For a 9 sigma drop in birth rates to have happened in Jan-Mar 2022, something dramatic had to have happened to stop pregnancies occurring in March to June 2021.
I wonder what that could be?
Were couples depressed? Looking to move house? Too busy?
In general birth rates are surprisingly stable year-to-year with long term cycles. There are seasonal peaks and troughs which are pretty reliable. Every midwife knows.
But this is well outside normal.
Big red arrow time.
It definitely has nothing to do with the the fact, that, rather than staying at the site of injection as promised, their own data showed that the LNPs not only distributed to the ovaries and testes but accumulated.
I must give credit to @mkeulemans for pointing out an error in my chart.
I have had to recreate it as the first years' data incorrect.
Here is the corrected chart.
I should have spotted this because the stability of the data was too pronounced. But remember that there was a significant influx of migration to Germany in those years 2011-2015, so we need to look at the stable years 2016-2021 and compare.
Errors bars are SD (2016-21)
The average monthly birth figure
for Q1 2016 - 2021 is 61873.
The SD is 678.
The Q1 2022 the figure is 54871.
The drop is 7002.
That is 10.3 sigma.
It's worse.
So, apologies for not triple checking my data and thanks again to eagle eyed critics for the correction.
I'd like to say that it changes the rest of the thread, and that there is no problem here - but it doesn't and there is.
I was looking for this so thank you @NicolienvGelder data showing how the younger population expanded in Germany from 2011- 2015.
Hence why you can't use those years reliably in calculating SD for this purpose (unless you wanted to hide something)
What @TheBurninBeard is saying here is that the clinical samples that had "COVID" also had gene signatures of Mycoplasma fermentans, a US military pathogen that can be used as a vector to carry viral clones.
@SabinehazanMD found it too.
🧵
#spraygate @BrokenTruthTV
Can you see that Norman Pieniazek, who headed up the CDC's research division at the time that the @CDCgov sent biological weapons to Iraq to start a war, took himself out of this thread?
Every vaccine scientist will try to convince you that the drop in u25 cancers was due to the vaccine when it was merely due to the change in screening.
But check out the HUGE RISE in 25+ cancers. This pattern is repeated in Scotland and Australia where similar changes to the screening age were made a few years after the introduction of coerced vaccination, obfuscating the figures to hide a scandalous rise in 25-29 age cervical cancers after the vaccine rollout.
For clarity most cancers in this age group are early and detected on screening before they become advanced. Moving the screening age meant that they were diagnosed later and therefore in an older age bracket.
The big red arrow is pointing to the preinvasive diagnoses which tend to mirror the actual cancers - the upper chart was too busy.
Here is the same from the OP with arrows showing both cancer (above) and precancer (below) which both rose significantly after the vaccine rollout
And here is the same data from Cancer Research UK (smoothed) showing a doubling of cancer rates in the over 25s for at least 5 years after the vaccine rollout. cancerresearchuk.org/health-profess…