User login
Many people becoming reinfected as BA.5 dominates new COVID-19 cases
When the COVID-19 pandemic first began, the general thought was that once people were infected, they were then protected from the virus.
It’s hard to say how many. The ABC News analysis found at least 1.6 million reinfections in 24 states, but the actual number is probably a lot higher.
“These are not the real numbers because many people are not reporting cases,” Ali Mokdad, MD, an epidemiologist with the University of Washington, Seattle, told ABC.
The latest variant, BA.5, has become the dominant strain in the United States, making up more than 65% of all COVID-19 cases as of July 13, according to data from the CDC.
Prior infections and vaccines aren’t providing as much protection against the newly dominant BA.5 strain as they did against earlier variants.
But evidence doesn’t show this subvariant of Omicron to be more harmful than earlier, less transmissible versions.
Several factors are contributing to rising reinfections, experts say. For example, fewer people are wearing masks than in the first year or so of the pandemic. Dr. Mokdad said just 18% of Americans reported always wearing a mask in public at the end of May, down from 44% the year before.
The emergence of the Omicron variant, of which BA.5 is a subvariant, is indicating that less protection is being offered by prior infections.
A version of this article first appeared on WebMD.com.
When the COVID-19 pandemic first began, the general thought was that once people were infected, they were then protected from the virus.
It’s hard to say how many. The ABC News analysis found at least 1.6 million reinfections in 24 states, but the actual number is probably a lot higher.
“These are not the real numbers because many people are not reporting cases,” Ali Mokdad, MD, an epidemiologist with the University of Washington, Seattle, told ABC.
The latest variant, BA.5, has become the dominant strain in the United States, making up more than 65% of all COVID-19 cases as of July 13, according to data from the CDC.
Prior infections and vaccines aren’t providing as much protection against the newly dominant BA.5 strain as they did against earlier variants.
But evidence doesn’t show this subvariant of Omicron to be more harmful than earlier, less transmissible versions.
Several factors are contributing to rising reinfections, experts say. For example, fewer people are wearing masks than in the first year or so of the pandemic. Dr. Mokdad said just 18% of Americans reported always wearing a mask in public at the end of May, down from 44% the year before.
The emergence of the Omicron variant, of which BA.5 is a subvariant, is indicating that less protection is being offered by prior infections.
A version of this article first appeared on WebMD.com.
When the COVID-19 pandemic first began, the general thought was that once people were infected, they were then protected from the virus.
It’s hard to say how many. The ABC News analysis found at least 1.6 million reinfections in 24 states, but the actual number is probably a lot higher.
“These are not the real numbers because many people are not reporting cases,” Ali Mokdad, MD, an epidemiologist with the University of Washington, Seattle, told ABC.
The latest variant, BA.5, has become the dominant strain in the United States, making up more than 65% of all COVID-19 cases as of July 13, according to data from the CDC.
Prior infections and vaccines aren’t providing as much protection against the newly dominant BA.5 strain as they did against earlier variants.
But evidence doesn’t show this subvariant of Omicron to be more harmful than earlier, less transmissible versions.
Several factors are contributing to rising reinfections, experts say. For example, fewer people are wearing masks than in the first year or so of the pandemic. Dr. Mokdad said just 18% of Americans reported always wearing a mask in public at the end of May, down from 44% the year before.
The emergence of the Omicron variant, of which BA.5 is a subvariant, is indicating that less protection is being offered by prior infections.
A version of this article first appeared on WebMD.com.
Experimental cancer drug promising for hospitalized COVID patients
, a new study shows.
The medication, called sabizabulin and given as a pill, reduced by half the risk of death among participants. It could be more effective than other drugs for those severely sick with COVID-19, The New York Times reports.
The manufacturer, Veru, is seeking emergency use authorization from the Food and Drug Administration. Hospitalized COVID-19 patients currently have only a few pharmaceutical options.
Sabizabulin blocks cells from building molecular cables that carry material from one part of a cell to another. It was created to fight cancer, because tumor cells need those cables (called microtubules) to grow quickly.
Researchers tried it against COVID-19 2 years ago, because viral replication also requires microtubules to bring pieces of new viruses together.
To participate in the small trial, patients had to be receiving oxygen or on a ventilator and at a high risk of dying from COVID-19, “with risk factors such as hypertension, advanced age or obesity,” the Times reported.
A total of 134 patients received the medicine; 70 got a placebo. Among those receiving sabizabulin, 20.2% died within 2 months; 45.1% of those who took the placebo died.
One infectious disease expert told the Times that the high mortality rate of those on the placebo could mean the study was too small to offer conclusive results.
“The 45% mortality rate in the control group jumps out at me as rather high,” said David Boulware, MD, of the University of Minnesota.
A version of this article first appeared on WebMD.com.
, a new study shows.
The medication, called sabizabulin and given as a pill, reduced by half the risk of death among participants. It could be more effective than other drugs for those severely sick with COVID-19, The New York Times reports.
The manufacturer, Veru, is seeking emergency use authorization from the Food and Drug Administration. Hospitalized COVID-19 patients currently have only a few pharmaceutical options.
Sabizabulin blocks cells from building molecular cables that carry material from one part of a cell to another. It was created to fight cancer, because tumor cells need those cables (called microtubules) to grow quickly.
Researchers tried it against COVID-19 2 years ago, because viral replication also requires microtubules to bring pieces of new viruses together.
To participate in the small trial, patients had to be receiving oxygen or on a ventilator and at a high risk of dying from COVID-19, “with risk factors such as hypertension, advanced age or obesity,” the Times reported.
A total of 134 patients received the medicine; 70 got a placebo. Among those receiving sabizabulin, 20.2% died within 2 months; 45.1% of those who took the placebo died.
One infectious disease expert told the Times that the high mortality rate of those on the placebo could mean the study was too small to offer conclusive results.
“The 45% mortality rate in the control group jumps out at me as rather high,” said David Boulware, MD, of the University of Minnesota.
A version of this article first appeared on WebMD.com.
, a new study shows.
The medication, called sabizabulin and given as a pill, reduced by half the risk of death among participants. It could be more effective than other drugs for those severely sick with COVID-19, The New York Times reports.
The manufacturer, Veru, is seeking emergency use authorization from the Food and Drug Administration. Hospitalized COVID-19 patients currently have only a few pharmaceutical options.
Sabizabulin blocks cells from building molecular cables that carry material from one part of a cell to another. It was created to fight cancer, because tumor cells need those cables (called microtubules) to grow quickly.
Researchers tried it against COVID-19 2 years ago, because viral replication also requires microtubules to bring pieces of new viruses together.
To participate in the small trial, patients had to be receiving oxygen or on a ventilator and at a high risk of dying from COVID-19, “with risk factors such as hypertension, advanced age or obesity,” the Times reported.
A total of 134 patients received the medicine; 70 got a placebo. Among those receiving sabizabulin, 20.2% died within 2 months; 45.1% of those who took the placebo died.
One infectious disease expert told the Times that the high mortality rate of those on the placebo could mean the study was too small to offer conclusive results.
“The 45% mortality rate in the control group jumps out at me as rather high,” said David Boulware, MD, of the University of Minnesota.
A version of this article first appeared on WebMD.com.
Insurer told to pay $5.2 million to woman who caught STD in a car
A Missouri lawsuit adds a new twist to the kind of “bodily harm” in a car that’s covered by insurance.
On June 7,
The woman, identified in court documents as M.O., said she contracted human papillomavirus from her boyfriend. She said he knew he had the disease but didn’t tell her.
An arbitrator found in May 2021 that the in-car sex had “directly caused, or directly contributed to cause” the STD transmission. The man was found liable. The woman was awarded $5.2 million to be paid by GEICO, which insured the man’s vehicle.
GEICO filed for the award to be overturned, alleging it had been denied due process and that the arbitration deal was unenforceable.
Court documents show that GEICO claimed the man’s policy covered only injuries that came “out of the ownership, maintenance or use of the ... auto” and that the woman’s “injuries arose from an intervening cause – namely, her failure to prevent transmission of STDs by having unprotected sex.”
The state appellate panel ruled that the lower court made no mistake in the case and upheld the decision.
The Kansas City Star reported that one of the judges concurred but said GEICO was offered “no meaningful opportunity to participate” in the lawsuit and existing law “relegat(es) the insurer to the status of a bystander.”
“This case presents novel and potentially important issues about whether an insurance carrier can be held liable under such policies for the consequences of two adults voluntarily having unprotected sex in the insured’s automobile,” noted U.S. Magistrate Judge Angel D. Mitchell in court documents. “Interpretation of these policies could have far-reaching implications for other policies with similar terms.”
A version of this article first appeared on WebMD.com.
A Missouri lawsuit adds a new twist to the kind of “bodily harm” in a car that’s covered by insurance.
On June 7,
The woman, identified in court documents as M.O., said she contracted human papillomavirus from her boyfriend. She said he knew he had the disease but didn’t tell her.
An arbitrator found in May 2021 that the in-car sex had “directly caused, or directly contributed to cause” the STD transmission. The man was found liable. The woman was awarded $5.2 million to be paid by GEICO, which insured the man’s vehicle.
GEICO filed for the award to be overturned, alleging it had been denied due process and that the arbitration deal was unenforceable.
Court documents show that GEICO claimed the man’s policy covered only injuries that came “out of the ownership, maintenance or use of the ... auto” and that the woman’s “injuries arose from an intervening cause – namely, her failure to prevent transmission of STDs by having unprotected sex.”
The state appellate panel ruled that the lower court made no mistake in the case and upheld the decision.
The Kansas City Star reported that one of the judges concurred but said GEICO was offered “no meaningful opportunity to participate” in the lawsuit and existing law “relegat(es) the insurer to the status of a bystander.”
“This case presents novel and potentially important issues about whether an insurance carrier can be held liable under such policies for the consequences of two adults voluntarily having unprotected sex in the insured’s automobile,” noted U.S. Magistrate Judge Angel D. Mitchell in court documents. “Interpretation of these policies could have far-reaching implications for other policies with similar terms.”
A version of this article first appeared on WebMD.com.
A Missouri lawsuit adds a new twist to the kind of “bodily harm” in a car that’s covered by insurance.
On June 7,
The woman, identified in court documents as M.O., said she contracted human papillomavirus from her boyfriend. She said he knew he had the disease but didn’t tell her.
An arbitrator found in May 2021 that the in-car sex had “directly caused, or directly contributed to cause” the STD transmission. The man was found liable. The woman was awarded $5.2 million to be paid by GEICO, which insured the man’s vehicle.
GEICO filed for the award to be overturned, alleging it had been denied due process and that the arbitration deal was unenforceable.
Court documents show that GEICO claimed the man’s policy covered only injuries that came “out of the ownership, maintenance or use of the ... auto” and that the woman’s “injuries arose from an intervening cause – namely, her failure to prevent transmission of STDs by having unprotected sex.”
The state appellate panel ruled that the lower court made no mistake in the case and upheld the decision.
The Kansas City Star reported that one of the judges concurred but said GEICO was offered “no meaningful opportunity to participate” in the lawsuit and existing law “relegat(es) the insurer to the status of a bystander.”
“This case presents novel and potentially important issues about whether an insurance carrier can be held liable under such policies for the consequences of two adults voluntarily having unprotected sex in the insured’s automobile,” noted U.S. Magistrate Judge Angel D. Mitchell in court documents. “Interpretation of these policies could have far-reaching implications for other policies with similar terms.”
A version of this article first appeared on WebMD.com.
You want me to tan my WHAT, Tucker Carlson?
Did you hear the one about the TV host suggesting men get their testicles tanned?
The nutty idea dropped into the lexicon last weekend thanks to Fox News commentator Tucker Carlson.
He aired a promo for a show about an alleged decline of manhood. It featured shirtless, muscled men doing macho things like shooting automatic rifles and wrestling, and a naked man rather triumphantly exposing his crotch to a red-light device made to look like some sort of charging station.
The guest also said he’s heard of something he called “bromeopathy” for people who are suspicious of “mainstream” information. Yes, it’s a combination of the slang term “bro” and the practice of homeopathic medicine.
So, men of America, do you really need to start zapping your privates like Mr. Carlson seems to suggest?
Doctors say the answer is simple: Absolutely not.
‘No legitimate evidence’
“There is no legitimate evidence that this type of treatment is effective in improving testosterone levels,” says Petar Bajic MD, a urologist at the Cleveland Clinic who specializes in men’s health and testosterone.
The red light wouldn’t even be able to penetrate the body deep enough to reach the, uhm, targets, he said, citing “no scientific basis” for Mr. Tucker’s claims that we should be “open minded” about this kind of thing.
“It’s not only a waste of time but also a waste of money,” Dr. Bajic says. “There is a large amount of research and high-quality studies” into treating low testosterone, which is produced primarily in the testicles. “We have very effective and proven treatments available, and this is simply not one of them.”
Testosterone is an important hormone that contributes to masculine physical characteristics, “such as muscle mass and strength, and growth of facial and body hair,” according to the Mayo Clinic. It’s important for bone density, sperm production, erectile function, and more.
As men age, testosterone levels often drop, lowering energy and sexual function while causing weight gain and muscle loss.
If men experience some of these symptoms or become curious about their testosterone levels, they shouldn’t self-diagnose or rely on two guys promoting a TV show, Dr. Bajic says.
Instead, they should see their primary care doctor for a simple blood test, he says. Patient and doctor can decide on treatments, which commonly include:
- Topical gels
- Arm patches
- Injections into the muscle of the leg or the fatty tissue of the belly
- Pellets placed under the skin
Diet, exercise, sleep, and other factors play a role.
‘So much misinformation’
The men’s health consumer market is bloated with products promising to raise testosterone levels and help men boost their bedroom performance, among other claims.
But they’re usually based on nothing more than marketing, and erectile disfunction is more commonly caused by reduced blood flow than a lack of testosterone, Dr. Bajic says.
“It all comes down to looking at all of these as a consumer and as a patient ... with a critical eye. There’s always a new ‘cure all’ for whatever your ailment is,” he says.
Testosterone levels change throughout the day. It’s thought to be produced during REM sleep, which can be diminished by alcohol use and other factors.
“All these things are related,” Dr. Bajic said, so there’s no reason to flash a light where it’s usually not seen – especially since neither the safety nor efficacy of testicle tanning has been established.
Oregon urologist Ashley Winter, MD, got into the Twitter fray about Carlson’s comments.
“Also, by definition you CANNOT have data on testicle tanning because you cannot TAN an internal organ,” she said on the social media network. “Tanning your scrotal sack and calling it ‘testicle tanning,’ is like tanning your abdominal skin and calling it ‘liver tanning.’”
What advocates say
What do proponents of red light therapy say? A Men’s Health article claims red light “works to stimulate ATP production, increase energy available to the cell and in particular, increase the activity of the Leydig cells in your testes, which are the cells responsible for testosterone production.”
The article also helpfully points out: “It’s important to note that there are currently no light therapy devices on the market cleared by FDA for the enhanced production of testosterone LED-based therapy.” And many lamps sold for red light therapy can get so hot that they damage the skin.
The author ordered a Joovv device, which Mr. Carlson’s “fitness professional” guest name-dropped. They range from $600 to almost $10,000. He liked the way it felt and said it seemed to improve his sexual performance.
Still a hard sell
Atlanta dermatologist Emily de Golian, MD, says tanning genitalia can be dangerous to the skin.
“There is no such thing as a safe tan, all tanning is indicative of sun damage in the skin and is the body’s effort to shield the DNA from further damage, and tanning increases the risk of skin cancer,” she says. “Scrotal skin is particularly delicate and sensitive to sun exposure, and the risk of sunburn, which further increases the risk of skin cancer, is high.”
Mat Rezaei, founder and CEO of UPGUYS, which provides erectile disfunction medicine, says, “UV light has no negative or positive response to balancing testosterone deficiency.”
Even frequent Fox guest Kid Rock wasn’t buying into the idea.
“Dude, stop! Testicle tanning? Come on,” Mr. Rock said to Mr. Carlson. “I mean, I haven’t heard anything that good in a long time.”
“Open your mind,” said Mr. Carlson as he laughed along with the musician.
Kid Rock replied, “I’m starting a punk rock band and it’s called Testicle Tanning. That’s the end of it.”
A version of this article first appeared on WebMD.com.
Did you hear the one about the TV host suggesting men get their testicles tanned?
The nutty idea dropped into the lexicon last weekend thanks to Fox News commentator Tucker Carlson.
He aired a promo for a show about an alleged decline of manhood. It featured shirtless, muscled men doing macho things like shooting automatic rifles and wrestling, and a naked man rather triumphantly exposing his crotch to a red-light device made to look like some sort of charging station.
The guest also said he’s heard of something he called “bromeopathy” for people who are suspicious of “mainstream” information. Yes, it’s a combination of the slang term “bro” and the practice of homeopathic medicine.
So, men of America, do you really need to start zapping your privates like Mr. Carlson seems to suggest?
Doctors say the answer is simple: Absolutely not.
‘No legitimate evidence’
“There is no legitimate evidence that this type of treatment is effective in improving testosterone levels,” says Petar Bajic MD, a urologist at the Cleveland Clinic who specializes in men’s health and testosterone.
The red light wouldn’t even be able to penetrate the body deep enough to reach the, uhm, targets, he said, citing “no scientific basis” for Mr. Tucker’s claims that we should be “open minded” about this kind of thing.
“It’s not only a waste of time but also a waste of money,” Dr. Bajic says. “There is a large amount of research and high-quality studies” into treating low testosterone, which is produced primarily in the testicles. “We have very effective and proven treatments available, and this is simply not one of them.”
Testosterone is an important hormone that contributes to masculine physical characteristics, “such as muscle mass and strength, and growth of facial and body hair,” according to the Mayo Clinic. It’s important for bone density, sperm production, erectile function, and more.
As men age, testosterone levels often drop, lowering energy and sexual function while causing weight gain and muscle loss.
If men experience some of these symptoms or become curious about their testosterone levels, they shouldn’t self-diagnose or rely on two guys promoting a TV show, Dr. Bajic says.
Instead, they should see their primary care doctor for a simple blood test, he says. Patient and doctor can decide on treatments, which commonly include:
- Topical gels
- Arm patches
- Injections into the muscle of the leg or the fatty tissue of the belly
- Pellets placed under the skin
Diet, exercise, sleep, and other factors play a role.
‘So much misinformation’
The men’s health consumer market is bloated with products promising to raise testosterone levels and help men boost their bedroom performance, among other claims.
But they’re usually based on nothing more than marketing, and erectile disfunction is more commonly caused by reduced blood flow than a lack of testosterone, Dr. Bajic says.
“It all comes down to looking at all of these as a consumer and as a patient ... with a critical eye. There’s always a new ‘cure all’ for whatever your ailment is,” he says.
Testosterone levels change throughout the day. It’s thought to be produced during REM sleep, which can be diminished by alcohol use and other factors.
“All these things are related,” Dr. Bajic said, so there’s no reason to flash a light where it’s usually not seen – especially since neither the safety nor efficacy of testicle tanning has been established.
Oregon urologist Ashley Winter, MD, got into the Twitter fray about Carlson’s comments.
“Also, by definition you CANNOT have data on testicle tanning because you cannot TAN an internal organ,” she said on the social media network. “Tanning your scrotal sack and calling it ‘testicle tanning,’ is like tanning your abdominal skin and calling it ‘liver tanning.’”
What advocates say
What do proponents of red light therapy say? A Men’s Health article claims red light “works to stimulate ATP production, increase energy available to the cell and in particular, increase the activity of the Leydig cells in your testes, which are the cells responsible for testosterone production.”
The article also helpfully points out: “It’s important to note that there are currently no light therapy devices on the market cleared by FDA for the enhanced production of testosterone LED-based therapy.” And many lamps sold for red light therapy can get so hot that they damage the skin.
The author ordered a Joovv device, which Mr. Carlson’s “fitness professional” guest name-dropped. They range from $600 to almost $10,000. He liked the way it felt and said it seemed to improve his sexual performance.
Still a hard sell
Atlanta dermatologist Emily de Golian, MD, says tanning genitalia can be dangerous to the skin.
“There is no such thing as a safe tan, all tanning is indicative of sun damage in the skin and is the body’s effort to shield the DNA from further damage, and tanning increases the risk of skin cancer,” she says. “Scrotal skin is particularly delicate and sensitive to sun exposure, and the risk of sunburn, which further increases the risk of skin cancer, is high.”
Mat Rezaei, founder and CEO of UPGUYS, which provides erectile disfunction medicine, says, “UV light has no negative or positive response to balancing testosterone deficiency.”
Even frequent Fox guest Kid Rock wasn’t buying into the idea.
“Dude, stop! Testicle tanning? Come on,” Mr. Rock said to Mr. Carlson. “I mean, I haven’t heard anything that good in a long time.”
“Open your mind,” said Mr. Carlson as he laughed along with the musician.
Kid Rock replied, “I’m starting a punk rock band and it’s called Testicle Tanning. That’s the end of it.”
A version of this article first appeared on WebMD.com.
Did you hear the one about the TV host suggesting men get their testicles tanned?
The nutty idea dropped into the lexicon last weekend thanks to Fox News commentator Tucker Carlson.
He aired a promo for a show about an alleged decline of manhood. It featured shirtless, muscled men doing macho things like shooting automatic rifles and wrestling, and a naked man rather triumphantly exposing his crotch to a red-light device made to look like some sort of charging station.
The guest also said he’s heard of something he called “bromeopathy” for people who are suspicious of “mainstream” information. Yes, it’s a combination of the slang term “bro” and the practice of homeopathic medicine.
So, men of America, do you really need to start zapping your privates like Mr. Carlson seems to suggest?
Doctors say the answer is simple: Absolutely not.
‘No legitimate evidence’
“There is no legitimate evidence that this type of treatment is effective in improving testosterone levels,” says Petar Bajic MD, a urologist at the Cleveland Clinic who specializes in men’s health and testosterone.
The red light wouldn’t even be able to penetrate the body deep enough to reach the, uhm, targets, he said, citing “no scientific basis” for Mr. Tucker’s claims that we should be “open minded” about this kind of thing.
“It’s not only a waste of time but also a waste of money,” Dr. Bajic says. “There is a large amount of research and high-quality studies” into treating low testosterone, which is produced primarily in the testicles. “We have very effective and proven treatments available, and this is simply not one of them.”
Testosterone is an important hormone that contributes to masculine physical characteristics, “such as muscle mass and strength, and growth of facial and body hair,” according to the Mayo Clinic. It’s important for bone density, sperm production, erectile function, and more.
As men age, testosterone levels often drop, lowering energy and sexual function while causing weight gain and muscle loss.
If men experience some of these symptoms or become curious about their testosterone levels, they shouldn’t self-diagnose or rely on two guys promoting a TV show, Dr. Bajic says.
Instead, they should see their primary care doctor for a simple blood test, he says. Patient and doctor can decide on treatments, which commonly include:
- Topical gels
- Arm patches
- Injections into the muscle of the leg or the fatty tissue of the belly
- Pellets placed under the skin
Diet, exercise, sleep, and other factors play a role.
‘So much misinformation’
The men’s health consumer market is bloated with products promising to raise testosterone levels and help men boost their bedroom performance, among other claims.
But they’re usually based on nothing more than marketing, and erectile disfunction is more commonly caused by reduced blood flow than a lack of testosterone, Dr. Bajic says.
“It all comes down to looking at all of these as a consumer and as a patient ... with a critical eye. There’s always a new ‘cure all’ for whatever your ailment is,” he says.
Testosterone levels change throughout the day. It’s thought to be produced during REM sleep, which can be diminished by alcohol use and other factors.
“All these things are related,” Dr. Bajic said, so there’s no reason to flash a light where it’s usually not seen – especially since neither the safety nor efficacy of testicle tanning has been established.
Oregon urologist Ashley Winter, MD, got into the Twitter fray about Carlson’s comments.
“Also, by definition you CANNOT have data on testicle tanning because you cannot TAN an internal organ,” she said on the social media network. “Tanning your scrotal sack and calling it ‘testicle tanning,’ is like tanning your abdominal skin and calling it ‘liver tanning.’”
What advocates say
What do proponents of red light therapy say? A Men’s Health article claims red light “works to stimulate ATP production, increase energy available to the cell and in particular, increase the activity of the Leydig cells in your testes, which are the cells responsible for testosterone production.”
The article also helpfully points out: “It’s important to note that there are currently no light therapy devices on the market cleared by FDA for the enhanced production of testosterone LED-based therapy.” And many lamps sold for red light therapy can get so hot that they damage the skin.
The author ordered a Joovv device, which Mr. Carlson’s “fitness professional” guest name-dropped. They range from $600 to almost $10,000. He liked the way it felt and said it seemed to improve his sexual performance.
Still a hard sell
Atlanta dermatologist Emily de Golian, MD, says tanning genitalia can be dangerous to the skin.
“There is no such thing as a safe tan, all tanning is indicative of sun damage in the skin and is the body’s effort to shield the DNA from further damage, and tanning increases the risk of skin cancer,” she says. “Scrotal skin is particularly delicate and sensitive to sun exposure, and the risk of sunburn, which further increases the risk of skin cancer, is high.”
Mat Rezaei, founder and CEO of UPGUYS, which provides erectile disfunction medicine, says, “UV light has no negative or positive response to balancing testosterone deficiency.”
Even frequent Fox guest Kid Rock wasn’t buying into the idea.
“Dude, stop! Testicle tanning? Come on,” Mr. Rock said to Mr. Carlson. “I mean, I haven’t heard anything that good in a long time.”
“Open your mind,” said Mr. Carlson as he laughed along with the musician.
Kid Rock replied, “I’m starting a punk rock band and it’s called Testicle Tanning. That’s the end of it.”
A version of this article first appeared on WebMD.com.