New Study Supports Moratorium on Use of COVID-19 in Pregnancy

Peer-reviewed study in our journal finds unacceptable risk

Scientific Basis for Calls for Immediate Review and Policy Action on COVID-19 Vaccination in Pregnancy

From the study: “The CDC/FDA’s safety signals were breached for all 37 AEs following COVID-19 vaccination in pregnancy, including miscarriage, chromosomal abnormalities, fetal malformations, cervical insufficiency, fetal arrhythmia, hemorrhage in pregnancy, premature labor/delivery, preeclampsia, preterm rupture of membranes, placental abnormalities, fetal growth restriction, stillbirth, newborn asphyxia, and newborn death.”

The responsibility of science is to inform, not to conform. It is to evaluate, not to rubber-stamp. As Editor-in-Chief of Science, Public Health Policy & the Law, I have long argued that public health policy must be driven by objective, rigorous science, not dogma or institutional pressure for narrative enforcement. The study presented by Thorp et al. contributes significantly to the ongoing debate on COVID-19 vaccination during pregnancy and highlights safety signals that merit immediate scrutiny and action. Our journal will consider publications with new findings whether they support or call into question medical and public health policy and practices.

This comprehensive retrospective analysis, drawing upon the VAERS database, presents findings that should be carefully considered by those entrusted with the health and safety of pregnant women and their unborn children. The authors document breaches of CDC and FDA safety signals across 37 adverse events, including miscarriage, fetal malformations, preeclampsia, stillbirth, fetal growth restriction, and newborn death. The findings are statistically significant. It seems worthwhile to acknowledge and address potential limitations, including reporting biases and confounding variables inherent in passive surveillance systems.

Such studies have suggested speculative potential confounders, such as baseline health differences between vaccinated and unvaccinated pregnant women, prior COVID-19 infection, and healthcare utilization disparities. However, there is no empirical evidence that any of these factors systematically bias the results in a way that would erase or diminish the observed safety signals. Many of these factors may themselves be risk factors for adverse events following vaccination for specific subgroups who could be removed from risk if public health bothered to take up the important task of identifying risk groups. Despite this, public health agencies have consistently avoided considering covariates as co-factors that should be studied via interaction terms, instead opting for oversimplified analyses that “adjust for confounders” and fail to benefit from the opportunity to identify specific groups with private risk of vaccine injury and death.

The comparison between COVID-19 and influenza vaccines and all other vaccines administered to pregnant women presents a notable contrast. When the proportional reporting ratio (PRR) exceeds not just the CDC’s safety threshold but, in some cases, rises into the triple digits, the translational history and these data tell us that the safety of COVID-19 vaccination in pregnancy was not adequately established before its widespread recommendation. The statistical robustness of these findings should be considered in the context of known limitations in observational data.

Thorp et al. call for an immediate global moratorium on the administration of COVID-19 vaccines in pregnancy. They argue that professional organizations such as the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG), the American Board of Obstetrics and Gynecology (ABOG), and the Society for Maternal-Fetal Medicine (SMFM) must reassess their endorsement of these vaccines for expectant mothers. Given the magnitude of the observed safety signals, a thorough and transparent reevaluation of vaccine safety data is warranted.

These findings raise important questions about regulatory oversight and institutional accountability. How did these signals, which now appear so prominent, escape the scrutiny of those tasked with ensuring vaccine safety? Was the reliance on limited and biased datasets a function of scientific negligence, institutional inertia, or an oversight in risk assessment methodology? These are not abstract questions; they are at the heart of what it means to engage in ethical, responsible medicine.

The pharmaceutical industry’s role in shaping public health narratives has never been more evident than during the COVID-19 pandemic. Pfizer’s post-market surveillance analysis, referenced in this study, documented pregnancy-related adverse events early in the vaccine rollout. Despite this, the FDA and CDC promoted vaccination during pregnancy while dismissing critical evaluations. The greatest ethical failing of this era may not be the occurrence of adverse events but the systemic reluctance to discuss them openly.

Our journal remains committed to scientific integrity, transparency, and the pursuit of objective evidence, even when it challenges prevailing paradigms. We recognize that these findings will be scrutinized and resisted by those who have vested institutional credibility in the universal promotion of COVID-19 vaccines. However, science is not about consensus; it is about evidence, and this evidence must be rigorously examined.

Given the severity of these findings, we call upon policymakers, regulatory agencies, and independent researchers to conduct an immediate, transparent review of COVID-19 vaccine safety in pregnancy. This review should include independent analyses, systematic reviews, and controlled studies that can either corroborate or refute these signals with greater specificity. Professional medical organizations must reassess their guidance to ensure that the health of pregnant women and their children remains the highest priority. Additionally, regulatory agencies should implement stricter safety monitoring and transparency measures to restore public confidence in vaccine policies.

If science is to retain its credibility, it must be willing to correct itself when necessary. If public health is to maintain its status as a science, it must be willing to admit and rectify mistakes. And if we, as scientists, are to fulfill our ethical obligations, we must be willing to confront uncomfortable truths—no matter how inconvenient they may be.

Thorp J A., Benavides A, Thorp M M., McDyer D C., Biss K O., Threet J A. et al. Are COVID-19 Vaccines in Pregnancy as Safe and Effective as the Medical Industrial Complex Claim? Part I. Science, Public Health Policy and the Law. 2025 Feb 08; v6.2019-2025

Science, Public Health Policy & the Law is a peer-reviewed journal that depends on public participation. Join the World Society for Ethical Science and receive notices of new publications and events.