Jump to content

Alfred001

Senior Members
  • Posts

    404
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Alfred001

  1. That some antibiotics may permanently impair fertility in some % of people.
  2. We went over that argument on the 2nd page, it doesn't refute the hypothesis. As I say, the difference in effect size could be explained by the difference in physiology. We see such different effects between species. But, obviously, conclusions cannot be reached based on n=1, but it's the only data we have for amox in humans (that I know of) and it's worriesome. So there's a non-anxious way of reading the data that would say there's no reason for concern here and we don't need human data?
  3. I have been posting for two pages now about all the literature I've read on this subject. I know the subject and that various things affect sperm parameters is not a revelation to me, as I think I've made clear in the thread. What is a revelation is that amoxicillin after a single day of administration caused abnormalities in 90% of sperm. That is a figure you don't see even in animal studies where they're fed long courses of extreme doses, if you know the subject. (Setting aside that spermatogenic arrest can be induced, I'm talking strictly about the rate of abnormalities.) So, with that in mind, I'm curious to see a study showing reversability of amoxicillin's effect on sperm parameters and/or histology of reproductive organs, because the magnitude of the effect makes me wonder. How am I picking and choosing elements from different studies and what conclusions am I making, I haven't arrived at any conclusion? The difference very well may be attributable to physiological differences. The only study of the impact of rifabutin on male fertility showed no effect in mice and baboons and a pretty significant effect in rats. It's possible amox has a more dramatic impact on the human reproductive system than that of the mouse. This is, of course, speculation, because we have (AFAIK) too little evidence. The bottom line is, the only human evidence we have for amox, suggests a pretty dramatic impact on sperm parameters, way out of line with effects commonly observed in animal studies of antibiotics.
  4. They're quite surprising if you look at the literature on this topic. I don't think I've ever seen anything near this degree of malformation (and from day 1!) and in animal studies they often give doses way beyond human ones. Add to that this mice study with amox in which the % of abnormal sperm continued to rise through 30 days post treatment and testicular changes were found with only a 10 day course using a smaller dose than used in that study. Can you explain this? I thought the half life of amox is quite short. I believe a 500-1000mg dose drops down to very low, near zero levels in serum somewhere past the 6th hour.
  5. Ok, someone please tell me I'm misinterpreting something here. https://www.mdpi.com/2073-4409/11/24/4064 This is a young male given a normal course of H. pylori treatment, 2g of amoxicillin, 1g of clarithromycin for 15 days. Look at supplementary table 4. M1-5 are 5 samples taken at 3 day intervals throughout the treatment period, W1-5 are samples taken at 3 day intervals after treatment. Look at number of total sperm and number of normal sperm or simply ration of normal sperm. Only 10% normal sperm on first day of treatment!!!?? And then in the last day of the post-treatment period it has gotten worse, 5%!
  6. None of my assumptions have been challenged and I didn't have any assumptions. You say I could have researched it myself, as if this is a google search. I've read probably over 100 pages of literature at this point. I came here in hope someone might make a valuable contribution and instead I've gotten this. As to your second paragraph - Right, and my question from the beginning has been, does anyone know of evidence of permanent effects or any plausible mechanistic reasoning that would suggest it. Can we now get onto that?
  7. From Erma Z. Drobnis, Ajay K. Nangia (auth.) - Impacts of Medications on Male Fertility So it seems the researchers studying this are concerned about it as well and it's not just my neurosis. But since you never addressed any of the arguments, rather went ad hominem immediately, and described infertility as a marginal side effect, I don't expect anything will convince you.
  8. https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Erma-Drobnis/publication/321879207_Introduction_to_Medication_Effects_on_Male_Reproduction/links/5be077ee92851c6b27aa09b9/Introduction-to-Medication-Effects-on-Male-Reproduction.pdf And the effect may be permanent (from a different source)
  9. Here's a pretty striking study that bears on this question: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4819380/ So a fairly long duration, but a very small dose.
  10. Well, I'm sure because of the review I posted on page 1 and other literature. But how many of those 1000 prescriptions are concentrated in either the elderly, who are more prone to sickness, or are given to men who've already had children and are not trying for more (which can happen as early as your 20s, more often early-mid 30s, meaning a large share of the male population would fall into that category)? In both cases, an effect would not be discovered. Then there is the watering down effect when you consider the 10% of ABs, 50% of time effect. I don't think it's implausible that, assuming those rates, an existence of an effect would be consistent with the infertility numbers we see.
  11. I'm sure some antibiotics have an effect. That's consistent with 100% and 10%. Wait, based on what do we know it's not likely even at 10% + 50%? I've already posted a reference backing up the claim about the effect. What I'm wondering about is whether anyone knows of data on a permanent effect (or has any relevant mechanistic reasoning or speculation, in lieu of data).
  12. Moving the goal posts is valid when we're talking about an unknown effect. We don't know whether 100% or 10% of antibiotics have this effect. Both are possible given the data we have, so there's nothing invalid in discussing the first scenario and then moving to the second.
  13. Ok, fair point. But, if you assume 10% of antibiotics reduce fertility in 50% of men who take them and you take into account that antibiotics are probably more often prescribed to older people not trying for children... I'm not sure.
  14. But the exact mechanism is not relevant for the purpose of discovering whether there's a permanent effect. The point is it establishes that there is a clear causal effect. The question I'm wondering about is, is there data that shows a permanent effect. If half of antibiotics make half of people half as likely to conceive (substantial effect), would we make the connection that someone failing to conceive now is failing because he took a course of antibiotics 10 years ago? They are not talking about a permanent effect there, but it makes the point. (source)
  15. I don't think there can be any doubt that the relationship is causal. I've read quite a bit of literature at this point. They take lab animals, give them antibiotics, and you see negative effects on all kinds of parameters of fertility, as well as outcomes (implantations and births). As clearly causal as it gets. Take this study as an example. Four groups of rats, three given imipenem/cilastatin, one control group. The treatment groups see negative effects on sperm parameters and sexual organs relative to control. There are endless studies like that.
  16. If everyone who took an antibiotic became infertile and this was true of every antibiotic, maybe, but if the effect is not that strong, not necessarily. https://www.nature.com/articles/nrurol.2015.145 Now, sulphasalazine actually has a temporary effect, but it goes to the point that effects of medications can be difficult to notice. Here's a review https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Tosin-Titus-Olaniran/publication/373776557_Research_Advances_on_the_Adverse_Effects_of_Antibiotics_on_Male_Fertility/links/64fc46fa90dfd95af620eb67/Research-Advances-on-the-Adverse-Effects-of-Antibiotics-on-Male-Fertility.pdf
  17. But the point is we don't know whether it's for a while or permanently. Were it just for a while, who cares.
  18. I was shocked to find recently that there is apparently a lot of animal and some human data showing that antibiotics have a negative effect on male fertility. Given how serious this is, I couldn't believe this isn't more widely known and I was even more shocked at how little human data there is, again, given the seriousness. Does anyone know whether these effects are permanent? From the review I'm currently reading, it seems the effects usually last a long time post-treatment (weeks or months) and whether they are permanent or not is usually not answered due to how short the followup is. But certainly, the effects will usually still be present many weeks post-treatment.
  19. I see. Ok, let me ask a more specific question, and this is a really multifactorial one, so I know this might be tough to answer: I know that after a meal gastric pH rises due to buffering effect of food, now suppose you were to add dextrose on top of that, would you expect the addition of dextrose to affect the pH in either direction, bearing in mind the dextrose might be broken down by enzymes into, I think, maltose and fructose? And let's say no further gastric acid will be secreted, to simplify things.
  20. So a substance does not necessarily need to dissociate to affect the pH of a solution? But can lowering of pH happen only when dissociation happens (because the substance needs to donate a H)?
  21. Could you tell me whether my understanding here is correct: In order for something to affect the pH of a solution, it needs to dissociate. Non-electrolytes do not dissociate in water and would therefore not affect its pH. Would they, however, dissociate in gastric juice?
  22. But that's all we want to look at in this situation. Cancer. Not sure what you mean by this, but the experiment is set up to see whether people who take metro have more cancers than the people who don't, I don't see why that would be impossible to determine, provided an adequately large sample to factor out chance. I could have sworn that this is how it was explained in a number of youtube videos I watched on the topic! Ok, I definitely had a misconception about what a CI is. Nevertheless, that study still doesn't allow us to say whether there's an effect or not, right? The upper bounds of the CIs are 6+ and 2+, which means the effect could be of that magnitude.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.