Heparin Fails to Stop Miscarriages in Women With Inherited Thrombophilia


No difference in live birth rates with or without blood thinner

Daily injections of low-molecular-weight heparin (LMWH) failed to improve live birth rates for women with a history of recurrent miscarriages and inherited forms of thrombophilia, a randomized trial found.

In the 326-patient study, live birth rates were a similar 71.6% in women who received LMWH versus 70.9% with standard pregnancy care alone (adjusted OR 1.08, 95% CI 0.65-1.78, P=0.77), reported Saskia Middeldorp, MD, PhD, of the University of Amsterdam.

“The conclusions and take-home messages are pretty clear and … end a debate of decades,” Middeldorp said during a press briefing at the American Society of Hematologyopens in a new tab or window annual meeting.

But “we should not say this a negative study,” she added. “What we can do in our offices, in our practices, is reassure women with a history of recurrent pregnancy loss that they have a 70% chance of having a healthy baby.”

Side effects, while mostly minor, were significantly more frequent in the LMWH arm, with 43.9% experiencing one or more adverse events versus 26.5% in the control arm (OR 2.17, 95% CI 1.32-3.55). Common side effects included easy bruising, skin reactions at the injection site, and minor bleeding.

Middeldorp said the findings suggest that women with recurrent miscarriages should no longer be tested for inherited thrombophilia, pointing out that elimination of this testing could save an estimated $4,000, along with the additional $3,500 in savings for LMWH injections over the duration of a pregnancy.

In the U.S., “many women do get thrombophilia testing when they’ve had recurrent miscarriages, and there can be a lot of pressure of doing something versus doing nothing,” said press briefing moderator Cynthia Dunbar, MD, of the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute at the NIH.

“I had recurrent miscarriages myself and at the time read the literature and decided I wasn’t going to push for that and it didn’t make sense, but it was a hard decision,” she told MedPage Today. “Luckily, I also had two successful pregnancies after three miscarriages — so I have some personal experience with this.”

Dunbar said she hoped the findings would “settle the issue,” and that patients will stop getting very expensive panels that then label them as having a disease even if they have never had a clot.

“It’s not necessarily information that is helpful in any way, expect making you very anxious,” she said. “I was very happy about this trial — not happy about the results, I guess, but happy that at least it’s clear and it was a very well-performed trial.”

Past studies have shown an association between recurrent miscarriages and inherited thrombophilia, while other research has suggested that clots in the developing placenta could be a causal factor in miscarriages.

In a prior trialopens in a new tab or window from Middeldorp and colleagues in which anti-thrombotic therapy failed to increase live birth rates for women with unexplained recurrent miscarriages, there was a hint of potential benefit for the very small subgroup of women with inherited thrombophilia, leading to the current trial.

“For inherited thrombophilia, the curtains are closing in terms of aspirin and anticoagulants,” said Middeldorp, adding that the only group that benefits from aspirin and LMWH are women with acquired thrombophilia antiphospholipid syndrome.

ALIFE2 was an investigator-initiated trial that from 2012 to 2021 randomized 326 pregnant women with two or more miscarriages and inherited thrombophilia to standard care with or without LMWH (enoxaparin 40 mg, dalteparin 5,000 IU, tinzaparin 4,500 IU, or nadroparin 3,800 IU). Aspirin was also used in 11% of patients.

Participants had to be enrolled at gestational age of 7 weeks or earlier. Overall, more than 10,000 women were screened for inclusion over the 9-year study period at 41 centers in five countries (the Netherlands, U.S., U.K., Slovenia, and Belgium), with most women excluded for not having confirmed inherited thrombophilia.

The primary endpoint was live birth rate, with secondary endpoints including miscarriage and adverse obstetric outcomes. Safety outcomes included bleeding episodes, thrombocytopenia, skin reactions, and neonatal congenital malformations.

Average patient age was 33-34 years, most were white, and 70% of the women in each arm had experienced three or more prior miscarriages. The most common thrombophilia types were heterozygosity for factor V Leiden (55-58%), prothrombin 20210A mutation (24-27%), and protein S deficiency (13-14%), while 3.6% had combined thrombophilia.

The OR for the primary endpoint adjusted for differences in baseline characteristics, including maternal age, number of miscarriages, type of center, and country.

Souce: medscape

Miscarriages and cancer up 300%, neurological problems up 1,000% due to covid “vaccines”


Image: Miscarriages and cancer up 300%, neurological problems up 1,000% due to covid “vaccines”

On January 24, attorney Thomas Renz, a member of the America’s Frontline Doctors (AFLDS) legal team, revealed to a panel that Wuhan coronavirus (Covid-19) “vaccines” are extremely dangerous, despite constant reassurances from the government that they are “safe and effective.”

Three military doctors from the Department of Defense (DoD) who have access to vaccination data that has been withheld from the general public procured the information. They are Lt. Col. Theresa Long, Dr. Samuel Sigoloff and Lt. Colonel Peter Chambers.

“All three have given me this data in declarations that stated this is under penalty of perjury, we intend to submit this to the courts,” Renz said.

What these three whistleblowers showed with the data is that miscarriages have increased by 300 percent over the past year, as have cancers. Neurological problems increased 1,000 percent during the same timeframe.

“Our soldiers are being injured, experimented on, and sometimes possibly killed,” Renz further explained.

Biden regime ignored affidavit warning that covid jabs are killing military servicemen

Lt. Col. Long is a senior U.S. Army flight surgeon with specialized training in infectious diseases. She testified under the Military Whistleblower Protection Act, which protects members who make lawful disclosures of wrongdoing to members of Congress or the Inspector General.

Long told Sen. Ron Johnson (R-Wisc.) that she actually had to ground vaccinated pilots in order to place them under monitoring for symptoms of myocarditis, which include chronic fatigue, so as to avoid them potentially dying from heart failure mid-air.

On Nov. 3, 2021, The Washington Times reported that Long had made “numerous efforts to get senior medical leaders to at the very least inform soldiers of this risk,” only to be ignored.

“The military didn’t even pause their vaccination efforts to rush out the Pfizer and Moderna shots,” she is quoted as saying.

Long initially decided to speak up after the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) announced back in June an “emergency meeting to discuss higher than expected myocarditis in 16 to 24-year-olds.”

Long then filed an affidavit against the Biden regime over its jab mandate for active-duty military personnel, warning that heart side effects could cause pilots to die mid-flight.

Long is directly responsible, by the way, for certifying the fitness of 4,000 flight-ready airmen at the 1st Aviation Brigade in Ft. Rucker, Ala. It is her job, in other words, to be on the lookout for things that could harm them, including covid jabs.

“The vaccines can cause inflamed heart muscles in young men in the age range of most flight-ready pilots and … the Department of Defense has not followed its own protocols by requiring an MRI scan of each airman after vaccination,” the affidavit reads.

“The majority of young new Army aviators are in their early twenties. We know there is a risk of myocarditis with each mRNA vaccination.”

A lawsuit was also filed, but the Biden regime has thus far ignored both the affidavit and that legal filing.

Dr. Peter McCullough backed all this up when he spoke at a second opinion meeting, revealing that myocarditis “is not mild,” and is not something to be balked at as being no big deal.

“When they do an MRI on these individuals with suspected myocarditis, 100 percent are having heart damage,” he explained.

Scientific studies show that around 13 percent of jab-induced myocarditis victims will have permanent heart injury, while 32 percent will never return back to normal.

“We are seeing unprecedented numbers of athletes dying on the field in Europe,” he added. “Of these cardiac arrests half of them don’t come back.”

The latest news about injuries and deaths caused by Wuhan coronavirus (Covid-19) “vaccines” can be found at ChemicalViolence.com.

Sources for this article include:

DailyExpose.uk

NaturalNews.com

Why Do Miscarriages Happen? 5 Miscarriage Myths We Need to Stop Believing


Straight from a gynecologist.
Miscarriages

“I am so sorry,” I say. Then I wait.

“You did nothing that caused this miscarriage and there is absolutely nothing you could have done differently.” I make sure that my patient not only hears me, but acknowledges what I’m telling her.

As an ob/gyn, most days I’m certain I have the best job in the world. I spend my days (and nights…and weekends) with women, bringing life into the world—and helping others avoid pregnancy when they’re not ready, thanks to the remarkable birth control options on the market. But there are also days when my job is to counsel patients about issues when it comes to getting—or staying—pregnant. And, unfortunately, one part of that discussion includes miscarriage. Miscarriages are extremely common, rarely talked about, and wrought with misinformation. Here are some of the most common and persistent myths I encounter as an ob/gyn.

But first, what exactly is a miscarriage?

A miscarriage is a non-viable pregnancy in the uterus, or an embryo or fetus without a heartbeat, up to 20 weeks along. Early pregnancy (or first trimester) losses account for 80 percent of all miscarriages. The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) estimates that 10 percent of known pregnancies end in miscarriage, and this doesn’t account for the miscarriages that occur when a women doesn’t even realize she is pregnant, which makes the real rate closer to 20-25 percent.

But despite how common they are, many people aren’t aware of the facts. A survey published in 2015 found that public awareness of miscarriages is fraught with misconceptions. A whopping 55 percent of survey respondents across 49 states believed that miscarriages are uncommon, defined as less than 5 percent of pregnancies. More so, a significant percentage of survey respondents believed that lifestyle choices caused miscarriage. (If you take one thing home from this piece: they do not.)

About half of miscarriages are directly related to fetal chromosomal abnormalities. Chromosomes are the structures inside cells that contain genetic material. So, biology has a way of identifying cells that are abnormal and will not go on to be viable—a built-in “quality control” of sorts.

Age can also play a role. According to ACOG, 10 percent of women have a miscarriage when they are younger than 30 years old, and this rate doubles to 20 percent between 35 and 39 years old. It goes up to 40 percent at age 40, and 80 percent at age 45. Reassuringly, most chromosomal problems are not inherited, so at baseline, one miscarriage does not mean that another one is around the corner. Other common causes are poorly controlled medical problems like diabetes, thyroid issues, and uncontrolled hypertension, as well as abnormalities of the uterus. So reproductive health planning and pre-conception health care are really important.

Now that we’ve gone over what a miscarriage is and what can cause them, let’s go over some common misconceptions:

Myth 1: I must have done something, like exercising too much or drinking coffee, to cause the miscarriage.

Here are a few things that are not causally related to miscarriages: exercising, using tampons, lifting heavy things, feeling anxious, morning sickness, drinking a cup of a coffee a day, and working.

While lifestyle choices like alcohol consumption and smoking have been investigated as a cause of miscarriage, the data is less clear that they are a direct cause. There is some data that points to smoking or alcohol increasing the risk of miscarriages, however, the interpretation of these studies is complicated by the difficulty of making accurate adjustments for the many confounding factors. Though the link to miscarriage directly is unclear, both smoking and alcohol should be avoided during pregnancy for their developmental risks and links to poor pregnancy outcomes.

Another concern many of my patients have is that a fall can cause a miscarriage. During the first trimester, the position of the uterus (the walls of which are strong, thick muscle designed to protect your growing baby), the cushion of the amniotic sac, and the small size of the fetus make it unlikely that a fall will do any harm. However, if you suffer a fall later in your pregnancy and you notice vaginal bleeding, severe pain in your abdomen, or your baby’s movements slow or stop, call your doctor right away.

Myth 2: My stress level caused the miscarriage.

In the same U.S. survey mentioned earlier, 76 percent of respondents believed that a stressful event could cause a miscarriage, while 74 percent believed a longstanding stressor could, and 21 percent believed an argument could lead to a miscarriage. Rest assured: There is absolutely no biological basis for any of these.

Myth 3: Having sex caused the miscarriage.

A normal pregnancy is implanted in the uterus on a supportive layer of cells called the endometrium. During intercourse, the uterus is never entered. Studies investigating the relationship of sexual intercourse and adverse pregnancy outcomes have not observed any association between pregnancy complications, including miscarriage.

Many women in the first trimester report that fear of injury to the fetus affects the freedom of their physical response (aka their enjoyment) during intercourse. It shouldn’t. So, unless you have a specific complication of pregnancy that your doctor has recommended pelvic rest for, enjoying sex while pregnant should be encouraged.

Myth 4: My prior birth control use caused the miscarriage.

Generally, birth control pills work by stopping ovulation, stopping the possibility of your egg meeting with sperm after sex, and stopping the fertilization that’s required before a pregnancy is implanted. When you stop using birth control pills, ovulation resumes. In some cases, like with IUDs (which generally work by stopping fertilization and implantation), it’s possible to get pregnant pretty much as soon as you stop using the method.

If there has been contraceptive failure leading to an unplanned pregnancy or you’ve recently stopped using contraception, you are at no increased risk of miscarriage or major birth defects as demonstrated by large registry studies. More so, women who have had prolonged use of contraceptives should be reassured that they have no delay in the resumption of ovulation and are at no increased risk of miscarriage.

Myth 5: Getting the flu shot caused a miscarriage.

Despite what you might have read in some corners of the internet, it is safe to receive the flu vaccine during pregnancy. This is particularly important because pregnant women are at a heightened risk of death from flu compared to non-pregnant women. Vaccination of the mother is the most effective way to protect the fetus and will not put the pregnancy at risk.

The ACOG recommendation that all pregnant women get the flu shot is based on a safety profile and data that is tracked by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS). With the support of a large body of literature, they found the flu vaccine (at any point in pregnancy) to be a safe and effective way to reduce maternal morbidity and mortality, and to protect the fetus in-utero and after birth without risk of pregnancy loss.

So why is there so much misinformation out there about miscarriages?

We’re intelligent and curious creatures, and it’s natural to want an explanation for something out of our control. Even if nothing can be done to prevent a subsequent miscarriage, 78 percent of people in that previously-mentioned survey wanted to know the underlying cause of miscarriage.

The good news is that isolated pregnancy loss in the first trimester is usually a one-time event and, if desired, women go on to have a successful pregnancy. Recurrent pregnancy loss is rare—estimates show that fewer than 5 percent of women will have two consecutive miscarriages and just 1 percent will experience three or more.

If desired, there is no medical reason to wait before trying to conceive again after a miscarriage, and you often ovulate two to three weeks after a miscarriage. Though not medically necessary, some doctors recommend waiting until you have one regular period before trying again. This helps give you a more precise due date for a subsequent pregnancy, as this date is calculated by your period. And if you don’t want to become pregnant again, you can start using contraception immediately.

Miscarriages are very difficult and people often feel very alone after experiencing one. Talk to your gynecologist or health care team. Support groups and counselors can also provide resources, like SHARE: Pregnancy and Infant Loss Support, Inc., which provides a list of online resources and support groups.

And remember, it’s not you. You did nothing to cause the miscarriage. Repeat it again: You did nothing to cause the miscarriage.

BPA Exposure Can Lead to Genetic Defects and Miscarriages


Although more than 200 research studies show that bisphenol A (BPA) is harmful to human health, the U.S. government has decided that it would rather side with the chemical industry than with children.

The Senate failed to vote on the passage of a bill that would have resulted in a ban on the use of BPA in baby bottles and sippy cups.

And in fact, the ban is no longer even in consideration. According to the Wall Street Journal:

“Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D., Calif.) was the primary backer of a controversial amendment banning the chemical bisphenol A, or BPA, which has been linked to some cancers, in baby bottles and sippy cups.

On Wednesday, she withdrew the amendment from consideration.”

Feinstein says she’ll keep fighting to make the ban a reality.

Dr. Mercola’s Comments:

Sen. Dianne Feinstein’s (D-Calif.) amendment to the latest food-safety bill would have banned the use of the toxic chemical bisphenol-A (BPA) from baby bottles and sippy cups, required the FDA to finalize their safety assessment of the chemical by December 2012, and allowed states to ban the chemical entirely if they so choose.

Unfortunately, thanks to heavy pressure from the chemical industry, the amendment has been withdrawn from consideration.

U.S. Babies and Children at Risk From BPA

That BPA should be taken out of all products intended for children is a no-brainer.

Of 115 published animal studies, 81 percent found significant effects from even low-level exposure to BPA. This toxic chemical, an endocrine disrupter, first caught researchers’ attention after normal mice began to display uncommon genetic abnormalities.

The defects were linked to plastic cages and water bottles that had been cleaned with a harsh detergent, causing BPA to leach out of the plastic.

After determining how much BPA the mice had been exposed to, the researchers realized even an extremely small dose of 20 parts per billion daily, for just five to seven days, was enough to produce effects.

Some of the greatest concern surrounds early-life exposure to BPA, which can lead to chromosomal errors in the developing fetus, triggering spontaneous miscarriages and genetic damage. And being exposed to just 0.23 parts per billion of BPA is enough to disrupt the effect of estrogen in a baby’s developing brain.

For this reason, women of childbearing age and those who are pregnant, along with infants and children, should be especially diligent at avoiding BPA.

BPA in Baby Bottles Already Banned in Canada, Why Not the U.S.?

BPA in baby bottles has already been banned in Canada and several U.S. states. Other measures are being considered in 30 U.S. states and municipalities — but at a federal level, the government is treading water and choosing to protect the interests of the chemical industry in favor of public health.

The American Chemistry Council, a lobby group for the chemical industry that issued a statement in early 2010 denying the health hazards of BPA, clearly does not want to see this cash cow bite the dust … nor be held accountable for health problems related to its use. They will pull out all the stops to keep this chemical in your food packaging, baby bottles, and more for as long as possible.

Despite all the research showing serious health effects at low-level exposure, the U.S. FDA has virtually no power to do anything about it because BPA was classified in 1963 as an indirect food additive and is listed among the 3,000 or so chemicals categorized as GRAS (“generally regarded as safe”).

This outdated GRAS designation is what exempts BPA from more careful scrutiny and analysis.

According to the FDA’s regulations, a substance granted GRAS status is not subject to FDA review. The Agency explains these limitations via an “update” on its website:

“Current BPA food contact uses were approved under food additive regulations issued more than 40 years ago. This regulatory structure limits the oversight and flexibility of the FDA.

Once a food additive is approved, any manufacturer of food or food packaging may use the food additive in accordance with the regulation. There is no requirement to notify the FDA of that use.

For example, today there exist hundreds of different formulations for BPA-containing epoxy linings, which have varying characteristics. As currently regulated, manufacturers are not required to disclose to FDA the existence or nature of these formulations.

Furthermore, if the FDA were to decide to revoke one or more approved uses, the FDA would need to undertake what could be a lengthy process of rulemaking to accomplish this goal.”

Where is BPA Found?

In 2009, more than 6 billion pounds of BPA were made, representing nearly $7 billion in sales. It is one of the world’s highest production-volume chemicals and is widely used in the production of:

  • Plastic water bottles
  • Plastic gallon milk bottles
  • Plastic microwavable plates, ovenware, and utensils
  • Baby toys, bottles, pacifiers, and sippy cups
  • Canned foods and soda cans (most have plastic lining in the cans)
  • Tooth sealants

The use of BPA is so pervasive that scientists have found that 95 percent of people tested have dangerous levels of BPA in their bodies.

Again, some of the biggest victims are your children, who may be exposed to the chemical while in utero, and are quite literally “fed” the chemical via plastic baby bottles, sippy cups and toys (which they often put in their mouths).

The cumulative effect of being exposed to minuscule amounts of BPA from cans, bottles, plates and all other sources over the years can eventually spell serious trouble for your health.

One recent study found the chemical can lead to heart disease, diabetes and liver problems in adults, and previous research has linked BPA to:

  • Structural damage to your brain
  • Hyperactivity, increased aggressiveness, and impaired learning
  • Increased fat formation and risk of obesity
  • Altered immune function
  • Early puberty, stimulation of mammary gland development, disrupted reproductive cycles, and ovarian dysfunction
  • Changes in gender-specific behavior, and abnormal sexual behavior
  • Stimulation of prostate cancer cells
  • Increased prostate size, and decreased sperm production
  • Diabetes
  • Heart disease
  • Liver damage

You Can Take Action, Even if the Federal Government Won’t

There has been enough negative press about BPA that the public has been demanding safer, BPA-free alternatives. As a result, as of late summer 2010 BPA bills were pending in five state legislatures, and earlier this year numerous positive steps have been made to get this toxin out of U.S. food containers:

  • Vermont banned BPA in baby food, formula and bottles, and will restrict its use in metal food cans starting July 1, 2014
  • New York state banned BPA in bottles, sippy cups, pacifiers and drinking straws beginning December 2010
  • General Mills announced in April 2010 that it would use BPA-free cans for Muir Glen organic tomatoes starting with the next harvest

Certain manufacturers, including Philips Avent, Disney First Years, Gerber, Dr. Brown, Playtex and Evenflow, have also said they will stop making baby bottles that contain BPA, while several major retailers, including CVS, Kmart, Walmart, Toys R Us and Babies R Us are removing BPA-containing products from their stores.

So the good news is that there are plenty of resources available for you to find BPA-free alternatives for your family. Please support the companies that are removing this chemical from their products, and look for BPA-free labels on all baby bottles and children’s toys you buy.

You can further reduce your family’s exposure to this toxic chemical by following these 11 tips:

  1. Only use glass baby bottles and dishes for your baby.
  2. Get rid of your plastic dishes and cups, and replace them with glass alternatives.
  3. Give your baby natural fabric toys instead of plastic ones, and only BPA-free pacifiers and teethers.
  4. Store your food and beverages in glass — NOT plastic — containers. Glass is the safest and most inert way to store your water and food, and is far better than ANY plastic (even BPA-free varieties).
  5. IF you choose to use a microwave, don’t microwave food in a plastic container.
  6. Use glass, ceramic, or stainless steel travel coffee mugs rather than plastic or Styrofoam coffee cups.
  7. Avoid using plastic wrap (and never microwave anything covered in it).
  8. If you opt to use plastic kitchenware, at least get rid of the older, scratched-up varieties, avoid putting them in the dishwasher, and don’t wash them with harsh detergents, as these things can cause more BPA to leach into your food.
  9. Avoid using bottled water; filter your own using a high-quality filter instead.
  10. Before allowing a dental sealant to be applied to your, or your children’s, teeth, ask your dentist to verify that it does not contain BPA.
  11. Avoid using canned foods (including soda cans) as the linings often contain BPA. If you do eat canned foods, choose only those that come in BPA-free cans.