Slashdot Mirror


Reversible Male Contraception With Gold Nanorods

MTorrice writes "Men's options for birth control have significant downsides: Condoms are not as effective as hormonal methods for women, and vasectomies require surgery and are irreversible. Doctors and scientists have for decades searched for more effective and desirable male contraception techniques. Researchers in China now propose a nonsurgical, reversible, and low-cost method. They show that infrared laser light heats up gold nanorods injected into mice testes, leading to reduced fertility (abstract) in the animals."

160 comments

  1. Balls of gold! by ArcherB · · Score: 1, Funny

    Finally! I don't have to trust that ding-bat I picked up to remember to take her pill!

    --
    There is no "I disagree" mod for a reason. Flamebait, Troll, and Overrated are not substitutes.
    1. Re:Balls of gold! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Finally! I don't have to trust that ding-bat I picked up to remember to take her pill!

      You'd also better hope that she doesn't have Aids or Herpes or anti biotic resistant Syphilis or ....

    2. Re:Balls of gold! by GameboyRMH · · Score: 1, Funny

      "My nuts are made of GOOOOOOLD! Isn't that weird?"

      --
      "When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
    3. Re:Balls of gold! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yesh!

    4. Re:Balls of gold! by Dogtanian · · Score: 1

      "My nuts are made of GOOOOOOLD! Isn't that weird?"

      Nah, they're getting Jasper Carrot to advertise this technique.

      Also, if I was going to inject my balls, I'd do it with heroin instead...

      --
      "Slashdot - News and Chat Sites Deviant". (Click "homepage" link above for details).
    5. Re:Balls of gold! by Genda · · Score: 1

      If I was going to inject my balls, I'd do it with heroin instead...

      The withdrawal for that has got to suck mightily!!!

  2. Non-surgical by OptimalCynic · · Score: 5, Insightful

    It might be non-surgical but a needle in the nads followed up by laser heating isn't my idea of fun.

    1. Re:Non-surgical by Grisstle · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Not to mention "decreased fertility" I don't want to decrease my fertility, I want to temporarily eliminate my fertility.

    2. Re:Non-surgical by DragonTHC · · Score: 1

      Yeah, I read this as needs in your balls. No thanks!

      --
      They're using their grammar skills there.
    3. Re:Non-surgical by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Just wait until they attach a shark to this laser.

    4. Re:Non-surgical by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Getting your balls eaten by a shark is pretty effective but I heard it's not reversible.

    5. Re:Non-surgical by cayenne8 · · Score: 0, Troll

      It might be non-surgical but a needle in the nads followed up by laser heating isn't my idea of fun.

      This.

      And besides, it is the girls job to prevent pregnancy, after all, they are the ones that get knocked up. At least, that's the way it has pretty much always worked in the past.

      --
      Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
    6. Re:Non-surgical by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      Unfortunately nothing does that. Even a vasectomy isn't 100% perfect and can fail to prevent pregnancy, and also sometimes fail to reverse.

      It sounds like this combined with the rhythm method would be ideal for a lot of couples. Condoms work for some people, but I find I either have next to no sensation with the normal ones or use the extra thin ones which are better but tend to break. Neither me nor my partner like them so use other methods.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    7. Re:Non-surgical by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      And hey, she can guarantee it by not sleeping with douchewads like you!

    8. Re:Non-surgical by dwye · · Score: 2

      it is the girls job to prevent pregnancy, after all, they are the ones that get knocked up.

      Only if you make sure that she cannot identify you and hit you with a paternity suit (unlikely for Slashdot readers, but not impossible).

      One paternity suit lost can be expensive, even for NBA players, so it is in the interest of some men not to leave by-blows.

    9. Re:Non-surgical by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Decreased fertility seems to be a problem for the Y-generation and beyond already. It seems to travel in waves through populations like the bee colony collapse. No need to worsen the situation.

    10. Re:Non-surgical by cayenne8 · · Score: 0

      Only if you make sure that she cannot identify you and hit you with a paternity suit (unlikely for Slashdot readers, but not impossible).

      Well, let's put it this way.

      My idea of commitment, is telling her my real name.

      :)

      --
      Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
    11. Re:Non-surgical by reve_etrange · · Score: 3, Informative

      Usually vasectomies or other occlusion methods lead to a build-up of sperm, which the immune system reacts against. The main reason vasectomies are generally irreversible.

      The best method I know about is RISUG, which is another reversible male method employing an injection (into the vas deferens, not the testes). It lasts for 5 - 10 years depending on the size of the injection and has been nearly 100% effective in testing. There isn't much pharmaceutical interest in "cure" techniques (as opposed to "treatments") but there is a non-profit trying to make RISUG available in the US.

      --
      .: Semper Absurda :.
    12. Re:Non-surgical by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Have you tried the Trojan Ecstasy condoms? I used to use Durex ultra-thins exclusively until someone turned me on to the Ecstasys. (Ecstasies?) They're the closest I've ever felt to au naturel. Brilliantly simple design, too, as far as I'm concerned.

    13. Re:Non-surgical by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, worsen it. There's too many hoomans on this planet already!

    14. Re:Non-surgical by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That non-profit is called the Parsemus Foundation, and they are going to market RISUG as Vasalgel.

      They are currently in animal testing, hoping to start human trials by late this year/early 2014, and on market by 2015.

    15. Re: Non-surgical by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      try female condoms

  3. Goldenballs! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ...and first post :)

    1. Re:Goldenballs! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not even close, junior.

    2. Re:Goldenballs! by Aaden42 · · Score: 1

      Huh.. Looks like you actually came late this time. Must be a first for you.

  4. Gold nanorods in my balls? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Funny

    Gives a whole new meaning to the term "money shot"...

    1. Re:Gold nanorods in my balls? by camelrider · · Score: 2

      And you thought it hurt to lose your phone to a mugger!

  5. But it does required a surgery too... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    And I don't like the idea of having my balls being pierced to inject somes gold in it... :/

    1. Re:But it does required a surgery too... by Genda · · Score: 1

      Heck with that, it puts a spin on those cash for gold commercials that's gotta make most guys cross their legs.

  6. Significant downsides? by Trailer+Trash · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Forgive me if I see "gold nanorods injected into my testes" as being a "significant downside" in and of itself. This coming from a guy who was snipped 10 years ago with non-working anesthetic.

    1. Re:Significant downsides? by LordLucless · · Score: 1

      Don't forget frying them with lasers before you get your sex on. And they say condoms are mood-killers.

      --
      Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean there isn't an invisible demon about to eat your face
    2. Re:Significant downsides? by slim · · Score: 2

      In the immortal words of Ben Elton (before he lost his cool).

      "But I'm *sensitive* and I *love you*... so *please* stick a bit of barbed wire in your fanny"

    3. Re:Significant downsides? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, but on the upside, you've got golden balls now.

    4. Re:Significant downsides? by bill_mcgonigle · · Score: 1

      Yes, but on the upside, you've got golden balls now.

      Marketing will try to get them to make the process work with brass.

      --
      My God, it's Full of Source!
      OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
    5. Re:Significant downsides? by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      If you'd had gold nanorods at least you'd have some bling now.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    6. Re:Significant downsides? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Don't forget frying them with lasers before you get your sex on. And they say condoms are mood-killers.

      Carefully frying them with a laser doesn't bother me, even though it's a fine line between reduced fertility and sterilization. What bothers me far more is driving a needle into my balls. I'm sure someone somewhere is into that, but it's certainly not me.

    7. Re:Significant downsides? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, Management will try to cut costs by getting them to work with brass. Marketing will try to sell it as if it is still gold.

  7. Sign me up! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Just don't fall asleep on the laser-seat, or your balls cook from the inside out.

    What could possibly go wrong?

    CAPTCHA: toasted (for real)

  8. Other wise known as by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Gonads for short.

    1. Re:Other wise known as by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      or vagina.

      Err, I had to work it in somewhere on this thread, sorry.

  9. Needle In The Balls by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    FTFA:
    'testicular injection'
    I think i became infertile just by reading the article.

  10. key word by slashmydots · · Score: 3, Interesting

    leading to reduced fertility
    That's not difficult at all. Diet, temperatures, radiation, hormone therapy, steroids, and apparently mountain dew can all do that. 100% stopping fertility is the hard part. This discovery is absolutely nothing. "Reduced" fertility is not good enough and never will be. "This sort of works" is not a good marketing strategy for contraceptives. In women you try to stop 1 cell from doing something. In men, you have to stop 100% of trillions. It's basically impossible.

    1. Re:key word by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I wouldn't be surprised if the sole laser was the responsible for the reduced fertility. I remember a group of swedish proto-scientists that took a quite rigorous experiment: they would dip their balls on hot water and measure the sperm count every day. After a month, very few sperm was still alive.

      Also, lets keep in mind that a lot of chinese science publications are bogus. If you think about, it's quite a waste. A big nation, with big budgets and big population could be making big rounds with legit science. Instead, we get stuff like this.

      I would rather use female condom on her. My girl actually likes it!

    2. Re:key word by Bill+Dimm · · Score: 2

      ...and apparently mountain dew can all do that...

      Apparently not true.

    3. Re:key word by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      Last time I tried to use a female condom, it didn't stay in place, and the round part at the end sucked out lots of menstrate and sprayed it all over the bed. It was like CSI.

    4. Re:key word by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

      leading to reduced fertility

          In men, you have to stop 100% of trillions. It's basically impossible.

      Did anyone else just hear Carl Sagan, one hand on his crotch, saying 'Trillions and TRILLIONS..."

    5. Re:key word by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ...chinese science publications...

      This is what jumped out at me- Makes you wonder if the publisher is the Chinese producer of JackAss, waiting to see how many western men they can trick into having a needle slid into their testicles.

    6. Re:key word by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      People who "cannot" have children have "reduced" fertility. Even something as simple as reducing sperm concentrations by 50% can make someone "infertile". It's a numbers game, and there is a base-line threshold that must be passed.

    7. Re:key word by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I suppose that's why the pull-out method works so well and catholic families are so small.

    8. Re:key word by MalachiK · · Score: 2

      Why is there no option to mod -1 too informative.

    9. Re:key word by chris_mahan · · Score: 1

      Are we supposed to infer from post content that in some cases, Anonymous Cowards are women?

      --

      "Piter, too, is dead."

  11. Because having a laser shot at my balls by exabrial · · Score: 1

    Because having a laser shot at my balls is more desirable than anything I can think of.

    1. Re:Because having a laser shot at my balls by hobarrera · · Score: 1

      Well, you know, there are all kind of fetishes!

  12. Sign me up! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You're going to inject golden nanorods into my balls and then shoot my balls with an infrared laser to melt the gold and stop my balls from working?

  13. The end is Nye by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Ye Shall Have Golden Testicles!

  14. The problem is statistics by dargaud · · Score: 4, Informative

    If a contraception method is 99.9% effective in its effect on procreative cells, for a female it means that out of the 500 eggs she may produce in her life, maybe one has a 50% chance to be fertilized (if taken at the right time, etc). Acceptable risk. For a male, it means that out of the 300 millions sperms contained in the average ejaculation, there will still be 300 thousand standing up in lines at Egg's door. That's one of the reasons why it's much more difficult to design a male contraceptive.

    --
    Non-Linux Penguins ?
    1. Re:The problem is statistics by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Informative

      Out of 300 million, 2/3 come out dead or swim in circles. Out of those, maybe a few thousand make it through the cervix. Then maybe 100 or so make it into the fallopian tubes. If the egg popped out more than a day ago, it's no good, and if it's not there yet, the half life of those few sperm is about a day.

      So eliminating 99.9% from the start is pretty effective, given that a normal healthy couple only has about a 1 in 5 chance of conception in any month.

      Perspective on this changes a lot between being a teenager terrified of getting the girlfriend pregnant to being a late-30's married man, hoping baby #2 will come after spending years and big money on fertility treatments to get baby #1.

    2. Re:The problem is statistics by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "given that a normal healthy couple only has about a 1 in 5 chance of conception in any month"

      This is only true if you're having sex randomly throughout the month. If you're specifically trying to get pregnant (measuring ovulation, etc.) it's a whole lot easier. I knocked up my wife three times on the proverbial first try. (Also, while more random than pregnancy, you stand a pretty good shot of picking gender by timing as well.)

    3. Re:The problem is statistics by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That is not how effective rate is measured. The way contraception efficacy is measured, is the rate of real pregnancy per year. What percent of couples get pregnant anyways despite using birth control properly. Hormone methods are 99% this way, condoms 97% this way. There isn't a 3% chance of failure every time you have sex. It's a 3% chance over the course of the whole year, if you have sex the average number of times, whatever that is.

    4. Re:The problem is statistics by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There's more than just randomness to it. Her body is helping both of you with the timing. Whether she knows it or not, she knows when she's fertile. And you know it too.

      But the whole gender determination thing is b.s. You make one male sperm for each one female sperm.

    5. Re: The problem is statistics by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But you are more likely to cull the week ones... So the heathy boys have less of a race.

    6. Re:The problem is statistics by AvitarX · · Score: 1

      Male sperm travel faster, it sounds credible to me that based on cycle the male sperm could have an advantage (less effective at waiting for an egg to drop perhaps, but if the egg is right there, they get in it first). 120 M to 100 F at fertilization I think.

      --
      Wow, sent an e-mail as suggested when clicking on "use classic" banner, and got a fast response that addressed my msg
    7. Re:The problem is statistics by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Male sperm travel faster, it sounds credible to me that based on cycle the male sperm could have an advantage (less effective at waiting for an egg to drop perhaps, but if the egg is right there, they get in it first). 120 M to 100 F at fertilization I think.

      The X/Y size difference is actively being exploited for IVF sex-selection; but apparently the accuracy is a bit tepid even with fancy flow cytometry techniques.I'd imagine that less carefully calibrated distance-based tests would show even weaker results(and not have the amusing side effect of making ethicists cry, which is a pity).

    8. Re:The problem is statistics by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I knocked up my wife three times on the proverbial first try.

      Wondering if that's supposed to be : I knocked up my wife three times on the proverbial first try. (Triplets!)
      Or: I knocked up my wife on the proverbial first try - three times . (Three at different times)

      English could do with more parentheses I think.

    9. Re:The problem is statistics by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So... Chance of getting pregnant per encounter 0.99^(1/average sex per year)?

    10. Re:The problem is statistics by sdoca · · Score: 1

      I've heard that more conceptions are male, but more births are female because more miscarriages are male babies. This is supposedly due to the XY for boys vs. XX for girls. For girls, if one of the chromosones on mom's X has an issue, it can compensated by a good one on dad's X and vice versa. No compensation for boys with XY and so more miscarriages.

      Makes sense and I tried to find a reference for this but didn't find one on a quick search; might be able to find one if I spend more than 10 mins...

    11. Re:The problem is statistics by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually, at the moment of birth males are still in the majority (51% vs 49%, IIRC). But the XX vs XY thing continues to hit also later on. First through genetic defects in the way you describe and later on because of all the silly risks that us guys take before we come to our senses.

    12. Re:The problem is statistics by jabuzz · · Score: 2

      Nope the changes of a normal perfectly fertile woman getting pregnant and going to term with a live birth are 20% per cycle, whether you are trying or not. That you and your wife managed it first time on three occasions is just random good luck on your behalf. In no small part because your wife did not miscarry.

      It's a sample size of one which statistically is irrelevant. There are plenty of couples that have no fertility problems are trying all the techniques etc. and get no where for potentially years.

      Remember the 20% means that if you take 100 perfectly fertile couples, after two years there are still four couples without a child.

  15. Taking bets by TheCarp · · Score: 1

    Heats up you say? Kills sperm AND sperm generating cells you say?

    So lets recap, acid reflux damage over and over increases cancer risk. There is evidence this is a contributing factor for smokers.

    Doing small amounts of damage in the testicles over and over.... where could the harm be there? I suspect they have not found anything that's going to make it to clinical trials.

    --
    "I opened my eyes, and everything went dark again"
  16. Lets see... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Gold Finger, then Gold Member, then Gold Testicles. Thats about right.

  17. Re:My penis is a gold nano rod by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

    Did you hear about the birth control pill for men?

    A man puts it in his shoe and it makes him limp.

  18. Vasectomies aren't reversible? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Vasectomies aren't reversible? Since when?

    1. Re:Vasectomies aren't reversible? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Reversals seem to have a 95% success rate as well.

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vasectomy_reversal#Success_rates:_patency

    2. Re:Vasectomies aren't reversible? by Captain+Hook · · Score: 1

      They can attempt to reverse a Vasectomy but it's not even remotely guaranteed to work.

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vasectomy_reversal#Success_rates:_pregnancy

      Roughly 76% pregancy rate if the reversal is performed within 3 years of the original operation but successful pregancy rate drops off with the number of year bewteen the original Vasectomy and the reversal operation.

      --
      These comments are my personal opinions and do not necessarily reflect the opinions of the other voices in my head.
    3. Re:Vasectomies aren't reversible? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This thread is filled to the brim with the misinformed. Sex Ed has clearly failed your entire generation.

    4. Re:Vasectomies aren't reversible? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Haha oops.

    5. Re:Vasectomies aren't reversible? by vux984 · · Score: 3, Interesting

      BPAS cites the average pregnancy success rate of a vasectomy reversal is around 55% if performed within 10 years, and drops to 25% if performed over 10 years

      From the same article:

      BPAS cites the average pregnancy success rate of a vasectomy reversal is around 55% if performed within 10 years, and drops to 25% if performed over 10 years.

      95% successful at producing some viable sperm, but if its been >10 years only 25% effective at producing offspring.

      And its most successful reversal rate is within 3 years, which, quite frankly, why bother with surgery you plan to reverse in 3 years?!

      And ~that~ combined is what makes it impractical as effective male birth control. In an ideal world you get get one at 15 and then reliably reverse it at 25-30 when you want kids. But by that point you are well into 75% of it not working well enough to get anyone pregnant territory.

      Its great once you are -done- having children, but if you plan to have children in the future... not so much.

    6. Re:Vasectomies aren't reversible? by cusco · · Score: 3, Informative

      When I was 21 my girlfriend accidentally got pregnant, miscarried, and almost died. At that time vasectomy reversals were new, cost about $10,000-$15,000, and had a 70% success rate. My thought process was 1) technology only gets better, 2) if I couldn't afford $15,000 for a reversal then I certainly couldn't afford a kid, 3) I never wanted to go through another miscarriage, so I got a vasectomy. It also had the unintended effect of 4) I got laid a lot more often than guys who were still fertile.

      Six years later I went to get it reversed. The technology was now well-established, and microsurgery was becoming commonplace. It now cost $15,000-$25,000. The claimed success rate was still 70%. Both attempts were complete failures, as were over a dozen attempts at artificial insemination. It's been fifteen years now, and we no longer regret not having kids, but it took Rosa a long time to come to terms with our mutual infertility.

      TLDR; never, ever, assume a sterilization procedure is reversible.

      --
      "Think about how stupid the average person is. Now, realise that half of them are dumber than that." - George Carlin
    7. Re:Vasectomies aren't reversible? by robot256 · · Score: 1, Funny

      You're absolutely right! Sex education has been virtually outlawed in the USA by the religious right, witness the result.

    8. Re:Vasectomies aren't reversible? by dwye · · Score: 1

      And its most successful reversal rate is within 3 years, which, quite frankly, why bother with surgery you plan to reverse in 3 years?!

      I rather expect that most short-term reversals are due to tragedies, not plans. You get a vasectomy after you and wife have all the children that you want, and then they all die within a year or two (as happened to a great-grandmother). Some people might just quit, but others will want to try again.

    9. Re:Vasectomies aren't reversible? by coinreturn · · Score: 1

      Although they are more reversible now, I believe you need to have had a more recent one for it to be reversible. It's not just the improvement in reversing, but the improvement in doing one in a way that is reversible.

    10. Re:Vasectomies aren't reversible? by vux984 · · Score: 1

      I rather expect that most short-term reversals are due to tragedies, not plans.

      Agreed. Or the marriage falls apart and your new partner wants to have kids too. I wasn't suggesting that situations for relatively short reversals don't ever arise.

      I was only suggesting that it would be a very strange route to deliberately plan to take.

      Its not to be treated as "birth control" -- it should be viewed as permanent "sterilization". That it can be reversed with a considerably more complicated and expensive surgery than the original vasectomy, with moderate success, some of the time really shouldn't enter into the decision making process to have one. Yes its possible, no you don't plan around that.

    11. Re:Vasectomies aren't reversible? by reve_etrange · · Score: 2

      I've read that the mechanism of the irreversibility is that the immune system begins destroying the sperm, which can no longer exit the body. Makes sense given the timelines you quoted.

      The ideal method you're looking for is probably RISUG, which has the qualities you seek - nearly 100% effective, lasts 5-10 years, totally reversible (with fertility restored in days - weeks). Also, an injection into the vas deferens sounds a lot better than one in the balls (to me anyway).

      --
      .: Semper Absurda :.
    12. Re:Vasectomies aren't reversible? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I look upon their works and despair.

  19. No thanks, I'll wait for Vasalgel. by luciano.moretti · · Score: 3, Informative

    Injection in the testicle? No thanks. I'll take the injection in the Vas Deferens of Vasalgel, thank you. That is also closer to commercial use (human trials scheduled for this year, release targeted 2015) and has over 10 years worth of human testing in India. It is also reversible (USA rabbit reversal trial in progress right now) with a single injection of baking soda & water.

    1. Re:No thanks, I'll wait for Vasalgel. by Antipater · · Score: 1

      I came here to say this too. I would much rather put a sperm-impenetrable barrier in my vas deferens (a vasectomy without the "snip-snip"), resulting in no fertility, than cook my balls with a laser, resulting in merely reduced fertility.

      --
      Everything is better with chainsaws.
    2. Re:No thanks, I'll wait for Vasalgel. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      While an interesting concept, personally, I'd rather have a snip that seals the non-testiclar-side of the snip but leaves the testicular-side open. From what I've read and heard, blocking the ability of sperm to exit the testes may cause discomfort in them.

      It is also reversible (USA rabbit reversal trial in progress right now) with a single injection of baking soda & water.

      That might remove the blockage, but I thought the major problem with reversal is that the body views the reintroduced sperm as foreign invaders that need destroying.

    3. Re:No thanks, I'll wait for Vasalgel. by reve_etrange · · Score: 1

      The original name of the technology is RISUG. In case anyone feels that "citation needed" coming on.

      --
      .: Semper Absurda :.
  20. Umm... by VorpalRodent · · Score: 1

    Forgive the puerility, but... Hot golden rods?

    --
    Take it to the limit, everybody to the limit, come on, everybody fhqwhgads.
  21. WARNING: by NEDHead · · Score: 1

    If you experience Glowing Red Ball lasting more than four hours, seek medical help immediately as permanent injury may result.

  22. Needle + Laser to Balls = DO NOT WANT!!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Enough said.

  23. Hell no! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You're not getting any golden nanorods near my junk.

  24. Vasalgel still sounds less invasive by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Vasectomies are reversible. It's possible to reconnect the vas deferens back together. Not as easy as it is to snip them of course - but still totally possible.

    This treatment sounds interesting, and I'm glad that alternative male contraceptions are being offered. Also don't forget Vasalgel: http://www.parsemusfoundation.org/vasalgel-home/

  25. Vasectomies Can Be Reversable by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Vasectomies are often reversable.

  26. false premise by dnaumov · · Score: 2

    vasectomies require surgery and are irreversible

    FALSE.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vasectomy_reversal

    1. Re:false premise by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This made me skeptical. Vasectomies are fairly easy to reverse. It costs more than getting it done in the first place, but is fairly reliable for the first ten years. Plus, prior to a vasectomy, most people put sperm aside in storage in case they decide to have children later. It's a pretty minor surgery and heals quickly. Probably the best form of birth control available, so long as you put a deposit in the bank ahead of time. I don't understand why more people don't chose this method.

    2. Re:false premise by sckeener · · Score: 2

      I've had 3 reversals and only one worked long enough for me to have a son. I've spent 45k. In my experience the reversals always work initially, but close up over time. My last reversal I hired the best I could get. I should have done that at the beginning, but the doctor I had preform it the 1st & 2nd times said that it is waste for me to try a 3rd time.

      --
      "Only one thing, is impossible for god: to find any sense in any copyright law on the planet." Mark Twain
    3. Re:false premise by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ouch. That is really poor planning!!!

  27. Title is misleading by argStyopa · · Score: 3, Insightful

    (from TFA):
    "In a lower hyperthermia treatment, the morphology of testes and seminiferous tubules is only partly injured, and fertility indices are decreased to 10% at day 7, then recovered to 50% at day 60. In a higher hyperthermia treatment, the morphology of testes and seminiferous tubules are totally destroyed, and fertility indices are decreased to 0 at day 7."

    In other words, the 'reversible' (or more accurately temporary suppression of fertility) process drops fertility down to 10%. As an actual birth control process, 10% fertility might as well be 90%.

    The elimination of fertility by this method - ie to 0% - seems to be irreversible.

    So the process is more accurately a method of male sterilization (for which it may indeed be valuable, if it's less invasive, less painful, etc. than vasectomy); the "contraceptive" role seems to be far less reliable than current methods by at least one, perhaps two orders of magnitude.

    Only by the most extreme hyperbole could this be called "reversible male contraception".

    --
    -Styopa
    1. Re:Title is misleading by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Only by the most extreme hyperbole could this be called "reversible male contraception".

      You must be new here...

    2. Re:Title is misleading by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In other words, the 'reversible' (or more accurately temporary suppression of fertility) process drops fertility down to 10%.

      Which is actually pretty good when compared to other birth-control methods: this gives a one-year failure rate of around 20%, on a par with real-world condom use, but much inferior to female hormonal contraceptives.

  28. Sci-fi idea by GameboyRMH · · Score: 1

    Magnetically actuated valves in the vas deferens, normally open or closed, your preference. Want to get the non-default state...strap some magnets onto your nads.

    Anyone with medical knowledge know how workable this is?

    --
    "When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
    1. Re:Sci-fi idea by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      it doesn't turn off right away. I think they make you wait a few weeks after a vasectomy to be sure any residual sperm has left and you're really shooting blanks.

    2. Re:Sci-fi idea by GameboyRMH · · Score: 1

      Good point, so the default-open configuration is a no-go.

      --
      "When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
    3. Re:Sci-fi idea by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I just have this vision of a dam building up and finally breaking open under increasing pressure...

    4. Re:Sci-fi idea by GameboyRMH · · Score: 1

      It doesn't happen with a vasectomy...

      --
      "When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
  29. Do not taunt happy fun balls - finally it's real by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This is a list of the warnings in the commercial:
    Warning: Pregnant women, the elderly, and children under 10 should avoid prolonged exposure to Happy Fun Ball.
    Caution: Happy Fun Ball may suddenly accelerate to dangerous speeds.
    Happy Fun Ball contains a liquid core, which, if exposed due to rupture, should not be touched, inhaled, or looked at.
    Do not use Happy Fun Ball on concrete.
    Discontinue use of Happy Fun Ball if any of the following occurs:
    itching
    vertigo
    dizziness
    tingling in extremities
    loss of balance or coordination
    slurred speech
    temporary blindness
    profuse sweating
    heart palpitations
    If Happy Fun Ball begins to smoke, get away immediately. Seek shelter and cover head.
    Happy Fun Ball may stick to certain types of skin.
    When not in use, Happy Fun Ball should be returned to its special container and kept under refrigeration. Failure to do so relieves the makers of Happy Fun Ball, Wacky Products Incorporated, and its parent company, Global Chemical Unlimited, of any and all liability.
    Ingredients of Happy Fun Ball include an unknown glowing substance which fell to Earth, presumably from outer space.
    Happy Fun Ball has been shipped to our troops in Saudi Arabia and is also being dropped by our warplanes on Iraq.
    Do not taunt Happy Fun Ball.
    Happy Fun Ball comes with a lifetime guarantee.

  30. I can see how... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ...a guy with a nanorod might have trouble reproducing.

  31. reversible male contraception by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It's been done, with (alleged) 100% effectiveness. See http://www.wired.com/magazine/2011/04/ff_vasectomy/, complete with the most uncomfortable video you will watch all week.

  32. Goldfinger laser treatment by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Bond: "You expect me to talk?"
    GF: "No, Mr Bond, I expect your to ........ be infertile!"

  33. Close enough by sirwired · · Score: 3, Informative

    Vasectomy reversal is difficult, expensive, and only works about half the time. I think it's pretty clear that the summary was referring to something with reversibility as a design point, not a workaround...

  34. Re:My penis is a gold nano rod by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Was that due to an unfortunate smelting accident?

  35. Even if it works, there's still a big problem by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    As with any male contraceptive, there's one big problem: guys lie.

    "Sure, honey, I've got the gold thingies in my balls. Don't worry."

    1. Re:Even if it works, there's still a big problem by Applekid · · Score: 1, Interesting

      As with any male contraceptive, there's one big problem: guys lie.

      "Sure, honey, I've got the gold thingies in my balls. Don't worry."

      Not a problem. The law is completely stacked against men when it comes to conception. He would be guilty of rape, and be forced by the government to pay child support (even have his wages garnished to accomplish this), with no consideration at all towards his ability to pay.

      Consider a woman that lies about conception. He has no parental say regarding abortion, and can still be forced by the government to pay child support. Legalized slavery, a blast from the past.

      --
      More Twoson than Cupertino
    2. Re:Even if it works, there's still a big problem by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you can't trust somebody to use contraception when they claim to, then you should probably use a condom - and also consider, really carefully, if fucking them is such a bright idea. Would you trust them to be open about STDs?

      Seriously, the argument "women don't deserve reproductive arguments because bitches be lying" is just shit on several levels.

    3. Re:Even if it works, there's still a big problem by Applekid · · Score: 1

      If you can't trust somebody to use contraception when they claim to, then you should probably use a condom - and also consider, really carefully, if fucking them is such a bright idea. Would you trust them to be open about STDs?

      Are you confusing one-night-stands to long term relationships?

      The fact is, trust can be -- and is often -- misplaced. Are you willing to bet the next 18 years of your income on this trust?

      Seriously, the argument "women don't deserve reproductive arguments because bitches be lying" is just shit on several levels.

      Did I make that argument? AC posted that men lie. I counter that men who lie face all the consequence, while women who lie do not. You don't see the inequity?

      --
      More Twoson than Cupertino
    4. Re:Even if it works, there's still a big problem by coinreturn · · Score: 1

      Did I make that argument? AC posted that men lie. I counter that men who lie face all the consequence, while women who lie do not. You don't see the inequity?

      I think you forgot about the part that women must contribute child support, too. They don't just get a free ride. It all depends on income. With gender pay inequality comes gender child support inequality.

    5. Re:Even if it works, there's still a big problem by dwye · · Score: 1

      If guilty of rape, a criminal offense with minimum sentences of several years, how do they garnish his wages for child support, let alone garnish them so much that he cannot afford to pay? Getting her unwillingly pregnant is a tort, and she should be able to receive compensation, just as if the man had injured her with his car rather than his hot rod. This would have been enforced by the folkmoot back in the days when killing was just a matter of paying a (rather large) fine, so complaining that one has to pay a legal judgement is like hearing OJ complain about his loss of reputation.

      OTOH, the woman lying about conception is another thing. A friend was caught in that trap, but since he was just a graphics artist and she a clinical psychologist he escaped with little payment but guilt when his ex-girlfriend screwed up raising their child.

  36. Alternatives by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
  37. Say what? by DougOtto · · Score: 1

    You're going to point a laser beam at my what?

    I think I hear my phone ringing.....in my car.....I'll be right back.

    --
    Solving Unix problems since 1989...
  38. What's that burning smell? by kimgkimg · · Score: 1

    What could possibly go wrong... just sayin'...

    1. Re:What's that burning smell? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What's that burning smell?

      Remebering my lasik surgery - that question and knowing the answer: "Oh,yeah - my eye!" was freaky enough.

  39. Oh Good by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I'm Chinese, so my nanorod is already golden!

  40. Vasagel by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    http://www.parsemusfoundation.org/vasalgel-home/

    Though it would probably is also considered surgery, it looks to be a great alternative. Should be in Human Trails in the US here in the next year.

  41. Need to work on the name by newslash.formatblows · · Score: 1

    Will "Nanorod" describe something men want associated with their junk?

  42. Vasectomies are reversible by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It's more painful, costs 5-10 times as much, recovery is longer, and will never be covered by your insurance (it's a lifestyle choice, but they'll usually cover 100% of your vasectomies).

    It's the most effective cure for severe PVP (Post Vasectomy Pain) and obviously some guys simply decide they want kids after all. It also has a really high success rate.

  43. The missing ingredient. by VortexCortex · · Score: 1

    Say you do convince Goldfinger to give your balls the Midas touch.
    Are there even enough laser mounted sharks to sizzle all the scrotes?

    1. Re:The missing ingredient. by g0bshiTe · · Score: 1

      I keep my gold in my bag of holding.

      --
      I am Bennett Haselton! I am Bennett Haselton!
  44. Real problem is estimated market size, not tech by celest · · Score: 1

    The real problem is that pharmaceutical companies don't think there is a market for male contraceptives. It has nothing to do with technologies. There have been many effective, reversible, non-invasive procedures in human trials for the past 30 years:

    http://www.malecontraceptives.org/

    The issue is that "most men" think contraceptives are "unmanly" and will "never take them". At least that's what several doctors have personally told me when I was investigating contraceptive options. Nothing will move forward until there is a (at least perceived) cultural shift towards the acceptance that males should be responsible for their own fertility, creating a (at least perceived) market to justify the large capital expenses required to finalize and make available the various drugs and procedures.

    1. Re:Real problem is estimated market size, not tech by NoImNotNineVolt · · Score: 1

      No, you're right. That's why, when it comes to condoms, you only really hear about the female condom having any measure of success in the market.

      Men would never use male condoms. That's why condoms are a seldom-used form of contraception.

      But I can't help but ask... what the fuck are you smoking, and can I have some?

      --
      Chuuch. Preach. Tabernacle.
  45. Oh oh oh I got this one by Atrox666 · · Score: 1

    GOOOLDMEMBER!!

  46. already solved by cellocgw · · Score: 1

    I thought this approach was proven years ago by Apple and their warmer-than-warm laptop machines. Plus I'd rather have a laptop in my lap than gold rods near my rod.... or something like that.

    --
    https://app.box.com/WitthoftResume Code: https://github.com/cellocgw
  47. "Irreversible"? by FuzzNugget · · Score: 1

    A quick Wikipedia query shows that you're wrong to classify a vasectomy as "irreversible".

    en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vasectomy_reversal

    Reversals are not 100% successful, cause a reduced potency rate and come at considerable expense (oh, yeah, and you still need to have someone slice up your junk ... twice!). So, you shouldn't get one with the plan to have it reversed someday, but they are not absolutely irreversible.

  48. Re:My penis is a gold nano rod by davester666 · · Score: 1

    Yes. A laser to my balls is much better than using a knife.

    --
    Sleep your way to a whiter smile...date a dentist!
  49. If your wife thinks you are a dog... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ... maybe this will help.

    Oh wait, it's 1) not on the market, 2) not for adults, and 3) not reversible.

    Oh well, maybe someday men - and dogs - will have something this simple.

  50. Vasectomies have been reversible for years ... by BitZtream · · Score: 1

    I'm not sure where you're getting your info from, but vasectomies are pretty benign other than the intended effect. They are easily reversible.

    I'm not saying I want to line up to get cut, but now they even do things to help ensure that it'll be easier to reverse in the future if you want. Its ridiculously short office visit to get it done.

    Last I heard, Goldschlager was not a good contraceptive, the opposite really.

    --
    Persistent Volume manager for Kubernetes - https://github.com/dwimsey/openshift-pvmanager
  51. Clueless, are we? by whitroth · · Score: 1

    So, a vasectomy isn't reversible? Then how come the hundreds of billboards I've seen off US Interstates over the last dozen or so years advertising exactly that haven't been taken down, and the advertisers put in jail for false advertising?

                  mark

  52. Re:My penis is a gold nano rod by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Needle+laser, if whoever fails with the laser, you're possibly permanently infertile.

  53. Been there, done that. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    There is already a reversible injection proven to be 100% effective, and has been in use for over 25 years.

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/04/03/male-birth-control-reversible_n_1400708.html

  54. I have a better idea by slashmydots · · Score: 1

    Okay first of all, Goldman Sachs will be thrilled about this!

    Anyway, many sci fi movies have already solved this problem. Blow up the moon! Technically, allegedly, that's a female contraceptive but whatever.

  55. Roasted nuts. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Literally, that's what this procedure is. They inject gold nano-rods, and then heat them to roast your nuts.

  56. You want to shoot what at my junk? by g0bshiTe · · Score: 1

    That's thinking with your dipstick Jimmy!

    --
    I am Bennett Haselton! I am Bennett Haselton!
  57. Heat Reduces Fertility? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Why not just wear Jockey shorts?

  58. goldmember by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This gives a whole new meaning to Goldmember

  59. Better reversible male method exists by reve_etrange · · Score: 3, Informative

    There is already a long-standing, reversible male birth control method called RISUG

    RISUG employs an injection into the vas deferens of a copolymer which can be removed at anytime via a second injection of bicarbonate solution. The copolymer is believed to hold a matrix of stable ions which rupture sperm as they pass the affected part of the vas deferens. Decades of testing have shown the method to be almost completely effective. Because the sperm still exit the body, no immune response to built-up sperm develops (the major reason vasectomies are generally irreversible). I know an injection sounds scary, but it's with high gauge needle and a local anesthetic, and one injection would provide 5 - 10 years of protection (depending on amount of material).

    Sounds a lot better (more effective, more reversible, less likely to have complications) to me than putting gold nanorods in your balls and heating them with a laser...

    --
    .: Semper Absurda :.
    1. Re:Better reversible male method exists by kubajz · · Score: 2

      Unfortunately, accoring to the Wikipedia entry, RISUG is an experimental method going through trials in India and struggling with the number of volunteers. As much as I'd love this method to be available, currently it is not and there have not been many news about it in the last couple of years.

    2. Re:Better reversible male method exists by reve_etrange · · Score: 1

      It will be available in the United States from 2015 (hopefully) under the name Vasalgel. A non-profit is conducting the trials and pushing development - RISUG is sort of a "cure," rather than a "treatment," so big pharma is not particularly interesting.

      --
      .: Semper Absurda :.
  60. Not gonna do it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Heating up your testes to kill sperm sounds like the perfect formula or gonad cancer.

  61. Nanorods? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Came for the oblig. jokes. Was dissapoint.

  62. vasectomies are reversible... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    vasectomies are reversible

    who reports this BS without facts..

  63. It'd be my idea of fun, but... by crovira · · Score: 1

    I'm a fuckin' sadist.

    What?

    Did ya think I meant my 'nads?

    Nah ... Yours ...

    --
    MSBPodcast.com The opinions expressed here are my own. If you don't like 'em... Think up your own stuff.
  64. "Baby Maybe" brand of condoms... by crovira · · Score: 1

    George Carlin's take on the marketing of unreliable contraception.

    I still miss that man's sense of humor...

    --
    MSBPodcast.com The opinions expressed here are my own. If you don't like 'em... Think up your own stuff.
  65. Re:My penis is a gold nano rod by The+Wild+Norseman · · Score: 1

    There's a newer male birth control pill that I've heard is out on the market:

    a man takes the pill and it changes his blood type.

    --
    "A government is a body of people usually -- notably -- ungoverned." -Shepherd Book
  66. Has to be said... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Heating of nads, even sans golden rods or lasers, will decrease fertility.

    Then again, basement-dwelling also has discomfort, hormonal influences and other prophylactic effects that are very effective as contraceptives.

    "Look ma, I use my personality for birth control!"

  67. Re:My penis is a gold nano rod by Genda · · Score: 1

    The problem is getting the shark into the surgical theater...

    Laser to the balls... that's gotta be on a Star Wars gag reel!!!