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

81–90 of 167 posts

Re: The Revolutionary Birth Control Method for Men

#81

Post by randallsquared »

hugh3 wrote: post #69
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, squ…

I knew a radiation oncologist in the late 90s, and his reason for becoming a webapp startup founder instead was that radiology was destroying him: in that field, most of your patients die, rather than being cured. You're mostly just prolonging things.

Re: The Revolutionary Birth Control Method for Men

#82

Post by briggsbio »

haberman wrote: post #20

In its report, the WHO team agreed that the concept of RISUG was intriguing. But they found fault with the homegrown production methods: Guha and his staff made the concoction themselves in his lab, and the WHO delegation found his facilities wanting by modern pharmaceutical manufacturing standards. Furthermore, they found that Guha’s studies did not meet “international regulatory requirements” for new drug approval—…

It's difficult to assess the situation without having the WHO report or an inspection.

The long and short of it is YES. There are regulations regarding the quality and reproducibility of pharmaceutical manufacturing processes (the CMC - chemistry, manufacturing and controls portion of an IND/NDA) that go a long way to ensure the safety of patients here in the US. Yes, they can be expensive to comply with. But current Good Manufacturing Process (cGMP) regulations are a necessary component to not only protect patients, but also to ensure the validity of the clinical data collected. Without these controls, changes in formulation, lack of reproducible drug substance (Active pharmaceutical ingredients, or APIs), and finished drug products (including container-closure systems), there is no way to be sure what the patient is getting is equivalent to what was used to obtain approval (NDA/BLA/PMA/510k) or consistent across the marketplace. There was a big push to get manufacturing and studies done "on the cheap" in India, China, SouthAmerica, and Eastern Europe. But over the past few years, many companies have pulled back development in these areas (unless they were planning to launch products in these regions) due to lack of oversight and poor quality of production and study conduct at clinical sites. And rightly so. If the WHO conducted a thorough audit of his processes and found that they weren't up to par with the FDA or EMA(Europe's FDA) then we should all hope that any development in the US or Europe be conducted in accordance with OUR guidelines and regulations. The India trials could (and should) be used as a benchmark and built upon, but not relied upon out of hand without more diligence and reproducible results across multiple clinical studies (and in various ethnic populations, age groups, and other factors). The inventor has a duty to obtain results using the most controlled and reproducible manner possible. For all of our sakes.

Re: The Revolutionary Birth Control Method for Men

#83

Post by esoteriq »

blipcjbfk wrote: post #70
solarmist wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

Well, one other tip would be - hold it on when you ahem pull out. You don't want any spillage.

Also, make sure you use the right size. If it's too tight or too loose - increased risk of breakage or leakage.

Ok, now I'm a bit weirded out by myself. I'm a woman, so I guess I'm deeply invested in proper condom usage.

Re: The Revolutionary Birth Control Method for Men

#85

Post by grantbachman »

matwood wrote: post #74
grantbachman wrote: post #18

I would sign up for this procedure in a heartbeat, but it still doesn't get around the (albeit not perfect) STD protection condoms can provide. If this takes off, people probably won't wear condoms most of the time, and the number of people being diagnosed with STD's will skyrocket.

If this takes off, people probably won't wear condoms most of the time, and the number of people being diagnosed with STD's will skyrocket. I don't understand this thinking. To me condoms have always been about STD protection and not pregnancy prevention. I'd like to think for most people this idea will not change. I mean if you barely know a girl and she tells you that she's on the pill so you don't need a condom th…

I think for most people it's about pregnancy prevention and not STD prevention. Ask any college kid why he wears a condom, he'll tell you it's because he doesn't want kids right now, not because he's afraid of getting STD's. Although I agree STD prevention is a great ancillary benefit, and it's why I'd still wear one even after an operation like this. But tell a 20 something college kid he won't have to worry about unwanted pregnancies if he get's this operation, the first thing out of his mouth will be an exuberant declaration of how he won't have to worry about buying condoms anymore.

Re: The Revolutionary Birth Control Method for Men

#86

Post by grantbachman »

city41 wrote: post #75
grantbachman wrote: post #18

I would sign up for this procedure in a heartbeat, but it still doesn't get around the (albeit not perfect) STD protection condoms can provide. If this takes off, people probably won't wear condoms most of the time, and the number of people being diagnosed with STD's will skyrocket.

This seems targeted as an alternative to a vasectomy, which also does not prevent STDs.

If the operation was cheap enough, I'm betting the younger generation will use it as an alternative to condoms, then get it reversed when they're ready. I'd get it done as soon as it came to the US, and I'm only 22. One less thing to worry about.

Re: The Revolutionary Birth Control Method for Men

#87

Post by solarmist »

danssig wrote: post #59
hugh3 wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The problem is there isn't (enough of?) an incentive to actually put out these treatments. I guess the money just doesn't compare to female birth control One issue is that public health authorities are (probably quite legitimately) concerned that improved male birth control methods will lead to a decrease in the use of condoms and an increase in STDs.

Holding back progress in one area as leverage to try and force it in another is nearly always a bad way to go. STD's and unwanted children are both problems. If we can fix one of those we should absolutely do it.

Exactly.

Re: The Revolutionary Birth Control Method for Men

#88

Post by deskamess »

jcromartie wrote: post #27

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

Me too. I have had to lie down in the past from dizziness just from reading articles that described 'body cuts/surgeries' in that level of detail.

sudonts response below is also noted, and agreed with.

Re: The Revolutionary Birth Control Method for Men

#89

Post by yason »

michaelchisari wrote: post #76
blipcjbfk wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What is "proper" condom use? Honest question, as I pretty much just roll a condom on... Is there more to it?

You didn't get the banana demonstration in high school? For instance, If you don't leave a reservoir at the tip, it increases the possibility that the condom will break.

There's that tiny reservoir at the tip of the rubber already just for that: you really have to work hard to pull it so tight that the reservoir itself gets stretched all over the tip of your penis.

Re: The Revolutionary Birth Control Method for Men

#90

Post by michaelchisari »

yason wrote: post #89
michaelchisari wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You didn't get the banana demonstration in high school? For instance, If you don't leave a reservoir at the tip, it increases the possibility that the condom will break.

There's that tiny reservoir at the tip of the rubber already just for that: you really have to work hard to pull it so tight that the reservoir itself gets stretched all over the tip of your penis.

Yeah, well, you'd be amazed at the mistakes people will make without proper instruction.
Post reply on HN