ER Editor: The total motile count is the number of moving sperm per ejaculation.
Readers may also be interested in this LifeSite News piece, titled Male fertility drops ‘significantly’ in months following Pfizer’s COVID jab: study.
Pfizer vaccine effects on total motile count in sperm donors
Israeli study shows persistent effects
el gato malo – bad cattitude
One of the great early misapprehensions about mRNA vaccines is that they would not have widespread, systematic effects, instead remaining relatively localized. This was rapidly debunked and early studies showed widespread penetration of organs with a particular and perhaps unfortunate preference for concentration in ovaries and testes. (This was discovered early in japan, then denied vehemently by armies of “fact checkers” only to wind up proven in pfizer’s own documents gained through FOIA and lawsuit.)
These mRNA drugs are broadly systemic and concentrate in (amongst others) reproductive organs and effects on menstrual cycles are widely documented.
In light of this quite worrying fact (especially with a compound carrying high CG enrichment relative to high virus and the attendant risks thereof), it has been surprising to me that there have not been more studies on this topic.
But a few are starting to emerge. This Israeli study was published 2 days ago:
Bnd the results are, well, nuts. (sorry)
There was strong a priori reason to suspect effects, especially in light of the higher and more persistent prevalence of vaccine induced S proteins vs natural infection and the CG enrichment issued mentioned above.
Over the first pandemic months, there was insufficient data regarding the possible impact of Covid-19 on human reproduction. Yet, it was clear it employs the Angiotensin-Converting Enzyme 2 (ACE2) receptor for cellular entry 3, 4. Various testicular cells including Leydig, Sertoli, spermatogonia and spermatozoa express ACE2 and related proteases resulting with viral fusion 5, 6. Cytokine storm-induced dysfunction, autophagy regulation and damaged blood-testis barrier were also suggested as possible pathogenic mechanism for testicular damage 7. Clinical reports of orchitis, supported by histological findings, further emphasized testicular involvement 8, 9. Therefore, detrimental impact on both spermatogenesis and testosterone production 10 seem an obvious outcome they evaluated donors from 3 sperm banks over a longitudinal period commencing before pfizer vaccine and following up after.
The study was performed and followed up according to the following timeline around vaccination.
- T0 = pre vaxx baseline
- T1 = 15-45 days post
- T2 = 75-120 days post
- T3 = 150+ days post
And from this, substantial effects on sperm concentration and overall motile count were discovered.
The authors draw a set of conclusions from this:
And from this state:
Conclusions: Systemic immune response after BNT162b2 vaccine is a reasonable cause for transient semen concentration and TMC decline. Long-term prognosis remains good
But I am left wondering about these claims and fear they may provide an example of the sort of “nerf or refute your own findings in the abstract so that we can publish this without massive controversy” behavior that has become all too common in medical and scientific journals who withhold peer review from those whose findings look too worrying if stated plainly. (But that will often let such data out if buried deep in supplements and appendixes)
This is why you should always read these data repositories. Because they often tell quite a different tale than the abstract.
Here’s table two from this same study. Notice anything?
I’m struggling to see how one could call this “recovery.”
Post day 150, sperm concentration was -15.9% vs baseline, lower even than in the 75-120 day period. average time post vaxx for T3 collection was 174 +/- 26.8 days so we’re talking about 6 months post vaxx with NO recovery in sperm concentration.
Total motile count was slightly recovered from T2, but was still down 19.4% vs baseline, seeming to make up somewhat in volume what is lost in concentration.
Both results were statistically significant at a 95% confidence interval.
There is a greater than 97% chance that the TMC figure is real and not random.
Those are not odds you want to buck.
This raises some serious concerns for a number of reasons:
- Obviously, this is a significant and unforeseen impact not only missed in the rush-job drug trials, but that the drug makers assured us was basically impossible and spent the better part of a year vehemently denying.
- This effect looks durable to at least 6 months and from this data, we really do not know when or even if (or to what extent) it will attenuate.
- The role of boosters here is not known, but there is every reason to expect they will have similar effects and either extend or possibly worsen this effect. That seems like a study that should be being performed immediately.
- Even if this condition does moderate and TMC return to prior levels over time, that timescale looks quite long. It’s certainly more than 6 months. This would seem to imply low motile counts could be near constant in a regimen of annual or bi-annual boosters.
When you rush vaccines to market, especially vaccines using an entirely new and poorly understood modality that has never before been approved or even used in humans, you’re going to get all manner of nasty surprises and this looks to be yet another.
And clearly, it was missed. This was not even mentioned as a possibility in any FDA proceedings of which I am aware.
And THAT is why vaccine development generally takes place over 5-10 years, not 5-7 months.
Best I can tell, we cannot even yet rule out that these effects are permanent.
And, of course, we have zero idea what they might do to pre-adolescents and possible impacts on their healthy sexual development and ultimate fertility.
And yet the US is bucking the trend in most of Europe and approving this drugs for not just the young and healthy but for kids from 6mo-5 yr. This feels reckless.
Ae have little idea what this may be doing to ovaries and eggs either as these are much more difficult and invasive to study (and will likely need to be assessed by autopsy). This is another analysis that desperately needs to take place because unlike sperm, eggs do not replenish, so if you damage them, that’s that.
Add to this effects on normal development and it could take decades to see what happened.
People have historically trusted vaccines because they underwent serious, long term testing before being pushed wide. Assessment was measured in decades, not months and even a tiny number of adverse events would pull them off the market.
To trade upon that trust while abandoning all the safeguards that enabled it is bad science and worse public health policy.
How many more examples of unforeseen outcomes must we endure before this simple truth is accepted?
… additional take on the israeli sperm count data
Featured image, sperm: https://bahceci.com/en/what-should-be-the-sperm-count-normal-sperm-values/
The Liberty Beacon Project is now expanding at a near exponential rate, and for this we are grateful and excited! But we must also be practical. For 7 years we have not asked for any donations, and have built this project with our own funds as we grew. We are now experiencing ever increasing growing pains due to the large number of websites and projects we represent. So we have just installed donation buttons on our websites and ask that you consider this when you visit them. Nothing is too small. We thank you for all your support and your considerations … (TLB)
Comment Policy: As a privately owned web site, we reserve the right to remove comments that contain spam, advertising, vulgarity, threats of violence, racism, or personal/abusive attacks on other users. This also applies to trolling, the use of more than one alias, or just intentional mischief. Enforcement of this policy is at the discretion of this websites administrators. Repeat offenders may be blocked or permanently banned without prior warning.
Disclaimer: TLB websites contain copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available to our readers under the provisions of “fair use” in an effort to advance a better understanding of political, health, economic and social issues. The material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving it for research and educational purposes. If you wish to use copyrighted material for purposes other than “fair use” you must request permission from the copyright owner.
Disclaimer: The information and opinions shared are for informational purposes only including, but not limited to, text, graphics, images and other material are not intended as medical advice or instruction. Nothing mentioned is intended to be a substitute for professional medical advice, diagnosis or treatment.