Any trusted information available on fertility rates among the injected (by race? )? Been long enough we should know. I'm guessing no data means it is bad and hidden.

(post is archived)

You are currently inside a comment thread.

Click here to see all the comments (18).

[–] • 0 pt

(edited )

Any trusted information available on fertility rates among the injected (by race? )? Been long enough we should know. I'm guessing no data means it is bad and hidden.

A normal diagnosis of infertility is at least 12 months. Miscarriages usually prolong the diagnosis (since one can get pregnant, chances of infertility are lower). No trusted source is collecting data of people who reasonably could still be fertile as they have not been diagnosed as infertile and despite what you may have learned in school, getting pregnant is actually difficult in most cases. .

I'm sure the data will be bad and hidden but any reliable source of this data won't be available for at least 12 months after vaccinations start, realisticly you are looking at 2-3 years until any reliable data because the first people to get vaccinated were old. In Australia most fertile aged women (aside from nurses and doctors etc) have only just started getting vaccinated very recently, and for any increase in infertility data to mean anything you need a decent chunk of vaccinated men/women being past the at least 12 month window. I say again if the vaccine is causing miscarriage rather than simply making people infertile the 12 months prior to diagnosis could stretch out much further. Reliable figures are 2-3 years away on infertility.

HOWEVER, what you could be looking at is live birth rates compared to previous years. They will make excuses to explain away any dips I'm sure ("people don't want to bring a baby into a world like this") but with lockdown boredom one would expect an increase in ("Oops! Babies'") live births from 9 months after lockdowns began up to 9 months after lockdowns ends. A steady rate of live births to me during this period would indicate unrealiable evidence of a decrease in reproductive health, and a decrease would be strong unreliable evidence. But unreliable evidence of reproductive health is better than no evidence of infertility.

Miscarriage data is extremely unreliable because most go unreported. You could look at still birth data but I suspect like most women, vaccinated women are more at risk of miscarriage than still birth - probably just a much higher risk of miscarriage but if they don't report it for the usual reasons women don't report them or because they don't realise they had one because their peroids have been longer, heavier and more painful since vaccination (as some social media accounts have reported) we may never know.

>Any trusted information available on fertility rates among the injected (by race? )? Been long enough we should know. I'm guessing no data means it is bad and hidden. A normal diagnosis of infertility is *at least* 12 months. Miscarriages usually *prolong* the diagnosis (since one *can* get pregnant, chances of infertility are lower). No trusted source is collecting data of people who reasonably could still be fertile as they have not been diagnosed as infertile and despite what you may have learned in school, getting pregnant is actually difficult in most cases. [Only 25-30% chance of getting pregnant each month for women under 35](https://www.todaysparent.com/getting-pregnant/trying-to-conceive/what-are-your-odds-of-getting-pregnant-each-month/) . I'm sure the data will be bad and hidden but any reliable source of this data won't be available for *at least* 12 months after vaccinations start, realisticly you are looking at 2-3 years until any reliable data because the first people to get vaccinated were old. In Australia most fertile aged women (aside from nurses and doctors etc) have only just started getting vaccinated very recently, and for any increase in infertility data to mean anything you need a decent chunk of vaccinated men/women being past the *at least* 12 month window. I say again if the vaccine is causing miscarriage rather than simply making people infertile the 12 months prior to diagnosis could stretch out much further. Reliable figures are 2-3 years away on infertility. HOWEVER, what you could be looking at is live birth rates compared to previous years. They will make excuses to explain away any dips I'm sure ("people don't want to bring a baby into a world like this") but with lockdown boredom one would expect an *increase* in ("Oops! Babies'") live births from 9 months after lockdowns began up to 9 months after lockdowns ends. A steady rate of live births to me during this period would indicate unrealiable evidence of a decrease in reproductive health, and a decrease would be strong unreliable evidence. But unreliable evidence of reproductive health is better than no evidence of infertility. Miscarriage data is extremely unreliable because most go unreported. You could look at still birth data but I suspect like most women, vaccinated women are more at risk of miscarriage than still birth - probably just a much higher risk of miscarriage but if they don't report it for the usual reasons women don't report them or because they don't realise they had one because their peroids have been longer, heavier and more painful since vaccination (as some social media accounts have reported) we may never know.

parent
link