> That's about enough to conclude all this doesn't mean much. You list a common confounder, then skip over the section that says 5/6 studies that have none of

> That's about enough to conclude all this doesn't mean much. You list a common confounder, then skip over the section that says 5/6 studies that have none of these confounders find a decline. That's a fairly important followup. > However, Auger identify six (of their original seventy) studies that they say are extremely well done and suffer from none of these potential confounders. They say five of the six still show declining sperm counts, and believe that the effect might be real (they say there is no evidence it is global rather than limited to these five regions but I think if an effect happens in five regions, and there is only one region where it is not happening, it is fair to wonder whether it represents a broader trend). I interpret their conclusions as very cautiously pro-decline-hypothesis (Fisch remains against).