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

121–130 of 167 posts

Re: The Revolutionary Birth Control Method for Men

#121

Post by hucker »

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'm just curious, where do you live? I live and attend university in Norway, and I must say, I don't think I know anyone that uses condoms on regular basis. Every girl I know uses an IUD or is on the pill, and most people I know get checked regularly. I know Norway is the "world leader" in one night stands [1], and has one of the most well educated populations in the world. Still, condom use is abysmally low. I wonder why this is? Every time I go to the states, I'm reminded how different the "average american youth" views the condom.

[1] http://www.aftenposten.no/english/local/article633160.ece

Re: The Revolutionary Birth Control Method for Men

#122

Post by lhnn »

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—…

My thoughts exactly. All the objections seem to sidestep the revolution that this drug could be. If the science is there, but some more studies are needed, why didn't the WHO back better lab conditions and make a go for it?

Either they thought it was not a viable theory for a drug, or they were avoiding it for profit/political reasons.

Re: The Revolutionary Birth Control Method for Men

#123

Post by lhnn »

frossie wrote: post #44
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.

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.

Check the scars. Perhaps a photo ID card certifying your procedure is in order. What a way to pick up chicks!

Re: The Revolutionary Birth Control Method for Men

#124

Post by bemmu »

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 agree they are in the same class with acupuncturists, in the "stuff that doesn't work"-class.

Re: The Revolutionary Birth Control Method for Men

#125

Post by Symmetry »

Sukotto wrote: post #28
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—…

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…

Like almost everything, testing suffers from diminishing returns. The difference between no testing and delta testing is often huge, but the difference between a lot and a lot plus delta is often pretty small. But each delta of testing you add costs the same amount in terms of the prices you listed.

The optimal thing to do would be to keep adding more testing until the benefits of the latest delta drop to equal their costs. However, all the economic research on this topic that I've read suggests that while we need some testing we're way over the optimal point. Its the same sort of research that lets you publish papers on how the optimal copyright length is 14 years.

The same sort of ratchet effects are involved in both places too. The only people who care passionately about copyright lengths are those who have copyrights that are about to expire. The people who could have benefited from a work going out of copyright are often only dimly aware of it. Likewise when the FDA approves a drug that causes problems its obvious and there are a lot of people complaining, but when they don't approve a drug that could have helped someone - or when drug developers are scared off - people aren't as aware of it.

Re: The Revolutionary Birth Control Method for Men

#126

Post by ojilles »

jgervin wrote: post #94
noonespecial wrote: post #40

Looks like the future of space, medicine, and technology belongs to the countries that have not yet hobbled themselves with lawyers and bureaucrats to the point that something must be perfect if it is to exist at all.

Totally agree. If they continue without all the lawyers they will be far more advanced in 20 years. If this or some offshoot ever makes it to the US, we should see a dramatic decrease in family law, Federal subsides for child support, and could lead to dramatic decrease in crime. That is, if it becomes as available as womens birth control.

And add to that a rapidly increasing average age.

Re: The Revolutionary Birth Control Method for Men

#127

Post by michaeldhopkins »

mkempe wrote: post #109

I have a two-year old daughter. I want more kids, not fewer. If I had known how amazing raising a kid was, I would have started sooner. Smart people need to bring more smart people to the world.

Not to mention that your daughter is a creative person who will solve all kinds of problems and improve the lives of the people she encounters. Sadly, theoretical "other people's children" are assumed to be dead weight who consume food and oil and do nothing else. Some people are actively misled into living harmful lives and a rare few generate their own evil motivations, but the majority simply live up to low expectations set by the people who prefer widespread contraception over births.

A startup that changed the way intelligent people view children would change the world in a much more dramatic and useful way than this contraceptive medicine.

Re: The Revolutionary Birth Control Method for Men

#129

Post by matwood »

hucker wrote: post #121
matwood wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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'm just curious, where do you live? I live and attend university in Norway, and I must say, I don't think I know anyone that uses condoms on regular basis. Every girl I know uses an IUD or is on the pill, and most people I know get checked regularly. I know Norway is the "world leader" in one night stands [1], and has one of the most well educated populations in the world. Still, condom use is abysmally low. I wonde…

The US. Keep in mind I went to college over ~10 years ago.

From college on most women I know were on some form of birth control to the point where I assumed most women are. Post high school, condoms were never about stopping pregnancy but avoiding STDs.

Re: The Revolutionary Birth Control Method for Men

#130

Post by dmm »

randallsquared wrote: post #81
hugh3 wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

All patients die. The job of a specialist is to make sure they die of something else.
Post reply on HN