New contraception w/o hormones,

October 11, 2001 10:11 AM

New contraception w/o hormones, If it's important enough to hit three science cites in one day, than this could be big....
posted by thekorruptor (12 comments total)

this sounds excellent: a simple pill that either men or women could take, cutting out the negative side effects (along with, unfortunately, the positives ones) of birth control and other forms of contraception.
posted by moz at 10:27 AM on October 11, 2001

God I love Western Medicine. There's just no sense of the impossible.
posted by jaek at 10:31 AM on October 11, 2001

"Some women get sick on hormonal treatment. And if it's for men it's even better - anything that makes them take responsibility is good." (my italics)
"That would be wonderful," says Susan Benoff from the New York School of Medicine. But she cautions that such a contraceptive could still be years away, as it¹s very difficult at the moment to design a drug that targets only one type of channel.

"If a drug could be designed to block this channel specifically, it could be taken by men or women. And, it would not have to be taken for a very long period to block fertilization, perhaps only just before or after intercourse."

Those poor little sperms swimming in circles.
Sounds *too* easy to use.
What will the anti-birth control lot make of this?
Answers self - they wont like it.
posted by asok at 10:32 AM on October 11, 2001

My dad was quite high up at a pharmaceutical co. called Syntex (now Roche), and for years they were working on birth control for men. As far as I remember it had something to do with nasal spray. Weird.

But then, it shows how good he was at the whole contraception thing, because I was born barely a year after my sister.
posted by Kafkaesque at 10:46 AM on October 11, 2001

I'm saving up for the snip snip myself.
posted by KirkJobSluder at 11:18 AM on October 11, 2001

Hey kirk, I'm no doctor, but I've got an electric carving knife and some great ideas.

Call me.
posted by Kafkaesque at 11:22 AM on October 11, 2001

I read this on the BBC this morning. Although they discuss how quickly it is effective, is there any indication of how long it lasts? Is there a possibility of becoming permanently sterile? Just wondering, as it may be too early to know.
posted by brism at 11:40 AM on October 11, 2001

It's easy to reason that if calcium can be controlled in the short term ,than it can be controlled in the long term. Which makes any adverse long term effects unlikely.

But, hey, that's just a guess.
posted by thekorruptor at 11:52 AM on October 11, 2001

The biggest drawback for most of the male contraceptives that showed initial promise was the teeny little side-effect of permanent sterility.

If this works, it would be a huge boon.

No more patrimony suits if you're not the father.
posted by Irontom at 11:54 AM on October 11, 2001

And it would not have to be taken for a very long period to block fertilization, perhaps only just before or after intercourse.

You mean I would only have to take it once a year? Awesome!
posted by spilon at 1:57 PM on October 11, 2001

And it would not have to be taken for a very long period to block fertilization, perhaps only just before or after intercourse.

Uh, do you think the "after intercourse" part would work for the male version?
posted by yesster at 2:13 PM on October 11, 2001

When 13 males without the gene were let loose among 26 females, none became pregnant, even after nine months together.

Whoa! Having not read that little detail about the test subjects being mice...
posted by katexmcfly at 10:12 PM on October 11, 2001