the fertility question and using PCR testing to create spikes and down-trends

[Steven Avery]

Nextdoor discussion
https://nextdoor.com/p/N8GJmmmXfw89?view=detail (my local area)

This explains why “cases” surged and why there will now be a temporary reduction falsely attributed to the vax.

WHO Finally Admits COVID-19 PCR Test Has a ‘Problem’

WHO Finally Admits COVID-19 PCR Test Has a ‘Problem’

The WHO’s new guidance, which includes lower PCR thresholds, almost guarantees COVID “case” numbers will automatically drop dramatically around the world.

childrenshealthdefense.org

The 45 cycles recommended has been absurdly high, even if a PCR test could be a quantitative test for a ‘virus’.

You are being played.

Please study carefully if you are thinking vax.

The young have the additional fertility concern, similar to the HPV fiasco. Here is one interesting quote.

“To protect fertility, some men may want to consider freezing their sperm prior to vaccination."

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1343596415566622725

“The vaccine contains a spike protein called syncytin-1, vital for the formation of human placenta in women. If the vaccine works so that we form an immune response AGAINST the spike protein, we are also training the female body to attack syncytin-1, which could lead to infertility in women of an unspecified duration."

Dr. Wodarg and Dr. Yeadon.

Ann Ol

Stop spreading misinformation.
https://www.politifact.com/factchec...d-research-didnt-say-covid-19-vaccin/#sources

====================

Steven Spencer
you are confused. Stop spreading things that are not true. The blog cites "ex-Pfizer head of respiratory research Dr. Michael Yeadon and the lung specialist and former head of the public health department Dr. Wolfgang Wodarg." Nice job on editing your reply after the fact. But if you had read the link I provided for you, you would understand that your statement simply is not true. The man you are referring to doesn’t even work there anymore, and further he didn’t even work with viruses and vaccines. https://www.politifact.com/factchec...-pfizer-employee-wrong-coronavirus-pandemic-/

https://www.politifact.com/factchec...-pfizer-employee-wrong-coronavirus-pandemic-/

Ann Ol
you are confused. My post did not attribute anything to the current head of Pfizer research. The two doctors are described as: "Two prominent doctors, including the ex-head of Pfizer’s respiratory research" You are engaged in fake-checking trickery.

Pfizer downplays the concern. That is news like the sun rising.

They also offer a questionable counter-claim, that if the vax has a fertility concern, so does "covid". "If a COVID-19 vaccine could cause infertility in the way the post describes, so would having COVID-19 itself, and there’s been no evidence for that so far." That would depend on the differentiation of antibody response in the natural human setting and by vaccination.

Michael Yeadon posts on Twitter here:
https://twitter.com/MichaelYeadon3

Likely the best balanced discussion comes forth from these three connected discussions:
Francois Balloux and responses here:

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1334264523050594307

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1334795708503822338

Andrew Croxford

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1334593606196187136

Your headline lied, a typical trick, not using the primary sources: "Pfizer’s head of research didn’t say..." And of course, they can use that trick for their conclusion. It is false that the head of research said that. This is such common trickery, find the sensationalist, secondary or tertiary error that is really irrelevant and debunk it as false. For real information read the Francois Balloux thread. btw, I appreciate your counterpoint!

 

[Steven Avery]

It is unfortunate that Nextdoor is so antsy to simply delete threads, as opposed to looking for any vulgarity, personal attacks, freezing threads (a much better alternative), etc. That last thread was quite respectful, with the normal couple of people who would rather not have any discussions where people disagree. Personally, I think an intelligent discussion does in fact effect our thinking in a positive way. We had a doctor contributing substantially, and while we may differ, it was refreshing to have a generally pro-med doc contributing in a friendly manner. Very rare. FIrst name Sam if I remember. Remember, I said that I would not want any phantom unicorn droplets trapped on a petri-dish on my nose and mouth. And I got a little pushback. That is real discussion. We can have those types of discussions on Twitter, but it is far less personable, and you are not talking to your neighbors. Twitter likes to put up a sham warning, which is funny. Facebook will delete whole groups, but afaik, not individual threads withing a group. Both will try to use pharma-$$ Gates and Soros bought "fact checkers".. Many folks here spend a good amount of time researching the discussions. I have learned to mirror the better discussions.