Fact Checkers: YES, Pfizer Vaccine Has Infertility Potential
by Shari Dovale
We have all seen the scare stories that are hitting social media about the new, and potentially mandatory, vaccines for the Chinese virus.
Fact checkers for Big Tech have been all over them attempting to disprove the information being shared.
Part of the problem is that these fiction writers paid by Big Tech continue to split hairs over all of the issues. If someone gets a name wrong, or someone’s title, then the entire article will be given a false rating. If someone does not have a date, then it could be called misleading. Whatever excuse they can come up with will be used. It is all about the talking points, and the agenda.
This is, in itself, misleading. So what are they trying to hide from the public?
Let’s look at their latest ‘fact check’.
There is an article that was published on December 2, 2020 entitled “Head of Pfizer Research: Covid Vaccine is Female Sterilization.” There is a companion article titled “Warnings of Infertility Come Directly With Pfizer Vaccine” published a few days later concerning the literature that comes with the vaccines.
The folks that put these articles together have done a good job gathering the information. They identify the professionals quoted, and supply documents from the vaccine company, both for the public and for the doctors. See Petition HERE
On December 1, 2020, the ex-Pfizer head of respiratory research Dr. Michael Yeadon and the lung specialist and former head of the public health department Dr. Wolfgang Wodarg filed an application with the EMA, the European Medicine Agency responsible for EU-wide drug approval, for the immediate suspension of all SARS CoV 2 vaccine studies, in particular the BioNtech/Pfizer study on BNT162b (EudraCT number 2020-002641-42).
These doctors identified significant safety concerns against the vaccine and the study design. This is certainly something that needs to be addressed.
The vaccinations are expected to produce antibodies against spike proteins of SARS-CoV-2. However, spike proteins also contain syncytin-homologous proteins, which are essential for the formation of the placenta in mammals such as humans. It must be absolutely ruled out that a vaccine against SARS-CoV-2 could trigger an immune reaction against syncytin-1, as otherwise infertility of indefinite duration could result in vaccinated women.
Something that was added later in the article also questions the possibility of sterility in men, as Syncytin-1 is also present in sperm.
This is confirmed in the pamphlets and documents provided with the vaccines.
The pamphlet given to the public, a 5 page handout, tells you:
Pregnancy and breast-feeding
There is currently limited data available on the use of this vaccine in pregnant women. If you are pregnant or breast-feeding, think you may be pregnant or are planning to have a baby, ask your doctor or pharmacist for advice before you receive this vaccine. As a precaution, you should avoid becoming pregnant until at least 2 months after the vaccine.
However, the longer 10 page document meant for the healthcare workers, gives an additional warning:
4.6 Fertility, pregnancy and lactation
There are no or limited amount of data from the use of COVID-19 mRNA Vaccine BNT162b2. Animal reproductive toxicity studies have not been completed. COVID-19 mRNA Vaccine BNT162b2 is not recommended during pregnancy. For women of childbearing age, pregnancy should be excluded before vaccination. In addition, women of childbearing age should be advised to avoid pregnancy for at least 2 months after their second dose.
It is unknown whether COVID-19 mRNA Vaccine BNT162b2 is excreted in human milk. A risk to the newborns/infants cannot be excluded. COVID-19 mRNA Vaccine BNT162b2 should not be used during breast-feeding.
It is unknown whether COVID-19 mRNA Vaccine BNT162b2 has an impact on fertility.
Do warnings of infertility come with the documentation for the Pfizer vaccine? YES, they do!
What do the fact checkers say about this information?
1) Michael Yeadon, who is not the head of Pfizer research. Yeadon did work for Pfizer but left the company in 2011, according to his biographical information in the blog “Lockdown Sceptics,”
(Again, splitting hairs over job titles, but they cannot discredit the qualifications of the men.)
2) They (Yeadon and Wodarg) did not state as fact that the vaccine causes sterility
(They did not claim it was fact. It was stated that there were significant safety concerns that needed to be addressed.)
3) There was no mention of risk of sterility in Pfizer’s publicly available study. In a Nov. 20, 2020, press release Pfizer said no significant safety concerns have been observed during vaccine studies.
(So, the company that has the most to lose is the only source that Snopes will use for the information?)
4) Snopes also claimed that these two men were suspect because they had made a blog post that contradicted the talking points of those controlling the information, saying they have “spread COVID-19 misinformation in the past. Yeadon falsely claimed in an October 2020 blog post that the “pandemic is effectively over.” Wodarg falsely claimed in a March 2020 YouTube video that the virus was no more harmful than the seasonal flu. “
(This means that anyone not on board with the accepted talking points, and believes that the virus with a 99+% Survival Rate, is automatically to be disbelieved.)
* BTW, the article by Dr. Mike Yeadon that Snopes is referring to is an excellent read: What SAGE Has Got Wrong
The second fact checking article against the post is by IBTimes.
They began their verification with: According to Snopes
The fact checkers HAVE NOT disproven the information. They have not clarified the medical concerns. They have not confirmed that these vaccines will not sterilize the people and cause them to be infertile. They HAVE NOT proven that they are Safe!
All they have done is throw mud at anyone that is not on board with their talking points.
The fact checkers rely on people not wanting to actually read the information. They are expecting the headlines to do their work for them.
Read it for yourself, and share the information with those that you care about.
Some of the posts we share are controversial and we do not necessarily agree with them in the whole extend. Sometimes we agree with the content or part of it but we do not agree with the narration or language. Nevertheless we find them somehow interesting, valuable and/or informative or we share them, because we strongly believe in freedom of speech, free press and journalism. We strongly encourage you to have a critical approach to all the content, do your own research and analysis to build your own opinion.
We would be glad to have your feedback.