Study shows HPV vaccine is causing reduced fertility in women

[jmdrake]

https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/...alCode=uteh20&

And no that's not from some "right wing" website or some "conspiracy theory" website.

[donnay]

I believe it. However, that is the least of the worries, when you see the damages to the girls/women who have taken this vaccine.

25 Reasons to Avoid the Gardasil Vaccine
https://childrenshealthdefense.org/n...dasil-vaccine/

A very dear friend of mine was coerced into taking this vaccine some three years ago, and wound up with the very cancer they said the vaccine prevented.

[jkr]

BUH BUH BUH TAKE YO DAM$HOT$!!111!

[Superfluous Man]

https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/...alCode=uteh20&

And no that's not from some "right wing" website or some "conspiracy theory" website.

Doesn't "fertility" refer to the ability to conceive, and not just the probability of someone's getting pregnant? I.e. A woman who has never had sex may be as fertile as anyone else, but the probability of that woman getting pregnant is zero.

The abstract of this study seems to indicate that it only addresses women's likelihoods of getting pregnant, and not their ability to get pregnant if they're trying to. For the latter it would need to account for things like possible differences in use of contraception as well as sexual habits between the two groups, which it looks like it didn't include.

[Created4]

The abstract of this study seems to indicate that it only addresses women's likelihoods of getting pregnant, and not their ability to get pregnant if they're trying to. For the latter it would need to account for things like possible differences in use of contraception as well as sexual habits between the two groups, which it looks like it didn't include.

The full study addresses these issues. First, Dr. DeLong has published studies and cases where premature ovarian failure (POF) was reported after administering the Gardasil vaccine.

But the authors explain that the Gardasil vaccine is the likely variable that potentially explains declines in birth rates:

Perhaps aggregate birth rates are down due to increased rates of abortion. However, Jatlaoui et al. (2017) reported that for females aged 15–44, the absolute number of abortions, number of abortions per 1,000, and number of abortions per 1,000 live births all steadily declined between 2006 and 2014.

Perhaps enhanced use of contraception contributed to the falling US birth rates. However, Kavanaugh and Jerman (2018) found that the overall utilization of contraception by females aged 15–44 remained at approximately 60% between 2008 and 2014.

Although contraception rates have remained constant, perhaps birth rates were decreased, because birth control improved. Sundaram et al. (2017) confirm that overall contraceptive failure rates (CFR) declined between surveys taken in 2002 and 2006–2010 from 12% to 10%. This decline is particularly interesting, because CFR of most birth control methods were essentially unchanged between 1995 and 2002.

Although overall failure rates fell from 14.9% in 1995 to 12.4% in 2002, that reduction was solely the result of the decline in failure rate of one birth control method, namely withdrawal, from 28% to 18%. The failure rates of all other methods remained
steady during that time period.

Perhaps the recession that began in 2008 affected fertility negatively. Using data through 2012, Schneider (2015) noted that fertility fell during the Great Recession that (according to the National Bureau of Economic Research) lasted from 2008 to 2010.

Schneider (2015) demonstrated the effect to be least among older women (aged 35–44) and concluded that the influence of recession on fertility was temporary. If the effect was temporary, the birth rate should climb substantially after the recession as the couples who postponed having children joined the younger couples who wanted to start families.

Figure 2 illustrates that the US employment rates and birth rates tended to move together from 1995 to 2009. However, as employment rates recovered starting in 2010, birth rates continued a slow decline. The Pearson statistic, which measures correlation, was not significant from 1995 to 2015, indicating a lack of relationship between employment and birth rates.

Data suggest that at least part of the reason for the recent decline in US birth rates amongst females aged 25–29 may be associated with increasing injection of the HPV vaccine.

Note that this was a LARGE study - over 8 million women, and using government statistics.

[Warrior_of_Freedom]

I thought that's why they gave people this in the first place, to reduce the population. I'm lied to my entire life, but I should 100% have faith in whatever they're sticking me with.

[Zippyjuan]

Doesn't "fertility" refer to the ability to conceive, and not just the probability of someone's getting pregnant? I.e. A woman who has never had sex may be as fertile as anyone else, but the probability of that woman getting pregnant is zero.

The abstract of this study seems to indicate that it only addresses women's likelihoods of getting pregnant, and not their ability to get pregnant if they're trying to. For the latter it would need to account for things like possible differences in use of contraception as well as sexual habits between the two groups, which it looks like it didn't include.

What year was it that the HPV vaccine came out? Was it 1958? - that is when the birth rate started to decline. Whatever the cause is, it started back then.

[Superfluous Man]

What year was it that the HPV vaccine came out? Was it 1958? - that is when the birth rate started to decline. Whatever the cause is, it started back then.

The study compares women who took the vaccine with women who didn't take it over the period of 2007-2014.

[Zippyjuan]

The study compares women who took the vaccine with women who didn't take it over the period of 2007-2014.

The summary suggests their data is still very shaky. It asks if a woman was ever pregnant- it does not need to have been before or after receiving the vaccine. It does not say if they attempted to get pregnant and failed to do so or if they had been able to get pregnant before the vaccine and now could not.

[Firestarter]

The following “scientific” report from 2017 suggests that the controversial HPV vaccine causes lower birth rates. This study analysed information gathered in National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey, representing 8 million 25 to 29-year-old women in the US between 2007 and 2014.
In July 2018, I read the study for free. The study isn’t freely viewable anymore. It now costs 42 Euro for a single day and a whopping 284 Euro for 30 days. If anybody knows of a better word than “censorship” please let me know...

Birth rates in the US have recently fallen to record lows from 118.1 in 2007 to 104.5 in 2015 per 1000 females aged 25–29.
See the birth rates in the US from 1995 to 2015.


One factor could be the vaccination against the human papillomavirus (HPV) that “coincidentally” was approved by the US Food and Drug Administration in 2006 and recommended for females aged 11–26 (and since 2011 also for males of the same age group).

Adverse effects of the HPV vaccine include menstrual disturbances and mood swings. Shortly after the HPV vaccine was licensed, reports of women experiencing Primary Ovarian Failure (POF) emerged.
The estimated incidence of POF for females under the age of 40 is 1 in 100, but this could be considerably higher because it’s masked by the birth control pill. Between 10% and 30% of women with POF also have (other) autoimmune disorders.

Approximately 60% of women who had not been poisoned with the HPV vaccine had been pregnant at least once, compared to only 35% of women who were poisoned with the HPV vaccine. The difference was especially large for women that had been married. Of the married women 75% that didn’t get the vaccine gave birth, while only 50% who were poisoned with the HPV vaccine had been pregnant.
61.1% of the women not poisoned with HPV gave birth, compared to only 35.3% of the women poisoned with the HPV vaccine.
The pregnancy frequency decreased with increasing numbers of HPV vaccine shots.

See (part of) Table 3 - Ratios of having been pregnant for women who received an HPV shot versus women who did not.
See (part of) Table 5 - Births of females aged 25–29 in the US, by number of HPV shots.


This suggests that at least part of the reason for the recent decline in US birth rates is caused by the HPV vaccine. Why did it take so long before this link was found (some studies have even denied this link)?
If all married women had been vaccinated with the HPV vaccine, the number of married women having conceived could have fallen with another 1 million.

There are other (possible) causes for the lower birth rates...
Higher employment rates (of women) decreases birth rates.
No epidemiological study on the influence of Aluminium (a component of vaccines) on fertility exists but Karakis et al in 2014 found an association between prenatal exposure to Aluminium and death of the (unborn) baby.
There could also be a link between Aluminium exposure and POF.

Gayle DeLong – A lowered probability of pregnancy in females in the USA aged 25–29 who received a human papillomavirus vaccine injection (2017): https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full...4.2018.1477640


Big pharma trolls have attacked the author of the previous report, Gayle DeLong.
The trolls first quack that Gayle DeLong isn’t even a medical doctor but only an “economist”. DeLong did a statistical analysis of the data. If we take this kind of reasoning to the extreme only mathematicians should be allowed to do a statistical analysis.
I’ve regularly seen big pharma supporting “doctors” make the claim that after clean water vaccines are the cheapest health intervention. For evidence they regularly point to propaganda of the WHO, that isn’t backed up by any evidence. But we can’t really blame these doctors can we? They aren’t financial “experts” so wouldn’t know...

That the study contradicts all of the scientific studies on HPV vaccines that – supported and controlled by big pharma – concluded that HPV vaccines have no adverse effects at all.
So we can only conclude that these studies are biased, but instead they accuse DeLong.

No explanation on how HPV vaccines cause infertility.
Why would anybody doing a statistical analysis that shows that the HPV vaccine causes infertility, have to explain which poisons in the vaccines causes infertility? It is highly probable that when a vaccine has adverse health effects (the HPV vaccines have even more adverse effects than most other vaccines) this includes infertility.

Bizarrely that DeLong didn’t correct for contraception, with the addition of

In fairness, if the correlation is not positive but negative (i.e., HPV vaccination is associated with less oral contraceptive use), the results could be more robust than what Gayle found.

https://www.skepticalraptor.com/skep...aper-blogging/


Surprise, surprise, Gayle DeLong has since provided data that shows that HPV vaccines is associated with less contraceptive use:

I find 51.5% of married women who did not receive the shot and 36.6% of married women who received the shot were actively seeking to prevent pregnancy. The 14.9% difference is statistically significant at the 1% level.

This finding suggests that a greater percentage of married women who received the shot should be conceiving compared with married women who did not receive the shot. However, my original study finds that married women who received the shot are less likely to conceive than married women who did not receive the shot. The finding of my original study is not the result of married women who received the HPV vaccine actively avoiding pregnancy more than women who did not receive the HPV shot.

https://www.ageofautism.com/2018/06/...ccination.html


For more on cancer vaccines (including HPV vaccines): http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...=1#post6537271

[Firestarter]

I’m again at a loss for words.
The following article claims that the “Pregnancy Outcomes in the Phase III Program Database” of 11 November 2005 proves that the HPV vaccine doesn´t “destroy fertility”.

They present the following numbers.


Gardasil – 1115 women (10.7% ) had 1244 pregnancies (11.9%) out of 10,418 women.
Placebo – 1151 women (12.6% ) had 1272 pregnancies (13.9%) out of 9,120 women.

So now they claim that that these numbers that show significant lower fertility in the HPV vaccine group than the placebo group, as “No sign of infertility”: https://sciblogs.co.nz/diplomaticimm...roy-fertility/