We and selected partners, use cookies or similar technologies as specified in the cookie policy and privacy policy.
You can consent to the use of such technologies by closing this notice.
Customise your preferences for any tracking technology
The following allows you to customize your consent preferences for any tracking technology used to help us achieve the features and activities described below. To learn more about how these trackers help us and how they work, refer to the cookie policy. You may review and change your preferences at any time.
These trackers are used for activities that are strictly necessary to operate or deliver the service you requested from us and, therefore, do not require you to consent.
These trackers help us to deliver personalized marketing content and to operate, serve and track ads.
These trackers help us to deliver personalized marketing content to you based on your behaviour and to operate, serve and track social advertising.
These trackers help us to measure traffic and analyze your behaviour with the goal of improving our service.
These trackers help us to provide a personalized user experience by improving the quality of your preference management options, and by enabling the interaction with external networks and platforms.
Your Fertility and Sterility Dialog login information is not the same as your ASRM or EES credentials. Users must create a separate account to comment or interact on the Dialog.
Register
Recent Comments
The retraction of this paper is an absolute disgrace to science. We do not throw our results into the memory hole because they cause "discomfort". It is the job of science to speak the truth, regardless of who that truth causes "distress" to. It sure caused the Catholic Church a lot of distress when Galileo pointed out that the earth was not the centre of the universe, but it didn't make it any less true. If the methodology is sound - as the researchers say it is - then this paper should stay up to contribute to public knowledge. Bowing to the snowflakes and cry-bullies who demand we conceal the truth casts us back into the dark ages, where belief was rooted in superstition, not fact. We must not give up an inch to this mob. In this specific instance, the retraction has denied us crucial knowledge that may help understand not only a medical condition, but also a wider set of factors affecting human development, behaviour and evolution. We have lost something of great value.
Oh yes? What causal mechanisms are those detailed in the paper that you don't seem to remember? Associations between endometriosis and particular phenotypic characteristics are legitimate as mentioned above (blue eye colour and rectovaginal endometriosis). However, how is beauty an objective genetic variable here? Please, are there genes associated with beauty? Beauty profiles have a history of variability. Women with thinner lips were most beautiful. Nowadays, it's the opposite.