As the Times notes, the CDC study involving 35,000 women claimed that those vaccinated showed the same side effects as women who were unvaccinated. This was even used in a guide published by the Australian government in order to encourage pregnant women to become vaccinated. However, the study was corrected to include the fact that the CDC came to these conclusions were inaccurate as not enough time was given to fully flesh out the results.

The study, though, was corrected last month after concerns were raised by a researcher in Belgium. The CDC scientists acknowledged they should have made clear that they could not accurately calculate a risk estimate for miscarriages because follow-up data was not yet available for most of the women.

This correction didn’t satisfy senior lecturer in the University of Auckland’s Section of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Dr. Simon Thornley, nor Dr. Aleisha Brock a New Zealand researcher. Thornley told the Times that the article’s conclusions haven’t changed substantially despite it being warranted after these two researchers found substantial risk in the vaccination of women early in their pregnancies.

What they found, according to the Times, was utterly shocking:

Thornley and Brock re-analyzed the data and calculated the incidence of miscarriages in the first trimester was actually 82 percent to 91 percent in a paper (pdf) published in Science, Public Health Policy, and the Law.

Of the 827 pregnancies reported through the V-Safe registry, operated by the CDC, 712 resulted in a live birth. Nearly all of them were among women who were vaccinated in the third trimester. Of the other pregnancies, 104 resulted in miscarriage. Most of those occurred before 13 weeks of gestation.

“Spontaneous abortions, or more popularly known as a “miscarriage” are technically classified as such if they occur within the first 20 weeks of pregnancy. The data suggested that women experienced spontaneous abortion in the 80th to 90th percentile if they were vaccinated before their 20 weeks of gestation mark

“We question the conclusions of the Shimabukuro et al. study to support the use of the mRNA vaccine in early pregnancy, which has now been hastily incorporated into many international guidelines for vaccine use, including in New Zealand,” the two researchers said.

“The assumption that exposure in the third trimester cohort is representative of the effect of exposure throughout pregnancy is questionable and ignores past experience with drugs such as thalidomide. Evidence of safety of the product when used in the first and second trimesters cannot be established until these cohorts have been followed to at least the perinatal period or long-term safety determined for any of the babies born to mothers inoculated during pregnancy,” they added.

In other words, the study presented by the CDC is inconclusive as it roped in women who got the vaccine in their third trimester with women who had gotten the vaccine in their first and second. Moreover, there hasn’t been enough time to accurately determine the real effects of the vaccine on pregnant women according to the researchers.

To be clear, this study is still inconclusive as there is no substitute for time and the sample size is rather small. Thornley also makes this rather clear, so at this time the link between spontaneous abortions and the vaccine is merely suggestive. However, Thornley seems to take the angle that being safe is better than being sorry.

“Since the risk of fatality or severe outcome following COVID-19 infection is generally extremely low for younger people, including those who are pregnant, we caution against the use of the vaccine, given the substantial uncertainty that exists,” he said according to the Times.

This is being “debunked” by fact-checkers from Reuters to the Australian Associated Press who also dedicated time to quoting experts who make it clear that pregnant women who aren’t vaccinated are highly likely to do more damage to their baby if they catch COVID.

However, while it’s unfair to say this data is conclusive, what it suggests cannot be ignored and dismissed completely. Larger sample sizes and more time are needed to accurately draw a conclusion, but in the meantime perhaps many pregnant women would like to be far more cautious until further data reveals the facts.