4 ms·

I wonder why they didn't mention vaselgel [1]. When I first heard about it a couple years ago it was pitched as an injection of $0.10 of chemicals into the vas

I wonder why they didn't mention vaselgel [1]. When I first heard about it a couple years ago it was pitched as an injection of $0.10 of chemicals into the vas deferens that would block sperm from traveling through it. They were hoping it would last 10 years, be reversible with another small injection, and be available in the U.S. in half a decade. A non-profit is funding the research and their goal is for it to be affordable even in developing countries. [1]: https://www.parsemusfoundation.org/projects/vasalgel/vasalgel-faqs/ https://www.parsemusfoundation.org/projects/vasalgel/vasalge...

nothrabannosir 10y ago
I keep wondering when a reputable source is going to finally cover this and somehow burst the bubble. It sounds too good to be true, yet, somehow, nobody outside their own mailing list seems to acknowledge it. What gives? Is this known quackery? I am weary to get excited, lest I get my dreams crushed yet again :/
- L_Rahman 10y ago
  One theory for why it isn't acknowledged could be that the creators and trial participants are outside of the Western cultural establishment. The material was discovered and synthesized in India at IIT by a Indian person. The largest clinical trial on Vasalgel - also in India. Media coverage doesn't happen organically. In almost all cases it is a two way street, with networks and personal contacts creating the bridge. The researchers in India and the cultural epicenters of the Western media establishment are about as distant as two nodes can be. Discovery and contact between the two parties is probably very hard. On the other hand if they tied it to a pre-dominant narrative in Western media about India - increasing sexual freedoms or a pathway to population management - and worked with the non-profit institutions that connect back to the nodes of cultural influence in the Western world, they would probably get a decent of amount of earned media coverage.
  - xenadu02 10y ago
    Eh there are reps from the big multinational pharmaceutical companies trolling all over the world for potential drugs, both man-made and natural. Lack of media coverage doesn't mean no one is paying attention.
    - duaneb 10y ago
      If they can't patent it, and it's known to be cheap, it's a race to the bottom in terms of profits. A pill would be far more profitable. I don't think pharmaceuticals would be eager for anyone to find out about it if they can't control the money.
      - kyrra 10y ago
        You still have to pay for clinical trials in the US. If the drug can't be patented then no pharma group will pay for the trials if a generic can come along once trials complete and make just as much money.
- bb611 10y ago
  It's not, but it's far from proven technology. Additionally, it's the exact opposite of most medical research - fairly inexpensive to develop (a few millions USD total), but also with very little profit upside on the other end.
  - lucaspiller 10y ago
    I wonder how many other potential medical treatments fall into this category. If a treatment was found that cured a large percentage of cancers, but was 'too cheap' to develop, would the same thing happen?
    - sleepychu 10y ago
      I think cancer would be a special case. Just because being the ones who came up with a cancer cure would be worth the small investment. Of course the criteria are likely to preclude a cancer treatment!
- alanh 10y ago
  Valerie Tarico has written about it, and she has her head screwed on straight (which I think means she’s reputable)! She's an excellent writer. However, maybe BuzzFeed needs to do a listicle on Vasalgel, or Cosmo needs to put it in SnapChat, before awareness goes mainstream… that's a sobering thought!
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
carsongross 10y ago
If it eventually comes out that this works, the medical establishment and the press in the West have a huge amount of social damage to answer for.
- cheiVia0 10y ago
  Don't worry, they'll just run a story about a guy who used it and his junk fell off.
StanislavPetrov 10y ago
>I wonder why they didn't mention vaselgel [1]. When I first heard about it a couple years ago it was pitched as an injection of $0.10 of chemicals into the vas deferens that would block sperm from traveling through it. Because how are pharmaceutical companies going to make billions from selling $0.10 of chemicals?
- BobCat 10y ago
  By selling it for $10, of course.
- user5994461 10y ago
  Simple: Add $2 for shipping. Profit from the inflated shipping free.
- gohrt 10y ago
  With a patent on a formulation and delivery method. Most patented drugs sell at huge multiples of production cost.
  - tomp 10y ago
    I doubt this would work very well in this case, given that it's supposed to be a once-in-10-years procedure... Most pharma companies are increasingly focusing in drugs for long-term management of chronic conditions (e.g. cancer) - keep people alive and consuming your highly expensive drug covered by their insurance is incredibly lucrative.
  - smallnamespace 10y ago
    They can't patent it very easily if someone else invented it. Otherwise you'd see people trying to patent 'formulations' of their competitors' drugs all the time. Even if they could patent a formulation, someone else can always jump in with a slightly different formulation at half the price.
- nylonstrung 10y ago
  >Because how are pharmaceutical companies going to make billions from selling $0.10 of chemicals? How much do you think the raw inputs for Cialis are? Gross margins at the aggregate level are around 80% for this stuff. If they are practicing value based costing they could simply just undercut surgical vasectomies slightly- I'm sure every man out there would choose an outpatient injection that is reversible vs a surgical operation. I'm eagerly awaiting it getting to the market but don't buy that as an explanation
Eric_WVGG 10y ago
Bimek is another promising nonhormonal male contraceptive. It is literally an implanted valve controlled by a switch. http://arstechnica.com/science/2016/01/sperm-off-switch-may-offer-men-reversible-contraceptive/ http://arstechnica.com/science/2016/01/sperm-off-switch-may-... of course the health industry is bored by non-ingestible medical solutions as they don't conform to subscription pricing

nothrabannosir 10y ago

I keep wondering when a reputable source is going to finally cover this and somehow burst the bubble. It sounds too good to be true, yet, somehow, nobody outside their own mailing list seems to acknowledge it. What gives? Is this known quackery? I am weary to get excited, lest I get my dreams crushed yet again :/

L_Rahman 10y ago
One theory for why it isn't acknowledged could be that the creators and trial participants are outside of the Western cultural establishment. The material was discovered and synthesized in India at IIT by a Indian person. The largest clinical trial on Vasalgel - also in India. Media coverage doesn't happen organically. In almost all cases it is a two way street, with networks and personal contacts creating the bridge. The researchers in India and the cultural epicenters of the Western media establishment are about as distant as two nodes can be. Discovery and contact between the two parties is probably very hard. On the other hand if they tied it to a pre-dominant narrative in Western media about India - increasing sexual freedoms or a pathway to population management - and worked with the non-profit institutions that connect back to the nodes of cultural influence in the Western world, they would probably get a decent of amount of earned media coverage.
- xenadu02 10y ago
  Eh there are reps from the big multinational pharmaceutical companies trolling all over the world for potential drugs, both man-made and natural. Lack of media coverage doesn't mean no one is paying attention.
  - duaneb 10y ago
    If they can't patent it, and it's known to be cheap, it's a race to the bottom in terms of profits. A pill would be far more profitable. I don't think pharmaceuticals would be eager for anyone to find out about it if they can't control the money.
    - kyrra 10y ago
      You still have to pay for clinical trials in the US. If the drug can't be patented then no pharma group will pay for the trials if a generic can come along once trials complete and make just as much money.
bb611 10y ago
It's not, but it's far from proven technology. Additionally, it's the exact opposite of most medical research - fairly inexpensive to develop (a few millions USD total), but also with very little profit upside on the other end.
- lucaspiller 10y ago
  I wonder how many other potential medical treatments fall into this category. If a treatment was found that cured a large percentage of cancers, but was 'too cheap' to develop, would the same thing happen?
  - sleepychu 10y ago
    I think cancer would be a special case. Just because being the ones who came up with a cancer cure would be worth the small investment. Of course the criteria are likely to preclude a cancer treatment!
alanh 10y ago
Valerie Tarico has written about it, and she has her head screwed on straight (which I think means she’s reputable)! She's an excellent writer. However, maybe BuzzFeed needs to do a listicle on Vasalgel, or Cosmo needs to put it in SnapChat, before awareness goes mainstream… that's a sobering thought!

deleted 10y ago

[deleted]

carsongross 10y ago

If it eventually comes out that this works, the medical establishment and the press in the West have a huge amount of social damage to answer for.

cheiVia0 10y ago
Don't worry, they'll just run a story about a guy who used it and his junk fell off.

StanislavPetrov 10y ago

>I wonder why they didn't mention vaselgel [1]. When I first heard about it a couple years ago it was pitched as an injection of $0.10 of chemicals into the vas deferens that would block sperm from traveling through it. Because how are pharmaceutical companies going to make billions from selling $0.10 of chemicals?

BobCat 10y ago
By selling it for $10, of course.
user5994461 10y ago
Simple: Add $2 for shipping. Profit from the inflated shipping free.
gohrt 10y ago
With a patent on a formulation and delivery method. Most patented drugs sell at huge multiples of production cost.
- tomp 10y ago
  I doubt this would work very well in this case, given that it's supposed to be a once-in-10-years procedure... Most pharma companies are increasingly focusing in drugs for long-term management of chronic conditions (e.g. cancer) - keep people alive and consuming your highly expensive drug covered by their insurance is incredibly lucrative.
- smallnamespace 10y ago
  They can't patent it very easily if someone else invented it. Otherwise you'd see people trying to patent 'formulations' of their competitors' drugs all the time. Even if they could patent a formulation, someone else can always jump in with a slightly different formulation at half the price.
nylonstrung 10y ago
>Because how are pharmaceutical companies going to make billions from selling $0.10 of chemicals? How much do you think the raw inputs for Cialis are? Gross margins at the aggregate level are around 80% for this stuff. If they are practicing value based costing they could simply just undercut surgical vasectomies slightly- I'm sure every man out there would choose an outpatient injection that is reversible vs a surgical operation. I'm eagerly awaiting it getting to the market but don't buy that as an explanation

Eric_WVGG 10y ago

Bimek is another promising nonhormonal male contraceptive. It is literally an implanted valve controlled by a switch. http://arstechnica.com/science/2016/01/sperm-off-switch-may-offer-men-reversible-contraceptive/ http://arstechnica.com/science/2016/01/sperm-off-switch-may-... of course the health industry is bored by non-ingestible medical solutions as they don't conform to subscription pricing