196 Comments

"Initially submitted September 24, 2021, accepted for publication January 13, 2022" (header of second figure, the one with red highlight)

That tells me all I need to know about this paper. Even if it's completely correct, it is a snapshot in time that ignores population-level observations through all of 2022, since any revision would have to be submitted for peer review by end of 2021. One would expect fertility and viability data to be on a 40-week lag anyways, so this study needs to be conducted and peer reviewed annually at least.

Tired of "peer reviewed!" being used as a cudgel to push one paper that agrees with the narrative, even though it's already well out of date.

Expand full comment

good catch, so the study was done mainly before the vaccines were widespread as well. It was only a few months into the entire campaign. Using a year old study, in a timeframe that is before mass vaccination would seem to be worthless to me. Like you said where is the study that captures all of 2022?? And how can a person claimng to be a scientist look at real world figures and have no curiosity as to why birth rates have plummeted?? It's all very troubling, and these so called credentialed experts and scientists continue to double down against reality. Very odd times.

Expand full comment

“Figures lie and liars figure.” Data is only as good as the one analyzing it and how thin they slice it....junk in, junk out.

Thank you, El Gato for keeping them honest.

Expand full comment

I'm seeing more and more of this, people linking to studies 'proving' the vax is safe (or effective) and thinking it valid because the published data is recent, only to dig into the study to find the actual cohort data collection timeline was 9-12 months ago when the vax was only just beginning to be administered to the public.

Expand full comment

Yes! People are often confused about the whole timeline between April 2020 and especially 2021 into 2022. Oh boy, I sure remember 2021 when my unvaxxed status blew up my world. I won’t forget that —the months, year, days and hours.

Expand full comment

I spent that year on constant high alert, trying to keep my unvaccinated college students happy and thriving and flying under the radar. As the rules changed at each school, making things harder and harder on the unvaccinated students, I had to remain vigilant so I could coach my children to keep them attending school and moving forward. I will not easily forget or forgive those who made our unvaxxed status a societal evil.

Expand full comment

2021 was the worst year of my life and I’m 74. My sister died after her first shot in April. Had to put my fur baby cat down a week later and then my only sister living in USA told me I was no longer able to be in her presence even outdoors without shots. A dear friend said the same thing adding quote: “You might kill us”. I was thrown out of the library where I had worked for years because of no mask and called a danger out loud in front of others as a “danger to us and everyone “. My SIL was almost murdered in a hospital from remdisivir and a vent where my brother was unable to be with her. Then he was diagnosed with prostate cancer. I was seriously planning how I could be happy just living in my small rural town if I was locked down personally. (I could) There was more. I finally had my eyes opened to the true state of humanity—the poisoned hands pushing on us controlled by Satan. Every single thing or entity or tribe or government or family member was untrustworthy and by September I felt incredibly alone. I found substack and God led me the way removing all fear.. I will resist. Just like so many here have suffered in personal ways. I have emotional scars. I will not forget. The most important thing you can do K is keep strong and protect your children. You get it!!

Expand full comment

I’m so very sorry to hear your story. I, too, have gained so much from the substack community. I’m not sure I would have been able to resist the pressure from nearly all of our family, friends, doctors, school administrators, and our parish priest, nor the non-stop lies from the propaganda machine. It’s been a bizarre and evil 3 years, but the silver lining has been finding smart people of like minds.

Expand full comment

Wow, Janet, so sorry you went through all of that! We non jabbed had to be resilient to resist the incredible pressure. I’m so glad we did!!

Expand full comment

21 Was when it got real. I had to finish my (silly. paltry AA) degree off campus because of my lack of the jab. I was also caretaking my dying husband at the time and in and out of hospitals. Ugh.

Expand full comment

🙏🏽🙏🏽🙏🏽😢

Expand full comment

agree. sooo agree. I've got a friend who works as a volunteer photographer for Now I Lay Me Down to Sleep. They go into hospitals to photograph stillborns so the parents have some photo memory of their baby. She's done it for years. She's never been this busy. Ever. Not in 2021. But super busy in 2022. And now 2023 :-(

Expand full comment

That's got to be one of the most depressing volunteer jobs I can think of. She must be a special type of person who can do this sort of thing and not cry every night. As an aside, a family that sends their kids to my kids' school (it's a small community) lost their baby at 8 months recently. I've NEVER known anyone that miscarried that late (or is it considered stillbirth at that gestation if you didn't actually go into labor).

Expand full comment

In Australia, it's legally a stillbirth anytime after 20 weeks gestation, irrespective of labour starting or not. You are legally required to register the birth with Births Deaths & Marriages. It probably depends on the legal definition of life in any jurisdiction. Organisations like Now I Lay Me Down To Sleep are angels in human form.

Expand full comment

That is the same as the US. Miscarriage is before 20 weeks, stillbirth is after.

Expand full comment

In Australia it’s usually referred to as still-born that late in a pregnancy.

Expand full comment

It's the same here in the US.

Expand full comment

That makes me cry. Now I Lay Me Down to Sleep.

Expand full comment

It's so sad. It's a fantastic organization, though. I've been a photographer for 13 years now, but I've never joined NILMDTS because I don't think I could handle it

...and now I'm going to be a nurse working in OB, NICU, and peds...

Expand full comment

Fellow OB nurse here… I challenge you to look into the black box drug vitamin K for newborns… one of the main side effects is yellow jaundice… no benefit and potentially huge issues for the newborn.

And that’s just one trip down the rabbit hole…

When I started researching into some of the things that I had been taught in nursing school, and were considered normal practice here in America, it just made me SICK! 🔥

Expand full comment

Thanks for the advice, but vitamin K is a necessary component of the clotting cascade and it helps prevent neonatal hemorrhage. I will never ever not recommend it for my patients. Just being born carries a risk of jaundice and it's very easily treated.

Expand full comment

Look a little deeper… I looked very, very closely at some of the “non-vaccine” population and their hemorrhagic disease of the newborn was no higher than the average population that DID get Vitamin K shots at birth.

It took a whole bunch of digging! A lot of the research was carefully hidden! 💩

Big pharma’s MO… Create a problem then provide a so-called solution…

Expand full comment

It will be a good thing to have a person with ethics and empathy in such a position.

Expand full comment

Also, September 24, 2021 is almost exactly 9 months after the jabs were first made available, and widespread availability didn't happen for another 1-3 months. So how can we rely on fertility data from events that took place in less time than the human gestation period?

(Not a data scientist, so maybe my question is brainless.)

Expand full comment

keep in mind this is measuring pregnancy, not births, so the 9 month lag would not apply.

Expand full comment

And they would also be missing any signal resulting from increased miscarriage risk as opposed to direct fertility reduction...

Expand full comment

Ahh, so it *was* brainless. Do I know me, or what?!

Expand full comment

Seems an important point.

Expand full comment

Well put. This study is out of date and out of touch. Sadly info on many things moves at the site of light these days. One has to pay close attention. To alot of data and credible sources to keep up. Obviously Viki bailed on the keeping up portion.

Expand full comment

Not a surprise. Viki is most likely a paid shill for Big Harma.

Expand full comment

Yes- they need to have continued the study with a new cohort, or just follow the original one for 2-5 years.

Expand full comment

And we can pretty sure they won't, given how quickly they buried the study blind on the original vax study and offered the jab to all the placebo participants...

Expand full comment

"self-identified females" - so this could include biological males, who can't get pregnant? I wonder how this distorts FR? Were there more trans women in one group over the other?

Expand full comment

Males also don't have periods, so cycles/pregnancies ratio won't be affected

Expand full comment

LOL!! Despite their many weird and idiotic attempts, they just can’t get their periods!! And that exemplifies how nuts this gender shit has become!

Expand full comment

I have to comment. There are a few people who transitioned who are coming out to talk about the horror of this situation. The surgery is crazy! The guy I heard recently on VivaFrei podcast said it is mental illness that leads people to do this. He is talking about his own experience to become a female. He said when he had the surgery and they showed him what had been done he knew instantly he had made a huge mistake. Super sad.

Expand full comment

Good to see the detransitioners are being seen!

Expand full comment

Thank you, it has to be. And I’m not denying it, but I don’t understand that form of mental illness. But I also admit to not understanding gambling addiction. I’m not being judgmental, I just don’t get it. Frozen tomato paste popsicles... how can we explain that having a period is not exactly a ton of fun, but guess what? If we choose to, we can become pregnant, give birth , lactate... because we are female mammals.

Expand full comment

It is mental illness that is being exploited, just like certain mentally ill among us are also exploited into having taken an exceptional number of injections in the last year.

Expand full comment

Right, this young person says he came from a loving family. He attributed much of his capture to online addiction at an early age asa big factor.

Expand full comment

good point.

Expand full comment

They lurk on period apps and log 'theirs'. Because validation. And fapping. Lots of Fapping.

Expand full comment

That's nothing. They're also self-reporting having had COVID, which by definition excludes any untested persons who were infected but asymptomatic.

Expand full comment

In a world of vastly unreported/unknown numbers of Similars/psychopaths 'self reporting' and full fare will get you to Poughkeepsie.

Expand full comment

I wondered that as well. Were they self identified males as well? I’ll go back and look

Expand full comment

I caught that too. Real females don't need to "self-identify."

Expand full comment

Has anyone ever defined what the process of "self-identification" is? What are the steps, which checks and tests do you perform, and against what baseline?

Expand full comment

A whole new discipline! We need to approach governments, around the world, to endow chairs at prestigious universities. Think of the papers that could be written! Peer review credits that could be awarded! A brilliant idea Sir!

Expand full comment

I think we need a new version of the Devil's Dictionary, and I'd like to start the project. Let me translate for you. “Immunologist working on pregnancy at @ImperialCollege equality and diversity in STEM."

Immunologist: drug pusher, proponent of replacing human immune system with drugs, a person willing to assume that whatever she doesn't know about the immune system isn't worth knowing.

Equality and Diversity in STEM: a critic of the scientific method, logic and reason, advocates of DIE in STEM believe the only source of truth is a consensus of relevant experts, here defined as people who make their living pushing the same superstitions and/or drugs. A person who knows just enough science to be a menace to themselves and others.

Expand full comment

I fondly emember the Devil's dictionary.

Expand full comment

Thanks. At this point in the game, my default position is to assume that every one of the regime's narrative-supporting, dissident-voice-destroying positions is a lie.

These people have contempt for the truth...and for us.

Expand full comment

I am the same. I feel uncomfortable with my own stance because I might miss something. It takes me longer to read because I am always trying to watch for my own bias. I’m guessing I shouldn’t admit that.

Expand full comment

This should be admitted! It's integrity, girl.

Expand full comment

Absolutely. We all have biases, but the more discerning of us are aware of it.

Most -- the Normies -- are completely biased in their perceptions and blissfully unaware of that fact. "Everyone I know thinks the same thing." It's easier to be sure you're 'right' that way.

Expand full comment

Glad you do that. We are living in a psy op and need to be careful about what we accept as true.

Expand full comment

Classic Dunning-Kruger. Their experts demonstrate it as well, but their certainty reveals how much LESS knowledge they have.

Expand full comment

That is true,however ,every 'expert' of theirs that can be proven to be illegitimate to those who defer to authority is needful.

Let us show what cats can be trusted,and what rats to be ousted.

Expand full comment

"what cats can be trusted,and what rats to be ousted"

Keep goin' I&K, you have a great beginning for a Broadway hit!

Expand full comment

🤣 thanks,Andy...but if you want this start ,take it and run with it. Also, I sing contralto if you're writing up a part. 😉

Expand full comment

Yes. I'll be damned if I'm going to chase after every thing these people throw out there, and try to parse out whether they're telling the truth this time. They're proven liars, and so are dispensed with immediately. It's just like the "global warming" crap, as others have observed.

Expand full comment

Maybe so, but important is you have children and want to see those children have children….. population decline is the most important issue facing the world in 50 years.

Expand full comment

Good catch, Gato. You also went the extra mile checking all the stuff about Cox regression. But, as you say, just looking at the raw numbers and seeing that they "flipped" their ratios... tells me everything I need to know.

Expand full comment

I'm wondering what are the odds that she/it/them would have resorted to using gill-andersen if the female pregnancies per cycle decimals came out this way : numerator - 0.179 ; denominator - 0.189

Expand full comment

Upside down data, you say? Reminds one of global warming shenanigans. https://climateaudit.org/2009/09/03/kaufmann-and-upside-down-mann/

Expand full comment

The smoothing of numbers is epic all over global warming.

Expand full comment

oh it goes well beyond smoothing

"infilling" - computer-model-generated fake temperatures for places where no thermometers actually exist

and the pièce de résistance as in that article --- actually using opposite-polarity time series

Expand full comment

And ignoring 'inconvenient truths' like a swath of reporting stations across the Arctic that didn't produce the data they wanted... so they removed them from the database.

Expand full comment

It would be interesting to see a study comparing/evaluating the quality of research for researchers who list their pronouns on their bios vs. those who do not. Do the pronoun people tend to produce biased research because they have preexisting ideological biases that bleed over into their work?

Expand full comment

In my corner of the universe, I’ve seen people who were completely rational and reasonable change into DEI zealots in the space of a year or two. It isn’t clear if this is because they have become true believers or if they feel so much peer pressure that they have to turn zealous in order to prevent themselves from becoming targets. That same reasoning might be causing the research to also be skewed as well.

Expand full comment

They don't like to be the last to know something socially; whether that is the beginning of the latest current thing...or when the latest current thing confers no social benefit to them.

In the case of the former; if they feel like they were late to the latest current thing, than they'll redouble their efforts to catch up. One way to do that is to appear to their social set that they are committed to the "purity" of the new current thing.

In the later they fear more than anything to appear to be the last to know that the previous current thing is no longer vogue and inures no benefit to them socially.

Many are experiencing the later with the obviously misguided and cruel pandemic response that they once cheered on. It is a small death for them to admit to themselves and vanishgly rare to say it out loud.

To do so, with covid, would mean they would have to process and accept living a lie, in what was de facto a moral crusade that proved lying to themselves for social benefit actually meant THEY participated in an amoral cause; claiming their actions were moral because ours weren't.

In the rare event they accept that responsibility; they must also accept being on the wrong side of what was the obvious moral thing to do. Not only would they be admitting they were wrong, but they would also be admitting that their actions...Indeed the purity they sought and used as a cudgel was for decisions that led to immorality.

Expand full comment

Statistical analysis is totally over my head (thank you, Gato, I trust you much more than Viki); but "affecting a small group strongly and others little or transiently" appears to me to be precisely what we are seeing in "vaccine" adverse effects.

Expand full comment

💯💯

Expand full comment

Also, this study is part of a pattern that I've seen w/ COVID. Whenever real world data doesn't fit the expectation (ACM goes up despite vaccines, masks/lockdowns don't appear to work etc.),someone generates a study to "debunk" whatever we saw in the real world, trying to get us to believe the study over the real world evidence. Does that make sense? In any other context, would you trust a study over the real world? Setting aside problems w/ any particular study, when did studies become more reliable than reality itself? If you stuck your hand on the stove & got burnt, would you care what my study said? To put it another way, the meta-argument here is that vaccines/lockdowns/masks are just super unlucky - there's always some sad coincidence that makes them APPEAR to fail when, in fact, they're working great. But is that a reasonable approach to science?

In the final analysis, aren't we just saying that X worked, but the patient died? If we aren't doing this for the real world effects, why are we doing it? Shouldn't policies/drugs be judged on their real world effects? If people who do X seem to die more than people who don't, would you keep doing X because - in theory - X works? Isn't it more likely that X is to blame in ways we do not understand than X is great, but unlucky? Seems to me that "luck" is apt to be something we don't understand rather than true luck.

So, sure, maybe all these policies/drugs failed for a variety of coincidental reasons or maybe all these policies/drugs failed because they're bad ideas & we just haven't yet figured out why or how they're bad ideas.

It's not even about the burden of proof or heuristics or science or whatever nonsense they're citing; it's about epistemology. Should we ignore what we know (the real world data) to rely upon what we can't possibly know for sure (models, studies etc.)? I'd say no. For example, I trust DNA, but I wouldn't convict somebody based on DNA alone - I'd need corroboration. Wouldn't you? You think those tests are never wrong? Never faked? Wouldn't you want something else linking the accused to the crime? So shouldn't these vaccines - and every other policy - generate some real world corroboration? Do we think it's possible that DNA would be the perp's only link to the crime? Do we think it's possible that these ideas would NEVER generate corroboration? Sure, both are theoretically possible, but would we consider those possibilities reasonable?

At this point, the dearth of real world proof of vaccine efficacy & safety is proof of the opposite.

Expand full comment

Agreed 100% cp. I remember when the HCQ/IVM controversies were at their peak saying that I'd trust the so-called anecdotal evidence - from doctors treating thousands of patients - over the allegedly gold-standard RCT's, since the C stands for controlled which can have many meanings but seems mostly to mean the results are being controlled to meet the desired outcome.

Expand full comment

And remember... "trust what we say, and don't believe your lying eyes."

People have been trained to believe the media. If a media says a study is reliable, it's reliable. I.e, the Imperial study about billions being killed by COVID.

Unfortunately, I think most have lost the ability to think critically or are simply too lazy to examine things themselves. As long as CNN/ G00gle/Facebook says something is true, it's true.

So in the end, it might not matter at all that this fertility study is cr@p, because the normies will accept it because of confirmation bias. They don't want to believe they're f*cked because of the jab, so they simply don't believe any evidence at all that there are problems.

Expand full comment

They do seem to neglect the effects of their policies in the real world. I had a "discussion" w a friend of my son who tried to argue that we should have isolated everyone like they tried to do in China to achieve zero COVID. He wouldn't consider all the other effects that isolation would bring about.

Expand full comment

Thank you for making these excellent points, cp.

Expand full comment

It takes two to tango. So don't you need to know the vaccination status of both partners?

Expand full comment

Excellent point! It's unstated whether unvaccinated means both partners or either. The sex of the partner is also unstated.

Expand full comment

viki "...pregnancy...equality...diversity..." can't even get the "E" right in DEI, so there's that. And those three words in a self-description also give me paws (intended). But I wonder why she/her didn't include "Inclusion" in her description given the fact the study is counting "male" pregnancies.

Expand full comment

Imperial College at it again, maybe she used professor “cheats on wife” random number generator - that he never released the code for last I heard

Expand full comment

The code was examined and found to be an absolute pigs breakfast, it would produce different results with the same base data and parameters. This indicates extremely poor coding eg subject to race conditions so utterly unreliable. See here

https://dailysceptic.org/2020/05/06/code-review-of-fergusons-model/

Expand full comment

Nice! I knew it gave different numbers each time but lost track of if the loser released it to third party to examine

Expand full comment

Thank you for the link.

Expand full comment

It used to be that a requirement for entrance into medical school was demonstrated proficiency in science, including math, physics, chemistry and biology. It now should become a requirement that entrants demonstrate proficiency in fake science, so they can disentangle the brambles of this kind of science from the real science upon which health and medicine ought to be based. Alternatively, those with demonstrated proficiency in this area could find jobs working for big Pharma bamboozling other doctors, regulators, and the public. What a way to make a living!!

Expand full comment

The key to getting into medical school is grades; that is to say excelling at finding the answers that the authorities want. The ones who excel at smoking out the fake science were busy looking out the window and watching the world out there. Present company included!

Expand full comment

After last week's "buy your nursing degree" debaucle, I think EVERYTHING should be scrutinized. Our eyes and ears work overtime now just to make sure we aren't being fleeced or manipulated (or poisoned). I just assume most info has been muddied in some fashion, and when I have the bandwidth I track down better detail. What else can we do lately?

Expand full comment

Oh, lately it's more DEI and "social determinants of health."

Expand full comment

Peter has been proven right in the past, but his critics never acknowledge that fact or apologize. Smart people know who to trust. When he has been wrong, he admits it and corrects...for example “one and done”...because he has integrity. These pronoun pushers have none.

Expand full comment

The rate of male pregnancies seems a bit higher than expected.

Expand full comment

Here's just the conclusions section from the article. Pretty damning

Conclusions. All papers based on this code should be retracted immediately. Imperial’s modelling efforts should be reset with a new team that isn’t under Professor Ferguson, and which has a commitment to replicable results with published code from day one.

On a personal level, I’d go further and suggest that all academic epidemiology be defunded. This sort of work is best done by the insurance sector. Insurers employ modellers and data scientists, but also employ managers whose job is to decide whether a model is accurate enough for real world usage and professional software engineers to ensure model software is properly tested, understandable and so on. Academic efforts don’t have these people, and the results speak for themselves.

Expand full comment

Why not both? Two sets of modelers and statisticians when dealing with health. Two sets of eyes. One set for the research facility,one in insurance?

Expand full comment

Research facility monies are wasted monies: these researchers have zero incentive to be accurate.

By contrast, insurers’ researchers and actuaries have a great deal “on the line” and have every incentive to be accurate.

Expand full comment

Well..if we can make them compete?

Expand full comment

Does the phrase “left behind in the dust” ring a bell?

Let them compete.

Guess whose work will shine? And whose will be “left behind in the dust”?

Expand full comment

This is The Way.

Expand full comment