26 ms·
New male contraceptive may be submitted for Indian approval this year
- TheAdamAndChe 10y agoIt's definitely too popular to blame everything on middle-aged white guys. It's sad that even bloomberg is jumping on the bandwagon.
- deleted 10y ago[deleted]
- deleted 10y ago[deleted]
- eightysixfour 10y agoIt is a money issue - it is cheap and effective but needs clinical trials and potentially cuts recurring revenue from women's birth control options.
- cheez 10y agoAfter reading the article, I agree. The shaming is just how they're trying to get Big Pharma to take it up, but you cannot convince someone to reduce their salary willingly.
- deleted 10y ago[deleted]
- smanatstpete 10y agoAre you sure you are commenting on the correct article?
- TheAdamAndChe 10y agoYes - from the article: "The fact that the big companies are run by white, middle-aged males who have the same feeling—that they would never do it—plays a major role"
- jlebrech 10y agothis seems like yet another bash at the white male, but if you think of it there's already vasectomies and if you're rich you'll have a few children followed by a vasectomy. this is for the poorer individual that doesn't want the burden but might want to reverse it, which is more appealing to the non-rich-guy. and maybe in india* you can still be seen a virile as it's reversible. *i don't know about indian culture.
- AnkhMorporkian 10y agoI don't know, the assertion in the article makes little sense. The white part shouldn't play any role at all in this; easily reversible male contraception has been a dream of many for a long time. These companies want to maximize profits, and it's obvious that they aren't limiting their products and procedures to what they as middle-aged men would want. If they were, there'd be no products or procedures for women. I think it's far more likely that these companies don't want to fund trials as it won't be nearly as profitable to them as current contraceptive options. If this was a pill instead, I have no doubt that the companies would champ at the bit for it. I think it's not coincidence that they could only find a non-profit to fund the trials for this specific product/procedure.
- jlebrech 10y agoyes, i think whiteness is purely incidental. it's just another not-all-statement.
- foepys 10y agoIt doesn't even make sense. Women have the possibility to abort a pregnancy while men have no say whatsoever (in regions where the big pharma companies are coming from). So the argument that women would do more for male birth control is somewhat strange considering they have all the power in their hands right now.
- colanderman 10y agoThat's adversarial thinking. If the man and woman are in a trusting relationship, the question changes from one of "power" to responsibility. Today, most reversible contraceptive methods (pill, rhythm, IUD, abortion) rely on the woman owning responsibility (one which they may be unwilling or unable to carry out). Male contraception relieves women of that burden.
- adrianN 10y ago> If the man and woman are in a trusting relationship That's the problem right there...
- xutopia 10y agoA lot of sex happens outside of trusting relationships. The woman with whom I lost my virginity tried to trick me into being the father for a child that wasn't mine. It most likely isn't representative but as a polyamorous man, with financial stability, I can assure you that a lot of women I've met would gladly have an "accident" with me. I sleep easier knowing I had a vasectomy.
- colanderman 10y agoI don't deny that, but the majority of women are not so manipulative. The GP's blanket claim "the argument that women would do more for male birth control is somewhat strange" would assume that the majority of women are so immoral. They most certainly are not.
- chongli 10y agoMale contraception relieves women of that burden You would think so, but... there are women (maybe a lot of them) who think the loss of power over conception would be bad for women [0]. Read the column. I don't know about you, but it gives me a very queasy feeling. Like there is some subtext that this woman believes she should be able to force parenthood on an unwilling partner. [0] https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2006/apr/28/malepillwomensloss https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2006/apr/28/malepi...
- meri_dian 10y agoI can understand how executives being male may impact decisions to pursue male contraceptives but the white part is really irrelevant and unnecessary
- ph0rque 10y agoThere's Parmesus Vasalgel that is going through trials in the US, based on this tech. Also, a startup whose name I forget is developing the same kind of tech. They were part of YC Fellowship Batch 3.
- ckastner 10y agoThe article mentions this, although it's not quite clear to me how they differ (and by how much). Parsemus apparently got started by licensing the technology from Guha, then developed its own solution inspired by that technology.
- 24gttghh 10y agoThe tech in this article allow sperm through but damage the sperm. The Parsemus tech seems to block the tubes entirely.
- tgtweak 10y agoUntrue, actually they both use the same system (and almost identical formulation). The difference being the focus on the FDA process and US market that vaselgel is taking, you can see the cleverly worded non-answer on their own FAQ, quoted below. They do "filter" the vasdeferentia and not block it. This is actually preferential as it can alleviate a small chance of pain or sperm granulomas after a vasectomy, also quoted below. Although Vasalgel and RISUG® are based on the same concept of using a polymer gel injected into the vas deferens, the formulations are not the same. And RISUG has been developed and tested in India over multiple decades, while Vasalgel is being developed in the United States to conform to the latest FDA and international codes of production and safety. And only a small percentage of men who have had a vasectomy experience chronic pain (1-2% according to the American Urological Association). Our current understanding of Vasalgel is that fluids can pass through the gel, but sperm cannot. This will likely reduce the incidence of back-pressure. Sperm granulomas are formed when the vas deferens is severed in a vasectomy and sperm leak into surrounding tissue. Since injection of Vasalgel does not involve cutting the vas deferens, this should not be an issue. Notice the non-answer below: Our understanding is that Vasalgel works by blocking or filtering out sperm. In the past, RISUG (a different product) was described as working by shredding sperm by an electrical charge process as they went past the contraceptive that lined the walls of the vas deferens. Vasalgel makes no such claims. https://www.parsemusfoundation.org/projects/vasalgel/vasalgel-faqs/ https://www.parsemusfoundation.org/projects/vasalgel/vasalge...
- jlebrech 10y agoI thought it was going to be a pill, we already have vasectomies.
- 24gttghh 10y agoThis isn't a vasectomy...it's a gel injected into the vas deferens which does not block the flow of sperm, but reacts with the negative charge of the sperm to render them infertile. The gel may also removed with another quick injection to flush.
- jlebrech 10y agobut you might forget about it for 10years and it might flush itself.
- tiles 10y agoYou might, but I doubt many women just forget to get their IUD renewed. It's a surgery and can be treated as such.
- 24gttghh 10y agoIf one forgets that a doctor injected something into their vas deferenes, they've got other problems.
- giarc 10y agoI can see it now... YC Winter Batch 2018. SaaS tool to remind people when they need their testicle injection.
- nommm-nommm 10y agoThis is intended to last until a second injection is administered to reverse it.
- jlebrech 10y agonosproggs.io
- jlebrech 10y agoat first it doesn't seem as convenient as a pill but I don't think any man would want to "oops i forgot my pill", or say they took it but didn't and if they did that it's not fair on the woman isn't it.
- chadlavi 10y agoShut up and take my money/sperm!
- k-mcgrady 10y agoI wonder how this would effect STD rates in areas with bad sex ed? I could see a lot of people thinking 'don't need a condom because I can't make someone pregnant now'. Not that this product is a bad thing, very useful for people in monogamous relationships.
- torrent-of-ions 10y agoI can't see how it would have a positive effect. HIV infection rates in the gay community have shot up in recent years unfortunately as people have become complacent with condoms. Without the risk of pregnancy one can only assume the same thing will happen in the straight community.
- digitalsushi 10y agoTo be fair, the straight and gay communities are really just opposite sides of the same fish tank, not two fish tanks, as a metaphor for compartmentalizing the sharing of diseases.
- JshWright 10y agoIt's still reasonable to differentiate the primary motivation for condom use in the two 'communities'.
- dionidium 10y agoKeep in mind that receptive anal sex carries a risk of infection 18 times higher than that of receptive vaginal sex. Moreover, receptive vaginal sex is twice as likely to result in infection as insertive vaginal sex. http://www.catie.ca/en/pif/summer-2012/putting-number-it-risk-exposure-hiv http://www.catie.ca/en/pif/summer-2012/putting-number-it-ris...
- sigmar 10y ago>HIV infection rates in the gay community have shot up in recent years unfortunately as people have become complacent with condoms. This is not accurate in the US. HIV diagnoses among gay men have increased less than 1% from 2010-2014 according to the CDC: https://www.cdc.gov/hiv/group/msm/ https://www.cdc.gov/hiv/group/msm/
- earlyriser 10y agoI remember reading about this maybe 6 years ago. What was memorable was that the gel was even cheaper than the syringe. It's sad how slow these things move and that we're not going to have that in North-America for a good time.
- jmedefind 10y agoThey just finished animal trials in the US and are hoping to start human trials soon. https://www.parsemusfoundation.org/projects/vasalgel/ https://www.parsemusfoundation.org/projects/vasalgel/
- _archon_ 10y agoThanks for this update! I had a vague notion that such a product was in the works, but having trials in the next year or two is fantastic progress.
- Broken_Hippo 10y agoI wish it could go faster, but the truth is this is exactly the sort of thing that should go slowly. It is much better for birth control to have a certain effectiveness, after all. Since this is an injection, probably best to have good tests with longevity as well. It isn't bad to go back every couple years for this, but this is the sort of information one needs to know upfront. Unfortunately, finding this initial stuff out takes time.
- TheAdamAndChe 10y agoA problem in the US is that the company that wants to sell this is the company that needs to pay for the studies required to make it legal. However because it is so cheap, it's difficult for the company to make a profit. The same thing can be found with many supplements. For example, N-acetylcysteine has shown to be helpful in several forms of addiction and mood disorders, but because it is so cheap, no company will front the money needed to make it a medication. We need to change the system so that the research is paid for by the government somehow, in my opinion.
- wayn3 10y ago- I'm not paying money to have needle injecting chemicals with unexplored potential (longterm) side effects into my private parts when the potential success rate is that of a condom. Condoms kind of work. - "The pill" is a bit more than just a contraceptive. A variety of issues, ranging from skin problems to hormonal imabalances are regulated through the pill, which quite efficiently normalizes outliers in female hormone levels alongside acting as a contraceptive. The pill is rarely "just" a contraceptive. It reduces menstrual pain significantly and allows women to forego the pleasure of planning for a week of unnecessary discomfort every month. Every woman I've been sufficiently intimate with to have such conversations describes the daily pill as a small price to pay for all the benefits it comes with. A male vasectomy is 800 bucks and certainly reversible.
- voxic11 10y agoOn the other hand every girl I've been sufficiently intimate with has told me they don't use the pill because it causes the exact issues you describe it helping. The pill is not for everyone.
- torrent-of-ions 10y agoMany women also have problems with hormonal birth control. It essentially changes their character every day which many are not comfortable with. There are numerous cases of women no longer finding their partners attractive after stopping the pill. On top of that it's really bad for the environment. While some women might take it for the side effects, many don't, and they would be better off not taking it.
- nailer 10y agoThe previous "male pill" side effects included inability to maintain an erection. Which makes coitus somewhat difficult.
- thinkmilitant 10y agoWell, that is one way to prevent unwanted pregnancy...
- 10y ago
- duopixel 10y agoShould I have children, I see myself walking my teenage son to the clinic to get this done. A rite of passage of sorts. It is difficult to understate the importance of bringing only wanted children into this world, and that both parents agree on it. The cultural importance of this invention will be revealed in time, I hope.
- Ntrails 10y agoI find it inconceivable that you'd want to encourage high risk of stds by advocating something that only prevents pregnancy
- mjohn 10y agoSure, but condoms fail too. There is no reason not to use both.
- OJFord 10y ago> There is no reason not to use both. Fear of it not being as reversible as it was supposed to be would be a pretty good reason not to use this one. If you're married, with children, and looking for an alternative to vasectomy, that risk is lower in the sense that should the reverse procedure not go as expected, it would probably be less crushing than the same experience as a newlywed.
- anothercomment 10y agoHow about combining it with freezing some sperm, just in case. Too expensive perhaps?
- LeftTriangle 10y agoFreezing sperm costs on the order of $200-400 per year depending on how far you pay in advance. Worth paying if you're getting a vasectomy, but probably not worth it for this kind of (hopefully) temporary BC.
- nailer 10y agoI can imagine the early adopters: male actors, athletes and other men of high social value as a way to enjoy sex without the chance of unwanted offspring.
- tanderson11 10y agoPretty sure the early adopters are going to be any one who wants to have sex ...
- cookiecaper 10y agoWhy do you assume that anyone who wants to have sex will be seeking out not only contraception, but an experimental, first-of-its-kind contraceptive? I want to (and do) have sex and I never use contraceptives. Were I interested in curtailing the birth of my children, even before I was married, I would absolutely NOT use a drug that is brand new. Ultimately this needs to be recognized as a convenience thing. Condoms are a very effective, extremely low-risk option. They require no modifications to your biological system and reliably prevent pregnancy (not to mention STDs). Even drugs like "the pill", now old-school, put people at risk for scary complications that sometimes happen and significant undesirable side effects that frequently happen. We all love science and technology and that's great, but drugs are risky, and effects are often not visible until they've been in public use for some years. There are a lot of really sad examples of this, where some widely-prescribed drug has a little-known side effect or misunderstood risk profile for some patients, and it can, and literally has, resulted in death. One should consider the risk involved when weighing "Would I rather take five seconds to slip on a condom, or inject myself with this experimental and/or brand new drug?" I'm sure there will be early adopters, but as someone who wants to have sex, there is no way I will be among them.
- Ericson2314 10y agoThis would be extremely good marketing in our celebraty-obsessed culture.
- frandroid 10y agoPromiscuous people should be using condoms at all times, first of all.
- Batro 10y agoThis seems quite perfect in theory. Not invasive, lasts for a long time, just one shot and then you're done... I hope the clinical tests will bring good news for that project, because this is something I would do if it comes on the market one day.
- JshWright 10y agoWhile it is far _less_ invasive than some options, it is still an invasive procedure, and not without risks. Obviously, for many patients, the benefits will massively outweigh the risks (assuming the clinical testing bears out the initial results).
- Batro 10y agoYeah, I spoke (or rather typed) too fast : it's still an injection, you're right, but at least it's not a complete surgery operation.
- Ericson2314 10y agoThis would seem to be the best birth control for either sex. Fingers crossed it makes it to market.
- _archon_ 10y agoI currently believe that birth control should be actively employed by all parties. I look forward to a viable male contraceptive making it to market.
- Ericson2314 10y agoTechnically I beleive the only efficient systems are those where it is known a priori who employs birth control. That basically means it must be the responsibility of one sex or both. I agree with you: both sexes may be overkill but is the only fair option.
- manmal 10y agoI don't get it - what does that kind of fairness buy you or society? If it's enough when one side takes contraceptives, what logic argument is there that the other side must do the same? Economically (time, resources, even environmentally; the pill and condoms eventually end up in our water or the sea) this does not make sense.
- nommm-nommm 10y agoTo minimize the risk of failure. Same reason why you'd have a backup parachute when you jump out of a plane even though you strictly only need one.
- manmal 10y agoSure, I get that. Grandparent mentioned fairness as driving factor though.
- 10y ago
- MichaelGG 10y agoTestosterone will also do this. There are long release esters so you only need an injection every few months. Even with a bimonthly shot, it costs about $10/mo. (On mobile, but there was a study in China with T undecanoate showing amazing effectiveness.) Downside is that in the US, testosterone is, hilariously, Schedule III. But 5 minutes with Google should have you sorted. Can get OTC in other places.
- mohaine 10y agoNo thanks. No way I'm offsetting the cost/work of having a child vs the reliability of a Hackernews doctor and a Googled drug source.
- MichaelGG 10y ago... Obviously my comment was meant as a suggestion to look into things and note the availability of a well known substance that already accomplished birth control in men. It wasn't intended as a "read this comment and start injecting yourself". You're of course free to attempt to convince a doctor to prescribe. Or you can buy the drugs and get a $100 blood test to verify it's real as well as do a fertility test. It's just an affront to liberty to pay a gatekeeper to allow you to change your own hormones. Here's a study: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15126550 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15126550
- Raphmedia 10y agoThe main problem with increasing T to act as a birth control is that there are too much side effects.
- elastic_church 10y ago> Stories like that encourage Guha to persist with the project, he said, even though patents on his invention have long since expired and he won’t see any personal financial gain even if it takes off worldwide. Hm, in America you can get a patent term extension due to regulatory delays in bringing a product to market at other agencies, such as the FDA Does that not exist in India?
- sergior 10y agoThis is great. Friend of mine has been tricked by a woman into having a baby and now he has to give away most of his money in form of maintenance. He used a condom, but she emptied it inside her when he was asleep after the sex.
- SamBam 10y agoOld urban legend, that is notoriously hard to find any evidence of, and just so happens to nicely dovetail with the "Redpill" ideas about crazy, manipulative women. If you didn't know the man in question, which would you find more likely: that a woman emptied a condom in herself in order to secretly make herself pregnant, in order to claim alimony; or that the couple failed to practice safe sex correctly (either through omission or due to an accident)?
- sergior 10y agoThere are forums out there were women discuss best ways to entrap a male into paying support. If state also pays good benefits this is a way for these women to make living.
- Dirlewanger 10y agoIf you step outside your bubble put your ear to the ground so to speak, you'll find the world isn't so black and white. I have a friend who's a family attorney and I wish he was exaggerating about all the fucked up cases he tells me and his colleagues have. Women pulling every trick in the book in order to have a baby with an unwilling partner (of which include lying about being on birth control, and in one case, digging in the trash to get a used condom and attempting to get pregnant that way) more common than you think. In almost all instances, men are completely blindsided and then sucked dry by the courts. You don't hear these kinds of talking points from feminists though. Equality in the court system simply isn't a priority to them.
- nommm-nommm 10y agoYou're making it sound like reproductive coercion is a one sided systemic attack by women against men. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reproductive_coercion https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reproductive_coercion >Around 10% of U.S. men reported ever having an intimate partner who tried to get pregnant when they did not want to or stopped them from using birth control. Around 9% of U.S. women reported having an intimate partner who tried to get them pregnant when they did not want to or refused to use a condom.
- patrickg_zill 10y agoThere is a lot of social commentary on this thread. Unanswered however is, "How will this affect relationships between men and women"? The "MGTOW" crowd laud this development, arguing that once control of fertility is in the hands of men rather than women (a woman can always "forget" to take the pill)... something good, as they define it, will happen. (IANAMGTOW - I am not a MGTOW) In terms of total fertility rate, what does this mean for a country/nation when one population group greatly restricts having kids in terms of moral suasion, societal acceptability, etc. while offering money to those who do have kids? e.g. upper middle class (children discouraged, at least beyond 2 kids) vs. other classes in society (have a bunch of kids). Living in the USA I have often heard complaints along the lines that we seem to be "discouraging the smart and hard-working people from having kids, while paying stupid people to have them".
- SamBam 10y agoHow is any of that different from the contraceptives that already exist? Further, your notion of "Idiocracy" (believing that the "smart hardworking people" have fewer kids) doesn't match at all with the fact that IQ keeps rising in every generation in the US, and fewer people are poor or jobless than they were in the 50s or before.
- patrickg_zill 10y agoI would point out that you are relying on government statistics for your "poor or jobless" point - and many have pointed out sources of bias that call those stats into question; and also, you are assuming that the Flynn effect will be ongoing rather than just reflecting a topping-up due to better nutrition and more widespread education. Others have calculated that USA/UK have lost as much as 14 IQ points since Victorian times. see http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2730791/Are-STUPID-Britons-people-IQ-decline.html http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2730791/Are-S... .
- tptacek 10y agoDo you have a more authoritative cite for this than a tabloid article?
- WA 10y agoThis is big. This is the future of contraception, because it works, it's incredibly cheap, it has (almost?) no side effects. All current solutions are a joke. Hormone-based contraception feels like something from the middle ages. It has serious side effects, it has "harmless" side effects that aren't even related to the pill anymore after years of intake, but still an annoyance (migraine, headaches, yeast infections, high blood pressure, ...) Non-hormonal contraception has its own negative aspects: - Copper IUDs can cause a lot of pain, inserting them isn't that easy, they are ethically troublesome (eggs can be fertilized after ovulation, but the copper IUD prevents nidation) - Natural family planning methods are way safer than many people believe (the sympto-thermal method), but don't allow unprotected sex during fertile days - Condoms are way safer than many people believe as well (as long as you use the correct size) and won't go away because of STDs, but are a bit annoying in relationships And there really aren't any other alternatives right now. The state of contraception in 2017 is incredibly sad and RISUG is the first attempt, which truly can disrupt (and I don't use this word lightly) the entire industry. It will require some social shift. Men must be willing to take responsibility for contraception, but it's already happening: Recently, the pill for men was stopped because of side effects, but the men were disappointed. They WANT to have alternatives to condoms.
- jwdunne 10y agoBang on. Me and my partner were planning on me getting a vasectomy in a year, when her implant runs out. We've had to bring that forward a year because one side effect is also a symptom of cancer or polyps. After removal, she experienced a huge lift in energy levels and greater stability of mood. I have 2 children so a vasectomy isn't so bad an idea. Even still, it is an invasive and permanent treatment and I'd prefer something less so. Nobody likes the thought of a scalpel down there. Even a physician who wants to get it done.
- rubicon33 10y ago> We've had to bring that forward a year because one side effect is also a symptom of cancer or polyps. Can you please elaborate on this, or link me something? Without going into too much detail, my partner has an implant, and has been having a cancer scare recently. I would really like to know more about these side effects of the implant, which as you say, are also symptoms of cancer / polyps.
- neuralk 10y agoCyberpunk headline of the day!
- Markoff 10y agoSounds like interesting option, but 98% efficiency seem pretty unreliable, so I will still be at risk 2 times out of 100 intercourses when not counting other factors. Personally I consider immediately after having second child vasectomy, though if wife would agree I would do it already now (one child is more than enough for me) plus store sperm in bank just in case if changing mind, since I heard reversing vasectomy ain't that successful. Seem safer with 0.15-1% failure rate than this method.
- taejo 10y ago> Sounds like interesting option, but 98% efficiency seem pretty unreliable, so I will still be at risk 2 times out of 100 intercourses when not counting other factors. Efficacy for contraceptives is almost always measured per year. That is, of every 100 couples using this method for a year, two will become pregnant. As the article says, this is about the same level as (perfect use of) condoms.
- Markoff 10y agoseem very inaccurate since every couple has very different frequency of sex per year, some couple can have 100 intercourses, other will have 20 and they have same odds according some average couple?
- scott_karana 10y agoThe inaccuracy would depend on the sample size of the test groups. It might be useful to get standard deviation, or maybe the methodology excludes outliers?
- sarah2079 10y agoThe % efficiency figures for contraceptives are for one year of typical use, not per go.
- ams6110 10y agoThe reason male contraceptives don't get a lot of traction is that men don't get pregnant.
- cheez 10y agoNope, that is not the reason. The reason is that they don't know it exists. Condoms are OK, but for that drunken one night stand, not necessarily good enough. Female birth control has the problem that you have to trust your partner (spoiler: not everyone is trustworthy.) When my son has his first girlfriend and if it is getting serious, I would get this done for him if it was available.
- imloquacious 10y agoThis article fails to realize the true reason men would never use this product: You have to inject it into your testicles.
- glibgil 10y ago> You have to inject it into your testicles You need an anatomy lesson or you need to read the article before commenting