MESO-Rx
Anabolic Steroids
Can touching a barbell in the gym get you sick with the coronavirus?
- Thread starter Michael Scally MD
- Start date
[OA] Male Fertility and the COVID-19 Pandemic
Purpose: Since its discovery in December 2019, the novel coronavirus SARS-CoV-2 has spread globally, causing the current COVID-19 (coronavirus disease-19) pandemic. As there is an increase of infections in the male population, concerns have emerged about the potential impact of COVID-19 on male reproductive organs and male fertility.
Therefore, this study systematically investigates the current evidence of SARS-CoV-2 impact on male reproduction and pregnancy outcomes, discussing them in light of the evidence published on other coronaviruses.
Materials and methods: Literature search was carried out according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. A total of 24 original articles were included for the analysis, investigating the effects of the infection on semen parameters, male reproductive hormones, and pregnancy outcomes. Further, a Strengths-Weaknesses-Opportunities-Threats (SWOT) analysis was conducted based on the available evidence linking the virus with male reproduction and conception.
Results: Although there is limited data, viral mRNA has been identified in semen of infected men, with some evidence of altered seminal parameters. Low testosterone and dihydrotestosterone with raised luteinizing hormone has been reported as well as preterm delivery in pregnant women; however, data regarding vertical transmission remains contradictory and inconclusive.
Conclusions: The recent literature provides evidence that male gonads may be potentially vulnerable to SARS-CoV-2 infection, recommending caution to pregnant women and couples planning natural pregnancy or assisted reproduction.
Khalili MA, Leisegang K, Majzoub A, et al. Male Fertility and the COVID-19 Pandemic: Systematic Review of the Literature [published online ahead of print, 2020 Aug 14]. World J Mens Health. 2020;10.5534/wjmh.200134. doi:10.5534/wjmh.200134 Male Fertility and the COVID-19 Pandemic: Systematic Review of the Literature
Purpose: Since its discovery in December 2019, the novel coronavirus SARS-CoV-2 has spread globally, causing the current COVID-19 (coronavirus disease-19) pandemic. As there is an increase of infections in the male population, concerns have emerged about the potential impact of COVID-19 on male reproductive organs and male fertility.
Therefore, this study systematically investigates the current evidence of SARS-CoV-2 impact on male reproduction and pregnancy outcomes, discussing them in light of the evidence published on other coronaviruses.
Materials and methods: Literature search was carried out according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. A total of 24 original articles were included for the analysis, investigating the effects of the infection on semen parameters, male reproductive hormones, and pregnancy outcomes. Further, a Strengths-Weaknesses-Opportunities-Threats (SWOT) analysis was conducted based on the available evidence linking the virus with male reproduction and conception.
Results: Although there is limited data, viral mRNA has been identified in semen of infected men, with some evidence of altered seminal parameters. Low testosterone and dihydrotestosterone with raised luteinizing hormone has been reported as well as preterm delivery in pregnant women; however, data regarding vertical transmission remains contradictory and inconclusive.
Conclusions: The recent literature provides evidence that male gonads may be potentially vulnerable to SARS-CoV-2 infection, recommending caution to pregnant women and couples planning natural pregnancy or assisted reproduction.
Khalili MA, Leisegang K, Majzoub A, et al. Male Fertility and the COVID-19 Pandemic: Systematic Review of the Literature [published online ahead of print, 2020 Aug 14]. World J Mens Health. 2020;10.5534/wjmh.200134. doi:10.5534/wjmh.200134 Male Fertility and the COVID-19 Pandemic: Systematic Review of the Literature
Joe Morgan
Member
“Virginia Plans Mandatory COVID-19 Vaccinations For All Residents”
Virginia Plans Mandatory COVID-19 Vaccinations For All Residents
lmao! yea sure... rofl
Virginia Plans Mandatory COVID-19 Vaccinations For All Residents
lmao! yea sure... rofl
Joe Morgan
Member
“Biden: "I Would Shut Country Down Again If Recommended By Scientists"
Biden: "I Would Shut Country Down Again If Recommended By Scientists"
lol
Biden: "I Would Shut Country Down Again If Recommended By Scientists"
lol
Joe Morgan
Member
“If Cuomo won’t allow outside review of NY nursing home COVID-19 horror, he admits guilt”
Cuomo admits guilt if he won't allow NY nursing home COVID-19 probe
this piece of shit sends COVID-19 positive patients to nursing homes where the most vulnerable people are. I know Democrats are stupid and mentally ill because liberalism is a mental disorder, but this guy takes the cake for retard of the year. no surprise though. I wouldn’t expect anything less from a democRAT.
Cuomo admits guilt if he won't allow NY nursing home COVID-19 probe
this piece of shit sends COVID-19 positive patients to nursing homes where the most vulnerable people are. I know Democrats are stupid and mentally ill because liberalism is a mental disorder, but this guy takes the cake for retard of the year. no surprise though. I wouldn’t expect anything less from a democRAT.
Joe Morgan
Member
[OA] COVID-19: Risk Accumulation Among Biologically and Socially Vulnerable Older Populations
Highlights
· COVID-19 disproportionately affects individuals who are not only biologically, but also socially vulnerable.
· Research focusing on the interplay between the biological and social determinants of COVID-19 burden is currently lacking.
· Interdisciplinary collaboration and biological, clinical and social data integration will be crucial to guide actions aimed at reducing older adults’ vulnerability to COVID-19.
Emerging data show that the health and economic impacts of COVID-19 are being disproportionately borne by individuals who are not only biologically, but also socially vulnerable.
Based on preliminary data from Sweden and other reports, in this paper we propose a conceptual framework whereby different factors related to biological and social vulnerability may explain the specific COVID-19 burden among older people.
There is already some evidence showing large social disparities in the prevention, treatment, prognosis and/or long-term consequences of COVID-19. The remaining question is to what extent these affect older adults specifically.
We provide the rationale to address this question with scientific methods and proper study designs, where the interplay between individuals' biomedical status and their social environment is the focus.
Only through interdisciplinary research integrating biological, clinical and social data will we be able to provide new insights into the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic and inform actions aimed at reducing older adults' vulnerability to COVID-19 or other similar pandemics in the future.
Calderón-Larrañaga A, Dekhtyar S, Vetrano DL, Bellander T, Fratiglioni L. COVID-19: risk accumulation among biologically and socially vulnerable older populations [published online ahead of print, 2020 Aug 17]. Ageing Res Rev. 2020;101149. doi:10.1016/j.arr.2020.101149 COVID-19: risk accumulation among biologically and socially vulnerable older populations - ScienceDirect
Highlights
· COVID-19 disproportionately affects individuals who are not only biologically, but also socially vulnerable.
· Research focusing on the interplay between the biological and social determinants of COVID-19 burden is currently lacking.
· Interdisciplinary collaboration and biological, clinical and social data integration will be crucial to guide actions aimed at reducing older adults’ vulnerability to COVID-19.
Emerging data show that the health and economic impacts of COVID-19 are being disproportionately borne by individuals who are not only biologically, but also socially vulnerable.
Based on preliminary data from Sweden and other reports, in this paper we propose a conceptual framework whereby different factors related to biological and social vulnerability may explain the specific COVID-19 burden among older people.
There is already some evidence showing large social disparities in the prevention, treatment, prognosis and/or long-term consequences of COVID-19. The remaining question is to what extent these affect older adults specifically.
We provide the rationale to address this question with scientific methods and proper study designs, where the interplay between individuals' biomedical status and their social environment is the focus.
Only through interdisciplinary research integrating biological, clinical and social data will we be able to provide new insights into the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic and inform actions aimed at reducing older adults' vulnerability to COVID-19 or other similar pandemics in the future.
Calderón-Larrañaga A, Dekhtyar S, Vetrano DL, Bellander T, Fratiglioni L. COVID-19: risk accumulation among biologically and socially vulnerable older populations [published online ahead of print, 2020 Aug 17]. Ageing Res Rev. 2020;101149. doi:10.1016/j.arr.2020.101149 COVID-19: risk accumulation among biologically and socially vulnerable older populations - ScienceDirect
SARS-CoV2 and the Rise of Medical Technocracy
Harnessing Boredom in the Age of Coronavirus
This essay, by Elan Cohen, is one of the top three winners in the middle school category of our Seventh Annual Student Editorial Contest for which we received 1,242 entries.
Harnessing Boredom in the Age of Coronavirus
“Harnessing Boredom in the Age of Coronavirus”
By Elan Cohen, age 14, F.A. Day Middle School, Newton, Mass.
We all get bored frequently: waiting in line at Starbucks, riding the bus to school, sitting at home with nothing to do. It is inevitable, especially during this time of physical distancing, and it is not going away anytime soon. But if it happens so often, why do we tirelessly try to counteract it? Maybe, instead of avoiding the daydreaming and mind-wandering, we should be embracing it.
A study published in the journal “Science” showed what people would do when they were by themselves for six to 15 minutes and given two choices: do nothing or self-administer mild electric shocks. The findings were astonishing: two-thirds of the men and one-fourth of the women chose to shock themselves rather than be bored.
Do we crave external stimulation so intently that hurting ourselves is preferable to being alone with our own thoughts? Have we forgotten what it is like to be inside our own minds?
…
Nowadays, we enjoy any number of inexpensive and readily accessible stimuli, be they books, videos, or social media. We need never be alone, with no one to talk to and nothing to do. Wilson et al. explored the state of being alone with one's thoughts and found that it appears to be an unpleasant experience. In fact, many of the people studied, particularly the men, chose to give themselves a mild electric shock rather than be deprived of external sensory stimuli.
Wilson TD, Reinhard DA, Westgate EC, et al. Just think: The challenges of the disengaged mind. Science 2014;345:75. http://science.sciencemag.org/content/345/6192/75.abstract
In 11 studies, we found that participants typically did not enjoy spending 6 to 15 minutes in a room by themselves with nothing to do but think, that they enjoyed doing mundane external activities much more, and that many preferred to administer electric shocks to themselves instead of being left alone with their thoughts. Most people seem to prefer to be doing something rather than nothing, even if that something is negative.
This essay, by Elan Cohen, is one of the top three winners in the middle school category of our Seventh Annual Student Editorial Contest for which we received 1,242 entries.
Harnessing Boredom in the Age of Coronavirus
“Harnessing Boredom in the Age of Coronavirus”
By Elan Cohen, age 14, F.A. Day Middle School, Newton, Mass.
We all get bored frequently: waiting in line at Starbucks, riding the bus to school, sitting at home with nothing to do. It is inevitable, especially during this time of physical distancing, and it is not going away anytime soon. But if it happens so often, why do we tirelessly try to counteract it? Maybe, instead of avoiding the daydreaming and mind-wandering, we should be embracing it.
A study published in the journal “Science” showed what people would do when they were by themselves for six to 15 minutes and given two choices: do nothing or self-administer mild electric shocks. The findings were astonishing: two-thirds of the men and one-fourth of the women chose to shock themselves rather than be bored.
Do we crave external stimulation so intently that hurting ourselves is preferable to being alone with our own thoughts? Have we forgotten what it is like to be inside our own minds?
…
Nowadays, we enjoy any number of inexpensive and readily accessible stimuli, be they books, videos, or social media. We need never be alone, with no one to talk to and nothing to do. Wilson et al. explored the state of being alone with one's thoughts and found that it appears to be an unpleasant experience. In fact, many of the people studied, particularly the men, chose to give themselves a mild electric shock rather than be deprived of external sensory stimuli.
Wilson TD, Reinhard DA, Westgate EC, et al. Just think: The challenges of the disengaged mind. Science 2014;345:75. http://science.sciencemag.org/content/345/6192/75.abstract
In 11 studies, we found that participants typically did not enjoy spending 6 to 15 minutes in a room by themselves with nothing to do but think, that they enjoyed doing mundane external activities much more, and that many preferred to administer electric shocks to themselves instead of being left alone with their thoughts. Most people seem to prefer to be doing something rather than nothing, even if that something is negative.
The coronavirus may infect anyone, young or old, but older men are up to twice as likely to become severely sick and to die as women of the same age.
Why? The first study to look at immune response by sex has turned up a clue: Men produce a weaker immune response to the virus than do women, the researchers concluded.
The findings, published on Wednesday in Nature, suggest that men, particularly those over age 60, may need to depend more on vaccines to protect against the infection. Sex differences in immune responses that underlie COVID-19 disease outcomes | Nature
“Natural infection is clearly failing” to spark adequate immune responses in men, said Akiko Iwasaki, an immunologist at Yale University who led the work.
Takahashi, T., Ellingson, M.K., Wong, P. et al. Sex differences in immune responses that underlie COVID-19 disease outcomes. Nature (2020). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-020-2700-3
A growing body of evidence indicates sex differences in the clinical outcomes of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)1–5. However, whether immune responses against SARS-CoV-2 differ between sexes, and whether such differences explain male susceptibility to COVID-19, is currently unknown. In this study, we examined sex differences in viral loads, SARS-CoV-2-specific antibody titers, plasma cytokines, as well as blood cell phenotyping in COVID-19 patients. By focusing our analysis on patients with moderate disease who had not received immunomodulatory medications, our results revealed that male patients had higher plasma levels of innate immune cytokines such as IL-8 and IL-18 along with more robust induction of non-classical monocytes. In contrast, female patients mounted significantly more robust T cell activation than male patients during SARS-CoV-2 infection, which was sustained in old age. Importantly, we found that a poor T cell response negatively correlated with patients’ age and was associated with worse disease outcome in male patients, but not in female patients. Conversely, higher innate immune cytokines in female patients associated with worse disease progression, but not in male patients. These findings reveal a possible explanation underlying observed sex biases in COVID-19, and provide an important basis for the development of a sex-based approach to the treatment and care of men and women with COVID-19.
Last edited:
Villain
Member
And you wonder why so many people don’t buy this bullshit. CDC now says those exposed to COVID-19 may not need to be tested, puzzling doctors — CNN
Similar threads
