October 15th, 2007 by Dr. Val Jones in News
2 Comments »
I was always taught that chlamydia (a bacterial sexually transmitted infection) could cause infertility in women but didn’t affect men at all. Now it seems that male fertility may also be affected by chlamydial infections.
New research from Spain suggests that chlamydia can damage sperm DNA as well as their swimming ability. In fact, DNA damage in sperm from men infected with chlamydia is 3 times higher than in uninfected sperm. Also, fertility rates my be reduced by as much as 73% in couples infected with chlamydia.
Fortunately for men, their new sperm (produced after antibiotic treatment for chlamydia) appears to be normal/unaffected. For women, the damage is permanent. The crafty chlamydia bacteria crawl up into the fallopian tubes and create such an inflammatory reaction that the tubes are often scarred for life. Eggs released by the ovaries may be blocked from entering the uterus from narrowed and scarred fallopian tubes. This is why one chlamydial infection can put a woman at increased risk for ectopic pregnancy, miscarriage, infertility, and chronic pelvic pain.
It is estimated that as many as 1 in 10 people ages 18-25 are actively infected with chlamydia (in the US and Britain). The treatment can be as simple as one dose of oral antibiotics (1g of Azithromycin). Since chlamydia can be asymptomatic in men and women, and hard to diagnose in men in particular – I personally would recommend having both partners take a dose of Azithromycin before having unprotected sex in a monogamous relationship. Obviously, it’s always far better to have protected sex – but since 1 in 10 people have this infection, it seems pretty clear that people are not using condoms all the time. If you want to preserve your fertility – be vigilant about this infection. The good news here is that it’s easy to treat and can be prevented.This post originally appeared on Dr. Val’s blog at RevolutionHealth.com.
September 5th, 2007 by Dr. Val Jones in News
1 Comment »
Like most of us, this headline made me squirm – visions of the Minotaur, mermaids, and Dolly the sheep with a human face, danced in my head. But as much as this form of experimentation seemed ethically wrong, I decided to figure out what exactly they were proposing.
The Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority (HFEA) ruled that British scientists could now use animal eggs to host human stem cells. Because there is a shortage of human eggs to use for experimentation, they asked that rabbit or cow eggs be used.
Stem cells are the first kind of cells created when an egg is fertilized and divides. They are capable of developing into any kind of human cell – and are therefore quite interesting in terms of their potential to heal. (Transplanting these cells into damaged tissue can actually repair the tissue to some extent – no matter if its brain, heart muscle or other tissue). But these stem cells have to incubate inside an egg (kind of like a tiny soft shell) if they are to divide.
So the scientists are asking to use animal egg shells (without the nucleus that contains the majority of their DNA) as mini incubators for human stem cells. The HFEA approved that use – but has NOT approved mixing human and animal DNA in a human egg. Such a blend would serve no useful scientific purpose.
Ultimately, the goal of this human-animal embryo experiment is to allow for the creation of many more human stem cells without harvesting human eggs to do so. It also may help scientists to understand what these egg “shells” do to influence the growth of stem cells – if we knew how that worked, we may not need to use human eggs to retrieve stem cells, but could create them from any cell in the body.
So, although this embryo experiment sounds alarming at first – it’s actually a way to do stem cell research without using so many human eggs. Now, that doesn’t mean that I necessarily condone the idea – but it helps put into perspective what the scientists are proposing. Rest assured that there will be no Minotaurs resulting from these particular experiments.This post originally appeared on Dr. Val’s blog at RevolutionHealth.com.
June 20th, 2007 by Dr. Val Jones in Medblogger Shout Outs, News
No Comments »
I was perusing Dr. Hsien Hsein Lei’s blog and noticed a link to a pretty interesting tool. Dr. Lei describes it as a “low tech paternity test” and it’s a probability calculator that relies on 3 traits: blood type, eye color, and ear lobe type. Yep, it’s sometimes possible to exclude certain father candidates based on these traits.
Apparently attached earlobes (that don’t hang) are a recessive trait, so if a child has unattached earlobes, both parents can’t have attached earlobes. And as far as eye color is concerned, two blue eyed parents can’t have a brown eyed child – so there’s some opportunity for exclusion there (I was interested to see that two dark brown eyed parents can have a blue eyed child, though it’s rather unlikely).
Did you know about the genetics of ear lobes? I learn something new every day.This post originally appeared on Dr. Val’s blog at RevolutionHealth.com.
February 20th, 2007 by Dr. Val Jones in News
No Comments »
In a recent article in the New York Times the process of sperm banking was described in a fairly whimsical way, but the real bizarreness of the business could be found between the lines. Apparently sperm banks compete with one another as they go to all kinds of lengths to tout the quality of their donors:
“It’s kind of an arms race,” explains William Jaeger, director of Fairfax Cryobank, in Fairfax, Va., which, along with California Cryobank, based in Los Angeles, is among the largest sperm banks in the country.
“One year someone adds a personality profile, the next year someone adds something else,” Mr. Jaeger says. “If one of your competitors adds a service, you add a service.”
Certain donor profiles are particularly popular, making it difficult for the supplier to keep up with the demand.
The most-requested donor is of Colombian-Italian and Spanish ancestry, is “very attractive, with hazel eyes and dark hair,” and, Ms. Bader adds, is “pursuing a Ph.D.”
The bank’s files have one man, Donor 1913, who fits that description.
Donor 1913, the staff notes in his file, is “extremely attractive,” adding in a kind of clinical swoon, “He has a strong modelesque jaw line and sparkling hazel eyes. When he smiles, it makes you want to smile as well.”
Donor 1913 is an all-around nice guy, they say. “He has a shy, boyish charm,” the staff reports, “genuine, outgoing and adventurous.”
He also answers questions, including, “What is the funniest thing that ever happened to you?”
Donor 1913 relates an incident that occurred when he asked his girlfriend’s mother to step on his stomach to demonstrate his strong abdominal muscles.
“As she stepped on top of my stomach, I passed gas,” he writes.
Is Don Juan the gas-passer also the most popular donor at Fairfax Cryobank?
The sperm banks say that they only accept 1-3% of donors, but the criteria that I could glean from the article seemed to be:
- You’re not overweight
- You’re tall (unless you’re a doctor or a lawyer, then you can be as short as 5’7” to 5’8”)
- You’ve got a college degree
- You have high SAT scores
- You are good looking
- You have healthy sperm
Apparently, the most requested sperm donor in one of the California banks is a tall man who was in college at the time of his donations, but who later dropped out and took up residence in a mobile home park and made a living walking other people’s dogs.
So, who were the other 97% who didn’t make the cut?
This post originally appeared on Dr. Val’s blog at RevolutionHealth.com.
February 17th, 2007 by Dr. Val Jones in News
1 Comment »
A new initiative funded by the health department resulted in the distribution of 150,000 free condoms to unsuspecting subway riders in NYC. The condoms were colorfully labeled with a subway themed wrapper, and handed out by city workers and volunteers in all 5 boroughs.
Condoms are critical for the prevention of sexually transmitted diseases, but I wonder if the candy wrapper marketing and non-selective distribution methods are contributing to an over-sexualization of society?
Now, I know a lot of you will think I’m being prudish, but I worry about children being over-exposed to sexual content all the time. What does it say to them that subway staff are handing them condoms? Is it just me, or does anyone else think this is a bit much?
Go ahead, let me know!This post originally appeared on Dr. Val’s blog at RevolutionHealth.com.
