Spontaneous abortions are not pathologically "spontaneous" (well at least usually not). Nor are other types of adverse fertility outcomes.
Vaccine injuries that lead to impaired capacity to conceive & carry baby to term should over a population that has such an extreme # of them would also cause clinical manifestations that are chalked up…
Spontaneous abortions are not pathologically "spontaneous" (well at least usually not). Nor are other types of adverse fertility outcomes.
Vaccine injuries that lead to impaired capacity to conceive & carry baby to term should over a population that has such an extreme # of them would also cause clinical manifestations that are chalked up to different etiologies (esp in ICD's).
My point is that therefore the fertility phenomenon here should be captured in other ICD code excesses (assuming that Taiwan didn't go ahead and do a DMED on their own data which seems unlikely cuz they are not that suicidally woke like in the US).
But what if the losses were very early, or predominantly very early? Then perhaps women might have noticed nothing more than a longer menstrual cycle and perhaps a more symptomatic menses. (Many did in fact report menstrual irregularities in varying places.) Could that fit with the timing? He's measuring outcome at only 8-9 months after vaccinations started. More granularity, to see the drop in births month-by-month, would be of interest.
NOTE: I added a section to this very upsetting article that shows why these reductions in birth rates happened, and why they might be of temporary nature. (think menstrual cycle disruptions)
Please re-read my updated article and the last section that I added.
I'm thinking that a full-length article might be a good idea :)
This is a numbers game. We have a pretty decent idea of at least some of the basic pathologies underlying adverse fertility outcomes. At least some of these would be causing spikes immediately visible by eyeballing basic data if they are occurring anywhere remotely near the magnitude here.
In other words, fertility injuries are not a self-contained unique set of adverse clinical phenomena, they are deriving from the same basic mix of hematological, inflammatory, and auto-immune/other immunological dysregulations pathologies.
If there is such a gigantic surge in these adverse vaccine pathologies manifest in fertility outcomes, then there should be at least to some degree similar spikes in "standard" clinical events more typically documented in the specific ICD's capturing these types of pathologies (even if practically anything is 'standard' these days).
If the total number & degree of deviation from norm were low, that would be a different discussion, but the numbers & SD here are literally off the actuarial charts, so it seems hard to imagine that there could be this degree of fertility casualty without the rest of the SAE's (assuming the raw datasets remain unmolested).
There is a relatively benign explanation that I hope for. Which I find to be less likely, though preferred:
The explanation is that the vaccine disrupted women's menstrual cycle and they could not conceive for 1-2 months post vaccination. Under this assumption, things may return to normal.
I consider vaccination of young people to be a crime. People do not do such crimes just to achieve a 2-3 month disruption in birth rates. It just makes no sense. Criminals like this go for the jugular.
Of course most bureaucrats and college deans requiring vaccination, were dupes, although criminal dupes.
This would have to assume that menstrual dysregulations are both otherwise subclinical entirely though & are not indicative of the presence of underlying pathologies that are causing clinically manifest phenomena elsewhere too.
If even 5% of these are not transitory, that would be a social catastrophe ("95% safe" lol).
If the vaccines are the crime of the century, the DMED rewrite is the datacrime of the century, could've resolved most if not all of the broad incidence questions.
My general intuition for what it's worth is that based on the following premises it looks like some degree of permanence likely, but the insane magnitude & sudden onset of #'s feels kind of bizarre - where's the general carnage that should go along with this even in regular ppl's anecdotal exp (#6 below is a bit of a contradiction to this) - which suggests maybe you're right about transitory nature (almost as though everyone went on birth control for a few months at the same time?):
1. Ovarian tissues - particularly follicles/eggs - have lots of one-and-done cells
2. Ovarian tissue is overly susceptible to small changes in bioenvironment compared to most other tissues
3. Menses getting 'thrown off' by something would more likely than not impact cellular pathways/chemistry that includes eggs etc., especially considering that loss of period means that the normal chemistry etc. that regulates egg release/ovulation etc. was definitely tampered with somehow.
4. One of the most likely culprit physiological 'insults' (academic language is so awesome) is LNP mediated inflammation (bec LNP distribution + known toxicities), even if inflammation is transitory, damage it leaves behind esp if it hits the more sensitive tissues in ovaries would likely be less so if not permanent (like myo) (even if it only screws up directly something that itself can recover, what if the 'something' itself is part of hormones/chemistry that affects eggs/follicles so while it was in a damaged state it monkeyed around with things that are less susceptible to recovering, I'm no expert on ovarian function but my general impression is that there is lots of highly sensitive 'stuff' going on behind the blood barrier there, maybe someone like Thorpe could shed light here.)
(For the record, someone came to me for help trying to find them someone who can treat towards the end of 2021, had lost period since J&J shot around March or April don't remember which, no LNP's there)
5. Ditto for spike protein mediated damage
6. The sheer #'s feel like there would be a range of pathological manifestation & severity & etiology even, so some % would probably have to be as you put it more like inflation ;) (Someone needs to make a meme to the effect of "inflation is inflammation in the economy")
If the ICD or other pop level surveillance data would not reflect anything than that would be a solid indication that you're probably right about it being a temp blip.
Would you be able to tell us the numbers you find for the preceding two or three months ? Do they constitute a trend corresponding to vaccination percentage?
Spontaneous abortions are not pathologically "spontaneous" (well at least usually not). Nor are other types of adverse fertility outcomes.
Vaccine injuries that lead to impaired capacity to conceive & carry baby to term should over a population that has such an extreme # of them would also cause clinical manifestations that are chalked up to different etiologies (esp in ICD's).
My point is that therefore the fertility phenomenon here should be captured in other ICD code excesses (assuming that Taiwan didn't go ahead and do a DMED on their own data which seems unlikely cuz they are not that suicidally woke like in the US).
I have SLE and had 2 spontaneous abortions. Never reported. There may be a lot of that going on.
I’m so sorry 💔x
Thanks, I thought I would beat the odds. But it makes sense.
But what if the losses were very early, or predominantly very early? Then perhaps women might have noticed nothing more than a longer menstrual cycle and perhaps a more symptomatic menses. (Many did in fact report menstrual irregularities in varying places.) Could that fit with the timing? He's measuring outcome at only 8-9 months after vaccinations started. More granularity, to see the drop in births month-by-month, would be of interest.
I hope that we find out soon.
There is a SMALL possibility that this is a transitory phenomenon (not like inflation).
What "inflation" :)?
I mean the Putin Price Hike
NOTE: I added a section to this very upsetting article that shows why these reductions in birth rates happened, and why they might be of temporary nature. (think menstrual cycle disruptions)
Please re-read my updated article and the last section that I added.
I'm thinking that a full-length article might be a good idea :)
This is a numbers game. We have a pretty decent idea of at least some of the basic pathologies underlying adverse fertility outcomes. At least some of these would be causing spikes immediately visible by eyeballing basic data if they are occurring anywhere remotely near the magnitude here.
In other words, fertility injuries are not a self-contained unique set of adverse clinical phenomena, they are deriving from the same basic mix of hematological, inflammatory, and auto-immune/other immunological dysregulations pathologies.
If there is such a gigantic surge in these adverse vaccine pathologies manifest in fertility outcomes, then there should be at least to some degree similar spikes in "standard" clinical events more typically documented in the specific ICD's capturing these types of pathologies (even if practically anything is 'standard' these days).
If the total number & degree of deviation from norm were low, that would be a different discussion, but the numbers & SD here are literally off the actuarial charts, so it seems hard to imagine that there could be this degree of fertility casualty without the rest of the SAE's (assuming the raw datasets remain unmolested).
I am also lost as to the explanation.
There is a relatively benign explanation that I hope for. Which I find to be less likely, though preferred:
The explanation is that the vaccine disrupted women's menstrual cycle and they could not conceive for 1-2 months post vaccination. Under this assumption, things may return to normal.
I consider vaccination of young people to be a crime. People do not do such crimes just to achieve a 2-3 month disruption in birth rates. It just makes no sense. Criminals like this go for the jugular.
Of course most bureaucrats and college deans requiring vaccination, were dupes, although criminal dupes.
This would have to assume that menstrual dysregulations are both otherwise subclinical entirely though & are not indicative of the presence of underlying pathologies that are causing clinically manifest phenomena elsewhere too.
If even 5% of these are not transitory, that would be a social catastrophe ("95% safe" lol).
If the vaccines are the crime of the century, the DMED rewrite is the datacrime of the century, could've resolved most if not all of the broad incidence questions.
Check out the section that I added let me know what you think. I also DMed you on twitter
My general intuition for what it's worth is that based on the following premises it looks like some degree of permanence likely, but the insane magnitude & sudden onset of #'s feels kind of bizarre - where's the general carnage that should go along with this even in regular ppl's anecdotal exp (#6 below is a bit of a contradiction to this) - which suggests maybe you're right about transitory nature (almost as though everyone went on birth control for a few months at the same time?):
1. Ovarian tissues - particularly follicles/eggs - have lots of one-and-done cells
2. Ovarian tissue is overly susceptible to small changes in bioenvironment compared to most other tissues
3. Menses getting 'thrown off' by something would more likely than not impact cellular pathways/chemistry that includes eggs etc., especially considering that loss of period means that the normal chemistry etc. that regulates egg release/ovulation etc. was definitely tampered with somehow.
4. One of the most likely culprit physiological 'insults' (academic language is so awesome) is LNP mediated inflammation (bec LNP distribution + known toxicities), even if inflammation is transitory, damage it leaves behind esp if it hits the more sensitive tissues in ovaries would likely be less so if not permanent (like myo) (even if it only screws up directly something that itself can recover, what if the 'something' itself is part of hormones/chemistry that affects eggs/follicles so while it was in a damaged state it monkeyed around with things that are less susceptible to recovering, I'm no expert on ovarian function but my general impression is that there is lots of highly sensitive 'stuff' going on behind the blood barrier there, maybe someone like Thorpe could shed light here.)
(For the record, someone came to me for help trying to find them someone who can treat towards the end of 2021, had lost period since J&J shot around March or April don't remember which, no LNP's there)
5. Ditto for spike protein mediated damage
6. The sheer #'s feel like there would be a range of pathological manifestation & severity & etiology even, so some % would probably have to be as you put it more like inflation ;) (Someone needs to make a meme to the effect of "inflation is inflammation in the economy")
If the ICD or other pop level surveillance data would not reflect anything than that would be a solid indication that you're probably right about it being a temp blip.
Would you be able to tell us the numbers you find for the preceding two or three months ? Do they constitute a trend corresponding to vaccination percentage?
Please re-read my updated article and the last section that I added.