Covid-19: A paper on vaccination in pregnancy co-authored by Simon Thornley has been panned by experts around the world

A paper co-authored by a University of Auckland academic and published in an anti-vaccination journal is being used by others as “disinformation” to encourage doubt about the safety of Covid-19 vaccines, several experts say. Stuff National Correspondents Katie Kenny and Charlie Mitchell report.

Numerous studies show no link between mRNA vaccines – such as the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine being rolled out in New Zealand – and miscarriages or other pregnancy complications. Immunologists and other subject-matter experts, as well as health authorities in New Zealand and overseas, say the vaccine can be given at any stage of pregnancy, which is true of several vaccines in regular use.

But some people who are opposed to vaccination have seized upon a recently-published paper to try and suggest the opposite. The paper is being circulated in anti-vaccination groups and some online publications.

There are, however, numerous problems with the paper: It contains unfounded speculation, and ignores a considerable body of evidence on the vaccine’s safety. Its conclusions also appear to be at odds with the authors’ own explanations of their work.

READ MORE:
* Covid-19: Concern over lack of data on how many pregnant women are vaccinated, as five are hospitalised
* Covid-19: Vaccinated pregnant people's protection passes to babies, study shows
* Covid-19: How does the Novavax vaccine work and what do we know about it as a booster?

The paper was co-authored by Dr Simon Thornley, a senior lecturer of epidemiology at the University of Auckland, and Dr Aleisha Brock, an epidemiologist in Whanganui.

It was published in a journal founded and edited by an American anti-vaccination campaigner, who is a prominent advocate for the debunked theory that MMR vaccines can cause autism. On its website, the journal says its papers, including this one, are peer-reviewed. The journal did not respond to questions from Stuff about its peer-review processes.

Thornley and Brock’s paper is said to be a reanalysis of an influential study published in April by the Centre for Disease Control (CDC), which was based on a database of pregnant people given an mRNA Covid-19 vaccine between December 2020 and February 2021.

That study found the rate of miscarriages among the vaccinated group was within the expected range.

Several months after it was published, the study was corrected to note it could not be used to calculate specific miscarriage rates, given the study period lasted three months and could only include outcomes for people who were vaccinated late in their pregnancies. Its recommendations did not change.

In their paper – which was written before the correction, but published after – Thornley and Brock argued the recommendations in the CDC paper were misleading because it could not incorporate outcomes for people vaccinated earlier in pregnancy.

“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,” their paper said.

It concludes with a sweeping recommendation: Withdraw the vaccine roll-out to all children, pregnant women, and people of “child-bearing age”.

Problems with the paper

The paper has drawn a strong response, both in New Zealand and overseas.

Many of its promoters focused on one specific aspect. The paper recalculated the reported miscarriage rate to only include people who were pregnant in their first or second trimester when they were vaccinated. Doing so increased the miscarriage rate to between 82 and 91 per cent, a shockingly high figure.

Doing so, however, makes no mathematical sense. Because the study lasted three months, the only way for a person to complete pregnancy in that timeframe is to have a miscarriage (unless they were late in their second trimester).

Thornley and Brock told Stuff they calculated and included that figure to highlight what they believed was an error in the original study – that it was wrong to make any miscarriage rate calculation based only on those who had completed their pregnancies in three months.

“The data presented in the original study could not be used to justify safety throughout pregnancy, and the authors needed to be more restrained in their conclusions,” Thornley and Brock said.

“That was our central concern and the fact that the article had not been updated after it was initially criticised by other groups was also of great concern.”

This incorrectly high miscarriage rate has been taken from Thornley and Brock’s paper and circulated as fact in anti-vaccination groups and associated media outlets.

It was even emphasised in the headline of the journal’s press release about the paper. The text of the release claims the paper “estimated that unexpected termination of pregnancies actually occurred at a rate 7-8 times higher in vaccinated pregnant women” than the baseline rate. This conflicts with Thornley and Brock’s own explanation that the data could not be used to calculate any rate at all.

In remarks quoted in The Epoch Times, Thornley himself said his reanalysis showed vaccination early in pregnancy “indicates a substantially increased risk from background”, without noting that such a calculation is, by his own reasoning, useless. The Epoch Times also quoted the researcher who first raised questions about the CDC study in June, who said he did not agree with Thornley and Brock’s paper, and had been satisfied with follow-up data released after the original paper.

Local and international experts have weighed in on the paper in generally scathing terms.

“[Thornley and Brock] have ignored all the other data on pregnancy and safety,” said Dr Helen Petousis-Harris, a vaccinologist at the University of Auckland.

“Covid-19 infection can have really quite disastrous effects for a hapū mother and also a pregnancy, and so far the vaccine is demonstrated to be very safe in pregnant women. Not only do the data say that, but we lack any biological mechanism for which the vaccine could impact the [reproductive] system.”

One study, in particular, reinforces the original CDC paper’s findings: A follow-up using the same registry, which looked at those who had been vaccinated in the first and second trimesters who had since given birth. It found the miscarriage rate was still within the normal range.

It was published seven weeks before Thornley and Brock’s paper, but is not referenced.

Thornley and Brock said papers published since the original CDC paper were “immaterial” to their analysis. They did not respond when asked to justify their recommendation to withdraw vaccines to large numbers of people without reference to other data.

Another research note published around the same time as the follow-up study independently came to the same conclusion. A case-control study from Norway has also found no increase in miscarriages related to vaccination.

“We have 11 studies, from 5 countries, done on more than 75,000 people vaccinated in pregnancy, and published either by reputable peer-reviewed journals or directly by health authorities, all of which find no link between Covid-19 vaccination in pregnancy and miscarriage or any other pregnancy complication,” said Dr Victoria Male, an immunologist who studies vaccines and pregnancy at Imperial College London.

“I do hope that this one bad analysis will not put pregnant New Zealanders off being vaccinated, since pregnant people and their babies are particularly vulnerable to Covid-19.”

Claims without evidence

Another aspect that has drawn criticism concerns implications made outside Thornley and Brock’s area of expertise.

At one point, the paper speculates – without evidence – that spike proteins generated by the vaccine could flow freely through the body, cross the placenta, and enter breast milk, posing a risk to breastfeeding babies.

Vaccinologists say there’s no plausible way for that to happen, and it is not a subject that epidemiologists – a field largely based on the statistical analysis of health trends – would be qualified to speak on.

“I had fits,” says Professor Graham Le Gros, director of the Malaghan Institute of Medical Research and programme director of Vaccine Alliance Aotearoa New Zealand.

“[They've] got no reference. It’s a properly defined barrier, the foetus is protected from these sorts of things.”

Le Gros says the spike proteins produced after vaccination are not the same as spike proteins from a live virus, as Thornley and Brock’s paper implies. The vaccine spike protein is designed to bind to cells in the immune system around the injection site, and does not flow through the bloodstream.

“This is not his discipline,” Le Gros says of Thornley.

“This is an area that takes many years of study. He’s spouting forth about the placental barrier and how vaccines work. It’s dangerous, unconscionable and of great concern.”

Petousis-Harris also rejects the paper’s speculation about the spike protein.

“They go on about this idea there might be spike protein circulating and doing damage while ignoring the fact that there’s hardly any spike protein produced by the vaccine and that spike protein is in a particular confirmation when it’s produced - it’s designed in a particular way,” she says.

“There’s only a tiny bit and that protein is largely broken down into fragments in the same cell it was made and ceases to exist in hours to days. It doesn’t have long, then the vaccine is no more.

“The paper has many hallmarks of pseudoscience.”

In regard to the claims about spike proteins, Thornley and Brock told Stuff they sought to raise questions, and not to conclusively prove the claim.

“We do not claim to have evidence in our article – hence we did not supply evidence,” they said.

“We are highlighting the need for this to be investigated further and highlight the studies done to date in this area, plus gaps in the current scientific knowledge. This is one such gap.”

On the day the paper was published, Brock emailed it to Nelson lawyer Sue Grey, as well as the anti-vaccination groups Voices for Freedom and NZDSOS.

“I don't know if any of the legal actions against the mandates could use this? Or possibly medical exemptions?” Brock wrote, according to a copy of the email posted online by the Outdoors Party, of which Grey is the co-leader.

Grey is involved in several legal challenges against vaccine mandates. When asked about the email, Brock said it was not relevant to the paper itself.

Misinformation and motherhood

The Disinformation Project – a collaboration between Te Pūnaha Matatini, the department of physics at the University of Auckland and the Centre for Science in Society, Te Herenga Waka – in a paper published on Tuesday said conspiracy theories about Covid-19 have dramatically escalated since Delta arrived in New Zealand in mid-August.

That paper highlighted cherry-picking of medicinal and scientific data to support vaccine hesitancy, which can be targeted at pregnant people to fuel mistrust.

Lead author and Auckland University research fellow Kate Hannah says Thornley and Brock’s paper appears to fit this mould.

“There are really strong narratives about motherhood that already exist inside people’s heads; that are filled with guilt and complicated feelings. Anyone who comes along and taps into those feelings is going to be successful.”

It is unclear whether Thornley and Brock intended to mislead people with their paper – they say "good science is critically dependent on seeing all sides of the argument and having open debate".

But Hannah says regardless of their intent, the impact of the content on the audience was predictable.

Given an environment of unvaccinated people feeling under pressure, particularly in traditionally female-dominated professions – plus a speaker, Thornley, who’s got “high possible impact owing to his status” – the paper would operate as disinformation.

“Or possibly malinformation – true information used with ill intent,” she says.

While misinformation is defined simply as false information, disinformation is false information created with the intent of causing harm.

Simon Thornley’s track-record on Covid

Thornley’s ongoing activism has proved uncomfortable for some at the University of Auckland, where he works as a senior lecturer and teaches epidemiology to undergraduates.

He was a founding member of Covid Plan B, and remains a member of New Zealand Doctors Speaking Out With Science (NZDSOS).

The latter group explicitly opposes Covid-19 vaccines. In its online postings the group has likened unvaccinated people to the victims of 20th century dictators and claimed the world is in a “mass extinction event”.

It’s understood that during a Zoom discussion last week about the university’s proposed vaccination policy – which would prevent unvaccinated people from being on campus – Thornley made several comments in the public discussion channel some perceived as anti-vaccination.

He has also served as an expert witness for several legal challenges that would impact the rollout of vaccines.

The High Court ruled against the applicants in such a case this week – the judge strongly rejected each of the arguments in Thornley's evidence, and concluded the vaccine “is safe and effective, is significantly beneficial in preventing symptomatic infection of Covid-19 including the Delta variant, and that it significantly reduces serious illness, hospitalisation and death”.

Late last year, a complaint was filed against Thornley by another academic at the university, citing public comments Thornley had made about another scientist. It is understood several staff members at the University have raised concerns privately about his public statements, and what they see as inaction by the university.

Thornley, for his part, has said he was asked to take down his Plan B website by someone at the university, and believes his career has been impacted.

For the University of Auckland, it is a tightrope: It has an obligation to protect academic freedom, but it itself notes that exercising that freedom “must be conducted to the highest ethical standards” and academics must ensure they “do no unnecessary harm”.

When asked about the pregnancy paper and whether it met those standards, the university demurred.

“As an academic staff member at the University of Auckland, Dr Thornley has the right to exercise his academic freedom,” a spokesman said.

The university encouraged its staff to publish “in accredited journals that have a robust peer review process”.

It did not say whether it felt that was true in this case.