/sci/ - Science & Math

>>14605001
You're gonna have to hire an unvaxx'd stud

millennials arent havent children

>>14605001
It's not easy to get pregnant. Some are more infertile than others. The uglier you are the more fertile because you don't get women very often and your few shots count

>>14605001
>Igor Chudov
of course it's bullshit, he's a chud

>>14605008
>>14605032
This isn't fucking funny.
>>14605011
What? Do you see the massive change? What the fuck. They suddenly chose to stop having kids??
>>14605017
What thefuck

>>14605058
>They suddenly chose to stop having kids??
Yes, many parents have already realized their desire to have children and don't need any more. Why is this so hard to believe?

>>14605068
What???? In one year like 20 fucking percent less people had kids than normal, because.... they already had kids???? You're fucking with me, right? Can you be serious. I need to calm down this is fucking ridiculous. They said they tested the vaccine properly... What the FUCK

>>14605068
>Why is this so hard to believe?
It would be the most significant decline in birth rate on record, which makes it hard to believe, yes.

>>14605072
>They said they tested the vaccine properly... What the FUCK
Yes, anon, totally the vaccine. That time traveled back to 2007.

This is your brain on /pol/

>>14605098
What? That's a different country on a different scale, with smaller declines. Are you fucking with me on purpose? If you have an argument to debunk the shit I posted in OP, PLEASSE post it. I'm losing my fucking mind here. I can't believe I took it.

>>14605112
>What? That's a different country on a different scale, with smaller declines. Are you fucking with me on purpose?
The point was to illustrate how recessions, especially recessions that fuck the bottom of society most (which would overwhelmingly be young people), causes a knockdown effect on birth rates as people fear for future prospects or instability. Lots of caveats and limitations but this particularly applies to people with college education who have higher standards for the care of their children, and are thus unwilling to risk it in recession or turmoil.

Too much to get in to have another graph illustrating the point for Germany. Birth rates have boom/bust cycles. Recessions in the worst case scenario can be like the one in the USA where it knocks a whole generation down hill (hence the point of the comparison).

>>14605112
>I can't believe I took it.
Also stop being fucking stupid. Coronavirus genuinely has a catastrophic effect on male fertility. Any bullshit you've seen purporting some "risks the vaccines carry" due to some correlation paper - go look up risks for coronavirus.

Go on. Go do it. In every case it's worse. That's what the /pol/tards never tell you.

>>14605133
ARE YOU FUCKING KIDDING ME ASSHOLE???
20%
NOT 4%
20%
>>14605138
WHY WASN'T THERE A SIMILAR DECREASE IN BIRTHS AFTER COVID??? WHY ONLY NOW 9 MONTHS AFTER THE VACCINE ROLLOUT IN WESTER NCOUNTREIS??

>>14605141
>WHY WASN'T THERE A SIMILAR DECREASE IN BIRTHS AFTER COVID???
That's your first clue that drop is obviously due to neither you retard. Fuck off and calm down or fuck off.

>>14605001
China plan of wiping out western civilization is going according to plan.

>>14605098
>totally the vaccine.
There are many vaccines, more new ones each year.

>>14605148
>That's your first clue that drop is obviously due to neither you retard.
We had a year of infections prior to the vaccines.

>>14605148
So you're admitting you have no fucking explanation for why this is only ahppening after the vaccine. We know for a god damn fact it isn't happening after covid. The months don't add up. I can't fucking believe this. Are you a shill? Are you even a human or are you a fucking robot? I fucking trusted people like YOU

>>14605161
>So you're admitting you have no fucking explanation for why this is only ahppening after the vaccine.
post hoc ergo propter hoc. That's what this logical fallacy is called.
>Are you a shill? Are you even a human or are you a fucking robot? I fucking trusted people like YOU
No, but you are clearly a disingenuous troll. This is just funny to me.

So let's recap: Plenty of studies demonstrate coronavirus has serious impact to male fertility. You disregard that fact and attribute it to vaccines instead, which rolled out over a year and a half ago in many countries and clearly has nothing to do with it.

And where this isn't happening in other nations except, "coincidentally", clearly related to economic downturns.

Sure pal. You're totally honest and genuine.

>>14605098
2007 was the year I went off the dating market.
Hoes just couldn't handle the news and now look what I've done.

>>14605174
I'm not disregarding that the virus can impact fertility. The science on that is settled, and I believe it! But it didn't have the same outcome. I'm saying we didn't see a big drop like this 9 months after the virus was spreading throughout the population!

And what do you mean CLEARLY has nothing to do with it? It's been about/almost a whole year since breeding age people started getting vaccinated.

>>14605183
>. I'm saying we didn't see a big drop like this 9 months after the virus was spreading throughout the population!
And applying the same logic to vaccination you don't see that in populations 9 months after being vaccinated either.

Congratulations, you debunked your own BS by your own standards.

>>14605184
What? Yes, we are seeing a 20% drop in fucking birth rates about 9 months after the vaccine rollout for fertile agegrups....????

>>14605058
You're gonna have to hire an unvaxx'd stud.

>>14605184
>And applying the same logic to vaccination you don't see that in populations 9 months after being vaccinated either.
Erm, that's exactly what we're seeing. The younger population getting vaccinated in the middle of 2021 wouldn't show up until 2022.

i convinced my wife we had to get it. she didn't want it. if this turns out to be true my life is over

>>14605194
>Erm, that's exactly what we're seeing. The younger population getting vaccinated in the middle of 2021 wouldn't show up until 2022.
Nope. Didn't happen in other countries and doesn't happen in correlation the vaccine.
>>14605187
>What? Yes, we are seeing a 20% drop in fucking birth rates about 9 months after the vaccine rollout for fertile agegrups....????
Yes. In Germany. According to you (wrongly but whatever) "9 months later".

Care to explain why that didn't happen in other nations, how an effect magically delays 9 months, or anything about this asinine idea of yours?

>>14605200
>Nope. Didn't happen in other countries and doesn't happen in correlation the vaccine.
What do you mean it didn't happen in other countries? We're still in 2022 and there's notable declining birth rates in several countries. Not every country is heavily vaccinated, nor did every country go all in with the mRNA vaccines.

>>14605206
>What do you mean it didn't happen in other countries?
An entire demographic does not get vaccinated in the same instant. Countries did not get vaccinated at identical times. There's no correlation to support your bullshit other than economic ones.

>>14605208
>An entire demographic does not get vaccinated in the same instant.
Age groups became eligible around the same time. The point being, we wouldn't see negative effects on birth rates until 2022, and we started seeing those negative effects by January in countries like the UK, which was one of the earliest countries to start mass vaccinating.

>>14605200
>Nope. Didn't happen in other countries and doesn't happen in correlation the vaccine.
IT'S HAPPENING IN BELGIUM, IN SOME US STATES, IN THE UK, IN TAIWAN
>According to you (wrongly but whatever) "9 months later".
>Care to explain why that didn't happen in other nations, how an effect magically delays 9 months
9 months is the period from conception to birth you fucking troll. Young people started getting vaccinated about a year ago in Germany for example. Q1 births would have been conceived about 12 months ago. The timeline lines up exactly. We're already seeing a fucking 20% drop.

I pray Q2 data does not show the same.

>>14605212
>>14605215
>Age groups became eligible around the same time. The point being, we wouldn't see negative effects on birth rates until 2022, and we started seeing those negative effects by January in countries like the UK, which was one of the earliest countries to start mass vaccinating.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Post_hoc_ergo_propter_hoc
>>Post hoc ergo propter hoc (Latin: 'after this, therefore because of this') is an informal fallacy that states: "Since event Y followed event X, event Y must have been caused by event X." It is often shortened simply to post hoc fallacy. A logical fallacy of the questionable cause variety, it is subtly different from the fallacy cum hoc ergo propter hoc ('with this, therefore because of this'), in which two events occur simultaneously or the chronological ordering is insignificant or unknown. Post hoc is a logical fallacy in which an event says to be the cause of a later event because it occurred earlier. [1]

That's all there is to say about this. Not wasting my time on you clearly lying idiots.

>>14605208
>An entire demographic does not get vaccinated in the same instant.
They do in the same month or two, coincidentally 9 to 11 months before Q1...

>>14605208
>There's no correlation to support your bullshit other than economic ones.
Oh yeah, things were absolutely stellar as unemployment rates were through the roof in 2020 during the height of the lock downs, which is why there was such a huge drop in births in 2021...wait...

>>14605218
Do you have an alternative explanation for an unprecedented 20% drop in births 9 months after rolling out a novel vaccine that was tested and developed for the market in record time?

>>14605218
Kek, you pull this shit in every thread. When someone posts something you don't like, you resort to calling people liars and say you're finished, and then you keep posting until you get the thread killed.

>>14605223
Don't worry, the disruption in women's cycles from the vaccines, and the drops in sperm counts, are entirely unrelated to the drop in birth rates.

>>14605198
Why did you have to get it? Why trust the Jew on tv who’ve been saying

“NorthKorea will nuke us any day now” every second year since 1965?

How did you not realize it’s all ‘fake and gay’ as the /pol/tards say?

>>14605226
I'm pretty sure it's an AI bot or whatever gpt-4 shit. Normal humans don't argue like that.

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/andr.13209

When I say 'TEMPORARY' you say 'AT ITS WORSE SIX MONTHS AFTERWARDS AND SHOWING NO SIGNS OF RECOVERING'

https://boriquagato.substack.com/p/pfizer-vaccine-effects-on-total-motile
https://boriquagato.substack.com/p/additional-take-on-the-israeli-sperm

Antivaxxer logic: Anytime between now and end of time counts as causation
Also antivaxxer logic: NOOO DEATH INCREASE ISN'T DUE TO COVID EVEN THOUGH IT HAPPENED IMMEDIATELY I-IT'S THE LOCKDOWNS NOOOO

Fuck sake

>>14605226
>When someone posts something you don't like, you resort to calling people liars and say you're finished
You mean get bored repeating myself when you dipshits keep repeating yourselves without acknowledging the correction? Yeah, that happens.

>>14605226
>Kek, you pull this shit in every thread
Making cogent arguments against meme-spewing /pol/-by-way-of-facebook schizo children? I don't know why he does it either.

>>14605314
Why does anyone do anything? Boredom

>>14605001
that means its working as planned, great job! you're helping save the planet from the ravages of manmade climate change!

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=UQYTb9DwKjQ

>>14605331
kino

>>14605302
>>14605304
Way to prove my point. You can't bring yourself to leave.

>Antivaxxer logic: Anytime between now and end of time counts as causation
Yes, 10 months (aka the length of a full term pregnancy) is definitely the end of time. Meanwhile you're claiming economic decline which somehow didn't have an impact on birth rates in 2020 and 2021.

Watch them blame this on covid itself

>>14605374
>Meanwhile you're claiming economic decline which somehow didn't have an impact on birth rates in 2020 and 2021.
Gotta lie to antivax
https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.2105709118

>>The pandemic has been accompanied by a significant drop in crude birth rates beyond that predicted by past trends in 7 out of the 22 countries considered, with particularly strong declines in southern Europe: Italy (−9.1%), Spain (−8.4%), and Portugal (−6.6%). Substantial heterogeneities are, however, observed.

>>Preliminary assessments of the impact of COVID-19 from a subset of HICs point to adverse effects on births. Survey data on fertility intentions, collected during the early stage of the first wave of the COVID-19 outbreak in Germany, France, Spain, and the United Kingdom, indicate that 73% of those planning to have a child in 2020 decided to delay or abandoned their plans entirely (12). Wilde et al. (13) use data on Google searches during the COVID-19 pandemic to predict changes in aggregate fertility rates in the United States. They suggest that, between November 2020 and February 2021, monthly US births might have dropped by ∼15%—a decline much larger than that of the Great Recession of 2008–2009 and comparable to that of the Spanish flu (13).

>>Today, newly released vital registration statistics allow for early empirical assessments of these claims. In the United States, a 3.8% drop in births was computed for 2020 compared to 2019, with an accelerating rate of decline at the end of 2020 (14). Across a set of 17 countries, Sobotka et al. (15) find that the rate of decline in births increased, on average, from 5.1% in November 2020 to 8.9% in January 2021, when compared with the same month of the previous year.

Wow look at that, you're a liar! Who would've guessed!

Anyone want to bet on the next pivot for the next set of lies?

>>14605374
>You can't bring yourself to leave.
Your resistance only makes my penis harder. Are you new to 4chan or something?

>>14605239
>>14605223
As for alternative explanations, why yes, like I fucking told you before.
>urvey data on fertility intentions, collected during the early stage of the first wave of the COVID-19 outbreak in Germany, France, Spain, and the United Kingdom, indicate that 73% of those planning to have a child in 2020 decided to delay or abandoned their plans entirely (12). Wilde et al.

Oh look, exactly what I said. Now let me guess, "Buht that doesn't explain the past 9 months!"

Well recall what tweedle dum said here? >>14605374
>Yes, 10 months (aka the length of a full term pregnancy) is definitely the end of time.

DURRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRR

>>14605001
imagine trusting evil Jewish global medicine mongers injecting you with experimental tech

DIEEEEEE!

>>14605417
Hmmm...

https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/pressroom/nchs_press_releases/2022/20220524.htm
https://www.destatis.de/EN/Themes/Society-Environment/Population/Births/_node.html

Look at that, the USA and Germany finished out 2021 with very high birth rates. The greatest economic downturn since the Great Depression, and the USA ends up having the first positive birth trend in decades, and Germany sets a record. France had an increase in 2021 as well, I didn't bother looking up any of the others.

Per the title of your study
>Early assessment of the relationship between the COVID-19 pandemic and births in high-income countries
That early assessment didn't exactly pan out.

>>14605424
>Survey data on fertility intentions, collected during the early stage of the first wave of the COVID-19 outbreak in Germany, France, Spain, and the United Kingdom, indicate that 73% of those planning to have a child in 2020 decided to delay or abandoned their plans entirely (12)
So...basically they only had less sex from what, January to February of 2020? Those are the only months that could have impacted 2020 with a knowledge of the pandemic. They sure got over it quick, eh?

>>14605417
>>14605424
Doesn't explain the high birth rates during covid and low birth rates after vaccination.

>>14605441
I'm psychic. Notice how in this reply the delay of births by 9 months matters >>14605374 and suddenly it doesn't. The self evident double standard is beautiful.
>Look at that, the USA and Germany finished out 2021 with very high birth rates.
Know what else happened finishing out 2021? In the USA, NASDAQ, DOW, S&P, and so on, hit their peaks or near between September and January. They've been falling since. Same pattern for indices in Germany.
More importantly: Inflation started ramping up approximately 9-12 months ago. This would, does, especially harm the lower class the most.
>That early assessment didn't exactly pan out.
Panned out exactly as stated for the same reasons on a protracted basis.

Gotta lie to antivax.
>>14605445
See above. Yes it does.
>>14605446
"so... basically" expectations and economy fluctuated all over hells half acre for a lot of nations, including the USA, with immediate layoffs followed by rapid hirings, wage increases, then inflation and mass shortages.

You dipshits think people are somehow immune to all this? Yeah okay.

In brief: Same reasons for a sudden fertility falloff near start of the pandemic with layoffs and immediate shortages is the exact same reason people are completely giving up on having children now.

Given inflation and uncertainty, no shit sherlock. How stupid are you people? "Oh well people were concerned about things like the economy in 2020 but NOW they'd be clueless so they SHOULD be having TONS of children" fuck right off.

>>14605458
So just to be clear, your explanation is that Germany and Taiwan are choosing to have 20% less kids in the same quarter as the first vaccine-era conceived kids are expected to be born, because the economy isn't great? Kek if this is the case.

>>14605459
There was no falloff in fertility of this kind of scale at the start of the pandemic. Nowhere near. Take your meds.

>>14605465
You mean I'm saying people are reacting to a sudden worsening market the same way they did in 2020? Yes, yes I am.
What's the matter? Post hoc ergo propter hoc is good when it suits you but not when it doesn't? Oh wow who would've guessed.
>>14605470
>There was no falloff in fertility of this kind of scale at the start of the pandemic. Nowhere near. Take your meds.
D'awww already reduced to "nuh uh" and insults.

Wow you guys keep losing at record pace. It's like you get worse each time instead of better.

>>14605474
You're not making any sense.

>>14605458
>I'm psychic. Notice how in this reply the delay of births by 9 months matters >>14605374 (You) and suddenly it doesn't. The self evident double standard is beautiful.
The problem with your theory is Germany showed an increase in birth rate every single month in 2021 compared to 2020. So the economic downturn, by your claim, lasted a whopping two months? This is really what you're hanging your hat on?

>Know what else happened finishing out 2021? In the USA, NASDAQ, DOW, S&P, and so on, hit their peaks or near between September and January.
Which would mean we shouldn't see any declines until at least June or July, yet Germany had a massive drop over the first quarter of 2022 (January to April).

The fuck man, you're basically proving the opposite of what you're arguing.

>>14605476
>You're not making any sense.
What doesn't make sense is randomly asserting vaccines magically start tanking fertility in 2022 with no progression whatever. Almost like it's in response to sudden economic shocks like we've had.
>Start of pandemic
>Economy takes a nosedive
>People delay having children
It is now 2022
>Economy takes huge nosedive, inflation worse than ever
>Poorest and those who typically have the most children hit worst
>Wow look even more people delay having children
"You're not making sense!"
>>14605482
>The problem with your theory is Germany showed an increase in birth rate every single month in 2021 compared to 2020. So the economic downturn, by your claim, lasted a whopping two months? This is really what you're hanging your hat on?
Economy was doing great in the USA for a brief period too for the cohorts most likely to have children. What you're deliberately avoiding is the fact inflation kicked off far earlier than stock prices began to fall, as I mentioned. But I get that you're allergic to honesty. Don't actually consider the real relevant point, or how inflation more than the stock market obviously targets the most child focused demographics.
>Which would mean we shouldn't see any declines until at least June or July, yet Germany had a massive drop over the first quarter of 2022 (January to April).
Once again deliberately ignoring the point of *FACT* that inflation began to hit hard around mid 2021 (varies by nation). For Germany it is fairly close to the USA.

In other words, people had clear indication shit was going south along with already having a prior year of hell with mass layoffs. Then to find out covid isn't going away, among everything else.

>The fuck man, you're basically proving the opposite of what you're arguing.

The fuck man, you're lying every step of the way.

In summary:

Most countries started vaccinating their younger populations in March of 2021. If it's the vaccines, it would start showing up in lower birth rates around January 2022, which it has. If it's the economy, we shouldn't have seen a drop until the middle of 2022. We should have also seen a drop in births in 2021, since the majority of 2020 was spent in a recession, and the first quarter of 2022 should be booming since the stock market was at a high near the end of 2021.

>>14605488
>Once again deliberately ignoring the point of *FACT* that inflation began to hit hard around mid 2021 (varies by nation).
Okay, that still puts you out to April. The numbers don't work, friend.

>>14605488
>In other words, people had clear indication shit was going south along with already having a prior year of hell with mass layoffs.
Yes, 2020 was such hell that birth rates were through the roof in 2021.

https://www.gavi.org/vaccineswork/effect-lockdowns-birth-rates-uk
>The onset of the pandemic was initially associated with a decline in the number of births, particularly from November 2020 to February 2021. Yet from March 2021 onward, the number of monthly births recovered and sometimes exceeded 2019 levels, particularly in the last quarter of 2021. This is despite there having been a second wave of the pandemic in the UK in late 2020 and early 2021.

>>14605489
>Most countries started vaccinating their younger populations in March of 2021
Under 50 you couldn't get vaccinated before summer. But that doesn't fit your narrative, does it?

>>14605510
>>14605512
Fucker I was literally about to post that and falsify their bullshit. I got sniped!

>>14605489
>Most countries started vaccinating their younger populations in March of 2021. If it's the vaccines, it would start showing up in lower birth rates around January 2022, which it has.
>>14605491
>Okay, that still puts you out to April. The numbers don't work, friend.
Anyway see image, you're all retards and Captain Sniper over there beat me to it >>14605510

>>14605493
>Yes, 2020 was such hell that birth rates were through the roof in 2021.
And you're just doubly retarded by ADMITTING you know they're lying. Bahahahaha

>>14605512
where?

>>14605518
At least in Germany and Taiwan. How can 0.05% in Taiwan be responsible for the drop in births? Didn't they vaccinate the old and sick first?

>>14605512
>Under 50 you couldn't get vaccinated before summer. But that doesn't fit your narrative, does it?
Do you think the USA is the only country in the world? Besides that, half of US adults had already received a dose by the middle of April. Summer starts June 21st.

https://www.ajmc.com/view/a-timeline-of-covid-19-vaccine-developments-in-2021

>>14605517
I think they are like this conservation of momentum guy with the 12,000rpm. Schizos lost in their own world, immune to facts and information. Either that or picrelated

>>14605517
>Fucker I was literally about to post that and falsify their bullshit. I got sniped!
Kek, you missed the point. Your supposed decline lasted three months despite the economic downturn lasting a year, and they don't even have a good explanation since the lockdowns and job loss should have had an impact. It's almost like it had nothing to do with the lock downs or economy.

>>14605528
>Do you think the USA is the only country in the world?
*pretends the USA is the only country in the world*
You've been talking about Taiwan and Germany. Your theory is not compatible with the data presented in >>14605524
Nowhere was I talking about the USA.

>>14605517
>And you're just doubly retarded by ADMITTING you know they're lying. Bahahahaha
Did you have a stroke, or did you ignore the links in >>14605441?

>>14605510
Not 20%

>>14605489
Truth.

>>14605534
>You've been talking about Taiwan and Germany.
Taiwan's decline is just now hitting. Germany's started at the beginning of the year. So there's about a four month gap there. But I guess the economy tanking hit Taiwan four months later than Germany, eh?

>>14605524
that date corresponds to jan 1 birth rates, not jun 27

>>14605529
Basically. You kind of stole my thunder but I'm okay with that. I was having a hard enough time finding results in English for these tards, my own language would not have helped (data not released yet), and for what I know of German it's also provisional. Swapping languages and changing google-fu on the fly is a bitch for me. I'm rusty at it.

I warn you though now they'll pivot to just flat out denial.
>>14605533
"Heh well if I ignore everything you subsequently cited you totally missed the point" - I accept your concession. So you lost again, as you're demonstrably reduced to denying direct comparison evidence such as the UK falsifying your BS. Sucks donnit?
>>14605537
Are you retarded? Other anon beat me to the punch but in effect comparison to other nations falsifies your bullshit. I don't give a shit you cherrypick a single country to make a narrative out of. UK data solidly debunks you, as do other nations >>14605524 >>14605510

Pair low quality males with low quality females and prevent them from breeding via bribing them to get sterilized. How is this hard?

Retards lined up to get injected with experimental jew juice for donuts and stickers.

>>14605537
You are aware that it takes 9 months to make a baby? Before july21, inflation wasn't high in Germany.
https://de.statista.com/statistik/daten/studie/1045/umfrage/inflationsrate-in-deutschland-veraenderung-des-verbraucherpreisindexes-zum-vorjahresmonat/

>>14605547
You are aware we have a comparison point in other nations with no correlation, right? >>14605510
Falsified. Seethe cope bla bla

>>14605540
>Germany's started at the beginning of the year.
9 months before the beginning of the year, 11% of the Germans got their first dose. Who, do you think, they vaccinated first? 90 year-olds or fertile women?

>>14605547
>>14605548
You keep forgetting to turn your name on and off, especially when you're patting yourself on the back.

>>14605510
>https://www.gavi.org/vaccineswork/effect-lockdowns-birth-rates-uk
England in November was down by at most 51000 to 47000. Nowhere near the drop seen in Q1 Germany and Taiwan.

>>14605543
I'm German, so it's easy to debunk their lies about Germany at least.
>>14605548
Basic causality: how can something in July 2021 affect something in March 2021?
>>14605551
Meds. Take them.

>>14605001
That means by the year 2022 immigrants finaly assimilated in German society

>>14605001
Germany had far fewer births during the lockdown in total, the main cause (as always btw im 90% of Western fertility declines) was financial insecurity. I strongly doubt the data in that article is from DESTASIS, I know for a fact the annual at least was half the pre-covid rates.

Anyway do if the quarterly is that low it might be the lag effect from people placed on "short term labour" or laid off during corona, since the economy picked up again we should see an increase in Q3 data. If the housing market crash happens here too we will see a massive jump in fertility for 2023.

>>14605553
>Meds. Take them.
Oh, so you're in fact trying to contradict someone who is supporting your argument? Because it sure seems like you were following up your own point.

Kek. I cannot wait for Q2 data to be released globally. If it turns out the vax cucks have been btfo it will be so funny.

>>14605553
I can read German "so-so", I believe this is the relevant data you need for one of your other points: https://wetteraustria.eu/covid-19/impfungen/

As the vaccination timeline in Germany clearly does not support their BS. If, in fact, I have read it correctly.

It is weird. I can read German better than I can write it (which is almost not at all).

>>14605548
>You are aware we have a comparison point in other nations with no correlation, right?
Yes yes, your study was very interesting, especially in light of the fact that births surged 10 months after the height of the lock downs. So yes, if by no correlation, you mean there was no correlation to the economy or lock downs and the birth rate, I agree. Or are you suggesting the lock downs ended in March 2020 and the economy recovered at the same time?

>>14605558
Look, unlike you I don't care if someone or something supports "my argument". I judge this on an individual basis. His insinuation that the two comments were posted by the same person, was idiotic.
>>14605559
In Q1 there can be no causality between vaccination and fertility. Why do you expect something for Q2?

>>14605567
>Yes yes, your study was very interesting
Very interestingly debunking the claim of a correlation to vaccines.

Still pivoting? You lost again bud. Take the L and stop trying. You'll just keep losing.

>>14605567
He's just clutching at straws. There is no amount of cope that can change the fact that lockdowns, economic uncertainty, and the period when the virus was peaking had no similar impacts on birth rates. We're talking more than 20% decrease in the exact window that the vaxbabies are expected to be born, in multiple countries with different lockdown and economic situations. This is basically unprecedented and will result in extreme amounts of entertaining cope if the second quarter is anything like it.

>>14605573
Except no decline happened in other nations corresponding to vaccination.

Yeah, I'm totally the one clutching at straws here. Totally.

>>14605565
A lot of words are very similar, especially in written form. English conserved it's old-Saxon that way. You say naim, but write name. The Germans say Name and spell it the same way.
>>14605567
Why do you think that Covid is the only thing that can affect birth rates?

>>14605568
Reality doesn't need causality. Unfalsifiable confounds don't matter outside of your head canon. The normies will correctly infer from the obvious correlation, and will never trust science again, and will be extremely butthurt that they can't have kids. I think it's good. My future generations will grow up in an unpolluted paradise.

>>14605575
A bigger issue for me is English is easy to learn because everyone will speak it. However trying to speak other languages, everyone wants to speak English. Or write it. Makes encoding it into the right memory for retrieval really fucking hard, everyone fights you. Off topic but eh

>>14605572
>Very interestingly debunking the claim of a correlation to vaccines.
AKA debunking there being any impact of the lock downs and economy on the birth rate. Why didn't you look at the dates of the data for your study? Their results didn't pan out, hence the "preliminary" part. And even the UK data supports that the lock downs didn't have an impact on the birth rates.

>>14605574
UK, Taiwan, some US states, G*rmoney, Belgium, etc etc

>>14605573
>We're talking more than 20% decrease in the exact window that the vaxbabies are expected to be born, in multiple countries with different lockdown and economic situations.
20%? is this alternative maths? Look at >>14605001 and tell me how you get 20%
Also, not a single vaxxbaby is Born in Germany in Q1/22, since virtually no fertile woman was vaccinated 9 months prior to that.

>>14605575
>Why do you think that Covid is the only thing that can affect birth rates?
I don't think COVID affects birth rates, hence the rise in births in 2021.

>>14605580
20% in Taiwan, 10% in Germany, but you knew that.

>>14605576
>Reality doesn't need causality.
The state of antivaxxers in 2022 is really ridiculous
How can a vaccination that did not happen before April 2021 affect fertility in March 2021? Can the nanochips travel back in time and make people infertile in the past?

>>14605580
23% in Taiwan. June 7th vaccines for all began. My miscarrying neighbor got it asap. Feb and March are both nearly exclusively vaxbabies in Germany.

>>14605586
In Taiwan where no one was vaccinated in April 2021 Not even old people and healthcare workers? Sure bud, it's due to the vaccine. Maybe it's due to monkeypox, have you considered this?

>>14605588
>March 2021
What are you talking about? Take your meds.

>>14605578
>AKA debunking there being any impact of the lock downs and economy on the birth rate.
That doesn't follow. One thing being constant to test is vaccination and fertility. However, it does not follow to assume ALL economies are equivalent, had equivalent impacts, or equivalent results of lockdown due to variances in severity and types. This is pure desperation.

Also, I don't care. Deal with your poor widdle ego being hurt by the fact you were wrong yet again.

>>14605588
>How can a vaccination that did not happen before April 2021 affect fertility in March 2021?
Assuming a birth exactly on January 1 2022, average impregnation date would be March 27. Stretching it out to February 1, impregnation time would be April 27. That lines up really nicely if I do say so myself.

>>14605592
Why are you talking about april? Can you count months?

>>14605588
>The state of antivaxxers in 2022 is really ridiculous
I did warn you they'd be desperate enough to just outright deny the reality you've shown them.

Check the archive for recent threads. Each time they're BTFO'd they resort to ignoring what's posted to scream their faith in defiance of reality.

You have to lie to antivax.

>>14605596
Probably no babies got born in second half of Q1, which coincides with the 9 month post vax rollout.

>>14605001
>>14605557
Picrel is the actual data, clearly birthrates are increasing again. Btw these are higher birthrates than we had post 2008.

>>14605596
Except the hypothesis is falsified. Did not happen in the UK. >>14605552
google "what is a spurious correlation".
What next? Salvage your conspiracy theory with MORE conspiracies about German-specific tainted vaccines?

>>14605593
When, do you think, the babies born in January were made?
>>14605596
That lines up really nicely if I do say so myself.
No it doesn't. Quit lying. People in childbearing age were not priority groups.

>all this bullshit about conception dates
It really does fit pretty well considering lots of jabs went in arms in june, March babies may have been btfo if it was a conception issue.

The vaccine could also just be causing women to miscarry in the early months of their pregnancy, well after conception, after the vast majority of people were vaccinated all the way into September. Q2 will tell us a lot.

>>14605603
Q1 isn't just January

>>14605598
They're actually worse than the 12,000rpm guy. He's at least honestly convinced and just schizo. These people here have an agenda

>>14605604
>Q2 will tell us a lot.
This, people need to calm the fuck down until we get Q2 or even Q4 data.

>>14605604
Oh please do tell me how you'll justify nations having opposite results in different nations from vaccination if you think Q2 agrees with you. Do explain that magic.

>>14605606
Saying for flat earthers is "gotta lie to flerf". Gotta lie to antivax. Gotta lie to be a young earth creationist. The usual.

>>14605605
The numbers dropped in January, see >>14605600. If no one was vaccinated 9 months before January, the vaccine can not be the reason. It's really not that hard to understand, is it?

>>14605607
Oh now it's "calm down and wait"? Funny y'all were real upset a minute ago and 100% confident your spurious correlation was biblical inerrant truth.

>>14605610
I remember that's when we had a hard summer lockdown and this made people delay child rearing (myself and my (unvaxxed) wife included since she is unemployed atm, we will wait until Dec).

It's sad though because historical trends show we wont make up for the shortfall, at a time when we need young people most.

>>14605611
This is my first post ITT >>14605557

>>14605610
Babies already conceived but still in early months of pregnancy were miscarried by the vax. Simple as.

>>14605645
Yet magically this did not happen in other countries.
Explanation: none
Because you people can only lie and ignore contradictory evidence.

>>14605645
No. Sauce or gtfo

>>14605649
Name and cite the countries with data that is inconsistent with the countries listed in OP links. We will then evaluate the different dates in vaccine type and rollout date.
>>14605653
It's a theory, nobody knows why births are down by 20%. We can guess it is probably the vaccine though, lol!

>>14605653
Antivaxxer sauce: I made it up

>>14605656
It's in the thread. Go fetch.

>>14605659
Huh?

>>14605656
>It's a theory,
No it's a claim. You'd see a rise in miscarriages. Especially because pregnant women were not eligible for the vaccine at first. After they became eligible, such a rise in miscarriages must have been noticeable.
>We can guess it is probably the vaccine though, lol!
We can also guess it is the illuminati or Jewish space lasers. But this is /sci/, deliver something or shut the fuck up.

>>14605660
You claim you will "evaluate" it, yet you're too inept to find the entire discussion in the thread where multiple citations and examples were given?

Yeah square that circle for me real quick. Read the fucking thread dipshit.

Anon cherry picking data from cherry picked countries and using their data then saying this must cause this is bad science. I could just as easily say it was caused by rising inflation or covid itself or whatever. From what i can find for 2022 there has been so far an increase by .09% birth rate for america. The better way to study this would to look at sperm concentration in unvaccinated vs vaccinated for male fertility then for woman look their hormonal shit from whatever swabs and shit done. The one study you are thinking of showed there was no statistical significant difference between pre vaccinated and post vaccinated sperm concentration people long term.

>>14605663
The theory is clear. If you cannot understand that miscarriages are up and that births are down, that's not my problem.
>>14605664
Nobody linked Q1 birthrate data that contradicted OP's trends from other countries with comparable vax rates and economic situations.

This is why nobody trusts science nowadays guys.

>>14605671
"Nobody"
>>14605552
>>14605517
>>14605510
"Nobody"
Once again, antivaxxers can't read.

>>14605673
That's 2021 data. The differences there too early to be caused by vaccine, and are smaller in size also, indicating that lockdown induced birthrate shifts are smaller in scope than the recent massive vaccine induced declines seen in Q1 2022.

>>14605676
2021 data into December. In the UK. At no point showing any correlation to vaccination. Want to run that by your slow brain again sparky? The part that tells you to shut up before saying something stupid?

>>14605676
>>14605667
And as yet another anon notes there've been studies on this. It's falsified comparing across nations and in direct studies.
>>14605600
Plus birth rates are increasing in Germany.

>>14605677
You're in the wrong year. At least try.

>>14605680
Vaccination began in early 2021. At no point in each relevant 9 month interval is there a consistent drop in fertility.

There is also no consistency in the fertility drop for Germany.

There is also not a consistent one for Taiwan.
Nor Israel.
Nor the United States.

Yes, anon, do please at least try.

>>14605667
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/andr.13209
>down by 15.9% six months after vaccination
I aren't think that.

>>14605681
UK rollout for all adults started in June lol. 2021 is too early retard.

Germany has a massive drop starting right around 8-12 months. Taiwan too.

US data unclear, some states have a correlation.

>>14605682
>I aren't think that.
You aren't smart.
Also, not reading your own studies again?
>evaluation demonstrated overall recovery.

>>14605686
>UK rollout for all adults started in June lol. 2021 is too early retard.
Early enough to have data showing no fertility difference attributable to the vaccine in relevant child bearing populations. Retard.
>Germany has a massive drop starting right around 8-12 months. Taiwan too.
Not attributable to vaccination.
>US data unclear, some states have a correlation.
Thanks for conceding.

>>14605691
Look at the data, their conclusion means shit.
>Early enough to have data showing no fertility difference attributable to the vaccine in relevant child bearing populations. Retard.
Nope. Q1 UK data (the apples to apples comparison you would seek if you were interested in the truth in good faith) to the contrary shows a similar decline.
>Not attributable to vaccination.
Almost certainly attributable.
>>14605691
The US data remains to be seen, some states show a very clear correlation. It really dpeends on vax rates and type of vax. As I said, it is simply a theory, but currently it is looking like the vaccines are not to be trusted, and neither are scientists.

>>14605072
Calm. The fuck. Down. Yes it is definitely abnormal, but there is literally zero fucking evidence this has anything to do with the vaccine. There are thousands of other reasons to consider

>>14605694
>Look at the data, their conclusion means shit.
I'm bored with this game. Now for the Alucard.
https://www.fertstert.org/article/S0015-0282(22)00022-X/fulltext
>The effect of coronavirus disease 2019 immunity on frozen-thawed embryo transfer cycles outcome
>To study the effect of patients’ immunization after coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) infection or messenger ribonucleic acid (mRNA) severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) vaccine on frozen-thawed embryo transfer (FET).
>During the study periods, 428 patients underwent 672 FET cycles. The immune group consisted of 141 patients who underwent 264 FET cycles (44 in postinfection and 220 in postvaccination), whereas the not-immune2021 and not-immune2019 groups consisted of 93 and 194 patients undergoing 125 and 283 FET cycles, respectively. [...] The implantation rate and clinical and ongoing pregnancy rates per transfer were similar between the study groups (immune group, postinfection and postvaccination; not-immune2021 group; not-immune2019 group).

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/35279377/
" The BNT162b2 mRNA Covid-19 vaccine does not impair sperm parameters"
>Seventy-two patients were included in the study (median interquartile range [IQR] age 35.7 [33.0-43.0] years), of whom 57 had a normal semen analysis. [...] The sperm parameters before and after the vaccination were as follows: sperm volume before 3.0 (2.0-4.0) and after 3.0 (1.6-3.9) ml, P = 0.02; sperm concentration before 26.5 (14.0-64.7) and after 31.0 (14.2-80.0) 106/ml, P = 0.35; and total motile sperm count before 33.7 (9.0-66.0) and after 29 (6.0-97.5)106, P = 0.96. Sub-group analyses were conducted for patients with male infertility and patients with a normal semen analysis. Neither of the sub-groups showed significant changes after vaccination.

No difference in women in controlled IVF fertility, and no difference in male sperm parameters. Your "correlation" is spurious.

>>14605072
In fact, there is evidence to suggest it's not the vaccine because other countries with high vaccination rates are not observing decreased birthrate.

The vaccine is bad.
Take it and you're retarded.

Simple as.

>>14605694
I especially love that you think posting a graph showing a peak of 46k births in july with a 22% single dose and 13% two dose is "proof" that supports your correlation. Higher than before with a lower vaccination count.

Dear fucking God you're retarded.

>>14605699
No there aren't. Not for a drop of this scale.
>>14605703
Yes they are.

>>14605700
Shit tier studies that have no explanation for the massive vaccine induced decline in births.
>>14605706
Most of the vaccinated ones miscarried, kek.

>>14605708
>Most of the vaccinated ones miscarried, kek.
Yeesh even for a troll that's uncreatively stupid.

>>14605710
>mfw my zygote disappears
>mfw my period is late after vaccine
damn that was weird! guess im never having kids lol!

>>14605713
Gotta lie to antivax

>>14605001
world population will decline by at least 40% by the end pf this century, most of this decline will happen in western and east asian countries

>>14605713
Of course you won’t. Who’d like to fuck a schizo?

>>14605708
> Shit tier studies that have no explanation for the massive vaccine induced decline in births.
You got it backwards. That was never the question in these studies. The study is: does the vaccine have an effect on fertility, not “why are there fewer births?”

>>14605737
So they're also irrelevant on top of their flawed methodology?

>>14605001
>We're both triple vaxxed
You and your wife are plebbitor cock gobbling retards. Glad you cant produce more children.

>>14605753
How is their methodology flawed? Why should they be irrelevant for not anticipating your question? They answer the question “does the vaccine affect fertility?” and their answer is no.
Now you have the question regarding birth rates. Your first hypothesis ist that it went down because fertility decreased. Your second hypothesis is that fertility decreased because of the vaccine. Their paper proves your second hypothesis wrong. So you have to come up with a new hypothesis. It’s that simple.

>>14605761
>How is their methodology flawed?
Read the thread.
>They answer the question “does the vaccine affect fertility?
No they don't

>>14605767
This thread consists of 90% Schizo bullshit. Which part of that do you mean?

>>14605769
Lazy moron

It's always interesting to see the bad faith disingenuous vaccine shills show up like clockwork when the vaccine's clotwork is revealed to be damaging to people's health in new and expected ways. Every time.

>>14605141
There wasn't a decrease in France. In fact France had more births in Q1 2022 than in Q1 2021. Now stop spreading your lies you mouthbreathing /pol/cel.

>>14605001
Are you fat or old? Is she? If so, there's your problem. Stop being fat or old and win.

>>14605141
>WHY ONLY NOW 9 MONTHS AFTER THE VACCINE ROLLOUT IN WESTER NCOUNTREIS??
What I don't get is that the drop is 4-6 months after the rollout for people below 50. Aren't pregnancies supposed to take 9 months? Do you think that the vaccine sterilizes people 3-5 months in the past?

Our (the unvaxxed purebloods) existence and health is a daily reminder that they didn’t have to get the jab. That’s why they hate us and want us to take it or die from COVID. We are a constant reminder of their failure to self-preserve

>>14605682
Did you read the study then look at the data and see the p values or even know what p values are. No you dont and didnt because you are a retard. Unironically your stupidity and inability to understand the statistics yet willing to throw away what the researchers says makes me think all studies should be behind a pay wall so retards like you don't come in and be retarded.

>>14605138
The issue isn't male fertility though, with the jab the female reproductive system gets all kinds of fucked up. It's a standard side effect of most jabs that women simply start missing out on periods for no other reason than the jab being literal toxin.

>>14606296
>the female reproductive system gets all kinds of fucked up
Sauce?
> It's a standard side effect of most jabs
Sauce? Also, wasn't your point for a long time that this jab is so different from all other jabs that you didn't want it?

>>14606303
Source: whatever I have read over the last months. I can't be assed to act as if a 4chan argument warrants writing a sourced essay.
>Sauce? Also, wasn't your point for a long time that this jab is so different from all other jabs that you didn't want it?
Are you retard serious? I talk about mRNA vaxxes, not any vaxxes. kys, subhuman.

>>14606317
Oh, it's a standard side effect of most mrna vaccines?

>>14606317
I read anti vaxxers love dick in their ass. They are 100 times more likely to get dick in their ass and suck dick after getting dick in their ass. I can't be assad to source this though. Just trust me bro
>>14606303
>sauce
Pic related

>>14605072
>They said they tested the vaccine properly... What the FUCK
They ran some pretty ridiculous marketing slogans, but I never heard that one. Didn't they even have to bootstrap a novel mass production method as well? Quality control seems a live experiment in batch number? A novel string of ATCG was uploaded by a communist gov't and taken as given by big pharma,

>>14606329
>I read anti vaxxers love dick in their ass. They are 100 times more likely to get dick in their ass and suck dick after getting dick in their ass. I can't be assad to source this though. Just trust me bro
And, do you feel better yet after writing that?
Unlike your "pro-mRNA vaxxers like to take a 100 dicks up their ass" study, I have actually read such studies, as well as anecdotes on females missing their periods. Do you see how pointless your shitpost is yet? Are you really under the laughable impression I am trying to convince anyone here, because it's such an important use of your time to win internet arguments? Nah, I have a "believe it or don't, I don't give a singular piece of shit" mindset.

>>14606340
>I'm a Chud MD with attitude

>>14606340
I read anecdotes on men who didn't get the vaccine getting lots of dick on their ass saying they are now faggot's and addicted to cock. I also have read the mRNA anti vaxxers dick in ass study. Have you? No you didnt. Why assume its a shitpost anon? Just because something is 100 times more likely to cause you to be addicted to dicks doesn't mean an individual in that group has to be addicted to dick.

>>14606332
>Stöcker
topkek. He did everything that antivaxxers accuse Pfizer of.

>>14606357
except he did it for free without copy right patents.

and when one reads the hippocratic oath, that makes all the difference

>To hold my teacher in this art equal to my own parents; to make him partner in my livelihood; when he is in need of money to share mine with him; to consider his family as my own brothers, and to teach them this art, if they want to learn it, without fee or indenture; to impart precept, oral instruction, and all other instruction to my own sons, the sons of my teacher, and to indentured pupils who have taken the Healer’s oath, but to nobody else.

Please vote Imhotep as the sole S+ class scientist

thank you

>>14606394
Also without trials, without proving the safety and efficacy of his vaccine. You know, safety is like 99% of the work of vaccines. He just skipped that completely.

>>14606296
nope>>14605700

>>14606405
he had 100 patents volunteer, in full knowledge of the limitations of knowledge, while being forthwright saying he is not doing it for profit, intellectual or monetary.

Because you know, they were blasting SO_2 concentrations from china, Mass graves in Iran and bodies in hospitals in Italy.

The same cannot be said about big pharma. Who decided to For-profit, patent, and use extensive government lobbying to ensure the country cannot run without getting a jab in their arm

All these 'doctors' who only learned their craft after egregious fees and massive debt indenture. They cannot speak truth to power, Stocker however, by aligning with the hippocratic oath, made the best of the situation

How the government-corporate complex came down on him only supports this arguement.

What home should debt based fiat money have in healthcare?

Vote Imhotep

>>14606416
Pfizer had 44,000 and covidiots cried that it's not enough. So 100 is suddenly enough?

>>14606423
100 samples collected without moral hazard

vs 44000 collected for a nouveau marketing campaign?

Stockers data would be available today if asked. Didn't Pfizer ask a judge to seal theirs for 50 years?

don't get me started on purged data, lack of testing of batch differences, or the 'dont come into contact with a pregnant woman' type shit they had either

All about the trust gradient in the end. You grew up in a special time where for 1000's of years doctors grinded against an untrusting populace to get acceptance for their craft

Now these big pharma players have destroyed 1000s years of reputation in a span of 2 years.

>3 trillion in something like 1 year income
he who thinks people operate without corruption at this scale already suffered brain damage.

>>14606430
You are literally the kind of idiot I was describing. Thanks. It's not always that you talk about a rare animal and then that rare animal shows up

>>14606438
good show

>>14606438
Trust is risk. Nurenburg trails form the basis of the international order,

http://www.cirp.org/library/ethics/nuremberg/

by beeseeching these laws, and the hippocratic oath, you are not only pissing on the legal tradition that managed to enshrine the Holocaust, but are also shitting on all the doctors that came before that volunteered their time for society trust, instead of treating medicine like a ticket to a 6 figure job with benefits

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c9VQye6P8k0&ab_channel=NasDamianMarleyVEVO

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qOzizUhI2go&ab_channel=KingKwe

>>14606451
>something something Nuremburg trials something something Holocaust
Ah, right. Thanks. Have a nice day.

>>14606457
Oh you the type to choose a bag over your people
Now you on some hear no evil speak now evil
Oh you a turn the other cheek type negro? cool it with the crackers you a monkey in the middle now

>>14606474

For how many more years are there going to be daily antivaxx threads?
Its just exhausting, its the same shit every day, don't you people get tired of arguing the same thing every day?

>>14606480
how long are you going to be indifferent?

>>14606483
Not him, but I haven't died in a year now. I honestly don't expect anything to happen anymore. I did not become magnetic, I can't hear 5G and I don't glow in the dark.

>>14606479

>>14606487
I hope you appreciate the underground of individuals spending their own time and money pushing back against this. Without them, you would've been on a 3 month jab schedule to get groceries

>>14606518
So? The mRNA lasted a day or two in my arm. If nothing happened until now, nothing is going to happen to me.

>>14606525
>if i didnt die yet i will live forever
kek

>>14606535
Tell me how a molecule that has decayed a year ago will kill me today

>>14606547
the whole point of a vaccine is to cause a long-term change in your body

>>14606567
So you're equally paranoid abut viruses, bacteria, infections of any kind or any change in the immune system then, right? Since all infections lead to high quantities of particles throughout the body you must live in a bubble just to avoid the "long term changes to the body", right?

>>14606525
so?
without these davids taking on Golaith your choice will be renewing your subscription every 3 months or eating food. thus rerolling

captcha:0VRNA

>>14606586
>random shit people survived already for millenia vs labmade rna cocktail tailored to bypass your immune system.
the only way you could believe its equal is willful ignorance.

And if you actually cared you would have seen the studies linking it to cardiovascular issues among other crap which is permanent damage that wont go away.

>>14606628
>the only way you could believe its equal is willful ignorance.
Will you sign a petition against the horrible chemical H20?
>And if you actually cared you would have seen the studies linking it to cardiovascular issues among other crap which is permanent damage that wont go away.
Oh you mean coronavirus?

>>14606644
Fake and gay, people are suing right now because they suffered immediate cardiovascular complications after receiving vacc.

>>14606650
>Fake and gay, people are suing right now because they suffered immediate cardiovascular complications after receiving vacc.
>>Post hoc ergo propter hoc

>>14606654
with that rationale you can throw out your own statistics dumbo

>>14606664
>with that rationale you can throw out your own statistics dumbo
If we exclusively only had raw correlation with no other information whatever, yes. That is not the case.

So do you actually want to try learning how science works, or do you already know everything?

>>14606673
i know 20year old students getting cardio issues is not normal. Will you try not coping?

>>14606679
I know coronavirus causes 20 year old students to get cardio issues.

Will you try not coping?

not him but
>>14606684
Chinese communist party (you trust) uploads
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/nuccore/MN908947

Big pharma scientists magically conjure a mass producable testkit for novel viroid

Big pharma scientists simply copy paste into their tech stack, outputs their solution

No purified isolates,
What is the sensitivity and specificity of the instruments used to inform your perspectives, the PCR cycle counts, etc.

The first stage in not coping is to become clear not on whats just true or false, but what are known-unknowns and unknown-unknowns.

If you havent had a direct hand in the measurement of your data, how do you characterize its fundemental assumptions, save just taking it on trust alone

>>14606586
I am cautious about viruses and bacteria yes, that's why I wash my hands and don't eat old food. So you agree that the covid vax actually does have effects that persist after the mRNA molecule itself has degraded?

>>14606405
did he do something stupid like tell his control group they got the placebo and offer them the actual shot during the safety trials?

After only 3 producing viable offspring should still be possible, just unlikely. Each jab makes you 10 years older max.

>>14606628
COVID-19 has been around for millennia?

>>14606753
>So you're equally paranoid abut viruses, bacteria, infections of any kind or any change in the immune system then, right?

reading comprehension

>>14606765
So the vaccine is fine because our immune system has been doing that for millennia?

>>14606778

>>14606799
Yeaaah this about matches my face reading these asinine replies.

>>14605699
this, it's climate change right???

>>14606525
It hangs around for at least six months (study stopped tracking after that) in your system, but I am glad you're doing fine. Hopefully nothing terrible happens but the situation was deeply concerning. I personally know several people who had reactions to the covid shots and all the vaccinated people I know suffered worse from covid than I did.

>>14605058
>What? Do you see the massive change? What the fuck. They suddenly chose to stop having kids??

Anon, this is widespread psychopathy. You're now seeing the gaslighting for what it is. Too bad for you, that you weren't aware of it sooner.

>>14605112
>Are you fucking with me on purpose?

Yes, it is gaslighting. They get off on it.

>>14605174
>So let's recap: Plenty of studies demonstrate coronavirus has serious impact to male fertility.

You keep stating this without ever referencing them. Classic propaganda technique of repeating a lie until it is believed.

Would you like me to devour your toxic mind? It seems like it has something of value to sift out in my belly.

>>14607191
>You keep stating this without ever referencing them. Classic propaganda technique of repeating a lie until it is believed.
As usual, gotta lie to antivax. >>14605700

>>14607196

You engaged. Can you prove you are not a bot? That would make it so much more interesting.

You are clearly lying. You use buzzword laden studies to dazzle the ignorant. Anyone with sense scoffs at your study about frozen embryo transfers as being irrelevant to COVID effecting normal fertility.

Prove you aren't a robot.

>>14607202
>You are clearly lying.
In the IVF study it plainly reads
>Although both COVID-19 infection and mRNA SARS-CoV-2 vaccine did not affect patients’ performance or ovarian reserve in their immediate subsequent IVF cycle, COVID-19 infection was demonstrated to cause a significant reduction in the proportion of top-quality embryos (TQEs) (8).
>Prove you aren't a robot.
Prove you aren't illiterate.

You lie and claim I linked no study demonstrating an issue. In the two I linked rejecting claims of vaccination causing issues, there are citations and note of coronavirus causing issues. Exactly what you asked for.

Your failure to read, and your illiteracy, is nobody's fault but your own. You could've used a single internet search to find more. You chose not to. Also your own fault.

>>14607206
>In the two I linked rejecting claims of vaccination causing issues, there are citations and note of coronavirus causing issues. Exactly what you asked for.

No anon, what you linked stated that neither COVID nor the vaccine affected patients performance. You tried to ignore that and focus on some subjective measure and exaggerate that into some demonstration of harm.

It's all attempts to confuse the simple-minded. You ignore the first sentence saying patient outcomes did not seem affected in either case, and then tried to focus on some subjective measure relevant only to IVF, which is clearly a minority of pregnancies.

Nothing you have posted demonstrates anything concrete in either case, and you try to confuse it even more by biasing it to your interpretation.

>>14607206
>(8)
>observational study of N = 9 people
if this were a pro-IVM or anti-vaccine study you would disqualify it for that alone

>>14607227
>No anon, what you linked stated that neither COVID nor the vaccine affected patients performance.
...In their immediate IVF cycle. The illiteracy continues.
>You tried to ignore that and focus on some subjective measure and exaggerate that into some demonstration of harm.
You mean an objective assessment in their ranking of embryos?
>Nothing you have posted demonstrates anything concrete in either case, and you try to confuse it even more by biasing it to your interpretation.
Gotta lie to antivax.

As I mentioned, if you wanted something further you can google it. Not wasting my time on this poor quality trolling. "Durrr imma lie about everything you say see that makes you wrong" yeah okay. Maybe on /pol/ that's how things work.

>>14607235
>if this were a pro-IVM or anti-vaccine study you would disqualify it for that alone
Type of study and design matters. Continued antivaxxer failure to understand anything about science at all is why you people create folk rituals where you create bogus criteria like that. Yes, sometimes sample size matters. For demonstrating mechanism most studies have such stringent monitoring requirements they necessarily have smaller samples.

Since you're a dipshit you may not know the difference, but "a correlational ecological survey" is different from "attempting to demonstrate causation". biomedical longitudinal surveys tend to be much smaller. Case in point, clinical trial samples. You don't get "10 million participants" in a clinical trial nor mechanism or causation assessment sample.

>>14607253
>Type of study and design matters. Continued antivaxxer failure to understand anything about science at all is why you people create folk rituals where you create bogus criteria like that. Yes, sometimes sample size matters. For demonstrating mechanism most studies have such stringent monitoring requirements they necessarily have smaller samples.
>Since you're a dipshit you may not know the difference, but "a correlational ecological survey" is different from "attempting to demonstrate causation". biomedical longitudinal surveys tend to be much smaller. Case in point, clinical trial samples. You don't get "10 million participants" in a clinical trial nor mechanism or causation assessment sample.
you realize none of that contradicts what I said, right?

>>14606332
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Novavax_COVID-19_vaccine
This vaccine is the same as the one he produced. Is this an acceptable vaccine, in your opinion?

>>14607277
>you realize none of that contradicts what I said, right?
Yes it does. Because I don't have a folk religion interpretation of science like your /pol/ cargo cult does. The explanation contradicts your assertion that I would disqualify the same study given to me on that basis alone.
>>if this were a pro-IVM or anti-vaccine study you would disqualify it for that alone
Your words. Eat them.

>>14607253
>...In their immediate IVF cycle. The illiteracy continues.

More dishonest attempts to portray a negative result as a positive one. Your cognitive dissonance is resounding.

>You mean an objective assessment in their ranking of embryos?

Like an objective ranking of television shows...

>>14607329
>More dishonest attempts to portray a negative result as a positive one. Your cognitive dissonance is resounding.
Yes, anon, pointing out your dishonest framing to manufacture truth into a lie is evidence of *my* dishonesty. Totally how that works.
>Like an objective ranking of television shows...
Yes. That's totally how that works. Totally.

Christ even the flat earthers are better at this.

>>14607335
>Yes, anon, pointing out your dishonest framing to manufacture truth into a lie is evidence of *my* dishonesty. Totally how that works.

I take your concessions fully.

I'm glad you could gracefully concede.

>>14607339
I'm happy you accept my concession of your self evident dishonesty. Weird you'd do that but okay.

>>14607326
>The explanation contradicts your assertion that I would disqualify the same study given to me on that basis alone.
It actually doesn't though. Your explanation is that not every study needs to have a sample size bigger than N = 9, especially a biomedical longitudinal study. This is not inconsistent with you still being skeptical of a longitudinal study showing vaccines
by the way, have you come across a similar study on TQE outcomes post-vaccination?

>>14607353
>This is not inconsistent with you still being skeptical of a longitudinal study showing vaccines
Did you have a stroke?
>by the way, have you come across a similar study on TQE outcomes post-vaccination?
Hey remember the study I linked here, that I referenced? >>14605700

You know, the one we're talking about, that you lied and claimed I didn't ever link? The one that literally investigates that?

>Accordingly, patients undergoing an IVF cycle after mRNA SARS-CoV-2 vaccination showed no detrimental effect on the ovarian stimulation characteristics, embryological variables, or proportion of TQEs (9).

Fuck sake, take the L. My fist is getting sore from pummeling your defenseless corpse.

>>14607362
Curious, the mean TQE both pre and post vaccination in your vaccine study is even lower than the mean TQE post-infection in the covid study.

>>14607373
e, I'll take the L on the vaccine study if you take the L on the infection study. Sample size of N = 9 combined with a range of between 8 and 92 days observed post-infection. Means of 6.1 and 3 with standard deviations of 5.2 and 3.3. These are pretty meaningless stats. The authors of this paper could have given us the before-and-afters of all nine patients individually. And maybe they did in the supplemental data somewhere -- have you seen it?

>>14605001
Translate the graph title you german fuck face.

You vaxx and anti vaxxers, get a fukin life, covid long dead. Boring wankers.

it's a FUCKING FLU YOU MONGS.

>>14605098
SOROS IS PLAYING THE LONG GAME

>>14605001
Not much of a surprise. We know the LNPs are highly inflammatory, and we know they concentrate in the testicles and ovaries. I won't be shocked at all if we see a rise in testicular and ovarian cancer rates in the next decade in people who received numerous mRNA injections.

>>14607373
>Curious, the mean TQE both pre and post vaccination in your vaccine study is even lower than the mean TQE post-infection in the covid study.
Fucking wrecked, be prepared for a temper tantrum where you're called a moron and a liar.

>>14607589
>Fucking wrecked, be prepared for a temper tantrum where you're called a moron and a liar.
Study is measuring potential reduction due to vaccination. The baseline of the participants does not matter.

I'm sorry you're both morons?

>>14607362
>59post
Holly shit, hope you are getting paid if not.... hahahahahahahaha
Pathetic

>>14607598
60!
Kekekekekekekekekekekekekekekekekekekekekek
>>14607605

>>14607598
>The baseline of the participants does not matter.

What a retarded and baseless assertion.

I'm glad you're so stupid you live as a demonstration to young anons on how shills operate.

You've already lost.

>>14607761
Losing so badly antivaxxers trolls included are reduced to posts like this. I win the satisfaction.

>>14607778
>HURRDURR SELECTION BIAS DOES NOT MATTER IN A STUDY

Trying to portray yourself as scientific when you make claims that would make a flat earther embarrassed. Your smug reaction is clearly pic related.

>>14607784
Please explain what selection bias has to do with assessing relative effects of vaccination on a sample. That one in particular.

I'm all ears.

>>14607778
>Losing so badly antivaxxers trolls included are reduced to posts like this.
...

>>14607598
>I'm sorry you're both morons?
>>14607362
>My fist is getting sore from pummeling your defenseless corpse.
>>14607347
>I'm happy you accept my concession of your self evident dishonesty.
>>14607335
>Christ even the flat earthers are better at this.
>>14607326
>Your words. Eat them.

Are you this emotional when you're not on 4chan, or are you always this high strung?

>>14607799
Awww I struck a nerve.

>>14607802
Your own nerves obviously. Same stuff, different day. Have frequent outbursts when you're losing and then act like everyone else is getting upset. You're going have a stroke some day with how worked up you get. :-)

>>14607812
Here's some extra film since you've decided to fulfill your dreams and become a projector.

Zero shit given. Fuck niggers

>>14607817
Don't worry e, you'll be okay, one of these days all your time spent here will pay off.

RIP the vaccinated's offspring.

>>14607825
My payment is enjoying the narcissistic schizophasia breakdowns you people suffer when presented with your own incompetence.

It's funny to me. The sheer desperation. The need to invent mental fantasies about people like you've just done. I like it.

>>14607844
>My payment is enjoying the narcissistic schizophasia breakdowns
>It's funny to me. The sheer desperation.
>The need to invent mental fantasies about people
>>14607778
>Losing so badly antivaxxers trolls included are reduced to posts like this.
>>14607598
>I'm sorry you're both morons?
>>14607362
>My fist is getting sore from pummeling your defenseless corpse.
>>14607347
>I'm happy you accept my concession of your self evident dishonesty.
>>14607335
>Christ even the flat earthers are better at this.
>>14607326
>Your words. Eat them.
https://www.webmd.com/mental-health/signs-nervous-breakdown

>>14607598
see >>14607395

>>14607872
All this just to avoid explaining your own claim >>14607789
¯\_(ツ)_/¯
>>14607886
There's nothing to see.

>>14607889
https://www.healthline.com/health/paranoia

>>14607898
Ah, well, if that wasn't even you that makes this even funnier. But I guess that's paranoid in your delusion of me, right?

>>14605001
This is what happens when people are forced to isolate, and then the pandemic doesn't end so people are still self-conscious about finding a mate.

>>14607889
>There's nothing to see.

>>14607889
>There's nothing to see.
Do you understand what i perceive as statistically dubious about data with attributes
>sample size of 9
>standard deviations larger than the mean
>amount of time between infection and observation varies from 8 to 92 days among those 9 people
? I'm not even asking you to call it statistically dubious, I'm just asking if you can tell what I see wrong with it.
Predicting you'll respond with an evasive passive-aggressive jibe about how I am just discounting data that disagrees with my conspiracy theories

>>14607789
Please explain why the mean TQE in the vaccine study was lower than the post-infection TQE in the infection study

>>14607946
Please explain why you think that matters.

Because this is really funny.

>>14607943
>Predicting you'll respond with an evasive passive-aggressive jibe about how I am just discounting data that disagrees with my conspiracy theories
No, just a quote from the study.
>Nine couples (seven with the female partner infection and two with the male partner) resumed IVF treatment 8-92 d after recovering from the COVID-19 infection (negative polymerase chain reaction [PCR]).
>resumed IVF treatment 8-92 d after recovering from the COVID-19 infection (negative polymerase chain reaction [PCR]).
>after recovering from the COVID-19 infection

>>14607320
>the same
No idiot, it's based on the same principle. If I build a propeller airplane in my garage and let people fly in it without making sure it's safe, I can't go ahead and say that it's the same airplane as a Cessna.

>>14608052
The principle is what makes that type of vaccine safe.

>>14608065
No. See the AstraZeneca vaccine that caused blood clots. Also, the principle doesn't prevent contamination. How can you guarantee that there are no bacteria in this guy's homemade vaccine?

>>14608050
Amusingly >>14608036 would be a completely valid reply to this. I asked you what you thought I perceived as dubious about the stats, and that quote from the study doesn't answer this question at all. anyway, the answer is that the numbers are clearly being fucked by an outlier, as one might expect from a 9-person study. The reason the TQE mismatch matters is that it is more evidence the post-infection TQE drop was a statistical fluke

>>14608207
>I asked you what you thought I perceived as dubious about the stats, and that quote from the study doesn't answer this question at all. anyway, the answer is that the numbers are clearly being fucked by an outlier, as one might expect from a 9-person study. The reason the TQE mismatch matters is that it is more evidence the post-infection TQE drop was a statistical fluke
I knew you thought this from the start. That's why this is so funny, because it's wrong. I've been waiting with baited breath for you to explicitly state it so you can't go "Nuh uh I'm not stupid I swear".

>The interval between recovering from the COVID-19 infection (negative polymerase chain reac- tion [PCR]) and the subsequent IVF cycle was 8–92 d.

This is not about recovery from covid. It was not "an extreme outlier with a 92 day infection" nor were there extreme outliers in the study. That is about when they finished the IVF cycle. The statistically significant effect from pre-infection to post-infection on TQE is 0.58 before and 0.26 after, +/- 2.

Resumption of IVF treatment occurred 8-92 days after recovery from covid and had nothing to do with the effects observed. >>14608050 as nothing to do with that time period factored into the samples collected before/after infection. You added in what wasn't there to invent a reason to feel smug.

>>14608240
Correction: +/- 0.2. I wrote ".2" and the ether ate it I guess.

>>14608240
>nor were there extreme outliers in the study.
how do you figure? that wasn't about the 92 day so much as about 6.1 mean with 5.2 standard deviation. Dare you to come up with nine nonnegative numbers with those stats and no extreme outliers

>>14608245
correction: no extreme outliers and no unnatural bimodal distribution

>>14608245
>>14608245
>how do you figure? that wasn't about the 92 day so much as about 6.1 mean with 5.2 standard deviation. Dare you to come up with nine nonnegative numbers with those stats and no extreme outliers
Relevant mean TQE was 0.58 +/- 0.2 pre-infection, 0.26 +/- 0.2. I even posted the table.

Remember, we're talking about citation 8 from an earlier cited study as an indicator of post-infection fertility. "6.1 mean" appears nowhere in citation 8, nor in the originally cited study.

If you calculated that yourself, I REPEAT: Time period for completing IVF was not a factor in the study.

>>14608207
>>>14608050 (You)
>Amusingly >>14608036 (You) would be a completely valid reply to this.
What I wrote in said cited post,
>Please explain why you think that matters.
>Because this is really funny.

Is not a valid reply to it... because the funny thing the whole time was you inventing a variable in the study that was not a factor at all. It was simply a statement of completion of IVF, which is irrelevant to the measurements taken.

Measurements were taken pre-covid and post-covid. Time to complete IVF was not relevant. Time course of the infection was not relevant.

So, yes, it was really, really funny.

>>14608256
> "6.1 mean" appears nowhere in citation 8
it's literally the line above the figures you're citing

>>14608266
>it's literally the line above the figures you're citing
I'm sorry I once again made the mistake of assuming literacy. Here's what OPU means:
>The study population consisted of all consecutive couples under- going OS for IVF, before and after recovering from COVID-19 infection, and reached the ovum pick-up (OPU) stage.

Not relevant regarding the TQE results. Again, the measurement was +/- 0.2. No extreme outliers on that variable.

>>14608264
I did fuck up on that one. Now address the point about standard deviation?

>>14605001
Big if true.
This was always my deboonk for anti-vaxtards on /pol/. Any significant demographic change would produce these kinds of numbers and cannot be hidden.

>>14608275
Poltards are still looking for an explanation why this is not a global effect but only in 3 countries or so

>>14608272
genuinely not seeing what your point is here. Why is 2PN more relevant than OPU?

>>14608274
The ovum pick up stage has to do with ovulatory cycles. It was not, would not, be relevant whatever on the variable in question. I'm not sure if I can phrase that more simply. Obviously with a p value of 0.03 and a mean SD of +/- 0.2 there were no outliers on the main variable reported. >>14608272

So ya fucked up wholesale. Not just once, but throughout.

>>14608281
>A normally fertilized egg is called a 2PN for 2 pro-nuclei.
That is the measurement of the ova. The thing in question. Where you were claiming it had some wild variation it does not due to "outliers".

Again, ovulation cycle variation clearly had fuck all to do with the point or conclusion reported from the study.

>>14608284
>Obviously with a p value of 0.03 and a mean SD of +/- 0.2 there were no outliers on the main variable reported
elaborate on what you mean by this
>>14608286
>Where you were claiming it had some wild variation it does not due to "outliers".
Was I wrong about that? is it possible to have >>14608245 these stats without outliers or a bimodal distribution?

>>14608276
Regardless of vaxtard schizos 20% drop in birthrate for any reason is catastrophic. Heads should roll lockdowntards.

>>14608276
There's an easy explanation, going over the board with restrictions is bound to have some unintended effects.

Hurray the inverted demographic pyramid got a little spire and the base got even broader. Perfect!

The only reason for many kids is to take care of you in old age, Bill Gates said it, so it must be true. Doesn't matter that this makes zero sense from the point of evolution.

>depopulationist says they'll reduce the population with vaccines
>deagel's 2015 forecast was -70% depopulation by 2025
You know what.
I WILL trust literal demons and inject myself with the mutagen.
Surely nothing wrong could happen.

>>14608298
20%? Please look at the numbers again. Also, what does it have to do with lockdowns? The USA had lockdowns and vaccines and there the birth rate actually increased.

>>14605098
>this means they are a smarter society!

>>14608284
also, how are they giving a <.001 p value to a variable with a sample size of 2? does that really indicate statistical significance?

>>14608240
ALSO, hold up
>an extreme outlier with a 92 day infection
when the fuck did I say that? and
>That is about when they finished the IVF cycle
how are you getting that from "the interval between recovering from the covid-19 infection and the subsequent IVF cycle"? what else in the paper tells you that this is saying from covid-19 infection to the end of the cycle rather than to the start of the cycle?

>>14608297
>elaborate on what you mean by this
So, in short, original study assessed vaccine effect on fertility in IVF. >>14605700 Chosen due to all the equipment being ready to hand, meaning it's one of the best kind of fertility assessments you can get. Someone then replies with an irrelevancy about TQE baselines differing, when that does not matter as pertains to relative effect from **whatever the baseline was**. >>14607373

Statistically what do I mean? Do you want a summary of intro to stats? I'm not being dismissive per se but I need to know what you mean by "what do you mean". What I meant by "That can't happen" is because if there were massive outliers the p-value given alpha would be much larger. This is just how the mathematical relationship works.

Abstractly, you'd have a t-test where you have the sample mean subtracted by the population mean, divided by the standard deviation over the square root of your observations. That gives you a t-value you use to determine significance. Reference: https://www.nlm.nih.gov/nichsr/stats_tutorial/section2/mod11_significance.html

You can see how, since you are subtracting the sample mean by the population mean, and *dividing by* the standard deviation, your t-value would shrink considerably. This necessarily means a lower confidence level that your result is unexpected from the null hypothesis or baseline (in this case, being "no change with covid"). https://www.ttable.org/uploads/2/1/7/9/21795380/published/9754276.png you can see the table here. Wild outliers means a larger standard deviation, smaller t in this sample, less significance

>Was I wrong about that? is it possible to have >>14608245 these stats without outliers or a bimodal distribution?
That particular statistic is not related to the relevant TQE one nor the discussion earlier. It could be +/- 50, 500, 5 million, it means bupkis. It is not the variable in question nor did its variation alter the end result (as there is self evidently no correlation).

>>14608319
>>an extreme outlier with a 92 day infection
>when the fuck did I say that? and
That was hyperbole of the misunderstandings expressed so far. Sure, consider me a hostile actor then, whatever, I retract the jab if it makes you happier. I'm more interested in your willingness to learn if at all. Understand?

>>14608313
2PN does not mean 2 persons. "A normally fertilized egg is called a 2PN for 2 pro-nuclei." - that is not sample size.

>>14608347
>>14608313
Also given the above explanation I ran out of characters, but less significance would translate to a higher p value. The p value is, roughly, the expectation of finding that result given null. If the p value is 1, it is entirely expected. If it is 0.03, it is very unexpected.

Just mentioning that as a lot of people get that backward and think less significance must mean smaller number. It does, but for the t-test value not the p value.

>>14608361
>>14608313
Realizing I may need to go deeper I have to post again...So that means if the results are wildly different **even if you had a sample of 2** you could have a high significance level for that population (low p value). Our sample in this case is 9 couples. p value does not represent sample size. Significance level is about mean and standard deviations of your measurements, not "number of people" directly. Likewise, in the p-value formula, sample proportion and assumed population proportion is divided by n or the sample size. https://d138zd1ktt9iqe.cloudfront.net/media/seo_landing_files/raw-image-13-1623738888.png

The formula linked above should clearly show why that is. If there is enough of a difference between p and p0 for "some given n", you will have a small p value or high statistical significance.

Now, whether or not sample size matters depends on a laundry list of things. In this case it does not, as the assessment is simply whether coronavirus has some effect on fertility. The effect it has is on the quality of the TQE (fertilized ova), AKA the number of fertilized eggs for the IVF.

That means, in practice, something about covid infection *after clearing the infection* was causing these people to produce less fertilized eggs. That was the whole point from the start. Vaccination did not do that. Sample size matters, but due to the stark difference it did not matter much.

>>14608354
>2PN does not mean 2 persons. "A normally fertilized egg is called a 2PN for 2 pro-nuclei." - that is not sample size.
I never said it did retard, there are 2 people in the infected-male sample and 7 people in the infected-female sample. The infected female p value is .03 and the infected male p value is <.001. What's up with that?

>>14608347
>That particular statistic is not related to the relevant TQE one nor the discussion earlier. It could be +/- 50, 500, 5 million, it means bupkis. It is not the variable in question nor did its variation alter the end result (as there is self evidently no correlation).
you're still not answering if I'm correct though, you're just telling me that it's irrelevant. I assume if I was incorrect you would tell me
I know some of this is gibberish, like "if there were massive outliers the p-value given alpha would be much larger." The value of alpha does not affect the p value at all, that's just the boundary between statistically significant and insignificant. If you're wrong about something this basic, you could very well be wrong about more. I don't believe a p value by itself gives you much information about outliers. There are statistical tests for detecting outliers and the results of those tests come with p values, but this is (presumably) not the same test the authors of this paper are obtaining their p value test with -- their null hypothesis is not "there is no outlier", it's "there is no effect of covid".

>>14608354
why did you cut off my sentence at
>and
before the meatier question? What language in the paper makes you think 8-92 days is about when they finished the cycle instead of how much time passed after infection and before post-infection observation? Do they say how much time passed after infection and before post-infection observation?

>>14609131
>there are 2 people in the infected-male sample and 7 people in the infected-female sample. The infected female p value is .03 and the infected male p value is <.001. What's up with that?
>>14608347
>>14608361
>>14608380
As explained in a hasty "stats 101" summary, p value can be quite low if difference between two measurements is very large. That's "what's up with that". As for how the sample only has two men for nine couples, "Of whom, nine couples (seven with the female partner infection and two with the male partner) resumed IVF treatment after recovering."
>>14609146
>you're still not answering if I'm correct though, you're just telling me that it's irrelevant. I assume if I was incorrect you would tell me
I have no idea what you're on about. Yes, the value listed is correct. The value listed is just irrelevant.
>The value of alpha does not affect the p value at all, that's just the boundary between statistically significant and insignificant. If you're wrong about something this basic, you could very well be wrong about more.
"p given some alpha" implied "p given some significance boundary". You even repeat what I clearly meant, "the boundary between significant and insignificant". Clear dishonesty on your part claiming that's "getting something basic wrong".
> I don't believe a p value by itself gives you much information about outliers.
In the three aforementioned posts I explained how in each stage of the process measurement outliers would alter standard deviation, and as a result your t-score, which in turn would decrease your significance level (increase p). Your belief is just a false one.
>There are statistical tests for detecting outliers and the results of those tests come with p values
Outlier truncation and separate signifiance tests on probability of an outlier being unrelated (or whatever else) can be done, comparing subpopulation results and so on. That can list separate p values, yes. Not relevant here.
(1/2)

>>14609157
>why did you cut off my sentence at
Because what followed was completely irrelevant. I have already explained >>14609520 that the result is not due to outlier. Repeatedly. You continue to reach for some outlier to salvage your bullshit, and you've lost privilege to my patience after that dishonest "durrr u make basic mistake" line. When you clearly don't even understand high school level maths.

>What language in the paper makes you think 8-92 days is about when they finished the cycle instead of how much time passed after infection and before post-infection observation?
Those are synonymous. It is, also, completely irrelevant. I have repeatedly quoted, and pointed out, that the measurement time period had nothing to do with the result relevant to TQE 2PN. Again, the SD is +/- 0.2 p < 0.003. Mathematically, definitionally, there are not extreme outliers from the delayed measurement biasing the result. You are selectively choosing to forget that being repeatedly pointed out to you.
Quoting the paper,
>Since the IVF treatment attempts were conducted 8–92 d post-infection, it might be assumed that the retrieved gametes during these cycles were exposed to the COVID-19 induced systemic inflammation during their development, i.e. the inflammatory environment detrimentally interferes with the intricate complex processes of folliculogenesis and spermatogenesis.

In other words, due to the kind of measurement performed and as the study thereby quoted explains, covid impacted development of the gametes. Which was the whole fucking point, again, from the start.

So are we done highlighting how you don't understand anything about anything, and that you're a narcissistic little shit for thinking I'm the one making "basic mistakes" when you need high school statistics and plain English explained to you?

why have redditors pledged their allegiance to this vaccine? pharma has rolled out shitty meds since time immemorial. why is this one supposed to be without any defects?

>>14609570
Correction, p 0.03. One too many zero.

>>14609131
>>>14608354 (You)
>>2PN does not mean 2 persons. "A normally fertilized egg is called a 2PN for 2 pro-nuclei." - that is not sample size.
>I never said it did retard, there are 2 people in the infected-male sample and 7 people in the infected-female sample.

As a matter of housekeeping: You need to start specifying which value you refer to and why. If you don't like my guessing at what your misunderstanding is, then specify so I don't have to.

I had the same problem trying to guess at why you kept bringing up a different figure than the one in question regarding the ova (that OPU figure), because it was equally as irrelevant. Be fucking specific, or don't get fucking pissy when people misunderstand what the hell you're on about.

Anyone reading the thread this far can observe 'e' is just a pseudonym for a shill operating on this board on behalf of the pharmaceutical industries.

Note how he will always shift the conversation and never answer direct questions about clear problems with the data he is citing. Rather he will write paragraphs upon paragraphs of insults at you for daring to question his 9 person study with a massive standard deviation.

This is time wasting and conversation derailing. It is gaslighting. Observe it and note that Fauci does the same. It is very common throughout all of media, because this is a strategy being employed to gain wealth and power over society.

This person is paid to confuse, anger, and deceive you. They have no concept that a paycheck is not worth their dignity, because they have never had any.

>>14610147
Yeah explaining high school stats to give a full explanation of why somebody's interpretation is wrong, over multiple posts due to text limit, is totally avoiding direct questions and just paragraphs upon paragraphs of insults.

Even for a narcissistic delusion this is out of touch. Am I supposed to be offended by this myth you've written or... ?

>>14610173

Can you read what's in the image?

Would you care to explain why mass vaccination is necessary for people under 34 who have an infection survival rate over 99.99%? Isn't the motto of medicine supposed to be 'first do no harm'?

By the way, your denials are transparent. I've dealt with your ilk enough to know it's the first response. You cannot fathom a person seeing through your deceptions, because you are trapped by your ego.

You cannot stop me from consuming your pathetic mind.

>>14610173
>I spent hours of my life defending using a study of 9 couples in IVF for making broad claims about the fertility impacts of covid and vaccines

Do you have no shame?

>>14610406
>By the way, your denials are transparent. I've dealt with your ilk enough to know it's the first response. You cannot fathom a person seeing through your deceptions, because you are trapped by your ego.
Sure pal. Maybe someone cares about this schizophasia but I don't.
>>14610411
>Do you have no shame?
Says the people continuously making pseud threads demonstrating total ignorance of every single subject they ever raise. Unfortunately for you, your collective retardation is hilarious to me.

https://streamable.com/415q07
Mmmmh, blood sausage.....YUMMY