The following is a news analysis.
Study of AstraZeneca vaccine finds:
- 30% preterm births for vaccinated women vs. 0% for the control group
- No reported impact on short term fertility in women
Vaccine and industry advocates continue to produce information that they acknowledge is designed to increase Covid-19 vaccination rates rather than to simply report safety findings in an unbiased fashion.
One example is a study published in Lancet medical journal on “fertility rates and birth outcomes” after AstraZeneca’s Covid-19 vaccination. It is significant to note the study was done by Oxford scientists, and Oxford has partnered with Covid-19 vaccine maker AstraZeneca. (AstraZeneca is the subject of numerous safety concerns worldwide and is not currently given in the U.S.)
The study appears to be approached in a biased fashion with the description implying that its purpose was rooted in dispelling fears that Covid-19 could impact pregnant and fertility.
In fact, it is scientifically indisputable that there is only limited preliminary or short-term data on the subject; yet the study takes the position at the start that any fears are unfounded:
Fears of adverse effects of COVID-19 vaccination on fertility have affected vaccine uptake in some communities. Despite the absence of supporting evidence for such a risk, low biological plausibility, and preliminary data supporting the safety of mRNA vaccines in pregnancy, this claim has become widespread, and it has been challenged by WHO. Vaccine hesitancy during pregnancy, or among women of childbearing age, could have substantial public health consequences because infection with SARS-CoV-2 during pregnancy is a risk factor for severe maternal illness and complications.
Lancet study
The Covid-19 vaccines have numerous documented adverse events so far, unrelated to fertility rates and birth outcomes, and women or pregnant women who get the vaccine put themselves at some risk. Scientists differ in their predictions and assessments as to how much risk that will ultimately turn out to be when more data is in and more time passes.
The study in Lancet looked at a limited number of women who volunteered for AstraZeneca Covid-19 vaccination studies in Brazil, the UK and South Africa and got pregnant. The study authors appear to have defined “fertility” as being able to conceive during a relatively short period of time, rather than fertility over the longer course of a woman’s childbearing years. Yet, the published findings do not note the short term nature of the research. Instead, they unequivocally state: “Fertility was unaffected by vaccination with [AstraZeneca’s Covid-19 vaccine].”
It is as yet unknown how a woman’s long term fertility could be impacted by Covid-19 vaccinations, if at all; or how the fertility of a young girl vaccinated today could be impacted when she becomes older.
Also of note: It would seem that in order to truly understand short term fertility impact, it would be crucial to break down the groups of women into subsets of those who say they were trying to get pregnant, those who were trying not to get pregnant, and those in between. Simply documenting how many women in a group get pregnant, without knowing this detail, does not appear to inform true fertility impact.
Using their measures, the study authors report similar fertility rates and viable pregnancies in the vaccinated women and in those who received a control. The published study did not state what material was contained in the “control” injection.
As for pregnancy outcomes, the study summary didn’t mention this, but a table of data shows substantially more preterm births in the vaccinated women: 30% in the vaccinated group compared to 0% in the control group.
Overall preterm birth in the U.S. is considered relatively high at almost 10%. Triple that rate in the study’s vaccinated group seems noteworthy. However, no specific interpretation of this data was provided in the summary.
Read more here.
https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(21)02282-0/fulltext?
