How long can they deny HBD?

Waiting to be a father is irresponsible, imagine my shock.

https://www.theguardian.com/science/2018/oct/31/babies-born-to-older-fathers-tend-to-have-more-medical-issues

“The records showed that children born to men aged 45 and over had a 14% greater risk of premature birth, low birth weight and being admitted to neonatal intensive care compared with babies born to younger fathers.”

Geriatric fathers, yes.
If you’re past middle-age (36-7 in men) and old enough to be a grandfather.

Infants born to men aged 45 and over also scored lower on the Apgar newborn health test, and were 18% more likely to have seizures compared with infants born to fathers aged 25 to 34 years, according to the study in the British Medical Journal.

Why not state all the findings, including compared with <25?

Boomer readership, that’s why. 60 is the new 40 though, sure.

For women, the risk of gestational diabetes was greater when they had children with older men.”

Paternal age as a medical risk factor is long known, I’ve posted on it.

Their study.

http://www.bmj.com/content/363/bmj.k4372

“This is something else to take into consideration,” he said. “There are potential risks with waiting. Men should not think that they have an unlimited runway.”

Why isn’t male fertility and issues like impotence mentioned in biology class? Men deserve to know, it’s important life planning. Modern men don’t realise their fertility is dropping steeply until they eventually go to conceive or get a random sperm count for other reasons.

I’d go so far as to call it a public health issue.

They are not fully informed, the information is withheld from them. Where’s the full consent for that wait, if they don’t understand what it might entail?

Obviously the man commenting on the study tries to downplay it but other studies I’ve posted didn’t find mild differences, in some cases extreme (such as psychiatric risk) and that’s without looking at whether the child is mixed-race, that includes the risk even further. Good luck getting that published.

“increases in health risks might have across populations as paternal age continues to rise.”

If it’s a risk across a population, it is also a risk for the individuals within it, showing up his earlier weasel words about ‘individuals’ to be a lie. You don’t have medical complications as a population, it’s personal.

“When I talk to couples about health risks, I use the lottery as an analogy,”

You use a con about people who can’t do maths to… lie to people who can’t do maths.

“Even if your risk for something goes up 10-20%, the absolute risk for an individual

doesn’t change

At all?

that much.”

Hear that gentlemen?


Who gives a shit about your individual risk going up by 20%? Not this guy! He’d rather not offend you but let you slowly become infertile because, by the time you figure it out, you’ll be powerless to do anything about it. White men need to have fewer children, as other Guardian articles have informed us.

You aren’t entitled to oppressive white male fertility.

The researchers calculating risk across the field (here a part of gerontology) know more maths than the doctors downplaying it.

“Eisenberg and his colleagues suggest changes in the DNA of older men’s sperm might explain their findings.”

Berg-berg-berg-berg et al.

“The concern is backed up by previous work, including a Harvard study last year that found births through IVF fell as the fathers’ age increased.”

Duh.

IVF isn’t magic.

“Studies have shown that advanced paternal age is associated with negative health behaviours such as smoking and frequent alcohol consumption, obesity, chronic disease, mental illness, and sub-fertility,” she writes, adding that all are linked to health problems in newborns.”

Sub-fertility, which many clueless men have and they don’t care to warn you about.

It’s almost like men evolved to have children while they were healthier.

From the BMJ article itself:

“Though the effects of advanced maternal age on perinatal outcomes have been extensively studied,

can’t blame women, credits on that excuse are maxed out

research on the impact of older fathers on the health of offspring has been limited mostly to the risk of congenital disease.345678

we’re scared of offending old guys with money

The high number of male germ cell divisions in aging fathers has been proposed to increase the risk of autism, genetic abnormalities, psychiatric morbidity, and neoplasia in offspring, but recent studies have also suggested a potential paternal effect on perinatal morbidity.691011121314

I didn’t call my article Old fathers, sick babies for nothing.
Can’t get sicker than dead or disabled.

This passes down the germline so one bad breeding decision will affect all their offspring’s fitness too (I think the children will eventually sue for epigenetic damages, on poor lifestyle choices prior to conception as well).

I’ve love to see a study comparing older fathers with younger and recording sexual history (partners and diseases) because you know that has an effect. A medical effect. They’re too chickenshit to do it (and record the same in women but paternal factors into their sperm donation are more likely modified by those behavioural factors, his baby-making factory is the testes area so its prior health and the delivery vehicle’s are especially important).

One common explanation arises from the epigenetic changes that occur within spermatocytes; specifically modifications to histone and DNA methylation in spermatozoa of older men. These alterations occur in regions of the genome that are responsible for several diseases in offspring.15 Disruption of histone methylation in developing male germ cells might be a precursor to aberrant embryonic and placental development, with studies suggesting that paternal imprinting of aging could affect both fetal growth and maternal health during pregnancy.”

Degenerate DNA gets so offended when people stop filtering about it.

No prizes why they didn’t quote this part.

I wonder if their boys (because paternal factors would be stronger to another male) are more or less effeminate than the average? Again, they don’t dare do that study.

Paternal imprinting, that’s a nice word for degeneration on a genetic level.

At least they’re acknowledging men age, I suppose.

Looking at non-Guardian approved science:

https://phys.org/news/2018-10-documents-paternal-transmission-epigenetic-memory.html

“Studies of human populations and animal models suggest that a father’s experiences such as diet or environmental stress can influence the health and development of his descendants. How these effects are transmitted across generations, however, remains mysterious.”

I’m guessing the sperm.

….

Just a random, wild guess.

“Epigenetic changes do not alter the DNA sequences of genes, but instead involve chemical modifications to either the DNA itself or the histone proteins with which DNA is packaged in the chromosomes. These modifications influence gene expression, turning genes on or off in different cells and at different stages of development. The idea that epigenetic modifications can cause changes in gene expression that are transmitted from one generation to the next, known as “transgenerational epigenetic inheritance,” is now the focus of intense scientific investigation.

For many years, it was thought that sperm do not retain any histone packaging and therefore could not transmit histone-based epigenetic information to offspring. Recent studies, however, have shown that about 10 percent of histone packaging is retained in both human and mouse sperm.”

So …more lying to men.
Get obese, it’s fine! Drink like a fish! Your kids will be fine!

Our ancestors never knew that vice… had a price.
https://biblehub.com/numbers/14-18.htm

They didn’t have iPhones, we’re so much wiser than them.

“The LORD is slow to anger, abounding in love and forgiving sin and rebellion. Yet he does not leave the guilty unpunished; he punishes the children for the sin of the parents to the third and fourth generation.‘”

What does that even mean? Nature can’t see what you’re doing.

Trust the “experts” who profiteer from fertility treatments and hate white men!

“”Furthermore, where the chromosomes retain histone packaging of DNA is in developmentally important regions, so those findings raised awareness of the possibility that sperm may transmit important epigenetic information to embryos,” Strome said.”

Wait, could rednecks be even smarter if they drank less?

Was Prohibition, pro-white?

“These findings show that the DNA packaging in sperm is important, because offspring that did not inherit normal sperm epigenetic marks were sterile, and it is sufficient for normal germline development,” Strome said.”

Money shot?

Sinner father, no grandchildren?

That is a divinely calculated revenge, all their paternal investment wasted.

Detour:

https://thebiblicalworld.blogspot.com/2011/01/childlessness-and-bible-2-defective.html

“The presumption of female defect is confirmed in a letter to the Ugarit king about a woman who failed to produce any children for her husband after an extended period of time. The letter relates how the husband used the infertility as an occasion to take a second wife. It was only when he failed to produce children with the second woman that he was then considered to be the defective one”

LOL

“While monogamy was probably the norm in antiquity,”

louder for cucks at the back

“childlessness was one of the most common reasons that a man would resort to a bigynous marriage”

But God is punishing them, going around that in favour of dysgenic reproduction is a sin.

Women could divorce infertile or impotent men under the Catholic church, it was so important.

“The goal is to analyze how the chromatin packaging changes in the parent,” she said. “Whatever gets passed on to the offspring has to go through the germ cells. We want to know which cells experience the environmental factors, how they transmit that information to the germ cells, what changes in the germ cells, and how that impacts the offspring.”

I doubt it’s for the greater good.

Could addiction be genetic?

Lawyers are celebrating just thinking of it.

By demonstrating the importance of epigenetic information carried by sperm, the current study establishes that if the environment experienced by the father changes the epigenetics of sperm chromosomes, it could affect the offspring.”

Could?

A few others, while I’m here.

Your genes affect your nose shape.
https://www.nature.com/articles/ncomms11616

Ya gotta have chutzpah to believe the science.

https://www.theguardian.com/science/2018/apr/16/scientists-discover-dozens-of-new-genes-for-hair-colour

“The colour of a person’s hair is one of the most heritable features of their appearance, with studies on twins suggesting that genetics explains up to 97% of hair colour.”

Race explains 100%. Subrace especially.

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41588-018-0100-5

They’re right that hair colour isn’t a matter of sexual preference …but race is.

““Pigments are far more than just cosmetic – they are important for the immune system and play a role in many diseases,” said Spector. “Understanding the genetics could lead to new therapies.”

They tried that with African heart medication, it was taken off the label.

They’d rather let black men keel over and die than admit they’re genetically different.

K-shift in mice:

https://www.theguardian.com/science/2017/jul/13/scientists-discover-brains-neural-switch-for-becoming-an-alpha-male

“Intriguingly, the experience of winning appeared to leave an imprint on the mice, making them more assertive, even when their brains’ were no longer being artificially controlled. They were found to be more combative in a second scenario in which they competed to occupy the warm corner in a cage with an ice-cold floor.”

So you see, they can’t let men grow up. There’d be no politically useful regression then.
Buy stock in pajamas.
They can knock out that part of the brain too. They don’t mention this. This makes me suspicious.

“The findings, they suggest, could have applications in understanding a variety of psychiatric conditions where people exhibit overly dominant behaviours, or lack motivation to compete socially.”

Psychopathy and depression (or r-selection, as a trait).
Psychopaths are immune to depression. What makes others sad, makes them mad.
The study itself has nothing to do with “alpha” as Americans consider it, an alpha is never single in biology but part of a breeding pair.

http://scienceblogs.com/clock/2009/08/23/no-more-alpha-male/

The study is really about psychopathy in the extreme form (genetic engineering, useful for the military) and social dominance in prosocial, milder forms (K) which cannot be undone (even in GE mice) as a natural maturation process. Its absence of activation (say, from the amygala circuits) could explain effete males. Again, they gloss over that.

I noticed.

Genes influence subject choice.
https://www.theguardian.com/science/2016/jun/16/a-level-subject-choice-is-strongly-influenced-by-genes-scientists-say

Not IQ?
Isn’t that a huge confound that should be studied?
And why force children to study languages then? Isn’t that oppression when they could study something else?

“Birney warns that the findings do not imply that it is possible to predict a student’s subject choice, or achievement, from their genome.”

trans. Don’t look in the race box, please, don’t look in the race box. I don’t want to get the sack.

“As schooling and other factors vary greatly from person to person it is unlikely that genetics is the dominant factor in A-level choice.”

The likelihood was calculated.

“The scientists found that this was indeed the case, with 50-80% of subject choice down to genetic influences.”

https://www.theguardian.com/science/2015/jul/23/genes-influence-academic-ability-across-all-subjects-latest-study-shows

Academic ability …. not IQ?

How is GPA not a reliable proxy for IQ, on that point?

GPA is basically just the PC term for IQ. Mathematically.

Low funding or low IQ workers?

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/health/nhs-baby-death-investigation-widens-maternity-unit-shrewsbury-telford-hospital-trust-a8516326.html

I’d bet both.

Diversity hire, always backfire.

They have many cover-ups involving forged qualifications, abuse cases and simple laziness, so they turn up and don’t do their job and expect to get paid or cry Racism! But all the money’s going to useless admin who hired them (cheaper than training) or retired NHS pensions (including more self-congratulating admin). The system is already overburdened, it was designed for something like a tenth of this population. It cannot survive.

People frequently die in A&E from preventable causes. That’s assuming you don’t get ill from the hospital itself.

A random club slut with an STD gets seen quickly, the kid with cancer is told “we can’t afford your treatment.” One is likelier to vote. There are literal death panels that decide these things, it’s all PR spin. All of it!

In answer to “why don’t more Brits have kids?”

They don’t wanna DIE???

In many areas, it’s like giving birth in a Third World country. Preppers have no idea. It’s that bad NOW. And if you think white women get better treatment, especially if they hear you’re a Christian, you don’t know much about Third World healthcare.

Then there’s post-partum scarring (lifelong), injury (bye bye sex life) and death from “complications” (common with C-sections, and you can’t get just one).

They “run out” of basic supplies! Needles! Pain relief! Cleaning alcohol!

It’s already at around Victorian level in places, at least they had pain relief, on track to be Middle Ages.

And you wonder why the smart people are saving to go on private? No use conceiving if the hospital will kill or kidnap it (to be abused).

Americans need to mind their own business when they don’t understand foreign systems.

And they don’t give out IVF to young, normal people. You need a PC reason. You need to be single, or getting a “sex change”, or really, really old. There are plenty of young men who think supplements in a drink once a day will magically keep them fertile when they’ve already lost and continue to lose fertility (while “young”, so in medical terms under 30-35) from the modern world – bike riding, phone radiation, smoking, drinking, promiscuity and STDs. This is not theoretical and they don’t know until years later, when the damage is mostly done and they wrongly blame “age”. The external nature of the male system makes it incredibly vulnerable to environmental factors!

And men are told they shouldn’t care about their fertility (red flag) and just assume it’s fine.

Bachelor culture shames them for admitting they care about their health!

They’ll shame a man for being infertile too. You’re trapped.*

Don’t get me started on the ones who are stupid enough to supplement hormones (one, let’s be honest) for vanity without constant supervision from a doctor, those ones deserve it. Magic beans don’t work.

“Lifestyle choices” PCspeak for the wages of sin.

*Reminds me of how the manosphere shames everyone about suicide rates but never talks about suicide prevention (seriously), or they shame abortions like it’s a purely female cause with immaculate conception and not the cult of promiscuity that led to it. There’s a disconnect where even the people online who pretend to notice, only address the symptom (controlled op?) and ignore the cause like it’ll fix itself by magic or because it’s “judging” – what, and judging symptoms of moral decay isn’t?

Older men (35+) see large drop in fertility

http://humrep.oxfordjournals.org/content/15/8/1703.long

The impact of male age on fecundity remains controversial. Here, a large population study was used to investigate the effect of paternal age on time to conception. All couples in the Avon Health district expecting a baby between 1 April 1991 and 31 December 1992 were eligible. Questionnaires completed by both the man and the woman at 18 weeks gestation covered specific fertility factors, e.g. parity, paternity, cohabitation and oral contraception; and non-specific factors, e.g. educational achievement, housing, cigarette smoking, alcohol consumption, obesity. Logistic regression was used to identify factors independently related to conception in ≤6 or ≤12 months. Of 8515 planned pregnancies, 74% were conceived in ≤6 months, 14% in the second 6 months and 12% after more than a year. Nine variables, including the age of the woman, were independently related to time to conception. After adjustment for these, the likelihood of conception within 6 or 12 months was lower in older men. Compared to men <25 years old, the adjusted odds ratios (95% confidence interval) for conception in ≤12 months were 0.62 (0.40, 0.98), 0.50 (0.31, 0.81) and 0.51 (0.31, 0.86) in men aged 30–34, 35–39 and ≥40 years respectively.

That might explain Harry. And the kale smoothie diet. Good for sperm.

When people wait too long on purpose, with the right person, and find out they can’t have kids any more, I like to think it’s Mother Nature flipping them off with one hand and punching them in the balls with the other.

Why, you ask?

“the overall association with age was highly statistically significant. If the man’s age was treated as a continuous variable there was a significant linear relationship: the odds ratio for conception in ≤6 months decreased by 2% per year of age (P < 0.01) and for conception in ≤12 months by 3% (P < 0.001).”

Every year a man goes over 25, his likelihood of easy conception drops by 2%.

“These results suggest that there is a larger decline in male fecundity with advancing age than reported in earlier population studies (see above).”

That is all pretty funny considering the guys who think they have Thor-immortal sperm.

More like thaw.

“Therefore our conclusions would remain valid even if the most fertile of the older men had been eliminated from the study group because they achieved unplanned pregnancies. If the opposite bias predominated and the less fertile couples were lost from the older groups, we would underestimate the effect of age on male fecundity. It is unlikely that a substantial number of men aged ≤24 years would believe themselves to be sub-fertile….

Please call it virility. Men don’t give birth, they can’t be fecund. Just call the impotence, impotence. There are levels.

Were this true of older men, it would again lead to an underestimate of the effect of age on fecundity.”

“…However, they do not exclude the possibility that the greater fecundity of young relative to older men was more marked in the past. 

….It is also possible that more fertile men complete their families sooner, and less often try to father children in their thirties or forties.”

Burn.

It gets worse. You can’t supplement your way out of ball shrinkage.

Although most data come from elderly men changes can be detected in middle age (Erfurth and Hagmar, 1995Bonavera et al., 1997). There are a number of morphological changes in the ageing testis, including a decrease in the number of Leydig cells (Neaves et al., 1985), a decline in Sertoli cell numbers and daily sperm production (Johnson et al., 1984a,b) and an increase in the involution of seminiferous tubules (Paniagua et al., 1987). Spermatozoa from older men are less fertile after intrauterine insemination (Mathieu et al., 1995Brzechffa and Buyalos, 1997) or in donor insemination (Lansac, 1995). These observations support the conclusion that the effects of paternal age on a couple’s fecundity are real and may be greater than previously believed. After adjustment for other factors, the probability that an ultimately fertile couple will take >12 months to conceive nearly doubles from ~8% when the man is <25 years to ~15% when he is >35 years and paternal age is a further factor to take into account when deciding the prognosis for infertile couples.

Doubles in ten years. That’s worse than any female stat. It tanks!

What about the sperm?

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/268926297_Consistent_age-dependent_declines_in_human_semen_quality_A_systematic_review_and_meta-analysis

Reduced fertility typically occurs among women in their late 30s, but increasing evidence indicates that advanced paternal age is associated with changes in reproduction as well. Numerous studies have investigated age-based declines in semen traits, but the impact of paternal age on semen parameter values remains inconclusive.

Clear rationale, nice.

Using data from 90 studies (93,839 subjects), we conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to quantify the effect of male age on seven ejaculate traits (semen volume, sperm concentration, total sperm count, morphology, total motility, progressive motility and DNA fragmentation). Age-associated declines in semen volume, percentage motility, progressive motility, normal morphology and unfragmented cells were statistically significant and results generally seemed to be robust against confounding factors. Unexpectedly, sperm concentration did not decline with increasing male age, even though we found that sperm concentration declined over time.

More chance of mutant sperm, future psychiatrist patient babies! Lucky you!

It would be better if they made less but retained quality than risk stillbirth.

Our findings indicate that male age needs more recognition as a potential contributor to the negative pregnancy outcomes and reduced offspring health associated with delayed first reproduction. We suggest that greater focus on collection of DNA fragmentation and progressive motility in a clinical setting may lead to better patient outcomes during fertility treatments of aging couples.

Ouch. Thirties is now aging? Well, I guess in medicine, it is.

Really, 40 is the age where male fertility tanks severely.

Like, you’d be better off not conceiving than risk the cost of a disabled kid.

http://www.fertstert.org/article/S0015-0282(06)00104-X/pdf

Result(s): The odds ratio of failure to conceive for paternal age 40 years was 2.00 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.10–3.61) when the woman was 35–37 years old, 2.03 (95% CI: 1.12–3.68) for age 38–40 years, and 5.74 (95% CI: 2.16, 15.23) for age 41 years and over.
Conclusion(s): As an increasing number of couples choose to postpone childbearing, they should be informed that paternal age over 40 years is an important risk factor for failure to conceive.

This marked maternal age effect led to the conclusion that 35 years is the “amber light” in the reproductive life of women (4).
Paternal age was long almost ignored in studies of age effect on reproductive outcomes, but its potential role has recently been investigated. Some works have shown that increasing paternal age is accompanied by greater risk of delay in achieving pregnancy, of miscarriage and of late fetal death (5–8). In a recent review of the literature, we considered that 40 years could be the “amber light” in male reproductive life, as is 35 years for women’s reproductive life (9)

Wow, five years. Almost the average difference of successful marital unions. (Wait, exactly that, the man is five years older). Now I know why it’s Mother Nature.

…. To analyze paternal age effect mediated by biological aging alone, data on medically assisted cycles provide a very interesting model

Our results provide, for the first time, strong evidence for a paternal age effect on failure to conceive that is linked only to biological male aging (without confusion with sexual activity). We observed a clear tendency to increased risk of failure to conceive, especially when the fathers were over 40 years old. Results in the first and last classes in Table 2 (older woman with young man or young woman with older man) should be interpreted with caution because of the small number of couples in these classes. We thus analyzed Table 2 by concentrating on classes with at least 30 couples. This revealed a clear increase in risk of failure to conceive with paternal age.

Our results on a paternal age effect after 40 years are in accordance with results recently published concerning the general population. In a European population-based study of
couples attempting to conceive naturally, a significant odds ratio of 2.99 (95% CI: 2.77, 7.55) for the risk of not having conceived after 12 months of attempting to achieve pregnancy was observed when the woman was 35–39 years old and the man 40 years old and over (7). A similar tendency was observed in another European study of 782 couples, which showed a decrease in the daily probability of conception in couples composed of a woman 35–39 years old and of a man in his late thirties or older (8).
It has been demonstrated that couples having difficulty in conceiving also have an increased risk of miscarriage (19).
Thus, the association between paternal age and failure to conceive raised the question of a possible association between paternal age and miscarriage. In the literature, an
increased risk of miscarriage was observed in couples composed of a woman 35 years old and over and of a man 40 years old and over (OR 6.73; 95% CI: 3.50, 12.95) (6).

What about 50+? Obvious grandfather territory.

More recently, in a large Danish cohort, a twofold increase of the risk of early fetal death was found when the father was 50 years old and over compared with fathers 25–29 years
old, after controlling for various confounders and especially for maternal age (5). In the same cohort, the authors showed a paternal age effect as early as 45 years when considering late fetal deaths.

Yet they’ll still try to blame it on the women….

….The authors concluded that elevated paternal age (35 years) increased the risk of spontaneous abortion during the first trimester and at the beginning of the second trimester, with a suggestion that the association was stronger for deaths occurring during the first trimester.

large genetic abnormalities

Interestingly, a remarkable concordance exists among all these studies, stressing the fact that older fathers (40–45 years old) have a key impact on both reproductive issues, failure to conceive, and miscarriage.

When a man conceives, his sperm quality is all he contributes. Male age will be a much larger factor than anything female, all things considered. Try making a decent omelette with stale eggs. Try fertilizing an ovum with old sperm. The single ingredient on that side of equation becomes very. very important.

Women in that case are trying to compensate for the errors of men.

The mechanism for the paternal age effect remains to be explained.

….Really.

Aging germline DNA is not better DNA.

Previously, as for maternal age, the genetic hypothesis had been emphasized (21, 22). After analysis of 11,535 pregnancies obtained by artificial insemination using donor spermatozoa, an increased risk of trisomy 21 for the fetus when the donor was 38 years old has been suggested (23).

A lot of my generation thinking they can wait will be sorely mistaken.

Gambling your future, literally.

It concludes

In reproduction, age must no longer be considered as the concern of the woman, but as that of the couple. Similar to maternal age over 35 years, paternal age over 40 years is a key risk factor in reproduction.

https://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/114096.php

The results showed that maternal age was closely linked to decreased pregnancy rate, which was 8.9 per cent in women over 35 compared to 14.5 per cent in younger women.

Small difference.

But the scientists also found that the father’s age was also important, not only on pregnancy rates, but perhaps more surprisingly, on the rate of miscarriage, with a pronounced negative effect once the father was over 35 years of age…

A representative of the Eylau Centre also said on an interview with the BBC aired early this morning that the likely cause of the decrease in male fertility after 35 was DNA fragmentation. He said that DNA fragmentation was not unusual in male sperm and often this is repaired “by the woman”, but when it is too fragmented it is beyond repair, leading to pregnancy failure and miscarriage, he said.

They’ll still blame the woman.

There’s a reason all of Henry VIII’s kids died childless.

Frozen sperm is only good for about ten years, by the way.

Maybe instead of proving their manliness by submitting to 23andMe, these guys should be getting their sperm quality checked and post those results.

Sperm donors have an age limit of 40.

Click to access 2010-05-13_SCAAC_paper_-_maximum_age_for_sperm_donation.pdf

Male infertility drug in the air

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-11-02/demographic-dysphoria-looms-scientists-discover-sulfur-dioxide-lowers-sperm-count

An accident, I’m sure.

Economic boom follows fertility boom.

Economic collapse follows demographic collapse.

https://disenchantedscholar.wordpress.com/2015/06/12/data-drive-iq-immigrants-and-economy-prosperity/

Missing factor is IQ.

You want young people to breed?

  1. stop punching down at the young.
  2. Incentivise young people to marry.

Then they’ll breed. They don’t marry? They shouldn’t breed!

http://parenthood.library.wisc.edu/Popenoe/Popenoe-Married.html

Otherwise the kids are shit-tier. All the child psych research agrees for once.

This is very basic Civilization 101 stuff.

Pollution is dysgenic. Outsourcing national labour is too. Right-wingers have more cause to care. Less kids? Well, they say, we need more immigrants, because humans are interchangeable cogs under the globalism of supranationalism! God forbid they make less of a profit for a while, after taking on a business risk!

See, globalism is actually just code for slave labour and national betrayal.

Also imperative: stop the rent generation and tax the fat wankers playing real life Monopoly, punish carcinogenic food producers and teach children with rote rather than pretending school isn’t a job.
Why do we pay for prisoners to get free housing, food etc? Where’s the vote on the death penalty? We never had a referendum, especially on traitors. Guy Fawkes was hanged for attacking Parliament and he was white.

Sexist chemicals

Never let it be said I avoided an interesting title.

https://draxe.com/male-infertility/

Male infertility isn’t just related to procreation, either. Oftentimes, a decrease in sperm count is an indicator of an increased risk in premature death. (2) In fact, the study called it a “canary in the coal mine” for male health. And though the researchers didn’t set out to figure out why sperm counts were decreasing, they floated several theories, including environmental and lifestyle influences.

STDs and endocrine disruptors. That include the talc on your ass as a baby, makes you less manly and gives women ovarian cancer. Men get testicular.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18336453

https://web.stanford.edu/class/siw198q/websites/reprotech/New%20Ways%20of%20Making%20Babies/causemal.htm

https://draxe.com/birth-control-pills/

According to the Food and Drug Administration, it’s been found that the effects of continuously raised estrogen levels in the female body due to taking birth control pills may include: (5)

  • Potential increased risk of breast cancer
  • Potential increased risk of blood clotting, heart attack and stroke. The risk of blood clots is highest for very overweight women taking the pill.
  • Headaches or migraines
  • Gallbladder or liver problems, including benign tumors
  • Increased blood pressure
  • Weight gain
  • Mood changes, with some women experiencing symptoms of depression or anxiety
  • Nauseacramping, irregular bleeding or spotting between periods
  • Breast tenderness

Compared to the low low risk of shutting your legs.

Ignoring sex has medical consequences. Groundbreaking.

Tea, coffee or cocoa: which is better?

coffeeteacocoa

Inspired by this comic.

Black tea is retarded leaf water and nobody really likes green.

Black tea contains fluoride which cannot be removed.

Search fluoride Harvard.

This might be why the British have lost our fighting spirit, the more cups of black tea with fluoridated water we consume PER DAY.

Coffee is the cocaine of pussies. After a brief high, whatever you consume as your brain downregulates activity to compensate merely keeps your levels normal aka not boosted. Coffee is not a nootropic in the neurological sense. Plus the modern dosages (one serving is not a Venti barrel) fuck with your sperm.

No, literally, your sperm gets fucked up.

http://www.babymed.com/improving-his-fertility

However, large amounts of caffeine cause sperm to swim slower thereby reducing male fertility. In order to improve fertility reduce or eliminate caffeine from your daily diet while you and your partner are trying to conceive.”

Meanwhile, chocolate, drink of cannibals and philosophers…

http://www.artofmanliness.com/2012/12/17/the-surprisingly-manly-history-of-hot-cocoa/

Chocolate is as complex as wine, in fact, this is the reason for classic wine and cheese OR chocolate sessions.

Chocolate contains flavonoids, like tea, but mixed with dairy (a milk or cream base) has the same impact as what all the hipsters call Bulletproof Coffee. Only better because the cocoa fats render well with the animal fat and absorb better into the body (more important than what you ingest).

Vegan chocolate is the shit, you can get green tea flavour if you’re boring or strawberry milkshake if you’re me. Put it in your wheatgrass high estrogen smoothies if you wanna be a pussy about it.

The Enlightenment was founded on chocolate, moreso than coffee. Great scientists and Casanova, among many royals, chugged the stuff.

Hot Chocolate is the drink of the beverage master-race.
All the facts are there.

….We have options. We haz your whipped cream. We haz the marshmallows. The humble cinnamon wand. We haz da mighty wafer.
There is no come-down from a good hot chocolate. There isn’t enough sugar for a sugar crash, the dairy is light enough (genetics – only white people can properly digest dairy) that it causes no digestion issues and you can drink as many as you want without fucking your BP. You can happily mix Merlot into it. Bourbon. Vodka. Say the same about coffee.

How is this not a thing?

That and bone marrow ‘butter’. Great on garlic bread.

Lust supplements case study: arsenic

http://forums.canadiancontent.net/history/89558-arsenic-victorian-viagra-poisoned-britain.html

Although this was nonsense, it was true that very small doses of arsenic could stimulate circulation and increase weight gain. There was great excitement in 1851 when a Viennese medical journal reported on the sexual benefits which arsenic consumption was supposed to have brought the peasantry of Styria – a remote mountainous region in Austria.

The Styrians commonly swallowed quantities well above the lethal dose, but they ingested it in solid lumps which passed through their digestive tracts almost intact.

Just enough was absorbed to increase blood flow, giving the women a rosy- cheeked glow and the men an increased libido, resulting in an inordinate number of illegitimate children in the region.

By all means, trust people selling you medical supplies online.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3474619/

I’m sure

https://www.drugwatch.com/testosterone/side-effects/

there is

http://www.health.harvard.edu/mens-health/is-testosterone-therapy-safe-take-a-breath-before-you-take-the-plunge

no way

http://www.mayoclinic.org/healthy-lifestyle/mens-health/expert-answers/testosterone-therapy-side-effects/faq-20090015

this could

http://www.livescience.com/52508-lamar-odom-herbal-viagra.html

possibly

https://consumer.healthday.com/men-s-health-information-24/male-hormones-health-news-389/testosterone-supplements-may-hurt-male-fertility-study-finds-676205.html

go wrong.

And they call women vain, we don’t take magic pills like Horny Goat Weed.

That last link tickled me.

If you can’t boost it the natural way (diet, exercise) don’t bother. Taking any form of supplement will decrease natural production because the artificial kind signals the production organs.

If you’re such a manly man and it’s all natural, you don’t need this shit.

Sure, load up on whey protein, bitch tits, I’m sure that’ll make up for refusing to drag your ass to a gym.

http://www.nordesthetics.com/en/articles/protein-shakes-gynecomastia