Here is the Pfizer FOIA dump:

https://phmpt.org/pfizers-documents/

You can search for:

125742_S1_M5_5351_c4591001-interim-mth6-adverse-events

..and you'll get a big pdf. And at that point you're in the weeds with the rest of us, because the analysis I'm finding in the last hour or so is admittedly not strong in support of my point.

Firstly it appears that Naomi Wolf mis-analyzed this data at least partly. Not to blame her (there are literally thousands of documents to go through in no order whatsoever, with many thousands more still unreleased). It makes conclusions very hard to draw. She grouped "adverse events" with "serious adverse events" that ended up in a double count. You can read the rundown here:

https://sensereceptornews.com/?p=10017

But AFAICT it's still not determined what the exact proportion is, or at least I haven't seen anyone put together a good series of steps to obtain a well-reasoned number.

So for example if you search for this subject in the .pdf: "C4591001 1013 10131255", you'll see her twice but the argument is that is a single event (makes sense). And you can also go back up to phmpt and search for her by id.

We also don't know the setup of the study as far as picking subjects and whether they were screened in any way as regards to whether they intended to start a family. All sorts of possibilities here. I think Pfizer would know how to setup the study to get the results they want..

I'll dig a bit more and if I come across something interesting I'll let you know. It's an extremely difficult topic to dig on because the search engines censor it heavily so if you don't know a few starting point sites you have no primary source material to review--just "fact checks".