poppabk
Cheeks Spread for Digital Only Future
You are missing the point.My point is this:
1) These certain vaccines have been around for a very VERY short time so we don't simply yet know if they could have an effect like that (besides, the conspiracy theory is that women might become infertile, not men). And note that, NO, I'm not supporting that conspiracy theory and I don't believe in that theory.
2) Ivermectin has been used for humans for several decades now. The creators of ivermectin have been given a nobel prize for their work even after that one small study was made. We haven't really heard about any scandals of ivermectin making men sterile even though it has been around for a way longer time than the vaccines have been.
To me it's stupid to be vehemently against claims of a completely new thing causing infertility, while being willing to accept claims of a decades old common drug causing infertility after reading one tweet about one old small study. To me this reeks of wishing this currently (in)famous drug having adverse issues that would be of harm to people who might be rooting for that drug. You love the potential irony of that. Not even the actual irony, but the potential irony.
There are multiple studies showing that ivermectin can effect sperm quality in humans and animals. There are zero studies that show that the vaccines negatively effect fertility but some showing it doesn't. There is a known pathway for ivermectin to effect fertility. There is no known pathway for the vaccines to effect fertility that is independent from the virus.
Knowing all this, you should be asking - why did these experts recommending ivermectin not mention this possible side effect, when they were more than happy to mention a theoretical possibility of this side effect with vaccines.
Last edited: