Researchers Found Perfect Contraceptives In Traditional Chinese Medicine (inverse.com) 144
hackingbear writes:
Researchers at U.C. Berkeley found a birth control that was hormone-free, 100 percent natural, resulted in no side effects, didn't harm either eggs nor sperm, could be used in the long-term or short-term, and -- perhaps the best part of all -- could be used either before or after conception, from ancient Chinese folk medicine... "Because these two plant compounds block fertilization at very, very low concentrations -- about 10 times lower than levels of levonorgestrel in Plan B -- they could be a new generation of emergency contraceptive we nicknamed 'molecular condoms,'" team leader Polina Lishko.
Re: (Score:2)
I'd argue that my unkempt beard and fedora is far more effective, m'lady.
The pony tattoo helps in your case.
Re: (Score:2)
But by the time she could see that we'd already be in my bedroom?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, the grils prefer Slackware.
Re: (Score:2)
It all depends on your compiler flags.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Socks with sandals (Score:1)
Re:Wait! What? (Score:4, Informative)
- news for nerds
- news for people who can't get laid
Where's the difference?
Re:Wait! What? (Score:4, Funny)
He failed at his own joke. What a nerd.
Re: (Score:2)
Jocks only think about sports, nerds only think about sex.
Re: Wait! What? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
And we should trust them for birth control advice?
China had the one-child policy [wikipedia.org] between 1979 and 2015. This was changed to become a two-child policy. Either there hasn't been much sex going on since 1979 or they have had to be creative.
Re: (Score:2)
I wouldn't call forced abortions creative.
Re: (Score:2)
The two-child policy was enacted due to the cultural issues surrounding having a daughter as your only child.
Re: (Score:2)
And we should trust them for birth control advice?
None of the researchers are Chinese, either by ethnicity or nationality.
At least some B's in there (Score:5, Insightful)
Used after conception for emergency contraception but works by preventing the sperm and egg meeting, that is contradictory.
Re: (Score:2)
The standard "Morning After" pill works by preventing implantation of the blastocyst in the uterus wall and hence the pregnancy. However this takes place after conception.
Re: (Score:2)
Actually, recent research shows that "Morning After" pills tend to block conception [princeton.edu] (which often happens some days after sex) rather than preventing implantation.
This chemical could in theory do the same, though I'd wait for future studies to reproduce the "too good to be true" results.
Re:At least some B's in there (Score:5, Informative)
The actual paper is paywalled, but the abstract says nothing about working "the morning after", so the journalist who wrote TFA may have just made that up.
Re:At least some B's in there (Score:5, Informative)
http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2017/05/09/1700367114.full
PDF here: http://www.pnas.org/content/ea... [pnas.org]
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Used after conception for emergency contraception but works by preventing the sperm and egg meeting, that is contradictory.
It only seems contradictory because you don't know that fertilization of an egg can take up to four day. That is correct, after engaging in sex, females are not immediately impregnated.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
It's doesn't seem contradictory to you because you don't know what conception means. https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/conception. It's a terrible summary. I think we can all agree on that.
Let me guess ... (Score:2)
Perfect Contraceptive
Reading /. or Reddit? Living in your parents' basement?
Re: (Score:1)
RTFA. It's a kind of powder you the girl must put on her mouth while giving a blowjob: guaranteed to be 100% effective against pregnancies if used consistently.
The Chinese scientists also report positive initial results when this compound is applied to hands or rectum.
Re: (Score:3)
Reading /. or Reddit? Living in your parents' basement?
Also Dungeons and Dragons. That's why the Catholic church dislikes it: it's also 100% effective.
(with apologies to someone. I can't remember. SMBC?)
Re: Let me guess ... (Score:1)
Before you get too horny... (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
And/or sour milk. Later vinegar.
Re: (Score:2)
I believe it was a half a lemon peel filled with crocodile shit as a diaphragm.
That had to make for an...interesting smell.
Re: (Score:2)
I bet it worked well. If I was going to get intimate with a woman and she smelled of crocodile dung, or any animals dung for that matter, my interest would instantly drop to zero. Therefore no chance of a child.
Irony (Score:3)
But there are two plant compounds that can prevent sperm from doing this, no matter how valiantly they may try — lupeol, found in mango and dandelion root, and pristimerin, from a plant called the “thunder god vine,”
"Thunder God Vine" prevents pregnancy, but sounds like a great name for your penis.
Re: (Score:2)
Referring to your penis as "Thunder God Vine" may well help prevent pregnancy, at least among potential partners with self-respect.
In other news, te Trump administartion announces (Score:1, Troll)
Re:In other news, te Trump administartion announce (Score:5, Insightful)
What stage of grief is 'idiotic snark'?
Get on with it.
Re: (Score:2)
What stage of grief is 'idiotic snark'?
Get on with it.
Probably the one Trump voters will start with when they realize the jobs aren't coming back, their benefits are being cut and they'll lose their health insurance all; but at least they've done their part to "Make America Great Again." One of my favorite lines was the Congressman from Alabama that argued against the ACA by asking why should healthy people pay for people who make poor lifestyle choices; while representing a state that is leading or near the top in obesity, lack of exercise and smoking. He nee
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I'd have settled for Jeff Foxworthy in a pinch, but Martin Sheen would be better.
I'd go with Ron White; he'd have the right combo of wit and snark to really make it work.
Author doesn't understand "conception" (Score:1)
I read the article. This works by preventing fertilisation of the egg. "Conception", if it is defined separately from fertilisation (often they are used as synonyms), is the implantation of a fertilised egg into the womb.
So this can't be used as an emergency contraceptive as weirdly claimed, and the excerpt of the journal that is reported in the article didn't claim it can. Seems the article author just made it up, to get more clicks.
Re: (Score:2)
What matters is the result. I don't give a fuck why I don't get to pay alimony, as long as I don't get to pay.
Re: (Score:2)
Perhaps the author is thinking of conception as being the sexual act, and not actually the fertilization of the egg. It takes awhile, and sometimes longer than you might think, for fertilization to happen after intercourse. So it is conceivable that you could have sex, and then some time later take something to prevent fertilization from happening.
Re: slam the window on it (Score:1)
After conception? How? (Score:2)
The article claims it can be used as contraception "after conception," which is an oxymoron for a start. There's detail in there about how it stops sperm swimming, but nothing about the mechanism behind it stopping fertilized eggs from implanting, which is (obliquely) claimed.
Re: (Score:1)
We now have two definitions of pregnancy:
1) Conception. This is the point at which a new organism is created, which shares DNA with but is clearly distinct from both egg and sperm. This is also the traditional definition.
2) Implanation. When the zygote implants into the uterine wall, it taps into the mother's body as life support and becomes viable.
ACOG defines pregnancy as #2, therefore preventing implantation is contraception, not pregnancy termination. Every pro-life organization or thinker of which
An extra note (Score:3)
Re: (Score:1)
That's the excuse girls use to convince their parents to let them use birth control.
Re: An extra note (Score:1)
Re: (Score:3)
Some women bleed like a stuck pig, or have exceptionally long or painful periods. Hormonal birth control basically takes over and gives them more statistically 'normal' symptoms. When you're dealing with those issues, the pregnancy prevention really is a side effect.
On the other hand, some women take them without skipping a week in order to completely suppress their cycle. I'm not sure if there's any long term issues with that, but assuming there aren't I've never understood why any and every woman would
Quick! (Score:2)
Someone swoop in there and patent it out from under the locals!
Not a contraceptive and far from perfect (Score:5, Informative)
This is another PR statement that inflates the actual findings so much that they become unrecognizable. For those interested in the details, the original article is here [pnas.org] (it is paywalled). The TL;DR version of the original article is as follows:
These were the finding of the papers. Now look at the claims in the PR statement:
Re: (Score:1)
Re: Not a contraceptive and far from perfect (Score:3, Insightful)
What an idiotic response to the only response to this story to seriously evaluate the claims being made in the article.
Congratulations on standing head and shoulders above all the other thoughtless douches in your stupidity. You've earned it!
Re: (Score:2)
No one needs to worry it will never see sales (Score:1)
Re: (Score:3)
No patent, no marketing. Yep, we won't see this except in some unregulated "all natural" formula at a health food store that is too dilute to work reliably.
One Word (Score:1)
Crocs
Science media vs real science (Score:5, Insightful)
So when I read "about 10 times lower than levels of levonorgestrel in Plan B"
This comes off as crap designed to flog 'information' to the the ignorant public. But (and someone please correct me) this statement is meaningless. Any medication has an effective dosage, and method of function. Levonorgestrel and the chemicals mentioned in this article don't function in a similar manner. To compare the concentrations is meaningless, and leads people to believe in some false metric between them.
No sideeffects.. (Score:2)
Proven effective (Score:1)
Petri Dish Test (Score:2)
PNAS (Score:5, Informative)
Well, the actual paper was published very recently in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Science, which is reputable. They don't seem to be selling anything.
http://www.pnas.org/content/ea... [pnas.org]
Re:PNAS (Score:4, Interesting)
There's a huge difference between the scientific paper and whatever it was that Slashdot linked to. The Slashdot link made all kinds of vague claims where it wasn't clear what they even meant.
Take, for example, the claim that the new contraceptive could be used before or after conception. Did they mean before or after sex? Or did they mean before or after the sperm enters the egg cell and the egg cell ditches it extra set of chromosomes to become diploid? Or did they mean after the fertilized egg implants in the uterus. Because it can be a couple days between having sex and actual implantation.
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe it means before or after birth.
Cyanide would be such a drug. Before birth, administer to adult, after birth, administer to offspring.
Re: (Score:2)
s/"Before birth"/"Before conception"
Basic failure of biological parsing.
Actually, there's a between-conception-and-birth option for using (inorganic water-soluble) cyanide (salts) to achieve this end. Fiddlier to get the dose and delivery right to kill the foetus without killing the baby carrier, but I'm sure it's do-able.
Re: (Score:3)
Side-effects are effects other than those desired.
As for the mechanism, the research indicates that the compounds interfere with sperm's ability to swim powerfully, which is necessary to enter the egg. The interference is non-hormonal and has no side-effects.
Re: (Score:3)
no known side-effects.
FTFY. Do we really understand the human body so well that we know that nothing else would react to those in the same way? Particularly, other parts of the body with flagella - like the cilia in the respiratory tract.
Re: PNAS (Score:4, Insightful)
Also I can't square "has zero side effects" with "blocks conception". It either does something or it doesn't. There is no such thing as "zero side effects" for compounds that are active in the body.
If the only thing it does is block conception, then it has zero side effects. I'll wait to hear whether that's actually true, but the definition of a side effect is an effect other than the primary one.
Re: (Score:1)
There's a difference between "side effects" and "treatment effects". Side effects are unintended or possibly unwanted. (Like the famous "and possibly death" ones.) Contraception, for a contraceptive, is not a side effect. It's the treatment effect.
For a hilarious example of "treatment effect" trauma, read any review about Xenical or Alli (the OTC version of Xenical). That drug has side effects like dehydration, but oily, uncontrollable diarrhea isn't a side effect. It's the treatment effect. That drug makes
Re:PNAS (Score:5, Insightful)
However there is a lot of claims here. In general trying to describe the perfect birth control. With the promise of it originated from some ancient Chinese secret. Smells fishy to me.
Re: (Score:2)
Week old flounder or fresh Ahi tuna?
Re:PNAS (Score:5, Informative)
It was peer reviewed, published in a prestigious journal, and they aren't selling anything. So I don't see anything "fishy" about it. It is often hard to get funding to study naturally occurring substances, because they can't be patented, so there isn't any money in it. The chemicals they studied were extracted from mangoes and dandelion roots.
Re:PNAS (Score:4, Insightful)
It certainly seems worth a closer look and avoids many of the common "too good to be true" signs.
But too much crap science makes it through peer review and into good journals. I'm expecting "too good to be true" once more people study it.
So "skeptical but willing to be convinced" seems the right frame of mind for this. Birth control with fewer side effects would be a great thing for the world. (Less opposition to birth control from religious groups in the US would be even better, but I don't expect miracles.)
Re: (Score:2)
A lot of peer review gets white washed. And approved for scientific journals without the full process.
Re: (Score:2)
Olivia Doll [slashdot.org] confirms!
Re:PNAS (Score:5, Insightful)
I agree with the sentiment to be cautious of such extraordinary claims, which, to quote the familiar saying by Sagan and Truzzi, "require extraordinary evidence."
That said, do not assume that traditional Chinese medicine does not carry the possibility of valuable scientific and medical discoveries. The relatively recent discovery of the potent antimalarial properties of artemisinin was due to research in traditional Chinese herbs and medicines. Now, to be sure, there are a lot of things that traditional Chinese medicine gets wrong, but after thousands of years of trial and error and seeing what works and what doesn't, the resulting herbal pharmacopoeia almost invariably contains useful information about a myriad of plant compounds whose properties have not yet been analyzed by Western medicine.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Frankly, the "thousands of years of trial and error" are largely irrelevant. Pretty much any large collection of plant extracts will include many compounds with pharmacological effects on humans, so there's a high probability that some of them will be 1) previously unknown to medical science (because medical science takes time, and it hasn't had a lot of it yet), and 2) useful.
There's no magic to traditional blah blah whatever nonsense. You assemble a great big grab-bag of random junk, and there's a good ch
Re: (Score:2)
You mean it smelt different from what you're used to.
No, it's a rancid smell. This isn't a culture war, it's a mammalian olfactory system tuned to detect if food is safe to eat.
Re: (Score:2)
Just because someone sent you a ruler where he wrote "feet" on a piece of tape and tacked it to the place that read "centimeters" doesn't make it so.
Re: (Score:2)
Sort of like how anonymous cowards, and apt name, destroyed /. long ago.
Re: No for gods sake don't legitimize it (Score:1)