The scare quotes in the headline are not reflected in the article and seem not in line with community standards.
Pfizer's primary mRNA injections “temporarily” impair semen concentration
11–20 of 35 posts
Re: Pfizer's primary mRNA injections “temporarily” impair semen concentration
#12“Systemic immune response after BNT162b2 vaccine is a reasonable cause for transient semen concentration and TMC decline. Long-term prognosis remains good.”
Wouldn't this mean that other vaccines as well as colds, the flu, and COVID would all be likely to do this?
Yes but it’s not as effective of a headline if you’re trying to drum up outrage from the double digit IQ club.
Re: Pfizer's primary mRNA injections “temporarily” impair semen concentration
#13One more hypothesis (also called conspiracy theory in non academic venues) that turned out to be true.
Re: Pfizer's primary mRNA injections “temporarily” impair semen concentration
#14There was a conspiracy theory about this. It was suppressed as a nonsense and miss information. I really find it very difficult to trust official authorities any more.
Re: Pfizer's primary mRNA injections “temporarily” impair semen concentration
#15“Systemic immune response after BNT162b2 vaccine is a reasonable cause for transient semen concentration and TMC decline. Long-term prognosis remains good.”
Wouldn't this mean that other vaccines as well as colds, the flu, and COVID would all be likely to do this?
Yep.
People also forget that Guillain-Barre syndrome is more common after ordinary infections than vaccinations.
Re: Pfizer's primary mRNA injections “temporarily” impair semen concentration
#16Could somebody please help me understand table 2 on page 14? For the Sperm Concentration row, the value is -14.5% relative to reference on T1, -15.4% relative to reference on T2, and -15.9% relative to reference on T3. Where T3 represents the evaluation over 150 days after vaccination date. Is there a typo here; shouldn't T3 be closer to zero? Or was there a later assessment date that wasn't included in the table?
Re: Pfizer's primary mRNA injections “temporarily” impair semen concentration
#17“Systemic immune response after BNT162b2 vaccine is a reasonable cause for transient semen concentration and TMC decline. Long-term prognosis remains good.”
Wouldn't this mean that other vaccines as well as colds, the flu, and COVID would all be likely to do this?
In many cases much more permanently
Re: Pfizer's primary mRNA injections “temporarily” impair semen concentration
#18I expect a lot of salty comments in this thread, and a lot of downplaying (which is probably justified, it _does_ say that the effect goes away, and it may be that this happens after other vaccinations).
However, this is a thing that none of the many people who previously got this shot would have been offically warned about beforehand, right?
This is presumably one of the reasons why a lot of people were skeptical that giving something to a billion people and then waiting a few months was perfectly sufficient to make claims about long term safety.
Re: Pfizer's primary mRNA injections “temporarily” impair semen concentration
#19Why the scare quotes around "temporarily" in the HN title? The study shows that the change was transient, and its title does not include quotation marks. Putting scare quotes around the word "temporarily" is both unjustified and misleading.
[deleted]
Re: Pfizer's primary mRNA injections “temporarily” impair semen concentration
#20Why the scare quotes around "temporarily" in the HN title? The study shows that the change was transient, and its title does not include quotation marks. Putting scare quotes around the word "temporarily" is both unjustified and misleading.
Because the point of posting these articles is to keep an atmosphere of suspicion and distrust around science and COVID vaccine in particular.
Scare quoting temporarily plats into a particular irrational belief that COVID vaccination (maybe all vaccination) renders American men sterile.