COVID-19 infertility vaccines

[lake]

Can you figure out any good reason for why they excluded pregnant women from the COVID-19 vaccine trials?!?

I can't guess these loony nut bags mate .... Maybe it is simply that a pregnant women taking the mRNA vaccine would lose the child and if too many had that happen then it would become knowledge even without any msn?

I found this is my search fro your video ....

Immunocontraceptives: New Approaches to Fertility Control
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4119744/

I have a lot of files (same as you no doubt) .... I need to go through them all and organize them ....sorry that I haven't done that yet

[Firestarter]

Maybe it is simply that a pregnant women taking the mRNA vaccine would lose the child and if too many had that happen then it would become knowledge even without any msn?

Women spontaneously aborting, after being poisoned with the sterilisation vaccines, would be the end of the scheme (even with the media under complete control)!

I have seen some debates for why they started this "epidemic" in 2020. Why not earlier?
Maybe the explanation is that they finally found a good candidate for sterilisation vaccines just recently?


.

I can't guess these loony nut bags mate ....

You have to sort of become a psycho to understand psychos (maybe better to not understand "them")...


.

I have a lot of files (same as you no doubt) .... I need to go through them all and organize them ....sorry that I haven't done that yet

That's actually one of the reasons I found you "suspicious".
You're not ignorant, but I never saw you posting any good information on Davidicke.com. Instead you often made "funny" posts.

After joining several forums in 2016, including Davidicke.com, until the end of 2017 I could sort of remember what I had posted.
Now I need to use the search button on Lawfulpath.com to find back information I had already posted (that doesn't work when a forum deletes all threads though!).

During the last years, I've sort of devised a working method for investigating and posting information.
With the only things needed - a USB and a PC in internetcafes.
I have lots of information stored on a simply 8 GB USB-stick. This is no good for "searching" though.

But now my new laptop corrupts all my documents.
Before I connected to the internet (or should I say, given the intelligence agencies access to my laptop?)... it worked just fine.

[Firestarter]

This is all the more suspicious against the background that HPV vaccines (that have been marketed as cancer vaccines) are known to reduce fertility in women (maybe more on that in a next post)

The following “scientific” report from 2017 suggests that the controversial HPV vaccine causes lower birth rates. This study analysed information gathered in National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey, representing 8 million 25 to 29-year-old women in the US between 2007 and 2014.

Birth rates in the US have recently fallen to record lows from 118.1 in 2007 to 104.5 in 2015 per 1000 females aged 25–29.
See the birth rates in the US from 1995 to 2015.


One factor could be the vaccination against the human papillomavirus (HPV) that “coincidentally” was approved by the US Food and Drug Administration in 2006 and recommended for females aged 11–26 (and since 2011 also for males of the same age group).

Adverse effects of the HPV vaccine include menstrual disturbances and mood swings. Shortly after the HPV vaccine was licensed, reports of women experiencing Primary Ovarian Failure (POF) emerged.
The estimated incidence of POF for females under the age of 40 is 1 in 100, but this could be considerably higher because it’s masked by the birth control pill. Between 10% and 30% of women with POF also have (other) autoimmune disorders.

61% of women who had not been poisoned with the HPV vaccine had been pregnant at least once, compared to only 35% of women who were poisoned with the HPV vaccine. The difference was especially large for women that had been married. Of the married women 75% that didn’t get the vaccine gave birth, while only 50% who were poisoned with the HPV vaccine had been pregnant.
The pregnancy frequency decreased with increasing numbers of HPV vaccine shots.

See (part of) Table 3 - Ratios of having been pregnant for women who received an HPV shot versus women who did not.
See (part of) Table 5 - Births of females aged 25–29 in the US, by number of HPV shots.


This suggests that at least part of the reason for the recent decline in US birth rates is caused by the HPV vaccine. Why did it take so long before this link was found (some studies have even denied this link)?
If all married women had been vaccinated with the HPV vaccine, the number of married women having conceived could have fallen with another 1 million.

There are other (possible) causes for the lower birth rates...
Higher employment rates (of women) decreases birth rates.
No epidemiological study on the influence of Aluminium (a component of vaccines) on fertility exists but Karakis et al in 2014 found an association between prenatal exposure to Aluminium and death of the (unborn) baby.
There could also be a link between Aluminium exposure and POF.

Gayle DeLong – A lowered probability of pregnancy in females in the USA aged 25–29 who received a human papillomavirus vaccine injection (2017): https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10 ... 18.1477640


Does anybody find it surprising that in one of those great examples of "science", the study was "retracted"?!?
The least they could do is come up with a good explanation for deleting the report. Instead they came with the story, we got complaints...

we were alerted to concerns about the scientific validity of the study...
All of the post-publication reports we received described serious flaws in the statistical analysis and interpretation of the data in this paper, and we have therefore taken the decision to retract it

They forgot to detail a single "flaw" in their motivation...


Big pharma trolls have attacked the author of the report, Gayle DeLong. The frustrating thing is that while they don’t have any evidence to defend the genocidal HPV vaccine, their ad hominem attacks do succeed in discrediting the study.
Now we can't even read the story anymore...

The big pharma trolls first quack that Gayle DeLong isn’t even a medical doctor but only an “economist”. DeLong did a statistical analysis of the data. If we take this kind of reasoning to the extreme only mathematicians should be allowed to do a statistical analysis.
I’ve regularly seen big pharma supporting “doctors” make the claim that after clean water vaccines are the cheapest health intervention. For evidence they regularly point to propaganda of the WHO, that isn’t backed up by any evidence. But we can’t really blame these doctors can we? They aren’t financial “experts” so wouldn’t know...

That the study contradicts all of the scientific studies on HPV vaccines that – supported and controlled by big pharma – concluded that HPV vaccines have no adverse effects at all.
So we can only conclude that these studies are biased, but instead they accuse DeLong.

No explanation on how HPV vaccines cause infertility.
Why would anybody doing a statistical analysis that shows that the HPV vaccine causes infertility, is expected to explain which poisons in the vaccines causes infertility?

Bizarrely that DeLong didn’t correct for contraception, with the addition of

In fairness, if the correlation is not positive but negative (i.e., HPV vaccination is associated with less oral contraceptive use), the results could be more robust than what Gayle found.

https://www.skepticalraptor.com/skeptic ... -blogging/


Surprise, surprise, after the insults, Gayle DeLong proved that HPV vaccines are associated with LESS contraceptive use (so the infertility cause by HPV vaccines is even larger):

I find 51.5% of married women who did not receive the shot and 36.6% of married women who received the shot were actively seeking to prevent pregnancy. The 14.9% difference is statistically significant at the 1% level.

This finding suggests that a greater percentage of married women who received the shot should be conceiving compared with married women who did not receive the shot. However, my original study finds that married women who received the shot are less likely to conceive than married women who did not receive the shot. The finding of my original study is not the result of married women who received the HPV vaccine actively avoiding pregnancy more than women who did not receive the HPV shot.

https://www.ageofautism.com/2018/06/new ... ation.html
(https://archive.is/OvPy3)

[Firestarter]

Now personally I can't think of any good reason for why pregnant women were excluded from the COVID-19 vaccine trials. Besides that if (hypothetically speaking) the vaccines are designed to cause infertility of women this could lead to abortions. Spontaneous abortions after vaccines would make an end to the corona vaccines (even with the media under complete control).
Of course not testing the vaccines on pregnant women would be a good reason to not recommend them to pregnant women after the vaccines are (emergency) approved. But this of course would also be a good strategy to hide that the vaccines cause abortions.

The vaccines have not yet been tested in pregnancy, so until more information is available, those who are pregnant should not routinely have this vaccine. Non-clinical evidence is required before any clinical studies in pregnancy can start, and before that, it is usual to not recommend routine vaccination during pregnancy.

.
If the COVID-19 vaccine is designed to prevent pregnancies, they would especially want women that have “childbearing potential” to get vaccinated. Women that have little babies are known to have this potential.
Now, even though there is no information of the effects of the vaccines on breastfeeding mothers, they are recommended!

There are no data on the safety of COVID-19 vaccines in breastfeeding or on the breastfed infant. Despite this, COVID-19 vaccines are not thought to be a risk to the breastfeeding infant, and the benefits of breast-feeding are well known. Because of this, the JCVI has recommended that the vaccine can be received whilst breastfeeding. This is in line with recommendations in the USA and from the World Health Organisation.

https://www.gov.uk/government/publicati ... astfeeding
(https://archive.is/4jfOG)

[Firestarter]

Now this sounds almost convincining...
This is a "big" study of 43,448 "healthy" test subjects, half got 2 doses of the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine, and the other half placebo.

An important aspect of "science" is describing what to do beforehand. When they change the trials, this is by definition rigging. This is also evidence that the trial wasn't properly double-blind, because they couldn't makes changes to the protocol (knowing the efficacy) if they didn't know who got the vaccine and who the placebo.

The report includes 2 months of follow up after the second dose of the vaccine for only half of the trial participants.  
Due to the high efficacy found in the trial, the original plan of following placebo recipients for 2 years will not be followed due to ethical concerns. Therefore, there will be no placebo group with which to assess long-term efficacy and safety.

For some reason they only followed half of the trial subjects. So in reality there is only information on some 21,700. Excluding half is another sign of rigging these trials.
Following the people injected with placebo for a mere 2 months, because it would not "ethical". So basically a proper study is unethical.
You can't know the efficacy or adverse effects of the vaccine without a (placebo) control group!

The extremely dangerous COVID-19 virus has a mortality rate of lower than 0.1%, meaning that only people in bad health can die from it (the sort of people that won't get the vaccine because of expected serious adverse effects).

In vaccine recipients, the most commonly reported systemic events were fatigue and headache (59% after the first dose and 52% after the second dose among younger vaccine recipients; 51% after the first dose and 39% after the second dose among older recipients).
Fatigue and headache were also reported by many placebo recipients (23% after the first dose and 24% after the second dose among younger vaccine recipients; 17% after the first dose and 14% after the second dose among older recipients). 
Fever (temperature ≥38 C) was reported after the second dose by 16% of younger vaccine recipients, and by 11% of older recipients. 
The incidence of serious adverse events was similar in the vaccine and placebo groups (0.6% and 0.5%, respectively).

Can anybody think of a good reason for why younger test subjects suffer more adverse effects than older people?
Unfortunately no information on the difference in adverse effects between the genders.

Pregnant women were excluded from the trial, but not completely.

Of note, women were screened for pregnancy prior to each trial vaccination, according to a Pfizer-BioNTech briefing document. A total of 23 pregnancies occurred, some after vaccination and some that occurred prior to vaccination but were not detected via screening. Twelve pregnant individuals received the vaccine, and 11 received placebo. No unsolicited adverse events, including spontaneous abortion, occurred.

https://www.idsociety.org/covid-19-real ... 9-Vaccine/
(https://archive.is/TrqPL)


Now that sounds like the vaccines didn't prevent pregnancies... but why are the amount of pregnancies so low (in more than 2 months)?
They made sure that the women were using contraceptives (that would of course be a good strategy to hide that the vaccines cause sterilisation!). It is strange that they forgot to mention this in the previous long story on the vaccines.

The National Institutes of Health recommends that contraception requirements are in place for any clinical trial participants who take part in a trial in the US, such as the Pfizer trials, who engage in heterosexual intercourse, whether or not there is any risk posted by the study to a foetus.
Women were eligible to participate in the trial for the Pfizer/BioNTech Covid-19 vaccine if they were not pregnant or breastfeeding and if they either did not have “childbearing potential”, or if they were using an “acceptable contraceptive method” for at least 28 days after they took their last dose of the vaccine trial.

https://www.thejournal.ie/factcheck-pfi ... 9-Jan2021/