"In other words, does this mean the shots were harmless if administered during pregnancy?" to ==>
"In other words, does this mean the shots caused the harm pre-pregnancy?"
tl;dr: there are 2 processes that occur before pregnancy that could answer in the positive:
1. fertilization, 2. implantation.
1. If it's sperm-caused fertility issues, this could be the case.
2. Is it possible - if we look at vaccine causing increased +/- prolonged bleeding, even re-started (ffs) for post-menopausal women - that pre-pregnancy changes in the uterine wall from vaccine lead to poor adhesion. But if the adhesion has already taken (vaccine during-pregnancy), the increase in hormones and general success of existing adhesion ameliorates the potentially deleterious effect of the jab once pregnancy has been established.
eg: "Preimplantation factor promotes first trimester trophoblast invasion "Preimplantation factor is a novel embryo-derived peptide that influences key processes in early pregnancy implantation, including immunity, adhesion, remodeling, and apoptosis."
If you get injected within a month +/- of this process of preimplantation and LNP are allowing all kinds of shenanigans to disrupt this process, which stops once implantation has occurred?
Both 1 and 2 are plausible, as well as a combination. I mean it still just seems crazy that these things weren't a total catastrophe for the already-pregnant, it's like finding out that doing meth daily during pregnancy is totally kosher.
Agreed. I think there must be a genetic component +/- batch purity or similar manufacturing fck up.
The myo/peri-carditis is real, and a terrible thing to inflict on people (especially teenagers / sports people who use their hearts more than most). But it hits only a few, just as pregnancy issues are very real, and terrible, but only affect a few.
"Peanuts for everyone, including any nascent peanut allergy sufferers, or you lose your job" would still only hit a few people, but it would be very real and very terrible, even deadly for them.
More to your point - it's a wonder the harmaceutical toxine didn't ruin a lot more health than it did, pregnancies, heart issues, clots, etc.
A veritable miracle, given the uridine replacement, missing manufacturing controls and general "we have no idea what's happening in the body with this stuff coz we never actually looked" that has slowly revealed itself over the ensuing years.
Well here's an anecdote. A female friend, an emergency department MD was pregnant during late 2021 and early 2022 and had to have an emergency C-section last April, maybe 3-4 weeks before her due date. The reason was a problem involving her liver that was thought to be a threat to the baby's life. It was not pre-eclampsia. All she could tell me was it was a late term problem involving her liver, rarely seen. We'd had a discussion three months earlier in which she was horrified to learn I'd refused the shots. She said she'd had the primary series and was anxious to take every booster on offer. Now she's had the baby, he seems healthy but she's been told he may be her only child. I'm not an obstetrician, just a mother. But this smelled to me like vaccine damage.
Mar 9, 2023·edited Mar 9, 2023Liked by Brian Mowrey
It is inherent within my nature to question everything authoritarian. I had had enough exposure to the medical field pre-COVID to know everyone within it is decidedly human, flawed and imperfect.
I cannot understand how someone intelligent enough to be an MD - an ED MD - can accept, without question, the sales pitch of the C19 vaccine.
Would be fascinated to hear why they think it may be her last child.
I suppose that clinicians obervations are based on smaller numbers with less certainty and local factors may come into play more, but on the other hand their experience and expertise may allow them to ask the right questions for a good 'bottom up' approach.
Seems that public health surveillance is relatively poor despite $$$$ western budgets, and datasets are prone to criteria changing halfway through. (It would be better to publish separate data sets with the new and old criteria applied to the entire series, if possible)
It's certainly believable that there's a rise in miscarriages, and this is the stat that's been effectively "hidden" so far (ie the v-safe study just rolling into a CDC slide instead of really finishing, as far as I can tell). But the 80% bit is such an old mistake at this point, it's inexcusable for anyone to still be hawking it - or it's an op...
Mar 6, 2023·edited Mar 6, 2023Liked by Brian Mowrey
It's well know the vaxx can substantially affect menstruation (whereas covid doesn't seem to?), and I haven't yet seen an explanation of why. So /something/ is travelling round the female body, engineered spike? bits of MRNA? nano-lipids? It's not far fetched to suggest the same could be affecting fertilty or miscarriage...
The data I've seen on covid infection during pregnancy from the UK govt. suggest the difference in absolute risk is pretty tiny as thankfully these days complications are far less common than they used to be.
It is indeed a kind of op to push the vaxx on healthy expectant mothers, children and young people, because to do otherwise would puncture the narrative that the vaxx is unquestionably safe. This was in the works even before the vaxx was available, by the avoidance of any proper discussion of expected safety, then suppressing discussion of vaxx adverse events.
Thinking aloud, maybe perception is equally as important as intelligence, as without the former it's easy to have ones intelligence manipulated into facing the wrong way...
There could be lots of ways, that's the "fun" of experimental gene transfections. In particular, transfection of glands could disrupt any system regulated by the same https://unglossed.substack.com/p/on-turbo-aging - and that seems to best explain why effects would go so far as to reverse menopause in many cases. But there's also the possible homology with syncytin-1 protein and subsequent autoimmunity as in the Singapore paper (my first post) https://unglossed.substack.com/p/what-happened-in-singapore
That is an extremely compelling take on the pregnancy "op"
You're complicating matters way too much. Just look at a cross section of problems - not just problems with pregnancies and births. Deaths overall have SKYROCKETED. Amongst the healthy young age group around 20-45 deaths have increased by 40% in two years! And everyone is still twiddling their thumbs talking about this study and that study without acknowledging that half (HALF!) the studies done are faulty! You say humanity is dumb??? But humanity is also super smart, it's just that these humans are too few. Go on admit it.
Wow! And I'm glad I didn't "URGENTLY" cover it. A bit weird that he didn't pin down the pivot to June (ie "after May," as I noted) in the first place. This was why I thought an Omicron-related signal was just as likely as a vax one (and despite the alignment with the categorization change, it's not overwhelmingly clear that the new definition should actually make such a big difference, but it seems plausible).
*eta: I don't recall the Australia false alarm. I do know that many are still pushing misinterpretations of early 2021 stats which compared miscarriages vs. completed pregnancies when most pregnancies were still ongoing. It's clickbait, really.
Mar 2, 2023·edited Mar 2, 2023Liked by Brian Mowrey
Australian false alarm was due to people using an incomplete dataset showing births by month. The dataset in its original form didn’t contain a note that it was incomplete (ABS later added a note after many already published the raw data). It was an honest mistake made by those reporting the raw monthly figures, but a simple sanity check of the actual report vs the sum of the monthly values should have led to the obvious conclusion that the dataset being used could not possibly be complete. The same dataset as of yesterday is still incomplete, but other data from Australia would suggest there is no obvious signal of birth rate drop (there was actually an increase on the prior year) and still births are about the same. Nothing to see from the Australian data yet.
I must also thank Jon. He’s introduced me to a new expression “there is no there there.” I love it, never heard it before.
It's always the same problem - spiking the football on rates without checking whether the absolute count shows you're across the line.
"There is no there there" goes with "We shall see what we shall see" (obscure Patrick O'Brian reference) and "It is what it is" (every pointless small business manager who you like but also wish you could delete from existence) in the triad of profound redundant truisms.
Mar 2, 2023·edited Mar 2, 2023Liked by Brian Mowrey
This is the "85% of pregnancies ended up in miscarriage" story.
That was a false interpretation of alarming Pfizer trial results that did seem to show an increased amount of miscarriages but most pregnancies went on.
Pfizer, inexplicably, never told us what happened to the rest of these pregnancies.
I love writing about miscarriages. The problem with writing about them is that it is not as easy to compare cohorts for miscarriages because the natural rate of miscarriages drops dramatically with weeks of pregnancy. A cohort of women given tangerines during the 4th week of pregnancy will have more miscarriages than a similar cohort given tangerines during the 8th week of pregnancy.
My personal article on the topic was about a CDC presentation showing a 42% greater rate of miscarriages for Moderna compared to Pfizer.
Both show strong statistical significance and are easily explained by dose-response mechanism. As the "ectopic pregnancy" line shows, early mix of vaccines was same as the overall mix of vaccines.
VAERS data has the highest reports on day 0, about half this on day 1, and about a quarter on day 2. This could just be reporting bias or possibly a rare pattern. I hypothesize a correlation with innate immune responses ( elevated histamine perhaps). Increase fetal troponin levels for some cases seems supportive of this hypothesis.
It still strikes me as weird that the definition change would be so drastic since 20 weeks is the classical cutoff. But there seems to be additional language that may have removed the requirement that the neonate... actually doesn't live? So it's not even a "stillbirth" any more at that point.
"The influenza and pneumonia deaths for 2015-2019 in Virginia were cut in half after the fact in September 2020 because of a definition change from approx 4500-5000 per year to <2500."
Brings to mind the constant historical temperature homogenisation going on that allegedly corrects for "error", yet always cools the past...
Well, good on Berenson for actually admitting to his mistake there.
As to overall birth rate, it’s hard to imagine that the collective pandemic measures wouldn’t have an impact on that. I said as soon as social distancing became en vogue, I wondered if that alone wouldn’t result in less procreation. Sometimes a great romance can begin with a slight touch in passing… why else do we refer to someone who is emotionally closed off as keeping other’s “at arm’s length?” Perhaps over time, people would adapt to the change in culture, but in the short term, it would be hard to imagine that lockdowns and the like wouldn’t greatly negatively impact birth rate and that there might be a lag in seeing so, which could sync up with the vaccine rollout.
I recall a remark in one of my college biology courses where the professor commented that you can see a bump in births around 9 months after a large storm such as a winter blizzard. I haven't looked into it too much but it does appear that when you're forced together with not much to do you end up just doing each other. 🤷♂️
It's likely that for those in their 30s or above who may have settled down and possibly married are likely to be included in this group. However, the teens and 20s have seen a remarkable decline in sex over the past few years and with COVID it's likely to have stopped them more than established relationships.
The narrow-minded arrogance of modern academics, to take it as a given that blizzards are not a mere smoke-screen for swarms of horny, hyper-fertile elves.
Yeah, that’s a good point that I glossed over to sell my narrative ;). It’s sort of my thinking though that people who are living together are more likely to plan their pregnancies and perhaps even exercise greater caution during a world changing type event, even if ultimately they’re “getting down” with greater frequency. Even if that resulted in an increase in cohabitation pregnancies, I would think that additional hurdles surrounding meeting new people and developing a relationship to a copulation point (which was even banned in some places, no sex outside your immediate household) would outweigh that fairly significantly. But who knows? And that’s probably the bigger point, there’s far too many variables here to be able to point at the vaccine alone as the cause for lower birth rates.
Mar 2, 2023·edited Mar 2, 2023Liked by Brian Mowrey
"If stillbirths are increasing and live births decreasing nine months after widespread uptake of the Covid vaccines, as Berenson and others have suggested, my first question is why should an impact on fertility take so long to manifest? In other words, does this mean the shots were harmless if administered during pregnancy? That only the pre-injected are suffering harms?"
I find it difficult to believe that they're actually injecting pregnant women with this stuff. I mean, come on, really? How can any serious person consider the risks worthwhile. Additionally, I do not trust many of the "studies" given that they are often funded, run, documented, and/or reported by "Big Pharma" - and beyond simply being untrustworthy, are very likely going to be falsified.
I'd bet money that there were various trials done on the vax and the results turned out to show ineffectiveness or harm, so the findings were just dumped into the trash and it was all forgotten about.
RE the trashcan theory, it's absolutely possible. Seems to be what happened with V-Safe. There's also the question of why the UKHSA froze their reports in one of the Junes (2021? 2022? I literally can't remember). I think there is likely a signal out there that is being suppressed, but the signal isn't to scale with anecdotes (even I have a second-hand anecdote of a post-vax stillbirth, vs. none for virus).
Isn’t the philosophy essentially “what we don’t know can’t hurt us?” The risks are still not very well defined and certainly weren’t at the beginning of this “experiment.”
I’m also replying to your comment though because I had a thought on the same passage you quoted… IF the vaccine is responsible for this fairly insignificant increase in stillbirths/prenatal mortality, then it would seem that the effect is only really experienced around the point of conception (or creating a complication with the parents’ gametes). Meaning that post-fertilization, the impact is mitigated somehow. Personally, I have no where near the required knowledge to speculate on such a mechanism could exist here. Though, speculating heavily, if the vaccine is causing irregular menstrual cycles, we could be seeing something similar to what’s being observed in this study:
Though that’s obviously not a perfect correlation. There’s also the potential impact on male fertility due to the vaccine and what little information we have about that seems to indicate an issue with quantity not quality (and other studies, non-vax related, seem to show that males with low sperm count do not necessarily equate to less successful pregnancies once the initial hurdle of actual fertilization has occurred).
It is my greatest fear that this is yet another example of an issue where we won’t understand the impact for decades, if anyone then cares to actually study it (or even be able to in any sort of a coherent manner). To draw a random example that I in no way endorse as being true, what sort of impact has the microwave oven had on health? I mean, we’re only starting to see studies on natural gas ovens enter the mainstream (which immediately have become politicized). What about the effects of long term fluoridation? None of these are viable studies practically and more importantly, there’s no profit potential behind them. One would need practically dedicate their life to such topics and in academia, that’s simply not how research is incentivized (and certainly not in the private sector!)
I think it's sort of the paradox that if the vaccines were to affect menstruation and reproduction then would we expect pregnancies to occur in those with disrupted reproduction? Sort of as if those who would have been vaccinated/infected while pregnant may be looked at for cases of miscarriages and stillbirth while those who are not pregnant may just not be able to become pregnant and hence a look at stillbirth would be looking in the wrong place.
To your last point you don't actually have to look past laptops and the phones. What was considered an impossibility are making people go "hmm... maybe we should stick an electronic in our pocket unless trying to attract mates".
The fact that 349 women enrolled in this study is so sad. Likewise that Pfizer is allowed to refuse to release any details. I could never understand how mandates could be applied to anyone in a catagory excluded from the original clinical trial. When the day rolled around where you had to be vaxxed or your were fired, a woman should have been able to say sorry, just got pregnant, I will keep my job and no vax for me.
If I can reword
"In other words, does this mean the shots were harmless if administered during pregnancy?" to ==>
"In other words, does this mean the shots caused the harm pre-pregnancy?"
tl;dr: there are 2 processes that occur before pregnancy that could answer in the positive:
1. fertilization, 2. implantation.
1. If it's sperm-caused fertility issues, this could be the case.
2. Is it possible - if we look at vaccine causing increased +/- prolonged bleeding, even re-started (ffs) for post-menopausal women - that pre-pregnancy changes in the uterine wall from vaccine lead to poor adhesion. But if the adhesion has already taken (vaccine during-pregnancy), the increase in hormones and general success of existing adhesion ameliorates the potentially deleterious effect of the jab once pregnancy has been established.
eg: "Preimplantation factor promotes first trimester trophoblast invasion "Preimplantation factor is a novel embryo-derived peptide that influences key processes in early pregnancy implantation, including immunity, adhesion, remodeling, and apoptosis."
https://embryology.med.unsw.edu.au/embryology/index.php/Implantation
If you get injected within a month +/- of this process of preimplantation and LNP are allowing all kinds of shenanigans to disrupt this process, which stops once implantation has occurred?
Just, spit ballin' here.
Both 1 and 2 are plausible, as well as a combination. I mean it still just seems crazy that these things weren't a total catastrophe for the already-pregnant, it's like finding out that doing meth daily during pregnancy is totally kosher.
Agreed. I think there must be a genetic component +/- batch purity or similar manufacturing fck up.
The myo/peri-carditis is real, and a terrible thing to inflict on people (especially teenagers / sports people who use their hearts more than most). But it hits only a few, just as pregnancy issues are very real, and terrible, but only affect a few.
"Peanuts for everyone, including any nascent peanut allergy sufferers, or you lose your job" would still only hit a few people, but it would be very real and very terrible, even deadly for them.
This guy would love it though https://cats.com/can-cats-eat-peanuts
More to your point - it's a wonder the harmaceutical toxine didn't ruin a lot more health than it did, pregnancies, heart issues, clots, etc.
A veritable miracle, given the uridine replacement, missing manufacturing controls and general "we have no idea what's happening in the body with this stuff coz we never actually looked" that has slowly revealed itself over the ensuing years.
Well here's an anecdote. A female friend, an emergency department MD was pregnant during late 2021 and early 2022 and had to have an emergency C-section last April, maybe 3-4 weeks before her due date. The reason was a problem involving her liver that was thought to be a threat to the baby's life. It was not pre-eclampsia. All she could tell me was it was a late term problem involving her liver, rarely seen. We'd had a discussion three months earlier in which she was horrified to learn I'd refused the shots. She said she'd had the primary series and was anxious to take every booster on offer. Now she's had the baby, he seems healthy but she's been told he may be her only child. I'm not an obstetrician, just a mother. But this smelled to me like vaccine damage.
It is inherent within my nature to question everything authoritarian. I had had enough exposure to the medical field pre-COVID to know everyone within it is decidedly human, flawed and imperfect.
I cannot understand how someone intelligent enough to be an MD - an ED MD - can accept, without question, the sales pitch of the C19 vaccine.
Would be fascinated to hear why they think it may be her last child.
Great post as usual. I was watching this video the other day which gives quite a pessimistic outlook:
https://soniaelijah.substack.com/p/obgyn-reveals-damning-data-on-miscarriage
I suppose that clinicians obervations are based on smaller numbers with less certainty and local factors may come into play more, but on the other hand their experience and expertise may allow them to ask the right questions for a good 'bottom up' approach.
Seems that public health surveillance is relatively poor despite $$$$ western budgets, and datasets are prone to criteria changing halfway through. (It would be better to publish separate data sets with the new and old criteria applied to the entire series, if possible)
Thanks!
It's certainly believable that there's a rise in miscarriages, and this is the stat that's been effectively "hidden" so far (ie the v-safe study just rolling into a CDC slide instead of really finishing, as far as I can tell). But the 80% bit is such an old mistake at this point, it's inexcusable for anyone to still be hawking it - or it's an op...
It's well know the vaxx can substantially affect menstruation (whereas covid doesn't seem to?), and I haven't yet seen an explanation of why. So /something/ is travelling round the female body, engineered spike? bits of MRNA? nano-lipids? It's not far fetched to suggest the same could be affecting fertilty or miscarriage...
The data I've seen on covid infection during pregnancy from the UK govt. suggest the difference in absolute risk is pretty tiny as thankfully these days complications are far less common than they used to be.
It is indeed a kind of op to push the vaxx on healthy expectant mothers, children and young people, because to do otherwise would puncture the narrative that the vaxx is unquestionably safe. This was in the works even before the vaxx was available, by the avoidance of any proper discussion of expected safety, then suppressing discussion of vaxx adverse events.
Thinking aloud, maybe perception is equally as important as intelligence, as without the former it's easy to have ones intelligence manipulated into facing the wrong way...
There could be lots of ways, that's the "fun" of experimental gene transfections. In particular, transfection of glands could disrupt any system regulated by the same https://unglossed.substack.com/p/on-turbo-aging - and that seems to best explain why effects would go so far as to reverse menopause in many cases. But there's also the possible homology with syncytin-1 protein and subsequent autoimmunity as in the Singapore paper (my first post) https://unglossed.substack.com/p/what-happened-in-singapore
That is an extremely compelling take on the pregnancy "op"
You're complicating matters way too much. Just look at a cross section of problems - not just problems with pregnancies and births. Deaths overall have SKYROCKETED. Amongst the healthy young age group around 20-45 deaths have increased by 40% in two years! And everyone is still twiddling their thumbs talking about this study and that study without acknowledging that half (HALF!) the studies done are faulty! You say humanity is dumb??? But humanity is also super smart, it's just that these humans are too few. Go on admit it.
Looks like the stillbirths story was a result of a misunderstanding and changed criteria for recording stillbirths.
https://alexberenson.substack.com/p/urgent-updatecorrection-to-previous
I am glad that I did not cover it.
There was a similar story of a "71% drop in births in Australia" that a lot of people ran off with.
Wow! And I'm glad I didn't "URGENTLY" cover it. A bit weird that he didn't pin down the pivot to June (ie "after May," as I noted) in the first place. This was why I thought an Omicron-related signal was just as likely as a vax one (and despite the alignment with the categorization change, it's not overwhelmingly clear that the new definition should actually make such a big difference, but it seems plausible).
*eta: I don't recall the Australia false alarm. I do know that many are still pushing misinterpretations of early 2021 stats which compared miscarriages vs. completed pregnancies when most pregnancies were still ongoing. It's clickbait, really.
Australian false alarm was due to people using an incomplete dataset showing births by month. The dataset in its original form didn’t contain a note that it was incomplete (ABS later added a note after many already published the raw data). It was an honest mistake made by those reporting the raw monthly figures, but a simple sanity check of the actual report vs the sum of the monthly values should have led to the obvious conclusion that the dataset being used could not possibly be complete. The same dataset as of yesterday is still incomplete, but other data from Australia would suggest there is no obvious signal of birth rate drop (there was actually an increase on the prior year) and still births are about the same. Nothing to see from the Australian data yet.
I must also thank Jon. He’s introduced me to a new expression “there is no there there.” I love it, never heard it before.
https://inflamedcynic.substack.com/p/the-problem-with-data-dork-ery?utm_source=%2Finbox&utm_medium=reader2
And that Australian dataset error was used to great dramatic effect in the “Died Suddenly” documentary, as I recall.
It's always the same problem - spiking the football on rates without checking whether the absolute count shows you're across the line.
"There is no there there" goes with "We shall see what we shall see" (obscure Patrick O'Brian reference) and "It is what it is" (every pointless small business manager who you like but also wish you could delete from existence) in the triad of profound redundant truisms.
This is the "85% of pregnancies ended up in miscarriage" story.
That was a false interpretation of alarming Pfizer trial results that did seem to show an increased amount of miscarriages but most pregnancies went on.
Pfizer, inexplicably, never told us what happened to the rest of these pregnancies.
I love writing about miscarriages. The problem with writing about them is that it is not as easy to compare cohorts for miscarriages because the natural rate of miscarriages drops dramatically with weeks of pregnancy. A cohort of women given tangerines during the 4th week of pregnancy will have more miscarriages than a similar cohort given tangerines during the 8th week of pregnancy.
My personal article on the topic was about a CDC presentation showing a 42% greater rate of miscarriages for Moderna compared to Pfizer.
Both show strong statistical significance and are easily explained by dose-response mechanism. As the "ectopic pregnancy" line shows, early mix of vaccines was same as the overall mix of vaccines.
https://igorchudov.substack.com/p/cdc-data-moderna-causes-42-more-miscarriages
VAERS data has the highest reports on day 0, about half this on day 1, and about a quarter on day 2. This could just be reporting bias or possibly a rare pattern. I hypothesize a correlation with innate immune responses ( elevated histamine perhaps). Increase fetal troponin levels for some cases seems supportive of this hypothesis.
It still strikes me as weird that the definition change would be so drastic since 20 weeks is the classical cutoff. But there seems to be additional language that may have removed the requirement that the neonate... actually doesn't live? So it's not even a "stillbirth" any more at that point.
"The influenza and pneumonia deaths for 2015-2019 in Virginia were cut in half after the fact in September 2020 because of a definition change from approx 4500-5000 per year to <2500."
Brings to mind the constant historical temperature homogenisation going on that allegedly corrects for "error", yet always cools the past...
Well, good on Berenson for actually admitting to his mistake there.
As to overall birth rate, it’s hard to imagine that the collective pandemic measures wouldn’t have an impact on that. I said as soon as social distancing became en vogue, I wondered if that alone wouldn’t result in less procreation. Sometimes a great romance can begin with a slight touch in passing… why else do we refer to someone who is emotionally closed off as keeping other’s “at arm’s length?” Perhaps over time, people would adapt to the change in culture, but in the short term, it would be hard to imagine that lockdowns and the like wouldn’t greatly negatively impact birth rate and that there might be a lag in seeing so, which could sync up with the vaccine rollout.
And lo, Mary did conceive of a child, despite not sharing in an authentic manner that let God feel like this was a true partnership
That whole relationship is really problematic, I mean, God didn’t even claim his paternity in person, he had one of his interns do it.
That God - He's such a Marlon Brando
I recall a remark in one of my college biology courses where the professor commented that you can see a bump in births around 9 months after a large storm such as a winter blizzard. I haven't looked into it too much but it does appear that when you're forced together with not much to do you end up just doing each other. 🤷♂️
It's likely that for those in their 30s or above who may have settled down and possibly married are likely to be included in this group. However, the teens and 20s have seen a remarkable decline in sex over the past few years and with COVID it's likely to have stopped them more than established relationships.
The narrow-minded arrogance of modern academics, to take it as a given that blizzards are not a mere smoke-screen for swarms of horny, hyper-fertile elves.
There is a slight hint of the “what else you gonna do”phenomenon in Australia.
Yeah, that’s a good point that I glossed over to sell my narrative ;). It’s sort of my thinking though that people who are living together are more likely to plan their pregnancies and perhaps even exercise greater caution during a world changing type event, even if ultimately they’re “getting down” with greater frequency. Even if that resulted in an increase in cohabitation pregnancies, I would think that additional hurdles surrounding meeting new people and developing a relationship to a copulation point (which was even banned in some places, no sex outside your immediate household) would outweigh that fairly significantly. But who knows? And that’s probably the bigger point, there’s far too many variables here to be able to point at the vaccine alone as the cause for lower birth rates.
"If stillbirths are increasing and live births decreasing nine months after widespread uptake of the Covid vaccines, as Berenson and others have suggested, my first question is why should an impact on fertility take so long to manifest? In other words, does this mean the shots were harmless if administered during pregnancy? That only the pre-injected are suffering harms?"
I find it difficult to believe that they're actually injecting pregnant women with this stuff. I mean, come on, really? How can any serious person consider the risks worthwhile. Additionally, I do not trust many of the "studies" given that they are often funded, run, documented, and/or reported by "Big Pharma" - and beyond simply being untrustworthy, are very likely going to be falsified.
I'd bet money that there were various trials done on the vax and the results turned out to show ineffectiveness or harm, so the findings were just dumped into the trash and it was all forgotten about.
RE the trashcan theory, it's absolutely possible. Seems to be what happened with V-Safe. There's also the question of why the UKHSA froze their reports in one of the Junes (2021? 2022? I literally can't remember). I think there is likely a signal out there that is being suppressed, but the signal isn't to scale with anecdotes (even I have a second-hand anecdote of a post-vax stillbirth, vs. none for virus).
Isn’t the philosophy essentially “what we don’t know can’t hurt us?” The risks are still not very well defined and certainly weren’t at the beginning of this “experiment.”
I’m also replying to your comment though because I had a thought on the same passage you quoted… IF the vaccine is responsible for this fairly insignificant increase in stillbirths/prenatal mortality, then it would seem that the effect is only really experienced around the point of conception (or creating a complication with the parents’ gametes). Meaning that post-fertilization, the impact is mitigated somehow. Personally, I have no where near the required knowledge to speculate on such a mechanism could exist here. Though, speculating heavily, if the vaccine is causing irregular menstrual cycles, we could be seeing something similar to what’s being observed in this study:
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/26453458/
Though that’s obviously not a perfect correlation. There’s also the potential impact on male fertility due to the vaccine and what little information we have about that seems to indicate an issue with quantity not quality (and other studies, non-vax related, seem to show that males with low sperm count do not necessarily equate to less successful pregnancies once the initial hurdle of actual fertilization has occurred).
It is my greatest fear that this is yet another example of an issue where we won’t understand the impact for decades, if anyone then cares to actually study it (or even be able to in any sort of a coherent manner). To draw a random example that I in no way endorse as being true, what sort of impact has the microwave oven had on health? I mean, we’re only starting to see studies on natural gas ovens enter the mainstream (which immediately have become politicized). What about the effects of long term fluoridation? None of these are viable studies practically and more importantly, there’s no profit potential behind them. One would need practically dedicate their life to such topics and in academia, that’s simply not how research is incentivized (and certainly not in the private sector!)
I think it's sort of the paradox that if the vaccines were to affect menstruation and reproduction then would we expect pregnancies to occur in those with disrupted reproduction? Sort of as if those who would have been vaccinated/infected while pregnant may be looked at for cases of miscarriages and stillbirth while those who are not pregnant may just not be able to become pregnant and hence a look at stillbirth would be looking in the wrong place.
To your last point you don't actually have to look past laptops and the phones. What was considered an impossibility are making people go "hmm... maybe we should stick an electronic in our pocket unless trying to attract mates".
Where's the RCT on cooking with fire?!?
The fact that 349 women enrolled in this study is so sad. Likewise that Pfizer is allowed to refuse to release any details. I could never understand how mandates could be applied to anyone in a catagory excluded from the original clinical trial. When the day rolled around where you had to be vaxxed or your were fired, a woman should have been able to say sorry, just got pregnant, I will keep my job and no vax for me.