The magic bullet? You decide.

In my daily fertility practice, while trying to help couples to conceive, I’ve noticed a trend lately. Patients are less interested in using high levels of “assisted reproduction” to have children. In particular, they would like to avoid in vitro fertilization (IVF) and intracytoplasmic sperm injection (ICSI), the Cadillac of all techniques. Even before they meet me, they have decided against it. Not all couples, mind you, but certainly more than before.

Briefly, IVF-ICSI is a busy month for women. It involves stimulating them with daily, injectable hormones during the first half of the menstrual cycle to generate more eggs than normal within the ovary. Ovulation of eggs is induced by injection of a second hormone, which is closely followed by egg retrieval using needle aspiration under anesthesia. Retrieved eggs are then stripped of their cell coats in a dish and a single sperm is individually injected into each egg by an embryologist. The criteria for choosing sperm are: good looking and hopefully moving. Eggs then become embryos in a Petri dish and are transferred back to the female reproductive tract three to five days later, depending on how they develop. Extra embryos can be frozen for future use. A pregnancy test is obtained two weeks later.

As a male fertility specialist whose practice mantra has been “treat the male, cure the disease,” I find this trend very interesting. Assisted reproduction is almost always an option for couples, but I have spent a good deal of time publishing research showing that classic male infertility treatments such as varicocele repair and vasectomy reversal are very cost-effective ways to conceive compared to more expensive techniques like IVF-ICSI. On the other hand, these techniques are the only option for many men with azoospermia, or the absence of ejaculated sperm, and I am glad that it exists for this.

I wrote down what patients said when I asked them why IVF-ICSI is not an option on the table for them and here are some of the responses:

• “It seems pretty invasive and unnatural.”
• “Isn’t it relatively new?” (IVF is 32 years old, ICSI is 18 years old)
• “Who selects the sperm?” (Since it is not God or Darwin)
• “Wasn’t ICSI developed as an experimental mistake?” (Yes)
• “How do we know that those are our eggs and our sperm? (Rare)
• “It’s only a single try at having children.” (Maybe two)
• “Isn’t there an issue with higher birth defects and syndromes in babies” (Very likely)
• “Are our children going to be infertile?” (Unknown)
• “We’d prefer to have the hope of trying every month at home.”
• “IVF-ICSI is too expensive”

What I think is happening is that as IVF-ICSI is being offered to consumers more often than ever (currently 1-2% of U.S. babies are born from these techniques), patients are becoming better educated about the technology and are making more informed, personal choices. My gut also says that good, old-fashioned sex has a strong following among infertile couples as a way to conceive. In the words of Woody Allen in Annie, “that was the most fun I’ve ever had without laughing.”

Spoon bending power to heal.

Can prayer heal? Does touch matter in medicine? Long considered a nonrational part of Western medicine, these “lighter side” topics are now receiving close attention and study.

I am reminded about distant healing on the anniversary of the death of a medical school classmate and friend Dr. Elisabeth Targ. As a psychiatrist, daughter of a parapsychologist and niece of chess champion Bobby Fischer, she was not only bright, but also a bit paranormal herself. As a child, she played hide-and-seek with friends and would attempt to use clairvoyance to find them. She was also expected to call out her Christmas presents before opening them. As a trained scientist, she performed some of the best studies showing the effect of prayer or “distant healing” on extending the survival of AIDS and breast cancer patients.

In her study of how prayer can heal, Dr. Targ used scientific methods to determine whether “intention” from others 1500 miles away could help treat medical ills. In small studies of AIDS patients before current treatments were developed, she showed that they could live longer and spend less time in the hospital with distant healing. Her papers are in no way definitive and are highly criticized, but to date remain the best and most scientific attempts the world has seen in the last 150 years to define the potential of faith to heal.

What made Elisabeth Targ a unique force in her field is that she refused to speculate about how or why distant healing works. She had a simple goal: to define the existence (or not) of the effect. Her boyfriend, Mark Comings, however is more daring in this regard. A theoretical physicist, he suggested that if we actually live in an eight-dimensional universe instead of the accepted three dimensions, then we might be more interconnected than we currently understand, and this could explain how a healer in Santa Fe could influence a patient in San Francisco. Sadly, Elisabeth died at age 41 years of a brain tumor. Ironically, it was the same kind of tumor that she was studying with distant healing treatment.

What about the role of touch in medicine? Clearly, patients who visit doctors for terrifyingly short visits feel that the visit is incomplete without a physical exam. The doctor’s visit is just not the same as that with your accountant, lawyer or financial advisor. The laying on of hands is a special part of the medical relationship and has been for millennia. In fact, there is good science to show that the physical exam is not as good at disease detection as a good patient history. What needs more study is what makes touch so special, almost medicinal, in the doctor’s office. Can it cure disease? I wish that my friend Dr. Targ were around for this one. She might be able to help us decide whether, in the words of Diane Ackerman: “touch seems to be as essential as sunlight.” My view as a men’s health specialist is that if it has the potential to heal, then use it, regardless of whether we understand why or how it works.

The beauty of a balsa wood board.

Up at dawn, and while waiting for a perfect, crumbling long board wave at Waikiki this past week, I recalled that Hawaiians live longer than the rest of Americans and wondered why. For some reason, life expectancy at birth in Hawaii is among the longest in the nation. Indeed, people born in Hawaii have a life expectancy of almost 81 years, at least three years longer than the US average. Why is this?

While watching rainbows appear and fade as early morning showers give way to the rising sun over Waikiki, I thought that it must be the fabulous and consistent climate. Then, as I saw surfers stream out to the break that I was tending before their workday started, I figured it must be that “island fitness” that pervades the tropics. Taking a large breath, I was reminded of the lack of air pollution and the sweet smell of jasmine, orchid and hibiscus flowers that blossom everywhere on the island. Could this be their secret?

A relaxing evening luau with soothing traditional aloha music and dancing accompanied by light, aromatic, almost Mediterranean dinner fare suggested that reducing stress and eating well and in moderation may also have something to do with it. Witnessing the deep respect held for family elders, for the community at large, and for the beauty and health of their island must also contribute in some way to longevity.

And then it hit me. Balance. The backbone of many older cultures is that they have found and maintain a seemingly harmonious balance as a civilization. They are aligned with others as individuals, with nature and with their place as a society on this good earth. The stress of extremes is present but not pervasive in such self-realized cultures and this is obvious in the genuinely large smiles that greet you at every corner of the island. So, let me propose a formula for staying healthy: realize that it is not life’s moments themselves that define you, but how you choose to live them.

Estrogens and the manly man.

There must be something in the air… or water. The Bolivian President Evo Morales recently asserted publicly that hormones found in mass-produced foods are “feminizing” men. Speaking about chicken in Bolivia, which he believes are “loaded with feminine hormones,” he suggested that when men eat chicken “they are diverted from their nature as men.” So, is this how metrosexuals came to be?

But wait, the Vatican commented on this issue a year earlier, although they blamed female hormones from birth control pills for the increased estrogens in ground water. Pedro Castellvi, writing in the Vatican newspaper L’Osservatore Romano in 2009, stated: “we have sufficient data to affirm that one of the reasons for the not insignificant rise in male infertility in the west, is the environmental contamination caused by the pill.” Actually, it’s not the birth control pill itself but the urine from women taking the pill.

In fact, to date, the urine of women taking birth control pills has been blamed for worsening sperm counts in men, the growth of female sex organs in male fish, breast growth in young men and the early onset of puberty in young girls. What next?

Can I add a little balance to this discussion? First of all, exactly what is happening to men in Bolivia such that the President is not happy with them? Are they more civilized and less disruptive? Second, male infertility is not necessarily increasing in the western world; it may even be true that men have lower sperm counts now than a generation ago not because they are less fertile but because women are more fertile. Third, estrogens are found everywhere in the environment including in many plants (phytoestrogens) such as soy and legumes, and are not produced exclusively from the urine of women. Fourth, the intersex conditions that have been reported in many animal species tend to be caused by a very specific exposure at a very specific time point during fetal development and have been linked to pesticides, bisphenol A, dioxins and other environmental contaminants (xenoestrogens). Fifth, did we somehow forget about the worldwide obesity epidemic in humans and the fact that fat converts male hormones to female hormones? Lastly, there is little evidence that substantially increasing a man’s estrogen levels as an adult will dramatically alter anything, except maybe waist size and color preferences. Where the truth lies in all of this is currently unknown, but it is hard for me as a urologist to see how women’s urine could be blamed for so much.

Can we be DNA barcoded like a soup can in a grocery store?

How many of you would take a blood test to learn exactly how long you will live? How about whether or not you will become demented? Since the Human Genome Project ended, the genes and mutations associated with a vast array of diseases are being discovered daily and it is pretty easy to just put them on “chip” and make them available to the public.

Don’t get me wrong; gene testing already has already improved our lives. Such tests can clarify a diagnosis and better direct care, while others allow families to avoid having children with life-threatening or disabling conditions. They can be used to prevent disease before it happens, as with monitoring and removal of colon growths among those who have a gene for familial polyposis, and can diagnose common iron-storage diseases early enough to treat them and prevent them from becoming fatal. They can also help to positively identify murderers two decades after the crime.

One real problem is that many commercialized gene tests are targeted to healthy people who might be at high risk because of a strong family medical history for a disorder. Unfortunately, because of how complex we are as biological organisms, the tests give only a “probability” for developing the disorder. That means that some people who carry a mutation may never develop the disease. Another limitation is the possibility of laboratory errors. What this means is that the tests are not perfect and could be wrong.

And what happens to your job prospects and health (or life) insurance rates when it is learned through genetic testing that you might develop a significant disease? Well…nothing. Because of the federal GINA Law (Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act) passed in May 2008, insurance companies and employers cannot discriminate on the basis of information derived from genetic tests. So, genetics has now been added to the list of characteristics first embodied by the Civil Rights Act of 1964, that states that U.S. employers cannot discriminate according to race, color, national origin, sex, or religion. And this is good.

So, go ahead and take the “23 and Me” “DeCode” or “Navigenics” genomic screens if you so desire. Get to know your DNA barcode. Maybe you will get an idea of what may be around the corner for you. And maybe, just maybe, you will take better care of yourself knowing more about your genes. Just understand that many in the medical community feel that uncertainties surrounding test results, the current lack of available treatment options, the tests’ potential for provoking anxiety and social stigmatization could outweigh the benefits of testing. You know the saying: “Too much information…”

Bacchus is no longer a role model...

What you weigh affects how your sperm play. And your fertility. Overweight men tend to have lower semen volumes, less sperm and more oddly shaped sperm. The same is also true for men who are too thin. So, along with the many other health hazards associated with obesity, add poor semen quality to the list.

Obesity in both sexes is known to be associated with heart disease, diabetes, hypertension, and metabolic syndrome among other nasty conditions that can shorten your life. Typically, obesity is measured with BMI or body mass index, which looks at weight in relation to height. Not a perfect measure, but reasonably accurate. Using this tool, the ideal BMI for men (and women) is considered to be 20-25. A Danish study of 1600 men showed that overweight men with a BMI > 25 had a 22% lower sperm concentration compared with healthy weight men. Interestingly, a BMI of <20 was also associated with poor semen quality. For optimal sperm production, then, it helps to be not too fat and not too thin.

But what about fertility? Is it also affected by obesity? Yup. Another recent study showed that for every 20-pound increase in a man’s weight, there is a 10% increase in the chance of infertility. And this remained true when other factors that might influence the results were accounted for, including obesity status of the women, the man’s age, cigarette smoking, alcohol intake, and solvent and pesticide exposure. In addition, obesity was associated with infertility in both older and younger men.

So what is it about weight that influences men’s sperm production and fertility? One theory is that sex hormone metabolism is altered by changes in weight. Sex hormones are the “fuel” for the engine (testis) to make sperm. Obesity increases fat stores and fat converts male hormones (testosterone) into female hormones (estrogens). Too much estrogen in men is bad for sperm production. Another theory posits that normal 2-degree difference in testis temperature relative to the body is lost with obesity, as excessive fat provides too much insulation and results in overheating. On the other hand, when a man is too thin, he may take on a “catabolic” metabolic state. With a body in “starvation mode,” fertility is not the first thing on its mind and sperm production and fertility suffer.

So, is the epidemic of obesity the reason why sperm counts have been falling in Western countries over the last 50 years? Maybe. But this problem is unique in that it is utterly and entirely preventable. Eat well and in moderation, sleep well and treat your body like a temple. You used to it for your own health; now do it for the health of your future family.

A woman whose independence lasted longer than most countries.

Excuse my diversion from men’s health, but a very important woman in my life has just passed away. My last grandmother (known as Oma) lived a fiercely independent life for over 99 years, longer than most countries.

She brought our family to America from what is now Czechoslovakia in 1950, after 1000 years of farming the land and a generation of recent persecution. She brought a husband, a son (my father) and her daughter, each with a single suitcase, to Connecticut to start life anew. And we have prospered here since. A typical immigrant story.

She lived in her own home for 56 years, preparing every meal from scratch, and died there. A simple humble, life and a simple humble death. If you got to her house too late in the morning after a winter storm, you would find her clearing the snow from her driveway well into her 90’s. I only knew her as a gray-haired grandmother, but she was a constant and a compass to the entire family: our north, our south, our east, and our west. Rooted, decisive and opinionated, she was usually right, but never wrong.

She was a woman of the land, a gardener and a grower. In the words or Rilke, she knew the sound that small flowers make when they open in the morning.

The Germans play a card game call Setback, like Bridge. If you played on her team, you usually won. It was something about those million fine wrinkles that gave her the perfect poker face.

She leaves to 6 grandchildren and 8 great-grandchildren on both coasts a spirited legacy of wisdom, willfulness and fortitude that will survive for generations.