
The Perfect Birth Control for Men Is Here. Why Can't We Use It? (2015) - cribbles
https://motherboard.vice.com/en_us/article/ae3qx8/the-perfect-birth-control-for-men-is-here-why-cant-we-use-it
======
RcouF1uZ4gsC
From

[https://blogs.biomedcentral.com/on-
health/2017/04/05/vasalge...](https://blogs.biomedcentral.com/on-
health/2017/04/05/vasalgel-as-a-promising-new-male-contraceptive-you-asked-we-
answered/)

AB: Are studies being conducted that focus on the reversibility of Vasalgel?
If so, does the data seem promising?

EL: Yes, preclinical studies focused on reversibility are promising, but not
conclusive in larger animals. Preclinical testing of Vasalgel in a rabbit
model resulted in rapid and durable efficacy of the contraceptive. Vasalgel
was then flushed from the vas deferens with a sodium bicarbonate (baking soda)
solution, which restored sperm flow.

However, in larger animals (baboons and dogs), reversing the contraceptive
effect in a similar way has not yet been successful. Research is ongoing to
clarify the issues and optimize the procedure, and additional preclinical
studies will be conducted before testing reversal in humans.

\---

It looks like the reversability is only theoretical as it has failed testing
in larger mammals and has not been tested in humans.

~~~
supreme_sublime
I've been following this for a while, and while I don't remember seeing
anything about them attempting to reverse it in dogs. For the baboons, it
seems that their vas deferens is not quite as strong as rabbits' or
humans'.[0]

Looking into it again, they do mention they were starting trials with dogs,
but I don't see any updates on their website about that specifically.

[0][http://myemail.constantcontact.com/Baboon-study-milestone--
p...](http://myemail.constantcontact.com/Baboon-study-milestone--publication-
in-the-works--timing-update.html?soid=1109766611768&aid=9lig180Jd9E)

------
chrischen
SO I just checked the Parsemus foundation website and this is their first line
describing Vasalgel:

> VasalgelTM is a long-acting, nonhormonal contraceptive with a significant
> advantage over vasectomy: it is likely to be more reversible.

"It is likely to be more" does not sound very reassuring.

~~~
cosmiccartel
In a study on rabbits, all seven were successfully reversed after 14 months.

[https://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2017-04/pf-
sro033117...](https://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2017-04/pf-
sro033117.php)

~~~
joekrill
Not quite as successful in larger mammals, though:

[https://www.parsemus.org/contraceptives/reversal-whats-
statu...](https://www.parsemus.org/contraceptives/reversal-whats-status/)

------
gringoDan
> Vasalgel would cost less than your typical $800 IUD.

> [I]f the average person hits puberty at 13, and doesn't want to have a kid
> until they're in their mid-30s, that's more than 20 years worth of
> contraception from which pharmaceutical companies can profit.

So there's the answer.

Also - why isn't the US govt. helping to fund something like this? It seems
like low-hanging fruit in terms of public health.

~~~
klmr
> why isn't the US govt. helping to fund something like this?

It’s extremely hard to get grant funding for such a project. First of all,
final stage drug development is virtually _never_ done in government-funded
labs: there’s no suitable infrastructure, and such projects are too long-term
and too costly to fit well within the government funding cycle (think about
who would be doing the research: most researchers’ stay at a given employer
are too short).

In addition, the current (but not necessarily recent!) political climate
probably makes this even harder to get funding for. Sexual health is very much
at the side-line already, and funding something that would be politicised as
“supporting promiscuity” might well be political suicide.

~~~
gringoDan
Great explanation for someone who doesn't know much about the drug development
process.

Agreed re: the politics. It's frustrating that what should be a slam-dunk
bipartisan issue - something that likely could: 1) help with family planning &
give a viable option other than hormonal birth control and 2) _lower_ the
number of abortions performed would just be attacked by both sides of the
aisle.

~~~
mrguyorama
Letting people have sex without facing repercussions is seen as a negative by
those of a strong (social) conservative mindset

They don't want to prevent abortions to stop killing babies, they are more
concerned about making sure the new mother suffers the result of sex. Reducing
aid to new mothers and post-birth babies is a pretty good indicator of this

------
cheez
> Perhaps the best reason to be skeptical of RISUG and Vasalgel from a
> scientific standpoint rests on a cultural factor: guys generally don't want
> to talk about their balls with doctors.

Uh... If HN had polls, I bet it would look like this:

Would you be willing to talk to your doctor about getting a safe, reversible
15 minute injection into your testicles to prevent unwanted pregnancies?

    
    
        Yes: ========================== 99%
        No:  0%
        I don't know: 1%

~~~
spacehome
There's probably 2-3% of the population actively trying to conceive at any
given time, and at least another 2-3% for whom sex is but a distant dream.

~~~
cheez
I'd like to have you at my party :)

~~~
spacehome
Shame, 'cause I'm not good at parties ;)

------
nylonstrung
Meanwhile I saw that we are getting trials done on a male birth control pill
that works by lowering your testosterone to castrate levels...

~~~
JustAnotherPat
how else are you going to nuke millions of sperm?

~~~
Eric_WVGG
read the article

------
Pigo
>or giving up full agency over your life and freedom to care for the surprise
child you will be shackled to for the next 18 years?

Has no one else done a write up on this besides Vice that we can read instead?
I guess it's interesting hearing the perspective of someone who is barely old
enough to have sex, but they wouldn't be my go-to source for journalism on the
topic.

------
IshKebab
This sounds like something the NHS (or similar) could fund. $5-10m is not a
lot of money if this actually works - they'd probably save that in reduced
unwanted pregnancies.

------
dullgiulio
Birth control for men will never work. It's just a matter of trust.

To put it in a way that HN users understand quickly: it's client-side input
validation.

(Don't tell me how condom works, you know what I mean.)

~~~
lsaferite
Male birth control is for the man to ensure he is not a father.

Female birth control is for the female to ensure she is not a mother.

Condoms are for both parties to prevent pregnancy _and_ to control STDs.

For a male using BC to not use a condom and 'interface' with a female not
using BC, they would need a level of trust.

Personally, if I were single and wanted to remain a non-parent, I'd use male
BC and a condom in every case. The chances of both forms of BC failing
simultaneously is minuscule.

------
callahanrts
Is it just by chance that this was posted on April 1?

------
gcb0
starts by talking of a method available since 1931, that is fully researched
and ignored. then ignores it and focus on vasagel, making it look like vasagel
is the thing tested since the 30s.

what kind of crappy, misleading writing is this? I used to like vice.

~~~
croon
Either we aren't reading the same article or I'm misunderstanding it.

It starts off with the anecdote of having discovered the key parts of making
the birth control pill possible, 30 years before it became available, as a
preface to the rest of the article:

Where it's been 30+ years since the gel (now marketed as vasalgel) was
invented in India.

I didn't find it misleading at all, but maybe I missed something?

------
bitwize
Because the penis is privileged over the vagina.

------
jjaredsimpson
Every woman I've ever been with has already been on BC, this is the same for
all my guy friends. It's never something I've ever had to consider.

I think the article doesn't bother separating real motivations from stated
motivations.

People want to have sex without consequences. That happens either in committed
relationships or hookups. This gel does nothing for people who just want to
hookup because of the risk of STDs. So you still have to use a condom anyway
so why get the gel injection?

In committed relationships I could see it working. But committed relationships
don't just spring up from nowhere. People who become committed probably
started out doing this thing called dating where they tried to meet and sleep
with people before settling down.

So women will use BC in both phases because it's the path of least resistance.
I could see this working best as an alternative to vasectomy for a couple that
is done having kids. But not as a replacement for condoms or female hormonal
BC.

~~~
chrischen
BC has side-effects, so currently the burden is placed on women. It's the path
of least resistance simply because it is the status quo, but that's no
argument for why it should continue that way.

~~~
falcolas
The burden is largely on women because they suffer the larger (and more
immediate) share of the consequences. How many women who don't want those
consequences would trust a casual hookup who assured them that they are
sterile, to the point where they'll not use their own birth control?

Ideally, both parties will use birth control.

~~~
lsaferite
>Ideally, both parties will use birth control.

This is what many people see to be missing. No method of BC, beyond total
abstinence, is 100% effective. Mixing methods lowers the simultaneous failure
rates to minuscule levels.

