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

131–140 of 167 posts

Re: The Revolutionary Birth Control Method for Men

#131

Post by zemaj »

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—…

This process may be a preferable alternative to condoms, but it does not stop the spread of STDs. From the WHOs perspective there's no obvious benefit.

I suspect this may be the real cause of their lack of interest.

Re: The Revolutionary Birth Control Method for Men

#132

Post by pohl »

thaumaturgy wrote: post #100
camiller wrote: post #98

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You are making a huge leap from "this is an effective method of birth control" to "people will use this". See the movie Idiocracy. (actually just see the opening bit.)

Idiocracy isn't exactly based on fact. (It's an OK movie though.) For one thing, there's no evidence, that I know of, that supports the claim that only "smart" parents have smart children, or that smart parents don't have dumb children, or that dumb parents don't have smart children, and so on. Although genetics likely plays some role in "natural" intelligence, it's far from a simple hereditary relationship, and ther…

Did the movie really contain genetic claims? I took the sequence at the beginning to be more a criticism of Cleavon's cultural traits. (example: "I thought you was on the pill or some shit!") In fact, most of the movie's humor centered around a downward cultural slide. Kids do pick up their parents memes more readily, after all.

Re: The Revolutionary Birth Control Method for Men

#133

Post by btilly »

bemmu wrote: post #124
ghshephard wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Actually the best current evidence is that acupuncture does bring real pain relief: http://www.umm.edu/news/releases/back_pain.htm

That said, most of its relieving effect is due to the placebo effect, and there is no evidence saying that it can do anything for you other than possibly reduce pain.

Re: The Revolutionary Birth Control Method for Men

#134

Post by palish »

emmett wrote: post #78
ghshephard wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

If chiropracty works, it would be a surprise given the history. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chiropractic_history for more details, but basically it was founded by a complete crackpot and there's no reason to believe it should work. Further, many studies have found weak effects, no effects, and negative effects. When you see this kind of evidential pattern, it almost always means that the effect isn't real and we…

Off topic -- Where is the 'Edit' button on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chiropractic#Evidential_basis ?

The article doesn't say it's locked, but I see no edit button.

I was trying to replace "Opinions differ as to the efficacy of chiropractic treatment" with "Opinions differ as to the ability of chiropractic treatment to produce an effect", because I have a grudge against overly complicated language.

Re: The Revolutionary Birth Control Method for Men

#135

Post by pyre »

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?
They certainly buy us jobs for bureaucrats. Recently the FDA confiscated all of the birthing pools (related to the surge in popularity of water births). Apparently inflatable pools should be classified as 'medical devices.' To quote the FDA, "pregnacy is an illness and birth is a medical procedure."

Re: The Revolutionary Birth Control Method for Men

#136

Post by thasmin »

clistctrl wrote: post #34
thasmin wrote: post #9

A 100% effective, low maintenance, reversible birth control method could have an incredible effect on the future of the species. I'm guessing the benefits of fewer unwanted children will be incredible. The possible downsides include a dangerously low birth rate and forced temporary sterilization, but I think the long term effects will be very positive.

Now if only they can figure out how to do it without surgery.

If this procedure gets popular enough to change humanity, I'm sure it will. Right now, it's being performed by only one doctor in India and he's not accepting help.

Re: The Revolutionary Birth Control Method for Men

#137

Post by jamesaguilar »

palish wrote: post #134
emmett wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If chiropracty works, it would be a surprise given the history. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chiropractic_history for more details, but basically it was founded by a complete crackpot and there's no reason to believe it should work. Further, many studies have found weak effects, no effects, and negative effects. When you see this kind of evidential pattern, it almost always means that the effect isn't real and we…

Off topic -- Where is the 'Edit' button on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chiropractic#Evidential_basis ? The article doesn't say it's locked, but I see no edit button. I was trying to replace "Opinions differ as to the efficacy of chiropractic treatment" with "Opinions differ as to the ability of chiropractic treatment to produce an effect", because I have a grudge against overly complicated language.

What's already there is better. :(

Also, if you look to the top right corner of the page, there's a lock icon that shows the article is semi-protected. You can't edit it without logging in.

Re: The Revolutionary Birth Control Method for Men

#138

Post by thasmin »

ComputerGuru wrote: post #12
thasmin wrote: post #9

A 100% effective, low maintenance, reversible birth control method could have an incredible effect on the future of the species. I'm guessing the benefits of fewer unwanted children will be incredible. The possible downsides include a dangerously low birth rate and forced temporary sterilization, but I think the long term effects will be very positive.

I don't get the part about "forced temporary sterilization." If people want to force you to be sterile, wouldn't they use a different method?

Yes, you're right. This discovery won't change anything in that regard. I was thinking about 1984-like scenarios that are very unlikely.

Re: The Revolutionary Birth Control Method for Men

#139

Post by thaumaturgy »

pohl wrote: post #132
thaumaturgy wrote: post #100

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Idiocracy isn't exactly based on fact. (It's an OK movie though.) For one thing, there's no evidence, that I know of, that supports the claim that only "smart" parents have smart children, or that smart parents don't have dumb children, or that dumb parents don't have smart children, and so on. Although genetics likely plays some role in "natural" intelligence, it's far from a simple hereditary relationship, and ther…

Did the movie really contain genetic claims? I took the sequence at the beginning to be more a criticism of Cleavon's cultural traits. (example: "I thought you was on the pill or some shit!") In fact, most of the movie's humor centered around a downward cultural slide. Kids do pick up their parents memes more readily, after all.

Yes. IIRC, the "opening bit" that camiller was referencing above was about how intelligent people were continually having fewer children while less intelligent people bred as quickly as they could.

(ninja edit: here ya go: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PSROlfR7WTo)

Re: The Revolutionary Birth Control Method for Men

#140

Post by yummyfajitas »

thaumaturgy wrote: post #100
camiller wrote: post #98

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You are making a huge leap from "this is an effective method of birth control" to "people will use this". See the movie Idiocracy. (actually just see the opening bit.)

Idiocracy isn't exactly based on fact. (It's an OK movie though.) For one thing, there's no evidence, that I know of, that supports the claim that only "smart" parents have smart children, or that smart parents don't have dumb children, or that dumb parents don't have smart children, and so on. Although genetics likely plays some role in "natural" intelligence, it's far from a simple hereditary relationship, and ther…

...that supports the claim that only "smart" parents have smart children, or that smart parents don't have dumb children, or that dumb parents don't have smart children, and so on.

That would be a silly claim to make. A more plausible claim, and one which is well supported by the evidence, is that smart parents are considerably more likely to have smart children than dumb parents.

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

Post reply on HN