Reliable Male Contraceptive In the Works

Hugh Pickens writes "The BBC reports that recent tests in China indicate a monthly injection of testosterone, which works by temporarily blocking sperm production, could be as effective at preventing pregnancies as the female pill or condoms. In trials in China only one man in 100 fathered a child while on the injections, and six months after stopping the injections the mens' sperm counts returned to normal. The lead researcher said that if further tests proved successful, the treatment could become widely available in five years' time. Previous attempts to develop an effective and convenient male contraceptive have encountered problems over reliability and side effects, such as mood swings and a lowered sex drive. However, despite the injection having no serious side effects, almost a third of the 1,045 men in the two-and-a-half year study did not complete the trials; no reason was given for this."

1% !

[Bibz]

1% got pregnant, that seems pretty high for contraceptive. It would have to be used with other means

I stand corrected, the pill is 92-99.7% effective, about 5% of couples will get pregnant. So it seems this way is pretty darn effective.

RISUG

[Anonymous Coward]

We already have a reliable male contraceptive. It's called RISUG.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RISUG

Re:Bad science

[Sobrique]

Actually I believe that's 1/100 over the course of a year - and the rate comparable to that of condoms and the pill.
http://health.msn.com/health-topics/articlepage.aspx?cp-documentid=100068304 [msn.com]
If I recall correctly, the failure rate is given assuming a year of average amount of sexual contact per week (Off the top of my head, I've heard 'average' being assumed as '3x/week')

Re:Bad science

[Timothy Brownawell]

Also who wants only a 1/100 chance of NOT getting your SO pregnant? For most Americans that would be on the order of once year (assuming the women is only fertile for a few days a month).

It's not 1% chance per time, it's 1% per couple per 2.5 years (the length of the study). So once every 250 years for you and your SO, assuming you have sex about as frequently as the people in the study.

Unless of course the "almost a third" quit the study because it killed them, or made it impossible to get it up, or something.

Re:1% !

[Strilanc]

A 1% pregnancy rate over two and a half years actually sounds very effective. I don't know the rates for other protection methods, or even unprotected, but I know they're not as good as 99% (in practice) over 2.5 years.

But 1/3 of the sample dropping out is not very promising. Side effects? Cherry picking? Guess we'll find out later.

Steroids

[rodrigoandrade]

Steroids are basically synthesized testosterone, and it's known that heavy users become temporarily sterile (as long as they're on the drug). And all those muscles will get you laid a lot more, so it's not really a bad side effect :-)

Re:Possibly because it worked?

[Anonymous Coward]

no, it's because a triple effect of testosterone

1) Makes you temporarely sterile, but...
2) impotent and therefore frustrated, ultimately leading to...
3) beating up your wife, who then refuses to have sex with you

Then you no longer want to participate with the trials; without giving any particular reasons for that.

Re:Citation

[Bobb9000]

Planned Parenthood says so. [plannedparenthood.org] Citation provided.

Birth control is far more complicated statistically than people think.

Personally, sign me up for this: RISUG [wikipedia.org]

All the benefits of a male birth control pill/shot, without the hormonal side effects, at a fraction of the price. And they're pretty sure it doesn't even cause cancer! :-)

Re:1% !

[forand]

The percent effective you quote is for real life use NOT laboratory use. There is a rather large difference. The number you quote rolls in people not remembering to take the pill at all or on time while the number quoted in the study likely only includes those people who had their injects regularly.

Re:Citation

[Bobb9000]

If you choose to look at failure rates on a per-encounter basis rather than a per-year basis, then yes, but failure rates for contraceptives are almost always put in terms of conceptions per year.

Re:Citation

[radtea]

Personally, sign me up for this: RISUG [wikipedia.org]

From the linked article: "'Within an hour, the drugs produce an electrical charge that nullifies the electrical charge of the spermatozoa, preventing it from penetrating the ovum,' Dr. Guha said."

I have to say that while empirically this stuff may work, made-up bullshit like this from the inventor does not bode well for the veracity of his other claims. While he may be talking about membrane polarization or something, sperm are electrically neutral.

The article claims that it was formerly believed that the treatment killed sperm, which suggests it was developed without even the most basic empirical testing. It isn't hard to tell if sperm are alive or dead using a simple optical microscope immediately after ejaculation.

There's also no indication as to why anyone would use the substances incorporated into this stuff. What line of logic and research lead to this discovery, using a compound of heavily irradiated organic molecules injected into the vas defrens. Why would someone think that was a good idea in the first place?

Finally, there's the claim that it is persistent (up to ten years) and can at the same time be flushed out by irrigation with a sodium bicarbonate solution. This seems implausible, to say the least.

Finally, while there's a lot of talk in the article about Phase III trials, there is no mention at all of trials to actually demonstrate its long-term, or even short-term, efficacy, which is what Phase II trials are for (Phase I is toxicity and pharmokinetics and dyamics, Phase II is safety and efficacy.)

And really finally, there's the name "Sperm Under Guidance"? Under whose guidance are the sperm under, again?

Try an IUD

[mzs]

My wife had a Mirena inserted four years ago. She had a few days of cramping. After that things have been fine. She also used to have terrible cramping, bleeding, and mood swings related to her period. All of that has greatly reduced as well. Also she has not gained weight like she did on an oral contraceptive (I've already mentioned the improvement of the mood swings on this IUD, the pill was the opposite). There are some risks, ask a doctor or read the warnings. The only downside during the act is that in some cases the man can feel a poke from the string, personally I would not call it painful and it is a good indication that we are going too deep and about to hurt her so it's actually a positive.

after a few minutes of internet searches..

[bombastinator]

Your affusively swenstionalist article points to the existence of neem oil as a pesticide, and apparently a fairly good one (doesn't make me want to drink it btw) but does not mention at all any trials by the Indian military or it's effectiveness. The much less evangelical Neem wiki and the neem entry at drugs.com mention many medical uses, mostly for skin diseases in traditional medicine, and food additives, but makes no mention of male contraception. Female contraception tests in animals are mentioned but not any clinical tests.

I was able to find for both male and female contraception at a new age herbal medicine site http://www.sisterzeus.com/neem.html [sisterzeus.com] which seems to contain linked end notes but all the notes are missing. This is quite disturbing as false annotation has been a repetitive problem in the New Age movement, the most famous being the "Chalice and the Blade" scandal about 20 years ago. Google searching the two names mentioned in conjunction with neem did yield some results. Noel Vietmeyer has apparently written a book (not a paper, a book) extolling neem as a wonder plant, but he is not the one who performed the study. It is the only reference I can find. All other references seem to lead back to that one.

I can find no first hand evidence at all on the internet that the Indian military study took place at all.

Re:Possibly because it worked?

[Maxo-Texas]

1) testosterone shots are painful
2) testosterone converts to estrogen (http://www.naturodoc.com/library/hormones/masculine.htm) ...The enzyme called aromatase works naturally to convert testosterone into estrogen. ... Fat cells contribute a great amount of aromatase, and many nutrient deficiencies can also produce higher levels.
3) having more testosterone lowers your natural production (so going off of it can be a bitch)
4) having excess testosterone can make you more aggressive, angrier (rage), less happy but...
5) having insufficient testosterone can make you more emotional, angrier(fear), sleep poorly, less happy, anxious (free floating anxiety), loss of lust, loss of happiness, lost of performance when you do have lust.

I've been on HRT for a few years now. Having a level of about 600 makes me feel like I am 10 years younger plus the andropause symptoms went away within a week of starting supplementation. There are currently two expensive rub on versions (Testim - oil based and Androgel - alchohol based), a ton of compounded rub on versions, and shots.

Shots produce a much stronger cycle (too high for a few days, then normal for a couple weeks, then too low for a few days before your next shot).
I've read the shots are painful after you get them (the testosterone hurts inside you). It's not agony and tons of guys do get the shots (much less expensive than the rub-on approach) but the getting shots sucks, and then if it hurts after you get the shot that would suck more.

I apparently had low testosterone most of my life even before i was in my 40's since I furred out big time once I went on it.
I play a lot of boardgames and losing them pisses me off more than it used to so that is a downside. I didn't used to care.

A LOT of males have low testosterone starting at 43-- some earlier. It's an easy test to get. HRT is usually a one-way trip. You go on it and are on it until you show signs of prostate cancer (which estrogen is like gasoline on a fire for).

Re:And just like pill for women...

[Bobb9000]

I think the issue is that not *all* men like to build machines, and not *all* women want to care for people. They may tend to distribute themselves that way statistically, but that doesn't mean there aren't many on each side who feel differently.

I agree that we shouldn't try so very hard to force people into things, but the fact is that we've had a long history where people either weren't allowed to try or were shunned for trying to do a job that didn't fit their "gender role". It makes some sense to try to counteract that cultural trend. It can, of course, and often has, been taken too far.

The birth control pill is known to have an effect on some women's moods and personality. I don't think that that even comes close to an justification for feminism being basically just women on drugs. Changes in life values are not a typical result. Messing with anyone's hormones can be a problem, but it's an issue of acceptable risk and harm. Being able to control fertility is crucial the the kind of society and environment I want to live in. I think many women feel the same.

injections, testosterone etc.

[Have Brain Will Rent]

Gasoline on a fire will actually put it out if you throw enough on that the liquid gasoline smothers the fire before it becomes gaseous and is ignited in air. But I suspect that you meant that oestrogen make prostate cancer grow rapidly - that is untrue and in fact oestrogen used to be used as a treatment for prostate cancer but it had undesirable side effects.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prostate_cancer#Prevention [wikipedia.org] has more info.

The wrong levels of testosterone (high or low) will indeed make one more emotionally volatile and have other bad effects. Injecting testosterone will lower natural production and can make the testes change noticeably. Testosterone injection is intra-muscular and I would expect that the reason most users complain is that 1) they puncture the skin too slowly (it stretches and hurts) rather than using a controlled jab, and 2) they inject too quickly. Liquid testosterone is about the consistency of liquid honey... forcing that into a bunch of muscle fibres at a high rate probably damages them, and 3) because it is thick you use a fairly large diameter needle. Testosterone is available in pill form but it is apparently harder on the liver to take it this way.

Testosterone deficiency can be caused by a lot of things, including sleep apnea which can screw up your endocrine system in general - if one snores a lot it may be worth getting checked out. OTOH exercise can increase natural levels.

I am not a doctor.

Re:Try an IUD

[mzs]

You're a dick, and I bet the only woman to have ever kissed you was you mother.

I saw here a bunch of people that made it seem condom or pill were the only options. For those of us in long term relationships that don't want more or any kids for the moment the IUD should be considered. I just wanted to give a first hand account. And when you have an adult relationship you will learn about how things affect your lover. You care about them after all. It does not make me pussy-whipped, it makes me mature. There were a lot of negatives to the pill, it hurt me to see my wife going through that, so we tried something else. I also gave some details about unexpected benefits to the IUD. An unexpected benefit to the pill was great skin, you don't hear about that often either.

Go buy a real doll, it's your only hope.