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.
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