[ifyoubuildit]

I expect a lot of salty comments in this thread, and a lot of downplaying (which is probably justified, it _does_ say that the effect goes away, and it may be that this happens after other vaccinations).

However, this is a thing that none of the many people who previously got this shot would have been offically warned about beforehand, right?

This is presumably one of the reasons why a lot of people were skeptical that giving something to a billion people and then waiting a few months was perfectly sufficient to make claims about long term safety.

[timeon]

Interesting how you are trying to create issue from something you have acknowledged [1] is not issue.

[1] > it _does_ say that the effect goes away

[ifyoubuildit]

The issue is not the effect on sperm, because as both you and I have pointed out, the paper says the effect subsides.

The issue is that when being advised (or browbeaten) to get this shot, you probably weren't informed beforehand that for the next 3 months your swimmers might not be in tip top shape. This might not matter to you or me, but maybe it would to couples that are trying to concieve, for instance.

Does that make sense?

[IdEntities]

It's not just that people weren't warned, it's that we were presented with a bunch of a priori reasoning about why mRNA shots couldn't possibly have this effect. So it raises the question, which of the other assertions (which were not backed by long term clinical data, because none existed) were also wrong?