Fertility the elephant in the room

It appears that in this segment by Allan Jones, a Fertility doctor in Australia, Has said that overall the average miscarriage rate worldwide is about thirteen percent on average. He is now seeing a miscarriage rate of 75% in vaccinated females in the first trimester. Which is a bit lower than the New England study which showed 83% in the first two trimesters. But the question is , what will be the fertility rate after the vaccine is discontinued will the spike protein still disrupt the placental tissue? They are pushing boosters which will mean a massive drop in live births whatever way you look at it. www.bitchute.com...

a reply to: anonentity
as bill gates yells....WINNING

it's nothing but a toxic soup for the depopulation agenda in play

a reply to: anonentity

I wonder how many of those women had the Gardasil vaccine?

I didn't allow that vaccine, for any of my children. (Male and female)

Both of my sons and their spouses avoided the baby-killer vax.
Looks like I'll get to be a grandpa one day.
YAY ME!

This doctor might get more people to accept his BS if he didn't use such a large percentage as 75%.

No one with any kind of reasoning believes this. Only those who are desperate to be right about the "killer vax".

I'm still here and EVERYONE that I know that got vaxed are here. Two had beautiful happy girls. Almost six-month-old now.

So stop. You guys look foolish.

a reply to: MiddleInsite

That might be true but you are not a fertility Doctor observing his patch. Seen any live birth figures lately? I bet you have.
not. In Canada, they put a doctor who said there were excessive miscarriages in the mental ward. They shut this down very quickly, simply because when the truth comes out we will be in another crisis that requires your full attention.

originally posted by: MiddleInsite
This doctor might get more people to accept his BS if he didn't use such a large percentage as 75%.

No one with any kind of reasoning believes this. Only those who are desperate to be right about the "killer vax".

I'm still here and EVERYONE that I know that got vaxed are here. Two had beautiful happy girls. Almost six-month-old now.

So stop. You guys look foolish.

If the babies are nearly six months old,they had the Vax while far on in pregnancy not pre pregnancy,or first or second trimester.The vaccine wasn't available for example to 40 year olds until last May,young people even later,do the math Billy liar.

a reply to: anonentity

From the provisional figures i can find for 2021, the rates for fertility, live and still births are within expected ranges.

I'm far from a vaccine advocate, however in the UK at least, as of yet there's no noticeable fluctuation.

This year will tell the real story.

a reply to: Grenade

In this BBC article from 2020, it states that there is already a steep organic decline in population, and the West is allowing immigration to take up the slack. The reasons put forward are access to contraceptives and more jobs in the workforce for women, basically, when women are freed up they don't want to just stay at home and have babies. So the social change with regard to females seems to be the driving force behind the natural decline in births. So if the vaccine is also acting like the morning after pill. Align this with a higher average death rate, we might be seeing a rapid decline with regards to population.
Mandatory or coerced jabs have been going for over a year now. so it will be an interesting read when the 2022 figures come out if they ever do. www.bbc.com...

originally posted by: MiddleInsite

No one with any kind of reasoning believes this. Only those who are desperate to be right about the "killer vax".

You literally never look anything up do you?

The going rate of spontaneous abortion prior to it even showing up on a test is 50-75%

The clever way they rigged their studies has been to exclude under 6 weeks where most already occur. This slews the totals, and if you're actually reading, that means somewhere between 71.3-96.3% of them happen before their study even commences and are at higher risk. They also include up to 20 weeks when the percentages after 13 drop to less than 1%.

If you look at this supplemental appendix from one "safe and effective" study you see the same thing. They also added participants as the weeks increased. Table one doesn't really make sense because it's not the first trimester and they had higher numbers as gestational week increased. Cumulative total risk at 20 weeks should be at 95ish, but since they excluded the highest risk weeks it drops significantly.

You can bet they did it on their trials because that gave them convenient plausible deniability, since most academic studies leave out the early weeks. It's unconscionable to exclude the highest risk pregnancy group from the trials. The only one I've seen did. For the billions paid they could overcome the difficulty in finding patients that meet the criteria, absolute bs.

If somebody saw the real numbers the CDC would fear that, like you, they're uneducated on the topic and won't bother to look it up. They've already admitted to manipulating numbers and reporting to try to overcome the stupid public that can't do anything for thselves. Just remember these agencies you worship think you're a moron that can't think and need them to do it for you. You don't seem to be making any attempts to disprove their assumptions.

It's not just possible, but quite probable the first trimester number is much greater than 75%.

I'm still here and EVERYONE that I know that got vaxed are here. Two had beautiful happy girls. Almost six-month-old now.

People are still doing this? Seriously, it makes you look dumber no matter what side you think you're on.

Nobody I know has ever died of AIDS or Hep, so obviously nothing to worry about.

The 'New England study' did not show a 83% miscarriage rate. This has been shown to be false multiple times on this site.

a reply to: ScepticScot

What do you base your conclusion on?, just the salient points to clarify the number; facts, or people's opinions?

originally posted by: anonentity
a reply to: ScepticScot

What do you base your conclusion on?, just the salient points to clarify the number; facts, or people's opinions?

How about the fact the article making the claim (not the study which didnt) was withdrawn due to basic errors?

fullfact.org...

originally posted by: ScepticScot
The 'New England study' did not show a 83% miscarriage rate. This has been shown to be false multiple times on this site.

I explained right above you what they did and why I find it to be unacceptable. Not sure what specific study you're talking about, but it likely used 6+ weeks.

That seems fine for academia, but excluding the highest risk pregnancies certainly doesn't seem acceptable on a vaccine trial. If that's happening across the board on trials it should corrected immediately. A 5% increase in spontaneous abortions across the first 4 weeks would be a serious issue. That's not a big deal really until you start forcing people to take them.

ETA: My percentages on the previous post are off, didn't calculate the reduction in numbers (they weren't cumulative on the supplemental appendix). I'm tired and can barely type. The later weeks will be revised slightly down. Still think they should be starting prior to week 6 on trials.

originally posted by: Ksihkehe

originally posted by: ScepticScot
The 'New England study' did not show a 83% miscarriage rate. This has been shown to be false multiple times on this site.

I explained right above you what they did and why I find it to be unacceptable. Not sure what specific study you're talking about, but it likely used 6+ weeks.

That seems fine for academia, but excluding the highest risk pregnancies certainly doesn't seem acceptable on a vaccine trial. If that's happening across the board on trials it should corrected immediately. A 5% increase in spontaneous abortions across the first 4 weeks would be a serious issue. That's not a big deal really until you start forcing people to take them.

The study I am talking about the is the one referenced the OP and the claim about miscarriage rate is false.

if you want to include pre test miscarriages then you also need to include that in your control so the study doesn't show evidence of an increase.

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: Ksihkehe

originally posted by: ScepticScot
The 'New England study' did not show a 83% miscarriage rate. This has been shown to be false multiple times on this site.

I explained right above you what they did and why I find it to be unacceptable. Not sure what specific study you're talking about, but it likely used 6+ weeks.

That seems fine for academia, but excluding the highest risk pregnancies certainly doesn't seem acceptable on a vaccine trial. If that's happening across the board on trials it should corrected immediately. A 5% increase in spontaneous abortions across the first 4 weeks would be a serious issue. That's not a big deal really until you start forcing people to take them.

The study I am talking about the is the one referenced the OP and the claim about miscarriage rate is false.

if you want to include pre test miscarriages then you also need to include that in your control so the study doesn't show evidence of an increase.

I didn't watch that. I almost never watch any of these interviews or presentations. I'll respond to posts, but I haven't the patience for listening through these long things I could easily read in a minute or two.

I think for a vaccine trial they should have a control. They need to pay people for trials. Find the appropriate people they need. If it takes years it takes years. The data set is never going to grow until somebody starts collecting it. There are all kinds of fertility clinics all over the world, start partnering. Whatever it takes.

After the fact studies I don't really have an issue with whatever methodology they use, it just impacts the quality of their work. There has been a significant decline in what's acceptable.

Both my wife and I were vaxxed and we had a healthy baby girl delivered four weeks ago. The maternity ward also seemed to be pretty busy. In fact, the hospital had to bump our inducement a day because there were no beds available.

So i'm going to call BS on this doctor.

originally posted by: Ksihkehe

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: Ksihkehe

originally posted by: ScepticScot
The 'New England study' did not show a 83% miscarriage rate. This has been shown to be false multiple times on this site.

I explained right above you what they did and why I find it to be unacceptable. Not sure what specific study you're talking about, but it likely used 6+ weeks.

That seems fine for academia, but excluding the highest risk pregnancies certainly doesn't seem acceptable on a vaccine trial. If that's happening across the board on trials it should corrected immediately. A 5% increase in spontaneous abortions across the first 4 weeks would be a serious issue. That's not a big deal really until you start forcing people to take them.

The study I am talking about the is the one referenced the OP and the claim about miscarriage rate is false.

if you want to include pre test miscarriages then you also need to include that in your control so the study doesn't show evidence of an increase.

I didn't watch that. I almost never watch any of these interviews or presentations. I'll respond to posts, but I haven't the patience for listening through these long things I could easily read in a minute or two.

I think for a vaccine trial they should have a control. They need to pay people for trials. Find the appropriate people they need. If it takes years it takes years. The data set is never going to grow until somebody starts collecting it. There are all kinds of fertility clinics all over the world, start partnering. Whatever it takes.

After the fact studies I don't really have an issue with whatever methodology they use, it just impacts the quality of their work. There has been a significant decline in what's acceptable.

I completely agree about videos. They seem to be used as a substitute for thinking.

Studies on any medical treatment are always somewhat of a compromise between speed and completeness. If there is clear benefit in using the treatment how long do you put off using it to make sure every possible piece of evidence is collected?

With regard the study mentioned the claim is showed an increase is false. If you want to compare pre test rates then that would require a different study on relative pregnancy rates.

originally posted by: Xcalibur254
Both my wife and I were vaxxed and we had a healthy baby girl delivered four weeks ago. The maternity ward also seemed to be pretty busy. In fact, the hospital had to bump our inducement a day because there were no beds available.

So i'm going to call BS on this doctor.

Congratulations on the wee girl.

It certainly seems strange that with a 83% miscarriage rate we aren't seeing mass redundancies amongst midwives.

a reply to: Xcalibur254

It seems that a lot of women, in this report on a Twitter thread were not so lucky. Many are having serious menstrual disruptions after the jab. Since it is a personal thing many are seemingly very careful not to be an anti-vaxer but... www.bitchute.com...