expiredbabgaly | Staff posted Jan 26, 2024 03:44 AM
Item 1 of 3
Item 1 of 3
expiredbabgaly | Staff posted Jan 26, 2024 03:44 AM
Jockey Men's Underwear Stretch Briefs: 4-Pk Active or 3-Pk Organic Cotton
+ Free Shipping$18 each
$36
Amazon
Visit AmazonGood Deal
Bad Deal
Save
Share
Top Comments
First, the whole list of his link for proof is from one author. One author, and no others, so no, not "those Ph.D. researchers". And besides, the author is an M.D., not a Ph.D. (us Ph.D.'s don't like being brought down to the likes of M.D.'s... that's joke...maybe).
I clicked on the the first link in the search, which was about about using a polyester sling to suspend scrotum together in a set of men, disrupting thermal regulation of the balls (an bodily function meant to regulate the scrotal temperature to keep sperm in the "sweet spot" without dying) and causing INTENTIONAL infertility. The men wore the sling all day and night for an entire year. He argues something about electrostatic potentials but has no proof of said electrostatic potential. Clearly the bodily function of thermoregulation was disrupted.
Another link is a follow on-study author did the same but this time on dogs, attempting to explore differences in material (cotton vs polyester) which saw an effect with cotton but not polyester. Dogs. Which have entirely different thermal regulation and which likely have different temperature ranges for optimal sperm than that of men. Besides, he already "proved" in another experiment that polyester affected sperm quality in men, but in this case of dogs, now the polyester has no effect on their sperm quality. So if you you want to make the case against polyester and for cotton being safer, you cannot use this study because the effect was opposite and the physiology is different.
And to point something else out, in the first study above on actual humans, there was no other control against the polyester sling. You should ask yourself why. If a researcher chooses to omit something or provide a control, then there's something else going on in the background that letting a narrative or bias creep in.
Lastly, the seminal (pun intended) study in electrostatic potentials causing infertility written in 1993... it has 15 citations. Fifteen... in thirty years. Clearly, this was a well accepted and received theory. Or not.
To bring it back to the commerce aspect of this site (because you know, I just wrote a whole bunch of words about scrotums...): The papers above were written between 1991-1993. Have you seen a contraceptive polyester sling here on Slickdeals? One would stand to make a fortune on this product if it were a reality. Yet, thirty years later, here we are, still using condoms.
This is why science reporting by non-scientists (and teenagers who need to be taught how to read science) needs to stop.
Join The Conversation
Share information with the community. Please follow our Community Guidelines and be kind!
48 Comments
Sign up for a Slickdeals account to remove this ad.
Sign up for a Slickdeals account to remove this ad.
https://thehollyspirit.
Most people are completely unaware that synthetic underwear has proven deleterious effects on both men and women (because skin is an organ which both excretes and absorbs)
Our community has rated this post as helpful. If you agree, why not thank HelloClemFandango
https://thehollyspirit.
Most people are completely unaware that synthetic underwear has proven deleterious effects on both men and women (because skin is an organ which both excretes and absorbs)
Sign up for a Slickdeals account to remove this ad.
Join The Conversation
Share information with the community. Please follow our Community Guidelines and be kind!