Thread Reader
Jikkyleaks 🐭

Jikkyleaks 🐭
@Jikkyleaks

Nov 28, 2025
6 tweets
Tweet

We're missing something really important in the "where did all the pregnancies go?" question. That is, what happened to teenage pregnancies - a constant for nearly 30 years - which suddenly fell off a cliff in 2007... The year the HPV vaccine rolled out. @Bret Weinstein

Camus

Camus
@newstart_2024

Bret Weinstein just said something that won’t leave my head: For the first time in 300,000 years of human evolution, we removed the cost from the single biggest reward nature ever invented — sex and pair-bonding. Reliable birth control + abortion = you can now cash the evolutionary lottery ticket without paying the 20-year mortgage of pregnancy, diapers, sleepless nights, and college funds. Result? An entire generation of 18–35-year-olds walking around with the energy, libido, hormones, and protective instincts that evolution spent millions of years calibrating for child-rearing… but with zero actual children. That energy didn’t disappear. It got redirected. Heather Heying’s observation is brutal: young women especially began treating ideologies the exact way evolution wired them to treat babies. Climate change, social justice, whatever the cause of the month is — it gets defended with literal mama-bear ferocity, the same neurochemistry that once guarded a toddler from predators now guards an abstract idea from wrong think. And now Elon is promising the second shoe is about to drop: AI-driven abundance will make money as “free” as sex became in the 1970s. Both of evolution’s primary carrots — mating and resource acquisition suddenly cost almost nothing. Weinstein’s ice-cold question: When producing and protecting actual children is no longer the central organizing principle of adult life… and when creating wealth is no longer required for status, security, or attracting a mate…What is left to give a human life direction, meaning, and structure? Are we about to become a species that invents bigger and bigger dragons to slay just to feel alive? Or do we drift into total listlessness? This 3:52 clip is genuinely haunting. Watch it all the way through, then tell me — honestly — does this explain the absolute intensity we’re seeing in culture right now, or is Bret completely missing something? Real answers only. Quote-post if it hits you in the chest like it hit me.
The fall off in pregnancies - and by extension sexual activity (by far the main driver of cervical cancer <25) - exactly mirrored the fall off in cervical cancer under 25 in the UK from 2015-2019 (after a large rise). This is a massive confounder in the vaccine effectiveness question. @Bret Weinstein @Jay Bhattacharya @Retsef Levi
Jikkyleaks 🐭

Jikkyleaks 🐭
@Jikkyleaks

There are a lot of pharma agents celebrating on twitter recently because the now-conflicted @Cochrane dropped their standards and published something on HPV vaccination they didn't understand. To explain it you need to understand the difference between the two studies quoted. The first (Bergman) analysed a bunch of real studies (including RCTs) and concluded that the effect on cancer couldn't be seen - despite nearly 20 years of follow up. The second (Henschke) cherry picked a bunch of "real world data" studies and concluded that the vaccine prevented a gazillion cervical cancers, pretending that it analysed 132 million patient records. It did nothing of the sort. What it did was look at two studies, take out the bit where it showed that the vaccine increased the risk of cancer (Kjaer 2021, over 20s) - replicated in multiple country statistics, split them into three studies, ignore the other studies showing the opposite, and ignore the fact that none of this data is verifiable. Notably, one of the major studies (Palmer 2024, which was found to be seriously flawed) has been excluded from the meta-analysis because it did not show a cancer benefit in the under 16 age group. It is very difficult to "fix" a randomised controlled trial. It is very easy to "fix" a meta-analysis of observational studies where the data is "not available". There is a huge difference between "real" studies and "real world data" studies because the latter are cherry picked or even fully synthetic, and the authors don't have access to the data. They are produced by vested interests groups to sell a narrative. This was the most corrupted review that Cochrane have ever performed and this time they shot themselves in the foot by contradicting their own reviews. cochranelibrary.com/cdsr/doi/10.10 @Prof. Peter C Gøtzsche @Maryanne Demasi, PhD @Senator Alex Antic @Dr Julie Sladden @Dr. Lynn Fynn-derella🐭 @Melissa 🐭 @Robert W Malone, MD @Retsef Levi @Broken Truth @Daniel Horowitz
Related: HPV vaccine "real world data" studies seriously flawed. x.com/Jikkyleaks/sta
Jikkyleaks 🐭

Jikkyleaks 🐭
@Jikkyleaks

"Scotland HPV vaccine study flawed" - explaining how the Scotland data on HPV was misrepresented to show an effect that wasn't real blog.maryannedemasi.com/p/the-hpv-vacc
Jikkyleaks 🐭

Jikkyleaks 🐭

@Jikkyleaks
Home for @jikkykjj the whistleblowing lab mouse #Modernagate #CTCCTCGGCGGGCACGTAG #3Tablets Pronouns: mouse/mouseself Tweets are public interest disclosures
Follow on 𝕏
Missing some tweets in this thread? Or failed to load images or videos? You can try to .