Infertility due to vaccine. Just doing some statistics.

About 9% of men and about 11% of women of reproductive age in the United States have experienced fertility problems.1

In one-third of infertile couples, the problem is with the man.
In one-third of infertile couples, the problem can't be identified or is with both the man and woman.
In one-third of infertile couples, the problem is with the woman.
Studies suggest that after 1 year of having unprotected sex, 12% to 15% of couples are unable to conceive, and after 2 years, 10% of couples still have not had a live-born baby.2,3,4 (In couples younger than age 30 who are generally healthy, 40% to 60% are able to conceive in the first 3 months of trying.5)

www.nichd.nih.gov...

The above article has references/citations listed and is from 2/8/2018.


Now, in case you don't remember, there was a thread created here on ATS which showed whistleblower information from the military doctors and sent a letter to someone higher up regarding vaccine side effects. One of those side effects was a 472% increase in female infertility.

See below link and pictures from that thread:
The Smoking Gun: DMED Whistle Blower Data Released


files.abovetopsecret.com...
files.abovetopsecret.com...

So if we take from the top the percentages.
"12-15% of couples in the first year being unable to conceive" and times that by 472% we get 56.64% - 70.8% with no conception after 1 year.
"After 2 years, 10% of couples still have not had a live-born baby" and times that by 472% we get 47.2% of couples with no child after two years.

originally posted by: chr0naut
This claim (that the COVID-19 vaccines caused infertility) came out from almost day one of the public roll-out (when there was no data suggesting it at all).

It has been nearly 2 years since then, and literally billions of doses of vaccines have been administered worldwide. There is still no data suggesting that there has been any increase in the fall-off in human fertility that was not already evident for a decade or more.

Hungarian mp reports 20% birth drop

German and Sweden birth rates plummet

Models have shown for some years now that birth rates are plummeting and we are nearing the point where there aren't enough younger people in the workforce to support those aging out and retiring.

That adds a lot of context to what we're seeing on the world stage. It's not about overpopulation; it's about too many elderly people overloading the system.

a reply to: DaRAGE

Are you factoring in the fact that obesity is the one of the primary causes of infertility in the US Source, and that rates climbed dramatically due to the covid lockdown Source

How about the fact that the covid lockdown effectively locked people out of fertility services Source

Meaning that a reduction in national fertility levels is something that we'd absolutely expect to see, with or without the vax?

originally posted by: nugget1

That adds a lot of context to what we're seeing on the world stage. It's not about overpopulation; it's about too many elderly people overloading the system.

Which is why country's need to start transitioning to a system where people save for their own retirement in independently managed funds, rather than one where the current labor force pays in while the retired labor force takes out. As with social security.

a reply to: DaRAGE

So if we take from the top the percentages.
"12-15% of couples in the first year being unable to conceive" and times that by 472% we get 56.64% - 70.8% with no conception after 1 year.
"After 2 years, 10% of couples still have not had a live-born baby" and times that by 472% we get 47.2% of couples with no child after two years.

OK, maths and stats nerd here.

Could you maybe redo those numbers in a standardized format. Say, per 100,000 head of population, then cross reference them the actual number of people experiencing infertility against the vaccination rates for their age group in bands of 5 or 10 years?

You know, actual math.

a reply to: DaRAGE

So if we take from the top the percentages.
"12-15% of couples in the first year being unable to conceive" and times that by 472% we get 56.64% - 70.8% with no conception after 1 year.
"After 2 years, 10% of couples still have not had a live-born baby" and times that by 472% we get 47.2% of couples with no child after two years.

OK, maths and stats nerd here.

Could you maybe redo those numbers in a standardized format. Say, per 100,000 head of population, then cross reference them the actual number of people experiencing infertility against the vaccination rates for their age group in bands of 5 or 10 years?

You know, actual math.

a reply to: AaarghZombies

Of course it's people getting fat being the reason and not a new experimental vaccine being pushed on everyone by people that openly advocate for depopulation.

a reply to: AaarghZombies

What did i write? Gibberish? Can’t you count? Multiply? I showed you my math skills. It’s perfectly laid out for you.

If you want it for 100,000 people, well thats 50,000 couples, with 10% of them, which would be 5,000 couples unable to conceive after 2 years at 2018 stats with zero covid vaccinations.

Now we take that 5000 couple number and times it by 4.72 which is 472%.
That’s 23,600 couples unable to conceive after two years out 50,000 couples. This is with 100% mandatory vaccination rate for the military… as thats where the statistics for the infertility increase has come from…

Maths! Ta da.

originally posted by: TDDAgain
a reply to: AaarghZombies

Of course it's people getting fat being the reason and not a new experimental vaccine being pushed on everyone by people that openly advocate for depopulation.

Im surprised he didn’t say that it was climate change that is causing the infertility.

a reply to: DaRAGE

Yeah nothing to see here. Also all the menstrual bleeding, that was a change in air pressure or because CO2 levels. Just focusing on that single side effect out of a lot, since it's about infertility.

How many do not even know they became infertile yet or will never know? I don't know if I am fertile anymore, because I am not trying to get pregnant. That's something to consider too. I think the actual numbers are a lot higher since we only see the results in people trying currently.

a reply to: TDDAgain

Oh definitely. When it comes to infertility we only see the results when couples are trying and failing, and try to figure out what is going wrong by seeing their doctors. There will be a much larger number that are just clueless…

originally posted by: AaarghZombies

originally posted by: nugget1

That adds a lot of context to what we're seeing on the world stage. It's not about overpopulation; it's about too many elderly people overloading the system.

Which is why country's need to start transitioning to a system where people save for their own retirement in independently managed funds, rather than one where the current labor force pays in while the retired labor force takes out. As with social security.

Just think of the wealth that was wasted by the Social Security scam. If the federal government had instituted a system where a few thousand a year had been put into personal retirement funds from the moment a person started working to when they retired at 65 instead of SS most retirees would wake up on their 65th birthday with millions of dollars in their retirement funds.

Instead it was all wasted on other people in a gigantic Ponzi scheme with the excess funds separated off. The cream of the process wasted on valueless IOUs that couldn't be redeemed in large quantities or the government crashes.

Truthfully the populace has been robbed of trillions of dollars of wealth.

65-18=47 working years. So $94,000 total after 47 years.

Inital year at 2% equals $5072 at 65. So $2000 a year at 2%= $158,000 at 65. At 4 % that = $278,000. At 10 % it = $1,920,344.68.

10% is a reasonable return if the money had been placed into a stock fund. Per Google.

Stock market returns since 1975
This is a return on investment of 19,022.88%, or 11.61% per year. This lump-sum investment beats inflation during this period for an inflation-adjusted return of about 3,352.25% cumulatively, or 7.69% per year.

Now think where the economy would have been if that kind of money had been invested instead of spent?

Duplicate post.

originally posted by: TDDAgain
a reply to: AaarghZombies

Of course it's people getting fat being the reason and not a new experimental vaccine being pushed on everyone by people that openly advocate for depopulation.

Yes, because this started after WWII when America converted its wartime industrial economy into civilian manufacturing, and there was an explosion of wealth creation, leading to obesity becoming a problem for the middle classes, and then in the late 1970s and early 1980s when ultra processed foods dropped the standard of nutrition for the poor to the ground, leading to obesity becoming a problem there too.

Or are you suggesting that there's time travel involved?

originally posted by: AaarghZombies

originally posted by: nugget1

That adds a lot of context to what we're seeing on the world stage. It's not about overpopulation; it's about too many elderly people overloading the system.

Which is why country's need to start transitioning to a system where people save for their own retirement in independently managed funds, rather than one where the current labor force pays in while the retired labor force takes out. As with social security.

That's nice. You've ignored the big picture and micro-focused on one little element-almost like you want to turn this into an 'I'm right and you're wrong' argument-again.

Here's an article from 2014 addressing the WORLD declining birth rate. Do you think the whole world is obese?

The global average fertility rate is around 2.3 children per woman today. Over the last 50 years the global fertility rate has halved.
ourworldindata.org...

country's need to start transitioning to a system where people save for their own retirement in independently managed funds

I think you're a little out of touch with the poverty wave sweeping across America. People are struggling to afford food, housing and utilities; how the heck are they going to manage putting money aside for retirement?

Your lack of empathy and disdain for your fellow man is truly a sight to behold; bless your heart.

originally posted by: DaRAGE
a reply to: AaarghZombies

What did i write? Gibberish? Can’t you count? Multiply? I showed you my math skills.

The calculation that you used isn't the correct one to achieve the output that you want. You need to calculate the rate per 100,00 population, and then to bracket it by age.

This is done for two reasons, but primarily because A) a Per Hundred Thousand measure allows you to compare one set of numbers to another set from a population that's much larger or much smaller, and B) Different fertility outcomes are normal for different age groups.

You also need to bracket the age groups by vaccination status.

For example, the fertility of an unvaccinated 20 year old isn't comparable to a vaccinated 40 year old. This is particularly so for women where fertility drops off more rapidly than with men. So a perfectly normal 45 year old woman's fertility may be equivalent to the verticity of 60 year old man, or a 20 year old obese man.

a reply to: AaarghZombies
I suggest nothing of the nonsense you write.

a reply to: DaRAGE

And in return the pharmacy industry will earn billions from treatments. It's all just coincidences. I don't think it is because the twist applied to so many things in the last three years is staggering, it's really gaslighting whole populations.

a reply to: nugget1

Here's an article from 2014 addressing the WORLD declining birth rate.

Of course, since I wasn't discussing birth rates, it's not actually relevant.

I think you're a little out of touch with the poverty wave sweeping across America. People are struggling to afford food, housing and utilities; how the heck are they going to manage putting money aside for retirement?

This only serves to strengthen my argument. If the US moved more quickly into transitioning those who CAN afford to save for retirement towards an individual savings system it will mean that they won't be drawing on the same pots of money as those who can't.

Right now, there are millions of Americans living in poverty in retirement specifically because their company pension schemes are bankrupt. Take the big motor companies and the postal service, they spend such a large percentage their budget on legacy cases (Retirees) that it's draining new investment. And of course there are cases such as Enron, where thousands of people lost their pensions because the fund lost liquidity. If they had had their pensions in individual investments that wouldn't have happened because their money would have been beyond company reach.

Your lack of empathy and disdain for your fellow man is truly a sight to behold; bless your heart.

If telling people that they should take personal responsibility rather than depending on others to do everything for them, then color me the least empathetic person in the room.

a reply to: ntech

Forget about the social security system, it's company pensions that you need to worry about first and foremost.

Google "Enron", and see what happened when the company collapsed and took its pension system with it. People who paid into their pensions their entire adult lives were left with nothing. If they ad individual investments then their money would have been safe.

Also, look at the postal service. The pensions of people who retired a decade ago are dependent on people delivering the mail today. When you pay into a post office pension you're not saving for your retirement, you're paying for the retirement of someone who have already retired.

You just better hope that by the time you retire there is enough money going into the system to support you.