Let’s talk about Sperm. What is it good for?
Let’s talk about Sperm. What is it good for?
Covid Injections: Young men have more to worry about than just Myocarditis.
[Updated: 27-06-2022]
I never thought I’d be writing about sperm but here we are…
If you are unjabbed, this isn’t really for you, although you might want to share it with the right audience.
I’m writing this for dosed men (young men especially), the partners of dosed men (those women who would still like to have kids) and parents, that’s the main audience.
As we know, the stuff in these injections doesn’t stay in the arm, but spreads throughout your body and gets cells all over the place to produce cytotoxic spike protein. This stopped being conjecture a long time ago, we are way past that. Where we are now is that every week, we are discovering a new function that is being impaired and damaged by this experimental genetic technology. In the last week the spotlight came onto Sperm.
But first I want to highlight a couple of points.
We were told that the mRNA (that software code that creates the spike protein) would only stay in the body for a very short period, a matter of a couple of hours only, but it turns out to last much much longer than that. Here is Malone explaining:
This is an important point to understand when we come to look at the timeframes involved in the damage to sperm.
Also, and this is arguably an even more important point, it’s not really mRNA in the honest use of the word, it’s actually something that resembles mRNA but much more pernicious and much “harder to break down”. This is a very important 18 minutes of Weinstein and Malone talking about the “fibreglass logs” analogy, which I think is excellent:
Here is the full uncensored discussion on Spotify.
Now, with that under our belt, let’s look at the study that has got me writing about Sperm.
The Israeli Study
We now have a study out of Israel, the most Covid jab crazy country in the world, telling us that the jabs materially impact male fertility.
Yep. They reduce both the quantity and quality of sperm.
Not very “safe” after all.
Having read the study there are two possibilities about the authors.
1. They are either genuinely establishment (The Science™) people who couldn’t escape or change the raw data (that would be scientific fraud) but managed to put the best spin possible on the study. Because they are true narrative believers. Or…
2. They are good guys, sandwiching genuine and important truth in between politically acceptable homages to the narrative, so they can get their paper published.
Either way, it’s a very important study and one that should be paid attention to.
When good guys are trying to get a message through to you…pay attention.
When bad guys are telling you something that goes against their interest…pay attention.
They open with this bow to The Science™:
The development of covid-19 vaccinations represents a notable scientific achievement.
And they end with this kissing of the ring:
While on first look, these results may seem concerning, from a clinical perspective they confirm previous reports regarding vaccines' overall safety and reliability despite minor short-term side effects. Since misinformation about health-related subjects represents a public health threat, our findings should support vaccinations programs.
In between these two embarrassments are several moments of truth.
They have repeated the word “temporary” seven times and “recovery” ten times for a total of seventeen "optimisms” across 10 pages as they don’t want you to think for a moment that the drop in sperm count and quality is anything to worry about. It’s only “temporary” and you will “recover”.
If this ever breaks through into MSM, you will hear a lot about “temporary” and “recovery” and the Fact Checkers™ will love those words also. In some ways the study also provides the MSM with its talking points.
Unfortunately for them and for us their own data does NOT support the “temporary” and “recovery” claim, quite the opposite. Here is Berenson on this point:
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.
Here is their Conclusion:
Systemic immune response after BNT162b2 (Pfizer) vaccine is a reasonable cause for transient semen concentration and TMC decline. Long-term prognosis remains good.
No, and no.
The immune response as a “reasonable cause” is unlikely and “long-term prognosis remains good” is baseless, as we will see.
Also, this beauty:
Therefore, the long-term impact of BNT162b2 vaccine seems safe. To the best of our knowledge, this is the first longitudinal research that continuously examined semen analysis after vaccination over 6 months – beyond the spermatogenesis period in human.
Think about this for a moment. When did “long-term” become 6-months?
If you are 23 and getting dosed with this stuff, are you concerned about your fertility when you are 23.5 (in 6 months) or when you are 33 looking to start a family with a partner. As I told my kids a year ago, you need to look after your future self. You need to look after the 33 year old version of you. There are NO long term studies anywhere in the world and 6-months is NOT long-term.
Dr. Byram W. Bridle
Bridle featured prominently in my original letter to my kids and I added the following note about him in the one year anniversary eBook I recently produced about the letter:. I’m repeating the note hear in case you don’t know about the man or his standing:
June 2022 Note:
Bridle was right. From my vantage point, it all really started from his Japanese Freedom of Information request. They knew that the nanoparticles wouldn’t stay in the arm. It was because of Bridle that Malone and Kirsch and Weinstein did the podcast that led me to write the letter.
You can find him today on Substack (where else).
COVID Chronicles | Dr. Byram W. Bridle | Substack
What most don’t realise about Bridle is how big a deal he is, which is why Malone took him seriously. He is a vaccine guy!
I am an Associate Professor of Viral Immunology in the Department of Pathobiology at the University of Guelph. I specialize in vaccinology and am also leader of the Vaccine Task Force of the Canadian COVID Care Alliance’s Scientific and Medical Advisory Committee.
---
Based on hundreds of peer-reviewed scientific publications, it is my professional opinion that the risk-benefit profile of SARS-CoV-2 inoculations currently being used around the world demands that mandates for these vaccines be rescinded to avoid exposing any more people, especially youth, to their enhanced risks.
Hats off to Bridle. One of the earliest heroes.
Bridle has written one of the better commentaries on the Israeli study.
Here are some highlighted excerpts:
One of the things that I really liked about the current study is that it used serial samples from sperm donors. Specifically, samples were obtained prior to ‘vaccination’ and at multiple time points after the ‘vaccine’ regimen was completed. This means that each person served as their own internal control, which is ideal.
---
By approximately three months after becoming ‘fully vaccinated’ (i.e., defined as having received two doses), this is what the data demonstrated (confirmed to be significant by multiple different statistical tests):
“sperm concentration was significantly lower”. Specifically, it was reduced by 15.4%. Put another way, the sperm concentration was reduced by 12 million/mL of ejaculate.
Worse, there was a “[total motile count] percentage change reduction of 22.1%”. This translated into there being 31.2 million fewer motile spermatozoa per ejaculate.
In a nutshell, what this means is that the QUANTITY of sperm dropped by 15%, and even worse the QUALITY of sperm (this that move…the swimmers) dropped by 22%.
Here is the all-important Table 2:
Even though Bridle is trying to play it straight and focusing on the T2 data (c. 4 month mid-point) because according to Table 2, those points are “statistically significant”, they have withheld the p-values (statistical significance indicator) of the T3 (6-month) point…which according to them is the “long-term” part of the study.
Frankly, I don’t need to be as circumspect as Bridle, I don’t believe that T3 is not statistically significant, I am confident they are trying to hide the ball on this point.
So, my take on this is that after 6-months sperm quantity dropped by 15% and sperm quality dropped by 19%. After 6-months!!!
There is no support for their language of “temporary” or “recovery” in their own data.
Two rules of thumb when it comes to male fertility are:
The more sperm, the greater the chance of one of them getting into the egg.
Getting to and entering the egg requires the sperm to be mobile.
As such, the findings of this paper are quite concerning in the context of male fertility.
---
Unfortunately, this study was performed when ‘fully vaxxed’ meant two shots. The authors assumed one would be finished getting jabbed at that point. Now, many countries have or soon will have re-defined fully ‘vaccinated’ to mean three shots. Further, four doses and beyond are being strongly encouraged.
So, how is a male going to recover from the so-called ‘transient’ damage to their sperm if they keep getting dosed before recovery can occur?
Worse, no studies have been done looking into the consequences on male fertility beyond two doses. What if it exacerbates the problem and/or extends the length of the problem?
Not that we needed any nails to the booster coffin, but if you did need it, here it is once and for all. The study is silent on boosters, conveniently, but the study is making the claim (debunked as far as I am concerned) that after 6-months the men recover, but if you take a booster every 6-months, how are you ever to “recover” and how could it be “temporary” in that model?
Since sperm donors were used in this study, those from whom the semen was sourced would be considered particularly ‘robust studs’ among the male population. Their samples have to meet stringent quality control standards to become enrolled into a sperm donor program. This means there is the potential for greater harm to the semen of males among the general population whose fertility potential may not be as high.
---
But I Was Told that Pfizer Conducted a Reproductive Toxicity Study and Everything Looked OK
Indeed, Pfizer did run a pre-clinical reproductive toxicity study and they did conclude that their inoculations seemed to have no impact on fertility. However, here are two important facts that have not been widely disclosed by public health officials nor mainstream media:
The COVID-19 inoculations are designed to get a person’s own cells to manufacture the spike protein from SARS-CoV-2. The pre-clinical safety study used rats. Human cells express what is known as a high-affinity version of the receptor for the spike protein. This means the spike protein from SARS-CoV-2 can bind strongly to human cells. In contrast, rat cells express the low-affinity version of the receptor. The spike protein of SARS-CoV-2 cannot grab onto rat cells very well. For example, rats that get infected with SARS-CoV-2 do not develop the disease we call COVID-19. It is a relatively simple task to ‘demonstrate the safety’ of a novel medical product if one conducts the safety testing in an animal model that can’t reveal toxicities.
Remarkably, only the females were inoculated in the pre-clinical reproductive toxicity study. I’m not sure if Pfizer forgot that it takes ‘two to tango’ when it comes to reproduction. Regardless, in light of the newly released study discussed in this article, this omission becomes even more egregious.
Do you get what this means?
It was “tested” on female rats. Unless you are the parent of a female rat, or unless you are a man that identifies as a female rat…nothing that Pfizer did to “test” the injection is relevant to you. This means that YOU are the experimental subject.
Questions that Need to be Asked
Men,
How does it feel to know that the only reproductive toxicity study assessed by health regulators was fatally flawed and designed in a way that it could never address male fertility issues?
How does it feel to have had the Pfizer-BioNTech inoculation pushed so hard, to the point where it was mandated and people coerced into taking it only to learn now that it damages sperm?
How does it feel to know that your ability to conceive a child was likely compromised for months after inoculation?
How does it feel to know that your potential to conceive may never return to baseline as long as boosters are taken at short intervals?
How does it feel to know that the up-and-coming versions of the vaccines, with updated spike proteins, have not been required to undergo safety testing in the context of male fertility?
Parents,
There is a dearth of properly conducted male reproductive safety studies. Data from the most comprehensive one to date (discussed here) demonstrates harm to sperm that they cannot recover from before boosters are recommended (five months later in North America). How confident are you in allowing your young, dependent son to receive these shots in light of their tiny risk from COVID-19 (and for the few who might be at risk, approved anti-viral treatments are readily available)?
Here is Tessa Lane highlighting this relevant point:
Package Insert – Comrinaty (purple cap) (fda.gov)
Here is el gato malo (arguably the best and one of the very first analysts) on the subject:
Conclusions: Systemic immune response after BNT162b2 vaccine is a reasonable cause for transient semen concentration and TMC decline. Long-term prognosis remains good
but i am left wondering about these claims and fear they may provide an example of the sort of “nerf or refute your own findings in the abstract so that we can publish this without massive controversy” behavior that has become all too common in medical and scientific journals who withhold peer review from those whose findings look too worrying if stated plainly. (but that will often let such data out if buried deep in supplements and appendixes)
this is why you should always read these data repositories. because they often tell quite a different tale than the abstract.
---
i’m struggling to see how one could call this “recovery.”
post day 150, sperm concentration was -15.9% vs baseline, lower even than in the 75-120 day period. average time post vaxx for T3 collection was 174 +/- 26.8 days so we’re talking about 6 months post vaxx with NO recovery in sperm concentration.
total motile count was slightly recovered from T2, but was still down 19.4% vs baseline, seeming to make up somewhat in volume what is lost in concentration.
---
this raises some serious concerns for a number of reasons:
1. obviously, this is a significant and unforeseen impact not only missed in the rush-job drug trials, but that the drug makers assured us was basically impossible and spent the better part of a year vehemently denying.
2. this effect looks durable to at least 6 months and from this data, we really do not know when or even if (or to what extent) it will attenuate.
3. the role of boosters here is not known, but there is every reason to expect they will have similar effects and either extend or possibly worsen this effect. that seems like a study that should be being performed immediately.
4. even if this condition does moderate and TMC return to prior levels over time, that timescale looks quite long. it’s certainly more than 6 months. this would seem to imply low motile counts could be near constant in a regimen of annual or bi-annual boosters.
---
and clearly, it was missed. this was not even mentioned as a possibility in any FDA proceedings of which i am aware.
and THAT is why vaccine development generally takes place over 5-10 years, not 5-7 months.
Yep. We have only been saying this from day 1.
best i can tell, we cannot even yet rule out that these effects are permanent.
and, of course, we have zero idea what they might do to pre-adolescents and possible impacts on their healthy sexual development and ultimate fertility.
and yet the US is bucking the trend in most of europe and approving these drugs for not just the young and healthy but for kids from 6mo-5 yr. this feels reckless.
This one is specifically for you parents who are injecting your children to protect them from a virus that is not even flu like for them, and also to protect your parents. Please remember that your children are NOT human shields for their grandparents.
Median vs Average
The way that the Israeli study got away with claiming “temporary” and “recovery” and no long term “statistical significance” is by focusing on the Median data rather than the Average data. It’s a nice trick. There’s a time and place for Median use, and this isn’t it.
Here is a good explanation by el gato malo:
You don’t need to be a mathematician to understand it.
so which do you want to trust for a medical outcomes study?
· median makes it look like nothing happened.
· but 1 in 5 people had their total motility count drop to zero. they were sterilized.
· that’s a helluva risk factor to ignore.
no measures, avg or median can tell you everything, but medians notoriously fail to capture subsets of outliers. that’s actually kind of why one uses them. but it also makes them inapt for studies of side effects in drugs as anything affecting fewer than half the cohort gets missed.
and that’s an awful lot to leave unexamined.
what we really need to see are the individual outcomes data. based on this avg/media divergence, i will wager it’s going to show us a severe drop in a few people that did not affect most.
we’ll see 20-40% of the group get deeply and durably suppressed while the rest experienced some lesser impact transitorily.
if somewhere on the order of 1 in 5 and 2 in 5 males are seeing severe, durable drops in TMC (50-100% drop), that’s a massive side effect profile. (4 in 10 dropping 50% has the same effect on the avg as 2 in 10 dropping 100%)
I’ll say it another way.
If all 5 men have a sperm count drop of 20%, then the average AND the median dropped by 20%.
If 1 man’s sperm count dropped to zero and the over 4 were unaffected, then the average dropped by 20% but the median didn’t drop at all. So, median HIDES side effects, it hides statistically significant effects that are lower than 50%.
It’s a most wonderful statistical trick.
Here is Berenson on the issue:
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
What’s the mechanism of action?
The honest answer is, we don’t know.
Here the study makes a “guess” in trying to explain what they found:
Therefore, rather than a direct effect on testicular cells (ex. via ACE receptor), we believe that systemic immune response is a more reasonable explanation for the temporary concentration decline.
This explanation sits somewhere between unlikely and false. Berenson makes this point:
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.
Marc Giradot has a much better theory that explains what is actually going on, or likely going on. Giradot doesn’t bow to The Science™:
Damaging blood-to-tissue barriers has necessarily serious reproductive consequences
You don’t want your husband’s T-cells mixing with his sperm cells, or your wife’s T-cells mixing with her ovocytes…your chances of having a fertile couple will probably plummet else these tight barriers probably wouldn’t exist.
Reproductive cells express unique genes that evidently are rarely encountered by the immune system. As such they can be perceived by the immune system as threats. For example, hTERT is a gene expressed to repair telomeres in the testis, so our babies start their lives with pristine genetics. hTERT is recuperated in 85% of cancers, and the immune system regularly reacts to this antigen… In other words, it’s “you”, but your immune system thinks it’s “foreign” because it never encountered that part of you, and it can end up destroying these reproductive cells.
Evidently, if the blood-to-tissue barrier is broken, trespassing immune cells will end up where they shouldn’t be and will inevitably do their job, triggering the destruction of reproductive cells.
The reproductive systems of both women and men are protected by a five endothelial blood-tissues barriers :
in Women:
o the blood-follicle barrier (BFB) protects developing follicles in the ovary: it is thus fundamental to woman fertility
o the blood-placenta barrier (BPB) feeds and protects the growing foetus; it needs to adapt as the placenta expands simultaneously with the foetus
o the blood-milk barrier (BMB) protects the baby’s good health by controlling the quality of the milk supplied
in Men:
o the blood-testis barrier (BTB) and the blood-epididymal barrier (BEB) protects the sperm notably from the immune system
While it will take time to account for the true damage done to population fertility by these vaccines and their attacks on endothelial barriers, one can only be horrified to admit that already today in the US:
9% of men and 10% of women are infertile
As stated above, traditional attenuated vaccines also penetrate cells, even if they don’t hack them to produce an antigen. So adverse events that emerge more visibly today when a whole age-pyramid is vaccinated could well have been occurring in the past - invisible to the crowd and the medical community - when vaccination was done one class-age at a time … for decades.
The relative infertility equity across gender is very surprising to me given how different our reproductive systems are. It could be construed as a confirmation - or at least an intriguing hypothesis to investigate - that this loss in fertility is partly vaccine-induced.
Indeed transfecting vaccines will occasionally induce immune attacks against the protection barriers of ovocytes and sperm, possibly explaining the booming infertility levels - and the drop in sperm count - of the past decades.
Are the explosion of neurodegenerative diseases and the growing fertility problems each a different side of the same coin: the endothelial damage of over-prescribed vaccines?
The fact that 42% of women surveyed following Covid vaccination seem to have had increased menstrual bleeding post Covid-vaccination is indicative of a problem of massive proportion. Hopefully, only a small portion of that will ultimately be related to the vaccine…
The question is: Going forward, will 50% of couples have major difficulty becoming parents?
I’m not in the business of trying to scare anyone unnecessarily, God knows there’s enough of that already, but sometimes you need to take probabilistic views, even on low or poor data, especially when the ramifications are significant.
This Swiss Policy Research site has been a good, credible source of information for a long time. This is their take and conclusion.
Covid Vaccines and Fertility – Swiss Policy Research (swprs.org)
In conclusion, data from both Germany and Switzerland does show a substantial 10% to 15% monthly decrease in live births from January 2022 to at least April 2022. This decrease could be due to behavioral or biological effects, including covid vaccinations that began nine months earlier.
Health authorities and researchers should urgently investigate the true cause or causes of this phenomenon based on data from additional countries with and without lockdowns as well as with and without mRNA-nanolipid vaccines.
Meanwhile, the director of the Danish National Health Authority recently acknowledged that vaccinating children against covid was “a mistake” and that they “wouldn’t do it again”.
Lastly, I’ll leave you with a recent broad ranging interview Malone did that relevant to this discussion.
Summing up
Men, and parents of men to be, were told by the government they trusted and by the doctors they trusted, that a genetic agent was safe to take, so they took it, not knowing that it had only been tested for “fertility safety” on female rats.
Male rats were left alone.
The moral of the story
Please stop putting this stuff into you and your children.
As if finding a mate to build a life with isn't hard enough. I weep for our kids.
The sad thing is, with the overpopulation myth and the cucking of much of the male species, many people still won't care. Becoming infertile helps them save the world from climate change!