Paracetamol impacts masculinity in womb

drunkmonkey

Pretty disturbing the No1 drug recommended during pregnancy stops us becoming men.

http://www.skynews.com.au/news/national/nsw/2017/06/23/-paracetamol-impacts-masculinity-in-womb-.html

Peregrinus

drunkmonkey wrote: »

Pretty disturbing the No1 drug recommended during pregnancy stops us becoming men.

http://www.skynews.com.au/news/national/nsw/2017/06/23/-paracetamol-impacts-masculinity-in-womb-.html

Not that disturbing, maybe. The study suggests that, in order to have any effect on intrauterine testosterone levels, the subject would have to be taking paracetemol in quantities vastly greater than is currently considered safe for other reasons.

To be blunt, if she's not deterred from taking paracetemol in those quantities by the prospect of her own death from acute liver failure, she's not likely to be deterred by the somewhat smaller risk that her child, if male, may grow up less aggressive, and less likely to mate with females.

I never suspected you were a mouse

Further the dosages required to get the effects described were required to be so large and so consistent that the chances of this having a human equivalent are pretty small.

Even then what effects are we talking about here? A moderate reduction in sex drive and aggression? Would that necessarily be a bad thing?

drunkmonkey

Deleted User wrote: »

Even then what effects are we talking about here? A moderate reduction in sex drive and aggression? Would that necessarily be a bad thing?

Well if you want children grown in tubes and were ruled by Feminazis suppose it won't be that bad. I'd rather live as we are under Trump where men can be men.

I have genuinely no idea how you got from my post - to that reply. As nothing in my post even remotely suggested what you wrote in yours.

drunkmonkey

Deleted User wrote: »

I have genuinely no idea how you got from my post - to that reply. As nothing in my post even remotely suggested what you wrote in yours.

It was early and was looking at my young fellas wondering if they weren't man enough had already quizzed mrs monkey on how much paracetamol she had when pregnant...She said it was the only thing she was allowed take for pain, sky started falling around then.

Peregrinus

Panicking over half-digested stuff that you get from Sky News? How very unmanly of you, drunkmonkey!

Have you talked to your mother about her analgesic choices during pregnancy? Maybe it's time for that conversation. Just sayin'.

(If you feel man enough for it, of course!)

Wibbs

Deleted User wrote: »

I never suspected you were a mouse

Further the dosages required to get the effects described were required to be so large and so consistent that the chances of this having a human equivalent are pretty small.

This. Sounds like the all too usual bad "science" hyped up by the media. Well it is Sky...

Even then what effects are we talking about here? A moderate reduction in sex drive and aggression? Would that necessarily be a bad thing?

If it did have an effect, lowered testosterone is not exactly a good thing in men. Causes all sorts of systemic problems. Lower bone density, obesity, less muscle mass, lower libido, sexual dysfunction and mood disorders to list a few. Some research has even shown the idea that testosterone = aggression is more complex than that and it may even temper aggressiveness. Lower test men were found to be more irritable. Higher levels are correlated with more happiness, more mental acuity, more "get up and go" and is positively correlated with lowering the risk of Alzheimers.

Its basically the hormone that makes men. Anything that might affect that is not a good thing in my book.

drunkmonkey

She done a lot of praying, not sure what she prayed for but i'd say i'm happier than she is about the result.

seamus

Seems to be very much along the lines of the "Apple juice causes cancer" hysteria of the mid-90s.

The authors examined the effects of two doses of paracetamol administered daily until birth - in humans this is equivalent to taking the drug every day during the second trimester of pregnancy.

One dose (50 mg/kg body weight) was chosen as being towards the upper limit any doctor would prescribe. The other dose was three times larger.

'In any case, this lower dose did not have any effects on brain structure or behaviour. The higher dose did have such effects, but if given over a short period is, again, not comparable to the clinical condition,' said Prof Saunders.

'Such large doses are unlikely to be taken by pregnant women,' he added.

It's doubtful, he says, the results will lead to any change in the current clinical advice - which is don't take any drugs in pregnancy unless essential.

So, as is not uncommon in animal trials, one of the test groups received massively inflated doses of the drug in order to see what would happen. And it's this group which showed differences in the males.

The group who received a normal dose - which was still way above what pregnant women would be advised to take - saw no side-effects to the offspring.

So it's a non-story except "pregnant women shouldn't take 12 disprin every day for ten months". In fact, that's probably good advice for everyone.

Doesn't surprise me that Sky News would try to fan "where have all the cowboys gone!?" hysteria.

Peregrinus

Wibbs wrote: »

If it did have an effect, lowered testosterone is not exactly a good thing in men. Causes all sorts of systemic problems. Lower bone density, obesity, less muscle mass, lower libido, sexual dysfunction and mood disorders to list a few. Some research has even shown the idea that testosterone = aggression is more complex than that and it may even temper aggressiveness. Lower test men were found to be more irritable. Higher levels are correlated with more happiness, more mental acuity, more "get up and go" and is positively correlated with lowering the risk of Alzheimers.

Its basically the hormone that makes men. Anything that might affect that is not a good thing in my book.

None of this is relevant. The article doesn't suggest that taking paracetemol during pregnancy resulted in reduced testosterone levels in the offspring. It resulted in reduced exposure to testosterone in utero, which is quite different.

I'd assume that the offspring mice had normal testosterone levels. If they hadn't, you expect the report to say so. And it doesn't.

drunkmonkey

seamus wrote: »

Doesn't surprise me that Sky News would try to fan "where have all the cowboys gone!?" hysteria.

There alive and well just keeping their moth closed in public like a Gentleman should.

GLaDOS

Wouldn't mind reading the original paper, but doesn't seem like much to be worried about.

drunkmonkey

GLaDOS wrote: »

Wouldn't mind reading the original paper, but doesn't seem like much to be worried about.

Where's there's smoke....

GLaDOS

drunkmonkey wrote: »

Where's there's smoke....

....there's often a smoke machine

brevity

drunkmonkey wrote: »

I'd rather live as we are under Trump where men can be men.

Oh dear.

drunkmonkey

drunkmonkey wrote: »

Where's there's smoke....

Alas a lot of people mistake condensation for smoke. Like on those small twin engine planes you can sometimes get for relatively short internal flights in the US. They are always fun because condensation starts rolling across the floor in a way similar to the smoke you see at music gigs on stage.

And all the passengers who were not expecting this or understanding this go _quiet_ which has always amused me. As if somehow not vocally acknowledging the "smoke" means there is no actual problem.

I remember experiencing this back when you could actually see and talk to the pilot because he was right there - no door between you and him. Not one of the worried passengers called out to him suggesting his plane might be on fire. They just looked steadily more terrified.

So yea I would say instead of "Where there is smoke - there is fire -" or whatever and say "Sometimes where there appears to be smoke - there is just a condensate".

And this "report" sounds more like a condensate than a fire smoke to me.

Pat Mustard

This recent article entitled:
"Prolonged exposure to acetaminophen during pregnancy reduces testosterone production by the human fetal testis" refers back to an earlier (2015) article entitled:
"Prolonged exposure to acetaminophen reduces testosterone production by the human fetal testis in a xenograft model", from which the one sentence summary stated:

One Sentence Summary
Prolonged exposure to therapeutic doses of acetaminophen reduces testosterone production by human fetal testis xenografts.

I did not have time to read the second article in its entirety (although I skimmed over it), so just really posting the links in case they assist discussion.

EDIT: acetaminophen is paracetamol.

super_furry

Is this the same stuff that's turning the frogs gay?

drunkmonkey

super_furry wrote: »

Is this the same stuff that's turning the frogs gay?

No that's the plastic bottles.

super_furry

You wouldn't want to be keeping your paracetamol in plastic bottles so. Could turn awfully messy.

Wibbs

Peregrinus wrote: »

None of this is relevant.

It was relevant in reply to Tax's question "Would that necessarily be a bad thing?" if testosterone were reduced in men. I didn't reference the article save to suggest it's hyped up by the media.

super_furry

super_furry wrote: »

You wouldn't want to be keeping your paracetamol in plastic bottles so. Could turn awfully messy.

Crikey you would end up with a baby lacking so much in aggression that he is being dominated by his own pet feminazi gay frogs and does not have what it takes to stand up to them and say "no".

I have got a weird image in my head now that is a mix between a Villiage People video and "Paul McCartney & The Frog Chorus".

Wibbs wrote: »

It was relevant in reply to Tax's question "Would that necessarily be a bad thing?" if testosterone were reduced in men.

I am afraid I do not recall asking that question. Was it someone else maybe?

Wibbs

super_furry wrote: »

You wouldn't want to be keeping your paracetamol in plastic bottles so. Could turn awfully messy.

Actually the rise of pseudo oestrogens in the environment is of some concern.. A good few years back now I remember a case where fishermen found that a stretch of an Irish river was producing much larger trout and more of them than might be expected. One such angler came from a science background and had a couple sampled and it was found that they were male fish, but had been exposed to oestrogen in the water(likely from untreated sewage or animal waste) and this had feminised them and had affected their growth rates.

Wibbs

Deleted User wrote: »

I am afraid I do not recall asking that question. Was it someone else maybe?

Memory jog.

You. Earlier. wrote: »

Even then what effects are we talking about here? A moderate reduction in sex drive and aggression? Would that necessarily be a bad thing?

Unless you were talking about women, unlikely as women only produce tiny amounts of same, then it would be logical to assume that you were asking if reduced test would "necessarily be a bad thing" in men. And I replied to that.

Wibbs

Wibbs wrote: »

Memory jog.

Nowhere there did I ask if it "Would that necessarily be a bad thing?" if testosterone were reduced in men." though???

I never mentioned testosterone _at all_ in fact.

What I _did_ ask was whether a moderate reduction in aggression and sex drive would necessarily be a bad thing. Whatever the cause of it may be. Which is rather a different question.

Wibbs

Deleted User wrote: »

Nowhere there did I ask if it "Would that necessarily be a bad thing?" if testosterone were reduced in men." though???

At this point I wonder if you're just being deliberately obtuse. The article talks about reduction in (uterine)testosterone in the subjects and how this may have a human analogue. That's the topic in question. What else are you talking about? Unless you were debating about a "moderate reduction in sex drive and aggression" in the test tube mice.

Wibbs

Wibbs wrote: »

At this point I wonder if you're just being deliberately obtuse.

Nope. I just did not ask the question you thought I did. A break down in communication. It happens. I have made clear what my actual question was. Done. We can move on. There is no reason to be bothered by it on your side. I certainly was not on mine.

But on the subject of testosterone - Per got in before me just as I was typing it myself so I did not post it - by pointing out that there is a difference between less exposure to testosterone in the womb - and less testosterone in your post-natal life as an individual. So it would pay to be clear which the original papers was discussing as I have not read them myself yet.

But I am aware of the effects of low testosterone - so it certainly was not the focus of my question. I was asking whether - in our world - whether specifically a moderate reduction in aggression and sex drive is actually a bad thing.

_really_ nothing to do with testosterone at all.

Wibbs wrote: »

That's the topic in question. What else are you talking about?

Emmmm I _just_ said in the post you are replying to what I was "talking about". Who is being obtuse now? . I really do not know how many other ways to say it. I was asking whether a moderate reduction in aggression and sex drive (though more so the former than the latter) would actually be a bad thing.

kunst nugget

I don't use Paracetamol since a friend of mine took some during his school years and then came out of the closet in college. Scary stuff.

kunst nugget

drunkmonkey wrote: »

Well if you want children grown in tubes and were ruled by Feminazis suppose it won't be that bad. I'd rather live as we are under Trump where men can be men.

Oh, ffs. Is this a pisstake post or not? I can't tell anymore on boards…

drunkmonkey

kunst nugget wrote: »

Oh, ffs. Is this a pisstake post or not? I can't tell anymore on boards…

I'm happy living in a Trump world the rest is a piss take.