[manwe150]

> The drop in fertility is, horribly so, blindingly obvious. In country after country, 9 months after mRNA injections rollout for young people we are seeing a striking drop in births.

The US birth rate continues to climb after the introduction of vaccines, for the first time in decades.

I have yet to see a chart that shows a decline that wasn’t painfully manipulate to hide the fact it declined much less after vaccinations than it had in the decade leading up to it. Though I have only seen articles for a handful of countries.

[canoebuilder]

https://igorchudov.substack.com/p/dramatic-decrease-in-birth...

https://igorchudov.substack.com/archive?sort=search&search=f...

https://boriquagato.substack.com/p/swedish-birth-rate-data-w...

https://alexberenson.substack.com/?sort=search&search=fertil...

[manwe150]

Nice to see the top link later realized his fears were unfounded and wrote about it: https://igorchudov.substack.com/p/good-fertility-news-for-va...

[canoebuilder]

And a month later he posted this. https://igorchudov.substack.com/p/uk-births-in-england-colla...?

Common internet debate confirmation bias to grab the first thing you think supports your point after a quick scan, link to it like it is a slam dunk, and read no further.

You sounded like you were genuinely interested in learning more, saying you hadn’t seen most of the data so I posted some links to get you started. There is a lot more there than the link you posted.

I don’t think Chudov would say “unfounded,” even if it is temporary that is still a scandal almost beyond words.

“Take this shot you don’t need, that we’ve either terrorized or coerced you into taking and it may permanently or temporarily impinge on your ability to reproduce or cause a host of other maladies “

No part of that is acceptable. And even if it is temporary after one shot, how temporary is it going to be if the shots continue to be pushed and mandated, and each additional shot increases the effect?

The University of California system has just announced they are mandating yet another shot! It is madness and criminal.

[manwe150]

Ok, I should have read further and posted a full reply. I had seen his data before, and it looked a bit scary, so I am interested, but I also quickly noticed that it lacked statistical error bars and was excluding any data that contradicted his hypothesis.

Would it change your perspective if you learned that the still birth rate in 2022 was still lower than every previous year, except for the years 2019 and 2020 that he uses as comparison?

https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/birthsde...

Does it change your perspective if you learned that the birth rate has been dropping about 2-3% per year, except for the year in comparison (2021) when it was 2% higher than the previous year?

https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/birthsde...

Does it change your perspective if you learned that vaccinated mothers appear to have been slightly more likely to have a healthy, normal birth over this same time period (fig 3-9), though the difference was not statistically large?

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/...

All of these links are directly from his blog post, so I know he also had access to this data, which shows it was safe and even beneficial to you to get vaccinated, and he apparently chose to ignore it.

> even if it is temporary after one shot

If it doesn't reoccur though, it is temporary, regardless of what else happens. But the data would already have included the effect of boosters by now. In some ways, the blog post also suffers from a lesser known problem of being too-big of an effect. It was >8% decrease when <20% of the population had a vaccine, so now that >60% has had a vaccine, we should see a >25% drop in births. That is too big an estimated effect he's observing in one specific area for it to be invisible to other statistical measures and countries. So that hints something else is wrong with his analysis, failing to account for something, or taking small numbers as divisors to make them look bigger.

I had heard a fun podcast on excess effect size being a possible yellow-flag for statistics, but cannot locate the exact one for you. If I recall right though, it was related to Andreas Glöckner's discussion of the size of the mental depletion effect linked from https://freakonomics.com/podcast/in-a-job-interview-how-much.... In that article he shows how the correlation was too strong between "mental depletion" and outcome, that it likely points to there not being a causal-link.

[manwe150]

I didn't know I was going to look more, but I decided to look at his Hungary data. He mentions in conclusion that his R^2 of 0.22 is "relatively low", but does not seem to understand that is means his theory fails to explain more than 75% of the variation between counties. And thus his result is that he is highly confident (97%) that less than 25% of the difference might be correlated to vaccinations.

Thus, to come back to belltaco's point, his post shows there is far more evidence for invisible space aliens (75% unexplained correlation) who only target Hungarians than for vaccines (25% possible correlation).