"False claims about miscarriage risk from COVID-19 vaccines are spreading online. They use a faulty interpretation of data"

A CTV News article (republished from CNN, dated August 14, 2026) is a masterpiece in deflection tactics. Instead of addressing the content of recent text messages by senior “COVID” officials warning about miscarriage risks as a result of excessive inflammatory responses induced by the COVID shots, they actually state that any claim of miscarriage risk from COVID-19 “vaccines” is “false” and go on to j’accuse the “online” community of misinterpreting data - data that has nothing to do with the text messages, or the true biological concern associated with their content. At all.

This is almost precisely what the recent NYT article did. I had to double-check that they were not the same article because there is distinct reiteration of “arguments” and even words, like “Republican”.

Dear CTV/CNN, with all due respect, I thought we were talking about government officials withholding life-saving information so that they could push an experimental nucleoside modified mRNA-LNP-based injectable product into pregnant women and potentially prevent miscarriages?

The article opens by stating that Republican senators “stirred up false and misleading claims” and that an “incorrect figure” of 82% is now spreading.

My read: Any attention to the Fauci messages must be averted and labeled as inherently misleading.

The problem with this strategy, however, is that the texts (released by Senators Ron Johnson and Rand Paul) contain Fauci’s own January 2021 language: a second dose “theoretically could be associated with miscarriage in the 1st trimester” because of “significant cytokine storm and fever.”

Rochelle Walensky and Vivek Murthy both treated the point as valid at the time, yet shortly thereafter, went on to promote these products as safe for pregnant and breast-feeding women. By the way, highlighting a private theoretical warning that was not the public emphasis, is not the same as inventing a causal claim, CTV/CNN.

The article describes the exchange between Dr. Anthony Fauci (then director of NIAID), Dr. Rochelle Walensky (then CDC director) and Dr. Vivek Murthy (then a member of the Biden COVID advisory board; later U.S. Surgeon General), as covering “possible risks and safety” and then notes a later criticism of the NEJM study, but never quotes the cytokine-storm/fever language or engages its implications.

Fauci initially said there was “no data or theoretical reason” to prefer timing, then he flagged the specific mechanistic concern tied to reactogenicity after dose two.

Thus, public messaging at the time emphasized “no red flags.” Yet, a private flag of a known biological pathway is newsworthy precisely because it was not foregrounded for the public.

My read: This is lying by omission - Omitting the exact wording makes the texts sound less revealing than they were.

The CTV/CNN article ignores the established reproductive immunology that entirely supports the theoretical concern raised in the text messages. An adverse (excessively pro-inflammatory) cytokine milieu at the maternal-fetal interface can disrupt immunological tolerance and contribute to fetal rejection or miscarriage. As I describe in my NYT article debunk, this is well documented in the peer-reviewed literature on recurrent pregnancy loss: shifts toward Th1/pro-inflammatory dominance, effects on trophoblast and placenta, impaired vascularization and related pathways.

They do not acknowledge that cytokine storms and fever are not biologically inert in the first trimester. It is more than an oversight to lean on observational study findings, it is hand-waving. Observational studies can constrain average population risk. Why not simply address the content of the messages, CTV/CNN? Why not take “The Science” seriously?

The known inflammatory mechanism for individual susceptibility to miscarriage is not irrelevant. Why would senior officials raise the point in private if it was?

The article repeatedly states that numerous studies (and five additional years of data) show COVID-19 “vaccines” are safe during pregnancy and do not increase the risk of miscarriage (or other adverse outcomes). It quotes “experts” saying the question “has been answered” and that “we knew this in 2021, that there wasn’t an increased risk”.

It states: “It is without question that the benefits of the vaccine outweigh the risks.” Really? Without question? Biology itself would strenuously object to this assertion.

And again, as in the NYT article, the CTV/CNN article does not apply equivalent scrutiny (ie: to risks of SARS-CoV-2 infection in pregnancy) to the fact that a strong systemic inflammatory response - the exact phenomenon Fauci flagged - is itself a recognized potential threat to early pregnancy.

Verdict:

The cytokine storm/miscarriage issue raised in the texts is safe and effectively tumbleweeded.

The article is misleading.