Male birth control study cut short as some participants experience side effects

http://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2016/11/03/500549503/male-birth-control-study-killed-after-men-complain-about-side-effects

by happy-go-lucky • 10 years ago

160 252 10 years ago

npr.org

ThrustVectoring• 10 years ago

A big missing point in this story: acceptance criteria for medicine in general is stricter now than when hormonal birth control for women was approved for use.

cmdrfred• 10 years ago

Also the word complain in the title should be report the whole point of a study is to identify side effects.

positr0n• 10 years ago

I wonder why they didn't mention vaselgel [1]. When I first heard about it a couple years ago it was pitched as an injection of $0.10 of chemicals into the vas deferens that would block sperm from traveling through it. They were hoping it would last 10 years, be reversible with another small injection, and be available in the U.S. in half a decade. A non-profit is funding the research and their goal is for it to be affordable even in developing countries.

[1] https://www.parsemusfoundation.org/projects/vasalgel/vasalge...

nothrabannosir4• 10 years ago

I keep wondering when a reputable source is going to finally cover this and somehow burst the bubble. It sounds too good to be true, yet, somehow, nobody outside their own mailing list seems to acknowledge it. What gives? Is this known quackery? I am weary to get excited, lest I get my dreams crushed yet again :/

L_Rahman• 10 years ago

One theory for why it isn't acknowledged could be that the creators and trial participants are outside of the Western cultural establishment.

The material was discovered and synthesized in India at IIT by a Indian person. The largest clinical trial on Vasalgel - also in India.

Media coverage doesn't happen organically. In almost all cases it is a two way street, with networks and personal contacts creating the bridge. The researchers in India and the cultural epicenters of the Western media establishment are about as distant as two nodes can be. Discovery and contact between the two parties is probably very hard.

On the other hand if they tied it to a pre-dominant narrative in Western media about India - increasing sexual freedoms or a pathway to population management - and worked with the non-profit institutions that connect back to the nodes of cultural influence in the Western world, they would probably get a decent of amount of earned media coverage.

bb611• 10 years ago

It's not, but it's far from proven technology. Additionally, it's the exact opposite of most medical research - fairly inexpensive to develop (a few millions USD total), but also with very little profit upside on the other end.

alanh• 10 years ago

Valerie Tarico has written about it, and she has her head screwed on straight (which I think means she’s reputable)! She's an excellent writer. However, maybe BuzzFeed needs to do a listicle on Vasalgel, or Cosmo needs to put it in SnapChat, before awareness goes mainstream… that's a sobering thought!

carsongross• 10 years ago

If it eventually comes out that this works, the medical establishment and the press in the West have a huge amount of social damage to answer for.

cheiVia0• 10 years ago

Don't worry, they'll just run a story about a guy who used it and his junk fell off.

StanislavPetrov• 10 years ago

I wonder why they didn't mention vaselgel [1]. When I first heard about it a couple years ago it was pitched as an injection of $0.10 of chemicals into the vas deferens that would block sperm from traveling through it.

Because how are pharmaceutical companies going to make billions from selling $0.10 of chemicals?

BobCat2• 10 years ago

By selling it for $10, of course.

gohrt5• 10 years ago

With a patent on a formulation and delivery method. Most patented drugs sell at huge multiples of production cost.

user59944613• 10 years ago

Simple: Add $2 for shipping. Profit from the inflated shipping free.

nylonstrung• 10 years ago

Because how are pharmaceutical companies going to make billions from selling $0.10 of chemicals?

How much do you think the raw inputs for Cialis are?

Gross margins at the aggregate level are around 80% for this stuff. If they are practicing value based costing they could simply just undercut surgical vasectomies slightly- I'm sure every man out there would choose an outpatient injection that is reversible vs a surgical operation.

I'm eagerly awaiting it getting to the market but don't buy that as an explanation

Eric_WVGG• 10 years ago

Bimek is another promising nonhormonal male contraceptive. It is literally an implanted valve controlled by a switch. http://arstechnica.com/science/2016/01/sperm-off-switch-may-...

of course the health industry is bored by non-ingestible medical solutions as they don't conform to subscription pricing

artofcode• 10 years ago

Also important to note that permanent infertility is quite a strong side effect

Eight participants had not recovered to meet the criteria of return to fertility after 52 weeks in recovery phase, the last visit according to the study protocol. These participants were followed on a case by case basis until they regained normal sperm counts (n 5, up to 74 wk of recovery) or declined further follow-up (n 2). One volunteer did not recover within 4 years since his last injections.

http://press.endocrine.org/doi/pdf/10.1210/jc.2016-2141

daodedickinson• 10 years ago

YIKES

It could be something that would have happened anyway... right? I am not an expert :P.

smsm42• 10 years ago

It's almost always a factor in such trials, AFAIK. Since it's live people that have their own lives and bodies, it could be that it happened for unrelated reasons. However, there are standards of risk and I guess "possibly makes males permanently infertile" was not an acceptable risk.

sean_patel• 10 years ago

One volunteer did not recover within 4 years since his last injections.

That's a really STEEP Price to Pay for an "experiment". Anyone know how much the participants were compensated for taking part in the study? No amount of money would make me do something like this. But that's just me.

milkytron• 10 years ago

To answer you question, I do not know what they were compensated. But I suppose if you already had the amount of children you wanted and were considering the ole snip snip, this might have been a considerable option. Maybe it's what they wanted? I do agree though that if this were a young man, I sincerely hope they made some frozen samples before committing to this study.

flukus2• 10 years ago

I assume they would have at least flipped the bill for freezing sperm first.

Retra• 10 years ago

Four years of infertility is probably one of the easier things you should be able to do in life.

gnaritas3• 10 years ago

Sounds better than a vasectomy for men who want that. Good drug, wrong market perhaps.

madaxe_again2• 10 years ago

If this was a side effect their pool was almost certainly vasectomy candidates, and rather than there being compensation, they probably didn't need to pay for their treatment.

at-fates-hands• 10 years ago

As someone who did Phrama testing in college to help pay my way through school, compensation would be determined by how long the study went on, which the article failed to say:

"It was a pretty big study; they gave shots to 320 men every eight weeks, in different countries around the world."

Every eight weeks, but for how long?

In my experience, it would probably be in the neighborhood of a few thousand dollars, but not much more. For the participants, even that much money to take some pills over the course of say a few months would probably be seen as easy money.

But then again, there's those pesky side effects.

FYI: All the drugs I tested were already FDA approved and were not considered in a "trial" phase.

JoeAltmaier• 10 years ago

...if it had anything to do with the study at all. What's the normal rate for infertility to develop in this demographic?

serge2k2• 10 years ago

maybe they just picked guys who already had kids.

If you are considering a vasectomy anyway then it's not nearly the same problem.

CiPHPerCoder3• 10 years ago

Also important to note that permanent infertility is quite a strong side effect

I know many who would see that as a blessing though: License to have as much unprotected sex as they want without the unfortunate side-effect of an unwanted pregnancy. And they get paid for the experiment in the first place too? Win-win, they would argue.

elmin• 10 years ago

Of course they lost the ability to have wanted pregnancy which is a pretty serious loss for some people.

BobCat2• 10 years ago

No babies, just HIV and herpes. Sounds like a deal.

gaur5• 10 years ago

Weird. The one comment suggesting that some participants probably see this as a feature is heavily downvoted, but the comments saying that this is shocking and awful are upvoted. I had no idea HN was so pro-birth.

beedogs• 10 years ago

A vasectomy would've accomplished exactly the same thing with the benefit of being reversible.

So I'm guessing they're not too happy with permanent infertility.

darklajid6• 10 years ago

If you want a near-permanent way to avoid pregnancies there's already a way for that.

The many people you know that would love to be permanently infertile can get what they want in a matter of minutes, in a proven/well-known way.

madaxe_again2• 10 years ago

With that as a side effect, surely an elastic band would be a safer and more tried method. Obviously surgery would be better yet, but what they've come up with is literally worse than what we do to sheep.

falcolas• 10 years ago

You mean letting the testes shrivel up and drop off due to cut off blood flow? And it's not exactly painless.

The shot's side effects sound significantly more humane.

warfangle• 10 years ago

Boo fucking hoo.

If you really want solid male birth control with no side effects, bank your gametes for $50/mo and get your vas deferens snipped.

Female birth control may not cause permanent lack of fertility, but it can cause cancer. Breast cancer. Cervical cancer. Liver cancer.

coryfklein• 10 years ago

it can cause cancer. Breast cancer. Cervical cancer. Liver cancer.

Do you have some idea of the likelihood here? Are we talking a 10% chance of cancer or a 0.001% chance?

The whole "it can have X side effect" is the same argument anti-vaccine people use without respect to any sort of cost benefit risk analysis.

joenot443• 10 years ago

it can cause cancer

So can dental fillings, breast implants, and artificial sweeteners.

Like female birth control though, most people agree that the risk for developing cancer associated with the activity is well worth the benefits. Saying "boo fucking hoo" about someone who can never reproduce again is pretty cold-hearted, in my opinion.

cperciva4• 10 years ago

This headline is horribly editorialized. Can we have it changed to "Male Birth Control Study terminated due to safety concerns"?

Of note, 75% of the trial participants reported that they would have continued with this treatment if it were available, even after being informed that it was being terminated due to safety concerns, and the (male) study participants reported being more satisfied with the treatment than their (female) partners did.

Conversely, the adverse events extremely high rates of changed (mostly increased) libido, mood disorders, and pain (both at the injection site and elsewhere); and out of 320 trial participants there were two attempted suicides (one successful -- which the researchers attributed to academic pressure, but suicides rarely have a just a single cause). If the female birth control pill had the same safety profile, it would be the leading cause of death in 20-45 year old women.

cjbprime2• 10 years ago

If the female birth control pill had the same safety profile, it would be the leading cause of death in 20-45 year old women.

Out of curiosity, is this taking into account that the base rate for male suicide in the US is normally ~3.5x higher than for female suicide? Seems like you'd want to calculate a relative risk delta, rather than comparing the male delta to the female base rate.

nothrabannosir4• 10 years ago

Not leading cause of suicide; leading cause of death. He's saying if this thing killed those two men, that's 1/320, which is (wayyy) more than poison (top 1 currently for 25-34, ~1/10000). You'd need to adjust for how many women actually take the pill; after a cursory glance a conservative estimate seems to be 10%, but please don't quote me on that.

http://www.worldlifeexpectancy.com/usa-cause-of-death-by-age...

cperciva4• 10 years ago

No, I didn't take that into account. You're right that the suicide rate might be inflated in part because men are more prone to suicide to begin with; but even if you adjust for that, you'd be looking at a drug which would be as dangerous as smoking.

cauterized10• 10 years ago

Women are actually more likely to attempt suicide. Men are more likely to succeed because they tend to use more violent methods (e.g. firearms vs pills).

But yes, depression is a common side effect of female hormonal birth control too. Women who start the pill are twice as likely to subsequently start taking antidepressants as those who aren't on the pill.

Hello71• 10 years ago

the original was worse:

Male Birth Control Study Killed After Men Complain About Side Effects

because... a man literally killing himself is complaining.

edit: "original" meaning TFA. the submission title here was a slight improvement, something like "Male Birth Control Study Ended Due To Side Effects"

kefka• 10 years ago

There's your "feminists" for you.

If the pill had any sort of side effects like what these drugs had, they'd be the leading cause of death for women 20-45. But no, it's "weak willed men". meh.

And even after the study was cancelled due to safety, 75% of the men wanted to continue taking it. I guess its worth personal safety and health versus the risk of having a pregnancy with a woman when you don't want one.

cperciva4• 10 years ago

The submission title here was the one you quote above. It got edited a few minutes after my comment, but I don't think it was changed nearly enough.

jbmorgado• 10 years ago

That was the title I saw as well since I had NPR in my news feed. I removed it now. There is just so much of this SJW post realism disregard for facts that I can take just because they decided to push some Alt Left agenda.

It's a pity because some years ago NPR used to be a balanced and excellent source of news.

tomp6• 10 years ago

If the female birth control pill had the same safety profile, it would be the leading cause of death in 20-45 year old women.

How did you calculate this (genuinely curious, I need some explanation for idiots who're misquoting this trial as "men are wimps")?

ezzaf• 10 years ago

If it's based on the one suicide and extrapolating to a death rate of 0.3%, I'd call it a bit of a stretch. Yes that would make it the leading cause of death if it did continue, but given the tiny sample size and single occurence (which may or may not be related), I don't think you can draw any conclusion.

Given that uncertainty concluding the study to work on the drug before trialling it again makes a lot of sense.

cperciva4• 10 years ago

Extrapolating from one death + one failed suicide attempt + a large number of mood disorders. ezzaf is quite right that you shouldn't extrapolate from the one death alone, since that might have simply been a statistical fluke (although even one suicide is outside of the 95% range for this population and duration of study), but it becomes far more statistically powerful when supported by other side effects which are known to strongly correlate with suicides.

bdrool• 10 years ago

People have been playing a lot of political football with this story. I saw a Facebook post making the rounds saying that this cancellation proves once again that women tolerate pain better than men. And these women sharing the story and having a laugh were medical professionals. Yes, really! It's pretty absurd that our society still can't have honest, open, and adult discussions regarding reproduction and sex, even among the supposedly educated.

jessaustin• 10 years ago

Good grief NPR. Does the bizarre interpretation in TFA reflect something institutional? Should we suspect similar editorializing on every report in which men's and women's interests might be somehow be misunderstood to oppose each other?

M_Grey• 10 years ago

NPR... you take the good with the bad. This is some of the bad.

Retric• 10 years ago

Depending on where the demographics you would expect as high as 1 successful suicide per 5,000 men per year. So, randomly having a successful subside in a 320 person study is not that unlikely. Unsuccessful suicides are more common. So, there is not really enough data to suggest a strong link.

Most likely the other side effects where the issue.

Nexxxeh2• 10 years ago

But if the treatment appears to cause severe mood swings in some cases, would that not suggest there's a good chance that it was a factor in the two suicide attempts (one successful)? Or is it counterintuitive?

geebee2• 10 years ago

The problem is, the headline may itself be part of the story. "Male Birth Control Study Killed After Men Complain About Side Effects".

I expected better from NPR. At least Cosmo (which also editorialized the headline), made an effort to report the actual numbers.

Here's the report from cosmo "http://www.cosmopolitan.com/health-fitness/a8038748/male-bir...

(along with the helpful sub-tag, "Welcome to the club, dudes. Also: WOMAN UP.", along with a weepy picture from Dawson's Creek).

Welcome to the club, dudes. Also: WOMAN UP.

"From the study: "Of these 20, 6 men discontinued only for changes in mood and 6 men discontinued for the following single reasons: acne, pain or panic at first injections, palpitations, hypertension, and erectile dysfunction." The other eight men dropped out because of mood changes. "

I can't quite tell from this if it's 6, 8, or 14 men who dropped out due to mood changes. Overall, 20/320 dropped out of the study, 6.25%. I did a bit of research and found that median attrition rate for drug studies is 7%, but median isn't especially helpful since effects can vary.

The percentage who dropped out due to mood changes are (it's hard to tell from this well written article) 6/320, 8/320, or 14/320, so somewhere between 1.8%-4.3%.

This becomes the headline "Men Quit Birth Control Study". That's one of the charitable headlines, honestly. The fact that it morphed into this headline, to me, kind of is the story here.

I do think there's clearly a problem with suicide, especially among men, and I do think this is because, to some extent, men are particularly concerned about appearing weak and failing to get help. So a round of mockery about this is also painful to see.

MustardTiger• 10 years ago

I expected better from NPR

I know this is going to sound snarky, but I really am genuinely asking: why? They have a history of very blatantly pushing their political agenda, most people seem to acknowledge that NPR is pretty left leaning. This doesn't seem out of place for them at all.

StefanKarpinski• 10 years ago

The rates of serious side effects were much higher than any female birth control currently on the market [1]:

Nearly a quarter of participants experienced pain at the injection site, nearly half got acne, more than 20 percent had a mood disorder, 38 percent experienced an increased sexual drive, and 15 percent reported muscle pain. Other, rarer side effects included testicular pain, night sweats, and confusion. One study participant died by suicide, though the researchers determined it wasn’t related to the birth control. Twenty men dropped out of the study because of the side effects.

[1] http://www.vox.com/2016/11/2/13494126/male-birth-control-stu...

cup• 10 years ago

I think thats the point a lot of people miss. Yes, standards are far more stringent today and we take better care of individuals during clinical trials. That doesn't change the fact though the bulk of responsibility for birth control falls on women and the history of birth control is particularly nasty and cruel.

mioelnir• 10 years ago

Personally, I think if there was a birth control option for men that was even remotely in the same ballpark as the pill in terms of effectiveness, reversibility and pre-plannability it would easily equal or surpass the pill's usage rate.

gohrt5• 10 years ago

Birth control responsibility always falls on the partner who really cares about its effectiveness. Trusting your partner is a non-starter, statistically, overall.

deno2• 10 years ago

Men have just as much interest in safe sex, as women do. In fact, one could realistically argue men have more interest in safe sex, because the decision on whether to continue the pregnancy is exclusive to the woman, however men are still legally and financially liable for the outcome.

aangjie2• 10 years ago

That doesn't change the fact though the bulk of responsibility for birth control falls

Under modern paternal support laws, I would say the unfairness of biological burden of pregnancy has evened out. So it should be a non-complaint. Especially, since abortion decision is exclusive to the woman.

tomp6• 10 years ago

Your comment is ambiguous; according to the article you posted, the rate of side effects was much higher than in female contraceptives.

E.g.:

studies with the Mirena IUD the rate of acne is 6.8%." Remember that in the study, nearly half of the men got acne.

ropiku• 10 years ago

Vox has more info on this: http://www.vox.com/2016/11/2/13494126/male-birth-control-stu...

The study was terminated after serious safety concerns. Over half of participants reported adverse effects.

jjcm• 10 years ago

Removing the comment since it was misleading - I was under the impression that testosterone supplements increased aggression, but apparently the study that I linked [1] had some flaws. See crimsonpowder's comment as it has more to date studies on this.

[1] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3693622/

chiefalchemist• 10 years ago

So basically it's a horribly flaw experiment with little practical insight to be drawn from the results, or the lack there of.

rubber_duck• 10 years ago

It's an up front dose of 1000mg of testosterone

I've been reading about steroids and from what I understand different esters have different half life/release. Still every side effect described is usually associated with testosterone.

As for aggression, from what I've seen there is no direct relation in most cases but it can affect some (just like not everyone gets acne or hair loss, etc)

leakybit• 10 years ago

I have a lack of faith in the pharmaceutical industry if this is their best attempt at male birth control. Those side effects aren't from testosterone, they're from massive hormone fluctuations, which with 1000mg of testosterone every 8 weeks your gonna get. There's no ester that will increase the half-life by that much, most people get prescribed testosterone cypionate, which is considered a long ester, and it's half-life is only 8 days.

The 1000mg every 8 weeks is pretty much for marketing and sales, because having to get an injection every 2 months is already a turn off for their consumer base let alone get an injection more frequent than that.

atomical• 10 years ago

"There is evidence that testosterone levels are higher in individuals with aggressive behavior, such as prisoners who have committed violent crimes."[1]

There are a lot of confounding variables when you're looking at a prison population.

I'm still not sure if you're serious with your comment about decreasing women's rights or if this is possibly the greatest troll comment in history.

unclenoriega• 10 years ago

This comment is very misleading. These aren't injections of straight hormones. They are hormone esters that are injected into a muscle, where they are slowly released in the blood stream and slowly metabolized to active hormones so as to maintain a steady level of hormone in the serum over a long period of time.

You compare 0.35 mg norethisterone to 200 mg norethisterone enanthate used in the study. The normal dose for women of norethisterone enanthate injection is 200 mg every 8 weeks. The same is true of the testosterone undecanoate used in the study. One injection is released over weeks, not all at once. You mention hypogonadism. In an early study of testosterone decanoate for hypergonadism, they used (almost) exactly the same dose, 1000 mg every 6-9 weeks.

It does seem like the testosterone may have been too much, based on the side effects listed, but you shouldn't come on HN and start posting diatribes when you aren't sure what you're talking about. And if you were sure, well, that's another problem.

crimsonpowder3• 10 years ago

Since steroids are demonized, I had to make a throwaway account. Testosterone does not increase aggression, even when given in doses far above natural limits. [1] [2]

When I'm not programming, my hobby is bodybuilding. To make it as a bodybuilder, you have to use steroids. With a sample size of ~30 (fellow lifters and me), I can tell you that more testosterone makes you calmer, leaner, and bigger. My stress and anxiety on steroid cycles vanishes and all that's left is confidence, even with powerful steroids like trenbolone.

This study was designed by some of the most incompetent people around. Athletes inject long esters every 3-5 days and these guys were doing a shot every 8 weeks. Athletes take additional drugs to control the conversion of testosterone into estrogen (the hormone behind acne and mood swings). If I had designed this protocol, it would've looked like standard Testosterone Replacement Therapy (TRT) plus an injection of nandrolone decanoate every week (which is great because it heals your joints). Of course, good luck selling bi-weekly injections.

For decades we shouted about reefer madness from the rooftops, arrested millions of people and threw them in jail, and expanded corrupt government agencies because marijuana was "dangerous". It seems like we're learning our lesson on that front and I hope we get our act together when it comes to hormones.

[1] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8855834

[2] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12062320

inimino4• 10 years ago

To make it as a bodybuilder, you have to use steroids.

What does it even mean to "make it" in something you do as a hobby? If you're willing to risk your health to play competitive games, go ahead, but to say you "have to" sounds like you're rationalizing a bit.

chris_7• 10 years ago

To make it as a bodybuilder, you have to use steroids.

Does this not disqualify you? Or is everyone just cheating like in cycling?

Sukotto• 10 years ago

Compare to "RISUG" (Reversible Inhibition of Sperm Under Guidance). Which appears to be completely safe and 100% effective. Requires a single, out-patient procedure (two injections, not counting anesthetic). And is easily-reversible.

Article: https://www.wired.com/2011/04/ff_vasectomy/

Previous HN discussion: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2602785

smoyer2• 10 years ago

My wife was on birth control the first nine years of our marriage (excluding the gaps when our kids were born) and I've been responsible for the birth control for the last twenty years. That seems like a pretty fair distribution of the responsibility to me.

cloudjacker• 10 years ago

yeah but this is for more anonymous sex, not partners that actually talk to each other

wyager2• 10 years ago

It's not about reluctantly assuming responsibility; it's about having sexual autonomy.

gohrt5• 10 years ago

Years is a strange unit of responsibility. What were the methods, how do they compare?

Some methods are ongoing maintenance with side effects, some are permanent with varying short-term side effects.

Gibbon12• 10 years ago

I'm assuming his wife was on hormonal birth control while they were starting their family and once they were done he had a vasectomy.

Someone sane pointed out that the problem isn't the men in the study being wimps. Or that frankly there isn't any good drug target for male hormonal birth control. But that vasectomy rates are much lower than they should be. Because if you want something cheap, extremely safe and reliable, and you don't mind it being permanent, vasectomies are what you want.

nothrabannosir4• 10 years ago

But these are healthy men — they're not going to suffer any risks if they get somebody else pregnant.

I don't believe what I'm reading. Give up your life as you know it or live with the guilt of "not being there", + the social and financial stigma that comes with it?

No risks? You must be joking.

rgbrenner• 10 years ago

I read it as "health risks"... because of the context of the paragraph

nothrabannosir4• 10 years ago

That must be it. You're right. Thankfully :) my mistake.

sundvor2• 10 years ago

So mental health isn't health, then? I beg to differ, so the paragraph still doesn't compute.

inimino4• 10 years ago

What does "but these are healthy men" have to do with it? That paragraph is just poorly worded.

irb2• 10 years ago

Plenty of men aren't there and don't feel guilty about it. And stigma? Only if you live in a very small, close-knit community. For men, unlike women, involvement is a choice. Not an easy choice, but still a choice.

tomp6• 10 years ago

There are still other risks/consequences of pregnancy for men (financial). Women have a choice post-sex, men don't.

tcj_phx2• 10 years ago

I previously posted about taking out my sperm production using 'the old heat methods':

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11934396

That post was 137 days ago was... June 19, 2016. I had verified on about May 15, 2016 that I was azoospermic, and stopped the aggressive heat treatments on that date. I had used a variety of testicle-heating interventions for about 4 months. My sperm were completely gone for 2 months, then slowly started to return.

I intend to get a professional sperm analysis at the six month mark (November 15th), then redo the heat protocol, collecting more data this time... I suppose I need some better slides.

tkp2• 10 years ago

Is there a way to follow your experiments ? What heating method are you using ? Have you developed a technique to evaluate your spermcount yourself ?

would be very interested to discuss more, send a mail if you like hn(a)tokiop(dot)com

tcj_phx2• 10 years ago

Is there a way to follow your experiments ?

not yet... I'll have to figure something out I guess.

Have you developed a technique to evaluate your spermcount yourself ?

there's a new centrifugal sperm count device... ahh, here: https://trakfertility.com/shop/trak-male-fertility-testing-s... (oh my, those 'refills' are expensive...) Thanks for the jogging my memory about that.

This device is new to the market - it launched some time this fall, iirc. I bought a microscope: "yup, no sperm".

I'll send you an email tomorrow.

ioquatix• 10 years ago

But these are healthy men — they're not going to suffer any risks if they get somebody else pregnant.

This assumes that healthy men don't give damn. Which, I don't think is entirely true.

wyager2• 10 years ago

It's also stupid given that men are on the hook for child support in the event of an accidental pregnancy.

steveplace• 10 years ago

They injected test without an AI to control the side effects.

mrlase2• 10 years ago

Context for those who are unaware of what an AI is: AI is an aromatase inhibitor that stops the aromatization of testosterone into estrogen.

Gibbon12• 10 years ago

What bothers me about this far as I understand the drug doing the 'work' has bad side effects when given to men. Not as in some percentage of men, but 100% of the men will have unacceptable side effects.

So they're also adding other drugs to try and compensate for those. And of course that doesn't work very well.

eveningcoffee• 10 years ago

I have been thinking about it lately.

I am not including my judgement, as I do not have any, well, at least not a well reasoned one.

Disclaimer: I am man.

I try to list some of the possible fears related to this kind of drugs. Then it would be possible to discuss these.

1) Loosing control of emotions.

2) Permanent infertility.

3) Impotence (temporal or permanent).

4) Unknown risks.

Now these are simple straightforward issues that possibly could be resolved with additional research.

What will remain are more subtle issues. Nonetheless these could considerably affect the fabric of our society.

For example consider the situation where most women are fertile, most of the men have disabled themselves, some of men have kept themselves fertile.

stomato• 10 years ago

seanwilson• 10 years ago

girvo• 10 years ago

I believe there were two suicide attempts, one successful?

gigatexal• 10 years ago

lol the headline doesn't clickbait hard enough. Some participants became sterile... that's a bit more serious than simply quitting because of some "side effects".

Pxtl2• 10 years ago

Meanwhile social networks are all atwitter with women relentlessly mocking the study because the side-effects sound familiar to women, because the articles vaguely phrase it as "sexual side-effects, emotional changes, cramps" and the like, not "one of the participants comitted suicide and another is infertile".

cauterized10• 10 years ago

And side effects of birth control options for women commonly include severe depression (yanno, the kind that induces suicide) and more rarely complications that can cause permanent infertility (septic infections due to punctured uterus).

Pxtl2• 10 years ago

Yes, but a suicide an infertility in a sample of 300? In a 1-year trial?

It's a matter of degrees.

DRMacIver• 10 years ago

This piece by Dr Jen Gunter provides some better perspective on this study I think: https://drjengunter.wordpress.com/2016/11/01/new-study-doesn...

Short version: The study is interesting but the early termination is largely ethics review working as intended and does not mean that all research into this method is terminated or that the results weren't promising.

known• 10 years ago

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Condom have no side effects

antihero• 10 years ago

Problem solved then!

macey• 10 years ago

Can we agree that birth control of all kinds has a long way to go? Both men & women should have the option to be in control of their reproductive rights. Neither men nor women deserve to experience serious side effects from the exercise of those rights.

Some lucky folks can take hormones with very little effects. I (F) have had very negative experiences with hormonal birth control, I'd be bummed for anyone else to go through it.

teslabox• 10 years ago

Some lucky folks can take hormones with very little effects.

There aren't any actual 'hormones' in birth control. These drugs are supposedly hormone-analogues, but they are only partial replacements for genuine ("bio-identical") hormones.

cauterized10• 10 years ago

The side effects experienced by the men in this study are not to be taken lightly. They're scary and dangerous.

They're also no worse than the side effects (from depression severe enough to cause suicide to life-threatening complications and yes, permanent infertility) that women on various forms of birth control have put up with for the past several decades. And continue to endure.

And even in studies not about birth control, women's medical complaints and concerns about side effects have been shown to be taken less seriously by medical professionals than men's similar concerns.

Your sister, girlfriend, date. That woman you saw on line at Starbucks. They may not all be experiencing those side effects (neither did all the men in the study). But they're all risking a LOT to avoid pregnancy. Today. Right this moment.

Ask yourself why those side effects and risks are OK for them to bear but not for you. Ask where the research is on female birth control without those risks.

I'm not saying this study should necessarily have continued. Just that there's very good reason for the bitterness.

If you want to understand the female perspective on this news, try the below opinion piece:

http://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/us_5818f13fe4b0922c570bd335

hubert1232• 10 years ago

Jesus christ, how about if women dont like it, they can stop taking it? There are plenty of alternatives, none perfect as Im sure you are eager to point out.

cauterized10• 10 years ago

Thank you for your enlightening perspective.

kingad• 10 years ago

Okay, you are advocating for hardcore feminism that would change the society perceptions and make it feasible to alter behaviours.

It will take time to happen but it is worth fighting for it now.

user59944613• 10 years ago

Most women only take birth control when they're in an active relationship.

Men seem to ignore that.

Meegul4• 10 years ago

Last I checked, permanent infertility and a (successful) suicide rate of 1 in 200 are not side effects of female hormonal birth control.

cauterized10• 10 years ago

Female depressives attempt suicide at a higher rate than men. Men achieve suicide at a higher rate than women because they on average use more violent and irreversible means (such as firearms vs pills). The higher success rate doesn't mean the symptoms are worse.

torrent-of-ions• 10 years ago

that women on various forms of birth control have put up with for the past several decades. And continue to endure.

I keep seeing this kind of thing spouted and it's ridiculous. No woman has to take birth control. They do it because they want sex without any risks. If a women gets depression from it then she should stop taking it.

cauterized10• 10 years ago

And you could say the same of men.

geebee2• 10 years ago

These are fair points about the general lack of male birth control availability.

Keep in mind, only 20 of 320 dropped out of this study. That means almost 94% of the participants complete it. The percentage who dropped out due to mood swings appears to be somewhere between 2%-4% (this wasn't entirely clear from the write up, but either way, it's a small percentage). And according to the study, over 75% of the participants said that they would be interested in continuing to take this drug as birth control. Lastly, it sounds like the research study was somewhat successful. This is an initial trial, and it appears to be effective. It probably makes sense to halt the trial at this point, refine, try to increase effectiveness, try to decrease side effects, and try another round.

It's a drug trial. This is a good thing. While I can understand the bitterness you've described, I really don't think this study, or the men who participated in it, are even remotely appropriate targets for it.

To answer your question, "Ask yourself why those side effects and risks are OK for them to bear but not for you"? From what I've read, it sounds like the majority of men who participated in this study absolutely are willing to tolerate the side effects and take those risks!

Lastly, you mentioned those women we see in line at starbucks "are all risking a LOT to avoid pregnancy". I don't mean to take your statement too literally, but do women never quit their birth control due to side effects, or in such low numbers that they are essential zero? Keep in mind, it was only 2-4% of men who quit due to mood swings, and 6.25% overall, and this was for an experimental trial.

I found the media reaction to this study to be pretty cringe worthy. That story I just describe was converted into some variant of "birth control study terminated because men can't handle the side effects".

cauterized10• 10 years ago

In general women endure the side effects because the penalty for not remaining on birth control is higher. And because we're told those symptoms are "normal" and "to be expected". And because we're expected to accept more responsibility for birth control than men are, in general. The guy carries condoms in his wallet, but in a relationship it's the woman's problem.

But yes, women do quit or change methods because they can't stand the symptoms. I quit the pill because of depression, weight gain, and loss of libido. A friend had a non-hormonal IUD removed because it escalated her monthly menstruation to the level of hemorrhage. I know one who avoids the pill because of blood pressure and cancer risks. I know others who simply endure mood swings, weight gain, etc because they don't want to get pregnant and their boyfriends or husbands loathe condoms.

There's a lot to be fixed on both sides. I think some cultural change is in order. I hope we're able to develop a version of male birth control that doesn't have severe side effects. And I wish someone would invest in research into birth control for women that is safer than what we now have too.

Kenji2• 10 years ago

This is nonsense. Many women even benefit from the contraception (I mean, beside the obvious benefit of contraception). I know of women who had horrific pain during that time every month, and with contraceptives, they regained control over their body and the pain during their days subsided (so, they'd take it even if they weren't sexually active). Risks of modern and popular female contraceptives are incredibly low. Besides, nobody forces women to take these contraceptives (which are currently the only ones that work well beside physical contraceptives).

cauterized10• 10 years ago

And nobody would be forcing men to take this.

pc863• 10 years ago

Ask where the research is on female birth control without those risks.

As far as I know scientists and researchers are free to research whatever topics they want. And similarly, there are physical means of birth control for which women do not need to take the pill. It's a choice.

And regarding the permanent infertility effect specifically, I seriously doubt the rate is anywhere approaching 1 in 320 at four years of 1 in 40 (8/320) after one year.

benmw333• 10 years ago

In this day in age of PC, you'd think NPR would pick a less offensive title for this article. It screams feminism.

kzisme• 10 years ago

Seeing this and other stories like this posted on other forms of social media are frustrating since many females were voicing opinions that males are "weak/afraid/not able to deal with" birth control like they can.

There's been a lot of eye rolling on the Internet about these side effects, because women have been experiencing things like mood swings and weight gain for decades with hormonal birth control.

Male birth control study cut short as some participants experience side effects

Related Stories