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!!
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".
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.
1 suicide within the trial? That is a success. 100% contraception success.
This one will sure not be able to procreate anymore.
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.
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.