

The Revolutionary Birth Control Method for Men - spottiness
http://www.wired.com/magazine/2011/04/ff_vasectomy/

======
ComputerGuru
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 simply coats a short section
of the inside of the vas (tiny tube going from testes to the penis, located in
the scrotum) with a positively-charged polymer. As sperm travels in this
coated tube, the ionic attraction causes damage on a cellular level in the
sperm, the pull effect effectively destroying the sperm "tail" and preventing
it from fertilizing a female but without hormonal/medical methods!

For me, as an engineer, this was a true revelation.

~~~
hugh3
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.

~~~
randallsquared
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.

~~~
dmm
All patients die. The job of a specialist is to make sure they die of
something else.

------
haberman
_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—certain data was missing. The
final recommendation: WHO should pass on RISUG._

Is this an example of why health care is so incredibly expensive in this
country?

Do these "modern pharmaceutical manufacturing standards" actually buy us extra
safety?

~~~
Sukotto

      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 through the entire process because the ROI isn't good enough, or the associated side effects are deemed too harsh. (We would likely not have aspirin today if it hadn't been developed prior to the modern way of drug development... it has too many high-risk side effects)

\--

On the plus side:

* The drugs you _do_ get are generally far safer and better understood than they otherwise would be

* You can feel safe that each batch of the drug was made the same way, using the same process, and ends up having the same strength/effectiveness as every other batch of the same drug... even when made by a different company. (We take that for granted now... but it's actually a really big deal if you look at medication from a historical perspective.)

* We have far fewer snake-oil salesmen ripping people off for cures that are, at best, useless and at worst, cause the condition to get worse, or cause birth defects, or some other harm. If we do find the drug doing harm, it gets pulled off the market

~~~
jonprins
"We also have far fewer snake-oil salesmen ripping people off for cures"

Yet we still have chiropractors and homeopathy.

~~~
ghshephard
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?

~~~
emmett
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're just seeing experimental error. See
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chiropractic#Evidential_basis>

That said, the placebo effect for something like chiropracty or massage can be
very strong - and the placebo effect is real! Giving someone a saline shot
creates a stronger effect than giving them a sugar pill; I don't know where
chiropracty exists on that spectrum.

~~~
palish
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.

~~~
pkulak
Why is replacing one word with 4 making it less complicated?

~~~
palish
Because more people will understand the longer version than the shorter one. A
wiki is not a computer program.

~~~
Groxx
<http://simple.wikipedia.org>

------
solarmist
The world has been promising male birth control for decades now and the
techniques (There are several that all work at almost 100% and are fully
reversible) are proven (numerous long term trials, I can think of two from a
decade ago off the top of my head, one in Washington state and one in
Australia, in their final stages, with fewer side-effects, complications and
failures than female birth control) and much more effective than female birth
control (100% in most cases). I've been reading about it actively since I was
15 and now I'm 30 and I'm still reading about how it's 5 years away. I want
this so bad it hurts, but no one is bringing it to market.

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.

~~~
hugh3
_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.

~~~
frossie
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.

~~~
solarmist
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 ones that just throw them
on without making sure they know how to properly use them.

~~~
blipcjbfk
What is "proper" condom use?

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

~~~
esoteriq
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.

~~~
LokiSnake
Deeply invested indeed. Just make sure you've got a clean exit strategy
though!

------
noonespecial
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.

~~~
jgervin
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.

~~~
camiller
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.)

~~~
thaumaturgy
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 there's increasing evidence that
the bulk of natural intelligence is actually the result of environmental
factors during early child development.

~~~
pohl
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.

~~~
thaumaturgy
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>)

~~~
pohl
Ok, but isn't that difference in birthdate orthogonal to whether the
"intelligence" is a result of nature or nurture? (Don't forget that when you
have children you're not just propagating genes, but memes as well. Kids
raised on Jersey Shore will tune in to Ow, My Balls!)

I don't recall the movie taking a stance towards nature. In fact, the moral of
the whole story is to try to solve problems, and the great speech at the end
envisioned a time where people cared whose ass it was and why it was farting.
These are messages about cultural priorities, not genetic limitations.

~~~
thaumaturgy
> _Don't forget that when you have children you're not just propagating genes,
> but memes as well. Kids raised on Jersey Shore will tune in to Ow, My
> Balls!_

...right, which would make it irrelevant whether high-IQ parents are having
kids or not (they can still work as educators, scientists, leaders -- much the
same situation as now), which in turn would make that opening scene of the
movie a non-sequitur.

> _These are messages about cultural priorities, not genetic limitations._

Yes, but they are also the only feasible remaining strategy left given the
resources at hand at the end. IIRC, the lead character was tested as having
the highest recorded IQ in the world, so it's not like his strategy for
solving problems could be "go find high IQ couples and mate them in a high-IQ
zoo".

Maybe I'm wrong. I only watched it once, back at a time when I thought the
world was doomed and the movie was prophetic (so I didn't really pay close
attention). OTOH, a quick search online finds that I'm not the only one that
interpreted it this way, so at the least it was less clear than it could have
been on this point.

~~~
pohl
_(they can still work as educators, scientists, leaders -- much the same
situation as now)_

I don't think working as an educator or leader, in the movie's world, would
make any difference. They would be, after all, attempting to educate or lead
people who equate speaking in grammatical, semantically precise sentences with
"talking like a fag". (see Dr. Lexus, etc.)

As for Scientists, they were consumed with solving the problems of hair loss
and prolonging erections.

------
Aloisius
For those who aren't interested in seeing a picture of a scrotum being
operated on, the technique described is a polymer that is injected into the
vas deferens. As sperm pass the polymer, their membranes and tails are
damaged. The technique can be reversed using a solvent.

~~~
w1ntermute
So that means that once you have the procedure done on you, you don't have to
do anything (no regular medicine) until you want it reversed?

~~~
ComputerGuru
Yes.

~~~
Sukotto
Sign me up!

I have 3 kids and the existing methods available for ensuring we don't have a
4th are, at best, inconvenient. (Condoms are annoying; the pill messes with my
wife's emotions; and either of us getting snipped seems scarily irreversible.)

I'll be keeping an eye open for trials here in the US and on any more news
about this procedure trickling out from India.

hooray for science!

~~~
yahelc
Bizarre to be giving contraceptive advice on HN, but you should really look
into IUDs. They're far less hormonal than the pill, and only require
maintenance every 5 years.

~~~
SwellJoe
Some types of IUD do not use hormones, at all. Copper IUDs actually operate on
the sperm, similarly to the procedure we're discussing.

IUDs, unfortunately, got a bad rap in the 70s, because of a dangerous design
flaw, but they're quite safe now, and in use all over the world because of
their low cost and ease of use (nothing to remember, no pills to take, nothing
to put on).

------
thasmin
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.

~~~
delinka
You are correct. Except for that part of the population that believes
contraception is immoral. Or that rather large part of the population that
can't afford the procedure or choose to remain ignorant of even basic
contraception.

Something like this is certainly more convenient, but ultimately the best
method is education.

~~~
billybob
"Except for that part of the population that believes contraception is
immoral"

If you're thinking of Christians, it isn't necessarily all-or-nothing.
Although I believe the Catholic church disapproves of all contraception,
Protestants typically approve of anything that prevents fertilization. Once
the egg is fertilized, it's considered a human life worthy of protection;
prior to that, the egg and sperm are just cells. So this would be considered
fine.

~~~
gjm11
And quite a lot of Protestants are perfectly happy even with methods that may
result in the loss of some fertilized eggs. And many, many Catholics _use_
contraception, whatever they're theoretically supposed to _think_ about it.

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

~~~
sudont
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.

~~~
netcan
Just reading your comment made me squeamish. Very squeamish.

------
grantbachman
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.

~~~
matwood
_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 that should be a giant,
screaming in your ear red flag to put your clothes back on and run home. I
don't see how this will be any different if a guy tells a girl the same thing.

~~~
hucker
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>

~~~
matwood
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.

------
mkempe
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.

~~~
anonymous246
You comment puzzles me. Hopefully you will reply below.

Are you discounting the value of _reversible_ birth control based upon your
feelings at a certain point in time? Also remember that evolution has probably
programmed children be "amazing" until they can fend for themselves.

Presumably you're comfortably middle-class in a first-world country with a
good social contract (yes, kid-friendly services like subsidized/free public
schools and universities are a safety net). You need to step back and think
about societies which don't have such luxuries.

And sorry to get all personal on you, but do you use _ANY_ scientific form of
birth control? Are you ok with you/your SO getting pregnant every year (unsure
about your gender, hence hedging)? That's usually what happens w/o birth
control. If you do use scientific birth control (so-called "rhythm" method etc
don't count) then your comment is pretty hypocritical.

~~~
mkempe
I started two write a response, twice, but your arbitrary assumptions don't
deserve answers. Your general tone does not indicate a desire for dialogue.

~~~
Meai
Your original post is completely off-topic, or do you actually want everyone
to have as many kids as humanly possible? That would equal 1 kid a year, do
you want everyone to have 1 kid a year, even teenagers, grandmas..everyone?
No? Then stay on topic, which is prevention.

------
rmc
Will this cause an increase in sexually transmitted diseases? If straight men
don't have to wear condoms for pregnancy-avoidance, and straight men & women
don't like to pretend/boast that they've had lots of sex (unlike gay couples),
then the pressure to go bareback (without a condom) increases and there might
be more HIV/AIDS/STIs

~~~
Wickk
>straight men & women don't like to pretend/boast that they've had lots of sex
(unlike gay couples), then the pressure to go bareback (without a condom)
increases and there might be more HIV/AIDS/STIs

If I'm reading this right, you're under the impression that a condom protects
you against the vast majority of STIs, correct?

Yeah no. Condoms are primarily preventative towards towards diseases that are
spread via Semen, vaginal fluids, and skin to skin contact only on the area it
covers. Syphilis, Herpes( which can also be spread via oral sex ), Genital
Warts, and crabs as a loose example ( There's more ) are not prevented by a
condom. Aside from HIV/Aids ( in which case African American women are the
highest rate of infected ) that quip was pointless as was this post.

~~~
rmc
Yes, you're right that STDs can still be spread with condom use, but with
condoms the odds are better.

------
spidaman
Yet another illustration about how broken the health care system is in the US.
Pharmaceutical and medical device companies are disincented to produce cost
effective treatments, it's really an outrage. Medicine in the US is geared
towards costly treatments that are needed on a recurring basis; we're
inundated with marketing and profit driven medicine. IMO, the NIH and FDA
should be promoting a research-rewarded system that promotes cost effective
and potentially society-shifting treatments such as RISUG.

~~~
ph0rque
Yeah, I was thinking this would be a great kickstarter project. "Pledge $100
or more: get this procedure done for no additional cost, once available."

~~~
bakbak
Fantastic Idea - crowd financing at its BEST !!

------
rrrazdan
>“If it’s no longer a crazy Indian idea and it’s something that’s working in
India and in rabbits in Ohio and in the first 20 men in the US,” Lissner says,
“then there’s got to be a point where there’s just no excuse for a Gates or a
Buffett not to get on board.”

The words "crazy Indian idea" hit me as offensive at first. But I guess that's
just the way the world perceives us and its up to us to change that.

------
shawndumas
All On One Page: <http://www.wired.com/magazine/2011/04/ff_vasectomy/all/1>

------
KeyBoardG
There should be a NSFW in the link title.

------
jonsantana
seeing any kind of operation done in that region I come to think a condom is
actually a pretty good idea

------
hippich
Now if only they could invent something revolutionary for treating
infertility...

~~~
r00fus
It's always easier to destroy/disable than it is to create/enable.

Infertility is a complex problem with multiple possible causes.

~~~
hippich
Totally agree. Just wish there was same "easy" way to do opposite.

------
BasDirks
It should warn me "DO NOT CLICK IF YOU DON'T WANT TO SEE HAIRY BALLS"

------
saool
Bonus points for reading the whole article without flinching!

~~~
jjclarkson
If you just lost your appetite for the entire day when you saw the single shot
on that video, you are not alone.

~~~
Vivtek
I am greatly enjoying my chicken with mac and cheese and mashed potatoes,
thank you. (I did flinch, though.)

------
armored
The video is excruciating. Make sure you watch it.

------
newobj
hello NSFW.

------
bakbak
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 VIOLA !!!!! :)

~~~
hugh3
_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.

~~~
saool
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 :)

~~~
hugh3
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.

