Published today in a JAMA Health Forum research letter, policy researchers from the University of Pittsburgh School of Public Health and Boston University show how the 2022 U.S. Supreme Court ruling affected preferences for permanent contraception among males and females between the ages of 18 to 30. It’s the first study to assess how the Dobbs ruling affected both females and male interest in permanent contraception procedures. What the researchers found was that despite all the attention on male vasectomies post-Dobbs, the rise in tubal sterilizations among females was twice as high as the increase among vasectomies in males.
https://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2021/05/fears-over-falling-human-sperm-count-may-be-overblown/
There are also papers about our fears of climate change may be overblown, but they like this one are in the minority. Here is a more recent paper. https://academic.oup.com/humupd/article/29/2/157/6824414?login=false
The article you link and others like it all say the same thing. Sure it is falling….but it is not below the threshold that matters. YET.
I like how my paper is overblown but yours isn’t because you claim it’s in the minority without any evidence.
Without any evidence. Did you read the paper or just the headlines? I am concerned with falling sperm counts as is the UN and many governments, but I guess you know best.
It’s a meta-analysis that goes up to 2013.
That is not evidence that the other papers are a minority in 2024.
So yes, without any evidence.
You brought up climate change. If you restrict scientific papers on climate change within a certain time frame and years before now, you can manipulate the results in a similar dishonest fashion.
It is due to people like you that we are not talking about real issues. Why are you so blatantly denying a real issue? Trolling?
For others reading this thread, here are 4 recent 2023/2024 papers all noting a concerning trend with male falling sperm counts. It is a very real issue that some are committed to sticking their head in the sand about.
https://www.obstetricgynecoljournal.com/articles/cjog-aid1122.php https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10619598/ https://www.mdpi.com/2075-4426/14/2/198 https://academic.oup.com/humupd/article/30/2/153/7513427 https://academic.oup.com/humupd/article/29/2/157/6824414
It’s due to people saying that an 11-year-old meta analysis does not give a modern view of things that we are not talking about real issues?