Lancet study: Fertility is plummeting globally, with over half of countries below replacement level



Biologist Paul Ehrlich, 91, and other de-populationists have long concern-mongered about the planet having far too many human beings living on it. Their alarmist claims have proven as consequential as they have been wrong, inspiring the kind of disastrous policies taken up by the communist Chinese regime, which massacred hundreds of millions of babies as a result of its one-child policy.

It turns out the problem the species actually faces is not a population boom but rather a world-changing population crunch.

A graying world

A new peer-reviewed study published in the Lancet recently revealed that fertility rates have declined in all countries and territories since 1950 and that "human civilization is rapidly converging on a sustained low-fertility reality."

The fertility rate references the average number of children born to a woman in her lifetime. In 1950, the global fertility rate was 4.84. In 2021, it was 2.23. By the end of this century, it is expected to drop to 1.59 globally.

For a population to maintain stability and replenish itself without need for an influx of foreign nationals, a fertility rate of 2.1 is needed.

The fertility rate in the U.S. last year was 1.784. By way of contrast, in 1960, the U.S. fertility rate was 3.7. The American fertility rate predicted for 2100 is 1.45, according to the study.

"Only six of 204 countries and territories (Samoa, Somalia, Tonga, Niger, Chad, and Tajikistan) are projected to have above-replacement levels of fertility by 2100, and only 26 will still have a positive rate of natural increase (i.e., the number of births will exceed the numbers of deaths)," wrote the researchers.

The researchers drew these conclusions on the basis of up-to-date assessments of key fertility indicators from 1950 to 2021 along with the forecast fertility metrics to 2100 produced in the Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation's Global Burden of Diseases, Injuries, and Risk Factors Study 2021, executed at the University of Washington School of Medicine.

The impact of this demographic trend outlined in the study has already shaken up countries such as China and Japan. The consequences will continue to magnify across the world in the coming decades, lest there be some grand about-face.

— (@)

The fallout

According to the study, the world will become increasingly divided in terms of age demographics. The West and Asia are poised to thin out and turn increasingly gray, while parts of sub-Saharan Africa will remain relatively youthful.

The greater ratio of old people to young people in low-fertility countries is "likely to present considerable economic challenges caused by a growing dependency ratio of older to working-age population and a shrinking labor force," reported the study.

The researchers indicated that barring new funding sources or "unforeseen innovations," national health insurance and social security programs along with health-care infrastructure will be overwhelmed.

In addition to straining health and welfare systems, increasingly childless societies are likely to also suffer economically.

"If productivity per working-aged adult does not increase in accordance with declines in the working-age population, growth in gross domestic product will slow," said the study. "Reliance on immigrants will become increasingly necessary to sustain economic growth in low-fertility countries."

The study suggested that reliance on immigrants from those lower-income countries that still bother to have kids will increase as post-industrialized nations attempt to address labor shortages. However, this reliance may adversely impact the migrants' native countries, which lose out on the skilled labor and talent pursuing better pay abroad.

Despite the civilizational collapse underway, the researchers behind this Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation-funded study highlighted what climate alarmists and other de-populationists might regard as a silver lining, stating, "Although sustained below-replacement fertility will pose serious potential challenges for much of the world over the course of the century, it also presents opportunities for environmental progress."

An increasingly old and childless world "could alleviate some strain on global food systems, fragile environments, and other finite resources, and also reduce carbon emissions," wrote the researchers.

Remedies

The study suggested that pro-natal policies such as child-related cash transfers, tax incentives, childcare subsidies, extended parental leave, and other supports for family — such as those rolled out in Viktor Orbán's Hungary and now being considered in South Korea — might help arrest or slow the fertility decline. However, "There are few data to show that such polices have led to strong, sustained rebounds in fertility."

The Atlantic noted that pro-natal policies have proven successful in certain cases. For instance, the Czech Republic saw its birth rate bottom out in the 1990s following the collapse of the Soviet Union. In the mid-2000s, the government began doling out $10,000 to parents for every child, the equivalent of what many citizens were making yearly after taxes.

Tomáš Sobotka, a researcher at Austria’s Vienna Institute of Demography, told the Atlantic that the Czech Republic's pro-natal policy apparently worked as there was a corresponding increase in births over time, and more families were having second and third children.

"Even under optimistic assumptions on the impact of pro-natal policies based on current data, global [total fertility rate] will remain low — and well below replacement level — up to 2100," said the study. "Nevertheless, our pro-natal scenario forecasts also suggest that pro-natal policies might prevent some countries from dropping below very-low (<1·6 TFR) or the lowest-low (<1·3 TFR) fertility in the future."

The researchers did not mention possible cultural or spiritual remedies but did recommend against restricting access to abortion, which kills more than 70 million babies a year worldwide.

Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

Medical journal says 'bodies with vaginas' instead of 'women' in report on menstruation. Social media takes them to the woodshed.



A famed medical journal has sparked outrage with its insistence on de-sexing women and instead, referring to them as "bodies with vaginas."

Following the outcry, the journal's editor-in-chief issued what was apparently supposed to be an apology, but focused on the transgender community instead.

What are the details?

The Daily Mail on Sunday reported that the Lancet prompted fury with its "dehumanizing" and "sexist" front-page remarks, which described females as "bodies with vaginas" rather than "women" in apparent attempt to appease the transgender lobby.

An early September article, titled "Periods on Display," addressed what the outlet said were "the taboos and history of periods" at the Vagina Museum in London.

The article's writer, according to the outlet, used the word "women" to describe females, but also used the term "bodies with vaginas."

The front page of the Sept. 25 issue said, "Historically, the anatomy and physiology of bodies with vaginas has been neglected."

Our new issue is here! On the cover—'Periods on display' and the cultural movement against menstrual shame and… https://t.co/sCBmeaLKBT

— The Lancet (@TheLancet) 1632484905.0

What was the response?

Some academics, according to the Daily Mail, were unhappy with the article and cover, and said that both were part of a "misguided pursuit of woke points."

Others announced that they would be canceling their subscription to the long-standing medical journal.

The Mail cited Dr. Madeleine Ní Dhálaigh, who said, "Naming women as 'bodies with vaginas' is a new low, all in the misguided pursuit of woke points. You can be inclusive without being insulting and abusive. How dare you dehumanize us with a statement like this?"

Dr. David Curtis, honorary professor of genetics at University College London, added, "Just wrote the Lancet to tell them to take me off their list of statistical reviewers and cancel my subscription and never contact me about anything ever again. Absolutely inexcusable language to refer to women and girls."

Author Susan Dalgety tweeted about the outrage, writing, "Are we just supposed to accept this? Are we extremist for objecting to women and girls being de-humanised. Are we really just 'bodies with vaginas' to medical professionals?"

@TheLancet @WHO Are we just supposed to accept this? Are we extremist for objecting to women and girls being de-hum… https://t.co/BwAlOxsGwO

— Susan Dalgety (@DalgetySusan) 1632507936.0

British broadcaster and television host Piers Morgan snapped, "'Bodies with vaginas????' What the hell are you talking about? They're called WOMEN."

‘Bodies with vaginas’ ????What the hell are you talking about? They’re called WOMEN. https://t.co/S5eYxclrCq

— Piers Morgan (@piersmorgan) 1632514245.0

Psychology professor Geoffrey Miller also expressed his frustrations on Twitter, and wrote, "Dehumanizing women as nothing more than 'bodies with vaginas' now seems to be the official editorial policy of the world's leading medical journal, @TheLancet."

Dehumanizing women as nothing more than 'bodies with vaginas' now seems to be the official editorial policy of the… https://t.co/3VCQcil6q5

— Geoffrey Miller (@primalpoly) 1632526317.0

Author Michael Shermer chimed in, "'[B]odies with vaginas' If only we had a word for that. @TheLancet: are there also 'bodies without vaginas' & 'bodies with penises?' Call me an old school civil rights champion but doesn't this language shift dehumanize women? Even objectify them as 'bodies' instead of persons?"

Janice Turner of the U.K.'s Times wrote, "BODIESWITHVAGINAS. Does anyone not get it yet? Erasing the word 'woman' turns us into things with holes. Yeah, tell me about that inclusivity & progress."

BODIES WITH VAGINAS. Does anyone not get it yet? Erasing the word “woman” turns us into things with holes. Yeah, te… https://t.co/kgBargIOQO

— Janice Turner (@VictoriaPeckham) 1632513852.0

Journalist Hadley Freeman added, "According to @TheLancet, humans are either men or bodies with vaginas[.]"

According to @TheLancet, humans are either men or bodies with vaginas https://t.co/0cTrj3rlsg

— Hadley Freeman (@HadleyFreeman) 1632519798.0

Anything else to know?

Lancet editor-in-chief Richard Horton on Monday issued a statement in response to the furious backlash.

"I would like to thank all those who have responded to the words on this week's Lancet cover and understand the strength of feeling it has provoked," Horton wrote. "The Lancet strives for maximum inclusivity of all people in its vision for advancing health.

"In this instance," he added, "we have conveyed the impression that we have dehumanized and marginalized women. Those who read The Lancet regularly will understand that this would never have been our intention."

Horton apologized to those readers who took offense to the cover quote, but tempered the apology by placing emphasis that "transgender health is an important dimension of modern health care."

"I apologize to our readers who were offended by the cover quote and the use of those same words in the review. At the same time, I want to emphasise that transgender health is an important dimension of modern health care, but one that remains neglected," he wrote. "Trans people regularly face stigma, discrimination, exclusion, and poor health, often experiencing difficulties accessing appropriate health care."

He continued, "The exhibition review from which The Lancet cover quote was taken is a compelling call to empower women, together with non-binary, trans, and intersex people who have experienced menstruation, and to address the myths and taboos that surround menstruation. The review, like the exhibition, puts these myths and taboos into historical context. The review calls for greater efforts to overcome the lack of knowledge and stigma too often associated with menstruation. These are serious issues that demand serious actions. We encourage people to read the full review and support a growing movement against menstrual shame and period poverty."

Outgoing FDA vaccine officials co-author article explaining why vaccine boosters not currently needed



Two Food and Drug Administration officials who will be stepping down later this month co-authored a new medical article that questioned the need for COVID-19 vaccination booster shots.

What is the background?

Despite the proven efficacy of COVID vaccines, the Biden administration this summer began pushing for vaccine booster shots, claiming they are necessary to fortify COVID immunity.

But the campaign has been controversial. Two weeks ago, Dr. Marion Gruber, director of the FDA's Office of Vaccines Research and Review, and her deputy, Dr. Philip Krause, announced they would leave the agency in the coming months. According to Reuters, the FDA did not say why the pair was leaving the agency, despite Gruber, for example, having spent more than three decades with the FDA.

Politico later reported that Gruber and Krause had actually resigned in protest over the White House's micromanagement of vaccine plans:

A current health official said the pair, Marion Gruber and Philip Krause, left over differences with FDA's top vaccine official Peter Marks. Now the agency is facing a potential mutiny among its staff and outside vaccine advisers, several of whom feel cut out of key decisions and who view the plan to offer boosters to all adults as premature and unnecessary.

POLITICO spoke to 11 current and former health officials and people familiar with the matter who described growing exasperation with the administration's disjointed process for implementing its booster plan. Those sources said there is little coordination between federal health agencies, even as two top FDA officials try to guide the rollout.

What happened now?

In a newly published article in Lancet, a peer-reviewed medical journal, Gruber and Krause, along with 17 others, argued for the efficacy of the COVID-19 vaccines and cautioned against pushing booster shots.

"The vaccines that are currently available are safe, effective, and save lives," the medical experts wrote. "The limited supply of these vaccines will save the most lives if made available to people who are at appreciable risk of serious disease and have not yet received any vaccine. Even if some gain can ultimately be obtained from boosting, it will not outweigh the benefits of providing initial protection to the unvaccinated."

In fact, they explained that "currently available evidence does not show the need for widespread use of booster vaccination in populations that have received an effective primary vaccination regimen." That's because, as they earlier explained, "efficacy against severe disease remains high" in vaccinated populations, including infections caused by the delta variant.

The experts also warned about the political nature of booster advocacy.

"Careful and public scrutiny of the evolving data will be needed to assure that decisions about boosting are informed by reliable science more than by politics," they wrote.

Who should get a booster?

They recommended that boosting "could be appropriate for some individuals in whom the primary vaccination ... might not have induced adequate protection," such as immunocompromised individuals and people who received a vaccine with low efficacy.

Still, they added a major qualifier to booster appropriateness for such individuals.

"People who did not respond robustly to the primary vaccination might also not respond well to a booster," the medical experts wrote.