Dr. James Thorp: What Pfizer’s Internal Data Reveals About Vaccines and Pregnancy
“Of the 270 pregnant women, 238 were not followed up. And of the data that they did present with a miscarriage … it was 80 percent miscarriage rate,” says Dr. James Thorp. The calculation that Pfizer documents revealed an 80 percent miscarriage rate was first reported by Daily Clout/War Room researchers in the spring of 2022.
“The federal government, the CDC, and the FDA—they’re corrupt. They sat on that data,” Thorp says.
Thorp is an OBGYN and fetal medicine specialist who sees upwards of 8,000 patients a year. He says his extensive reading of available data convinced him that pressuring pregnant women to get the COVID-19 genetic vaccines is “unconscionable.”
“They fraudulently deleted horrible outcomes of the vaccine in the reproductive toxicology studies,” claims Thorp. “The official UK government … specifically recommends that the vaccines not be used in pregnancy … and not to be used in breastfeeding.”
Interview trailer:
Watch the full interview: https://www.theepochtimes.com/dr-james-thorp-what-pfizers-internal-data-reveals-about-vaccines-and-pregnancy_4886318.html
FULL TRANSCRIPT
Jan Jekielek:
Dr. James Thorp, such a pleasure to have you on American Thought Leaders.
Dr. James Thorp:
Jan, thank you so much for your time, and thank you so much for all you do on this amazing platform.
Mr. Jekielek:
You are an OBGYN doctor, and you’re a maternal fetal medicine specialist. I want to make sure I get that right. You just recently published a paper, “COVID-19 Vaccines.” This is in preprint, “The Impact on Pregnancy Outcomes and Menstrual Function.” You’re also on track to see 9,000 patients this year, which I find almost unfathomable. Why don’t you tell me a little bit about your background?
Dr. Thorp:
Sure. I’m 69 years old, and I’ve been doing high-risk obstetrics, which is my passion. I’ve been doing it for over 43 years. Went to medical school at Wayne State University School of Medicine and did an OBGYN residency for four years at University of Colorado in Denver. Served with the Air Force, active duty for three years, and went back to University of Texas Houston to do a fellowship in maternal fetal medicine. And so, spent the first half of my career in Kansas City, second half of my career down in Florida where I currently reside with my beautiful bride, Maggie. I do full-time telemedicine, and I work through a company in the Midwest. It primarily has about eight offices in both suburban and urban and rural areas, about eight different locations in Missouri and Illinois. And I love what I do.
Mr. Jekielek:
You don’t typically connect obstetrics with telemedicine, or at least I don’t. How does that work exactly?
Dr. Thorp:
You mean delivering a baby through a computer screen?
Mr. Jekielek:
Yes.
Dr. Thorp:
Right.
Mr. Jekielek:
That’s what I’m asking.
Dr. Thorp:
All right. That’s a brilliant question, Jan, and technology has developed—No, I’m just kidding. I’ve gone to fellowship training and done maternal fetal medicine. What we do is many of us now oversee the OBGYN docs or the nurse midwives, and then we focus on the very high-risk obstetrical patients. The important things, of course, like catching a baby is very important, but really, it’s pretty routine.
We use our expertise for the more important things in obstetrics, like for example, how to keep a baby in the womb safely until it’s safe to deliver, how to prevent premature labor, when do you induce somebody, and at what time do you induce somebody? How do you manage diabetes, hypertension, preeclampsia, and all the other obstetrical complications that we have in the United States of America right now?
Many of us don’t actually catch the babies, but telemedicine renders our specialty very well, because we do high-definition ultrasound, 2D and 3D ultrasound, and so a lot of the way we examine our patients is through the ultrasound. We have the ability to do that. And then, of course, I can examine the patient or talk to a patient if there’s a need to do that. My hands and eyes and brains on the ground can do the physical examination in front of me. There’s a lot that I can see on the telemedicine computer screen as well.
It’s very, very effective for me. I’m actually seeing about three times as many patients as I did before I retired, and that’s because I’m able to devote all of my time to all of my patients and not drive all the way around the geography of two or three states. My mother was a labor and delivery nurse. I went to a Catholic high school in Lakewood, Ohio. And during that time, we had books that we had to read for summer vacation. One of the books that I read was on Ignaz Philipp Semmelweis, and it was by Morton Thompson, The Cry and the Covenant. It had a really huge impact on me as a high schooler. And I knew what I wanted to do after I read that book.
There are several parts of that story that are really historically intriguing to me. Number one, in the mid-19th century and mid-1850s or so, Ignaz Philipp Semmelweis was an attending obstetrician at Vienna Lying-in Hospital. Unfortunately, at that time, obviously that was a pre-antibiotic era, but Jan, if you can fathom this, almost one in two beautiful, young, healthy pregnant women that went into Vienna Lying-in Hospital to have a baby died.
Mom died, went out of the hospital into the morgue, never to see her baby again that she delivered. It so happened that Vienna Lying-in Hospital, all the attending physicians and all the physicians in training were going down to the morgue to do their vivisections, their autopsies. There was nothing known of bacteria or viruses or infection or health. The safety of washing hands wasn’t known.
But Ignaz Philipp Semmelweis figured it out. They had all of these contorted theories of how the women were dying. It’s so analogous to what’s going on today on so many different levels, Jan. The American Board of OBGYN authorities of his day did the exact same thing as the American OBGYN, the Board of OBGYN, our American College of OBGYN, and the Society for Maternal Fetal Medicine are doing today. There’s nothing new under the sun as it says in the good book of Ecclesiastes, “What has been done will be done again.”
Mr. Jekielek:
We have to mention a little bit about the story. Semmelweis had this brilliant idea that people should wash their hands. And then what happened?
Dr. Thorp:
It turned out that he did an internal study. And what he did was one floor would wash their hands and another floor did not. So he performed really, the first randomized prospective trial in medicine. He performed it, and he figured it out in what he called contagion. They had all these other goofy theories of miasma and things floating around in the air. It made no sense.
Why did it not make any sense? Because he was an observant physician. I love that about him. And number two, and I’ve tried to model myself after him. I do not follow the crowds. Never have, never will. I don’t do well when authority is calling illegal and unethical, immoral orders, and when I’m put in a position where I’m expected to dishonor and disrespect my physician-patient relationship.
Mr. Jekielek:
How was the situation then and what happened to Semmelweis analogous to what’s happening now exactly?
Dr. Thorp:
They isolated him. Sound familiar? They mocked him. They scourged him. They punished him. They gaslit him, exactly what they’re doing to us right now. Ignaz Philipp Semmelweis knew that he was right. He knew that he was right. He performed the study. He showed incredible results, prevented the disease, and they ignored him. They persecuted him. And literally, he was driven crazy.
I can relate to that, Jan, because I have so much ethical and moral trauma from what I’ve seen in the last two years. Some nights I can’t sleep, and I cry. It’s very painful for me to see my beautiful young moms and my beautiful pre-born babies and my beautiful newborn babies die or be permanently damaged from something, when I know what caused it. I’ve seen it with my own eyes, Jan. And I think that Ignaz Philipp Semmelweis felt the same way. I had no idea when I was reading this book in 1973 that I would be in such an analogous position in a time such as this.
Mr. Jekielek:
What is it that you started to see as these vaccines started to get rolled out? As we knew, they were recommended for pregnant women.
Dr. Thorp:
Of course, the vaccines really didn’t roll out full force until 2021, but I became very concerned. Actually in 2018, 2019, there was all this talk about a looming pandemic that was definitely coming. There was talk about SARS-CoV-1. And so, I’m always inquisitive. I like to make sure I’m catching all bases and not going to miss anything.
So, I went back and read a lot about SARS-CoV-1. I read on hydroxychloroquine and how successful it was. Dr. Tony Fauci’s article that he actually published, I don’t think his name is on it, but he funded it, I think that was published in 2004, and at that time it said that it was highly effective, highly effective against SARS-CoV-1.
There were a lot of other therapies. I used ozone a lot, not in my obstetrical practice, although I have, but with myself personally and with some family and friends. Ozone was extraordinarily effective as was Vitamin D3 and many others. So, in 2020, “Oh, the pandemic is coming.” They even had this mock meeting, if you will, of authorities. They were actors planning out how they would manage a pandemic that was going to come, we were told.
So, it came, and then I noticed that the doctors weren’t really doctors, they were fake doctors. And the authorities and the powers were saying, “Well, you can’t treat this early.” “What do you mean you can’t treat it early?” “There’s no treatment. You just stay at home until your lips turn blue and then come in the emergency room.”
I was dumbfounded by that response because I’m a historian, and I know the history of medicine. There’s never been a disease in the history of medicine where we’ve said, “No, there’s no treatment.” It’s always been agreed by experts and historians that the earlier you treat a disease, the better the outcome is going to be. What’s this business about staying home? How do you know there’s no therapy for it that’s effective? That’s not my understanding.
So, with my research background, and with my medical background, and never having taken funding for any of my hundreds of projects that I publish, I haven’t taken any funding from any of the pharmaceutical companies. I never wanted to take the money, because we all know that with 90 per cent of grantors that give money for research, 90 per cent of the investigators will always follow the fiduciary leanings of their funder. That’s a fact of life, and I didn’t want to be tied to that. So, I designed a randomized, double-blinded clinical trial in the summer of 2020 saying, “This is how it has to be done.” I wrote it up, I published it on social media, and I sent it to everybody I knew.
Mr. Jekielek:
Basically, you said, “If you’re going to roll out this warp speed vaccine, this is what you need to do in order to test it properly to be able to assess it.”
Dr. Thorp:
Yes.
Mr. Jekielek:
But no one seemed to be interested in your methodology.
Dr. Thorp:
I got laughed at.
Mr. Jekielek:
Okay.
Dr. Thorp:
I got laughed at. Of course, it’s going to work. The rest is history, it was rolled out. Now, six months into the rollout, and this is really important, when I looked at the various data, Jan, I was dead wrong. I was dead wrong. I hypothesized a fivefold increase in death in 10 years. Are you kidding me? There was a 20 or 25-fold increase of death in six months out compared to the other vaccines.
I was then really upset and rather depressed, because had we done that randomized controlled prospective trial and started it by the summer or by September 2021, we could have had a committee around the world to look at that data and say, “This vaccine is killing people, take it off the market.” That’s what would’ve happened if they did the randomized, double-blinded placebo control trial.
They didn’t do it, and I think they purposely didn’t do it. So, that’s my story leading up to the rollout of the vaccine, which was December 1st, 2020. That’s when they shipped it out worldwide. And by mid-December 2020, then the injections were starting around the world.
Mr. Jekielek:
Okay. Then, you started seeing some impact among your patients. Is that what happened?
Dr. Thorp:
Yes. I saw horrible outcomes. I will say this, and I personally didn’t see death and destruction from COVID-19 disease itself, really nothing more than what I’ve seen over the last 20 years with flu. I really didn’t. I didn’t see a lot of pregnant women dying. I didn’t see a lot of sick pregnant women. There were some, but it was on par with my prior experience with the influenza. And what I also noticed was that part of the lure to push this vaccine in pregnancy was based upon some really flawed assumptions, in my opinion.
Mr. Jekielek:
For example?
Dr. Thorp:
For example, I think that the powers that be would always say, “Well, pregnant women, you have to use a vaccine in them. They’re at more risk for dying from viral pneumonia.” I would ask, “Why is that?” “Well, because pregnant women’s immune systems are compromised, and that’s the only way they can carry a baby.” Because of course, a baby is a totally different human being than the mother carrying it.
In essence they’re right, a pregnancy is a natural, the most successful transplant case that we could ever have, because that fetus inside the womb is not of the mother’s origin, it’s a completely unique human being by mixture and exchange of genetic material between the father and the mother. So yes, they’re right in a way, but their conclusion is dead wrong, in my opinion.
In my experience, pregnant women are less vulnerable to an infection or a viral pneumonia than a non-pregnant woman. I think that, truth be told, the current literature would bear my opinion out. There’s an article that was published by Beth Pineles, actually from my alma mater, from a fellowship at University of Texas Houston. Beth Pineles published an article that was published last year. She did a very large study showing pretty dramatically that, interestingly, pregnant women had much lower mortality from viral pneumonia than their non-pregnant colleagues. Isn’t that interesting?
And now there was just another study published in Journal Nature, I believe the lead author is John MacArthur, et al, showing very similar results. In fact, the immunity of the immune system of a mother and fetus are integrally related to each other and dependent upon each other, and that the baby does fine, and mother does fine during pregnancy with cellular immunity, cellular immunity being much more important than humeral immunity. Let’s look at the cell-mediated immunity as a right hand of the immune system, humeral or the antibody creation by the B cell.
The lymphocyte B cells are the left hand, they’re not as important. And it’s my opinion that they’re not a good marker of immunity, whatsoever. And that’s everything that the pharmaceutical industry bases their tests on. In my opinion, it’s a false surrogate. If an antibody is absent, it doesn’t tell you anything. If it’s present, it really doesn’t tell you anything. And the literature has borne that out. So, I don’t believe that the antibody testing that the pharmaceutical companies do are anything better than a charade, using a false surrogate to make themselves look good and make large amounts of profit.
Mr. Jekielek:
At what point did you start seeing some impact in your patients?
Dr. Thorp:
In 2021 as the vaccines were rolled out, about March of that year, I started seeing problems. It was my observation. Now I want to be really transparent. I want to make it real clear to our audience that I’m not allowed to do clinical research on this topic. In fact, doctors have been fired for doing that. It’s a pretty covert closed mouth operation. You can’t do something that your employers don’t allow you to do, or your colleagues won’t allow you to do, but I can keep track.
Seeing 7,000, 8,000, 9,000 patients a year, I’ve got my fingertips on the pulse of obstetrical outcomes. I saw many more miscarriage, I saw more malformations, I saw more cardiac defects. There was much more preeclampsia and preterm labor. I saw many more second trimester abnormalities, abnormal testing results, abnormal appearing placentas, and dead fetuses. I saw stillbirths, too many.
Mr. Jekielek:
You’re saying this was quite different in the year that the vaccine rollout happened, versus the first year of COVID. So, you could see that it wasn’t just COVID that was happening.
Dr. Thorp:
That’s correct.
Mr. Jekielek:
Okay. I want to ask this. You were already expecting the vaccine to have some negative outcomes. Did you ever worry that that might have influenced what you were seeing somehow?
Dr. Thorp:
It’s a great question. That’s a very legitimate question. I don’t think that it did, because I was hoping and praying that I wouldn’t see that. And of course, there was the VAERS [Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System] data. I was keeping my fingertips on the pulse of the VAERS data, and fetal deaths were up. And then, of course, when I saw Pfizer’s own internal documents, those got me even more upset.
And now keep in mind, specifically for your audience, I’m speaking of the Pfizer 5.3.6 post-marketing survey data. That’s the official data of Pfizer. That was 90 days, the first 90 days of the rollout. Like I said, they shipped it out December 1st, 2020. They carried out this study for about 90 days, February 28th, 2021. And then nothing was said.
Now, about a month later, I got a copy of internal whistleblower documents. I saw this data. Jan, that was horrible, but there’s nothing that I could do about it, because what am I to do with this? I said, “Okay, this is consistent with what I’m seeing, but I can’t show this to anybody.” I didn’t get it legally. It’s not given to me by formally by the company, but I studied it and I looked at it very carefully. And Jan, it wasn’t until 14 months later that the federal judge made a FOIA request for that.
Pfizer wanted to hold it up for 75 years, which I would have been long gone to heaven dancing with Ignaz Philipp Semmelweis or something. But I think that it was very, very disturbing, because why would they want to block something for 75 years? Doesn’t every world’s citizen deserved to know what that was? Because by that time, there were billions of injections given all over the world.
What is this? Why is this not on CNN? Why is it not on Fox News? Why is it that we’re just talking about this now, and nobody else is talking about it? It really upset me, because when that came out on April 1st, the first thing I did was I compared every single page, even the copy artifacts were the same on my PDF copy. Every dot, title, coma, from page zero, page one was identical to the copy that I had. And then it was, “Boom.” Then, I continued to follow that, and I would keep following avalanches of data after data, after data drop, actually showing worse outcomes then VAERS.
Mr. Jekielek:
Maybe summarize for me what you saw in that data that was the most concerning, for those of us not familiar with it.
Dr. Thorp:
Just for our viewers, if you go to a search engine, now you can’t use Google, but use DuckDuckGo. Google will block you. It will never get you. And just type in Pfizer, P-F-I-Z-E-R 5.3.6, hit search, and you’ll come up with a website. There’s many different sites that it’s published on, they’re all the same. But the one that’s easiest that I find going to is phmpt.org.
That’s public health and medical practitioners for transparency, P-H-M-P-T.org. Pull that document up, click on it, go to page seven. On page seven, there’s table one. In table one, fatal outcomes, 1,223 fatal outcomes. That’s in less than 90 days, Jan. I told you my experience as a medical student when I was 24 and Wayne State University had just 26 deaths, [the vaccine] was ripped off the market.
What was the difference in those 47 years? It’s hard to extrapolate and figure out, because it was so unprofessionally done. If you go down to page 12 on that same document, it’s got the obstetrical outcome, which we talked about. And if you look at that carefully, it’s very poorly done, very poorly written on Pfizer’s part, horrible, bad language. It’s not professional language, not the appropriate language, but their miscarriage rate was north of 75 per cent, 80 per cent.
Mr. Jekielek:
Their miscarriage rate was 80 per cent?
Dr. Thorp:
Yes.
Mr. Jekielek:
Okay, explain that in another way.
Dr. Thorp:
In the data that they presented on page 12, and I’ve read it and I’ve studied it for a year, it’s very disjointed, and it’s not well written. But as of the 270 pregnant women, 238 were not followed up. And of the data that they did present with a miscarriage of those that they did follow up, it was an 80 per cent miscarriage rate, 80 per cent. And I want to bring it to your attention, Jan, that the federal government, the CDC and the FDA, they’re corrupt.
They’re corrupt. They sat on that data. I’m not an anti-vaxxer. In fact, I didn’t really believe what they were saying at Children’s Health Defense. It wasn’t until 2020 when I really took RFK Jr and Dr. Andy Wakefield seriously, and I looked at the data that they accumulated in Africa. Jan, it