Worth your time, I think:

but i am left wondering about these claims and fear they may provide an example of the sort of “nerf or refute your own findings in the abstract so that we can publish this without massive controversy” behavior that has become all too common in medical and scientific journals who withhold peer review from those whose findings look too worrying if stated plainly. (but that will often let such data out if buried deep in supplements and appendixes)

this is why you should always read these data repositories. because they often tell quite a different tale than the abstract.

pfizer vaccine effects on total motile count in sperm donors

israeli study shows persistent effects

by el gato malo

Follow this link (and subscribe, of course): bad cattitude

one of the great early misapprehensions about mRNA vaccines is that they would not have widespread, systematic effects, instead remaining relatively localized. this was rapidly debunked and early studies showed widespread penetration of organs with a particular and perhaps unfortunate preference for concentration in ovaries and testes. (this was discovered early in japan, then denied vehemently by armies of “fact checkers” only wind up proven in pfizer’s own documents gained through FOIA and lawsuit.)

these mRNA drugs are broadly systemic and concentrate in (amongst others) reproductive organs and effects on menstrual cycles are widely documented.

in light of this quite worrying fact (especially with a compound carrying high CG enrichment relative to actual virus and the attendant risks thereof) it has been surprising to me that there have no been more studies on this topic.

but a few are starting to emerge. this israeli study was published 2 days ago:

[. . .]

---

Continue reading ====>  bad cattitude: pfizer vaccine effects on total motile count in sperm donors: israeli study shows persistent effects — by el gato malo