My craziest idea yet: female hormone supplements
27 Feb 2013, 1:14 pm
Tyri0n wrote:
nessa238 wrote:
Verdandi wrote:
DerStadtschutz wrote:
Wow, what a TERRIBLE idea. There's already evidence that males are getting way too much estrogen already, simply because it's in the water supply thanks to birth control, and it's actually causing some males to be born sterile. We are already way over feminized. The last thing we need is to be taking female hormones... Are you insane?
Citation needed. I've researched this several times and it seems about as credible as vaccines causing autism.
https://gene.sfari.org/GeneDetail/CYP11B1
"Genetic association has been found between the CYP11B1 gene and both autism and Asperger syndrome (Chakrabarti et al., 2009).
This gene encodes a member of the cytochrome P450 superfamily of enzymes participating in the conversion of progesterone to cortisol in the adrenal cortex."
https://imfar.confex.com/imfar/2009/web ... r5033.html
Background:
Although epidemiologists and toxicologists have started to investigate several chemicals as potential autism risk factors, it is still unclear what chemicals should be studied in this regard. A more objective and comprehensive approach to screening and prioritizing chemicals would be useful in designing future studies. This work should be informed by the most recent findings in the genetics of autism.
Objectives:
This analysis was an effort to find and demonstrate a way to cast a relatively wide net to identify chemicals that might merit further investigation as potential risk factors in autism, drawing upon the full range of genetic findings and a wide range of literature on gene-chemical interactions.
Methods:
The Comparative Toxicogenomics Database (CTD, http://ctd.mdibl.org) and AutDB (http://www.mindspec.org) were selected as relatively comprehensive, powerful tools for this type of analysis. The AutDB was used to identify 142 genes (as of late 2008) studied in autism, of which 122 genes were found to have reported chemical interaction data in the CTD. These interactions often consist of observed changes in gene expression in rodents exposed to various levels of the studied chemical substance. The chemical-gene interactions, GO terms, and pathways associated with these genes in the CTD were analyzed, and chemicals were manually classified as xenobiotics, medications, nutrients, and endogenous substances. Chemicals were prioritized based on number of reported interactions.
Results:
The genes MET, PTEN, ADRB2, and TH each had more than 30 interacting chemicals identified in the CTD, and 120 chemicals were reported to interact with PON1. Other genes, such as MECP2, TSC2, RELN, UBE3A, and GABRB3, showed interaction reports for only 4-14 chemicals each in the CTD. For many genes, such as EN2, SHANK3, FMR1, NLGN3, and NRXN1, the CTD contains interaction reports for only 1-2 chemicals so far.
Over 600 chemical substances were identified as interacting with any of the 122 autism candidate genes, of which 498 had unique CAS numbers.
Xenobiotics (or closely related substances) identified as interacting with autism candidate genes included the following (# of genes in parentheses): Carbon Tetrachloride (33), tert-Butylhydroperoxide (19), sodium arsenite (17), Lipopolysaccharides (11), Paraquat (10), nickel sulfate (9), Hydrogen Peroxide (9), arsenic trioxide (8), Benzene (7), Benzo(a)pyrene (7), Ethanol (7), Tobacco Smoke Pollution (4), Arsenic (4), Chlorpyrifos (4), Tetrachlorodibenzodioxin (4), and bisphenol A (4). Other chemicals previously implicated in autism or related conditions are also identified by this analysis, such as mercury compounds, lead, cocaine, fipronil, endosulfan, and phthalates.
Top substances related to dietary nutrients: Pirinixic acid (27 genes), Zinc, Resveratrol, Flavonoids, and Dietary Fats.
Top medications: Acetaminophen (49 genes), Tamoxifen, Diethylstilbestrol, Valproic Acid, and Celecoxib.
Top endogenous (or closely related) substances interacting with numerous autism candidate genes: Progesterone (37 genes), Estradiol, Ethinyl Estradiol, Corticosterone, and Thyroxine.
Conclusions:
As bioinformatics databases grow, they can inform prioritization of candidate environmental risk factors.
I'm curious as to whether taking any of those hormones would be useful for a man. I don't exactly want to lose muscle tone or look like a woman, but being more sensitive to social situations would be nice.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oxytocin
"Autism: Oxytocin may play a role in autism and may be an effective treatment for autism's repetitive and affiliative behaviors.[30] Oxytocin treatments also resulted in an increased retention of affective speech in adults with autism.[31] Two related studies in adults, in 2003 and 2007, found oxytocin decreased repetitive behaviors and improved interpretation of emotions. More recently, intranasal administration of oxytocin was found to increase emotion recognition in children as young as 12 who are diagnosed with autism spectrum disorders [32] Oxytocin has also been implicated in the etiology of autism, with one report suggesting autism is correlated with genomic deletion of the gene containing the oxytocin receptor gene (OXTR). Studies involving Caucasian and Finnish samples and Chinese Han families provide support for the relationship of OXTR with autism.[31][33] Autism may also be associated with an aberrant methylation of OXTR.[31] After treatment with inhaled oxytocin, autistic patients exhibit more appropriate social behavior.[34] While this research suggests some promise, further clinical trials of oxytocin are required to demonstrate potential benefit and side effects in the treatment of autism. As such, researchers do not recommend use of oxytocin as a treatment for autism outside of clinical trials."
You could try Oxytocin
"Synthetic oxytocin is sold as proprietary medication under the trade names Pitocin and Syntocinon, and as generic oxytocin. Oxytocin is destroyed in the gastrointestinal tract, so must be administered by injection or as nasal spray. It has a half-life of typically about three minutes in the blood, and given intravenously does not enter the brain in significant quantities – it is excluded from the brain by the blood–brain barrier. Evidence in rhesus macaques indicates oxytocin by nasal spray does enter the brain.[64] Oxytocin nasal sprays have been used to stimulate breastfeeding, but the efficacy of this approach is doubtful."
research results:-
http://researchautism.net/autism_treatm ... nfolevel=4
"Our Opinion
There is a limited amount of scientifically valid and reliable evidence to show that oxytocin may be beneficial in helping to reduce repetitive behaviors, and to improve some aspects of social information processing, in some individuals with autism.
However the studies undertaken to date do not really constitute proper trials into the effectiveness or otherwise of oxytocin as a treatment for autism. Rather they are quasi-experimental studies, the results of which may have no relevance in the real world.
At this stage, we not know whether oxytocin will have any benefits nor whether there are any risks involved. For this reason we do not feel that oxytocin can be considered a valid treatment for autism.
Oxytocin should only be used under strictly controlled conditions and under the guidance (and responsibility for prescribing) of a specialist with skill and experience in its use.
Further research is required to further examine whether other studies replicate and confirm the results from preliminary studies of oxytocin and its effect in individuals with a diagnosis of autism."
Verdandi
Veteran
Joined: 7 Dec 2010
Age: 55
Gender: Female
Posts: 12,275
Location: University of California Sunnydale (fictional location - Real location Olympia, WA)
27 Feb 2013, 4:03 pm
nessa238 wrote:
Why, when I've posted evidence for a convincing link between sex hormones and autism, does everyone ignore it?
Is it that it's me posting it or is it just not interesting information?
there's definitely a link between autism and the sex hormones not working properly/not being produced in the right quantities in my opinion
Is it that it's me posting it or is it just not interesting information?
there's definitely a link between autism and the sex hormones not working properly/not being produced in the right quantities in my opinion
I didn't ignore it. I responded, said it was an interesting study, and if I recall correctly, I thanked you for posting it. It was not actually relevant to the question you quoted when you posted it, but it is relevant to the thread.
27 Feb 2013, 4:11 pm
Tyri0n wrote:
DerStadtschutz wrote:
We are already way over feminized.
Not according to the hyper-male brain hypothesis.
It's because males used to just walk around with a scowl all the time like Gregory Peck. Then the plastic water bottles came and converted everyone to girlie men and AS people are unaffected due to our superior manly genes that lack empathy like male genes are supposed to.
27 Feb 2013, 7:54 pm
Verdandi wrote:
DerStadtschutz wrote:
First of all, just because I don't have a link to a study doesn't mean it's not true. Secondly, this is hardly "conspiracy theorizing" or "panic mongering." I never said there was a conspiracy to turn men into vaginas, but because nobody's doing that on purpose doesn't mean it isn't happening.
You know, I didn't say that it's not happening because you do not have a link to a study.
I said I do not believe it is happening because I have repeatedly researched this topic and found literally nothing to validate it. Everything I can find is either on alternative medicine sites or someplace like "beyond top secret" which is to say it's full of conspiracy theories. That film doesn't have any proof, but proposes that it might be causing such problems.
However, my request was not hostile, and if you actually had something to offer I would indeed have read it and possibly changed my views. As it is, you became defensive and linked a documentary that only has opinions based on a few empirical bits.
Quote:
Also, just because something is found on the internet, that doesn't mean it's true, so even if I did have a link, how would you determine whether or not a study was even done and the link I gave you wasn't pure bs anyway? I must just be weird around here because I seem to be the only one who doesn't have his bookmarks full of links to "studies."
A lot of information on the internet is true, and a lot is false. This can often be determined by such factors as who is providing the information and whether it can be verified elsewhere. If you find something on pubmed, odds are good that it has a much stronger empirical backing than something found on a site known for promoting quackery (I can't think of any offhand, but they do exist).
Quote:
Also, wtf is "environmental" estrogen? And what, stuff that's in our water supply or part of the "environment," which includes EVERYTHING, by the way, because EARTH is the environment, doesn't affect us now?
This has literally nothing to do with my question.
Quote:
I think it's also very important to note that at the time in which galileo proposed the earth revolved around the sun, he'd be hard pressed to find literature on the subject. Why? Because it wasn't a widely accepted view at the time. You seem to be operating on the assumption that if something is bad, we'd have heard about it being bad... yet look at how long it took for the government and tobacco companies to finally admit tobacco is bad for you. If you can acknowledge those two things, then surely you can see how there might be some validity to what I'm saying whether I have links to studies or discussions about it or not.
Galileo in fact did not have convincing evidence for his claim, and this was reflected in his behavior in trying to get others to accept his ideas, and likely contributed to his troubles. Pointing him out is kind of irrelevant, though. I mean cherry picking him because his unsubstantiated guesswork turned out to be true is probably meaningful, but what about all of the scientists and researchers who made bold claims that turned out to be false? Why is this matter comparable to Galileo and not to Pons & Fleischmann?
I am not operating on the assumption that if something is bad we'd have heard about it being bad. If I operated on such an assumption, I wouldn't even attempt to research such claims because I'd already have my answer. I operate on the assumption that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. No evidence, then the claim is not yet demonstrated to be true.
However, I do not believe claims that something is really bad and causes real problems just because someone says it is so. I also do not believe claims that something is perfectly harmless just because someone says it is so. I am skeptical, and given your response, my skepticism on this particular thing remains unabated.
I do not doubt that plastics are not good for the environment, and I have done enough research on plastics to know it is not perfectly safe, and can be quite harmful. However, whether it is harmful in the manner you propose is something that does not appear to be established in any kind of empirical fashion, and I am not likely to accept that it is until such time as there is evidence.
For comparison to this discussion with you, Tyri0n hinted at a possible cure being researched in Sacramento, and it took me less than ten seconds to find something that could match what he was referring to. If I argued and thought and functioned the way you seem to think, I would have simply told Tyri0n that there's no evidence of any kind of potential cure.
See, the point is, it doesn't matter if galileo had evidence or not because any evidence he would have had would be suppressed by the church, just like today, we have TONS of proof in the form of real world experience that electronic cigarettes are a safe alternative to cigarettes that are extremely effective in helping one quit smoking... However, most medical professionals and "health" organizations will say "oh, we dont' know what's in them," or "they haven't been proven safe." They HAVE been proven, but it wasn't proven in a "scientific" study, because apparently all studies must be done in a lab and cost tons and tons of money. And apparently real life experiences don't mean jack s**t. The establishment would have you believe that e-cigs are unsafe, even moreso than cigarettes in some cases, and that they absolutely do not help you quit smoking. AND, that they're "dangerous" because "we don't know what's in them," which is a downright lie.
We've become way too reliant on so-called experts and their stupid papers and certificates, that we ignore things that make sense and real world experience, which is the most important, because the real world is not contained within a laboratory. Also, most of the time when a study is done, they set out with an objective to prove something one way or the other, and then they cherry pick data and present it as though none of that ever happened.
The world runs on oil and plastic. They are HUGE f*****g industries, as is the bottled water industry. These people have tons of money and influence and have for a long time(plastic is made of oil, oil is one of the oldest biggest industries in the world). These people have politicians in their back pocket, as well as the media. DO you honestly think they're gonna get out and say "hey guys, we're poisoning you?"
I don't give a s**t what evidence Galileo supposedly had or didn't have. He was RIGHT to say that the earth wasn't the center of the universe, so all else is irrelevant. So whatever, think what you want. I don't care anymore. In fact, the sooner the people of this earth destroy themselves and the planet, the better. I want off this rock.
28 Feb 2013, 1:44 am
Tyri0n wrote:
nessa238 wrote:
Verdandi wrote:
DerStadtschutz wrote:
Wow, what a TERRIBLE idea. There's already evidence that males are getting way too much estrogen already, simply because it's in the water supply thanks to birth control, and it's actually causing some males to be born sterile. We are already way over feminized. The last thing we need is to be taking female hormones... Are you insane?
Citation needed. I've researched this several times and it seems about as credible as vaccines causing autism.
https://gene.sfari.org/GeneDetail/CYP11B1
"Genetic association has been found between the CYP11B1 gene and both autism and Asperger syndrome (Chakrabarti et al., 2009).
This gene encodes a member of the cytochrome P450 superfamily of enzymes participating in the conversion of progesterone to cortisol in the adrenal cortex."
https://imfar.confex.com/imfar/2009/web ... r5033.html
Background:
Although epidemiologists and toxicologists have started to investigate several chemicals as potential autism risk factors, it is still unclear what chemicals should be studied in this regard. A more objective and comprehensive approach to screening and prioritizing chemicals would be useful in designing future studies. This work should be informed by the most recent findings in the genetics of autism.
Objectives:
This analysis was an effort to find and demonstrate a way to cast a relatively wide net to identify chemicals that might merit further investigation as potential risk factors in autism, drawing upon the full range of genetic findings and a wide range of literature on gene-chemical interactions.
Methods:
The Comparative Toxicogenomics Database (CTD, http://ctd.mdibl.org) and AutDB (http://www.mindspec.org) were selected as relatively comprehensive, powerful tools for this type of analysis. The AutDB was used to identify 142 genes (as of late 2008) studied in autism, of which 122 genes were found to have reported chemical interaction data in the CTD. These interactions often consist of observed changes in gene expression in rodents exposed to various levels of the studied chemical substance. The chemical-gene interactions, GO terms, and pathways associated with these genes in the CTD were analyzed, and chemicals were manually classified as xenobiotics, medications, nutrients, and endogenous substances. Chemicals were prioritized based on number of reported interactions.
Results:
The genes MET, PTEN, ADRB2, and TH each had more than 30 interacting chemicals identified in the CTD, and 120 chemicals were reported to interact with PON1. Other genes, such as MECP2, TSC2, RELN, UBE3A, and GABRB3, showed interaction reports for only 4-14 chemicals each in the CTD. For many genes, such as EN2, SHANK3, FMR1, NLGN3, and NRXN1, the CTD contains interaction reports for only 1-2 chemicals so far.
Over 600 chemical substances were identified as interacting with any of the 122 autism candidate genes, of which 498 had unique CAS numbers.
Xenobiotics (or closely related substances) identified as interacting with autism candidate genes included the following (# of genes in parentheses): Carbon Tetrachloride (33), tert-Butylhydroperoxide (19), sodium arsenite (17), Lipopolysaccharides (11), Paraquat (10), nickel sulfate (9), Hydrogen Peroxide (9), arsenic trioxide (8), Benzene (7), Benzo(a)pyrene (7), Ethanol (7), Tobacco Smoke Pollution (4), Arsenic (4), Chlorpyrifos (4), Tetrachlorodibenzodioxin (4), and bisphenol A (4). Other chemicals previously implicated in autism or related conditions are also identified by this analysis, such as mercury compounds, lead, cocaine, fipronil, endosulfan, and phthalates.
Top substances related to dietary nutrients: Pirinixic acid (27 genes), Zinc, Resveratrol, Flavonoids, and Dietary Fats.
Top medications: Acetaminophen (49 genes), Tamoxifen, Diethylstilbestrol, Valproic Acid, and Celecoxib.
Top endogenous (or closely related) substances interacting with numerous autism candidate genes: Progesterone (37 genes), Estradiol, Ethinyl Estradiol, Corticosterone, and Thyroxine.
Conclusions:
As bioinformatics databases grow, they can inform prioritization of candidate environmental risk factors.
I'm curious as to whether taking any of those hormones would be useful for a man. I don't exactly want to lose muscle tone or look like a woman, but being more sensitive to social situations would be nice.
No dude, more testosterone, just don't care at all that you're being awkward and just walk up to people and be outgoing.
28 Feb 2013, 3:23 am
timatron wrote:
LOW testosterone is associated with having an "angry scowl" on your face, irritabilitaty, depression, anxiety, etc.
HIGH testosterone is associated with confidence, outgoing personality, being relaxed/chillaxed
HIGH testosterone is associated with confidence, outgoing personality, being relaxed/chillaxed
But Oscar Pistorious - the athlete who has killed his girlfriend with a cricket bat and a gun had loads of steroids and testosterone in his house when the police searched it - so that's not a good advert for the benefits of taking extra testosterone. It implies that it can cause excessive anger.
28 Feb 2013, 3:25 am
Verdandi wrote:
nessa238 wrote:
Why, when I've posted evidence for a convincing link between sex hormones and autism, does everyone ignore it?
Is it that it's me posting it or is it just not interesting information?
there's definitely a link between autism and the sex hormones not working properly/not being produced in the right quantities in my opinion
Is it that it's me posting it or is it just not interesting information?
there's definitely a link between autism and the sex hormones not working properly/not being produced in the right quantities in my opinion
I didn't ignore it. I responded, said it was an interesting study, and if I recall correctly, I thanked you for posting it. It was not actually relevant to the question you quoted when you posted it, but it is relevant to the thread.
Ok
but in my opinion, regardless of research studies, the quickest way to determine something is to do your own experiments.
28 Feb 2013, 5:40 am
nessa238 wrote:
timatron wrote:
LOW testosterone is associated with having an "angry scowl" on your face, irritabilitaty, depression, anxiety, etc.
HIGH testosterone is associated with confidence, outgoing personality, being relaxed/chillaxed
HIGH testosterone is associated with confidence, outgoing personality, being relaxed/chillaxed
But Oscar Pistorious - the athlete who has killed his girlfriend with a cricket bat and a gun had loads of steroids and testosterone in his house when the police searched it - so that's not a good advert for the benefits of taking extra testosterone. It implies that it can cause excessive anger.
Not really. He was an alcoholic. Thats the main culprit right there. My opinion is his personality played a big part. Who he is as a person could have led him to shoot his gf. Steroids are not exactly the same as T. Also which steroids was he on? There are plenty out there and have different effects to T. Also what else was he taking??
Bringing T to normal levels through supplementation has the effects that I stated earlier.
In my original post when I said LOW i meant below the normal blood levels. When I said HIGH I meant in the high end of normal. But not over. I wasnt clear about that in my other post.
I know this personallly because I have documented low T and I'm irritable and angry all the time, but I feel much happier and chilled out when I raise it.
28 Feb 2013, 5:48 am
nessa238 wrote:
Verdandi wrote:
nessa238 wrote:
Why, when I've posted evidence for a convincing link between sex hormones and autism, does everyone ignore it?
Is it that it's me posting it or is it just not interesting information?
there's definitely a link between autism and the sex hormones not working properly/not being produced in the right quantities in my opinion
Is it that it's me posting it or is it just not interesting information?
there's definitely a link between autism and the sex hormones not working properly/not being produced in the right quantities in my opinion
I didn't ignore it. I responded, said it was an interesting study, and if I recall correctly, I thanked you for posting it. It was not actually relevant to the question you quoted when you posted it, but it is relevant to the thread.
Ok
but in my opinion, regardless of research studies, the quickest way to determine something is to do your own experiments.
28 Feb 2013, 5:50 am
timatron wrote:
nessa238 wrote:
Verdandi wrote:
nessa238 wrote:
Why, when I've posted evidence for a convincing link between sex hormones and autism, does everyone ignore it?
Is it that it's me posting it or is it just not interesting information?
there's definitely a link between autism and the sex hormones not working properly/not being produced in the right quantities in my opinion
Is it that it's me posting it or is it just not interesting information?
there's definitely a link between autism and the sex hormones not working properly/not being produced in the right quantities in my opinion
I didn't ignore it. I responded, said it was an interesting study, and if I recall correctly, I thanked you for posting it. It was not actually relevant to the question you quoted when you posted it, but it is relevant to the thread.
Ok
but in my opinion, regardless of research studies, the quickest way to determine something is to do your own experiments.
Well I did accidentally via taking the Progesterone-only Mini-pill, which I intend to stay on for as long as possible as it definitely makes me feel a lot better
28 Feb 2013, 12:29 pm
I think the EMB theory is BS, but I think I might want to change at times.
_________________
Cinnamon and sugary
Softly Spoken lies
You never know just how you look
Through other people's eyes
Autism FAQs http://www.wrongplanet.net/postt186115.html
