(06-19-2022 01:19 PM)GoodOwl Wrote: In the latest study, released this week, the participants were studied for five months after receiving the vaccine according to CDC recommendations. Each participant provided multiple samples, spread out throughout the study’s duration.
The results showed a staggering drop in male fertility, with the average decrease being 22.1% across the study group.
The study concludes, “Systemic immune response after BNT162b2 vaccine is a reasonable cause for transient semen concentration and TMC decline.”
In short, the Pfizer COVID vaccine does in fact reduce male fertility.
Is the drop that occurs permanent? How do other vaccines impact these fertility issues?
From the linked abstract:
Quote:Discussion
This longitudinal study focused on SD demonstrates selective temporary sperm concentration and TMC deterioration three months after vaccination followed by later recovery verified by diverse statistical analyses.
Conclusions
Systemic immune response after BNT162b2 vaccine is a reasonable cause for transient semen concentration and TMC decline. Long-term prognosis remains good.
(06-19-2022 01:19 PM)GoodOwl Wrote: In the latest study, released this week, the participants were studied for five months after receiving the vaccine according to CDC recommendations. Each participant provided multiple samples, spread out throughout the study’s duration.
The results showed a staggering drop in male fertility, with the average decrease being 22.1% across the study group.
The study concludes, “Systemic immune response after BNT162b2 vaccine is a reasonable cause for transient semen concentration and TMC decline.”
Weird that you didn't include the rest of the conclustions.
Quote:In short, the Pfizer COVID vaccine does in fact reduce male fertility.
Not sure if actual fertility drops with the associated 22% drop in total motile count. Nothing in this study to suggest that. Perhaps other studies are out there that support this correlation. Without them, I don't think you can say that "there is a staggering drop in male fertility". It seems a stretch and honestly nobody who evaluates medical literature would applaud the assumptions you make based on the available data.
(06-22-2022 06:14 PM)MileHighBronco Wrote: The controlled media in this country will do anything to keep the covid narrative and fear going and avoid doing ANY reporting on what many doctors have been saying while censored. Few have heard them.
Quote:Yes, it’s not hard to understand. You’re called a conspiracy theorist, but give it time and the real conspiracies start to the surface to the point that no one can deny them. The latest truth that has risen to the sunlight comes out of Australia, where researchers there have provided definitive proof that those who take the COVID shots, fraudulently referred to as “vaccines,” are far more likely to gain infections or even die, just like we have warned for nearly two years.
Quote:Nearly 90% of people in Australia are considered fully vaccinated against Covid-19, but despite this, the country is still riding the largest wave of Covid-19 deaths to hit the country since the beginning of the alleged pandemic in 2020, a wave that began in February 2022.
Therefore, Australia has provided the world with unequivocal evidence that the Covid-19 injections not only simply do not work, they in fact make recipients worse.
Quote:As you can see, on 13th Jan 22, the day Australia recorded its most cases in a single day to date, 81% of Australia had received at least 1 dose of a Covid-19 vaccine, and 78% of Australia were considered fully vaccinated.
This unequivocally proves that the Covid-19 injections not only simply don’t work, they in fact make recipients more likely to be infected.
To those now screaming that all those cases were and are probably being recorded among the unvaccinated population, we say “think before you speak”. Because further official data from Australia proves otherwise.
The Government of New South Wales, Australia had been producing a weekly Covid-19 Statistical Report, but they then decided to stop publishing it. Why? Probably because of how terrible the data was looking for those who have chosen to be vaccinated.
Here’s how the figures added up between 26th Nov 21 and 5th Feb 22 according to the now neglected Government of NSW report –
Quote:The above graph isn’t mistaken, the fully vaccinated population really did account for 4 in every 5 Covid-19 cases between 26th November and 5th February 2022.
“Well at least the vaccine protects me against death”, we hear you cry.
Really good read on how dangerous the CDC has become. All decisions political. Scientists silenced. Worth reading the whole thing.
“"...It's like a horror movie I'm being forced to watch and I can't close my eyes,” one senior FDA official lamented. “People are getting bad advice and we can’t say anything.”
That particular FDA doctor was referring to two recent developments inside the agency. First, how, with no solid clinical data, the agency authorized Covid vaccines for infants and toddlers, including those who already had Covid. And second, the fact that just months before, the FDA bypassed their external experts to authorize booster shots for young children.
That doctor is hardly alone.
At the NIH, doctors and scientists complain to us about low morale and lower staffing: The NIH’s Vaccine Research Center has had many of its senior scientists leave over the last year, including the director, deputy director and chief medical officer. “They have no leadership right now. Suddenly there’s an enormous number of jobs opening up at the highest level positions,” one NIH scientist told us. (The people who spoke to us would only agree to be quoted anonymously, citing fear of professional repercussions.)
The CDC has experienced a similar exodus. “There’s been a large amount of turnover. Morale is low,” one high level official at the CDC told us. “Things have become so political, so what are we there for?” Another CDC scientist told us: “I used to be proud to tell people I work at the CDC. Now I’m embarrassed...."
I know several folks who went back to school to work at the CDC and now those same folks avoid having anything to do with the CDC like the plague...irony intended.
Health care workers protest against NorthShore University HealthSystem's vaccine mandate outside Evanston Hospital in Evanston, Ill., on Oct. 12, 2021. (Cara Ding/The Epoch Times)
Quote: A group of health care workers who sued their hospital over a COVID-19 vaccine mandate are slated to receive $10 million, according to a settlement agreement filed on July 29.
About a dozen workers at the NorthShore University HealthSystem in Illinois lodged the suit in October 2021, arguing that the facility was illegally not granting religious exemptions to the mandate.
…
Under the settlement’s terms, NorthShore will pay $10,337,500 into a settlement fund for workers affected by its mandate—specifically, workers who between July 1, 2021, and Jan. 1, 2022, asked for a religious accommodation and were denied and either received a vaccine to avoid termination or were fired or resigned. About 473 workers fit under that category.
Plus, NorthShore will be adjusting their COVID vaccine mandate.
All workers who were fired can file for re-employment.
Quote: I wonder if Twitter and Facebook will go back and mark the claims from Biden and his administration as misinformation? ? https://t.co/iknUVW8jmu
— Democracy Dies with Media Bias (@RightEyeGuy) August 1, 2022
Quote: People’s lives were impacted by the Covid Vaccination push. The science may still be out on the statistical relevance of the negative impacts of the vaccine itself, but people who lost their jobs and livelihoods when their employers mandated vaccination were directly affected by Biden’s claims. If it was clear that efficacy was uncertain, perhaps there would have been more tolerance for personal choice.
And based on this lie, mandates were justified. People were kicked out of university and fired from jobs.
The mainstream media and courts have held no one to account. https://t.co/llmSjp5TNw
— David Millard Haskell (@DMillardHaskell) July 31, 2022
Lies from the MSM...lies from Former Vice prezdon't Biden*...
lies lies lies, yeah!
Artist: Thompson Twins
Album: Side Kicks
Jingle: "Lies"
October 1982 Arista Records
According to the latest data from Health and Human Services Agency (HHSA), 67% of the 88 deaths in San Diego in the last three months were among those who were fully vaccinated and boosted. And 33% of those were not fully vaccinated, including those with one shot and zero shots. (HHSA)
Curiously, it seems the report does not have a separate data category for those who have not received any of the alleged 'vaccine' shots. According to the data, not fully vaccinated includes individuals with one dose, no doses, or unknown vaccination status. Why do they do this? To hide that the facts show those who remain unvaccinated are least likely to die.
In order to give context to those numbers, Good... you have to know what percentage of people were fully vaccinated vs not.
What I mean is... If 50% of a population is vaccinated and 50% is not, and you have 2/3rds of your deaths in the vaccinated population, then your argument holds wated.
If however 90% of a population is vaccinated and 2/3rds of your deaths come from this population... then it does not.
Simple math...
Population 1mm
900k vaccinated
1000 deaths, 670 of them in the unvaccinated population...
Then the death rate in the vaccinated population is 670/900,000 or 0.074%... while the death rate in the unvaccinated population is 330/100,000 or 0.33%
0.074 vs 0.33 is a HUGE difference, even though the 'number' of deaths is double in the vaccinated population.
(08-10-2022 11:42 AM)Hambone10 Wrote: In order to give context to those numbers, Good... you have to know what percentage of people were fully vaccinated vs not.
What I mean is... If 50% of a population is vaccinated and 50% is not, and you have 2/3rds of your deaths in the vaccinated population, then your argument holds wated.
If however 90% of a population is vaccinated and 2/3rds of your deaths come from this population... then it does not.
Simple math...
Population 1mm
900k vaccinated
1000 deaths, 670 of them in the unvaccinated population...
Then the death rate in the vaccinated population is 670/900,000 or 0.074%... while the death rate in the unvaccinated population is 330/100,000 or 0.33%
0.074 vs 0.33 is a HUGE difference, even though the 'number' of deaths is double in the vaccinated population.
Okay, does the following info help you any?
The vaccination rate in San Diego County is quite high, with almost 3 million residents (or 89.9%) aged 6 months and up having received at least one dose of vaccine, as reported by KUSI News.
Almost 2.66 million people (79.4%) were fully vaccinated. Of the 2,435,363 residents, 1,424,581 (58.5%) received a booster shot.
Remember, they seem to have intentionally not allowed for a separate data category for those who have not received any COVID-19 shots, which would have been quite helpful and revealing. I find that troubling and one less reason to trust these 'health officials' as they do not seem to be very interested in being transparent and honest with the data, moreso they appear very interested and biased toward manipulating their data as much as possible to fit their mandated narrative. Still one can see through it and tell there is something gravely wrong that they seem to want to hide as much as possible, as most people will not look closely or understand.
According to the data, not fully vaccinated includes individuals with one dose, no doses, or unknown vaccination status.
(08-10-2022 11:42 AM)Hambone10 Wrote: In order to give context to those numbers, Good... you have to know what percentage of people were fully vaccinated vs not.
What I mean is... If 50% of a population is vaccinated and 50% is not, and you have 2/3rds of your deaths in the vaccinated population, then your argument holds wated.
If however 90% of a population is vaccinated and 2/3rds of your deaths come from this population... then it does not.
Simple math...
Population 1mm
900k vaccinated
1000 deaths, 670 of them in the unvaccinated population...
Then the death rate in the vaccinated population is 670/900,000 or 0.074%... while the death rate in the unvaccinated population is 330/100,000 or 0.33%
0.074 vs 0.33 is a HUGE difference, even though the 'number' of deaths is double in the vaccinated population.
Okay, does the following info help you any?
The vaccination rate in San Diego County is quite high, with almost 3 million residents (or 89.9%) aged 6 months and up having received at least one dose of vaccine, as reported by KUSI News.
Almost 2.66 million people (79.4%) were fully vaccinated. Of the 2,435,363 residents, 1,424,581 (58.5%) received a booster shot.
Remember, they seem to have intentionally not allowed for a separate data category for those who have not received any COVID-19 shots, which would have been quite helpful and revealing. I find that troubling and one less reason to trust these 'health officials' as they do not seem to be very interested in being transparent and honest with the data, moreso they appear very interested and biased toward manipulating their data as much as possible to fit their mandated narrative. Still one can see through it and tell there is something gravely wrong that they seem to want to hide as much as possible, as most people will not look closely or understand.
According to the data, not fully vaccinated includes individuals with one dose, no doses, or unknown vaccination status.
To the bolded, that is answered above by them referencing 89.9% of the San Diego County residents having received at least one shot. So you're looking at around 340,000 residents with no shots whatsoever.
(08-10-2022 11:42 AM)Hambone10 Wrote: In order to give context to those numbers, Good... you have to know what percentage of people were fully vaccinated vs not.
What I mean is... If 50% of a population is vaccinated and 50% is not, and you have 2/3rds of your deaths in the vaccinated population, then your argument holds wated.
If however 90% of a population is vaccinated and 2/3rds of your deaths come from this population... then it does not.
Simple math...
Population 1mm
900k vaccinated
1000 deaths, 670 of them in the unvaccinated population...
Then the death rate in the vaccinated population is 670/900,000 or 0.074%... while the death rate in the unvaccinated population is 330/100,000 or 0.33%
0.074 vs 0.33 is a HUGE difference, even though the 'number' of deaths is double in the vaccinated population.
Okay, does the following info help you any?
The vaccination rate in San Diego County is quite high, with almost 3 million residents (or 89.9%) aged 6 months and up having received at least one dose of vaccine, as reported by KUSI News.
Almost 2.66 million people (79.4%) were fully vaccinated. Of the 2,435,363 residents, 1,424,581 (58.5%) received a booster shot.
Remember, they seem to have intentionally not allowed for a separate data category for those who have not received any COVID-19 shots, which would have been quite helpful and revealing. I find that troubling and one less reason to trust these 'health officials' as they do not seem to be very interested in being transparent and honest with the data, moreso they appear very interested and biased toward manipulating their data as much as possible to fit their mandated narrative. Still one can see through it and tell there is something gravely wrong that they seem to want to hide as much as possible, as most people will not look closely or understand.
According to the data, not fully vaccinated includes individuals with one dose, no doses, or unknown vaccination status.
ok... so if we use the 79.4% fully vaccinated... 58.5% + booster (obviously included in the 'fully vaccinated' number so the un-boosted percentage is about 21% and of course 20.6% unvaccinated. Fair??
Then you had 29/88 deaths, just under 33% of the deaths from just 20% of the population.
fully vaxxed was 79.4% but 2/3rds of the deaths.... so while not a huge number, those are statistically significant.
So the data shows that the vaccines have a LITTLE benefit when it comes to deaths.
What you don't know now is 'how vulnerable' each of these populations was.... You'd expect higher deaths among more vulnerable populations... especially institutionalized populations, and of course, they are required to be vaxxed... so that is likely why the numbers are skewed that way, AND I'd expect that the unvaxxed would often (but certainly not always) be on the younger and healthier side and less likely to die. There are also numerous other factors... but we're starting at a high level...
It doesn't show me (without that info) that the vaccines helped as much as one would expect, but it DOES show a meaningful difference between the unvaxxed and vaccinated populations, with the vaccinated population on the plus side.
(08-10-2022 11:42 AM)Hambone10 Wrote: In order to give context to those numbers, Good... you have to know what percentage of people were fully vaccinated vs not.
What I mean is... If 50% of a population is vaccinated and 50% is not, and you have 2/3rds of your deaths in the vaccinated population, then your argument holds wated.
If however 90% of a population is vaccinated and 2/3rds of your deaths come from this population... then it does not.
Simple math...
Population 1mm
900k vaccinated
1000 deaths, 670 of them in the unvaccinated population...
Then the death rate in the vaccinated population is 670/900,000 or 0.074%... while the death rate in the unvaccinated population is 330/100,000 or 0.33%
0.074 vs 0.33 is a HUGE difference, even though the 'number' of deaths is double in the vaccinated population.
Okay, does the following info help you any?
The vaccination rate in San Diego County is quite high, with almost 3 million residents (or 89.9%) aged 6 months and up having received at least one dose of vaccine, as reported by KUSI News.
Almost 2.66 million people (79.4%) were fully vaccinated. Of the 2,435,363 residents, 1,424,581 (58.5%) received a booster shot.
Remember, they seem to have intentionally not allowed for a separate data category for those who have not received any COVID-19 shots, which would have been quite helpful and revealing. I find that troubling and one less reason to trust these 'health officials' as they do not seem to be very interested in being transparent and honest with the data, moreso they appear very interested and biased toward manipulating their data as much as possible to fit their mandated narrative. Still one can see through it and tell there is something gravely wrong that they seem to want to hide as much as possible, as most people will not look closely or understand.
According to the data, not fully vaccinated includes individuals with one dose, no doses, or unknown vaccination status.
ok... so if we use the 79.4% fully vaccinated... 58.5% + booster (obviously included in the 'fully vaccinated' number so the un-boosted percentage is about 21% and of course 20.6% unvaccinated. Fair??
Then you had 29/88 deaths, just under 33% of the deaths from just 20% of the population.
fully vaxxed was 79.4% but 2/3rds of the deaths.... so while not a huge number, those are statistically significant.
So the data shows that the vaccines have a LITTLE benefit when it comes to deaths.
What you don't know now is 'how vulnerable' each of these populations was.... You'd expect higher deaths among more vulnerable populations... especially institutionalized populations, and of course, they are required to be vaxxed... so that is likely why the numbers are skewed that way, AND I'd expect that the unvaxxed would often (but certainly not always) be on the younger and healthier side and less likely to die. There are also numerous other factors... but we're starting at a high level...
It doesn't show me (without that info) that the vaccines helped as much as one would expect, but it DOES show a meaningful difference between the unvaxxed and vaccinated populations, with the vaccinated population on the plus side.
And to be fair, your analysis is being very generous with the “unvaccinated” designation, since you’re considering people who have gotten one shot, but not two, as unvaccinated. The actual definition of unvaccinated, which I believe the death numbers are using, are those with no shots.
(08-11-2022 04:09 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote: And to be fair, your analysis is being very generous with the “unvaccinated” designation, since you’re considering people who have gotten one shot, but not two, as unvaccinated. The actual definition of unvaccinated, which I believe the death numbers are using, are those with no shots.
Fair.
As you note, I'm trying to be as generous as I can in the descriptions here in an effort to eliminate objections to the analysis. I could go very deep in the analysis with the proper data, and I alluded to step two... but even at a generous step 1, I see a meaningful difference between the death rate over this period between the fully vaccinated and 'not' fully vaccinated.... The period also seems selective, and more important, the vaccine was designed to reduce the spread and infection rate... which of course leads to a lower death rate (if successful)... but it is not a 'cure'.
I think it reasonable to question the ultimate efficacy of the vaccines, as we've had so many 'breakthrough' vaccines... but the flu shot is only about 50% effective and its considered a success.... but the data doesn't in any way (I'll be generous and say 'yet') that it it doesn't reduce deaths.
FTR, I similarly defended hydroxychloroquine as a prophylactic measure... and challenged the lack of data against it.
(This post was last modified: 08-11-2022 04:26 PM by Hambone10.)
(08-11-2022 04:09 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote: And to be fair, your analysis is being very generous with the “unvaccinated” designation, since you’re considering people who have gotten one shot, but not two, as unvaccinated. The actual definition of unvaccinated, which I believe the death numbers are using, are those with no shots.
Fair.
As you note, I'm trying to be as generous as I can in the descriptions here in an effort to eliminate objections to the analysis. I could go very deep in the analysis with the proper data, and I alluded to step two... but even at a generous step 1, I see a meaningful difference between the death rate over this period between the fully vaccinated and 'not' fully vaccinated.... The period also seems selective, and more important, the vaccine was designed to reduce the spread and infection rate... which of course leads to a lower death rate (if successful)... but it is not a 'cure'.
Just clarifying that I didn't have an issue with the conservative approach you took - it creates a more powerful outcome (IMO). I think you did a great job showing how population dynamics are critical to understand when looking at percentages of a group made up of "uneven" populations. I should probably brush up on my statistics language after typing that out... lol
The last comment you made is what I personally find so disingenuous when others try to argue that the vaccines aren't working and point to infections, especially of mutated strains of COVID-19.
Quote:I think it reasonable to question the ultimate efficacy of the vaccines, as we've had so many 'breakthrough' vaccines... but the flu shot is only about 50% effective and its considered a success.... but the data doesn't in any way (I'll be generous and say 'yet') that it it doesn't reduce deaths.
FTR, I similarly defended hydroxychloroquine as a prophylactic measure... and challenged the lack of data against it.
I think there's something to be said about a healthy skepticism in all areas. The question becomes when does a healthy skepticism turn into cynicism, conspiracy theories, and misinformation
(08-12-2022 09:27 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote: I think there's something to be said about a healthy skepticism in all areas. The question becomes when does a healthy skepticism turn into cynicism, conspiracy theories, and misinformation
But I think there was a lot of this going on during the pandemic.
The 'scare' tactics used to force compliance by a fearful population was unprecedented in my knowledge of the history of this nation... and the 'dismissal' of other potential treatments was bordering on something this nation should NEVER be. If someone thinks drinking onion juice keeps them healthier, they're PROBABLY right at least at the margin... and we may be fairly near that point. Such all but placebos are a trillion dollar market.
And now we're discovering exactly what I said more than a year ago... that diseases find ways to survive, just like humans... and this disease too shall survive in some form or another.
I do think it worth looking in to these newer strains to see if the vaccines are really making a difference at all anymore, digging deeply into the underlying populations... because almost everyone has been exposed at this point and has developed SOME antibodies. What's done is done, but let's not compound it.
(This post was last modified: 08-12-2022 09:48 AM by Hambone10.)
(08-11-2022 04:09 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote: And to be fair, your analysis is being very generous with the “unvaccinated” designation, since you’re considering people who have gotten one shot, but not two, as unvaccinated. The actual definition of unvaccinated, which I believe the death numbers are using, are those with no shots.
Fair.
As you note, I'm trying to be as generous as I can in the descriptions here in an effort to eliminate objections to the analysis. I could go very deep in the analysis with the proper data, and I alluded to step two... but even at a generous step 1, I see a meaningful difference between the death rate over this period between the fully vaccinated and 'not' fully vaccinated.... The period also seems selective, and more important, the vaccine was designed to reduce the spread and infection rate... which of course leads to a lower death rate (if successful)... but it is not a 'cure'.
I think it reasonable to question the ultimate efficacy of the vaccines, as we've had so many 'breakthrough' vaccines... but the flu shot is only about 50% effective and its considered a success.... but the data doesn't in any way (I'll be generous and say 'yet') that it it doesn't reduce deaths.
FTR, I similarly defended hydroxychloroquine as a prophylactic measure... and challenged the lack of data against it.
As well as Ivermectin.
Would you then agree that the blanket recommendations for mass-COVID19 vaccination of children and young adults was and is a mistake (excepting those few who might have a severe co-morbidity)?
(08-12-2022 10:24 AM)GoodOwl Wrote: As well as Ivermectin.
Would you then agree that the blanket recommendations for mass-COVID19 vaccination of children and young adults was and is a mistake (excepting those few who might have a severe co-morbidity)?
Yes, Ivermectin as well.
If the ability to end a 'potential' life is a private matter between a woman and her doctor, then I don't remotely see how the 'pressure' put on people to get vaccinated was remotely justified.... bordering on what an extremist might call (even though it wasn't remotely) 'Gestapo' tactics. Almost everyone derides anti-abortion people who would do what many did (with the support and encouragement of numerous people of weight, including in the government.
As to it being a mistake, the mistake was the elimination of options... the elimination of choice. I don't see that strong encouragement as we do for flu, or even much more than that would have been unreasonable considering the circumstances... but we did a massive multiple of that... and I think the repeats and boosters and all were really more about trying to 'live up to the initial hype' of near 100% efficacy... and now that this has been shot to hell, we're just supposed to forget it.
I think the initial vaccine and encouragement was warranted. I think the follow ups and hard pressures were not.
/
um....about them 'vaccines'....yeah
![[Image: image-220.png?ssl=1]](https://i0.wp.com/expose-news.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/06/image-220.png?ssl=1)
![[Image: Illinois-healthcare-workers-protest-agai...00x420.jpg]](https://img.theepochtimes.com/assets/uploads/2021/10/13/Illinois-healthcare-workers-protest-against-vaccine-mandate-700x420.jpg)
![[Image: Screen-Shot-2022-08-09-at-7.21.46-PM.jpg]](https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/wp-content/uploads/Screen-Shot-2022-08-09-at-7.21.46-PM.jpg)
