It is possible that vaccination causes a drop in fertility and it would be TEMPORARY for those women whose menstrual cycles are disrupted temporarily.
However, my own articles on the topic elicited personal comments that many women's periods were disrupted permanently. Those are possibly infertile forever.
It is completely unclear what is happening with male sperm due to reduced volume and motility.
mRNA particles targeting ovaries, possibly target them for a reason.
My own opinion is that we have a mix of temporary and permanent effects.
I tried not to get too deeply into the mechanics of conception because for me, it is easy to say something wrong and be targeted by fact checkers. But you are absolutely right to dig deeper and I admire your efforts.
I just subscribed to your substack and let me know if you come up with anything else.
Re: your hypothesis that vaccine causes easrly miscarriages or failure of the egg to attach. It is possible, but it could logically cause later miscarriages too. It is a very interesting hypothesis that CANNOT yet be dismissed.
Also, do not forget the abortions angle, abortions represent unintended pregnancies and are not affected by "social pessimism".
Temporary/long-term: I have not ruled out that the vaccines could be causing longer term menstrual changes – my focus right now is just on trying to explain the sudden drop in 2022 German births seen so far.
Sperm: yes, I have read about that Israeli study. It is concerning and I will try to read up more about this side of things.
Abortions: I’m not sure if you read my previous comment under your article about the German abortions data? Quarterly figures are available from Destatis. The drop started already in Q1 (when VERY FEW women of child-bearing age received doses) and recovered in Q4 (despite the booster drive) so, for me, the timing is off. Admittedly still puzzling 3 quarters of significantly reduced figures.
TL;DR male fertility is effected by the vax, but after 145 days are back to normal. It will be interesting to see if we can see this pattern in the birth data over time.
Well.... The median is back to normal. But if you have 10 people with arbitrary counts of 100, the median is 100. If say 6 drop, 3 to 50 and 3 to zero then the median falls to 50. If the three 50s return to 100 but the zeros stay at zero, the median returns to normal - 100
Thanks for the link. I've seen this paper discussed already online. I will read it more closely. One thing I recall is that the n, the number of participants was quite small?
One thing, you write "after 145 days (sperm) are back to normal." And what happens when a booster dose is administered every 180 days??
My theory (and it would be a testable hypothesis if someone had access to fertility data from a site like Fertility Friend): something about the vax causes a short luteal phase. Average luteal phase (the time between ovulation and the start of your next cycle) is about 14 days. Anything under 11 can be a cause of infertility-- too short and there's just not time for an embryo to implant properly, and likely means that hormone levels are just too low anyway.
And it's an open question whether a woman has to be vaccinated, or just *be around* people who were, to get this effect. I kept seeing comments from women who'd had weird menstrual issues after *someone else* in their household got vaxd, so just for kicks I went back through my own symptothermal charts for the stretch of time when my husband got the shot (the date is on his vax card, so I know exactly when that happened). Mid-cycle when he got the shot. That cycle looked normal. But the *next* full cycle after he was vaxd had a luteal phase of 5-6 days, which almost never happens. I run 9-11 days typically. I was not sick, and it hasn't happened again in the year+ since.
There's not much anybody can do with a sample size of 1, so (shrugs). But if we'd been trying, we would not have been able to get pregnant that month. If you multiply that by like 80% of the childbearing-age population... I can see where there might be a drop in births after 9 months. Add in boosters and you can keep it going a while even if the effect is temporary. AND if it's a shedding effect (i.e. secondhand exposure like me) then it wouldn't matter if *you* were boosted, so long as people around you were-- which might drag things out very significantly, for as long as people keep getting boosted and aren't segregated from young women. I mean, I haven't had any further incidents, BUT my husband hasn't gotten any additional shots, nobody else in my family is vaxd, and I'm practically a hermit. I would love to compare notes with other ladies who've been charting through this last couple of years, and see if anyone else is seeing this, particularly if they have more contact with vaxd people.
so you've probably already seen it. I haven't seen anything official that specifically looked at shedding+menstrual irregularities. That's strictly anecdotal.
I *know* I've seen at least one-- where they looked at antibodies or immune factors in the children of vaxxed parents. What they were testing for was apparently only associated with the shots, not the wild virus, and they DID find it in the unvaxxed kids of vaxxed parents. And goshdarnit I did not bookmark it! I will root around and see if I can turn it up again.
Shedding is an established phenomenon when using viruses as a delivery system - regardless of whether that virus has had its replication machinery removed or not.
"Replication" is a different task than "distribution" / "infection" / "provoking immune response". The reason to use a live virus to deliver is precisely for its ability to infect cells, and often secondarily for its ability to travel through diverse body systems. This ability is intentionally amplified in labs. Like any normal respiratory virus, an amplified live lab virus doesn't care if it is projected from your mouth toward another warm recipient.
This question is nothing new or bizarre - it is well established in the scientific literature:
2003: Development of an adenovirus-shedding assay for the detection of adenoviral vector-based vaccine and gene therapy products in clinical specimens.
I've noticed that the UK is trying to slow roll their data, though if you look at some of their secondary data like smoking during pregnancy etc you see a roughly 10% drop in the most recent quarter.
I would say, there are two types of miscarriages: those happening before the first visit to the gynaecologist, and those happening after that first visit. The former might remain unnoticed in many cases, and there's not much hope for investigation. The latter are interesting because the gynaecologist would surely leave a trace in form of an ICD code (something like this: https://www.icd10data.com/ICD10CM/Codes/O00-O9A/O00-O08/O03-/O03.9). As with vaccination injuries, the data collected by the health insurance companies might be key. All we need are incentives for them to publish the data...
I recall when I was having kids, the OB's office did not even want to see me until ~10wks. If that's standard practice, then yeah, any miscarriages before that point would probably not show up in medical statistics.
Very early miscarriages is the strategy used by several decades of experiments with anti-fertility vaccines. The body is trained to attack either an element of the new conception itself, or a necessary hormone required to maintain the pregnancy. According to protein analyses, the spike has a large selection of reproductive peptides and common immunogenic epitopes that have historically been used in combination to train anti-fertility antibodies.
The protective barriers to the gonads, like that of the brain, are bypassed by the spike and its delivery vehicles. Local inflammation and coagulation are also enough to terminate a new pregnancy.
2021: Dotan A, Kanduc D, Muller S, Makatsariya A, Shoenfeld Y. “Molecular mimicry between SARS-CoV-2 and the female reproductive system.” doi: 10.1111/aji.13494
2021: “From Anti-Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 Immune Response to Cancer Onset via Molecular Mimicry and Cross-Reactivity” (Kanduc D. doi: 10.1055/s-0041-1735590).
I really like your article for many reasons:
- It is not sensationalistic
- It is exploratory
- It does not force conclusions on us
- You are obviously a deep thinker
It is possible that vaccination causes a drop in fertility and it would be TEMPORARY for those women whose menstrual cycles are disrupted temporarily.
However, my own articles on the topic elicited personal comments that many women's periods were disrupted permanently. Those are possibly infertile forever.
It is completely unclear what is happening with male sperm due to reduced volume and motility.
mRNA particles targeting ovaries, possibly target them for a reason.
My own opinion is that we have a mix of temporary and permanent effects.
I tried not to get too deeply into the mechanics of conception because for me, it is easy to say something wrong and be targeted by fact checkers. But you are absolutely right to dig deeper and I admire your efforts.
I just subscribed to your substack and let me know if you come up with anything else.
Re: your hypothesis that vaccine causes easrly miscarriages or failure of the egg to attach. It is possible, but it could logically cause later miscarriages too. It is a very interesting hypothesis that CANNOT yet be dismissed.
Also, do not forget the abortions angle, abortions represent unintended pregnancies and are not affected by "social pessimism".
Hi Igor,
Thanks for the feedback and your comments 😊
Temporary/long-term: I have not ruled out that the vaccines could be causing longer term menstrual changes – my focus right now is just on trying to explain the sudden drop in 2022 German births seen so far.
Sperm: yes, I have read about that Israeli study. It is concerning and I will try to read up more about this side of things.
Abortions: I’m not sure if you read my previous comment under your article about the German abortions data? Quarterly figures are available from Destatis. The drop started already in Q1 (when VERY FEW women of child-bearing age received doses) and recovered in Q4 (despite the booster drive) so, for me, the timing is off. Admittedly still puzzling 3 quarters of significantly reduced figures.
The Q1 drop may just be a random fluctuation actually, I took a look but not a very close one.
Just read this Israeli study of sperm donors.
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/andr.13209
TL;DR male fertility is effected by the vax, but after 145 days are back to normal. It will be interesting to see if we can see this pattern in the birth data over time.
Well.... The median is back to normal. But if you have 10 people with arbitrary counts of 100, the median is 100. If say 6 drop, 3 to 50 and 3 to zero then the median falls to 50. If the three 50s return to 100 but the zeros stay at zero, the median returns to normal - 100
Thanks for the link. I've seen this paper discussed already online. I will read it more closely. One thing I recall is that the n, the number of participants was quite small?
One thing, you write "after 145 days (sperm) are back to normal." And what happens when a booster dose is administered every 180 days??
Yes, only 37 donors. I'm not sure how often the Israelis are recommending boosters these days, but that will make a difference.
My theory (and it would be a testable hypothesis if someone had access to fertility data from a site like Fertility Friend): something about the vax causes a short luteal phase. Average luteal phase (the time between ovulation and the start of your next cycle) is about 14 days. Anything under 11 can be a cause of infertility-- too short and there's just not time for an embryo to implant properly, and likely means that hormone levels are just too low anyway.
https://www.austinfertility.com/short-luteal-phase-female-fertility/
And it's an open question whether a woman has to be vaccinated, or just *be around* people who were, to get this effect. I kept seeing comments from women who'd had weird menstrual issues after *someone else* in their household got vaxd, so just for kicks I went back through my own symptothermal charts for the stretch of time when my husband got the shot (the date is on his vax card, so I know exactly when that happened). Mid-cycle when he got the shot. That cycle looked normal. But the *next* full cycle after he was vaxd had a luteal phase of 5-6 days, which almost never happens. I run 9-11 days typically. I was not sick, and it hasn't happened again in the year+ since.
There's not much anybody can do with a sample size of 1, so (shrugs). But if we'd been trying, we would not have been able to get pregnant that month. If you multiply that by like 80% of the childbearing-age population... I can see where there might be a drop in births after 9 months. Add in boosters and you can keep it going a while even if the effect is temporary. AND if it's a shedding effect (i.e. secondhand exposure like me) then it wouldn't matter if *you* were boosted, so long as people around you were-- which might drag things out very significantly, for as long as people keep getting boosted and aren't segregated from young women. I mean, I haven't had any further incidents, BUT my husband hasn't gotten any additional shots, nobody else in my family is vaxd, and I'm practically a hermit. I would love to compare notes with other ladies who've been charting through this last couple of years, and see if anyone else is seeing this, particularly if they have more contact with vaxd people.
Thank you very much for this information and your theory!
Yes, I am trying to figure out how to get access to database information that might show increases in menstrual changes and/or early miscarriages.
We saw unvaccinated patients miscarry early pregnancies shortly after their colleagues got vaccinated.
This is not the first time I have seen comments like yours.
Do you know of any papers/studies around this topic of "shedding"?
Oh, Igor linked to and discussed it here:
https://igorchudov.substack.com/p/vaccine-shedding-finally-proven
so you've probably already seen it. I haven't seen anything official that specifically looked at shedding+menstrual irregularities. That's strictly anecdotal.
I *know* I've seen at least one-- where they looked at antibodies or immune factors in the children of vaxxed parents. What they were testing for was apparently only associated with the shots, not the wild virus, and they DID find it in the unvaxxed kids of vaxxed parents. And goshdarnit I did not bookmark it! I will root around and see if I can turn it up again.
Perhaps this one? I have since seen one or two others and will link them here when they emerge from my "filing system".
"Evidence for Aerosol Transfer of SARS-CoV2-specific Humoral Immunity". Ketl et al., May 2022, possibly still preprint. doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/2022.04.28.22274443.
Yes, that's the one I recall, too - very striking!
Dr. Santiano's newsletter is highly recommended, he has visited this theme a couple times:
https://drjessesantiano.com/can-breathing-spread-the-spike-protein/
Shedding is an established phenomenon when using viruses as a delivery system - regardless of whether that virus has had its replication machinery removed or not.
"Replication" is a different task than "distribution" / "infection" / "provoking immune response". The reason to use a live virus to deliver is precisely for its ability to infect cells, and often secondarily for its ability to travel through diverse body systems. This ability is intentionally amplified in labs. Like any normal respiratory virus, an amplified live lab virus doesn't care if it is projected from your mouth toward another warm recipient.
This question is nothing new or bizarre - it is well established in the scientific literature:
2003: Development of an adenovirus-shedding assay for the detection of adenoviral vector-based vaccine and gene therapy products in clinical specimens.
(Wang F. et al., doi: 10.1089/10430340360464688.)
Other related publications: https://medquotes.substack.com/p/adenovirus-vectors
I've noticed that the UK is trying to slow roll their data, though if you look at some of their secondary data like smoking during pregnancy etc you see a roughly 10% drop in the most recent quarter.
I would say, there are two types of miscarriages: those happening before the first visit to the gynaecologist, and those happening after that first visit. The former might remain unnoticed in many cases, and there's not much hope for investigation. The latter are interesting because the gynaecologist would surely leave a trace in form of an ICD code (something like this: https://www.icd10data.com/ICD10CM/Codes/O00-O9A/O00-O08/O03-/O03.9). As with vaccination injuries, the data collected by the health insurance companies might be key. All we need are incentives for them to publish the data...
Great comment!
I wonder if this report (2021 edition due soon?) might reveal something?
https://iqtig.org/qs-verfahren/peri/
I recall when I was having kids, the OB's office did not even want to see me until ~10wks. If that's standard practice, then yeah, any miscarriages before that point would probably not show up in medical statistics.
Early miscarriages could explain it. But also postponed pregnancies or fewer marriages. Interesting Swiss analysis: https://swprs.org/birth-rates-vaccinations-marriages/
Haha.. looks like someone at Swiss Policy Research has been reading my substack!
You will find I covered the crash in weddings in my first posts (I may have been the one to first explore this angle).
Very early miscarriages is the strategy used by several decades of experiments with anti-fertility vaccines. The body is trained to attack either an element of the new conception itself, or a necessary hormone required to maintain the pregnancy. According to protein analyses, the spike has a large selection of reproductive peptides and common immunogenic epitopes that have historically been used in combination to train anti-fertility antibodies.
https://medquotes.substack.com/p/publications-worth-mentioning
The protective barriers to the gonads, like that of the brain, are bypassed by the spike and its delivery vehicles. Local inflammation and coagulation are also enough to terminate a new pregnancy.
2021: Dotan A, Kanduc D, Muller S, Makatsariya A, Shoenfeld Y. “Molecular mimicry between SARS-CoV-2 and the female reproductive system.” doi: 10.1111/aji.13494
2021: “From Anti-Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 Immune Response to Cancer Onset via Molecular Mimicry and Cross-Reactivity” (Kanduc D. doi: 10.1055/s-0041-1735590).
Dotan et al. and Kanduc are included in a very good summary on autoimmune risks by DoorlessCarp: https://doorlesscarp953.substack.com/p/autoimmune-disorders-covid-19-spike?utm_source=substack&utm_campaign=post_embed&utm_medium=web
Thank you for the link recommendations.