[HN Gopher] First hormone-free male birth control pill enters hu...
___________________________________________________________________
First hormone-free male birth control pill enters human trials
Author : Teever
Score : 121 points
Date : 2025-04-20 17:54 UTC (5 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (scitechdaily.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (scitechdaily.com)
| gnabgib wrote:
| Paper https://www.nature.com/articles/s43856-025-00752-7
| (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43585950)
| panny wrote:
| I can't wait until this stuff hits the water supply /s
| mr90210 wrote:
| I got the /s
|
| Europe is struggling with low birth rates. They wouldn't do it
| here, as is right now it's already a calamity.
| Mountain_Skies wrote:
| What would that look like? Women complain it's unfair they
| have to be responsible for birth control in relationships.
| Now there's the ability for men to shoulder the
| responsibility too. Will voters, male and female, be ok with
| not taking the egalitarian path? Obviously governments are
| concerned about falling birthrates but they already have
| shown a willingness to continue policies that get them re-
| elected, even at the expense of birthrates.
| jocaal wrote:
| I hope you replied to the wrong comment, I don't think
| women complaining about paying for birth control is a valid
| reason for sterilizing a population. Also condoms exist.
| Mountain_Skies wrote:
| While there are complaints about cost depending on
| location, most of the complains are about the side
| effects of the pill, which women endure and men don't.
| jocaal wrote:
| Ok, I'll just ignore the rest of the context of this
| thread.
|
| > the side effects of the pill, which women endure and
| men don't.
|
| women are free to choose to not take the pill or take it
| and accept the consequences. Also, there are many
| alternatives to the pill.
|
| Either way, I don't understand what point you are trying
| to make. You are just making random statements and
| ignoring the context of the discussion.
| giantg2 wrote:
| "women are free to choose to not take the pill or take it
| and accept the consequences. Also, there are many
| alternatives to the pill."
|
| Yes, but some people want all the benefits with none of
| the side effects. Of course there is no perfect solution.
| jocaal wrote:
| > Yes, but some people want all the benefits with none of
| the side effects
|
| Life is about making tradeoffs. There is no such thing as
| a free lunch, except while you are still a child.
| JumpCrisscross wrote:
| > _Life is about making tradeoffs_
|
| Progress is about eliminating them. We don't need to
| trade off seafaring against scurvy, for example.
| giantg2 wrote:
| I would highly doubt this pill will eliminate tradeoffs.
| I'm sure the studies will find tradeoffs (side effects)
| just like virtually all medications.
| JumpCrisscross wrote:
| > _would highly doubt this pill will eliminate tradeoffs_
|
| I would, too. But it increases the pool of options, which
| means that for some people it really is a win-win. Get
| the same as you're getting now, but with fewer (or less
| meaningful to you) side effects.
| steele wrote:
| TL;DR: red pill
| genter wrote:
| 99% effective. So if you have sex once a day, you'll only produce
| 3 kids a year.
| TheCoelacanth wrote:
| Birth control effectiveness is typically reported for one year
| of use, so 100 years of use would produce 1 pregnancy on
| average
| photochemsyn wrote:
| Or, one year of use by 100 men would result in an average of
| one partner pregnancy per year for this group.
| Justin_K wrote:
| Female birth control states the same, as nothing is ever 100%
| doubled112 wrote:
| Sometimes life, uhh, finds a way.
|
| But yes, if they said something is 100% effective and it
| wasn't, I would imagine they would be sued into bankruptcy
| pretty fast.
|
| How much would an accidental child cost these days?
| blahaj wrote:
| With the female contraceptive pill 0.3% of women get pregnant
| within a year if taken perfectly (which is rarely the case,
| but the figure here is also from lab conditions). This drug
| leads to 1% pregnancies in 4 weaks, which is much worse.
|
| That said this is still great news especially as the condom
| is also much less safe then the female contraceptive pill.
| SoftTalker wrote:
| Condoms are extremely effective also, if used perfectly,
| which is rarely the case. Statistics should be based on
| real-world experience not theoretical best case.
| blahaj wrote:
| Wikipedia gives a 2% pregnancy rate for condoms within
| one year with perfect use which is much worse than 0.3%.
|
| We only have the numbers for the lab environment with I
| assume perfect use for this new drug, so we can only
| compare perfect use.
| patapong wrote:
| I've always been intrigued by where those 2% come from,
| since condoms are a physical barrier... Teleporting
| sperm?
| Maxatar wrote:
| The statistics show that the 2% comes from
| breakage/slippage, micropores and manufacturing defects:
|
| https://www.contraceptionjournal.org/article/S0010-7824(0
| 4)0...
| loeg wrote:
| It's worth measuring both ideal and real world use, IMO.
| Maxatar wrote:
| The statistics are based on real world experience rather
| than theoretical best case. Not to pick on you but really
| surprised to hear people confidently express so much
| misinformation on this topic when it's not even
| particularly hard to find information on it:
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_birth_control
| _me...
| kibwen wrote:
| As someone who's currently producing 365.25 kids a year, I'll
| take it.
| blahaj wrote:
| > In male mice, the drug caused infertility and was 99%
| effective in preventing pregnancies within four weeks of use.
|
| I don't know if they mean 99% reduction compared to normal or
| 99% of mice did not cause a pregnancy. Either way this does not
| mean that every intercourse has a 1% chance of causing a
| pregnancy. Also you are assuming an unconditional probability.
| It could very well be a conditional probability. It might
| completely work for 99% that do not cause any pregnancies at
| all and not work for 1% that cause pregnancies as without the
| drug.
|
| Anyway I am looking forward to getting the perl index for
| humans from clinical trials.
|
| Edit: fixed wrong wording
| astura wrote:
| That's not how birth control effectiveness is measured. It's
| not measured per act of intercourse.
|
| Birth control effectiveness is measured by calculating the
| number of pregnancies per 100 women using a specific method for
| a full calendar year.
|
| https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/family-plan...
|
| >Effectiveness of methods is measured by the number of
| pregnancies per 100 women using the method per year.
| SoftTalker wrote:
| Is that adjusted for frequency of intercourse? Can't really
| compare a woman who has sex 10 times a year to one who's
| having sex 20 times a month.
| Smithalicious wrote:
| I assume the "per 100 women" part suffices to regress
| towards the mean
| znpy wrote:
| you really have to take that pill as soon as it enters the
| market (/s)
| johnisgood wrote:
| We had alpha-blockers for a long time now, which prevents
| ejaculation but not orgasm; read: it can completely block the
| emission phase of ejaculation, while orgasmic function is
| retained.
|
| Example: Silodosin.
|
| You need to experiment with it. Sensitive clinical trials
| measured rates as high as 90-99%.
|
| It is entirely non-hormonal. It does not affect libido (rarely),
| while hormonal male contraceptives do, and it is reversible upon
| cessation, without any delay, unlike hormonal male
| contraceptives.
| steanne wrote:
| it's been a few decades, but i don't recall sperm in seminal
| fluids being entirely limited to the grand finale, only mostly.
| johnisgood wrote:
| Fair, and it needs clarification to avoid conflating pre-
| ejaculate, seminal plasma, and sperm emission.
|
| It may be confusing, so to clarify: "seminal fluids" is a
| term typically used to refer to the fluid released during
| ejaculation, not throughout the arousal phase. The idea that
| sperm would be in the mix before the emission phase goes
| against standard reproductive physiology.
|
| Sperm are only actively introduced into seminal fluid during
| the emission phase of ejaculation; the so-called "grand
| finale." :D. Before that, in the arousal phase, the fluids
| released (like pre-ejaculate) typically contain no sperm
| unless there's residual contamination from a previous
| ejaculation.
| yard2010 wrote:
| It's funny that residual contamination, in the right
| context, might lead to the world's best magic - life.
| johnisgood wrote:
| I know, especially if you think about it! It is indeed
| "magic", to me, too. :)
|
| (And FWIW, if one might wonder: thankfully this
| aforementioned "residual contamination" poses no health
| risk or birth defects.)
| loeg wrote:
| Sperm is virtually entirely absent from pre-ejaculation
| fluids if you've peed since the last time you ejaculated.
| Almost all of the "sperm can be in pre-ejaculate" effect is
| from having sex a second time in a row without anything
| flushing out the tubes.
| BurningFrog wrote:
| If it's never ejaculated, what happens to the fluid?
| johnisgood wrote:
| The body has several well-regulated mechanisms for handling
| it.
|
| If semen isn't ejaculated, the body reabsorbs the sperm in
| the epididymis and recycles the cellular material. Seminal
| fluids, which are produced during arousal, are either
| reabsorbed or, in cases like retrograde ejaculation (e.g.,
| with alpha-blockers), pass into the bladder and are later
| urinated out. The system self-regulates; there's no harmful
| buildup to worry about. :)
|
| So, TL;DR: You will just urinate it out in our case.
| chneu wrote:
| What do you think happens with a vasectomy? It gets
| reabsorbed.
| aaronbrethorst wrote:
| Vasectomies don't prevent ejaculation. The semen is just
| sperm-free (after a brief period of time).
| Mountain_Skies wrote:
| Take it a step further into 'Demolition Man' territory to get
| the orgasm without any physical contact. Certainly would be
| good for reducing STDs though no doubt would come with a whole
| range of societal impacts.
| johnisgood wrote:
| In all honesty, orgasm without physical contact is entirely
| possible already (mental orgasm / psychological stimulation),
| but it is not common and not easy.
|
| Fantasy, meditation, hypnosis, Kegel exercises... They could
| lead to orgasms and sometimes even ejaculation (which would
| be bad in this case).
|
| Some medications rarely may cause spontaneous orgasms, even,
| without physical contact, arousal or stimulation.
| giantg2 wrote:
| We're basically there with VR porn and ever more realistic
| toys.
| johnisgood wrote:
| Not parent but made a comment to parent, and damn,
| completely forgot about that! You are right.
| AstralStorm wrote:
| Closer to 90%, and generally the side effects are a bit
| annoying too. Circulatory ones. Sometimes even to floppy. (Like
| 1% dosage dependent)
|
| Plus the thing does not stop the drip so you do have to pull
| out sooner rather than later or else. It does _not_ stop sperm
| production.
|
| Also dry ones tend to result. They're sometimes uncomfortable.
|
| Tamsulosin is I believe the modern one but all of them are for
| long term. Probably least side effects.
|
| Otherwise if taken as a single dose fresh, side effects like
| orthostatic hypotension are vastly increased.
| johnisgood wrote:
| Circulatory side effects like dizziness or orthostatic
| hypotension do occur, though they tend to be mild and dose-
| dependent.
|
| You're right that it doesn't stop sperm production, just
| emission. As for "the drip"; that's pre-ejaculate, which
| doesn't contain sperm inherently, but can pick up residual
| sperm in the urethra from a prior ejaculation.
|
| And that's true, anejaculatory orgasms can feel strange or
| less satisfying for some, but it is not universal.
|
| > Otherwise if taken as a single dose fresh, side effects
| like orthostatic hypotension are vastly increased.
|
| That is true.
|
| Edit: I / We will have to research the side-effect profile
| and mechanisms of the mentioned pill (in the submission). I
| have not yet done so. They mention no side-effects but it
| might be too early to tell.
| cstrahan wrote:
| > You're right that it doesn't stop sperm production, just
| emission. As for "the drip"; that's pre-ejaculate, which
| doesn't contain sperm inherently, but can pick up residual
| sperm in the urethra from a prior ejaculation.
|
| I'd like to stress that point a bit.
|
| I had a vasectomy about a year ago, and being the weirdo
| that I am, I figured I'd see how much sperm remained in my
| ejaculate (and for how long) after the procedure.
|
| I waited maybe two or three days after the procedure, and
| then for the next three days, I'd collect three samples per
| day and take a look under my microscope. In the first four
| or five samples, the swimmers were swimming _hard_. Told my
| brother (who had been trying for a kid for a couple years,
| and had observed his own samples trying correlate diet and
| other factors to improved motility) about the straight
| laser beams I was seeing in the scope -- he nearly had a
| fit when I described how long it took them to go from one
| side of the slide to the other under the given
| magnification.
|
| It was the ninth sample when there were very few observable
| sperm, and what remained looked kinda drunk and
| unmotivated.
|
| All of that to say: if you're going to get a vasectomy,
| when your doctor tells you to abstain from condom-
| less/birthcontrol-less sex until you come back for a sperm
| count, take that seriously. It's amazing how motile they
| are even when kinda old, and also amazing how many hang
| around downstream of the vas deferens after many
| ejaculations. And, while rare, sometimes the vas deferens
| do manage to reconnect.
|
| And a bonus tip along these lines: testosterone
| replacement, even without hCG, is not a reliable form of
| birth control. I'm on (and was on) TRT, without hCG, and
| the concentration of sperm under the scope looked higher
| than any YouTube video I could find at the same
| magnification (meanwhile my bro is taking silly amounts of
| hCG and struggling). I hear a lot of people joke about TRT
| having the beneficial side effect of infertility, but
| that's far from a certainty.
| johnisgood wrote:
| Thank you for sharing this!
| alabastervlog wrote:
| Relatedly, this is also why the "failure" rate for
| vasectomy isn't vanishingly close to 0%: it's almost all
| dudes having unprotected sex in the first month or so
| after the procedure.
|
| Spontaneous reconnection happens but is extremely rare.
| If you can follow the doctor's orders for a few weeks,
| vasectomy's failure rate may as well be 0%.
| johnisgood wrote:
| > Both mice and non-human primates fully regained fertility
| after stopping the drug. Mice regained fertility within six
| weeks, and non-human primates fully recovered their sperm
| count in 10-15 weeks.
|
| Hard pass on messing with my fertility like that, too, TBH.
| loeg wrote:
| > clinical trials measured rates as high as 90-99%.
|
| This is in the same range as, like, pulling out, for what it's
| worth.
| __turbobrew__ wrote:
| Yea similar with tracking ovulation dates. Seems like pretty
| bad EV for messing with my nervous system.
| johnisgood wrote:
| The similarity is not the same.
|
| If no semen is emitted, the chance of pregnancy is null (more
| about it in my other comments).
|
| Plus 90-99% suppression of ejaculation has been recorded and
| suggested that it has a potentially high contraceptive
| efficacy, so that is way better than withdrawal.
|
| Experiment, maybe it affects you in a way that you get 99%,
| which would make it a very efficient hormone-free male birth
| control pill.
|
| Side-note: personally I prefer IUDs, and/or a medication that
| has been extensively studied, so this pill can wait.
| loeg wrote:
| The "as typically used" quoted figure for pulling out
| ("withdrawal") is 80% success, but the ideal use figure is
| 96-98%. If you know a little bit about yourself and also
| aren't going back to back without peeing, you can do a lot
| better than the 80% figure. (Also yeah, it's amusing that
| both of these figures are more or less identical to male
| condoms.)
|
| (Meta-comment: probably best to keep everything in
| "success" percentage figures for direct comparison, instead
| of switching to failure percentages for some figures.)
| johnisgood wrote:
| I edited my comment.
| wonderwonder wrote:
| I have always been amazed at how effective the pull out
| method was. I had sex for years with my wife and always
| pulled out. 2x a week for probably 10 years. After we decided
| to have a kid, she was pregnant in a month.
|
| Really incredible how effective such a simple solution is
| throwaway743 wrote:
| Retrograde ejaculation is a weird thing to experience. It's the
| physical manifestation of the sound of a slide whistle both
| ways.
|
| Alpha blockers also give one hell of a stuffy nose. Worst sleep
| ever after taking one.
| locusofself wrote:
| Preventing ejaculation sounds awful.
| ignoramous wrote:
| As compared to ... unplanned pregnancy?
| Vilian wrote:
| Not having sex is a great birth control yes, but birth
| control is for sex to be safe not to remove it entirety
| qwuenebj wrote:
| Birth control is unreliable, we need universal access to
| abortion! It is basic human right!
| anonym29 wrote:
| Male abortion rights? As in the man should be allowed to abort
| a fetus developing from an egg that was unambiguously
| fertilized by him?
|
| Or am I misunderstanding what you're proposing with
| "universal"?
| BriggyDwiggs42 wrote:
| In a better world it would be sensible to allow the guy to
| split without child support and so on if he didn't want the
| child, but in the real world that would end up hurting a lot
| of people and birthing lots of kids into poverty. Whether you
| think that's worth it is up to you.
|
| Abortion as a right is thinking of abortion as a medical
| procedure that people have the right to access. Universal
| access, but men don't tend to utilize it.
|
| It really is an important thing to be able to manage
| pregnancy. Pregnancy is exceptionally brutal on the body and
| causes innumerable permanent changes. I think it makes sense
| as an emergency fallback when other preventative methods
| fail.
| ajsnigrutin wrote:
| Considering we allow women to have abortions for arbitrary
| reasons, which include financial and any other non-medical,
| a paper abortion for men would make things a lot more
| equal.
| JackSlateur wrote:
| You are free to sterilize yourself. No need to harm other, just
| stand up for your believes.
| BriggyDwiggs42 wrote:
| Half of abortions take place before 6 weeks when the fetus
| basically doesn't have a brain. There really isn't another
| there to be harmed man.
| hwpythonner wrote:
| Do their stats include the guy who forgets to take it every third
| day, or is that part of the 1%?
| Loughla wrote:
| Like Richard Hammond said, if I was a woman, I'd be pregnant a
| lot.
|
| I'm terrible at remembering to take pills. Maybe it's because
| they're pretty low stakes?
| NegativeK wrote:
| It's not hard to set up nearly fault proof routines and
| reminders.
|
| For example, I have a pill container for the days of the
| week. Pills go directly into my pocket and don't come out
| unless they're going in my mouth (almost always during
| breakfast.) The pocket to mouth routine makes sure I don't
| set them down somewhere and the pill box gives proof later
| that I took them.
| badgersnake wrote:
| This is why it won't succeed. The person getting pregnant is
| going to want some proof that the contraception is being used
| properly. And that means something that they can see or
| something that they do themselves.
| Cthulhu_ wrote:
| Exactly. I'm confident women worry a lot more about getting
| pregnant than men worry about getting someone pregnant.
| crazygringo wrote:
| You don't think men worry about having a kid with someone
| they don't want to, being responsible for 18 years of child
| support, making hard decisions about whether they want to
| be involved in the kid's life, etc.?
|
| Men are terrified of getting someone pregnant. At least
| women have a choice as to what to do about it. If they
| don't want to keep it, they don't, assuming the law permits
| it or the law is easy to get around. Men don't _ever_ have
| that choice.
| patall wrote:
| It's a mouse and NHP (non-human primate) study
| askonomm wrote:
| I know plenty women who also forget to take it every day.
| neuroelectron wrote:
| Coming to a tap water near you.
| 1024core wrote:
| > Both mice and non-human primates fully regained fertility after
| stopping the drug. Mice regained fertility within six weeks, and
| non-human primates fully recovered their sperm count in 10-15
| weeks.
|
| Great recurring source of revenue for the drug company!
|
| Though I'm more interested in feral animals like dogs. It looks
| like this drug may work on dogs too? If so, it would be a huge
| boon for cities and villages in India.
| Someone1234 wrote:
| Why would Cities and Villages in India want a reversible dog
| contraceptive? They want a cheap, easily deployable, indefinite
| one.
| 1024core wrote:
| I'm saying that a dog contraceptive is what those places
| need. That fact that it's reversible is a downside.
| Retric wrote:
| Seems like neutering them would be cheaper and there's no risk
| of the dogs missing a drug cycle.
| astura wrote:
| Wtf? This is ridiculous. Who the fuck is going to be giving
| feral dogs a pill everyday? And why would you want a reversible
| contraceptive for feral dogs? You want a one-and-done
| irreversible one, which neutering is.
| 1024core wrote:
| Neutering is not possible in villages. You'd be hard pressed
| to find a vet anywhere nearby.
| treis wrote:
| This is one of the annoying things about life. Testosterone
| effectively already does this and is quite safe. It's just that
| society is not comfortable with men taking steroids for no
| particularly good reason.
| margalabargala wrote:
| > is quite safe
|
| Taking outside sources of testosterone permanently alters your
| body's ability to make testosterone naturally, to the extent
| that many people who previously took steroids find they have be
| on testosterone therapy for _the rest of their lives_.
|
| I wouldn't call "creating a lifelong requirement to take
| artificial hormones in order to function at your previous
| baseline" qualifying as "no particularly good reason".
| treis wrote:
| Most people who go on Testosterone can go off it just fine.
| Here's a random study:
|
| >Ever since that study, testosterone has undergone extensive
| clinical trials as a hormonal method of male contraception
| and many have found testosterone to be efficacious,
| reversible and safe with minimal short-term side effects
|
| https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6305868/
|
| It's not super reliable but it's also easily testable if it's
| working or not.
| AstralStorm wrote:
| It also causes temporary shrinkage in the high overdose
| needed for any reliability, as opposed to normal dosage.
| margalabargala wrote:
| To be clear, the snippet you quoted is your study
| summarizing the claims of other studies which are among the
| cohort analyzed.
|
| Let's quote the short, succinct conclusion of the study you
| picked:
|
| > Testosterone therapy is a contraceptive, albeit a poor
| one. Men of reproductive age with low testosterone should
| be counseled on the adverse effects of TRT on fertility.
| Obtaining a semen analysis and possible cryopreservation of
| sperm should be offered if TRT is prescribed to men
| interested in preserving fertility. Options such as
| clomiphene citrate and hCG along with a referral to a
| reproductive urologist should be considered to naturally
| increase testosterone levels in those men with low
| testosterone who want to avoid TRT.
|
| Whether a contraceptive that is sufficiently irreversible
| that men using it are advised to freeze sperm if they ever
| want kids should be considered "reversible" is left as an
| exercise to the reader.
| treis wrote:
| You're misunderstanding what they're saying here. They
| are saying TRT will have an impact on fertility while
| they are on TRT. The prospects for when they go off TRT
| are fine:
|
| >If a patient currently desires fertility, TRT should be
| avoided or discontinued immediately. A semen analyses
| should be performed if the patient has discontinued TRT.
| Azoospermia or severe oligospermia may be seen in these
| patients, but most men should return to baseline semen
| analyses in 6 to 9 months after cessation of TRT
| [13,14,15]. A 2006 integrated analysis showed that 90% of
| patients were expected to return to baseline sperm
| concentration values 12 months after cessation of
| treatment and 100% after 24 months [50].
| SoftTalker wrote:
| Pharma companies would think that is a _great_ reason.
| meroes wrote:
| According to Sapolsky, testosterone amplifies current
| behaviors. If you're already aggressive, you become more. If
| you're already X, it amplifies. Just because it's safe doesn't
| mean people want to be in affected states permanently.
| johnisgood wrote:
| I agree, and not even just that, it is associated with hair
| loss, among many other things. In fact, psychiatric
| medications are less effective (sometimes completely) if your
| T is high.
| treis wrote:
| Roid rage is probably a myth. The causation likely goes the
| other way. Meaning aggressive people are more likely to use
| steroids than steroids are causing them to be aggressive:
|
| https://www.discovermagazine.com/health/the-myth-of-roid-
| rag...
| cstrahan wrote:
| While I disagree with your claim that steroids are a viable
| form of birth control, I do agree a bit with this, though
| not for the stated reason.
|
| What many people don't realize (probably in large part
| because they see testosterone and estrogen as diametrically
| opposed things) is that testosterone levels impacts
| estrogen levels. Why? Because the body produces estrogen
| through the aromitization of testosterone. Increasing
| testosterone will increase estrogen.
|
| A common struggle for those on TRT (both those at true
| replacement levels, as well as those taking
| supraphysiological doses) is elevated estrogen. I know that
| when my estrogen levels have gone too high, I become more
| neurotic than I usually am.
|
| If you couple increased neuroticism with an elevated sense
| of dominance (especially at bodybuilding doses), and top
| that off with a general lack of poor management of one's
| emotions (which I suspect is common amongst bodybuilders),
| what you likely get is a very volatile person. Not because
| of testosterone, but because of the elevated estrogen and
| their existing psychological issues.
| add-sub-mul-div wrote:
| https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6305868/
|
| "Testosterone as a contraceptive can suppress spermatogenesis
| and lead to azoospermia in 65% of normospermic men within 4
| months of use"
|
| Does this sound like a convenient and effective contraceptive?
| Where are you really coming from with this statement?
| treis wrote:
| This is what I mean. Why is everyone so weird about it? It's
| hormonal birth control for men. Even if it works for only 65%
| of them it's better than nothing since it can be tested to
| see if it's working easily.
| loeg wrote:
| Supraphysiological doses of testosterone are not considered
| safe, and frequent (weekly+) intramuscular injections are not
| convenient.
| cstrahan wrote:
| Woah, now. You are dangerously mistaken here.
|
| As I wrote over in:
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43746406
|
| I'm on TRT, without hCG. I went and had a vasectomy a year ago.
| Because I'm weird and infinitely curious, two or three days
| after the procedure, I took three samples per day, and looked
| at each under the microscope. What I saw put to shame just
| about any video I could find online of a "good" sperm sample.
| Straight laser beams, zipping from one side of the slide to the
| other. If you were to scale Micheal Phelps down to these
| swimmers, he'd stand no chance. And the concentration was
| ridiculous, too. And this all 2-5 day old (at least) sperm!
|
| TRT is not a reliable form of birth control.
| anonym29 wrote:
| We didn't have this covered with Magic: The Gathering, LARPing,
| cryptocurrency speculation, and Funko-pop collections already? /s
| ohgr wrote:
| MtG is not effective. Married an MtG player and had 3 kids.
| anonym29 wrote:
| For best results, I believe you're supposed to combine all of
| the above. Like condoms, they don't always work perfectly.
| sph wrote:
| Imagine if you never had played MtG.
| DoctorOW wrote:
| I'm following your path, my fiancee is obsessed. No crypto
| speculation thank god
| j_timberlake wrote:
| I'm sure it's illegal for a woman to secretly swap out her
| boyfriend's medicine for a placebo, but good luck proving it
| happened in court.
| newcool1230 wrote:
| ?
| j_timberlake wrote:
| Women could baby-trap their boyfriend into marriage by
| swapping out his pills for placebo, then blame the pregnancy
| on the pills not working.
|
| Most women would never do this, but a few definitely would.
| AstralStorm wrote:
| It's way easier to do that for her own pills. You still
| want the condom to be more certain...
| znpy wrote:
| You'd likely want condoms anyway, unless you are in a
| stable long-term relationship with somebody highly
| trustworthy.
|
| birth-control pills (male or female) are powerless
| against sexually-transmissible diseases.
| a_t48 wrote:
| And men with a pregnancy fetish can do the same. What's
| your point?
| j_timberlake wrote:
| Not every discussion is about making a point.
| rTX5CMRXIfFG wrote:
| So why are you making it a gender politics issue if it
| isn't even a common enough behavior among women
| j_timberlake wrote:
| You guys are reading from my comment some sort of
| aggressive anti-pill stance that isn't there. I'm just
| predicting something that will happen, because predicting
| the future and seeing if reality later plays out that way
| is fun.
| exe34 wrote:
| he's referring to sperm jacking.
| BriggyDwiggs42 wrote:
| You realize that without the pill it's drastically easier to
| baby trap right?
| ajsnigrutin wrote:
| This would make it a lot harder... they can already do that
| with their own pills, after this, they would have to find an
| exact match for the men's pills and somehow replace them
| without the guy noticing, which would be realatively harder.
| w10-1 wrote:
| RARa pathway operates in cell development eg of blood cells and
| in apoptosis, implicated in some cancers.
|
| Long-term safety seems doubtful. Offspring could be affected. In
| a rational world there would be no volunteers for the trials.
| patall wrote:
| Could also positively affect offspring if spermatogenesis is
| blocked at the right step, stopping the gamete progenitors from
| accumulating somatic mutation. The majority of rare genetic
| diseases arising from de-novo mutations has its origin in the
| fathers gamete formation (with increasing risk (i.e
| accumulation of mutations) at older paternal age). Maybe this
| could block/slow down this process (i.e cell division) and in
| 20 years all males that still may want to have kids will take a
| RARa blocker.
| khazhoux wrote:
| Whoever invents a drug to eliminate male refractory period, will
| make all the money. _All of it_.
| vachina wrote:
| This is like removing the rev limiter on your engine. Your
| engine can now go beyond redline, but not for long because it
| melted itself.
| MarcelOlsz wrote:
| Offset it with a restrictor plate.
| m000 wrote:
| restrictor + microtransactions -> profit!
|
| "Insert coin to continue"
| giantg2 wrote:
| Meh, there are people with low to no refactory period already
| and they don't seem to have any real issues.
| matheusmoreira wrote:
| Cabergoline. Lowers prolactin which peaks after ejaculation.
| Can reduce or eliminate the refractory period. Problem is there
| is risk of significant cardiovascular side effects, including
| valvular disease. And they appear to be cumulative: the more
| pills you take, the higher the risk.
| loeg wrote:
| I was curious about the mechanism.
|
| https://www.nature.com/articles/s43856-025-00752-7
|
| > YCT-529 works by interfering with vitamin A signaling necessary
| for sperm production and fertility.
|
| > The importance of dietary vitamin A and retinoid signaling for
| male germ cell development and differentiation has been
| recognized for many years6. All trans-retinoic acid (Fig. 1a) is
| an active metabolite of vitamin A that exerts its function, at
| least partly, by binding to retinoic acid receptors (RARs). The
| RARs a, b, and g, are encoded by the Rara, Rarb, and Rarg genes
| in mice, and Rara and Rarg have been validated as contraceptive
| targets by genetic knockouts resulting in male sterility7,8.
| Notably, the effects on spermatogenesis in the absence of RARa
| most resemble the loss of RAR signaling in vitamin A deficiency,
| and the mice are otherwise normal7,8. Further, the effects on
| spermatogenesis in animals treated orally with the dual RARa/RARg
| antagonist BMS-189453 (Fig. 1a, b) closely phenocopied the
| absence of RARa function. Importantly, the resulting male
| sterility is reversible9,10,11. We, therefore, wished to identify
| RARa-selective inhibitors for potential male non-hormonal
| contraception. Our study describes the development of YCT-529, a
| highly selective RARa antagonist that reduces sperm counts in
| mice and non-human primates. Mating studies with male mice
| treated with 10 mg/kg/day for 4 weeks show that YCT-529 is 99%
| effective in preventing pregnancies and that the mice fully
| regain fertility after drug cessation.
| mistercheph wrote:
| This pill is definitely good for you, with no unmeasured and
| unexpected side effects!
| derektank wrote:
| What is the purpose of this comment? This is reporting on a
| phase 1 trial, which is when side effects and potential
| toxicity are evaluated. Of course there are no known side
| effects yet, that's what the trial exists to identify.
| Traubenfuchs wrote:
| This is important, as women coercing men or ignoring their
| consent regarding pregnancy is not uncommon.
|
| https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forced_fatherhood
| thecupisblue wrote:
| First off, this thread seems to bring out the most "reddit-like"
| posts on HN. If you've come here to shoot a funny one-liner
| comment, please reconsider - the point is discussion, not karma
| farming.
|
| Now, on the topic itself - I really wonder about the safety
| profile of these. While this selectively inhibits only RARa and
| is thus "biased" towards mostly acting on testes, it could also
| have side-effects - and while the effect might not be pronounced
| yet, with long term use it definitely could be, especially if all
| the RARa receptors get inhibited (will beta and gamma pick up the
| slack? what is it going to cause?).
|
| Considering the 99% effectiveness claim and the method of action,
| I wonder if the embryos in that 1% case can even survive.
| flawn wrote:
| 1) Long-term effects are surely a topic but as with female
| birth control and the risks connected to it, as well as female-
| male couples where the female has an incompatibility with birth
| control, the male partners might take the risk of using it
|
| 2) Does it matter if the embryo will survive even in the 1%
| case? Somebody who uses birth control would not want a child
| anyway, right?
| ses1984 wrote:
| 2) but it can still be very traumatic. Miscarriages are
| traumatic. Getting abortions is traumatic.
| codr7 wrote:
| From big pharma, yes.
|
| But their so called "solutions" seem to become ever more
| destructive long term.
|
| Neem is a natural alternative that has been used for a long time.
| JumpCrisscross wrote:
| > _Neem is a natural alternative that has been used for a long
| time_
|
| It is [1]. But it also trashes your liver if used chronically
| [2].
|
| [1] https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34092456/
|
| [2]
| https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018JPhCS1025a2043J/abstra...
| BriggyDwiggs42 wrote:
| How about we nationalize the drug companies AND shoot blanks
| water-data-dude wrote:
| One concern I might have is that I've heard (and Wikipedia
| confirms, though with caveats[1]) that ejaculation can help avoid
| prostate cancer.
|
| "These [studies] suggest that frequent ejaculation after puberty
| offers some reduction of the risk of prostate cancer."
|
| I think we need more/bigger studies to get a handle on how big
| the effect is though.
|
| [1] NSFW warning - this is a Wikipedia article with a picture of
| a guy ejaculating riiiiight at the top:
| https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ejaculation#Health_issues
| Vilian wrote:
| It inhibit the sperm not ejaculation
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2025-04-20 23:00 UTC)