9 ms·
The Perfect Birth Control for Men Is Here. Why Can't We Use It? (2015)
- nylonstrung 9y agoMeanwhile I saw that we are getting trials done on a male birth control pill that works by lowering your testosterone to castrate levels...
- JustAnotherPat 9y agohow else are you going to nuke millions of sperm?
- misja111 9y agoDoesn't lowering testosterone reduce the male sex drive? Well I guess that makes it only a more effective birth control agent.
- adventured 9y agoYes typically. The male libido will essentially entirely disappear if you take testosterone low enough. This effect is commonly seen in men that get testosterone reduction therapy for prostate cancer. eg: https://well.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/12/02/after-cancer-the-echo-of-desire/ https://well.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/12/02/after-cancer-the-e...
- bproven 9y agoAnother (old) method that is known to work is injecting low levels (say TRT levels or slightly less) which shutdowns endogenous testosterone production which also shuts down sperm production. This gets you @ next to zero sperm levels but also keeps testosterone in your body. This is by far the cheapest and effective method i have seen. The only reason I can see it is not in use is due to the FUD around recreational use of steriods.
- nylonstrung 9y agoWouldn't that have a risk of permanent infertility at some point or indefinite reliance on TRT? There's also the issue of aromatization
- deleted 9y ago[deleted]
- gcb0 9y agostarts by talking of a method available since 1931, that is fully researched and ignored. then ignores it and focus on vasagel, making it look like vasagel is the thing tested since the 30s. what kind of crappy, misleading writing is this? I used to like vice.
- croon 9y agoEither we aren't reading the same article or I'm misunderstanding it. It starts off with the anecdote of having discovered the key parts of making the birth control pill possible, 30 years before it became available, as a preface to the rest of the article: Where it's been 30+ years since the gel (now marketed as vasalgel) was invented in India. I didn't find it misleading at all, but maybe I missed something?
- cheez 9y ago> Perhaps the best reason to be skeptical of RISUG and Vasalgel from a scientific standpoint rests on a cultural factor: guys generally don't want to talk about their balls with doctors. Uh... If HN had polls, I bet it would look like this: Would you be willing to talk to your doctor about getting a safe, reversible 15 minute injection into your testicles to prevent unwanted pregnancies? Yes: ========================== 99% No: 0% I don't know: 1%
- spacehome 9y agoThere's probably 2-3% of the population actively trying to conceive at any given time, and at least another 2-3% for whom sex is but a distant dream.
- yorwba 9y agoHN has polls. They look like this: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16558310 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16558310
- cheez 9y agoNice!
- jjaredsimpson 9y agoEvery woman I've ever been with has already been on BC, this is the same for all my guy friends. It's never something I've ever had to consider. I think the article doesn't bother separating real motivations from stated motivations. People want to have sex without consequences. That happens either in committed relationships or hookups. This gel does nothing for people who just want to hookup because of the risk of STDs. So you still have to use a condom anyway so why get the gel injection? In committed relationships I could see it working. But committed relationships don't just spring up from nowhere. People who become committed probably started out doing this thing called dating where they tried to meet and sleep with people before settling down. So women will use BC in both phases because it's the path of least resistance. I could see this working best as an alternative to vasectomy for a couple that is done having kids. But not as a replacement for condoms or female hormonal BC.
- chrischen 9y agoBC has side-effects, so currently the burden is placed on women. It's the path of least resistance simply because it is the status quo, but that's no argument for why it should continue that way.
- ams6110 9y agoLook, let's be honest. It falls to women because they have the most to lose. They are the ones who get pregnant. Of course men should be responsible. But the biological reality is what it is.
- Sharlin 9y agoLet’s be honest. It’s difficult to argue that it doesn’t fall to women at least partially because this has historically been a men’s world and men cannot be bothered with researching male contraceptives if contraception has already been made Someone Else’s Problem. A male contraceptive with all the side effects of the pill would never become popular.
- 9y ago
- chrischen 9y agoSO I just checked the Parsemus foundation website and this is their first line describing Vasalgel: > VasalgelTM is a long-acting, nonhormonal contraceptive with a significant advantage over vasectomy: it is likely to be more reversible. "It is likely to be more" does not sound very reassuring.
- giarc 9y agoThis is medical speak, can't say "100% reversible" if it isn't exactly "100% reversible".
- sp332 9y agoWithout FDA approval, they are not allowed to market it as treating almost anything medical.
- bunderbunder 9y agoThey have to be very careful about what they say in public, because they are trying to get FDA approval, and the FDA is (for good reason) twitchy about medical product manufacturers saying things that haven't been proven out through a strict testing process. Right now, since they have a limited budget, they're just focusing on doing the studies they need to do to get approval for marketing it as a non-reversible contraceptive. Getting approval to market it as being reversible will come later. IIRC, all of this is explained on their website, possibly in the FAQ. Edit: Yeah, more or less. From the FAQ -- "The idea is to develop a fully reversible long-acting male contraceptive, and recently-completed rabbit studies showed rapid restoration of sperm flow. This was accomplished by flushing the Vasalgel from the vas deferens with an injection of sodium bicarbonate (baking soda) solution. Additional reversibility studies must be completed before Vasalgel can be marketed as a reversible male contraceptive."
- cosmiccartel 9y agoIn a study on rabbits, all seven were successfully reversed after 14 months. https://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2017-04/pf-sro033117.php https://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2017-04/pf-sro033117...
- gringoDan 9y ago> Vasalgel would cost less than your typical $800 IUD. > [I]f the average person hits puberty at 13, and doesn't want to have a kid until they're in their mid-30s, that's more than 20 years worth of contraception from which pharmaceutical companies can profit. So there's the answer. Also - why isn't the US govt. helping to fund something like this? It seems like low-hanging fruit in terms of public health.
- klmr 9y ago> why isn't the US govt. helping to fund something like this? It’s extremely hard to get grant funding for such a project. First of all, final stage drug development is virtually never done in government-funded labs: there’s no suitable infrastructure, and such projects are too long-term and too costly to fit well within the government funding cycle (think about who would be doing the research: most researchers’ stay at a given employer are too short). In addition, the current (but not necessarily recent!) political climate probably makes this even harder to get funding for. Sexual health is very much at the side-line already, and funding something that would be politicised as “supporting promiscuity” might well be political suicide.
- ashleyn 9y agoOr, if they're on the other side of the political aisle, accusations that the government is sterilising minorities.
- gringoDan 9y agoGreat explanation for someone who doesn't know much about the drug development process. Agreed re: the politics. It's frustrating that what should be a slam-dunk bipartisan issue - something that likely could: 1) help with family planning & give a viable option other than hormonal birth control and 2) lower the number of abortions performed would just be attacked by both sides of the aisle.
- mrguyorama 9y agoLetting people have sex without facing repercussions is seen as a negative by those of a strong (social) conservative mindset They don't want to prevent abortions to stop killing babies, they are more concerned about making sure the new mother suffers the result of sex. Reducing aid to new mothers and post-birth babies is a pretty good indicator of this
- RcouF1uZ4gsC 9y agoFrom https://blogs.biomedcentral.com/on-health/2017/04/05/vasalgel-as-a-promising-new-male-contraceptive-you-asked-we-answered/ https://blogs.biomedcentral.com/on-health/2017/04/05/vasalge... AB: Are studies being conducted that focus on the reversibility of Vasalgel? If so, does the data seem promising? EL: Yes, preclinical studies focused on reversibility are promising, but not conclusive in larger animals. Preclinical testing of Vasalgel in a rabbit model resulted in rapid and durable efficacy of the contraceptive. Vasalgel was then flushed from the vas deferens with a sodium bicarbonate (baking soda) solution, which restored sperm flow. However, in larger animals (baboons and dogs), reversing the contraceptive effect in a similar way has not yet been successful. Research is ongoing to clarify the issues and optimize the procedure, and additional preclinical studies will be conducted before testing reversal in humans. --- It looks like the reversability is only theoretical as it has failed testing in larger mammals and has not been tested in humans.
- supreme_sublime 9y agoI've been following this for a while, and while I don't remember seeing anything about them attempting to reverse it in dogs. For the baboons, it seems that their vas deferens is not quite as strong as rabbits' or humans'.[0] Looking into it again, they do mention they were starting trials with dogs, but I don't see any updates on their website about that specifically. [0]http://myemail.constantcontact.com/Baboon-study-milestone--publication-in-the-works--timing-update.html?soid=1109766611768&aid=9lig180Jd9E http://myemail.constantcontact.com/Baboon-study-milestone--p...
- Pigo 9y ago>or giving up full agency over your life and freedom to care for the surprise child you will be shackled to for the next 18 years? Has no one else done a write up on this besides Vice that we can read instead? I guess it's interesting hearing the perspective of someone who is barely old enough to have sex, but they wouldn't be my go-to source for journalism on the topic.
- IshKebab 9y agoThis sounds like something the NHS (or similar) could fund. $5-10m is not a lot of money if this actually works - they'd probably save that in reduced unwanted pregnancies.
- bitwize 9y agoBecause the penis is privileged over the vagina.
- dullgiulio 9y agoBirth control for men will never work. It's just a matter of trust. To put it in a way that HN users understand quickly: it's client-side input validation. (Don't tell me how condom works, you know what I mean.)
- dpark 9y agoEvery time male contraception comes up, someone says this. It makes no sense. Men get vasectomies all the time and their partners trust them.
- erik_seaberg 9y agoBirth control for women has the same issue, especially when self-administered.
- lsaferite 9y agoMale birth control is for the man to ensure he is not a father. Female birth control is for the female to ensure she is not a mother. Condoms are for both parties to prevent pregnancy and to control STDs. For a male using BC to not use a condom and 'interface' with a female not using BC, they would need a level of trust. Personally, if I were single and wanted to remain a non-parent, I'd use male BC and a condom in every case. The chances of both forms of BC failing simultaneously is minuscule.
- callahanrts 9y agoIs it just by chance that this was posted on April 1?
- question_that 9y ago"It's hard to tell what exactly happens to the sperm, except that they don't come out the other end" Isn't that something they should know by now?