Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Pfizer's primary mRNA injections “temporarily” impair semen concentration

onlinelibrary.wiley.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 35 posts

Re: Pfizer's primary mRNA injections “temporarily” impair semen concentration

#21

Post by ifyoubuildit »

bediger4000 wrote: post #20
jasonhansel wrote: post #6

Why 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.

Were you aware of this effect before reading about it here? I wasn't.

Could that have maybe been a reason for posting it?

Re: Pfizer's primary mRNA injections “temporarily” impair semen concentration

#22

Post by bediger4000 »

ifyoubuildit wrote: post #21
bediger4000 wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Were you aware of this effect before reading about it here? I wasn't. Could that have maybe been a reason for posting it?

The addition of scare quotes makes me say "no, that's not a good reason". If it were just science news, it wouldn't have them.

This particular post is just to promote suspicion about science and COVID vaccine.

Re: Pfizer's primary mRNA injections “temporarily” impair semen concentration

#23

Post by ifyoubuildit »

bediger4000 wrote: post #22
ifyoubuildit wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Were you aware of this effect before reading about it here? I wasn't. Could that have maybe been a reason for posting it?

The addition of scare quotes makes me say "no, that's not a good reason". If it were just science news, it wouldn't have them. This particular post is just to promote suspicion about science and COVID vaccine.

That's an interesting hypothesis, but the linked article is not science news, it's an academic paper.

The title shown here is unfortunately editorialized, but the actual paper's title is "Covid-19 vaccination BNT162b2 temporarily impairs semen concentration and total motile count among semen donors".

I attempted to submit the link with its actual title, but unfortunately it just sent me to this thread. Aside from the title, this submission doesn't seem flagworthy to me.

Re: Pfizer's primary mRNA injections “temporarily” impair semen concentration

#24

Post by yucky »

Tepix wrote: post #8

> T3 evaluation demonstrated overall recovery. Thus, the editorialized scare quotes seem to be misplaced. The op did the same thing here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30306904

If this were as thoroughly studied as we were led to believe, then we would already have known about this effect. And yet we're just not learning about it, which leads us to wonder...what else are we yet to learn about it?

At least that's my read on the use of the "scare quotes".

Re: Pfizer's primary mRNA injections “temporarily” impair semen concentration

#25

Post by timeon »

ifyoubuildit wrote: post #18

I 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 th…

Interesting how you are trying to create issue from something you have acknowledged [1] is not issue.

[1] > it _does_ say that the effect goes away

Re: Pfizer's primary mRNA injections “temporarily” impair semen concentration

#26

Post by api »

jliptzin wrote: post #12
api wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Everything is about clicks.

Re: Pfizer's primary mRNA injections “temporarily” impair semen concentration

#27

Post by ifyoubuildit »

timeon wrote: post #25
ifyoubuildit wrote: post #18

I 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 th…

Interesting how you are trying to create issue from something you have acknowledged [1] is not issue. [1] > it _does_ say that the effect goes away

The issue is not the effect on sperm, because as both you and I have pointed out, the paper says the effect subsides.

The issue is that when being advised (or browbeaten) to get this shot, you probably weren't informed beforehand that for the next 3 months your swimmers might not be in tip top shape. This might not matter to you or me, but maybe it would to couples that are trying to concieve, for instance.

Does that make sense?

Re: Pfizer's primary mRNA injections “temporarily” impair semen concentration

#28

Post by [deleted] »

bediger4000 wrote: post #20
jasonhansel wrote: post #6

Why 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.

[deleted]

Re: Pfizer's primary mRNA injections “temporarily” impair semen concentration

#29

Post by IdEntities »

Tepix wrote: post #8

> T3 evaluation demonstrated overall recovery. Thus, the editorialized scare quotes seem to be misplaced. The op did the same thing here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30306904

If you dig into the actual data cited in the paper, the assertion that recovery was demonstrated at T3 is dodgy at best. The study authors may have put some reassuring language in their commentary to get past political roadblocks to publication. I would not have added the quotes myself, but they're not necessarily misplaced.

https://boriquagato.substack.com/p/pfizer-vaccine-effects-on...

Re: Pfizer's primary mRNA injections “temporarily” impair semen concentration

#30

Post by IdEntities »

ifyoubuildit wrote: post #27
timeon wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Interesting how you are trying to create issue from something you have acknowledged [1] is not issue. [1] > it _does_ say that the effect goes away

The issue is not the effect on sperm, because as both you and I have pointed out, the paper says the effect subsides. The issue is that when being advised (or browbeaten) to get this shot, you probably weren't informed beforehand that for the next 3 months your swimmers might not be in tip top shape. This might not matter to you or me, but maybe it would to couples that are trying to concieve, for instance. Does that…

It's not just that people weren't warned, it's that we were presented with a bunch of a priori reasoning about why mRNA shots couldn't possibly have this effect. So it raises the question, which of the other assertions (which were not backed by long term clinical data, because none existed) were also wrong?
Post reply on HN