Air Pollution Can Decrease Odds of Live Birth After IVF By 38%, Study Finds 56
An anonymous reader quotes a report from The Guardian: Air pollution exposure can significantly decrease the chance of a live birth after IVF treatment, according to research that deepens concern about the health impacts of toxic air on fertility. Pollutant exposure has previously been linked to increased miscarriage rates and preterm births, and microscopic soot particles have been shown to travel through the bloodstream into the ovaries and the placenta. The latest work suggests that the impact of pollution begins before conception by disrupting the development of eggs. "We observed that the odds of having a baby after a frozen embryo transfer were more than a third lower for women who were exposed to the highest levels of particulate matter air pollution prior to egg collection, compared with those exposed to the lowest levels," said Dr Sebastian Leathersich, a fertility specialist and gynaecologist from Perth who is due to present the findings on Monday at the European Society of Human Reproduction and Embryology annual meeting in Amsterdam. [...]
The study analyzed fertility treatments in Perth over an eight-year period, including 3,659 frozen embryo transfers from 1,836 patients, and tracked whether outcomes were linked to the levels of fine particulate matter, known as PM10. The overall live birthrate was about 28% per transfer. However, the success rates varied in line with exposure to pollutants in the two weeks leading up to egg collection. The odds of a live birth decreased by 38% when comparing the highest quartile of exposure to the lowest quartile. "These findings suggest that pollution negatively affects the quality of the eggs, not just the early stages of pregnancy, which is a distinction that has not been previously reported," Leathersich said. The team now plan to study cells directly to understand why pollutants have a negative effect. Previous work has shown that the microscopic particles can damage DNA and cause inflammation in tissues. The report notes that the link between air pollution and live birth "was apparent despite excellent overall air quality during the study period, with PM10 and PM2.5 levels exceeding WHO guidelines on just 0.4% and 4.5% of the study days."
It adds: "Australia is one of just seven countries that met the WHO's guidelines in 2023, and this study is the latest to show evidence of harm even at relatively low levels of pollution."
The study has been published in the journal Human Reproduction.
The study analyzed fertility treatments in Perth over an eight-year period, including 3,659 frozen embryo transfers from 1,836 patients, and tracked whether outcomes were linked to the levels of fine particulate matter, known as PM10. The overall live birthrate was about 28% per transfer. However, the success rates varied in line with exposure to pollutants in the two weeks leading up to egg collection. The odds of a live birth decreased by 38% when comparing the highest quartile of exposure to the lowest quartile. "These findings suggest that pollution negatively affects the quality of the eggs, not just the early stages of pregnancy, which is a distinction that has not been previously reported," Leathersich said. The team now plan to study cells directly to understand why pollutants have a negative effect. Previous work has shown that the microscopic particles can damage DNA and cause inflammation in tissues. The report notes that the link between air pollution and live birth "was apparent despite excellent overall air quality during the study period, with PM10 and PM2.5 levels exceeding WHO guidelines on just 0.4% and 4.5% of the study days."
It adds: "Australia is one of just seven countries that met the WHO's guidelines in 2023, and this study is the latest to show evidence of harm even at relatively low levels of pollution."
The study has been published in the journal Human Reproduction.
Re: (Score:2)
There's something deliriously entertaining about your stupidity. I enjoy it very much.
Re: (Score:2)
I question why he's watching tiktok videos about fertility.
Re: (Score:2)
He is probably not.
You've got videos on youtube from channels who did scan tik-tok videos to propose a digest and/or commentaries about the state of dating in the US.
And sometimes the case happens about those women who cannot get pregnant because of their low fertility and the cost of each IVF attempt. There is no shortage of fake tears on tik-tok, but the women in this case are really crying their soul out and that is not something one easily forgets.
Just my $0.2.
Re: (Score:2, Offtopic)
The reality on the other hand is that this problem is universal across the West, and very well documented. The reason why I cite tik tok videos is because those are the actual people getting desperate and venting their personal tragedies. They're a window into reality that you normally don't get to see.
But if you prefer something more statistical, you can do any of the following:
Look up IVF rate over time.
Look up IVF success rate vs age at which it is attempted.
Look up what IVF is mainly useful for (vs what
Re: (Score:3)
The reality on the other hand is that this problem is universal across the West, and very well documented. The reason why I cite tik tok videos is because those are the actual people getting desperate and venting their personal tragedies. They're a window into reality that you normally don't get to see.
But if you prefer something more statistical, you can do any of the following:
Look up IVF rate over time.
It's called geriatric pregnancy. And you are correct. Women do not get IVF unless they are not capable of conceiving. So your post title that seems to upset some people might upset them, but it isn't inaccurate.
And yes, there are women who are quite upset about their situation. And yes, it is pretty sad. One in particular I watched was a woman who went through a very early menopause. She was in her mid 30's, and at a time when she thought she was going to settle down and start her family, and after tryi
Re: (Score:2)
I find it genuinely hard to deal with people who are truly suffering on interpersonal level. As do most people with normal empathy. And as someone who does deal with a lot of women of my age, I can tell you that women are just not built to suffer the way they do when they are involuntarily childless. It breaks something in them. Something primal. Something undeniable. Something that only the most fanatical zeal can mitigate.
These are the women in the extinction rebellion circles. The degrowthers. Those who
Re: (Score:1)
There is no specific part of your post I care to quote. The whole damn thing is +10 insightful
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
We do not have the same biological wiring for being primary caregivers to children. We even differ in median personality traits, with women being tilted towards being significantly more agreeable on average compared to men. This is easily explained by evolutionary process, where we have twice the amount of female ancestors compared to male ancestors. Essentially every woman that got to fertile age got to reproduce, but only some of the men in the tribe did.
As a result, involuntarily childless men are signif
Re: (Score:2, Flamebait)
We do not have the same biological wiring for being primary caregivers to children.
My brother in christ are you ever an asshole. Men are incapable of raising children? Well, given the crazy shit your write I'm happy you aren't raising any children.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm not a Christian, and you are beyond help in terms of reading comprehension.
Re: (Score:1)
We do not have the same biological wiring for being primary caregivers to children.
My brother in christ are you ever an asshole. Men are incapable of raising children? Well, given the crazy shit your write I'm happy you aren't raising any children.
I am not a fan of most of this guy's posts but that doesn't make this statement any less true. I'll give you another difference. Women are more perceptive then men, they have to be, in order to get the larger stronger males to do their bidding. Oh, and, have you ever heard of the term "mama bear"? Yeah, they really are wired like that
Re: (Score:1)
No matter how this is spun, the story remains the same. There's a massive amount of childless women that didn't exist in the previous generation. That are genuinely utterly miserable on the level that is difficult for us men to comprehend, as many of them were sold the story that they should have a career, and then they can have a family. And many of whom discover that career is a largely irrelevant bonus, while the meaning of life is to have and raise children. Who then discover that narrative of being able to have a family after establishing a career was a lie, as female fertility falls off a cliff after mid thirties
As a husband of 30+ years, father of two daughters, one granddaughter and another inbound, and after showing both yours and the following post by Ol Olsoc to the wife, I can state with a high degree of confidence that you two just nailed it.
I had a friend that I went through K12 with that had a plan. Finish school, go to college, get a degree (chemical engineering), find a job, start a career, and have some fun while still single. Get some experience under your belt which should lead to "wisdom". Then ar
Re: (Score:2)
My recommendation would be to point to her towards "SSRI wine aunt" meme. That's involuntarily childless women who compress their emotional range with medication to avoid suicidality, and then drown the resulting endless sorrow in alcohol.
Because while goals are important in life, far more important are things you know you absolutely do not want to become. Running towards something is a good motivator, but running away from something is a far better motivator.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
1. Lesbians are by definition abnormal when it comes to sexuality-related issues.
2. And most of lesbian pregnancies happen via traditional routes. Either normal intercourse, or injecting semen directly into vagina.
Both methods are significantly more healthy, as they lead to far less genetic and reproductive health complications.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
That falls under my point #1. When you're decidedly abnormal, a lot of neurological circuitry aimed to do certain things becomes maladaptive.
A good example of this is spousal violence rates. Men are inherently wired to protect their spouse and provide for the other spouse. Women are inherently wired to demand resources from the spouse and demand protection from the other spouse. And a large portion of spousal violence is from argument over distribution of resources and rate of protection granted within fami
TL;DR - the world of Dune is far away (Score:2)
Murder.... (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3)
You will not win them with logic because they call themselves "pro-life" but they are also pro-death-penalty and simply do not have enough brain cells to understand the contradiction.
Try another way.
Re: (Score:2)
While I don't subscribe to the notion that a fertilized egg is a person, there is no cognitive dissonance inherent in being both "pro-life" and supporting the death penalty. One can simultaneously want to defend the innocent and punish the guilty.
Re: (Score:2)
While I don't subscribe to the notion that a fertilized egg is a person, there is no cognitive dissonance inherent in being both "pro-life" and supporting the death penalty. One can simultaneously want to defend the innocent and punish the guilty.
While the other poster said it on the extremes, it's a whole spectrum of fail from that corner. Pro-life also tends to be anti-education, which leads to poorer quality of life, which leads to higher chances of turning criminal, which leads to higher chances of ending up committing a capital crime. It's literally a whole segment of society convinced that we *MUST* create as many humans as possible, always. While simultaneously believing that once you are born you deserve nothing but punishment and enslavemen
Re: (Score:2)
See, this is the problem: you equate "pro life" with a certain segment of Christians. Not everyone who is pro-life is opposed to education, or thinks people should have children in litters, or that people who are wealthy are somehow "better" than others (though I won't deny that there are a disturbing number of people who do fit that description).
Re: (Score:2)
See, this is the problem: you equate "pro life" with a certain segment of Christians. Not everyone who is pro-life is opposed to education, or thinks people should have children in litters, or that people who are wealthy are somehow "better" than others (though I won't deny that there are a disturbing number of people who do fit that description).
And unfortunately, those are the ones making the most noise out of the issue, and the ones that the politicians try to appeal to because hatred sells almost as well as sex.
Re: (Score:2)
Some of the results of state laws passed post-Dobbs are absurd, and seeing people double down in the face of that is just vile. Hopefully the Republicans will stop pandering to those people when they realize it's causing them to lose elections.
Re: (Score:2)
Some of the results of state laws passed post-Dobbs are absurd, and seeing people double down in the face of that is just vile. Hopefully the Republicans will stop pandering to those people when they realize it's causing them to lose elections.
I honestly think the Republican name has been so tarnished by everything since Reagan that there's not a whole lot of hope for them to be anything more than the party of hate and vile garbage. While there were a few around that tried for a bit there, the reasonable ones are being driven out by the hate spew. It seems they're convinced that the only way forward is to continue on the self-destructive path. Too bad. Now we're down to only one side of the coin of corporatism's public mask.
Re: (Score:2)
Sure, but one cannot honestly call oneself "pro-life" when one seeks to end the lives of the guilty.
Re: (Score:2)
Sure, but one cannot honestly call oneself "pro-life" when one seeks to end the lives of the guilty.
Eh, we can agree to disagree on this one. Sometimes death is necessary for the preservation of life.
Re: (Score:2)
Are you trolling or do you honestly believe that the death penalty is necessary for the preservation of life?
Re: (Score:2)
do you honestly believe that the death penalty is necessary for the preservation of life?
In some circumstances? Absolutely. Some people are simply too dangerous even if they are in prison.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
"Pro life" is all
Re: (Score:2)
IIRC, that has been tried many years ago, but the US Supreme Court tossed it out. But that was before the majority of the justices were fully pwned by the US version of the "taliban".
Now I think the current SC is waiting after the election to decide how to treat abortion. I think the ruling this year on mifepristone was to help Trump win. I am sure the 'six' wanted to ban it. We will see if I am correct after the election.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Water is wet (Score:4, Interesting)
1. They're medical scientists. Obviously they understand causation vs correlation, the importance of discounting confounders, etc. They're not fucking idiots. If you want to question on them, you should have gone to the annual meeting of the European Society of Human Reproduction and Embryology in Amsterdam, where you could have made a twat of yourself by asking naively clever questions like "did you consider seasonal effects?"
2. There's also, as the article points out, a biologically plausible mechanism, what with PM having been found in the placenta, and PM known to be bioactive.
I'm all for being skeptical, but that's not the same as being a dick, and you're just being a dick
Re: (Score:2)
Studies like this reek of causation vs. correlation
Came here for the low IQ comment. Correlation is the first step in every study. That does not make them useless, in fact it makes them extremely valuable for future studies examining causation - something explicitly mentioned will be done in TFS.
Re: (Score:2)
That's where they were looking because you get cleaner numbers of people who actually try to get pregnant in a standardized way.
And finding correlation is the first step in trying to find causation as it tells you where to look for it. And it is a way to support a hypothesis that known causation say from testing in mice is valid for humans, too.
So please stop trying discrediting any studies that find "just correlation" as invalid. They won't get a Nobel prize, but they are small but important building block
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
there were less heart attacks
Fewer: Refers to number of counted things.
Less: Refers to volume or degree.
Same impact for non-IVF fertility? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
IVF is where the effect will be most obvious; because you've got very careful notes being taken about people inferti
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
So you're telling me... (Score:1)
Study Finds Air Pollution Reduces IVF Success by 38%; Concerned Father Blames His Own Flatulence
In a shocking revelation that has rocked the world of reproductive medicine, a new study has found that air pollution reduces the probability of live birth after IVF by a staggering 38%. While scientists scramble to understand the implications of this discovery, one concerned father-to-be has taken the news particularly hard, fearing that his own extreme flatulence might be contributing to the problem.
Re: (Score:2)
I'd be more worried about tire particles than tailpipe for modern cars, and I suspect the car density of London will tip things that way.
Re: (Score:2)
Nope nope nope. Tyre particles are relatively heavy, so they don't stay suspended in the air for that long, and they are also relatively large, so they don't penetrate that far into the lungs. By contrast, combustion particles are incredibly light, stay suspended for ages, and penetrate deep into the lungs and enter the bloodstream, and NOx and SOx are still hugely important in causing all sorts of morbidity and mortality. Levels of all three of these have dropped dramatically since the introduction of Lond
"air pollution" (Score:2)
Air pollution bad for IVF. PM10 is air pollution. CO_2 is air polllution (according to EPA and Scotus). CO_2 causes global warming (according to many). Therefore, global warming is bad for IVF.