N=45 is a laughably small sample size, especially in a situation where there are literally hundreds of millions of available subjects
There doesn't seem to be a control group
Vaccinations started too recently to tell any potential long-term consequences, especially since they only ran the study from April and they're already done in mid-June
I don't think I've ever seen anyone talk about them causing infertility in men, all concerns I've ever seen were always about infertility in women; it's like that study that like totally disproved HCQ efficacy by using it on people who were already hospitalized with severe respiratory issues which noone ever claimed would have helped
Also it's MarketWatch, they're the Kotaku of stock news. So yeah, it's shit.
Beat me to it, this excerpt from the paper's own discussion section explains why the paper itself is bullshit.
While these results showed statistically significant increases in all sperm parameters, the magnitude of change is within normal individual variation and may be influenced by regression to the mean. Additionally, the increase may be due to the increased abstinence time before the second sample. Men with oligospermia did not experience further decline.
The limitations of the study include the small number of men enrolled; limited generalizability beyond young, healthy men; short follow-up; and lack of a control group. In addition, while semen analysis is the foundation of male fertility evaluation, it is an imperfect predictor of fertility potential. Despite this, the study’s time frame encompasses the full life cycle of sperm.
Why talk about the stock market when you can publish an op-ed from a washed up pop artist about how ebil and raysiss the American flag is and demand it be canged?
Here is the paper from the former head of R&D at Pfizer. The concern is that the vax prevents the formation of placentas. That leaves the eggs still in tact, which, if you finish reading Gearhart's paper, still allows for the artificial development of embryos from two ovum that she calls for.
Are you just refusing to watch the dark horse stuff? It seems like the long terms risks are with bone marrow and ovaries.
The idea that the vaccine must be X or Y because the opposite would be a gift to you and people like you has to be one of the most egotistical things I've read. The vaccine is the vaccine and it's going to do what it does regardless of any person's opinions.
It's like an anti-natalist saying "There's no way that Johnson and Johnson would put asbestos in baby powder, they make all their money from mother's and their kids!" Yet, they did just that.
Considering these vaccines haven't passed phase three trials yet, and won't for another year and a half at best, I think being skeptical is the best option
Thus far we have seen no evidence that the vax causes fertility issues (has anyone even reported this or is it purely speculative?). We have also not conclusively seen that it does not cause fertility issues.
So, to the anti-vaxers, what sort of evidence would it take to convince you that the vaxes do not cause widespread health issues or future fertility problems? One year? Two years? Five years? I wonder what the benchmark is.
As I've said on here before, I got the vax (Moderna) in March, and I have had no side effects other than a sore arm after shot #1. My children (age < 12) will not be getting vaxed any time soon.
I get it, you're an eloquent voice for your position, even if I don't agree with you.
Isn't your position basically giving up, though? Like, if all men took your position then either the species ends (maybe not a bad thing) or there are a lot of children, both boys and girls, raised only by women.
I mean it is better than calling you a sliding shill. You are the epitomy of every caricature about kia. A self loathing incel spouting street corner schizo garbage simultaneously believing that women are inept yet somehow controlling your every move. If you aren't larping, get help.
Faked? Nah I don't think so. It seems like an incredibly simplified study though. So I think it's true they just didn't do much. Had a handful of vaccinated guys wank in a cup and did some tests.
Even if it was a great study, the point is it should been done before coercing millions of childbearing age people to take a medical treatment to save their lives from something highly unlikely to kill them.
Also it's MarketWatch, they're the Kotaku of stock news. So yeah, it's shit.
Beat me to it, this excerpt from the paper's own discussion section explains why the paper itself is bullshit.
Why talk about the stock market when you can publish an op-ed from a washed up pop artist about how ebil and raysiss the American flag is and demand it be canged?
Here is the paper from the former head of R&D at Pfizer. The concern is that the vax prevents the formation of placentas. That leaves the eggs still in tact, which, if you finish reading Gearhart's paper, still allows for the artificial development of embryos from two ovum that she calls for.
Are you just refusing to watch the dark horse stuff? It seems like the long terms risks are with bone marrow and ovaries.
The idea that the vaccine must be X or Y because the opposite would be a gift to you and people like you has to be one of the most egotistical things I've read. The vaccine is the vaccine and it's going to do what it does regardless of any person's opinions.
It's like an anti-natalist saying "There's no way that Johnson and Johnson would put asbestos in baby powder, they make all their money from mother's and their kids!" Yet, they did just that.
https://duckduckgo.com/?q=baby+powder+asbestos&t=brave&ia=web
Children are a burden remember? Freedom only lies in corporate office jobs
Considering these vaccines haven't passed phase three trials yet, and won't for another year and a half at best, I think being skeptical is the best option
Thus far we have seen no evidence that the vax causes fertility issues (has anyone even reported this or is it purely speculative?). We have also not conclusively seen that it does not cause fertility issues.
So, to the anti-vaxers, what sort of evidence would it take to convince you that the vaxes do not cause widespread health issues or future fertility problems? One year? Two years? Five years? I wonder what the benchmark is.
As I've said on here before, I got the vax (Moderna) in March, and I have had no side effects other than a sore arm after shot #1. My children (age < 12) will not be getting vaxed any time soon.
At least you don't have to worry about your fertility!
I get it, you're an eloquent voice for your position, even if I don't agree with you.
Isn't your position basically giving up, though? Like, if all men took your position then either the species ends (maybe not a bad thing) or there are a lot of children, both boys and girls, raised only by women.
What's the end game look like for TheImpossible1?
Coward.
I mean it is better than calling you a sliding shill. You are the epitomy of every caricature about kia. A self loathing incel spouting street corner schizo garbage simultaneously believing that women are inept yet somehow controlling your every move. If you aren't larping, get help.
Faked? Nah I don't think so. It seems like an incredibly simplified study though. So I think it's true they just didn't do much. Had a handful of vaccinated guys wank in a cup and did some tests.
Even if it was a great study, the point is it should been done before coercing millions of childbearing age people to take a medical treatment to save their lives from something highly unlikely to kill them.
Is anything true anymore?
Wow I didn't know they made ((doubt)) buttons that big