I would have thought the bit on the TGA website on the pfizer info, where it says "There is limited experience with use of Comirnaty in pregnant women", might have been a teeny, weeny red flag to any doctor encouraging the use of this jab. Obviously not, as many swear it is safe & effective for pregnant women.
I would like to add an important but simple issue with the meta-analysis of Drieda Zace.
They claimed:
"PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, Cochrane and Embase databases were searched for eligible studies until June 8th, 2022."
As the decreased birth rates first occurred in January 2022, such search strategy cannot capture the real problems. Apart from all the problems you already listed.
The real problems are related to hindered nesting of oocytes in the placenta/uterus (most likely*) or by the male factor (less likely**). Both aspect can hardly ever be recognised by couples. If nesting in placenta/uterus is hindered, nobody can even recognise a pregnancy, because mentrual bleeding will occurr; hence, this problem cannot be claimed to be a sponataneous abortion. This female factor as well as the male factor can only be recognised in fertility clinics. Unfortunatly, all studies published until autummn 2022 on the male fator were rather bad.**
The data in this article contain a number of questionable issues that need to be addressed before a reliable interpretation can be made. However, the raw data on pregnancies in no way support exculpation of vaccination. The fecundity, especially as calculated, appears to be of questionable clinical significance.
Big thanks to you and other researchers, with the ability to analyse data that goes way beyond my abilities. This helps counteract the MD title which is so revered but often driven by brainwashing and Pharma. 👏👏👏
I made up my mind never to take the vaxx based in part on Gates history of giving vaxx to people in India and Africa that killed and maimed many. Not to mention his statement that the planet should be brought down to a human population level of 500 million. Dr. John Campbell himself was a big pharma pusher until things became obvious, then did a U-turn to become an apparent due to popular demand - whistle-blower . . . himself !
This meta-analysis has numerous quality deficiencies. Therefore, the conclusions should not be considered further. The IVF variables<***> and the sperm variables<****> are presumably not relevantly influenced by the vaccination. A reliable statement on pregnancy rates between vaccinated and unvaccinated women does not appear possible. With careful re-analysis, these are more likely to speak against vaccination.
*** At that time, the study of Shi et al. was not yet published.
**** Many antivaxers claim(ed) that the study of Gat et al 2022 showed decreased sperm quality and numbers. However, applying as serious benchmarks to this study as to those many who claimed to have found no effect, this challenges also the study of Gat et al 2022. Therefore my position on the male factor is: For the time being (autumn 2022, later I did not check again) we should not exclude the male factor as relevant contributor, althoug from my feeling, it is rather the hindered nesting of the oocytes in placenta / uterus.
Thanks for calling them out.
I would have thought the bit on the TGA website on the pfizer info, where it says "There is limited experience with use of Comirnaty in pregnant women", might have been a teeny, weeny red flag to any doctor encouraging the use of this jab. Obviously not, as many swear it is safe & effective for pregnant women.
Excellent, again!
I would like to add an important but simple issue with the meta-analysis of Drieda Zace.
They claimed:
"PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, Cochrane and Embase databases were searched for eligible studies until June 8th, 2022."
As the decreased birth rates first occurred in January 2022, such search strategy cannot capture the real problems. Apart from all the problems you already listed.
The real problems are related to hindered nesting of oocytes in the placenta/uterus (most likely*) or by the male factor (less likely**). Both aspect can hardly ever be recognised by couples. If nesting in placenta/uterus is hindered, nobody can even recognise a pregnancy, because mentrual bleeding will occurr; hence, this problem cannot be claimed to be a sponataneous abortion. This female factor as well as the male factor can only be recognised in fertility clinics. Unfortunatly, all studies published until autummn 2022 on the male fator were rather bad.**
* https://tkp.at/2022/11/30/corona-impfungen-vermindern-erfolgsraten-bei-kuenstlichen-befruchtungen/
** https://tkp.at/2022/12/05/stellungnahme-zum-geburtenrueckgang-bei-der-klage-gegen-swissmedic/ see there the PDF of my expert opinion in the appendix (German).
Regarding Wesselink's article:
My verdict** was:
Risk of bias in the factual analysis: Critical
Risk of bias in the conclusions: Critical
The data in this article contain a number of questionable issues that need to be addressed before a reliable interpretation can be made. However, the raw data on pregnancies in no way support exculpation of vaccination. The fecundity, especially as calculated, appears to be of questionable clinical significance.
** https://tkp.at/2022/12/05/stellungnahme-zum-geburtenrueckgang-bei-der-klage-gegen-swissmedic/ see there the PDF of my expert opinion in the appendix (German).
Big thanks to you and other researchers, with the ability to analyse data that goes way beyond my abilities. This helps counteract the MD title which is so revered but often driven by brainwashing and Pharma. 👏👏👏
I made up my mind never to take the vaxx based in part on Gates history of giving vaxx to people in India and Africa that killed and maimed many. Not to mention his statement that the planet should be brought down to a human population level of 500 million. Dr. John Campbell himself was a big pharma pusher until things became obvious, then did a U-turn to become an apparent due to popular demand - whistle-blower . . . himself !
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j9rqfyuJ3gk
Regarding the Zace meta-analysis
My verdict** was:
Risk of bias in the factual analysis: Critical
Risk of bias in the conclusions: Critical
This meta-analysis has numerous quality deficiencies. Therefore, the conclusions should not be considered further. The IVF variables<***> and the sperm variables<****> are presumably not relevantly influenced by the vaccination. A reliable statement on pregnancy rates between vaccinated and unvaccinated women does not appear possible. With careful re-analysis, these are more likely to speak against vaccination.
*** At that time, the study of Shi et al. was not yet published.
For a respective critical review see:
https://tkp.at/2022/11/30/corona-impfungen-vermindern-erfolgsraten-bei-kuenstlichen-befruchtungen/
**** Many antivaxers claim(ed) that the study of Gat et al 2022 showed decreased sperm quality and numbers. However, applying as serious benchmarks to this study as to those many who claimed to have found no effect, this challenges also the study of Gat et al 2022. Therefore my position on the male factor is: For the time being (autumn 2022, later I did not check again) we should not exclude the male factor as relevant contributor, althoug from my feeling, it is rather the hindered nesting of the oocytes in placenta / uterus.