Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The Revolutionary Birth Control Method for Men

wired.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 167 posts

Re: The Revolutionary Birth Control Method for Men

#61

Post by saool »

hugh3 wrote: post #35
bakbak wrote: post #8

This is going to change the world ... this is by far going to have deepest sociological impact (good & bad) on the society ... because many men will use this secretly without telling their partner to avoid having kids ... which eventually will bring enormous decrease in population ... Now someone should come out with novel technique to avoid STD without using condoms ... combination of these 2 techniques will be VIOL…

because many men will use this secretly without telling their partner to avoid having kids ... which eventually will bring enormous decrease in population ... I doubt there are that many men who want to secretly make themselves infertile in order to not give their wives the children they want to have. combination of these 2 techniques will be VIOLA I'm really not sure what violas have to do with it.

Viola is the american far-too-spread wrong spelling of the french expression voilà, which could be translated roughly to "behold" or "that's it".

Et voilà :)

Re: The Revolutionary Birth Control Method for Men

#62

Post by sudont »

jcromartie wrote: post #27

I have nothing to add except that reading the description of the process made me feel physically uncomfortable.

That's because you've got a physical identifier of this concept in your mind. Does the idea of a pacemaker feel bad? Probably not, because your "heart" is an abstract idea--you'll probably never see it with your own eyes. A lot of professors teaching dissection have noted your feelings, girls in general don't have a squeamishness to overcome in testicular dissection since they don't have that externality of organs.

Re: The Revolutionary Birth Control Method for Men

#63

Post by ghshephard »

jonprins wrote: post #46
Sukotto wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do these "modern pharmaceutical manufacturing standards" actually buy us extra safety? Yes, but we pay a price: * Evaluations take a really long time. So it's hard to get the drugs into the hands of people. * Development is now extremely expensive. That forces just about everyone except the largest drug mega-corporations out of the market. * Drugs that would be a net benefit to the world sometimes never make it throu…

"We also have far fewer snake-oil salesmen ripping people off for cures" Yet we still have chiropractors and homeopathy.

Hold on - Chiropractors are in the same class as homeopathy? I thought Chiropractors (which, admittedly, I've never been to, but have heard many good things about - particularly when people need to get their back "adjusted") were in the same class as Acupuncturists - kind of easternish philosophy, but effective within their domain. Not so much focussed on increasing health, as enhancing comfort (or reducing pain) without drugs.

Not the case?

Re: The Revolutionary Birth Control Method for Men

#66

Post by Xurinos »

ghshephard wrote: post #63
jonprins wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"We also have far fewer snake-oil salesmen ripping people off for cures" Yet we still have chiropractors and homeopathy.

Hold on - Chiropractors are in the same class as homeopathy? I thought Chiropractors (which, admittedly, I've never been to, but have heard many good things about - particularly when people need to get their back "adjusted") were in the same class as Acupuncturists - kind of easternish philosophy, but effective within their domain. Not so much focussed on increasing health, as enhancing comfort (or reducing pain) wit…

I would like to know the real answer on this, too. I have read from people who claim to have been on the industry's inside (went to school for it, etc). The claim is that there are a bunch of logical steps based on false premises/beliefs and that some of the work results in mid- to long-term damage to the body in exchange for short-term relief.

Edit: http://www.chirobase.org/05RB/CPSQ/02.html -- More information that looks like something I have read.

Edit2: http://www.chirobase.org/01General/controversy.html -- "NACM members publicly renounce the subluxation theory and other forms of chiropractic pseudomedicine." Interesting stuff. What I read: There is a portion of "chiropractic medicine" that is snake oil; how do I identify what is real? Are NACM members better informed?

Re: The Revolutionary Birth Control Method for Men

#67

Post by hugh3 »

saool wrote: post #61
hugh3 wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

because many men will use this secretly without telling their partner to avoid having kids ... which eventually will bring enormous decrease in population ... I doubt there are that many men who want to secretly make themselves infertile in order to not give their wives the children they want to have. combination of these 2 techniques will be VIOLA I'm really not sure what violas have to do with it.

Viola is the american far-too-spread wrong spelling of the french expression voilà, which could be translated roughly to "behold" or "that's it". Et voilà :)

What I found amusing was that not only did he misspell voila (and I'm not gonna be pedantic about the accent mark because I'm too lazy to remember how to type it myself), he also managed to use it in a place that voila wouldn't have made sense either.

Re: The Revolutionary Birth Control Method for Men

#68

Post by bmohlenhoff »

ghshephard wrote: post #63
jonprins wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"We also have far fewer snake-oil salesmen ripping people off for cures" Yet we still have chiropractors and homeopathy.

Hold on - Chiropractors are in the same class as homeopathy? I thought Chiropractors (which, admittedly, I've never been to, but have heard many good things about - particularly when people need to get their back "adjusted") were in the same class as Acupuncturists - kind of easternish philosophy, but effective within their domain. Not so much focussed on increasing health, as enhancing comfort (or reducing pain) wit…

I've been to a chiropractor before and it really does work, at least for the problem I was experiencing (which was some sort of simple alignment problem.) The guy basically just pushed on my spinal column in different directions and I could clearly feel things moving back into place. I definitely would not lump them in with the quackery that is homeopathy, as long as you stay within the bounds of "pushing bones into alignment" and stay away from things like "improve the chi flow throughout your chakra nodes" or some such nonsense.

Re: The Revolutionary Birth Control Method for Men

#69

Post by hugh3 »

ComputerGuru wrote: post #10

Wow. The entire premise of the article aside, for me the idea that medical treatments can be made with physics and not medicine was an incredible, incredible revelation. This man (not a doctor!) has invented a method to neutralize sperm in a way that would never have occurred to me. He uses the most basic principles of physics (magnetic charge) to neutralize sperm! Realizing that sperm is negatively charging, he simp…

As a physicist, I have been, on odd occasions of boredom and quarter-life-crisis, tempted to go into medicine. But the only type of medicine I'd be interested in is radiology.

Walk in, cure a patient with physics, walk out, earn $600K a year. Sounds pretty sweet!

What's that? You have cancer? No worries, I have radioactive beams! Zap! You're cured!

Unfortunately you gotta go through many years of the more usual, squishy form of medicine before they'll let you become a radiologist, so I stuck with my existing career path.

Re: The Revolutionary Birth Control Method for Men

#70

Post by blipcjbfk »

solarmist wrote: post #48
frossie wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Aside from the STD issue, a condom is a contraception method that is instantly verifiable. "It's okay baby, I have had the invisible sperm destroying procedure" is a bit harder to check.

Why are women on the pill any more trust worthy? I've known women who say they're on the pill just because they didn't wanna use/buy condoms. Surprise, surprise I now know people that have kids that probably shouldn't. Also, condom misuse is a big problem in general and is the cause of the low rate of success for condoms 85% vs proper use 98%. The people that need condoms the most (uneducated/young people) are the on…

What is "proper" condom use?

Honest question, as I pretty much just roll a condom on... Is there more to it?

Post reply on HN