Haven't you heard the saying: they wont stop shoveling s@#$ to us until we stop making shovels?

No?

Yeah.. that's probably because I just made it up.

Yet another bogus study and this one is probably by the Family Rights Movement as well. I swear they love twisting facts as often as you twist the twisty tie to seal up bread!!!

And thats my Opinion

How much did this bull@!$%# study cost, and yes I don't have kids nor do I plan on having kids.

New study: jacking off 5 times a day cuts your risk of contracting an STD

Oh yes how the media does not give facts in their reports:

1. What is death from heart disease? A heart attack due to sudden death? A death due to heart failure from prior heart disease? Prior heart surgery?

2. Risk factors were body mass index and diabetes adjusted for in the analysis --what about hypertension that is far more common in older men. This is not mentioned and may also be a factor for infertility due to taking medications to treat hypertension.

3. What was the racial distribution of this study--were these individuals all Caucasians--what about African Americans who might also be interested.

This type of reporting is always lacking of other factors that would be best done more carefully rather than making a simple headline. Its irresponsible for these newspeople reporting information and doing it inadequately for posting.

AW,

Haven't read the paper yet. But Question #1 is probably includes everything you listed...which could all potentially be a result of atheroschlerosis.

#3 Many researchers are getting away from using "racial" data for several reasons first and formost the concept of "race" is NOT based in science, but that's another topic Second, in this country there is such an admixture of people from different parts of the world "racial data" almost meaningless...I have ancestors from Africa and Europe...which one is responsible for my cardiac genes?

Scientific reporting is a personal pet peeve of mine because it's usually done very badly. Here's the abstract of the paper if you'd like to have a look.

http://humrep.oxfordjournals.org/content/early/2011/09/19/humrep.der305.abstract

I wonder how they account for wives infertility?

Thanks for the link. Atherosclerosis is common in older men and well known. Yes the racial component in any population based study is always confounded by admixture of individuals that participated and their parents background (if also known) within the reported study population. I was only trying to convey to interested readers if this study included other ethnic groups and of course extends also to Hispanic and Asian men. Most people dont read the source of these reported studies (regardless of the media whether MSNBC, FOX or whomever). These details are never reported. So readers wonder what does this mean for me?

I always am skeptical of this type of "health" news. It is always "show me the data"

That's actually an interesting point. Ultimately, the study (as reported by the article) is just an analysis of some figures without a clear analysis of all the facts potentially contributing to the end result. As you point out, there are many social factors contributing to the study. Another overlooked social factor is the number of men who are childless in proportion to the number who have children. Since ours is a society that still to some degree prizes the family unit and children (look at the tax breaks received), it is not surprising that the number of childless men to analyze would be smaller. If there is a bigger pool of men with children, there is a greater chance for heart disease risk to average out.

Yeah, but I suspect that this is a study of fertility rather than fatherhood, stress, and worry.

If you stop feeding them they go away. If that doesn't work I think by the time they are 12 you should be able to release them into the wild and they should be able to make it on their own.

That is SCARY - and I can relate to it.

My brother has a son who was treated like sh!t in favor of the daughter who, so far, is a s much a piece of sh!t as her mother. I mean what kind of an animal spits on her father?

Folks, smarten up! Read the bible once in a while (it wont make your genitals fall off) , especially the part where Paul says its better to "remain as you are". In other words SINGLE!!!!! A lot fewer headaches that way........

You only THINK you want a kid. When it arrives, only then do you realize what a mistake you have made. Keep it in your pants.........

It also says be fruitful and multiply, but really what does any of that have to do with a study on FERTILITY?? This isn't a study about bad parenting or marriages. Where are you guys coming up with these completely nonsensical posts?

Has ANYONE on this entire thread even bothered to read the @!$%#ing original articles abstract? It's not hard to find, I've listed it twice already.

Yes. It's an article that claims if a man has a kid he is likely to live longer than one who does not, which is utter BS.

No, that's not what it says at all. They are suggesting that men who are fertile (as evidenced by having children) have a 17% lower chance of dying from heart disease. Did you read the article?

They aren't talking about you raising a kid, they are most likely interested in androgen levels and cardiac health.

That's great, and I don't think it's the research article or paper really being called into question, but rather the poor reporting by this article. The title is leading readers to the conclusion that it's parenthood.

For further weight to my point, my local paper picked this story up off the AP wire, recycled it, and gave it the title "Fatherhood leads to less heart disease."

So even though the study may be talking about the androgen levels and cardiac health and their link to fertility, this MSNBC article ignores these facts in favor of influencing a "be fruitful and multiply" mentality.

You are right. Also, I forgot that most people on the vine comment after only reading the title. But, I don't think any reasonable person should not come to the same conclusion as I did after reading the msnbc story. Or am I asking too much (serious question)?

For a epidemiology based study, a 17% increase is not statistically significant!

Really? Now tell us why.

You tell us MarineDOC. Are you a doctor or do you play one on newsvine.

ChicagoK made a statement. I'd like him to explain what he means by it. Yes, I am a physician.

Do YOU believe his first sentence?

I don't know what Epidemiology is, or if 17% is a large number in this type of sample. Either way I'm sure the money could have been better spent elsewhere.

If you don't know, then why are you challenging my question to ChicagoK? Or are you just feeling cranky and want to start a fight? Nobody compelled you to type.

If you don't even understand what you are reading, how can you be "sure" money would be better spent elsewhere? And it's not like someone reached into YOUR personal bank account to fund this study. Actually, I'll bet a sizable portion of the funding came from the hospital itself NOT from you.

Your statement has got to be one of the most KNOW NOTHING sentences I've read on Newsvine and is symptomatic of our KNOW NOTHING society. Too much mouth, not enough thought.

Willful ignorance is not a virtue.

If you cannot back up your statements...sit down, and keep your fingers off the keyboard. You may learn something. Learning isn't a sin you know..