3 ms·
In 45 vaccinated men over ~75 days, roughly 3/4ths saw a sperm increase or no change, and 1/4th (12 of them) saw a decrease. This is 1% interesting but its ver
by simonsarris 5y ago
In 45 vaccinated men over ~75 days, roughly 3/4ths saw a sperm increase or no change, and 1/4th (12 of them) saw a decrease.
This is 1% interesting but its very odd to test 45 men and not also test 45 random men in the same age bracket. What if the count difference is an approximation of seasonal differences between December and April? For example, there is a lot more opportunity physical activity for people generally in April, especially with lockdown easing. Is this just measuring that? In other words, is a 3/4th increase-or-no-change, 1/4th decrease the norm in the population over that time period regardless of vaccines? Does sperm count go up more for unvaccinated people during that period?!
It's possible that other studies could tell us this, but from the public study information and graph it seems surprisingly myopic.
FOR EXAMPLE (note this is sheep, I found the same for boars too, but if someone has a good human graph please post. Note the benefit of other mammals is that there is no selection bias in who shows up to get tested for such things.): https://www.researchgate.net/figure/Mean-monthly-sperm-concentration-x10-sperm-mL-recorded-in-Dorper-rams-using-the_fig1_272337914 https://www.researchgate.net/figure/Mean-monthly-sperm-conce...
Mean monthly sperm concentration in Dec and Jan: about 2600. In April, about 3400. That's a huge jump. What if that explains the entirety of these results? What if these vaccinated people have a lower than average variation! (And again, what if lockdown lifestyle changed things big time, and vaccinated people are doing more physical activity, etc etc.)
- jefftk 5y agoWithout a control group this is really not very useful.
- Moto7451 5y agoIs that actually true when they’re just looking for a deviance from the baseline of all male humans? There’s a wealth of active and historical fertility tests they can reach for.
- olau 5y agoI haven't personally done any experiments in biology, but I believe control group'ing and randomization is so basic that if they haven't done that, they're probably not trying to seriously study the issue. The purpose is to try to diminish a bunch of systematic errors in the setup of the experiment. Systematic errors lead to stupid wild goose chases of side effects of the experiments themselves, rather than actual interesting effects.
- Aperocky 5y agoAt least this is telling us that the difference is no greater than seasonal differences/whatever that might also be underlying.
- redisman 5y agoI had fertility issues and my urologist showed me how sperm levels generally follow a wave pattern and taking the sample at the bottom and the top can have a very significant delta
- pessimizer 5y agoLike the bad Ohio State covid-19 athlete heart study[0], my cynical view is that the reason controls weren't included is because of the suspicion that the study would not be notable/publishable if they were. [0] Cardiovascular Magnetic Resonance Findings in Competitive Athletes Recovering From COVID-19 Infection, https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamacardiology/fullarticle/2770645 https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamacardiology/fullarticle/...
- JoeAltmaier 5y agoOr, how about the subjects got better at collecting their sperm. Not a talent most of us have much experience at.