Unexplained infertiltiy

[Echnaton]

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.

My comment was designed to be evocative by leaving the meanings of "work" vague .  Read it as nothing can be reasonably said to work, until we have knowledge that it materially does work.

[Andromeda]

After 5 seconds on Google I can tell that you didn't look very hard, LionKing.

Perhaps you could explain the mechanisms of this "molecular level" business you are talking about?

[LionKing]

After 5 seconds on Google I can tell that you didn't look very hard, LionKing.

Perhaps you could explain the mechanisms of this "molecular level" business you are talking about?

oops didn't search google...just PubMed because of the large number of articles publsihed in scientific journals..

I am also speaking to someone now while I'm doign this  (perhaps alter I can search more), but this I found important:

"Indeed, borderline low iodine and selenium deficiency are known to have an
adverse effect on ovulatory performance (2,9). While we recognise that
nutritional status is only part of the explanation for “unexplained
infertility”, it would seem wise to take steps to optimise that status
when veterinary and animal evidence for its importance is so strong."
http://www.bmj.com/rapid-response/2011/11/02/nutritional-factors-unexplained-infertility

however I posted a question for a dr if the nutritional status is taken into consideration in practice but I still didn't receive an answer

[Zakalwe]

My comment was designed to be evocative by leaving the meanings of "work" vague .  Read it as nothing can be reasonably said to work, until we have knowledge that it materially does work.

Agreed. To quote Tim Minchin it "Has either not been proved to work, Or been proved not to work."
http://www.lyricsmania.com/storm_lyrics_tim_minchin.html

[Echnaton]

What was the initial point of this tread anyway?

[Echnaton]

Agreed. To quote Tim Minchin it "Has either not been proved to work, Or been proved not to work."
http://www.lyricsmania.com/storm_lyrics_tim_minchin.html

The video of Storm is a family favorite in our house. 

[Luke Pemberton]

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.

Quite. In my physics department the standard joke was that Physics Review filled library bookshelves faster than the speed of light, but did not violate relativity because it carried no useful information.

As a doctoral student I had to sift my way through thousands of published papers (using the old BIDS system) to find the little nuggets that aided my research. That fact alone is pretty telling as I studied a niche area of science. What does it tell Lionking about the wealth of published knowledge?

[gillianren]

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

I'm going to be blunt.  You are ignorant of medicine and how it works.  Then, when people try to educate you, you call them "mean."  It's attitudes like yours that got my friend's four-month-old infected with measles.  He's fine, but he could have died from people spouting nonsense and leaving their kids unvaccinated, thereby exposing a child too young to vaccinate to a potentially lethal illness.  I have no sympathy for this attitude and am never going to.

[LionKing]

I never said people shouldn't get vaccinated. I talked about a specific subject that is common cold and said if a person ever got it..before buying medicine  it might b gd to try to sweat it out. please don't put words in my mouth. I am hundred percent with vaccination...just some ppl might not have done it and for something so common like common cold it ....oh why i am still speaking to you

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

I'm going to be blunt.  You are ignorant of medicine and how it works.  Then, when people try to educate you, you call them "mean."  It's attitudes like yours that got my friend's four-month-old infected with measles.  He's fine, but he could have died from people spouting nonsense and leaving their kids unvaccinated, thereby exposing a child too young to vaccinate to a potentially lethal illness.  I have no sympathy for this attitude and am never going to.

[Luke Pemberton]

I never said people shouldn't get vaccinated...

I don't think Gillianren was putting words into your mouth. She was drawing on a parallel to highlight what can happen when people talk from ignorance on medical matters. She thinks you are ignorant to medical matters, and that is her opinion based on reading your posts.

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

Neither does anyone else. Why use such evocative language because people disagree with you. If you're prepared to present your arguments then do so, as you are freely being allowed to. People have every right to reply. No one has insulted you or called you names, they disagree with your postion, it really sums up life. This thread is not in the slightest bit rumbustious.

[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.

Hi Jason,
I reviewed Pubmed and didn't see yet a study for nutrition on unexplained infertility.

1: Pubmed is not the ultimate repository of published papers.

2: There's a good chance you wouldn't recognise a study even if it was published. Many papers on the specific details focus on the real technical minutiae, and these are a) not easily understood by laypeople, and b) don't even have titles that are readily understood by laypeople.

3: Studies are published when they are finished, and generally only when they find significant results.

nutrition has to do with the cells functioning

Of course it does. Proper nutrition has a wide variety of benefits, and almost certainly studues are being conducted into all areas. Until they show conclusive evidence of a link they're not going to be published, and even when they are published, they have to be repeated before they become accepted as genuine results, and then the whole notion of a test that shows up relevant results has to be developed. There is, for example, a wide gap between a study that examines the effects of nutritional deficiency by feeding lab rats with various diets and a developing a test that shows exactly what you are deficient in.

[Jason Thompson]

I never said people shouldn't get vaccinated. I talked about a specific subject that is common cold and said if a person ever got it..before buying medicine  it might b gd to try to sweat it out. please don't put words in my mouth.

She didn't. She compared your attitude to others who speak on medical matters despite being ignorant of them, of which anti-vaccination groups are the most well-known. You have missed the point spectacularly, as usual.

You've been posting on this forum for years now, lionking. You know what happens when you post unscientific, pseudoscientific or anti-scientific threads, and yet you seem unable to grasp that you are talking to a batch of people that includes scientists. You are receiving here exactly the same sort of responses that real scientists get when they submit their papers for peer review, and it is exactly this process that allows science to develop. Scientists don't publish to be accepted, but to be challenged and see how well their work stands up to that challenge. If it survives the challenge it is accepted. If it does not, and the scientist complains people are being mean by picking holes in his work, that scientist does not have a future in the profession. If you do not want to be challenged I suggest you either don't post or else show some signs of actually listening to the people on this board when they not only tell you you might be wrong, but explain why you might be wrong.

[LionKing]

to me it is an insult..insults r not just calling names..it is aggressiveness and being unkind too..as for gillianren, she is comparing what i said to not approving vaccination..and according to reading her posts she is accusing me of causing people to die. ..all this while i discussed a specific topic that is common cold that , according to my experience, could b solved without medication and this is nothing like saying that ppl shouldn't b vacinated

I never said people shouldn't get vaccinated...

I don't think Gillianren was putting words into your mouth. She was drawing on a parallel to highlight what can happen when people talk from ignorance on medical matters. She thinks you are ignorant to medical matters, and that is her opinion based reading your posts.

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

Neither does anyone else. Why use such evocative language because people disagree with you. If you're prepared to present your arguments then do so, as you are freely being allowed to. People have every right to reply. No one has insulted you or called you names, they disagree with your postion, it really sums up life. This thread is not in the slightest bit rumbustious.

[LionKing]

albeit professional replies without aggressive personal contents..the comparison means I am like them in depth causing ppl to die which is not even close to what i was suggesting..

I never said people shouldn't get vaccinated. I talked about a specific subject that is common cold and said if a person ever got it..before buying medicine  it might b gd to try to sweat it out. please don't put words in my mouth.

She didn't. She compared your attitude to others who speak on medical matters despite being ignorant of them, of which anti-vaccination groups are the most well-known. You have missed the point spectacularly, as usual.

You've been posting on this forum for years now, lionking. You know what happens when you post unscientific, pseudoscientific or anti-scientific threads, and yet you seem unable to grasp that you are talking to a batch of people that includes scientists. You are receiving here exactly the same sort of responses that real scientists get when they submit their papers for peer review, and it is exactly this process that allows science to develop. Scientists don't publish to be accepted, but to be challenged and see how well their work stands up to that challenge. If it survives the challenge it is accepted. If it does not, and the scientist complains people are being mean by picking holes in his work, that scientist does not have a future in the profession. If you do not want to be challenged I suggest you either don't post or else show some signs of actually listening to the people on this board when they not only tell you you might be wrong, but explain why you might be wrong.

[Luke Pemberton]

to me it is an insult..insults r not just calling names..it is aggressiveness and being unkind too..as for gillianren, she is comparing what i said to not approving vaccination..and according to reading her posts she is accusing me of causing people to die. ..all this while i discussed a specific topic that is common cold that , according to my experience, could b solved without medication and this is nothing like saying that ppl shouldn't b vacinated

I fail to comprehend how Gillianren was aggressive. She was being forthright in her criticism of your view. Neither did she accuse you of causing people to die. What she implied was that people that speak from a position of ignorance about medical matters can cause significant problems.

I assume that you are familiar with Mark Twain: A lie can travel half way around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes.

One of the many downsides to the internet is the amount of rubbish that can be published, and that rubbish is consumed by millions of people. The point being that people speaking from ignorance can cause damage to others, and in the extreme anti-vaccers have gained a platform which has been damaging. That is how I read Gillianren's post.

Take a look at the hoax boards here and you will find that I only post arguments about topics that I feel firm and confident about. That is how scientists work. We don't speculate or pretend to be experts when we are not. We defer to others with more knowledge. There have been times when I have been wrong, and others have corrected me. I do not accuse them of being aggressive or insulting me.