Covid Scientific Misconduct Rages On At World’s Top Medical Journals

October 17, 2025

https://pierrekorymedicalmusings.com/p/covid-scientific-misconduct-rages?

Covid Scientific Misconduct Rages On At The World’s Top Medical Journals

JAMA just published a study in order to bury a severely disturbing truth – that Covid vaccine policy victimized pregnant women by killing an untold number of their babies. There, I said it. Period.

Pierre Kory, MD, MPA
Oct 17, 2025

As my long-time readers know, my post-academic medical career has been driven by an unwavering commitment to exposing medical journal fraud in the world’s high-impact journals. This one has me so outraged I cannot contain myself (because they are targeting babies and pregnant women, my God).

This is a brief post, “inspired,” more accurately, “triggered” by yesterday’s absolute masterclass of a post from my colleague Jack Lyons-Weiler, entitled “How To Bias A Study On Covid-19 Vaccine Safety in Pregnancy” (Ed: you HAVE to subscribe to his Substack, one of the most erudite on Substack IMO).

What happened is that JAMA just published a study that purportedly compared the rates of fetal malformations in mothers who got the COVID jab versus the fortunate ones who did not. In the study, they purposely:

  1. Only looked at live births, not all pregnancies – misses 32% of them
  2. Only looked ’til one year old: misses another 10-40%
  3. Only looked at billing codes: misses another 20-40%

Doing the above (and propensity weighting the groups, which invites immense additional opportunity for chicanery), they happily arrived at the following conclusion:

In this cohort study of pregnancies exposed to mRNA COVID-19 vaccines in the first trimester, exposure was not associated with an increased risk of any major congenital malformations.

Problem: Thalidomide (yes, %$#$! thalidomide) and other major teratogens were not discovered to be toxic to babies… until they looked at all births, not just the live ones. Happened over and over, to the point that the WHO and EMA both emphasize the necessity of including prenatal losses in teratogenicity surveillance.

So, was it a simple oversight in the trial design phase (whoops!), or maybe they were amateurs who were untrained in designing a proper teratogenicity surveillance study?

Hmm, how can we answer that question? I am sure that it was a bunch of random residents and interns publishing their first paper, right? Wrong…..(See link for article)

_______________

**Comment**

Hopefully by now it’s clear as day there needs to be major reform in science and in science journals.  Sadly, researchers have become nothing but Big Pharma whores, who are completely bought and paid for.  They have gone from searching for unbiased truth to statistical wizards who purposely use numbers and methods to obtain a predetermined outcome.

A perfect example came out today: https://kirschsubstack.com/p/my-email-to-muge-cevik-do-you-want?  Within the link, Steve Kirsch refutes a poorly done study titled: COVID-19 vaccination: Evidence of Waning Immunity is Overstated, which concludes the following non-sensical statement:

“The risks of remaining unvaccinated are clear and far outweigh the unknown benefits of re-vaccinating the general population. Rapid scale-up of vaccination coverage globally remains the most urgent public health priority.”

Shame on these researchers who will push a narrative despite all evidence to the contrary.

For more:

Category:

Activism, research

Comments Off on Covid Scientific Misconduct Rages On At World’s Top Medical Journals