Does the COVID vaccine impair fertility?
I’ve seen people saying that this Czech study proves that the vaccine does impair fertility. But actually, the study does nothing of the sort. The most it does is raise a question that warrants further study.
To reiterate points I’ve made many times before, I think that if you look back at my posts on COVID and on the vaccine they generally hold up quite well. At the outset I thought the danger of the disease was overhyped, with the biggest danger to the elderly. I also thought the lockdowns were okay for a short time – “two weeks to slow the curve” – but went on way too long and were seriously damaging in a host of ways. As for the vaccine, it soon became clear that it promised much more than it delivered. I thought it had somewhat of an attenuating effect on the seriousness of cases of the initial more deadly strains, but it didn’t seem to fulfill its promise of stopping transmission. After that, it didn’t seem to do too much of anything although it might have continued to make symptoms a bit less serious, and many studies started appearing that people online were saying showed the negative side effects were worse than the benefits.
For a while I read each report carefully – not just the online descriptions of vaccine doom and gloom, but the reports themselves. I have yet to read a single one that proves what the online anti-vaxxers say it does. That doesn’t mean that one doesn’t exist that I haven’t seen. And it doesn’t mean that a new one won’t come out that has more convincing results.
I have no desire to rehash my reactions to each of these studies of the vaccine. You can take a look on the blog itself – for example, please see this previous post that summarizes some of my position, with links.
Now let’s go to the recent Czech study on the COVID vaccine and fertility. When I read it, what immediately leapt out to me was that the two groups – vaccinated and unvaccinated women between 18 and 39 – cannot be presumed to be alike, and that their differences may account for the disparity in conception rates. And sure enough, the researchers themselves say as much:
While the strength of our study is its nationwide unselected sample of fertile women, the observed association between decreased SC rates and COVID-19 vaccination is, of course, not proof of a causal relationship between vaccination and fecundability. For example, it is possible that more women who wished to become pregnant, that is, achieve SC, chose not to be vaccinated, and/or that more women who did not plan to become pregnant opted for vaccination. Indeed, such self-selection bias is compatible with the increase in SCs of the women unvaccinated before SC in the second half of 2021 …
The current study should be interpreted in view of other limitations that include, for example, unmeasured confounders such as the age distribution of the 18- to 39-year-old women, socioeconomic and lifestyle factors, comorbidities and sexual health, effects of individual COVID-19 vaccine products or vaccine boosters, concurrent COVID-19 infection, preconception fertility, contraception use, pregnancy loss, stillbirths, and paternal health and vaccination status. Unfortunately, we were not granted access to this information. Also, the estimated SC rates for vaccinated women were uncertain, mainly in the early phase of the vaccination campaign.
Hegseth has a word with the press about their coverage of the Iran attack. Plus, Trump’s NATO triumph
And what happened recently at NATO? Why, this. That link is from the leftist British rag The Guardian, by the way:
The president described the summit as “a very historic milestone” in which Nato allies committed to increase their defence spending to 5% of GDP. It was, he said, “something that no one really thought possible. And they said: ‘You did it, sir, you did it’. Well, I don’t know if I did it … but I think I did.”…
Trump described this as “the Hague defence commitment”, saying it was “a monumental win for the United States, because we were carrying more than our fair share” and “a big win for Europe and for actually western civilisation” because Europe would now be “stepping up to take more responsibility”. …
Earlier on Wednesday, Rutte offered sycophantic praise of the US president in his presence, saying that “Daddy sometimes has to use strong language” – a reference to Trump’s foul-mouthed outburst about Iran and Israel a day before. Just before heading to The Hague, Trump had accused both countries of not knowing “what the fuck they’re doing” after reports of breaches by both of a ceasefire he had imposed.
The Nato secretary general defended his tone towards Trump and denied it was demeaning, though he acknowledged it was “a bit of a question of taste”. Rutte said that Trump was “a good friend” and added: “Would you ever think that this would be the result of this summit if he would not have been re-elected president?” …
Trump said he had a lunchtime meeting with Ukraine’s president, Volodymyr Zelenskyy, “to see how he is doing” and said in response to a question from a Ukrainian journalist that he pledged to supply Kyiv with Patriot anti-missile interceptors, some of which had been sent to Israel.
I seriously wonder if Trump sleeps more than two hours a night. And when he sleeps, he probably dreams about what problems he will tackle the next day and the day after that.
NOTE: I found this refueling video:
And this is about the B-2 itself:
Now just about everyone is saying that Iran’s nuclear capabilities were dealt a very serious blow
Ace has a good roundup of the statements here, plus a cameo by Khamenei doing his best Baghdad Bob imitation, to wit:
“The Islamic Republic was victorious and, in retaliation, delivered a hand slap to America’s face,” Khamenei declared, … “Such an action can be repeated in the future too. Should any aggression occur, the enemy will definitely pay a heavy price.” …
He dismissed America’s involvement as ineffective, saying the United States “achieved no gains from this war.” According to Khamenei, the U.S. only intervened after realizing the “Zionist regime would be utterly destroyed” without assistance.
I wonder whether anyone on earth believes him.
But it’s not just the fact that the attacks by Israel and the US were successful. Just as important, I think, is that the mullahs now know what they may have thought very unlikely, which is that the US is prepared to strike hard if Iran tries to build their nuclear weaponry program up again. So there’s a real deterrent effect. Not only is the Iranian leadership in disarray, with many dead, but perhaps they’re wondering where they would get the money from to regroup and reinvest in enriching uranium.
Of course, that wouldn’t keep them from other approaches such as increased terrorism, but there may be a deterrent effect even for that endeavor. After all, October 7 may have seemed to Iran’s mullahs like a huge success at the time, but look what has happened to Hamas, Hezbollah, Syria, and Iran as a result.
These things are true for at least as long as Trump, or a MAGA-type successor, is president. The Iranian leadership had better hope that Zohran Mamdani becomes POTUS, because Biden isn’t coming back.
According to US General Dan Caine, the development of the bunker busting strategy was at least 15 years in the making. I have no problem believing that, because I wrote my first post that mentioned bunker busters back in 2004, over twenty years ago. In fact, it was only the third post I’d ever written on this blog. The subject matter was John Kerry’s performance in a presidential debate, and here’s the relevant quote:
But I must say that Kerry said a few things that literally made my jaw drop: his emphasis on “summits” and the UN (I thought I was back in the early 60s); the giving of nuclear fuel to Iran as some sort of test; and the nixing of the bunker busters, one of the few weapons that have the potential to allow us to destroy nuclear weapons and material stored in underground bunkers by the likes of Iran or North Korea.
Plus ça change, as far as the Democrats are concerned. Fortunately, when push came to shove, Democrats were not in charge.
Open thread 6/26/2025
I took some photos of wildflowers the other day. Here’s one:
The Democratic primary results: New Yorkers seem to want to slide further down the tubes
Yesterday, New York City’s Democrats held their mayoral primary. In New York, the winner of the Democratic primary ordinarily wins the election; the days of Republican mayors in New York seem to be over, as far as I can tell.
And the days of conventional Democrat mayors in New York may be over, as well. Yesterday’s winner was the youthful Muslim socialist Zohran Mamdani, and the loser was Andrew Cuomo:
Mamdani, a 33-year-old self-described Democratic socialist, ran a campaign centered on making New York City more affordable. He proposed offering free universal child care, creating city-run grocery stores, rolling out free bus service and freezing rents on rent-stabilized units.
“As FDR said, democracy has disappeared in several other great nations, not because the people dislike democracy but because they have grown tired of unemployment and insecurity, of seeing their children hungry while they sat helpless in the face of government confusion and weakness,” Mamdani told supporters Tuesday night after his call with Cuomo. “In desperation, they chose to sacrifice liberty in the hope of getting something to eat. New York, if we have made one thing clear over these past months it is that we need not choose between the two.”
Clear as mud – the answer is FREE STUFF! Soak those many billionaires, from each according his means and to each according to his needs. What could possibly go wrong? For starters, those billionaires could decide to leave the Big Apple.
The most left-leaning candidate in a crowded Democratic field, Mamdani relentlessly campaigned on raising taxes on the city’s billionaires to fund initiatives like free MTA buses.
While his rivals pledged to hire more NYPD police officers, Mamdani said he would instead expand mental health outreach teams to improve the social safety net.
Mamdani was also more critical of Israel than other candidates, prompting some to accuse him of fueling antisemitism, which the candidate denied.
Of course he did.
A little background on Mamdani [emphasis mine]:
Born in Uganda, Mamdani immigrated to the United States as a child and graduated from Bowdoin College in 2014. He worked as a housing advocate and rap music producer in New York City before entering politics. He was first elected to the New York State Assembly in 2020 after defeating a four-term incumbent and has since been re-elected without opposition. …
His campaign platform includes support for free city buses, public child care, city-owned grocery stores, a rent freeze on rent-stabilized units, and building affordable housing units. …
He graduated from the Bank Street School for Children, and then the Bronx High School of Science. Mamdani attended Bowdoin College in Maine, where he co-founded the school’s chapter of Students for Justice in Palestine. He graduated in 2014 with a bachelor’s degree in Africana studies.
Mamdani seems to be an only child of very successful parents of Indian ethnicity. His father Mahmood Mamdani is a professor at Columbia, of course:
He is the Herbert Lehman Professor of Government and a professor of anthropology, political science and African studies at Columbia University, and also serves as the chancellor of Kampala International University, in Uganda. …
Mamdani specialises in the study of African and international politics, colonialism and post-colonialism, and the politics of knowledge production.
Zohran’s mother is the Indian film director Mira Nair. Born a Hindu, she directed some well-known films (I saw two of them and I enjoyed them, and I’m not that big a filmgoer) such as Mississippi Masala, The Namesake, Monsoon Wedding, and Salaam Bombay!. I especially enjoyed Monsoon Wedding, which had a light touch.
Nair shares her son’s anti-Israel sentiments – or perhaps, in terms of the timelines, he shares hers:
In July 2013, Nair declined an invitation to the Haifa International Film Festival in Haifa, Israel as a “guest of honor” to protest Israel’s policies toward Palestine. Nair posted on Twitter, “I will go to Israel when the walls come down. I will go to Israel when occupation is gone… I will go to Israel when the state does not privilege one religion over another. I will go to Israel when Apartheid is over. I will go to Israel, soon. I stand w/ Palestine for the Academic and Cultural Boycott of Israel (PACBI) & the larger Boycott, Divestment, Sanctions (BDS) Mov’t.”
We also have this about Zohran Mamdani: he’s a Shiite Twelver.
And more about his stance on Israel:
Following the October 7 Hamas attacks, Mamdani condemned Israel’s military response and joined protests calling for a ceasefire. Rather than condemning the attacks, he criticized those attacked.
Of course he did.
He has also said he would arrest Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu if he came to New York City, despite there being no arrest warrant for Netanyahu in the US …
Mamdani drew controversy when he defended the use of the phrase “Globalize the intifada” as “a desperate desire for equality and equal rights in standing up for Palestinian human rights.”
Mamdani isn’t the mayor yet, although at this point he’s the favorite. Adams, the current mayor, is running as an Independent. Cuomo might run, although I doubt it. And there’s even a Republican, Curtis Sliwa of Guardian Angels fame, who probably has no chance.
In this map you can see how every NY neighborhood voted; Mamdani’s strongholds were in Manhattan and in particular the western part of Brooklyn. He had been endorsed by Bernie Sanders, AOC, Letitia James, Jamaal Bowman, Ras Baraka, and Robert Reich. Quite a crew.
Trying to get a rundown of which groups of voters supported Mamdani, I found this poll taken shortly before the primary. It’s quite illuminating:
Voters under 50 break for Mamdani by a 2:1 margin, while Cuomo leads among those aged 50–59 (63% to 37%) and voters over 60 (56% to 44%).
Hispanic voters support Cuomo 60% to 40%, and Black voters favor Cuomo 62% to 38%. Mamdani leads among white voters (61% to 39%) and Asian voters (79% to 21%).
Cuomo leads Mamdani among voters without a four-year college degree, 61% to 39%, while Mamdani leads Cuomo among college-educated voters, 62% to 38%.
Men support Mamdani 56% to 44%, while women lean toward Cuomo 52% to 48%.
So the socialist’s support was very strong among the young – no surprise there. Ignorance of history, including the history of giving away free stuff. His support was also very strong among white voters and in particular Asian voters (do “Asian voters” include middle easterners?), and Cuomo’s was strong among black and Hispanic voters. So the blacks and Hispanics were not fooled by Mambani’s promises, and the white people who supported him may have been virtue-signaling. And of course the college-educated – those indoctrinated in leftism – were more likely to vote for Mambani.
The most surprising statistic to me was that women supported Cuomo more than men did.
Turnout in NYC was a bit under 30% of those eligible – and “those eligible” were registered Democrats only. I guess most Democrats don’t care; they’ll simply vote for the nominee no matter what. Or perhaps many will vote for Adams; I certainly don’t know, but I tend to doubt it. The main choices, Mamdani and Cuomo, were both fairly awful – although Cuomo certainly seems better to me – which is another indication of the terrible state of the Democrat Party. That won’t stop someone like Mambani from doing a ton of damage if elected.
I see many comments around the internet saying, basically, who cares what happens to New York? I do. It’s my hometown. I still have friends and family there. But it also indicates blue city trends, and this represents a terrible one. The left is still very strong in some places, and represents a danger to the entire country.
How many people like this were let in during the Biden years?
ICE has been busy lately:
Eleven Iranian nationals have been arrested in the last 48 hours by Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents across eight different states and nine cities, according to CBS News. This development comes in the wake of a nationwide security alert issued after the U.S. carried out a strike on Iranian nuclear facilities this past weekend. …
One of the individuals arrested is Mehran Makari Saheli, who is a former member of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC). ICE arrested Saheli at his home in Minnesota where he “admitted connections to Hezbollah,” an Iranian-funded terrorist organization.
That’s one. You can find more of those arrested, along with their histories, here.
As for the question of how many more with similar life stories might be roaming around the US, we don’t know. ICE and DHS seem to know more than I’d previously thought they did, however.
That said, I have to add that I know a number of Iranian immigrants to this country and they all are very much opposed to the current Iranian regime. In fact, they had to flee the country to avoid imprisonment or worse. They came a few years prior to the Biden administration, however, and I believe the basis was political asylum – which in their cases, was a bona fide claim.
CNN argues that the strikes on Iran’s nuclear program were a nothingburger
There’s no reason to believe CNN. But even a stopped clock is correct twice a day.
My position on the subject of the amount of damage sustained by Iran to its nuclear program continues to be: no one knows or sure, but there certainly was plenty of damage. You can find what I believe may be a fairly good article on the matter here. An excerpt:
On June 21, the United States targeted the Isfahan tunnel facility with 30 Tomahawk missiles and hit the Fordow enrichment plant with 12 30,000-pound Massive Ordnance Penetrators (MOPs) — bombs designed to reach and destroy deeply buried facilities. While U.S. and Israeli battle damage estimates are ongoing, if HEU survived at either site, it may be entombed and inaccessible for months. Reportedly, Israel struck the Fordow entrances on June 22 to ensure Iran could not engage in any recovery efforts at the site.
Whether Iran moved all or some of its HEU stocks prior to the U.S. strike that targeted the Isfahan tunnels and Fordow is unclear. …
On June 13, Israel eliminated the above-ground Natanz pilot fuel enrichment plant and reportedly damaged the underground main Natanz enrichment plant, which the United States struck with two MOPs on June 21 to ensure its destruction. The Fordow enrichment site is likely too damaged to be operable after successive MOP strikes since centrifuges are delicate machinery and would be significantly damaged from bombing shock waves.
Positively, Iran likely cannot weaponize any HEU and construct nuclear devices any time soon. During its strikes, Israel damaged Tehran’s weaponization capabilities extensively, meaning Iran may not have the ability to construct nuclear devices in the immediate term, even if it sought to. Jerusalem struck numerous weaponization facilities, equipment, atomic weapons components, and documentation and assassinated at least 14 nuclear scientists.
Netanyahu also noted on June 22 that Israel has intelligence on the whereabouts of the missing HEU. Thus, Israel or the United States may conduct further strikes to eliminate the material.
And then there’s CNN:
Two of the people familiar with the assessment said Iran’s stockpile of enriched uranium was not destroyed. One of the people said the centrifuges are largely “intact.”
Another source said that the intelligence assessed enriched uranium was moved out of the sites prior to the US strikes. So the (DIA) assessment is that the US set them back maybe a few months, tops,” this person added.
From press secretary Leavitt:
This alleged assessment is flat-out wrong and was classified as ‘top secret’ but was still leaked to CNN by an anonymous, low-level loser in the intelligence community.
CNN conveniently left out that the intelligence report was considered “low confidence.” In addition, the CNN story was written by the first reporter who broke the “Hunter Biden’s laptop is Russian disinformation, says 51 intelligence officials” story.
As for Israel, it’s still evaluating the situation, but the official word from Israel is that the program was set back by years.
What’s more, with these attacks by Israel and the US a line was crossed. Iran’s leaders know that if they reconstitute the program, it will be attacked again by Israel and possibly also by the US (depending on who’s president at the time).
Open thread 6/25/2025
Will the Israel/Iran ceasefire hold? And what will be the result?
One of my specialties is asking questions to which I don’t know the answers – such as the above. But I don’t think I’m alone in not being able to predict the future.
Israel is saying it’s achieved all its objectives in Iran and will hold to a ceasefire. I doubt Trump would have announced one if Israel hadn’t substantially done what it aimed to do there, although almost certainly some unfinished business remains that could be activated in the event that the ceasefire doesn’t hold, which is always a consideration.
“Israel has removed from itself a double existential threat,” Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu told the Cabinet on Monday night, adding that the IDF had “achieved full air superiority over Tehran, dealt a severe blow to the military leadership, and destroyed dozens of key Iranian government targets.”
The statement stressed that the objectives of the operation, which began on June 13, went “even far beyond” the original goal, calling the achievements “historic” and asserting that they place the Jewish state “alongside the world’s powers.”
It also noted that in the past 24 hours, “the IDF struck hard at government targets in the heart of Tehran, eliminated hundreds of Basij operatives—the regime of terror’s repression mechanism—and eliminated another senior nuclear scientist.” …
“In light of the achievement of the operation’s objectives, and in full coordination with President Trump, Israel has agreed to the President’s proposal for a bilateral ceasefire,” the government said, adding that “Israel will respond forcefully to any violation of the ceasefire.”
Meanwhile, Iran immediately violated the agreement (as I reported last night), with a deadly attack (see this). Was that a salvo from a rogue commander? A sort of “last touch” move? If it’s just the first of many violations, Israel certainly will retaliate.
At the moment, Iran’s position is unclear. But of course Iran is claiming a “great victory.” Does anyone on earth believe that?
Trump admonished both sides, and sounded especially angry at Israel. But I think that’s part of his attempt to seem even-handed and not appear to be joined at the hip to Israel. Meanwhile:
Still, oil prices plunged and stock markets rallied worldwide in a sign of confidence arising from the ceasefire pact, which was taken to mean there would be no threat of disruption to critical oil supplies from the Gulf.
I also think that Trump, Rubio, and the rest of the US team are smart enough to realize that Iran can’t be trusted, and they have developed all sorts of contingency plans. As has Israel, of course.
Interesting times.
Another reason for Trump to get a peace prize – Rwanda and Congo?
Not that I think he’ll actually get one – but look at this:
At the invitation of Democratic Republic of Congo President Felix Tshekedi, the Trump administration was brought in to lead negotiations to end the war raging in the east of the country between DRC forces and rebels believed to be backed by Rwanda. A peace deal was initialed Wednesday evening by officials from the neighboring nations, and it’s set to be signed formally late next week in Washington by their leaders, and witnessed by Secretary of State Marco Rubio, the State Department said.
While many in the region will welcome an end to the long-running and deadly conflict, Daniel Van Dalen, a senior analyst at the Africa-focused intelligence firm Signal Risk, says the way the agreement was hashed out signals a major change in geopolitical efforts to end crises on the continent. The days of diplomatic soft power, he says, are over.
What’s “soft power”? Sounds like an oxymoron. Is it equivalent to Obama’s disastrous “leading from behind”? Whatever it is, it didn’t solve the problems there and instead featured “many previous failed attempts to secure an agreement between the two countries.”
Make of this what you will:
From his first policy speech, President Obama presented contemporary soft power as a vital element of power, referring to the power of attraction rather than influence, as defined by Harvard political scientist Joseph Nye (Nye 2004). To address the prospect of decline in a context of new international relations — to overcome a variety of challenges, including an evolving Jihadist threat, and competition from re-emerging powers like Russia and China—the Obama Administration tried to prioritise nation-branding, selling the American “brand” by developing new attraction strategies.
Blahbidy blah.
The present attempt by Trump in Congo involves the following:
If implemented, the agreement will end the fighting in eastern DRC. It could also bring billions of dollars of American investment into the region, which is rich in the minerals coltan, cobalt, lithium, copper and gold, all of which are critical in the manufacture of electric vehicles, smartphones, computers and a wide range of other high-tech goods, from satellites to military weapons systems.
According to the article, the war there has been going on for three decades – “forever war,” anyone? – and has killed six million people. It’s unclear whether this deal will actually work; the largest Rwanda-backed fighting group isn’t privy to it, for example. Once again, time will tell.
Let’s sing about the weather
And I’ll throw this one in, too. Pretty racy for 1953: