Discover more from bad cattitude
quick updates on covid vaccine fertility issues
timing and independent reason to suspect cause
he took the swedish vaccine uptake data (% fully vaxxed) and shifted in 9 months right so that prospective cause stacks vertically above effect.
it’s really pretty jarring once you see it like that, no?
(especially once you factor in that the first 5% of uptake was almost all non-childbearing age folks.)
in a data series like this, you’re just not going to see much tighter alignment than that.
nice work by the avuncular avian.
it’s good to have pals.
now, as we all know, correlation is not proof of causality. to really start to find it meaningful, you need a set of independent, a priori reasons to suspect the relationship. otherwise, you’re just often data mining yourself into spurious assumptions.
but, as was laid out HERE there are lots and lots of reasons to suspect this from suppressed sperm to disrupted menses to ovary and testes accumulation of mRNA spike from vaxx.
here is yet another study of such and like so many other in this space, the “results” claim is a bit misleading and they sort of buried a huge outcome under an assumption lacking foundation.
they claim this:
key term: minor and transitory.
incidence rate was VERY high:
Post-COVID-19 vaccination menstrual changes were observed among almost two-thirds of women in the age groups 18-22 years (65.2%) and 38-45 years (65.4%) compared to only 43.5% of those in the age group 23-27 years, p<0.001. In addition, menstrual changes were observed among 63.1% of women with high school/equivalent qualifications compared to only 42.1% of postgraduates, p=0.021. Furthermore, women who have had two doses of the vaccine were more likely to report menstrual changes than those who have had three doses (61.4% vs. 50.9%), p=0.020. Regarding the second type of vaccine, the Moderna vaccine was associated with the highest rate of menstrual changes (65.4%), whereas Oxford-AstraZeneca was associated with the lowest rate (44.9%), p=0.040 (Table 3).
but this is what really caught my eye:
27.1% of women had symptoms lasting more than 3 months. this was the end of follow up. we have no idea how long they might be ongoing after that.
this would seem to make the “transitory” claim pretty iffy.
just how can one claim this when nearly 1/3 of women had ongoing issues at study end?
that seems entirely presumptive.
it also finds uneasy alignment with the same issue we saw in the sperm motility studies that showed a bigger initial effect that recovers over 3-6 months but with a tail that appears persistent.
this is precisely what one would expect if a dose worked as both a short term toxin and then triggered a longer term auto-immune response, an issue that is unfortunately a well known issue with mRNA therapies. they do not train your immune system to attack pathogens, they train it to attack your own cells when they express surface proteins that make them look infected.
if this gets miscalibrated, the attack may not stop. now you have an autoimmune condition, quite possibly or even quite probably forever.
you can see the sperm issue here:
where the divergence in median recovery looks consistent with durable near permanent suppression in a 20% subgroup.
the questions, reason to suspect, and timing here are all awfully aligned.
what will it take to get any of the health systems that have the data to do this analysis definitively interested?
their silence is deafening.