The fact checkers have spoken: the COVID vaccine WILL NOT “sterilize” women It will make them infertile

submitted by Jesus from self.conspiracy

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/EolVWtwUYAIH4g5.jpg

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/EolVWtvVEAAhTOE.jpg

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/EolVWtwU8AEvNzN.jpg

LMAO:

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/EolVWuZUcAAoMQs.jpg

all 69 comments
sorted by:
top
newinsightfulfun

[–]Bowiebow 13 insightful - 2 fun13 insightful - 1 fun14 insightful - 2 fun -  (49 children)

Can you link to whole articles as well please

[–][deleted] 10 insightful - 3 fun10 insightful - 2 fun11 insightful - 3 fun -  (48 children)

I was curious, so I found them myself.

Head of Pfizer Research: Covid Vaccine is Female Sterilization

Did ‘Head of Pfizer Research’ Say COVID-19 Vaccine ‘Is Female Sterilization’?

[–]IridescentAnaconda 5 insightful - 2 fun5 insightful - 1 fun6 insightful - 2 fun -  (15 children)

Some background science.

First sentence of the Abstract:

Syncytin is a captive retroviral envelope protein, possibly involved in the formation of the placental syncytiotrophoblast layer generated by trophoblast cell fusion at the maternal–fetal interface.

Of note:

Previous studies on many other enveloped viruses, including influenza virus, Newcastle disease virus, measles virus, mumps virus, and Menangle virus [10], [11], [12], [13], [14], have shown that the transmembrane subunits of these viral envelope proteins share common structural features with the HIV-1 gp41. Recently, our studies on the NHR and CHR regions in S2 domain of SARS coronavirus (SARS-CoV) spike protein revealed that one peptide, CP-1, derived from the CHR region inhibited SARS-CoV infection in the micromolar range. CP-1 and NP-1, a peptide derived from the NHR region mixed in equimolar concentrations, formed a six-helix bundle, similar to the fusion core structure of HIV-1 gp41 [15].

Also note this paragraph:

Based on these observations, syncytin, as an envelope protein of HERV-W, is strongly considered as a fusogen that takes part in placentation through mediating cytotrophoblast cell fusion. Interestingly, we found that syncytin and HIV-1 envelope glycoprotein (gp) 160 shared similar structural profiling. HIV-1 gp160, a typical type I viral envelope protein, is proteolytically cleaved into two subunits: a surface subunit (gp120, SU) which is responsible for recognizing and binding to specific receptors on the host cell and a transmembrane subunit (gp41, TM) which contains the fusion peptide (FP), N- and C-terminal heptad repeats (NHR and CHR, also called HR1 and HR2). NHR and CHR can interact with each other and form a six-stranded α-helical bundle consisting of an inner triple-stranded coiled-coil buttressed by three C-helices, which is the fusion core structure of gp41 and crucial for membrane fusion [8], [9].

[–][deleted] 6 insightful - 1 fun6 insightful - 0 fun7 insightful - 1 fun -  (14 children)

I just finished my prerequisite for human research studies (which entailed learning how to write studies, do stats/t-tests, the "ethics" behind them, each section of a study, and taking eight 10-hour mandatory state courses for a total of 80 hours in addition to my course work, having to pass each of them with a grade of at least 80% to earn all 8 certifications with my State to conduct research/trials on humans, and will have to conduct/write up my own human trial as part of my "Senior Year Experience", along with an outside internship).

The only reason I'm saying this is because you should not use an abstract to get primary information from any study, peer-reviewed or not. An Abstract is only a quick summary so other researchers can quickly see what process, possible findings and information the study entails - it doesn't give you great detail or information about the methods taken or why things happened the way they did. Feel free to skim the Abstract, but to cite real information concerning the study, you should check the Methods and Results sections. The Abstract is just a summary so other researchers know if this is what they're looking for or not. It's also a brief explanation about what the study is about.

This isn't directed at you, but to everyone in general. I used to use the Abstract the same way as you just did. The Abstract usually contains information that is already known and can be found in previous research, and if it does mention new findings, it doesn't go into depth or give an explanation for them - they want you to read the rest of the study.

Edit: Not trying to sound like a genius either, because I'm not. But mistakes can be made and you can get the wrong idea if you only pull material from the Abstract, it is a general overview of the study, as well as past research. It's almost like a more direct version of the intro. Similar to how the Appendix of the study is very similar to the Tables and Figures section of a study, but slightly different.

[–][deleted] 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (8 children)

Lets speak plainly, you should, in an ideal world, be able to read the abstract or summary and know exactly what's going on in the study. It's because science is so sloppy you have to validate the findings yourself.

[–][deleted] 8 insightful - 2 fun8 insightful - 1 fun9 insightful - 2 fun -  (7 children)

Like I said - they want you to read (and pay for) the study (some new studies cost 95 dollars via apa.org just for the full paper!! I have free access because I’m still in school). You won’t believe the bullshit they teach you in the 80 hour courses dude. Not only do they teach us dirty shit (for example, it’s incredibly common for older “researchers” or people who aren’t new in the game to steal from newbies, or if a newbie is on to something real, offer to help them in the future and talk them into letting them hop onboard their project, and due to holding a senior status, take authorship of the study).

They’re introducing new “global research laws” that were introduced in 2017 and some take effect in 2021, all of it by 2023. On the surface it looks like it’s done for privacy but no - it’s done so they can create loopholes you can go through to invade a subject’s privacy indefinitely. Kinda like the fine print on the dna/23andme kits you order that say they will sell and research your dna indefinitely.

be able to read the abstract or summary and know exactly what’s going on in the study

I agree with you to an extent. A lot of it is about ego and prestige - this is not my career path and I wish I didn’t have to take this shit but it was a prerequisite; there are people who literally don’t care about making discoveries that save people or help people, but rather discoveries that “look good”, get published, they get paid for and increase their popularity.

Also, honestly, I feel the methods section is very, very important. It walks you through the study as if you were there, whereas the abstract is a general overview (you can’t fit the methods section into the abstract, the methods is the most important part along with the results imho), and the intro obviously introduces you to both the topic at hand, past research, and the hypothesis of the study. The intro will cite previous studies to prove a point or discuss the topic and back up statements or the reason for the hypothesis.

The methods should look like:

Methods

Participants

  • Tells you who the participants are, their demographics (age, gender, education, religion, ethnicity, etc), how they were recruited, if they were compensated in anyway, why they were chosen (and this is all very important because it adds validity to your study - if you offer a prisoner 25 dollars to complete a survey your internal validity is going to be shit, prisoners will select answers at random for that 25 bucks, and reading that they were compensated like that, you know the study will have low accuracy which is why the methods section is important).

Materials

  • This section describes how the study was administered, by what means, and walks you through it as if you were a participant in great detail so you can understand what the participants went through. Again, gives you an idea of the study and it’s accuracy.

Procedure

  • Tells you how, in what order and process the study was conducted, if proper regulations were followed, and leads into the results with how the data was collected and examined (One tailed t-test? Two tailed t-tests? Etc.). Again, important to know for accuracy.

There are many studies out there that are bullshit. There’s corruption too. Reading a study is important. But I won’t deny the hubris in this field either - a lot of it is about ego, competition, payment, and seeing your name on a published piece of work even if it’s not of real importance.

That’s why I say the methods and results are so important when compared to the abstract. You can’t trust them, their motive is money, especially in big pharma research. But I do agree with you - there should be a summary that explains it as it is. It’s just hoops, money and hubris.

[–]Jesus[S] 5 insightful - 2 fun5 insightful - 1 fun6 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

There are a lot of patenteers in the scientific field. Profit at any cost is a big issue.

[–]whistlepig 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (5 children)

There is a lot of extra vocabulary here so I don't think I am understanding. But are you saying that the abstract is or is not a good source for determining what the writer believes is a summarization of the study?

[–][deleted] 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

I'll give my take on it since Enza and me and in total agreement on this. The thing is, you can find a scientific article to support just about any position and then another one to contradict it. A lot of the study sizes are too small and the methodology flawed. Without examining an article in depth you can't know if it's worth anything, and that means knowing something about the field and basic sciency stuff.

So you can't just take the summary at face value, it's not necessarily right or scientific.

[–][deleted] 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

So you can't just take the summary at face value, it's not necessarily right or scientific.

Yes, this exactly! The Abstract can boast all types of findings or data, it could even make a paper look like the exact paper you’re looking for.

But how did they achieve their results and get their data? If you go back to my prison example, if you’re hypothetically conducting a study on a prison population and depression among it and use “surveys on depression” as well as accepted depression scales (like the Hamilton scale) to measure that, and are paying inmates 25-30 dollars as compensation - that’s like 2-3 weeks worth (or more?) of legitimate work pay in jail. How many people do you think will play depressed just for that compensation and fill in random answers or enter the results they think you want to hear? You’d have leaders of gangs applying for your trial for the quick money lol. That ruins your internal validity, which ruins the accuracy of your data. So hypothetically, your hypothesis may be right according to your data, but the experiment design itself is flawed which makes your data worthless. You’d only notice the flawed experiment design and low internal validity if you read the methods, not the abstract.

Now apply this concept to pharmaceutical trials.. there’s many ways things get abused here, and they do take advantage of people, especially in foreign research in poorer countries. A common way is through culture - many pharmaceuticals like vaccines are studied on foreign populations that don’t understand the paperwork given to them before trials, so it has to be adjusted and explained to them to make them understand it as best as possible. We now even accept “finger prints” or electronic signatures for those who don’t understand or can’t sign their name. There are many people both being taken advantage of data-wise, and who don’t fully understand the scope of the study and researchers may even skew the data themselves by putting words into their participants mouths (or hiding side effects, they’re from a third world country) to make it fit their hypothesis and then presenting it to an IRB they have connections with in the US, which is a big no-no, but happens.

[–][deleted] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

Also, studies are instrinsicly problematic. One of my favorite college classes was a sociology class run by a man who professionally conducted surveys and just taught on the side. He'd love to tell us that you know what answers your employer wants, so you need to ask the right questions and word them in a certain way to get the results you are looking for. Because nobody hires firms who tell their employers what they don't want to hear.

Besides the fact that people just aren't good at self-reporting.

And studies are huge in pharmaceuticals. Like antidepressants, a personal pet peeve of mine. They'd ask how you felt before taking the meds on a scale 1-5, ask how you feel on meds 1-5. Besides that being totally subjective and ignoring a whole lot of variables, there's a phenomenon where depressed people's mood improves simply by having attention brought to the problem. It's optimism. They know this happens and they ask loaded questions like that anyways knowing it'll skew results.

[–]whistlepig 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

I think that means you can take the summary at face value. You just can not assume that it is correct, just like any other written document. I can't help but think that that is always the assumption. Also, you can't start a conversation about a study's merits until you understand what its perceived intent is/was.

I think we're just talking about different things.

[–]Jesus[S] 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

I read the hypothesis, then the discussion and then the conclusion of study and then I read the entire study. Most scientists, and medical doctors do not even read the headline let alone know what pubmed is.

[–][deleted] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

medical doctors do not even read the headling let alone know what pubmed is.

That is so disturbingly accurate. It can take up to 25 years for knowledge to percolate through a field. I often feel like I know more than my doctor because I actually read about the field.

[–]Tom_Bombadil 2 insightful - 3 fun2 insightful - 2 fun3 insightful - 3 fun -  (1 child)

Ninpō human research?

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

I’d be scared too.

Don’t worry, it’s not my career path lol.

[–][deleted] 3 insightful - 3 fun3 insightful - 2 fun4 insightful - 3 fun -  (29 children)

Thanks for linking to the Snopes assessment, proving that the OP is intentially spreading anti-vax propaganda:

We reached out to Pfizer for comment but didn’t receive a response in time for publication, although there was no mention of risk of sterility in Pfizer’s publicly available study. In a Nov. 20, 2020, press release Pfizer said no significant safety concerns have been observed during vaccine studies.

Both Wodarg and Yeadon have spread COVID-19 misinformation in the past. Yeadon falsely claimed in an October 2020 blog post that the “pandemic is effectively over.” Wodarg falsely claimed in a March 2020 YouTube video that the virus was no more harmful than the seasonal flu.

The COVID-19 disease is deadlier than the flu, and the pandemic is not over. The virus has resurged in Europe and the United States in the fall of 2020. As of this writing it has killed more than 1.5 million people globally and almost 280,000 Americans have died.

[–][deleted] 3 insightful - 5 fun3 insightful - 4 fun4 insightful - 5 fun -  (7 children)

Kek

[–]Jesus[S] 3 insightful - 3 fun3 insightful - 2 fun4 insightful - 3 fun -  (6 children)

KEK means what? Also, screw Trump.

[–][deleted] 4 insightful - 3 fun4 insightful - 2 fun5 insightful - 3 fun -  (0 children)

I never said anything about trump? I don’t believe in political theater, idk where that came from.

[–][deleted] 4 insightful - 3 fun4 insightful - 2 fun5 insightful - 3 fun -  (4 children)

In World of Warcraft the Orcish "language" was displayed to non-orcs with a simple substitution cipher. LOL translated to KEK. So watching a bunch of Orcish players type "lol" would look like "kek" to everyone else. That's the origin, I don't really understand why its been embraced as it has.

[–]Jesus[S] 3 insightful - 2 fun3 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 2 fun -  (1 child)

Why do so many trump supporters use this then?

[–][deleted] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Not trump supporters, image board users and /pol/ users (who happened to support trump), used it heavily during Trumps first election.

As I’m sure you already know, KEK is an Egyptian god that was depicted as a frog, that happened to match up with Pepe. There was also Thoth/thot, too (“begone thot meme turned into “begone Thoth”). Some people at the time were doing it for fun and the coincidence of it all, others believed in the “chaos magick” and that Pepe was a modern day incarnation or portrayal of Kek.

But most people just use kek to say lol. It was around way before trumps elections and like AmericanMuskrat said, came from WoW when people who were playing as Orcs said “lol”, people playing as other races saw “kek”.

If you ask me, Trump is corrupt like all the rest. He’s done so much for Israel, Israel refers to him as “their president” and have murals of him in Tel Aviv.

[–]Tom_Bombadil 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (1 child)

How did "LOL" translate to orkish?

[–][deleted] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

It's not really a different language, it was just a way to make it seem sort of like one. An Orcish character would see everything from another Orcish character in plain text, a character of a different race would see gibberish looking text due to the cipher.

[–]Jesus[S] 3 insightful - 3 fun3 insightful - 2 fun4 insightful - 3 fun -  (19 children)

I'm saying the mechanisms of action COULD cause infertility as this is a potential side effect. This mechanism of action can potentially cause infertility. Not that it WILL. This is what concerned the former Pfizer official.

Your quote is merely a strawman. No long term studies on the effects of this vaccine.

Again, what JASON said:

A blind faith in proprietary (secret) corporate "science" is a corrupt-science dogma called SCIENTISM and whether you believe me or not your belief is a new religion.

We need long term studies on these vaccines, especially the Pfizer vaccine.

Interestingly, niche markets are opening up for Pharamvigilance!

[–][deleted] 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (18 children)

I would agree with the need to regulate Big Pharma, which has controlled the FDA since Reagan. Sadly, anyone who votes for GOP candidates guarantees continued deregulation of everything and the continuence of abused of Big Pharma.

In the meantime, the GOP and corporations have started a war against science, and using fancy terms like 'scientism' to get everyone on board with the fight against science.

Anyone who has read official drug manuals will know that there are "side effects" for drugs that include infertility, death, and other problems. Read side effects for antidepressants, for example. There are numerous potential problems with many drugs. Best to avoid them altogether, if possible. Phizer's vaccine was given the green light because the potential for problems like infertility were so minor and so difficult to confirm even .01% of the patients, that the vaccine was considered ready. This is not scientism; it's the normal standard for drug trials.

I would agree that it will help to see how others respond to the vaccine before it is officially offered to people. The first people to take the vaccine will in fact do this - continue to offer information about the vaccine.

Is Big Pharma covering up infertility data. Perhaps. There is much to be done to regulate Big Pharma, which could start with a Democrat majority Senate in January, if Georgians will bother to vote for a candidate who will represent the 99%.

[–]Jesus[S] 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (17 children)

Have democrats done anything to regulate BIG Pharma? I know neoliberal democrats have done nothing.

They are all talk.

Robert F. Kennedy Jr. talks openly about regulating Big Pharma.

[–][deleted] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (16 children)

Yes, they have, but they've also seen their bills defeated by the GOP Senate, for many years. Both parties are not equal. You know that the GOP will deregulate everything they can, and have done. One example of a Democrat challenge to big Pharma: Obamacare

[–]Jesus[S] 3 insightful - 2 fun3 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 2 fun -  (15 children)

How many years?

We need to invoke a bill that makes vaccine corporations liable for vaccine injury, not paid for with taxpayer monies.

Until then, profit incentive will outweight safety incentive.

Look at what happened with Lymerix! That vaccine wasn't even a vaccine but a endotoxin lipoprotein called Pam3cys. This was passed off by both GOP and DEMS. And then covered-up and victims spat on.

Biden will do nothing to combat this issue. He is after all, a stooge of the WEF and their stakeholder capitalist "vaccine revolution" agenda.

Obamacare...

Provide for me what obamacare was suppose to be before it was gutted?

It's obvious to me where the corporate sell-out GOP stands. But I only see the same with the DEMS.

[–][deleted] 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (14 children)

OK, Jesus, whats the solution? Both parties are NOT equal in this case and many others? Keep the current lot and continue down the same path, or see what Biden and a Dem-led Senate will do? Why not consider the party that is consistently in favor of the 99%? Are you focusing on false equivalence because you are pushing the agenda for the GOP? What would Jesus do?

[–]Jesus[S] 3 insightful - 2 fun3 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 2 fun -  (7 children)

Stop voting to contract an EO for a federal corporation. This whole charade with Trump was meant to bring back public trust in government.

Biden is a corporate stooge.

Nothing will change and David Graeber has made that clear. They feed off each other.

We need to build new systems through grassroots movements very much like RFK Jr. is doing.

The DEMS do not care about the 99%. They pretend to, whereas the GOP tells you with no illusions that they represent the 1%.

It's not that hard to grasp. Both parties are hijacked by corporate finance and the burden of debt.

Yeshua is against all earthly powers. For his Kingdom is not of this world. He spends no time contracting ungodly EO's for fictional corporations.

[–]Jesus[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (5 children)

This is how I use to think:

The electoral college may not have voted yet, and you may be a corporate stooge career politician who loves authoritarianism almost as much as Kamala, but you’re NOT TRUMP so Thanks, president Biden!

That's why we continue the devolution process.

[–][deleted] 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (1 child)

HAHA! HAHA! HEH! HEH! Snopes?! Really?!!!

[–][deleted] 3 insightful - 2 fun3 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

The whole point of the post is "Snopes is dumb".

[–][deleted] 9 insightful - 3 fun9 insightful - 2 fun10 insightful - 3 fun -  (9 children)

Merriam-Webster, Sterile:

failing to produce or incapable of producing offspring

Merriam-Webster, Infertile

incapable of or unsuccessful in achieving pregnancy

Basically, infertility is female sterility — so it could be said that they did, in fact, say it causes female sterility, because infertility is exactly that. Snopes is using a semantics argument founded solely upon a technicality.

The links are both archives, just in case MW starts changing definitions again.

[–][deleted] 8 insightful - 3 fun8 insightful - 2 fun9 insightful - 3 fun -  (0 children)

Actually, I want to note that in common speech, these two words mean exactly the same thing.

[–]Tom_Bombadil 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Snopes is using a semantics argument founded solely upon a technicality. keeping us safe...

Reminder: Vaccines are safe and effective.

Yup...

:-/

[–]Jesus[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (6 children)

Could cause is different from WILL CAUSE.

[–][deleted] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

Yes, that's a very important distinction to make.

[–]Jesus[S] 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

Which would have to be studied long term. Too bad they aren't doing that.

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

A few months ain't long enough. I ain't anti-vax, but this vaccine is being rushed, and very well could have bad long-term effects such as infertility.

[–]Jesus[S] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

I'm pro-safe vax and vaccine companies should bear the brunt of liability, which, today, they do not.

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

They definitely should, and so should big pharma.

[–]whistlepig 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Both imply risk.