Since when did this occur?
(www.bbc.co.uk)
Comments (27)
sorted by:
well yes, since Gates & Co want to reduce the population and especially in the West.
Possibly yes. Funnily it has just been published. Seemingly it conflicts with other data, fertility data.
That's a staggering figure. As bad as cancer. Worse. It is also a disease. If indeed people cannot reproduce.
https://ivi-fertility.com/blog/infertility-in-europe/
I am still trying to understand that global average. Why is it brand new press.
Obviously vaccines play a role. Because it conflicts with data prior to COVID. Straight from the WHO. Unsurprisingly
Straight from the WHOrse's mouth.
Isn't it funny that these clowns will consistently deny anything that scientists say when it doesn't fit their narrative but when it does, will treat it as gospel?
a) how does nature appear (seem)...as perceivable or as suggested? If both, then as which one first?
b) how does nature communicate data (things given)...as perceivable inspiration or as suggested information? If both, then how does nature make suggestions?
c) was there a conflict in perceivable nature before oneself chose a suggested side? If so, then which conflict?
d) what generates "other" and where can other be generated? If energy represents one, then what represents other?
e) what comes first...being "with" others or being "within" nature?
Whya are retards only ever reading headlines and not the actual articles?
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_sovereign_states_and_dependencies_by_total_fertility_rate
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Total_fertility_rate
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4424520/
Look at this 2015 statistic. Above. Less than 50 million couples globally predominately in regions with higher birthrates. That data again compiled by averages. Suddenly today whoosh.
a) AV'ERAGE, noun - "a contribution to a general loss"...what does growth (life) contribute to loss (inception towards death)?
b) what if loss distributes (inception) and compiles (death) growth (life)?
c) what if consent of many to suggested money represents average (contribution to loss), which in return allows suggesting few to compile (collect) ?
The report covers data from 1990 to 2021 and if you had actually bothered to look it up you would not have to ask such a retarded question here.
But that would not fit your narrative, would it?
You're an ape. Nonce off.
Read the links dumbass.
I read the report. You haven't and that is hilarious.
You aren't interested in facts. Only in shilling a narrative.
Fuck off ape it's above your head. I read your name. It's autism. You minced out some dumb superhero. Atom is kool. You aren't. You're a nigger.
Or did you want to talk properly?
I wish I could talk properly to you but you are unable to form coherent sentences.
No you are. You're dumber than a sack of shit.
You attacked me first. You mouth stupid little things. All you have done is mouth stupid little things.
You accuse me of not reading. No you haven't. You haven't even processed.
Again really simple. There is no science. None. This is data. How was that data acquired. An average or estimate. It isn't accurate if it's a projection. That data hasn't even quantified impotency.
Read it. What does it say, couples having non protected intercourse in a year. What the fuck does that even mean. They're diagnosed. No.
It's pure apeshit.
Go back to retard school. Come back with proper figures. They simply do not correlate into other data Googled or otherwise or as credible.
Are you impotent. Come on let's do this poll? There are six in here. 1 of us is right. Look we probaby have that answer. Trust the science?
In the words of Shakespeare, You impotent fool. King Lear? Perhaps
It's data interpreted by scientists you moron.
It's not data by scientists. It's data by a computer. The same software doing COVID infections. Has produced an estimate that has no scientific basis. The science being a medical diagnosis.
Or answer me why you're an impotent fool? You're telling me to trust the science. I don't trust the data. Clearly it's because you're impotent?
Would you like to talk about it? Were you born impotent, or did it develop later in life? When did you notice your impotency? Now your account name makes sense.
If you post the bbc, then you're a fkin moron for relying on the worst news broadcast ever.
Sorry, but you just copy-pasted a news article from satan. If you're that stupid to believe it, you are below the required IQ to post in here. Take a second to figure that one out.
Except those are the UK statistics. Approx 1 in 7, on the NHS website. Again the NHS website has tricksy wording. Around 17% reportedly. Do these apply for IVFs because they're incapable. No. They're inflated numbers based on? An average.
But when we rewind to 2015 in other global statistics that figure is tiny. Insignificant.
If we look at the fertility rates and population births. I wonder. Some I've linked.
I don't trust the BBC much. The WHO less.
There is tricksy wording. Couples not conceiving in 12 months via unprotected intercourse??? Umm umm.
The fact is it was just published 2023 and it is speculative as a Global figure.
Look at the 2015 figure.
The BBC is a pile of. Especially recently. But I can link at least 20 other outlets publicising it. It's the WHO figure.
I think this is a bunch of freaking software. Like COVID infections. It's an average of a few factors. But that increase has certainly increased recently.
Well, what do you know? You actually came up with facts to put me in my place. Perfectly done. Hope everyone follows your example and examines data as you do.
Still, don't trust bbc fear propaganda, as they have a lot of it. None of their data can be verified due to the reasons they list. Have that in mind only.
I fkin love real arguments! Keep them coming in posts and comments. This place needs this!
It's absolutely remarkable. Shocking. But something is very wrong there. Comparing previous data.
Who knows.
Thanks.
Thing is, the NHS is less trustworthy than the BBC. Why would you believe anything that any ZOG organization tells you?
Then why post their data and pretend you believe it?
Use your retard brain. Because it is a global source. I could link American and at least 20 press outlets with it.
I don't trust the data it's this new pandemic planner crap.
Prior look read the link 2015. Almost as good a global indicator. Verified provider. Less than 50 million couples globally, it was average but it was probably more statistical. So what went wrong. Suddenly you're talking worse than cancer stats. The wording is completely speculative. Have they been diagnosed as impotent. No it doesn't even claim that. Does it. Begging the questions of if it's just couples not conceiving????
Combined into a lessening lack of birthrates. These peaked in COVID.
So you trust the science in this? All the data is accurate and properly presented?
IN (within) FERTILE (able to produce abundantly), hence living (growth) within the process of dying (loss) aka produced potential within generating abundance.
Consenting to suggested -ITY (quality of being) tempts one to ignore being (evaluation) within quality (value).
a) ORGAN (instrument) -ATION (through action)...if the ongoing action represents sound, then the temporary reaction within implies resonance (need) or dissonance (want) by ones instrumental choice.
b) if perceivable sound represents health, then the perceiving instrument within struggles to remain healthy (resonance) while being tempted with sickness (dissonance).
c) if HEALTH (process of dying) then ORGAN (living)...if perceiving organ ignores perceivable health for suggested "healthcare" by others, then organ failure and sickness.