> 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
“Systemic immune response after BNT162b2 vaccine is a reasonable cause for transient semen concentration and TMC decline. Long-term prognosis remains good.”
The scare quotes in the headline are not reflected in the article and seem not in line with community standards.
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 that giving something to a billion people and then waiting a few months was perfectly sufficient to make claims about long term safety.
Was this really essential to research now. The conspiracy nutters are going to eat this right up.
Could 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?
My initial reaction to this title was "Oh awesome, Pfizer used mRNA tech to create a male contraceptive". But this is actually about the vaccine causing this. Still, maybe we could use this to make an actual contraceptive?
Would have been helpful to compare against flu vaccine
undefined
Could this be exploited, and could we finally land on a male contraceptive?
There 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.
One more hypothesis (also called conspiracy theory in non academic venues) that turned out to be true.
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.