So far there is zero evidence of long term damage to the female reproductive system. That doesn't mean none will come out, but it does mean there has been none so far. All the fear porn that people have seen is not evidence of ovarian damage, but evidence of blood vessel damage somewhere in the reproductive system. Blood vessels and ovaries are not the same tissues, so its not the same thing. One could have an effect on the other, but without actual evidence, any suppositions are just that.
Anons on this board have been over the data before. It goes far beyond 'supposition', 'fear porn', and 'hypothesis'. There is actual clinical data now on a horrific miscarriage rate among vaxxed women.
Since vaxes started to become popular early this year, we'll have to wait until Sept/Oct to see how many healthy babies are born to vaxxed women. I'll venture to guess not many.
If you looked in the thread you linked you would see that the second comment from the top is mine. I show that it is not 82% death rate but 90.6% death rate in the first two trimesters according to their data.
But here's the thing. Spontaneous abortion is not generally caused by damage to the ovaries. It is caused by a shock to the developing embryo, or the mothers system, or whatever. Many things can cause it, but direct ovarian damage is not really one of the causes, unless such damage also has secondary effects (which is likely if the cause is trauma, but not minor tissue damage (AKA the vaccine), at least there is no evidence).
In addition there are thousands of data points that show endothelial damage, including specifically within the female reproductive tissue. But endothelial tissue damage IS NOT OVARIAN damage,, at least not directly. So far there has been zero data (and zero evidence) that there has been any damage to the reproductive system itself.
That doesn't mean there hasn't been. It needs to be looked at. But there is a difference between the tissues, and any biologist (including myself0 can explain it. I would be happy to elaborate on the differences if you wish.
The damage that the vaccine causes to the endothelium is so deadly because it doesn't take much to cause clotting in the capillaries, or heart attacks if there is damage in heart blood vessels, or aneurysms if there is damage to brain blood vessels, etc. That's why killing off, or causing an immune response to the blood vessels themselves (endothelium) is so harmful. It doesn't take that much damage to do a lot of harm.
But in the ovaries, killing off a few cells won't do much. It would have to be a lot of damage to the tissue itself and there is no evidence for that. Until such actual evidence exists, its fear porn and speculation.
The OP raised the issue of what to do with a prospective bride who has taken the vax. It doesn't really matter whether her future reproductive problems are caused by endothilial cell damage, ovarian damage, placental damage, poor oxygenation of the blood due to lung damage, etc. The point is simply that a young man who wants to get married and have children ought to avoid vaxxed women. His chances of fathering healthy children are much better if he marries an unvaxxed woman.
There is no evidence that there will be long term effects to the lungs, the ovaries, the endothelium, or any part of the body from any of the vaccines to any statistical significance. The truth is, we don't know. The other truth is, according to biology it is unlikely to be a problem for many people.
Could it happen to some? Sure. But the evidence we have so far (that we know of, it could be fraudulent) suggests such events will be very rare.
The VAERS data suggests short term serious effects in the 1:1000 range (or so), and the death rate is more like 1:20,000. Of course death is a non-issue, since she'd be dead, and its illegal to marry dead people, but serious short term effects (which is all the VAERS data shows) are also not overly concerning for long term effects. The body has a remarkable capacity for healing. To discount that is giving into your fears of the unknown, and not evidence based.
Within the VAERS data is also evidence of long term effects, but those are about the same level as the death data, and predominantly in older people. So the risk is actually very low (according to that data).
Could the VAERS data be underreported? Absolutely. I think that is highly likely. I doubt very much it is more than 10 times worse than it suggests however because if it were it would quite simply be too hard to hide from someone like myself who looks every day for such evidence (and all the other people doing the same thing diligently).
So if my 10 times hypothesis is correct (its really a reasonable upper limit) that would put the long term effects for which there is evidence at a rate of about 1:2000. Thats actually really good odds.
Its not good enough that I would risk my life. And its bad enough that I advise everyone I know to not get it, to the destruction of some friendships unfortunately (people who care nothing for actual evidence because they are too far under the spell), but in real actual numbers, its pretty good odds.
So to even slightly suggest that its a forgone conclusion, when every piece of actual evidence, and even reasonable speculation suggests that it is not going to be that bad is disingenuous at best, and fear mongering at worst.
So far there is zero evidence of long term damage to the female reproductive system. That doesn't mean none will come out, but it does mean there has been none so far. All the fear porn that people have seen is not evidence of ovarian damage, but evidence of blood vessel damage somewhere in the reproductive system. Blood vessels and ovaries are not the same tissues, so its not the same thing. One could have an effect on the other, but without actual evidence, any suppositions are just that.
Anons on this board have been over the data before. It goes far beyond 'supposition', 'fear porn', and 'hypothesis'. There is actual clinical data now on a horrific miscarriage rate among vaxxed women.
Since vaxes started to become popular early this year, we'll have to wait until Sept/Oct to see how many healthy babies are born to vaxxed women. I'll venture to guess not many.
Some of the earlier threads where anons went over the data: https://greatawakening.win/p/12jJGXkWBl/-82-of-pregnant-women-who-took-m/c/
https://greatawakening.win/p/12jJGXlLCb/huge-red-flag-medical-researcher/c/
If you looked in the thread you linked you would see that the second comment from the top is mine. I show that it is not 82% death rate but 90.6% death rate in the first two trimesters according to their data.
But here's the thing. Spontaneous abortion is not generally caused by damage to the ovaries. It is caused by a shock to the developing embryo, or the mothers system, or whatever. Many things can cause it, but direct ovarian damage is not really one of the causes, unless such damage also has secondary effects (which is likely if the cause is trauma, but not minor tissue damage (AKA the vaccine), at least there is no evidence).
In addition there are thousands of data points that show endothelial damage, including specifically within the female reproductive tissue. But endothelial tissue damage IS NOT OVARIAN damage,, at least not directly. So far there has been zero data (and zero evidence) that there has been any damage to the reproductive system itself.
That doesn't mean there hasn't been. It needs to be looked at. But there is a difference between the tissues, and any biologist (including myself0 can explain it. I would be happy to elaborate on the differences if you wish.
The damage that the vaccine causes to the endothelium is so deadly because it doesn't take much to cause clotting in the capillaries, or heart attacks if there is damage in heart blood vessels, or aneurysms if there is damage to brain blood vessels, etc. That's why killing off, or causing an immune response to the blood vessels themselves (endothelium) is so harmful. It doesn't take that much damage to do a lot of harm.
But in the ovaries, killing off a few cells won't do much. It would have to be a lot of damage to the tissue itself and there is no evidence for that. Until such actual evidence exists, its fear porn and speculation.
The OP raised the issue of what to do with a prospective bride who has taken the vax. It doesn't really matter whether her future reproductive problems are caused by endothilial cell damage, ovarian damage, placental damage, poor oxygenation of the blood due to lung damage, etc. The point is simply that a young man who wants to get married and have children ought to avoid vaxxed women. His chances of fathering healthy children are much better if he marries an unvaxxed woman.
There is no evidence that there will be long term effects to the lungs, the ovaries, the endothelium, or any part of the body from any of the vaccines to any statistical significance. The truth is, we don't know. The other truth is, according to biology it is unlikely to be a problem for many people.
Could it happen to some? Sure. But the evidence we have so far (that we know of, it could be fraudulent) suggests such events will be very rare.
The VAERS data suggests short term serious effects in the 1:1000 range (or so), and the death rate is more like 1:20,000. Of course death is a non-issue, since she'd be dead, and its illegal to marry dead people, but serious short term effects (which is all the VAERS data shows) are also not overly concerning for long term effects. The body has a remarkable capacity for healing. To discount that is giving into your fears of the unknown, and not evidence based.
Within the VAERS data is also evidence of long term effects, but those are about the same level as the death data, and predominantly in older people. So the risk is actually very low (according to that data).
Could the VAERS data be underreported? Absolutely. I think that is highly likely. I doubt very much it is more than 10 times worse than it suggests however because if it were it would quite simply be too hard to hide from someone like myself who looks every day for such evidence (and all the other people doing the same thing diligently).
So if my 10 times hypothesis is correct (its really a reasonable upper limit) that would put the long term effects for which there is evidence at a rate of about 1:2000. Thats actually really good odds.
Its not good enough that I would risk my life. And its bad enough that I advise everyone I know to not get it, to the destruction of some friendships unfortunately (people who care nothing for actual evidence because they are too far under the spell), but in real actual numbers, its pretty good odds.
So to even slightly suggest that its a forgone conclusion, when every piece of actual evidence, and even reasonable speculation suggests that it is not going to be that bad is disingenuous at best, and fear mongering at worst.
Sorry, it's coming in fast and furious!
https://greatawakening.win/p/12jJBsC1cQ/buried-report-576-preborn-babies/
Please see my post in response to Huffman98 in this thread about spontaneous abortions.