I've seen people bring up the idea of the covid vaccine reducing fertility many times, both in person and online. I've never seen any evidence. I think people on HN just get tired of seeing the same weird theory brought up with no evidence over and over again.
There's no difference in trajectory around when the covid vaccine was introduced. So I think we can safely say the declining birth rate is not due to the covid vaccine.
The problem is that there is not much to “talk” about. Do you have scientific evidence in the form of published papers in scientific journals? That is the baseline here.
If anything, the problem with vaccines and why it has become politicized is that there’s too many people “talking” about it. Talk. Talk. Talk. But zero scientific discourse.
See my comment above, but I don't have faith even in scientific journals. Science, academia, media, etc are beholden to corporate interests as is the governance structure. The world we live in is bent - legislation, funding, the 'reality' presentation is all bent to serve corporate-governmental control.
I don't have faith or trust.. Are you saying I should? I don't even trust that the provided data is real.
However, everyone else seems to have faith in what they are told. No one checks anything, but they believe the studies they are provided, the articles, etc. And, frequently, they don't believe their own experience!
Your "crime" is just bringing up vaccines in a context where it's wholly irrelevant, presumably as a low effort way of stirring up more low quality argument about vaccines and related subjects. This follow-up post of yours is supporting evidence that you brought up vaccines for no good reason.
Is it inconceivable that vaccine could cause difficulties for people in conceiving? If so, how is it irrelevant?
Re evidence, I have posted articles about data analysis etc. These are also frequently flagged.
In general though, I have little faith in the scientific establishments. It seems clear that they are politicised, and are serving agendas. In what world can an 80 year old be in charge of medical policy for decades, with ethical oversight being provided by his wife! Or re-defining what vaccines and viruses are? Or re-defining what can be put on death certificates as cause of death (ie, with, not from, covid)? Or that we can invoke emergency legislation and expedite unacceptably tested treatments which are effectively mandated by corporations? Etc. That's not the scientific method - it's a political stitch up.
So I don't think sciencific studies or those reporting on them, merit our trust - we are not get the impartial information. And hacker news is a part of the control structure, only allowing corporate messaging to be shared.
"I recognise that science, media, politics, education, etc have been perverted to serve corporate governance interests, and that the truth is secondary to those interests" would be a fairer quote.
"I recognise that science is imperfect, and that occasionally it can mislead, but that overall it is moving us forward" would perhaps surmise your position. Obviously this is to weak for me, I think the scale of corporate governance is far greater than this.
