🚨 What Fauci Texted About Miscarriage - and What He Said in Public Nine Days Later
Newly released messages from his government iPhone show the CDC Director and the Surgeon General agreeing, in writing, that fever after dose two could be linked to first-trimester miscarriage. Five we
Senators Ron Johnson and Rand Paul released the first batch of text messages from Anthony Fauci’s government iPhone today. Four pages, out of a phone that reportedly holds some 34,000 messages and 522 voicemails.
The first batch is about pregnant women.
January 25, 2021
A group chat between three people: Fauci, Surgeon General Vivek Murthy, and CDC Director Rochelle Walensky. Murthy wants to know what to tell pregnant women.
Walensky answers first, and her answer is worth keeping in mind for everything that follows — her own description of the evidence base is that “this is all a data free” zone. CDC had stood up a pregnancy registry. Some 15,000 pregnant women were enrolled in V-safe.
Then, at 4:56 PM, Fauci raises the perception problem:
“There is this misperception out there that we need to deal with that mRNA somehow can ‘get into your genes’. When the misperception gets extended to an early developing fetus, the anxiety heightens”
An hour and forty-nine minutes later, he writes again.
“I asked around a bit more and another issue came up that you need to be aware of. Since many people have significant cytokines storm and fever after the 2nd dose, this theoretically could be associated with miscarriage in the 1st trimester“
This is the message Johnson led his release with, and rightly. But the part that has been overlooked in the coverage so far is what happened next.
Two minutes later, Walensky: “Definitely a good point, esp after dose two.”
Forty minutes after that, Murthy: “This is really helpful, thanks… That’s a really good point re the cytokine storm post second dose.“
The Director of the CDC and the Surgeon General of the United States both agreed, in writing, that the concern was legitimate. This was not one official musing privately. It was the three most visible public health officials in America reaching a shared conclusion on a Monday evening.
The next afternoon, WHO said the quiet part out loud
At 4:34 PM on January 26, Murthy brings news:
“Tony, Rochelle, did you see this announcement today from WHO saying they advise against pregnant women taking the Moderna vaccine bc of lack of data? It has led to a flurry of questions. What is your take? I imagine we will all get asked about this.”
Twenty-one minutes later, Fauci sends the message that has been quoted everywhere today:
“I would say that in any vaccine in which data are lacking in pregnant women one must weigh the potential risks against the benefits. COVID-19 can be a serious disease especially in pregnancy. In the vaccine trials, pregnant women were not allowed but following the EUA, a large number (more than 10,000) pregnant women have been vaccinated. No issues have arisen. The FDA and the ACIP and the ACOG are all permissive for pregnant women to have a choice. Animal tox studies did not raise any red flags.“
Sit with the sequence. The World Health Organization advises against a product in pregnancy for lack of data. Twenty-one minutes later, the position that would be repeated publicly for the next year is composed in a text message.
And read the message itself. In the same breath as “no red flags,” he concedes that pregnant women “were not allowed” in the trials. Both things are in the same paragraph.
Murthy’s reaction to the WHO advisory is the tell:
“That’s a strong statement to make and potentially quite damaging to public confidence among pregnant women.“
Not is WHO right. Whether it would damage confidence.
He had done this properly once before
In 2009, during H1N1, the same agency under the same director ran dedicated pregnancy trials. From Fauci’s own diary that November:
“NIAID is the only one giving good news si[n]ce our pregnancy trials and pediatric trials are giving good data – only 1 dose of 15 ugs for pregnant women is required for robust response…”
Pregnant women got their own trials and their own dose-finding data. He was proud of it.
In 2020 they were excluded from the trials entirely — and he was told so, in writing, before a single dose shipped. A National Academies draft circulating in his own inbox that September:
“it is concerning that most, if not all, of the current Phase II/III trials exclude pregnant women… OWS, NIH, and CDC should include assessment of vaccine efficacy, effectiveness, and safety among pregnant women in their clinical development and post-marketing surveillance plans.“
The same point appeared twice in his daily news digest, via a STAT piece headlined “Will Covid-19 vaccines be safe for children and pregnant women? The data, so far, are lacking.”
Nobody had to discover this problem later. It was flagged in advance, in his own reading pile.
February 8: the co-inventor writes
Nine days after the “no red flags” text — and five days after Fauci repeated the phrase on camera — Drew Weissman, co-inventor of the nucleoside-modified mRNA platform, emailed him directly:
“using a dose 100-fold higher than current vaccines and given IV, the mRNA-LNPs go to the placenta and fetus, measured by translation of the mRNA and cause an immune response in the amniotic fluid. In non-pregnant female mice, the uterus and ovaries take up mRNA-LNPs and translate the mRNA. We are repeating these studies with human dose levels… and are waiting to release the findings until these studies are completed”
We are quoting the whole sentence deliberately, including the conditions, because they matter and because the first reply to any excerpt will be to point them out: this was 100 times the human dose, given intravenously. The vaccine is given intramuscularly at 1×. Anyone telling you this email proves the vaccine crosses the placenta in humans is overreading it, and we’re not going to do that.
Fauci replied the same night, at 9:12 PM:
“Thanks for sending this. Looks like you have touched all the bases of informing people of your results… Congratulations on the Rosenstiel Award!“
(I wonder if he was a bit jealous of that award!)
March 1: the version at human dose
Three weeks later Weissman came back, having run it the way the vaccine is actually given — human dose levels, intramuscular, in pregnant mice.
“We still have some concern over the data and are talking to all of the appropriate people.”
This is the sentence that matters, and it’s the one that survives the dose-and-route objection.
Fauci forwarded it within the hour to Vaccine Research Center director John Mascola, copying Cliff Lane: “Let us discuss.”
The internal answer came back the next day from the VRC’s Karin Bok. She reported no concerns — and in doing so, recorded what the expert panel had already decided:
“The SMEs on that call (especially obgyns) were aware that mRNA might reach the fetus. The only discussion was around the possibility of that mRNA to integrate into the nuclear DNA. And the second main concern was the fever caused by the vaccine, especially during the first trimester, but they went around that by recommending the administration of acetaminophen after vaccination.“
Now put that beside a message from five weeks earlier.
On January 26, Walensky had written: “ACIP meeting tomorrow. Shall I flag it for them?“
So the chain runs end to end, across two document sets obtained by two different senators on two separate tracks. January 25: Fauci raises fever-driven first-trimester miscarriage risk. Walensky and Murthy agree it’s a real concern. January 26: Walensky offers to put it in front of ACIP. March 2: the record shows the panel’s answer to that exact concern.
Take Tylenol.
We want to be fair about Bok’s email, because it is also the strongest rebuttal in the file and it sits in the same PDF. Her position is that mRNA reaching the placenta is an expected finding in mice, that the obstetricians on the panel knew it, and that they weighed it. That is a defensible answer. The story is not that nobody considered the question. The story is what they decided once they had, and how little of that deliberation reached the women being asked to decide.
Then the language hardened
April 21, 2021 — the Shimabukuro V-safe paper in NEJM reports a 12.6% spontaneous-abortion rate (104 of 827) and becomes the reassurance everyone cites. Worth knowing about that denominator: some 700 of those 827 women were vaccinated in the third trimester, past the window in which a spontaneous abortion under 20 weeks could be counted at all. The rate was computed against a group that largely could not have experienced the outcome being measured.
August 11, 2021 — CDC’s Sascha Ellington: “We are not seeing a signal of safety concerns of the vaccine in pregnancy.”
August 30, 2021 — Fauci: “there’s no indication whatsoever that there’s any increase of any adverse issues in a pregnant woman who was vaccinated.”
September 29, 2021 — Walensky issues a health alert. CDC now “strongly recommends” vaccination before or during pregnancy.
February 1, 2022 — Murthy, the man who asked the original question thirteen months earlier: “It’s all the more important for you to get vaccinated if you are pregnant or if you are trying to become pregnant… anytime during your pregnancy is actually fine.“
The private uncertainty of January 2021 never made it into the public record. The public language moved in exactly one direction, and it wasn’t toward the caveats.
What this is
It is not proof that the vaccine caused miscarriages. Nothing here shows that, and we’re not going to claim it.
What the documents show is narrower, and it is enough:
The three officials directing America’s pandemic response privately identified a specific, biologically plausible risk to first-trimester pregnancies. They agreed with each other that it was a real concern. They knew pregnant women had been excluded from the trials, because it had been flagged in writing months earlier. When a foreign regulator said so out loud, the response was composed in twenty-one minutes and worried about public confidence. The concern went to an expert panel and came back answered with an over-the-counter fever reducer. And over the following year the public messaging grew steadily more absolute, ending with a Surgeon General telling women trying to conceive that any point in pregnancy is fine.
Pregnant women were never told any of this was under discussion. They were told there were no red flags.
There are 34,000 more messages on that phone.
Sources: text messages released 10 August 2026 by Senators Ron Johnson and Rand Paul (4 pp, rendered here at 200 dpi from the official PDF); the Weissman correspondence from Senator Paul’s 24 July 2026 award-records release, pp. 55–60; NIH FOIA case 57534 for the National Academies draft and news digests; Fauci’s H1N1-era diary from the Senate release of 24 July 2026; Shimabukuro et al., NEJM, 21 April 2021. Public statements are quoted with their dates from the senators’ compiled timeline.
In case your readers miss the significance....I remember arguing with my university provost in late fall, 2021 about getting an exemption from the COVID vaccine mandate for the pregnant employee in my college (the Biden Administration had made vaccinations mandatory for any organization receiving federal grants). The provost insisted that there was massive evidence PROVING that COVID vaccines were not only safe for pregnant women, but that the CDC had recommended that the vaccine was even more necessary for pregnant women. The employee quit.
When Fauci's defenders and sycophants try to downplay his role in the entire COVID debacle, it is necessary to remember how the elites across all sectors of society treated every utterance out of Fauci's mouth as a papal bull. We now know that Fauci, the NIAID, the CDC, etc., were often wrong, misguided, dissembling, or simply lying (although many of us were skeptical and refused to play at the time), but the elites who pushed the narrative still refuse to accept their own culpability.
"April 21, 2021 — the Shimabukuro V-safe paper in NEJM reports a 12.6% spontaneous-abortion rate (104 of 827) and becomes the reassurance everyone cites. Worth knowing about that denominator: some 700 of those 827 women were vaccinated in the third trimester, past the window in which a spontaneous abortion under 20 weeks could be counted at all. The rate was computed against a group that largely could not have experienced the outcome being measured."
Similar issues were highlighted here and subsequent posts:
https://inumero.substack.com/p/vaccination-and-pregnancy-in-the