Fact checkers and mainstream media have spent the last 18 months telling the world that Covid-19 vaccines do not affect male fertility and that anyone who says otherwise is a “conspiracy theorist.” Well, hold onto your hats, folks. It turns out the “conspiracy theorists” were right and the fact checkers were wrong – again.
On Friday, the medical journal Andrology published a peer-reviewed research paper showing large decreases in sperm counts in men after they received a second dose of Pfizer’s mRNA Covid vaccine.
BYPASS THE CENSORS
Sign up to get unfiltered news delivered straight to your inbox.
Based on sperm counts from men who donated sperm to three fertility clinics in Israel, this research finding is devastating – medically and politically.
The peer-reviewed study cuts to the heart of the hottest button question of all about the mRNA shots, whether they have hidden fertility risks, and if they do, why the authorities worked so hard to convince us they were safe.
This is the issue that has simmered away under the surface since early 2021, following reporting that showed the mRNA vaccines had caused excess miscarriages in rats, as well as other reports proving that measurable amounts of vaccine reached the ovaries and testes in rodents.
Ever since, mainstream media “fact checkers” and public health authorities have dismissed and mocked the concerns and anyone who raises them:
Via Blacklisted News:
Now – after a half-billion men have received mRNA shots – the skeptics appear to be right. Again. The Israeli paper offers hard evidence that the vaccines may present a systemic risk to men’s sperm counts. What was a conspiracy theory is now just a theory. AGAIN.
The paper raises questions about mechanism of action that must be answered immediately. And on top of the myocarditis risk, the finding is more evidence that encouraging – much less forcing – men under 40 to take the mRNA vaccines was a catastrophic mistake.
However, the authors qualified their findings by reporting that after five months, sperm levels recovered. Thus the decreases were only temporary, they wrote.
Put aside the fact that a five-month decrease hardly qualifies as temporary for someone trying to start a family – or compared to a “vaccine” that loses effectiveness against Omicron within weeks or months.
As other writers have pointed out, the actual data in the paper do not really support the argument that sperm levels returned to normal after five months. In fact, by some measures, levels continued to decline.
Rather than acknowledging this fact, the authors offered the best possible spin on their data, while at the same time publishing the figures themselves near the end of the paper so that other researchers could see the reality for themselves.
This tactic is now commonplace among researchers putting out data that might raise concerns about the mRNA shots. It is likely a response to the overwhelming political pressure to hide the deepening crisis around the safety and efficacy of shots that governments have given to over a billion people worldwide.
Below is the crucial chart, which shows that “total motile count” – the number of sperm in the ejaculated semen – plunged 22 percent three to five months after the second shot (T2) and barely recovered during the final count (T3), when it was still 19 percent below the pre-shot level.
Even more importantly, the fall in sperm counts CANNOT be blamed on short- or even medium-term inflammation as mRNA-generated spike proteins causes our immune cells to ramp up the systemic production of anti-spike antibodies. If that were the case, one would expect to see a short term decrease in sperm count that reverses over time. Instead, total sperm counts are unaffected shortly after the mRNA shots, then decrease months later and hardly recover.
To play down this unpleasant reality, the researchers instead focused on the fact that median rather than average counts did recover after five months. (The median is the numerical midpoint of a series; If a series goes 1, 2, 3, 4, 20, the median will be 3, but the average will be 30 divided by 5, or 6.)
Both the median and the average can be valuable statistics. Using the median rather than the average will hide extreme outliers. In this case, the fact that the average fell much more than the median is a sign that some of the men probably had near-zero sperm counts in both the second and third time periods – and that fact is arguably more important than the median change.
All of which is to say that this data cannot be easily explained away and should not be ignored, as badly as the media would like to do so. The fall in sperm counts is part of an emerging and increasingly dark picture about the long-term health impacts of the mRNA shots – and should all by itself convince parents not to risk exposing their children to these powerful biotechnologies.