Fertility the elephant in the room

a reply to: AaarghZombies
Did you mean to write 'obscenity' or did you mean obesity?

Male fertility is also dropping in part due to obscenity but also in part because guys are watching too much porn and are spanking it too often so their sperm don't get a chance to mature properly.

a reply to: Itisnowagain

Actually ... both would fit. But I meant the latter.

originally posted by: Grenade
a reply to: anonentity

Population decline in the first world was evident long before the vaccines.

Try telling anyone on this forum that something happened before the vax, or before Biden, or before Trump, and they act like you just told them that the CIA was beaming waves into their heads telling you to abuse children.

Seriously, there's nothing that half the people on this forum hate more than being told that the effects of their "Conspiracy of the Day" were evident long before whatever they think that cause should be.

a reply to: anonentity

In Canada, they put a doctor who said there were excessive miscarriages in the mental ward.

You can of course, provide a link?

a reply to: IAMTAT

a reply to: anonentity

In my opinion it is ( silly ) to reply to this troll . Love ya Man

a reply to: 10uoutlaw

A lot of these posters don't seem to pass the Turing test.

a reply to: anonentity
AMEN to that

a reply to: 10uoutlaw

When you have solid evidence which is not an opinion, that suggests that these shots are dicey. It's counterproductive to attack the source, simply because the information is not what you want to hear. the evidence must be analyzed and taken into consideration. Here we have a Doctor commissioned by the CDC to get information, but when it was not the information that they wanted to hear he was disbanded. It is becoming obvious that the all-out push to get everyone vaccinated was done to destroy the control group. The censorship obscures any information which is counterproductive to the narrative. Any individual is hamstrung for facts when they can be controlled and drip-fed, everyone must be informed about the potential side effects of any medication, not having to wait for a judge to tell a drug company to release data they want to stay buried.www.bitchute.com...

a reply to: anonentity

When you have solid evidence which is not an opinion,

Where is the solid evidence that at least 75% of pregnancies are ending in miscarriage. Where is the solid evidence that the birthrate has dropped by 75%.

As I mentioned before, I had a healthy daughter delivered after her mother and I were both vaccinated prior to conception. And once again, our inducement had to be pushed back a day due to the maternity ward being full.

On top of that, I know a number of other people that have become pregnant over the past year and they all have either delivered a healthy baby, including the one that was induced a few weeks early because the mother fell down the stairs, or their pregnancies are still going according to plan.

So how is it that 75% of pregnancies are ending in miscarriage and yet I can't point to a single example of it happening?

a reply to: Xcalibur254

Who really knows if there have been no trials. If you have been lucky that's great. www.bitchute.com...

a reply to: anonentity

I'm in the line of thinking there are two things going on here with these studies.

It would be absurd to think every vaccine was made in a giant vat and then distributed equally. I think some batches of the vaccine were better and some were worse. Not only that but 3 companies had vaccines rolling out at the same time. It would be absurd to think there weren't differences, probably major ones.

The other thing that worries me about these studies is how uncontrolled they are. A poster above said the study discounted pregnancies under a certain amount of weeks. So we have time is uncertain, the vax taken is uncertain, the batch of vax is uncertain, the underlying health of the mother is uncertain and the medical history of the women is uncertain.

How can you base any kind of opinion given this information? You can't use historic or baseline numbers in your belief system on this. A major global health event happened. I'm not only talking about the vax or the virus. People were locked down, lost their jobs, stopped hanging out with their friends/family. Friends / neighbors / families all going to their social media of choice and forming different opinions on everything.

Is this why the birthrate is down? Could this be why miscarriages are higher?

a reply to: litterbaux

There is definitely something different about the batches. It is experimental, so some would be placebos and some very high doses. so for the consumer not in the know. One vaccine would not be the same as another batch. Some people say they know of nobody with a bad reaction and some people say half their family died after the shot.I just look at big pharma's track record, and for the life of me can't work out how all these governments mandated on that.

a reply to: anonentity

If the vaccine was rolled out to the public with the three limiters you suggested; high dose, regular dose and plecebo.

This would be very very bad for everyone. That would indicate phase 3 study was on the general population.

That, hopefully, would never be admitted.

originally posted by: anonentity
a reply to: 10uoutlaw

It's counterproductive to attack the source, simply because the information is not what you want to hear.

I would respectfully disagree, often the credibility of the source lends credibility to the content.

For example if the source is known for posting credible information that's been rigorously checked, then the information is far more likely to be accurate, whereas information posted anonymously on bitchute is less likely to be accurate.

It's why peer review journals are considered to be a much more reliable source of information than CNN.

originally posted by: anonentity
a reply to: litterbaux

There is definitely something different about the batches. It is experimental, so some would be placebos and some very high doses. so for the consumer not in the know. One vaccine would not be the same as another batch.

The elephant in the room is that there is no tracking matrix in place, so you wouldn't actually be able to gather any meaningful data. Trial have to be carefully controlled and variables must be accounted for, you can't just pump drugs into a bunch of random people and the wait to see who drops dead.

some people say half their family died after the shot.

But those people are usually anonymous posters on forum like this, who can't prove that any of the dead people existed in the first place.

How many confirmed cases of multiple vax deaths in one family have you ever seen where the dead are verifiable people with social media accounts that went dark, or where multiple people who knew them blogged about their deaths?

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.

What happened to trust the science? Also how come it isn't anecdotal evidence when you say it but its anecdotal when someone else says it? you folks are are really weird.

I mean if we are going to use that kind of evidence and not believe a fertility doctor then I see your 2 successful births and raise you 5 people I know personally that was harmed. 2 miscarriages, 2 long term effects and 1 death from the vax.

originally posted by: AaarghZombies

originally posted by: anonentity
a reply to: 10uoutlaw

It's counterproductive to attack the source, simply because the information is not what you want to hear.

I would respectfully disagree, often the credibility of the source lends credibility to the content.

For example if the source is known for posting credible information that's been rigorously checked, then the information is far more likely to be accurate, whereas information posted anonymously on bitchute is less likely to be accurate.

It's why peer review journals are considered to be a much more reliable source of information than CNN.

bitchute is just a site that hosts stuff. Your argument is invalid. with your logic, I could post anything credible on it to automatically discredit it.

originally posted by: litterbaux
a reply to: anonentity

Not only that but 3 companies had vaccines rolling out at the same time. It would be absurd to think there weren't differences, probably major ones.

I'm not involved with vax of any sort, let alone vax manufacturing, but I do have involvement with adjacent areas.

When you make a product such as a vaccine you put in place a series of well tried protocol aimed at ensuring quality and consistency. With what I do (which again isn't vax related) we break things down into a series of steps and we analyses and categories the different risks involved in each and every process, from contamination from airborne elements to pieces breaking off of equipment and contaminating things that way.

We put in place measures to mitigate these risks, and we do spot checks on a regular basis to ensure that these protocol are effective. If one item from one batch is found to be defective at any of these steps we isolate the entire batch and we perform enhanced quality checks on them.

We send samples from each batch to an external laboratory to be vetted, and we isolate our own samples and store them separately so if a problem is found later on we can go back and see if that problem is present in our samples. For example if a contaminate is found, or if there is a labelling error.

At every step multiple people are involved at almost every level, form a senior quality manager to a laboratory manager, to some random person from an agency who is there for a couple of months to pay for college who mostly just changes the run a shrink wrapping machine.

Everything is rehearsed, everything is practiced, everyone is trained.

We occasionally have problems, and sometime have to destroy entire batches because we found a nut, but not the bolt to go with it, or because a seal has ruptured and we found a minute fragment of it as a contaminant.

We, however, would need multiple people to be asleep at the wheel, in order for what you're suggesting is happening with the vax to happen on the scale you are suggesting that it is happening. And when I say multiple people, I mean entire teams of people at multiple levels. And for this to happen without someone noticing and blowing the whistle?

We're also audited regularly by maybe 2 dozen different groups, all checking the same kind of things. So if we didn't notice they would. They would notice because their heads would be on the block if we made a mistake and they didn't catch it.

With some of what we do, things like cross contamination could literally kill people.

What I'm basically saying, is that the kind of mistakes or slapdash production that you're talking about is extremely rare because so many precautions are taken and there are so many levels of checks and balances in place, and because people like us have destroyed entire batches because a sliver of glass measuring a fraction of a mm was unaccounted for, or because a tiny fragment of a seal was found even though it would have absolutely no health impact on anyone.

We'd destroy an entire production run rather than risk one person potentially being harmed because the damage that it would do to our reputation would be many many times more costly than having to scrap all of that.

a reply to: jidnum

It's not the science that we don't trust, it's the person presenting it.

If you look at the curve, you'll see that the miscarriages happen in a clearly defined window, which happens to be the time in which miscarriages most commonly happen.

So you're not looking at 75 percent of people miscarrying during pregnancy, you're looking at 75 percent of all miscarriages happening at at a specific time during pregnancy, and about 13 percent of people pregnancies ending in miscarriage overall. Which is tragic for the families involved, but not a statistically significant difference from the decade before the vax happened.

This is further strengthened by the fact that people with a history of miscarriage, or with a family history of miscarriage, aren't differing from the curve either.