" other words, there is no world where all the spikes make a beeline for the follicles and testes"
The spikes don't "make a beeline" anywhere, they just circulate through & land somewhere.
I believe there is evidence that they -- or it may be the mrna itself -- congregate in specific organs. Pretty sure I've read on several substacks that testes & ovaries appear to be among the landing sites.
" other words, there is no world where all the spikes make a beeline for the follicles and testes"
The spikes don't "make a beeline" anywhere, they just circulate through & land somewhere.
I believe there is evidence that they -- or it may be the mrna itself -- congregate in specific organs. Pretty sure I've read on several substacks that testes & ovaries appear to be among the landing sites.
That was my point. If they circulate, then they should be causing all sorts of problems from landing elsewhere too. (Plus other pathologies instigated by vaccine that can themselves circulate as well.) And ovaries were not eating up a high % of the raw total, just high concentration in tissue (Byram Bridle wrote a piece on biodistribution highlighting this I believe).
Regardless, the only way that you could be correct is if the LNP/spike "made a beeline" for the ovaries & didn't land elsewhere.
"On another note, there is a new podcast by Dr. Peter McCullough on America Out Loud. He discusses vaccine side-effects with an obstetrician/gynecologist. They mentioned how the mRNA vaccines tend to accumulate in the ovaries and testes.
What really disturbed me was the speculation that when the mRNA vaccines enter cells, their main effect may be cell death. Hence, egg cells may be killed off by the vaccines and this may partly explain the decline in births in high-vax countries. Furthermore, if the mother gets vaccinated while pregnant, the egg cells of a female fetus may get killed off too. And since a female baby is born with all the eggs she will ever have, vaccination may negatively effect her ability to have children also.
They also mentioned that according to one study, vaccination in the first trimester is more effective at pregnancy termination than RU486."
What's the therefore of this - in the context of our back & forth?
Regarding Table 4 from the Preliminary report from the VSafe on pregnancy ("They also mentioned that according to one study, vaccination in the first trimester is more effective at pregnancy termination than RU486"), I am pretty sure that this is a misread of the data presented.
The study included 35,691 pregnant women. Table 4 was only including the pregnancies that had been completed at the time of the interim report. Obviously, lost pregnancies will be 'resolved' earlier than completed pregnancies, which require the pregnancy being carried to term. So the only pregnancies that were vaxxed early in the pregnancy that resolved early by the date of the interim report are going to be the ones that were lost by that time, which would naturally exclude practically the entire population of successful pregnancies of first trimester vaccinations which can only be identified and resolved at birth of the baby which of course hadn't happened by the time of the interim report. Thus, despite the fact that the 807 number the study wants to use as a denominator to calculate rate of lost pregnancies being within the historical control range of I think it was something like 10-25% is not a relevant denominator to adjudicate the % of pregnancies lost in vaxxed women, neither is the 127 use to arrive at the 82% number.
" other words, there is no world where all the spikes make a beeline for the follicles and testes"
The spikes don't "make a beeline" anywhere, they just circulate through & land somewhere.
I believe there is evidence that they -- or it may be the mrna itself -- congregate in specific organs. Pretty sure I've read on several substacks that testes & ovaries appear to be among the landing sites.
That was my point. If they circulate, then they should be causing all sorts of problems from landing elsewhere too. (Plus other pathologies instigated by vaccine that can themselves circulate as well.) And ovaries were not eating up a high % of the raw total, just high concentration in tissue (Byram Bridle wrote a piece on biodistribution highlighting this I believe).
Regardless, the only way that you could be correct is if the LNP/spike "made a beeline" for the ovaries & didn't land elsewhere.
The spikes are causing all sorts of problems. Such as the massive, abnormal blood clots morticians are finding. .
And now, from Dr McCollough:
https://www.eugyppius.com/p/anthony-fauci-suffers-paxlovid-rebound/comments
Liked by eugyppius
"On another note, there is a new podcast by Dr. Peter McCullough on America Out Loud. He discusses vaccine side-effects with an obstetrician/gynecologist. They mentioned how the mRNA vaccines tend to accumulate in the ovaries and testes.
What really disturbed me was the speculation that when the mRNA vaccines enter cells, their main effect may be cell death. Hence, egg cells may be killed off by the vaccines and this may partly explain the decline in births in high-vax countries. Furthermore, if the mother gets vaccinated while pregnant, the egg cells of a female fetus may get killed off too. And since a female baby is born with all the eggs she will ever have, vaccination may negatively effect her ability to have children also.
They also mentioned that according to one study, vaccination in the first trimester is more effective at pregnancy termination than RU486."
What's the therefore of this - in the context of our back & forth?
Regarding Table 4 from the Preliminary report from the VSafe on pregnancy ("They also mentioned that according to one study, vaccination in the first trimester is more effective at pregnancy termination than RU486"), I am pretty sure that this is a misread of the data presented.
The study included 35,691 pregnant women. Table 4 was only including the pregnancies that had been completed at the time of the interim report. Obviously, lost pregnancies will be 'resolved' earlier than completed pregnancies, which require the pregnancy being carried to term. So the only pregnancies that were vaxxed early in the pregnancy that resolved early by the date of the interim report are going to be the ones that were lost by that time, which would naturally exclude practically the entire population of successful pregnancies of first trimester vaccinations which can only be identified and resolved at birth of the baby which of course hadn't happened by the time of the interim report. Thus, despite the fact that the 807 number the study wants to use as a denominator to calculate rate of lost pregnancies being within the historical control range of I think it was something like 10-25% is not a relevant denominator to adjudicate the % of pregnancies lost in vaxxed women, neither is the 127 use to arrive at the 82% number.
The context was the post that I replied to. Unless I replied to the wrong post.
I should have let it go. I've had too much "water pass under the bridge" in the last few days to be making sense
Sorry! Ciao...