Slashdot Mirror
Male Birth Control Shot Found Effective (bbc.com)
An anonymous reader quotes the BBC:
A hormone injection has been shown to be a safe and effective method of contraception -- for men. U.S. researchers say the jab was almost 96% effective in tests on around 270 men who were using it, with four pregnancies among their partners. However, a relatively high number developed side effects, including acne and mood disorders... Because men constantly produce sperm, high levels of hormones are needed to reduce levels from the normal sperm count of over 15 million per milliliter to under one million/ml.
One professor pointed out that despite the side effects, "75% of the men who took part in the trial would be willing to use this method of contraception again."
One professor pointed out that despite the side effects, "75% of the men who took part in the trial would be willing to use this method of contraception again."
and taking into account the risks (unwanted pregnancy) i'd say 96% effectiveness is really, really horrible.
Unless i'm mistaken in my interpretation of statistics, this is a complete failure. In this case, i'd like to know the chance that intercourse will lead to pregnangy, using this method (and only this method)
Looking for people to chat about multicopters, coding, music. skype: gtsiros
That means I'd have 14 babies a year! Not effective at a!!
How often do fags reproduce?
Per my gay friends, they keep trying to have kids, even several times a day, but still no pregnancy has resulted.
While sad of no offspring, both partners often report enjoying themselves each and every time.
The Worlds press is carrying this story but almost all have missed that the trial has been stopped due to unnacceptable side-effects
Of the 300+ patients,
- 1 committed suicide
- 1 attempted suicide
- many being treated for clinical depression
- 8 were left infertile a year after stopping the drug.
75% may be willing to continue, but not at that cost
This is probably some of the least relevant news I've seen here, and that's really saying something.
I'm just waiting for someone to wave the "techies are virgin beardos" flag.
I believe vehicular analogies are the usual go-to here?
"When the bus enters the tunnel..."
*all hands raise*
"Oh, for fucks sake, you want me to describe what a tunnel is??"
(OK, maybe you're right.)
I'm almost 40 now and we have one kid, and I don't want more. I'm thinking about vasectomy, any experiences here?
Yes. Ask the doc for a fan. Needless to say, the smell of cauterization isn't a pleasant one, especially when you know what's being burned.
No, don't let that concern or dissuade you, the overall procedure isn't that bad at all, and they obviously numb you up...it's a walk-in, walk (slowly) out, done in about 30-45 minutes procedure.
Then go fill your script for a mild painkiller, and ensure your Netflix account is in order. Prepare to catch up on [your favorite series] for the next 3 days as you rest in bed. I got introduced to Deadwood during my stint before Netflix was around. Took Friday off from work, was fine by Monday.
So haven't we learned from the pill that fucking with a body's hormone levels has a certain tendency to lead to bad things and that it gets worse at higher levels?
Is the intention here to hit equality by making men as miserable as women?
There's certainly no reporting bias here - among 270 men in the trials, 11 simply didn't reach the chosen threshold of 1/15th normal sperm count in six months, 8 didn't recover within a year after stopping the treatment, 20 dropped out because of side effects while many more reported them (to the degree they stopped taking on new participants - back in 2011), 4 achieved pregnancies within a year while under the chosen threshold. All durations reported are in "up to" form, and the fertility of their partners was not indicated (around 10% have issues while trying, per womenshealth.gov). Only 66-69 of them (by somebody's rounding) stated they would refuse to ever attempt the method again, "so perhaps the side-effects weren't all that bad after all" according to Alan Pacey (whose connection to the study was left unclear). It's unclear if this was before or after they learned of how well other subjects did. The article also carefully describes the women only as "partners", despite heterosexuality being quite relevant to the study. The journalist went with "safe and effective", quoting "extremely effective" also from Allan Pacey, while not addressing the "need for ... reversible" part. I'm mildly curious where the "safe" came from.
The worst part? Compared to regularly used hormonal treatments for women, this probably is "safe".
When I was in the military (mid 1990s), several of the senior enlisted guys went that route. None of them reported any complications, and recommended it to others who "had enough kids already".
We were stationed in Kaneohe, Hawaii, so they called themselves the 'Kaneohe Klipper Klub'.
Just make sure it's with a good doctor, and a clean clinic. You don't want to get an infection in that area.
If you think I voted for Trump because of this post, you're wrong. I voted for Dr. Jill Stein of the Green Party. Again.
I'm 39, had mine last year after having twins for a total of 4 kids. Local anaesthetics have little affect on me, so I chose to go under and was only out for 15-20 minutes and walked from recovery. Was no where near as bad as I expected and while there was a bit of pain it was mainly from the stitches. I was told it would feel like I was kicked in the nuts but it was nothing like that at all, a very mild discomfort apart from the stitches. If you are worried about it, don’t be, its a quick and relatively painless procedure.
And that's in a controlled setting. Imagine what would happen in the real world where thousands of men kill themselves every single month.
A bullet may have your name on it but splash damage is addressed "To whom it may concern."
1 suicide within the trial? That is a success. 100% contraception success.
This one will sure not be able to procreate anymore.
Just do it.
It's simple, but you'll be down for a day afterwards. Frozen peas to keep swelling/pain down. Tender for a week, tops, but iirc they want you to give a sample after 5-6(?) ejaculations to check and make sure there were no misses, so 2-3 weeks before you're verified "safe" for live fire action.
the same credibility problem that exist for the female pill? and a women has a choice if she gets pregnant, the man doesn't. If she doesn't want a baby she can have an abortion he can't prevent that, if she wants a baby and he doesn't he will have to pay child support for the next 18 years he can't get out of that
So guy and girl are on their third date, they're on the cusp of sex and the girl says she's not on the pill and the guy says "It's OK, I'm on the shot".
Does she believe him?
Who cares? Seriously, if she doesn't want a kid she should refuse sex unless she is on the (female) pill. Males won't be taking this pill to convince a woman to have sex with them, they'd be taking this pill to prevent the woman from getting pregnant.
IOW, they won't be lying "trust me, I'm on the pill", they'd be lying "of course I think we're ready for a baby".
Currently the ability to produce/prevent a pregnancy via deception is only available to females. A male pill would give that same ability to males (produce/prevent a pregnancy via deception).
Can you imagine what would happen if males could string along a woman with "we've been trying for a year"? When males get to lie about trying for a pregnancy?
I'm a minority race. Save your vitriol for white people.
...has a 96% success rate.
tend to argue that sexual orientation is genetically predetermined
No-one with an ounce of sense argues that. Because the argument is irrelevant.
Actually argument is relevant. If it is genetically predetermined, then legislation penalizing all who discriminate (and refuse to make wedding cakes for gay couples or whatever), are justified. If it is a free lifestyle choice, such discriminatory actions (however subjectively odious) comes under freedom of speech, religion, etc..
In females, hormonal birth control mostly works by tricking the body into thinking it's already pregnant. For humans, it's a significant evolutionary advantage not to become double or triple pregnant, so the body does most of the work for you. It's fairly "natural" because you're basically just reproducing a situation that the female body is designed for.
For males, though, there's no evolutionary reason to ever stop producing sperm. So any cocktail of hormones that shuts off fertility in males has not been through those same millions of years of QA. So I would want to see at least a couple more decades of testing on this before injecting it into my body.
Experience has taught me to be very skeptical of the pharmaceutical industry, so I also can't help but wonder if researchers are saying it's safe only because they, for example, consider a 15% occurrence of male breast enlargement and/or lactation an acceptable side effect.
. (Sure, the guy can put on a condom, but by doing so he'd be telling the gal he doesn't trust her by default, which perhaps he might try to explain away with an even more awkward discussion about STDs, either way ruining the mood.)
Actually it is perfectly normal to use a condom to further decrease the odds of pregnancy. My gf was on the pill and I used condoms. Trust has nothing to do with it.
the same credibility problem that exist for the female pill? and a women has a choice if she gets pregnant, the man doesn't. If she doesn't want a baby she can have an abortion he can't prevent that, if she wants a baby and he doesn't he will have to pay child support for the next 18 years he can't get out of that
Well, there's multiple levels of credibility happening here and a lot depends on the nature of the relationship.
In hookup-type situations, how does a woman even know the details of the man she's having sex with are real? You have to have enough details/info about the person to go down the child support path. If it was a one-night-stand type situation, she may have a bogus name or no contact info.
My sense is this pushes the risk factor for women to the point that "oh, I can just get child support" isn't really much of a risk amelioration and all but the craziest and most desperate women look at "oh, and child support makes up for the radical change in my life/future/plans and the fact that I will be a single mother" as something even remotely desirable.
My sense is that there's no universe where even the best circumstances make an unplanned pregnancy worth the risk, except maybe married women, but from what I've seen even that is kind of minefield.
Just because there may not be a genetic component to homosexuality doesn't mean that it isn't fixed or is somehow a choice. Neuroscientist, Simon LeVay found evidence for sexual orientation being connected to brain structure decades ago. It's entirely possible that homosexuality has nothing to do with genetics, but is rather the result of aberrations during fetal development that result these deviations from the norm.
To claim that it's a choice though is just wrong. If you believe otherwise, ask yourself if you you could change your sexual orientation. Sure, you could probably have sex with someone outside of your preferred group, but you wouldn't be attracted to them or have any imperative desire to do so of your own natural volition.
His doctor gave it to him, he found it during his most recent prostate exam.
I find that the most hostile gay bashers tend to be closeted homosexuals themselves.
Instead of being angry at the mixed feelings you have, just be honest with yourself. Do you find yourself watching lots of sports involving sweaty men touching each other? Do you go to a gym and workout around other men? Do you only listen to songs sung or "rapped" by men? Are most or all of your friends men? Do you prefer the sight, sound or company of men? Do you like the cock?
Also discovered in the study that 4 women were cheating on their partners.