Ibuprofen alters human testicular physiology including testosterone production (opens in new tab)

As far as I know this is slowly changing. According to scientists I've met (life science fields) there is an ongoing trend towards demanding raw data and even the code used to analyze it. Not every journal everywhere yet of course, but the consensus seemed to be that in 5 to 10 years it would become the new norm. Which might cause quite the disruption. Having seen quite the amounts of code written by PHD students I'm 100% sure tere are many, many bugs out there. Possibly leading to faulty results.

I suppose you could say the same about the journals, or the academic institutions. The systems and norms are what they are, the incentives are what they are and if they don't have to do something they won't.

I'm not sure who is responsible for making a better way. Probably no one. Change is often a matter of someone taking initiative and there are a few parties that could, if they consider it important.

IMO, the "replication crisis" should be having a more far-reaching effect on the institution of science. In some fields, the crisis means that the efforts of an entire generation were largely wasted. In those same fields, it is almost business as usual, with new unreplicable experiments being published. Knowledge was not actually being built. In some fields, the institutional scientific method (journals, peer review..) was not really practicing the scientific method, not practicing science.

I don't know what the solution is, but whatever it is I cannot imagine that it does not involve working scientists making choices. What is tenure for, if not allowing senior researchers the independance to do this.

If you're interested in how this data gets exchanged you might want to read this:

https://www.crossref.org/blog/how-do-you-deposit-data-citati...

https://www.crossref.org/blog/the-research-nexus---better-re...

(I work for Crossref)

Probably, not so much. The amounts of ingredients and composition of ingredients in energy drinks are just stupid. I see now a trend of "health" drinks that actually seem sensible, though a bit more pricey. Like magnesium, ginseng and vitamins.

The problem with energy drinks is that they're alike to a bottle of all things that may be fuel, combined. I've seen recently a tin of Monster that had 0.5g of caffeine. That's insane. And caffeine pills are even more insane. You can drop 1g of caffeine like it's M&Ms.

At this rate we're going to have coke and amphetamine in those next year. And, you know, you can go on a limb and say that some of the modified amphetamines or phenidatess or what not maybe should be on the market. In Canada they have effedrine in OTC supplements and people don't die from overdose.

But the thing is, we either demonise or just assume something is safe. How many people knows that acetaminophen (APAP, paracetamol) is liver toxic? And how many people knows that NAC is the antidote (N-acetylo-cysteine, popular OTC expectorant)?

Paracetamol comes with its own set of problems. It's somewhat dangerous to people with a variety of liver conditions.

"One 2012 report, which presented the results of the study of over 26,000 French men, showed that the sperm count had fallen by a third between 1989 and 2005. A 2007 report in the UK presented the results of a study done on one city in the country. It showed that sperm counts had declined by over 29 percent between 1989 and 2002. And more recently, in the summer of 2017, a study by scientists at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem analyzed data from over 43,000 North American, European, Australian, and New Zealand men concluded that the average sperm count had fallen by almost 60 percent in the past 40 years. "

From an article at https://www.inquisitr.com/4757173/the-human-race-could-be-in... dated just a few days ago

Death by 1000 papercuts.

My point here is that it's possible that there are many circumstances accumulating but that doesn't discredit efforts for finding the biggest contributors.

You can easily smuggle a couple of razors between the paper sheets.

How exactly would education affect the testicles?

> For the small group of young study participants who used ibuprofen for only a short time, “it is sure that these effects are reversible,” Jégou said.

That could be true, but of course, there's some self-interest in that statement. Bringing long-term harm to your study participants is not exactly a good move for a medical researcher.

I'm not saying it's an overdose (and their tests of renal and hepatic function corroborate that)

But it's not a dose people will commonly take in their "day to day" activities and ideally not something that is done without medical supervision

Wow, all the ones I have (and I don't remember seeing any different in Australia) all say do not take for more than three days at a time (except with a doctor's advice).

6 weeks is a long time to be popping 1200mg/d!

And I believe the max dose is even higher - 3200mg per day (800mg 4 times per day).

I've been through similar doses as well, though for muscular strain I was given something stronger (not opioids though)

Sometimes pain management is a balancing act between dangerous side effects and misery that makes it hard to want to keep living. Chronic pain isn't really something a third party can make decisions about; it may be that ibuprofen isn't the right choice, but lots of other choices (opiates, for instance) may have even more negative effects (like addiction and risk of deadly overdose).

Of course, there are folks who take over-the-counter meds as though it is safe at any dose and frequency. That might warrant a nudge toward reading the label about safe dosage, or a mention of a recent study on the subject.

Military?

Correct, hence if you need pain control for longer than 6w there might be other options