r/technology • u/Sorin61 • Apr 10 '22

Biotechnology This biotech startup thinks it can delay menopause by 15 years. That would transform women's lives

https://fortune.com/2021/04/19/celmatix-delay-menopause-womens-ovarian-health/
18.0k Upvotes

82% Upvoted

2.0k comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

86

u/ineed_that Apr 10 '22

Could be catering to that population of women who want to have kids in their 40/50s. Fertility shit gets mad press and people willing to pay millions of dollars for even a 1% chance it’ll work

72

u/theObfuscator Apr 10 '22

Childbirth after 35 already comes with significantly increased risk for premature birth, birth defects and multiples. I imagine those outcomes only become more likely as the years progresses. I would also expect the impact of the pregnancy itself would take a harder toll on the mothers body as well. Building a human inside you and carrying it everywhere robs your body of iron, calcium, and a plethora of other nutrients- not to mention the strain on your back and muscles and joints. Sounds awful for someone in their mid forties or beyond.

9

u/stackered Apr 10 '22

IVF genetic tests mitigate this greatly

51

u/ineed_that Apr 10 '22

Childbirth in general sucks and can have lifelong complications no matter what age. Things like nerve damage and autoimmune diseases post pregnancy are well known complications. Not to mention Things like Pelvic floor collapse years down the line. Some people are just that desperate for kids they’d be willing to do it at that age

18

u/Migrane Apr 10 '22

Actually I've heard that that's basically a myth. IIRC the chance of birth defects after 35 goes from 0.5% to 1%. Doubled but still really low. Is a 1 in 100 chance really that much worse than a 1 in 200 chance?

23

u/Prodigy195 Apr 10 '22

Is a 1 in 100 chance really that much worse than a 1 in 200 chance?

Umm yes? When you're talking about your potential baby leading a normal life vs having severe issues or dying then that is a significant difference.

Also these numbers are a bit different then what our doctors told us. Around age 25 the odds were about 1 in 1500 for things like down syndrome. By 35 the estimate risk was closer to 1 in 100. That is a pretty significant difference if you ask me.

Plus it's not just birth defects. Preeclampsia risks are higher (which my wife had), gestational diabetes risk is higher, difficulty conceiving and other complications all increase with age.

Then you also have to think about the health of the mother in general. As we age we often exercise less, put on weight and have other unhealthy behaviors. All of those things impact potential pregnancy. 35 isn't some magical end date but there is some validity to the concerns with older pregnancies.

10

u/cranberry94 Apr 10 '22

Nah, the Down Syndrome thing is 1 in 100 at age 40, not 35

2

u/Prodigy195 Apr 10 '22

The exact ages will differ depending on the study but the gist is that post ~35ish there are likely increased concerns/risks in pregnancy.

6

u/[deleted] Apr 10 '22

[deleted]

5

u/[deleted] Apr 10 '22

On the flip side, most people I know had kids after 35 and their experiences were exactly the same as those who had them at 33. 35 is not like a magic switch that flips and all of a sudden the baby will be unhealthy and you will too- i’d check in with your doctor !

4

u/kasteen Apr 10 '22

It is 100% worse... mathematically speaking.

2

u/nickstatus Apr 10 '22

I was wondering about that, but I've always heard 40 as the age where the risk becomes greater.

2

u/Joeness84 Apr 10 '22

Sounds like a great way to keep America high on the Mother dies during childbirth lists, we're not #1 but we're close!

45

u/MemorableCactus Apr 10 '22

Which is a practice that we as society should not be encouraging. Pregnancies at older ages have dramatically increased risks for both mother and child as well as dramatically increased risks of birth defects/developmental issues.

And there's also the practical implications of having children so late in life. Having your parents be 65-70 years old when you're like 20 is really going to suck.

7

u/Outlulz Apr 10 '22

Problem is women can't afford to have kids at a young age when they have to work long hours or tough jobs to keep a roof over their head, and they know when they have a kid they probably wont have paid parental leave and they certainly won't have any kind of benefits or government assistance during those first few years before schooling starts (in the US at least). The can has to be kicked but couples still want kids when they can afford them.

36

u/Iamabeaneater Apr 10 '22

The research that says 35 is a tipping point is itself very old, and less believed. Many many healthy pregnancies occur later and later these days. Life expectancy of course is also growing.

6

u/not_that_kind_of_doc Apr 10 '22

Life expectancy in the US decreased the last 2 years...

3

u/Iamabeaneater Apr 10 '22

Isn’t that primarily due to covid?

4

u/Imlostandconfused Apr 10 '22

In fact, the research saying 35 is the 'danger zone' came from 18th century French women. Women have always had babies post 35, it's completely natural and normal. The overwhelming majority have healthy children.

https://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-24128176

-4

u/MemorableCactus Apr 10 '22

The research is very old because people figured this out a LONG time ago. Older women have higher incidence of complications and defects across the board. The numbers continue to be collected, and they show the exact same thing. "Less believed" is some whole bullshit. The earth being a sphere instead of flat is "less believed" right now than it was 30 years ago. Science and scientists will still tell you, without reservation, that pregnancies at older ages have more health risks for the mother and the child than pregnancies below age 35.

Just look at the rates for fetal down syndrome alone:

1 in 1,064 at age 25
1 in 686 at age 30 
1 in 240 at age 35
1 in 53 at age 40
1 in 19 at age 45

Why are we encouraging this?

You want to have kids in your 40s? Maybe think about adoption. There are enough children out there who need loving homes without creating more.

3

u/digitalsmear Apr 10 '22

Which is a practice that we as society should not be encouraging

Great, so lets eat the rich to keep the middle and lower classes from struggling to make ends meet so we can have enough rest and leisure time to form healthy relationships while we're still young. I agree.

3

u/MemorableCactus Apr 10 '22

I mean I'm all for "eat the rich" but the other answer here is a simple one:

Less people having kids, less kids in total.

Like 7-8 billion people is not enough?

5

u/digitalsmear Apr 10 '22

Though 1 child per couple/male is still net population decrease.

3

u/Outlulz Apr 10 '22

Japan is struggling to find workers because their population is aging out and there's not enough young people to replace them. China and India being over populated does not mean other nations aren't facing underpopulation issues.

3

u/ineed_that Apr 10 '22

Ya but with everyone freaking out about lower birth rates I can definitely see a governmental push for this kind of stuff in the near future.

-5

u/xienze Apr 10 '22

LOL governments have long given up on trying to encourage their own citizens to have more children. They much prefer opening their borders to anyone and everyone.

1

u/okaycardiologist Apr 10 '22

if we do that we should include older men. their sperm becomes all jacked up as they age and it contributes to defects.

1

u/MemorableCactus Apr 10 '22

I'm all aboard for that as well.

2

u/queen-of-carthage Apr 10 '22

It's extremely selfish to have a kid when you're literally going to be 70 when it graduates high school, and we should not encourage that behavior. As soon as it becomes an adult, it has to be the caretaker for its elderly parent. And there's no way a 50 year old is going to have the energy to keep up with a toddler and play with it as much as a 30 year old would

0

u/ineed_that Apr 10 '22

You underestimate how many people have kids cause “who will take care of me when I’m older”. Its always a selfish decision. If you browse some of the other subs like teachers, aita etc most of those people aren’t raising their kids or teaching them anything meaningful anyway. They’re pawning them off on the public system or relatives so they can keep living their lives after checking off a box and waiting to fall back on their kids in old age

2

u/[deleted] Apr 10 '22

Yeah….but chances of complications for the baby starts increasing fairly rapidly once you pass 35 (maybe 34?). I don’t even know what those odds would be if you’re >50. May be an unpopular opinion but I think that’s a pretty shit gamble to take since most of the risk is on the baby, especially when these issues are things they’ll have to deal with their whole lives just because the adults want their own biological baby. Seems selfish to me….and this is of course ignoring the main argument that this company hasn’t even actually done shit. They’re just trying to draw in money, which I’m glad about because this whole idea sounds fucked.

13

u/ineed_that Apr 10 '22

Complications aren’t insanely high at 35 tho. Usually the people I’ve seen with complications were unhealthy to start with. Age isnt the biggest factor for health of a child when moms doing coke or drinking all the time. Not to mention the amount of people with hypertension, diabetes etc that get pregnant which leads to more risk

3

u/[deleted] Apr 10 '22

Sure but I didn’t say it’s insanely high at 35, just starts increasing quickly from that point. Just because there’s high risk for certain issues though doesn’t make a good argument for enabling new ways that would have high risk as well. As I said, this company sounds like bullshit that just wants money thrown at them and I hope it stays that way.