my conclusion.
Thirty-five-year-olds sometimes have strokes, unfortunately. They are not necessarily caused by either the COVID shot OR COVID itself. See the charts here, for example.
I agree that it turned out well (miscarriages did not increase with the first round of shots). I would have strongly preferred the more open statement, as you have outlined.
The biggest “tell” regarding their utter perfidy was their grotesque insistence on the IRRELEVANCE of natural immunity, proclaiming instead—majesterially—that “ONE SIZE FITS ALL” for EVERY AGE GROUP and condition…unless one is a Birx or a Newsom, etc.
That, AND viciously prosecuting nurses and other medical workers (and others) who preferred to believe what their lying eyes were seeing on the wards…and hence refused to comply.
File under: “Follow the compliance!”…OR ELSE !!!!
I’ve seen interviews with Fauci apologists to the effect that he did a lot of good for those so afflicted, back in the days of AIDS. I didn’t pay attention to AIDS then, except in the most general current events sense, and I am utterly unqualified to pass judgment now. I am willing to agree, for the sake of argument, that Dr. Fauci was a force for good back in the AIDS days.
People are blends of good and evil, and people’s individual blends can change over time. If the apologists want to focus on good that Dr. Fauci did back them well, go for it, but by the early-to-mid 2020s, it’s an increasingly misdirected focus. There’s no need to wallow yet again in what’s been revealed over the past month or so, and yes, many of us with our eyes, ears, and minds open pretty much knew the unfolding score as it was unfolding, but we need to take a level-headed approach.
In that spirit, I appreciate neo’s post on miscarriages and the covid shots.
I have nothing to say to the apologists: I’ve seen videos, nauseatingly saccharine. Get a grip, people. Was Fauci a Mengele II? Let’s stay away from Godwin’s Law*, shall we? Even if the comparison is apt, I think it’s pretty clichéd rhetoric and not useful at this point, certainly not useful in terms of communicating with those who may be open to communication re Fauci.
* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin's_law
At the start of the pandemic, people were dying at frightening rates, the symptoms were very stubborn, and it was right to be very concerned. VERY concerned. At the risk of getting stoned, muslim style, I’ll even state that then – President Trump was very wrong to underplay covid. Yes, it pretty much turned out to be a sort-of hoax, except “hoax” was a terrible way to lay it out there to the people. It’s more like it was a useful tool, once the lab leak (being *real* here) was fait accompli, and what then transpired was almost certainly deliberate (“you don’t want a crisis to go to waste”), tailor-made to stymie Trump’s program, such as it was.
Meanwhile, it strikes me that something, *demonic* if literal demons are one’s “thing”, got hold of Fauci, and he succumbed. What he was then responsible for doing should not be minimized, which apologists have been doing, much to their discredit. Fauci deserves all the opprobrium that has been showered on him.
I for one am not interested in the People Magazine aspects of the revelations — the self-regard and all that — except as it may inform what happened in terms of public policy. But will our progeny take the right lessons from the affair? I’m not optimistic, but that’s just me, a quasi-professional pessimist.
— — — — —
I’m totally down with Barry Meislin’s (5:28 pm) remarks, just trying to stay cool-calm-collected about it.