Comments on: Comments on 11355

Post number 11355

thekorruptor — Thu, 11 Oct 2001 10:11:32 -0800

New contraception w/o hormones, If it's important enough to hit three science cites in one day, than this could be big....

By: moz

moz — Thu, 11 Oct 2001 10:27:21 -0800

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.

By: jaek

jaek — Thu, 11 Oct 2001 10:31:36 -0800

God I love Western Medicine. There's just no sense of the impossible.

By: asok

asok — Thu, 11 Oct 2001 10:32:26 -0800

"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.

By: Kafkaesque

Kafkaesque — Thu, 11 Oct 2001 10:46:24 -0800

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.

By: KirkJobSluder

KirkJobSluder — Thu, 11 Oct 2001 11:18:14 -0800

I'm saving up for the snip snip myself.

By: Kafkaesque

Kafkaesque — Thu, 11 Oct 2001 11:22:41 -0800

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

By: brism

brism — Thu, 11 Oct 2001 11:40:45 -0800

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.

By: thekorruptor

thekorruptor — Thu, 11 Oct 2001 11:52:08 -0800

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.

By: Irontom

Irontom — Thu, 11 Oct 2001 11:54:52 -0800

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.

By: spilon

spilon — Thu, 11 Oct 2001 13:57:44 -0800

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!

By: yesster

yesster — Thu, 11 Oct 2001 14:13:03 -0800

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?

By: katexmcfly

katexmcfly — Thu, 11 Oct 2001 22:12:02 -0800

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...