Infertility due to vaccine. Just doing some statistics.

a reply to: Xtrozero

I know exactly where it came from. The DMED. It is literally in my OP.

originally posted by: DaRAGE

I know exactly where it came from. The DMED. It is literally in my OP.

As I said we talked about it all like a year ago, so either a ton of people are lying with no follow up for almost a year, no reports for a year of the military up 500% in every medical condition known to man, or... just maybe their data collection changed as has been reported. Another part that kind of gripes me is you and others pick small samplings for some kind of sensationalism and we do not see it in the rest of the world. Why isn't there 20% reduction in births around the world, why isn't every medical condition up 500% around the world? We are long past the point of using small samples, even if they are false, when we have 12,5 billion shots given.

a reply to: Xtrozero

You're getting your birth rate data from one source aren't you? Macrotrends.

I've seen a video where they actually go and look at the Hungarian birth rate data, by province, by vaccination status. The more people vaccinated in the province, the larger the drop in birth rate.

But oh, that's just another bitchute video. What's a video on bitchute compared to your first source of information offered up by google called macro-trends. You are jumping straight into a lie. Don't pay attention to the man behind the curtain.

a reply to: Xtrozero

Here are official birth rate statistics.

Go compare them against your macro-trends.

timtruth.substack.com...

www.bitchute.com...

Did you not see this study on vaccines? Vaccinated vs unvaccinated?

Just because you havn't heard about them, doesn't mean it doesn't exist and happen.

a reply to: DaRAGE

I think that you are bang on. Nine percent and eleven percent add up to twenty percent. Hey, presto the drop recorded in many studies. because it is a man plus a woman in good shape equals a live birth. These are garnished from official figures so they have at least accepted that there is a drop. My gut tells me it's far worse than that. I haven't seen a pregnant woman in years.s

a reply to: AaarghZombies

Has your 'employer' given you new incentives recently? Or a pay rise? Or are you not hitting your targets and your position is actually under threat? Your desperation to defend the vaxine seems to have increased. 🧐

a reply to: anonentity

I never said that.

I was saying that before the plandemic in 2018 in America the infertility rate for a couple was after two years of trying 10% still hadn’t conceived.

The DMLE data showed an increase in female infertility by 472% and male infertility by 350%.

So take that original 10% and then times it appropriately for the increase.

I think the worse i have seen in world wide data was a 22% drop in births in Taiwan.
20% in Hungary. The data worldwide is getting harder to find. The UK didn’t release theirs last quarter…

originally posted by: DaRAGE

You're getting your birth rate data from one source aren't you? Macrotrends.

No I'm not...

I said you can get the data from a dozen of different sources. I was just making it easy as it is your OP not mine, so as I said this all was talked about in-depth about a year ago, so I'm not really looking at putting in the effort. Anyhow, if my numbers are wrong then prove it, or accept they are correct.

I've seen a video where they actually go and look at the Hungarian birth rate data, by province, by vaccination status. The more people vaccinated in the province, the larger the drop in birth rate.

Back to bit chute again, OK. I'll ask again... Why just Hungary and not the whole world now that there has been 12.5 billion shots given. I'm sure you have heard the famous line Correlation Does Not Imply Causation. Correlation between two variables does not necessarily mean that one variable causes the other to occur. Causation is the hardest thing to prove in an experiment. This is because our brains works on finding correlations in everything, it is how we function all the time.

But oh, that's just another bitchute video. What's a video on bitchute compared to your first source of information offered up by google called macro-trends. You are jumping straight into a lie. Don't pay attention to the man behind the curtain.

The difference is you can find source data as below that I used even another source that used four other sources of this data. I'm not sure if your videos actually provide source data as to where they are getting their numbers from.

originally posted by: DaRAGE

Here are official birth rate statistics.

Go compare them against your macro-trends.

Official? So your pull from a tweet is official but mine is not...lol OK

This is the US from UNdata, another source of many...lol



UNData

Also, most places do comparisons of XX births per 1000 women, so can you find that to compare?

Here is EU as a whole...

See a reply to: Xtrozero

You’re taking my words and twisting them around. I said that my twitter source has statistics pulled from official sources, such as the UK data. I know this because i have investigated the data myself by looking at the official excel spreadsheet data when it is released. I also know other countries data is from their official released data as i have been watching them too.

So you say “ oh twitter lol” but i know the data shown on twitter is from official government released data.

originally posted by: DaRAGE

You’re taking my words and twisting them around. I said that my twitter source has statistics pulled from official sources, such as the UK data. I know this because i have investigated the data myself by looking at the official excel spreadsheet data when it is released. I also know other countries data is from their official released data as i have been watching them too.

So you say “ oh twitter lol” but i know the data shown on twitter is from official government released data.

But I don't, so I just take your word when my data is official too...

Can you post the government released data. I also said we are comparing apple to oranges here, so can you get the xx per 1000 women data to support? I'm not trying to be an ass or anything, but when I check multiple "official" sources they come up the same as I posted. You were the one asking me to jump into this, so here I am. Lets get the data in the right format and then we can compare.

a reply to: Xtrozero

Your UN data is a projection…

The 2022 Revision of World Population Prospects represents the latest global set of demographic estimates and projections prepared by the Population Division of the Department of Economic and Social Affairs of the United Nations Secretariat. It displays key demographic indicators for selected periods or dates from 1950 to 2100, for the world, development groups, regions, subregions, and countries or areas with more than 1,000 inhabitants in 2021. For countries or areas with fewer than 1,000 inhabitants in 2021, only figures related to population size and growth are provided. The estimates and projections contained in this revision cover a 150-year time horizon, which can be subdivided into estimates (1950-2021) and projections (2022-2100). A sample set of summary indicators are provided as part of UNData. More detailed data by age and sex are available from the Population Division’s website. Citation: United Nations, Department of Economic and Social Affairs, Population Division (2022). World Population Prospects 2022: Online Edition. Last update in UNdata: 2022/10/07 Next update in UNdata: 2024/01/15

originally posted by: DaRAGE

Your UN data is a projection…

Yes, the future part is a projection, what is past is not since it is a reality that has come and gone, and it aligns with many other data sources. It was just updated too Oct 2022, next update will be in 2024, but you didn't like my other data source, so I went with this one. Would you like a 3rd or 4th too?