Unexplained infertiltiy

[LionKing]

"The standard tests for infertility barely scratch the surface and are really only looking for obvious factors, such as blocked tubes, abnormal sperm counts, ovulation problems, etc. These tests do not address the molecular issues at all. That is still for the future."

http://www.advancedfertility.com/unexplai.htm

...so sad because lots of issues should be checked..
I know people who are told they don't suffer from anything.. and still no kids

[Echnaton]

It depends on what they mean by "standard."  There are plenty of molecular genetic tests that can be and are given to those seeking to conceive.  So if the local standard of care is inadequate, then the patient needs to go somewhere else.

[LionKing]

It depends on what they mean by "standard."  There are plenty of molecular genetic tests that can be and are given to those seeking to conceive.  So if the local standard of care is inadequate, then the patient needs to go somewhere else.

hi
they defined the standard as "as blocked tubes, abnormal sperm counts, ovulation problems, etc."
I didn't ask the people frankly what kind of tests they went through so I will try to ask what is the standard here.. but they were for sure told that there is no reason for why they can't conceive .. if this is standard practice through the world not to look at molecular levels and just say it is unexplained, then it is a pity because many people suffer from this

[LionKing]

turns out the "molecular level" is time -consumign adn expensive..this is why they rush to IVF

still complementary medicine is sayign they have success with proper nutrition.

[Zakalwe]

still complementary medicine is sayign they have success with proper nutrition.

Of course they are. Now lets see a randomised, double-blind, placebo controlled trial that backs up their declarations of nonsense?

Anyone?
Anyone?
Bueller?
Anyone?

[Echnaton]

turns out the "molecular level" is time -consumign adn expensive..this is why they rush to IVF

still complementary medicine is sayign they have success with proper nutrition.

Yes molecular genetics is very expensive.  But so is IVF.  Also molecular genetic testing is most developed for assessing risks for diseases, either for a fetus or for a patient with cancer, rather than for diagnostics in otherwise healthy people.   At the moment, in my understanding, it genetic testing has far too many false positives or misleading readings to be used for non-specific diagnosis that is (ETA meant to say "not" here) suggested by other symptoms.  Failure to conceive is not a disease, but is a condition with a non-specific cause.

Proper nutrition can only be an issue for those who is suffering from  nutritional deficiency. Something that is very rare for those who eat anywhere approaching a good diet.  Anyway, nutritional deficiency is not an obstacle to pregnancy in most cases.  If it were, we would not be here because for most of humanities time on earth, most people have lived survived and procreated limited diets.

So my question for you is, do these people provide any proper double blinded studies that back up their claims?  Or is this yet another pusher of bogus health care promises?  Remember, nothing works until it is shown to work.

[LionKing]

turns out the "molecular level" is time -consumign adn expensive..this is why they rush to IVF

still complementary medicine is sayign they have success with proper nutrition.

Yes molecular genetics is very expensive.  But so is IVF.  Also molecular genetic testing is most developed for assessing risks for diseases, either for a fetus or for a patient with cancer, rather than for diagnostics in otherwise healthy people.   At the moment, in my understanding, it genetic testing has far too many false positives or misleading readings to be used for non-specific diagnosis that is suggested by other symptoms.  Failure to conceive is not a disease, but is a condition with a non-specific cause.

Proper nutrition can only be an issue for those who is suffering from  nutritional deficiency. Something that is very rare for those who eat anywhere approaching a good diet.  Anyway, nutritional deficiency is not an obstacle to pregnancy in most cases.  If it were, we would not be here because for most of humanities time on earth, most people have lived survived and procreated limited diets.

So my question for you is, do these people provide any proper double blinded studies that back up their claims?  Or is this yet another pusher of bogus health care promises?  Remember, nothing works until it is shown to work.

endometriosis , even if no symptoms appear, and even if mild can cause infertility. nutritious approaches claim to ahve helped many people. it is here were those studies should eb done to confirm. nutrition is said scientifically to affect the cells .. so it can solve a problem theoretically, but it needs to be studied

[Echnaton]

...claim....said....theoretically....needs to be studied.

That is what science is for.  Not nutritional supplement pushers.

[Zakalwe]

Remember, nothing works until it is shown to work.

That's an interesting comment!

Something can be efficacious even if it has not been through a proper testing methodology. For example, artemesinin had been know to Chinese traditional medicine for two thousand years as a malaria treatment, before it was subjected to proper testing in the 60s and 70s. However, that's not a get-out-of-jail-free card for people like Lionking that regularly spouts nonsense about "natural remedies" and such like. But it is an example where something can work before it is shown to work.

[LionKing]

Remember, nothing works until it is shown to work.

That's an interesting comment!

Something can be efficacious even if it has not been through a proper testing methodology. For example, artemesinin had been know to Chinese traditional medicine for two thousand years as a malaria treatment, before it was subjected to proper testing in the 60s and 70s. However, that's not a get-out-of-jail-free card for people like Lionking that regularly spouts nonsense about "natural remedies" and such like. But it is an example where something can work before it is shown to work.

Spear me your mean comments because war will erupt now f I start replying to you and I don't want this

[Zakalwe]

Spear me your mean comments because war will erupt now f I start replying to you and I don't want this

As long as you continue to post pseudo science such as this (below), then you are going to attract criticism. Deal with it.
Alternatively, post this type of comment where they won't attract sceptical comment. Somewhere where that old fraud Gillian McKeith hangs out would be suitable.

nutrition is said scientifically to affect the cells .. so it can solve a problem theoretically, but it needs to be studied

[LionKing]

Spear me your mean comments because war will erupt now f I start replying to you and I don't want this

As long as you continue to post pseudo science such as this (below), then you are going to attract criticism. Deal with it.
Alternatively, post this type of comment where they won't attract sceptical comment. Somewhere where that old fraud Gillian McKeith hangs out would be suitable.

nutrition is said scientifically to affect the cells .. so it can solve a problem theoretically, but it needs to be studied

it is not a pseudoscience, but there is no logic that you have that would follow and understand that something that theoretically works should be studied

[Jason Thompson]

I see this a lot, so I will ask you a question:

How do you know that what you say should be studied is not in fact already being studied? On average new scientific papers are published every minute of every day of every year. The number is constantly increasing. And that's the published results of a study. How long can it take to get those results?

I'm tired of hearing people insist things are not being studied when I doubt they even know how to find out if the studies are ongoing.

Another assumption you make, lionking, is that these 'molecular level' tests are actually at a stage where they would be of any use. Diagnostic tests have to go through rigorous regulatory approval steps, and their rate of false negative/positive outcome has to be below a certain threshold, and they have to show a high degree of specificity, and so on. Something else I am tired of hearing is how certain tests.drugs etc. 'should' be available from people who have no idea what is involved in making those things available in the first place.

[Zakalwe]

I see this a lot, so I will ask you a question:

How do you know that what you say should be studied is not in fact already being studied? On average new scientific papers are published every minute of every day of every year. The number is constantly increasing. And that's the published results of a study. How long can it take to get those results?

I'm tired of hearing people insist things are not being studied when I doubt they even know how to find out if the studies are ongoing.

Another assumption you make, lionking, is that these 'molecular level' tests are actually at a stage where they would be of any use. Diagnostic tests have to go through rigorous regulatory approval steps, and their rate of false negative/positive outcome has to be below a certain threshold, and they have to show a high degree of specificity, and so on. Something else I am tired of hearing is how certain tests.drugs etc. 'should' be available from people who have no idea what is involved in making those things available in the first place.

Bingo ^^

You see this in many hoax-believers. They claim that something *should* have happened and use their belief that it didn't as evidence of the hoax. Very often, what they believe should have happened actually DID happen and they were ignorant of the fact. Or, more often, what they believe should have happened have a whole host of reasons to explain why it didn't.
IDW displayed this on another forum...he was banging on about there being no pictures of stars from the Lunar surface. When I pointed out that there were in fact many UV pictures of the stars and a dedicated experiment to do such imaging, he at first denied that it existed. And then tried to handwave it away when he realised that he was incorrect.
Lionking may no longer be an Apollo hoax believer, but he certainly retains the "fuzzy thinking" that lead to being a hoax believer in the first place.

[LionKing]

I see this a lot, so I will ask you a question:

How do you know that what you say should be studied is not in fact already being studied? On average new scientific papers are published every minute of every day of every year. The number is constantly increasing. And that's the published results of a study. How long can it take to get those results?

I'm tired of hearing people insist things are not being studied when I doubt they even know how to find out if the studies are ongoing.

Another assumption you make, lionking, is that these 'molecular level' tests are actually at a stage where they would be of any use. Diagnostic tests have to go through rigorous regulatory approval steps, and their rate of false negative/positive outcome has to be below a certain threshold, and they have to show a high degree of specificity, and so on. Something else I am tired of hearing is how certain tests.drugs etc. 'should' be available from people who have no idea what is involved in making those things available in the first place.

Hi Jason,
I reviewed Pubmed and didn't see yet a study for nutrition on unexplained infertility. If you have one, please let me know about it. I agree with what I learnt from the Dr that it can be expensive and time consuming process to check the molecular level, but nutrition has to do with the cells functioning. So, it is plausible enough to check this theory becasue some people don't have proper absorption for certain nutrients, even if they eat well.