The Los Angeles Times has a story about potential birth control drugs for men. The drugs, cyclosporine A (CsA) and FK506, are currently in use with transplant patients to reduce the possibility of rejection. They act by inhibiting an enzyme, calcineurin, one version of which is found only in sperm. Scientists studied 'knockout mice' that do not produce the proteins necessary for the enzyme, and compared them to regular mice.
The knockout mice still had sex with female mice, but the females didn't become pregnant.
[...] The sperm were unable to fertilize an egg as long as the egg was covered by its usual layer of cumulus cells.
[...] The knockout sperm were able to move at the about same velocity as the regular sperm, the researchers found. However, the knockout sperm were deficient at something called "hyperactivation." This is a particular type of movement that requires the sperm's whip-like tail to beat back and forth with extra force.
[...] They determined that the tails of the knockout sperm moved with the same "beat frequencies" as regular sperm. The problem was that the part of the sperm that connects the head to the tail was too rigid. That made the entire sperm cell too inflexible to move with enough force to penetrate the [membrane that surrounds the egg].
When researchers gave the immunosuppressants to regular mice, they found they had no effect on mature sperm cells, but worked better on developing sperm.
Regular male mice that got either CsA or FK506 for two weeks became infertile, because the middle part of their sperm was rigid. Further tests showed that it took only four days for FK506 to render the mice infertile, and five days for CsA to do the same.
When the mice stopped taking the drugs, their fertility returned after one week.
The research appears in Science.
(Score: 2, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Friday October 02 2015, @07:06PM
I love me some Obamacare, I use it myself and I think it is the best thing the US government has ever done for independent contractors.
But one thing that pisses me off about it is that it mandates 100% coverage for female contraception like IUDs and hormone implants but not for vasectomies.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday October 02 2015, @07:13PM
That's because it all about FEMALE rights. Us poor men already have the world handed to us on a silver platter, so we don't actually need any protections.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by turgid on Friday October 02 2015, @07:32PM
To be fair, men don't get pregnant, don't have to carry a foetus for 9 months, give birth to it and feed it at all times of the day and night for months, usually being unable to work for a living (and therefore support themselves and the new helpless human being) at the same time. And being pregnant puts quite a strain on the body, whether the foetus goes to term or not. I think men really have a good deal here already, hence the historical focus on female contraception.
I refuse to engage in a battle of wits with an unarmed opponent [wikipedia.org].
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Friday October 02 2015, @07:35PM
And yet if a new human is created, there is the possibility of government assistance having to be taken. And men would often have to pay child support. So isn't it in society's best interest to cover vasectomies?
(Score: 2) by turgid on Friday October 02 2015, @07:50PM
It is in society's interest, and vasectomies are available routinely on the NHS where I come from. But in right-wing loony land [theguardian.com]...
I refuse to engage in a battle of wits with an unarmed opponent [wikipedia.org].
(Score: 1) by nitehawk214 on Saturday October 03 2015, @05:27PM
I assumed your link to "right-wing loony land" was gong to be to here. [wikipedia.org]
"Don't you ever miss the days when you used to be nostalgic?" -Loiosh
(Score: 2) by turgid on Saturday October 03 2015, @06:57PM
Indeed. My point is that the Conservative Party are trying their hardest to bring all the bad things about the USA here in the name of their ideology.
I refuse to engage in a battle of wits with an unarmed opponent [wikipedia.org].
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Friday October 02 2015, @07:42PM
Yes, but men also have no legal say as to weather or not the child is carried to term. If the woman does decide to carry to term, then the man gets to pay child care. Most of the time, when the woman is unable to work, they are collecting benefits or collecting money from a man.
Right now, I feel that there is too much power on the woman's side. Let's say you are dating a woman, and she said she is on BC, so you finish inside. It later turns out that she lied to you, and is pregnant. Well fuck, now what? Now you get to pay for the baby that you never wanted in the first place.
A male pill can help balance things a bit.
(Score: 3, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Friday October 02 2015, @07:59PM
Lying about being on the pill sounds like an MRA persecution fantasy to me. I'm sure you can dredge up a handful of extraordinary cases to rationalize the fantasy. But the typical failure rate for the pill is 6% - that means 6 of every 100 women on the pill having regular sex will get pregnant in one year (compare to the condom which has a typical failure rate of about 18%). If you are having sex, you need to be prepared for the consequences.
(Score: 2) by hemocyanin on Saturday October 03 2015, @12:01AM
All those statistics prove the point that vasectomies should be offered.
http://www.vasectomy-information.com/vasectomy-failure-rate/ [vasectomy-information.com]
So if a woman on the pill and a man using a condom who has had vasectomy have sex, those probabilities should multiply (right? my statistics and probability class was 25 years ago, so chunk of salt here): 0.06*0.18*0.025=0.00027, that would result in failure 27 times for every 100k fucks. To this, you have to multiply the probability that the woman is fertile, which can be more complicated than just getting an average number of days per month because fertility can affect arousal, to get the chance of an unwanted pregnancy. However, using 5.5 days per month based on random googling, suggest about 0.183 of the month is a fertile period, so a lower limit of the chance of unwanted pregancy would be about 0.00004941 -- call it 50 chances in 1,000,000, or 1 chance per 20,000 fucks.
(Score: 2) by hemocyanin on Saturday October 03 2015, @12:09AM
oops, it's even better than that. I made that mistake of using 0.025 for 0.025%.
Revised: 0.0000027 failure rate, or 27/10,000,000 f/F (fails/Fuck) resulting in 0.000000494 unwanted children, or 500 kids/billion f/F, or a 1 in 2million chance of having an unwanted kid.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday October 03 2015, @04:15AM
> All those statistics prove the point that vasectomies should be offered.
Yes. I started this thread, I know all that very well. But the red piller decided to go off on a rant about women lying about being on the pill. The point being that lying is a fantasy, accidents still happen a lot.
(Score: 2) by penguinoid on Saturday October 03 2015, @08:03PM
So if a woman on the pill and a man using a condom who has had vasectomy have sex, those probabilities should multiply (right? my statistics and probability class was 25 years ago, so chunk of salt here)
Probabilities only multiply if the variables are independent. However, odds are pretty good that an alcohol-related failure of one birth control method would simultaneously cause a failure in a different birth control method; also it is more likely that people using multiple contraceptives would be likelier to use them correctly and thus enjoy the "when used correctly" statistic for all of them, or perhaps to use them all unreliably because they think their odds are already low enough.
RIP Slashdot. Killed by greedy bastards.
(Score: 3, Funny) by hemocyanin on Sunday October 04 2015, @06:31AM
No matter how drunk you get, you aren't going to un-vascectomize yourself.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday October 03 2015, @09:32AM
Lying about being on the pill sounds like an MRA persecution fantasy to me. I'm sure you can dredge up a handful of extraordinary cases to rationalize the fantasy.
So it's either happening or it's a fantasy. Which one is it?
But the typical failure rate for the pill is 6% - that means 6 of every 100 women on the pill having regular sex will get pregnant in one year
Wrong, pregnancy isn't certain and women aren't ovulating all the time. But more importantly, if a woman has sex by relying only on the pill while and is currently ovulating then she has nobody to blame but herself. You don't get to shift the burden of responsibility. If you've had a reasonable cause to assume your own well being is under threat and didn't take adequate precautions, then it's entirely your own fault when you get hurt. Now get off my lawn and take your pitchfork with you.
If you are having sex, you need to be prepared for the consequences.
I agree. However the legal consequences you presumably advocate for are unreasonable and discriminatory towards men.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday October 03 2015, @03:32PM
If you've had a reasonable cause to assume your own well being is under threat and didn't take adequate precautions, then it's entirely your own fault when you get hurt.
Wow, you red dillers really don't have any self-awareness at all.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by turgid on Friday October 02 2015, @07:59PM
In a country where the foaming-at-the-mouth wig-wearing gun-toting brigade have done everything they possibly can to oppose social medicine, I think it's right to spend the limited resources available on the most urgent and important areas. Women have the most to lose from getting pregnant. That was the point I was trying to make. That is why the focus has been on female contraception. If a man gets a woman pregnant, then for the man it's mainly a financial and emotional problem. For a pregnant woman, it's a major health issue as well as a financial and emotional problem. Women's careers are also disproportionately damaged by pregnancy and child-rearing.
Yes, there are problems for men, and they need to be addressed.
I refuse to engage in a battle of wits with an unarmed opponent [wikipedia.org].
(Score: 2) by morgauxo on Monday October 05 2015, @01:20PM
You are both full of shit. That isn't how it works. Drug companies spend money to research things that make the drug companies money, not things that help equalize some sort of societal gender inbalance.
Drug comanies have spent a ton of money researching birthcontrol pills for both sexes. The problem is they keep finding things that look promising for male birth control in animal trials but when it comes time to try it in humans it doesn't work. They have had better luck with the female end of it. Maybe it's because female birth control is easier. Maybe it's just luck. I don't know. If there is any lack of research in male birth control it's because drug companies have been burnt going down that road too many times.
Anyway.. it's not dick or vagina envy that makes the world go around. It's money. I'm not saying that is a good thing or a bad thing, only that it is how the real world works.
(Score: 1) by turgid on Monday October 05 2015, @06:53PM
You have a wonderful way with words.
I refuse to engage in a battle of wits with an unarmed opponent [wikipedia.org].
(Score: 1) by SanityCheck on Friday October 02 2015, @08:11PM
Hahahaha you take woman at face value (especially one you hardly know). Oh man that's super rich... my sides...
Seriously though, hand in your membership card on the way out.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday October 03 2015, @03:27PM
Hahahaha you take woman at face value (especially one you hardly know). Oh man that's super rich... my sides...
Do keep in mind that for most of the posters here this is all purely theoretical.
(Score: 2) by sjames on Friday October 02 2015, @09:19PM
Of course, none of those things happen if the man had a vasectomy.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday October 02 2015, @09:59PM
And the woman only ever has sex with one man her entire life? Do you live in Saudi Arabia?
(Score: 2) by penguinoid on Saturday October 03 2015, @07:42PM
To be fair, men don't get pregnant, don't have to carry a foetus for 9 months,
No, but after those 9 months the male has to carry it financially for 18 years. And unlike a woman, he can't abort.
RIP Slashdot. Killed by greedy bastards.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday October 03 2015, @07:51PM
That's a different issue.
(Score: 2, Interesting) by Squidious on Friday October 02 2015, @07:31PM
Me too. Obamacare gave me the chance to take my little "evenings and weekends" company full time. Too many pre-existing conditions in between my kids and I to get health care otherwise.
The terrorists have won, game, set, match. They've scared the people into electing authoritarian regimes.
(Score: 2) by bob_super on Friday October 02 2015, @07:59PM
My insurance covered mine long before Obamacare. Compared to the bills they had to pay for the deliveries, they do the math quickly.
They obviously forgot to lower my premiums after I significantly reduced their risk of having to pay up.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday October 02 2015, @08:02PM
They paid for 100% of the vasectomy? No co-pay, no deductible? That's what Obamacare mandates for female contraception.
(Score: 2) by bob_super on Friday October 02 2015, @08:26PM
I had to pay a token amount, but no deductible.
But It's a one-time thing, whereas women's BC is an ongoing expense
(to be paid with their lower salaries, as are pads and tampons)
(Score: 3, Touché) by Snotnose on Friday October 02 2015, @07:23PM
It worked well until DNA testing became available. Take the pill, it changed your blood type.
Relationship status: Available for curbside pickup.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday October 02 2015, @07:26PM
WTF?
(Score: 2) by takyon on Friday October 02 2015, @07:34PM
Name that pill.
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 2, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Friday October 02 2015, @08:37PM
That is actually a wide spread urban myth. The claim has been floating out there that certain immunosupressive drugs can change your blood type. Interestingly enough, the myth has changed over time to the claim that S.L.E. (more commonly known as Lupus), among other diseases, changes your blood type, due to the fact that it is commonly treated with such medications.
(Score: 3, Informative) by Snotnose on Friday October 02 2015, @09:12PM
It was actually a joke from the 70s. I was a teenager in the 70s and I laughed my ass off when I heard it.
Relationship status: Available for curbside pickup.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by jmorris on Friday October 02 2015, @08:16PM
Take a immune system suppression drug or wear a condom? Pretty easy decision guys. Wrap the thing up, besides these days you are going to be putting it where many have gone before so there is plenty of reason to protect yourself other than being destroyed by child support payments.
(Score: 1, Disagree) by Anonymous Coward on Friday October 02 2015, @08:27PM
Failure rate for typical condom use is 18%.
(Score: 2) by turgid on Friday October 02 2015, @09:28PM
Citation needed.
I refuse to engage in a battle of wits with an unarmed opponent [wikipedia.org].
(Score: 3, Informative) by Zinho on Friday October 02 2015, @09:52PM
Is the Center for Disease Control and Prevention [cdc.gov] a good enough reference?
The trick to the 18% number is that it isn't measuring failure rate per use. From the infographic: [cdc.gov]
The percentages indicate the number out of every 100 women who experienced an unintended pregnancy within the first year of typical use of each contraceptive method.
By this standard, the pill has a 9% failure rate and injections have a 6% failure rate - uneven or improperly timed dosages are ineffective. The numbers are inflated by misuse, poor understanding of how to apply them, and forgetfulness (as in, "I intended to use a condom every time I had sex this year, but I forgot a few times").
"Space Exploration is not endless circles in low earth orbit." -Buzz Aldrin
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday October 02 2015, @10:26PM
You say inflated, I say real world.
(Score: 2) by Zinho on Saturday October 03 2015, @03:34PM
You say inflated, I say real world.
You are right, there's a reason the CDC uses this metric. It's the best way to effectively communicate to people planning to use one method or another how likely they are to actually become pregnant with a particular form of birth control. It really is the best way to measure it.
I guess what I meant by "inflated" was that I have trouble thinking of non-use of a planned birth control measure as a form of birth control. Really, this is just me showing my bias against people with poor impulse control. I figure that if someone is committed to not becoming pregnant that they would put more effort into actually implementing the plan they decided on. As you very accurately point out, in the real world people have passions and take actions that don't match their previous decisions.
"Space Exploration is not endless circles in low earth orbit." -Buzz Aldrin
(Score: 2) by Magic Oddball on Saturday October 03 2015, @02:16AM
IIRC the 9% failure rate for the pill is similarly inflated by women not understanding that they have to be taken at the same time every day — the longer the woman waits after the 24-hour point, the less effective the pill is.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday October 03 2015, @03:35PM
> (as in, "I intended to use a condom every time I had sex this year, but I forgot a few times").
More like, "I used a condom, but I forgot to hold it on during withdrawal."
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday October 02 2015, @08:35PM
being destroyed by child support payments.
Poor Brendan Fraser.
JUST
(Score: 3, Informative) by physicsmajor on Friday October 02 2015, @09:41PM
As the abstract clearly states, they are not advocating the use of cyclosporine for contraception. They demonstrate that one of its effects is on a specific sperm motility protein, then show if this protein is knocked out or inactivated no fertility occurs.
On basis of these findings, they postulate this would be a good potential target for investigation, as a specific drug against that particular spermatic protein would likely confer reversible infertility.
You really need to read the whole abstract.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday October 02 2015, @08:20PM
what happened to pulling out? is it not a thing anymore?
(Score: 1, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Friday October 02 2015, @09:09PM
not with your erectile dysfunction
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday October 02 2015, @09:10PM
My cousin swore by this. Of course, he now has 3 kids...
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday October 02 2015, @09:11PM
Search for "creampie". That's one person per video who does not pull out in time. (Honestly, I wish I was still too naive to know that.)
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday October 03 2015, @05:56AM
you still are naive. those videos are done on purpose.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday October 02 2015, @10:11PM
NASA eyeing the delta of Venus for probing, now this.
(Score: 2) by maxwell demon on Friday October 02 2015, @10:17PM
We need the morning-after pill for men! :-)
The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
(Score: 2) by zeigerpuppy on Friday October 02 2015, @11:25PM
The morning after pill is already for men,
The man whose baby you don't want to have!
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday October 03 2015, @10:27AM
Falcon punch!
(Score: 2) by Snotnose on Friday October 02 2015, @10:58PM
Parents!
This seems to have devolved into a joke thread.
Relationship status: Available for curbside pickup.
(Score: 2) by Bot on Friday October 02 2015, @11:33PM
- knock knock
- who's there?
- knock knock knock knock knock knock knock knock....
Account abandoned.