First hormone-free male birth control pill enters human trials

https://scitechdaily.com/99-effective-first-hormone-free-male-birth-control-pill-enters-human-trials/

by Teever • 1 year ago

229 291 1 year ago

scitechdaily.com

gnabgib• 1 year ago

Paper https://www.nature.com/articles/s43856-025-00752-7 (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43585950)

panny• 1 year ago

I can't wait until this stuff hits the water supply /s

mr90210• 1 year ago

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_Skies3• 1 year ago

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.

genter• 1 year ago

99% effective. So if you have sex once a day, you'll only produce 3 kids a year.

TheCoelacanth2• 1 year ago

Birth control effectiveness is typically reported for one year of use, so 100 years of use would produce 1 pregnancy on average

photochemsyn• 1 year ago

Or, one year of use by 100 men would result in an average of one partner pregnancy per year for this group.

sidewndr462• 1 year ago

So a kid a year? A couple married at 18 would be on the road to a record family size at 1 kid a year

Justin_K• 1 year ago

Female birth control states the same, as nothing is ever 100%

doubled112• 1 year ago

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?

blahaj3• 1 year ago

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.

kibwen• 1 year ago

As someone who's currently producing 365.25 kids a year, I'll take it.

blahaj3• 1 year ago

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

astura3• 1 year ago

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.

SoftTalker3• 1 year ago

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.

scotty792• 1 year ago

How is it measured in mice and non-human primates?

znpy2• 1 year ago

you really have to take that pill as soon as it enters the market (/s)

johnisgood21• 1 year ago

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• 1 year ago

it's been a few decades, but i don't recall sperm in seminal fluids being entirely limited to the grand finale, only mostly.

johnisgood21• 1 year ago

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.

loeg10• 1 year ago

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.

harshreality2• 1 year ago

It's not. I think johnisgood and loeg both know this, but they're being dangerously simplistic in some of their replies.

If you recognize emission — not just when expulsion is imminent — and if you pull out and that's the end of vaginal intercourse until you've cleared the urethra again, then that's probably nearly perfect at preventing pregnancy.

BurningFrog• 1 year ago

If it's never ejaculated, what happens to the fluid?

johnisgood21• 1 year ago

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• 1 year ago

What do you think happens with a vasectomy? It gets reabsorbed.

Mountain_Skies3• 1 year ago

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.

johnisgood21• 1 year ago

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.

giantg214• 1 year ago

We're basically there with VR porn and ever more realistic toys.

AstralStorm3• 1 year ago

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.

johnisgood21• 1 year ago

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.

loeg10• 1 year ago

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__• 1 year ago

Yea similar with tracking ovulation dates. Seems like pretty bad EV for messing with my nervous system.

johnisgood21• 1 year ago

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.

wonderwonder2• 1 year ago

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• 1 year ago

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• 1 year ago

Preventing ejaculation sounds awful.

ignoramous• 1 year ago

As compared to ... unplanned pregnancy?

Obscurity4340• 1 year ago

So its like a dry orgasm pill? How is that not huge, does it affect the refractory period?

hwpythonner• 1 year ago

Do their stats include the guy who forgets to take it every third day, or is that part of the 1%?

Loughla• 1 year ago

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• 1 year ago

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• 1 year ago

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_• 1 year ago

Exactly. I'm confident women worry a lot more about getting pregnant than men worry about getting someone pregnant.

adrianmonk• 1 year ago

That's a solid argument for why a male birth control pill won't substitute for a female birth control pill.

But I don't think it needs to in order to succeed. For women, the stakes are higher. For men, they're still high enough. There's no reason both people can't be on the pill. Yes, it's a bit redundant, but when your goal is safety, redundancy is usually good.

"Trust me, babe, you won't get pregnant because I'm on the (male) pill!" is going to be tough sell in the bedroom. But "guys, control your own fate with a once-daily pill!" will be an easy sell in the inevitable TV ads.

giantg214• 1 year ago

I would agree for casual sex, but I don't think this stays true for committed relationships.

herbst2• 1 year ago

Do you ask woman for proof that they took their pills properly? Do they photo proof it daily to you?

cthalupa4• 1 year ago

I don't want to get someone pregnant. If I can take a pill to largely ensure this is the case, I'm going to take a pill.

Hell, if I'm engaging in casual sex, I'm going to take both the pill and wear a condom. I've had condoms break and not notice it immediately - thankfully never at the point where I've reached climax, but I could see it happening.

patall2• 1 year ago

It's a mouse and NHP (non-human primate) study

askonomm• 1 year ago

I know plenty women who also forget to take it every day.

1024core3• 1 year ago

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• 1 year ago

Why would Cities and Villages in India want a reversible dog contraceptive? They want a cheap, easily deployable, indefinite one.

1024core3• 1 year ago

I'm saying that a dog contraceptive is what those places need. That fact that it's reversible is a downside.

486sx334• 1 year ago

For India the best option is castration and hysterectomy

Retric• 1 year ago

Seems like neutering them would be cheaper and there’s no risk of the dogs missing a drug cycle.

astura3• 1 year ago

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.

1024core3• 1 year ago

Neutering is not possible in villages. You'd be hard pressed to find a vet anywhere nearby.

scotty792• 1 year ago

If it could be mixed into dog food it could be fairly easy to use. You'd just have to feed stray dogs for a decade or two and have the problem mostly solved. With added benefit of stray dogs being less of a nuisance if they are getting a bit domesticated by feeding them regularily.

ecshafer• 1 year ago

Having people go out and give a pill to feral dogs daily or near daily seems like a waste of time. Just go out and shoot them, or capture them and put them down. Its a cheaper and more permanent solution.

treis5• 1 year ago

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.

margalabargala3• 1 year ago

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".

treis5• 1 year ago

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.

SoftTalker3• 1 year ago

Pharma companies would think that is a great reason.

meroes• 1 year ago

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.

johnisgood21• 1 year ago

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.

treis5• 1 year ago

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...

add-sub-mul-div• 1 year ago

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?

treis5• 1 year ago

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.

loeg10• 1 year ago

Supraphysiological doses of testosterone are not considered safe, and frequent (weekly+) intramuscular injections are not convenient.

cstrahan4• 1 year ago

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.

anonym292• 1 year ago

We didn't have this covered with Magic: The Gathering, LARPing, cryptocurrency speculation, and Funko-pop collections already? /s

ohgr• 1 year ago

MtG is not effective. Married an MtG player and had 3 kids.

anonym292• 1 year ago

For best results, I believe you're supposed to combine all of the above. Like condoms, they don't always work perfectly.

sph• 1 year ago

Imagine if you never had played MtG.

DoctorOW• 1 year ago

I'm following your path, my fiancee is obsessed. No crypto speculation thank god

j_timberlake4• 1 year ago

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• 1 year ago

j_timberlake4• 1 year ago

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.

exe34• 1 year ago

he's referring to sperm jacking.

BriggyDwiggs422• 1 year ago

You realize that without the pill it’s drastically easier to baby trap right?

ajsnigrutin• 1 year ago

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• 1 year ago

RARα 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.

patall2• 1 year ago

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 RARα blocker.

cantrecallmypwd• 1 year ago

Wouldn't it be simpler to bank sperm when a man turns, say, 18 rather than take a risk on what an unproven medication might or might not do?

giantg214• 1 year ago

Does this actually stop spermatogenesis, or does it just result in non-viable gamete production?

khazhoux• 1 year ago

Whoever invents a drug to eliminate male refractory period, will make all the money. All of it.

vachina• 1 year ago

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.

MarcelOlsz2• 1 year ago

Offset it with a restrictor plate.

giantg214• 1 year ago

Meh, there are people with low to no refactory period already and they don't seem to have any real issues.

matheusmoreira• 1 year ago

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.

actualwitch• 1 year ago

Men would literally invent and take untested meds instead of using all-natural, granted to them from birth "climax-extra-hard-multiple-times" button in their anus, smh.

throwaway265• 1 year ago

As a man who loves anal stimulation and the climaxes I get from it, and does it rather often, I've never managed to have multiple orgasms that way. I assume this is because I haven't managed to orgasm purely from the prostate stimulation and needed to also stimulate my penis, which causes me to hit the refractory period.

Do you have any tips or links on ways to have the orgasms you describe here?

loeg10• 1 year ago

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 α, β, and γ, are encoded by the Rara, Rarb, and Rarg genes in mice, and Rarα and Rarγ have been validated as contraceptive targets by genetic knockouts resulting in male sterility7,8. Notably, the effects on spermatogenesis in the absence of RARα 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 RARα/RARγ antagonist BMS-189453 (Fig. 1a, b) closely phenocopied the absence of RARα function. Importantly, the resulting male sterility is reversible9,10,11. We, therefore, wished to identify RARα−selective inhibitors for potential male non-hormonal contraception. Our study describes the development of YCT-529, a highly selective RARα 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.

pfdietz2• 1 year ago

This raised concerns in my mind. Retinoids are associated with birth defects, so they'd have to make sure there isn't crossover of the drug to the woman and that it wouldn't cause these problems.

giantg214• 1 year ago

Shouldn't be an issue if the contraception is doing it's job since the retinoids are only a risk while taking them while pregnant. I also doubt semen contain retinoids or any rel level of vitamin A.

mistercheph• 1 year ago

This pill is definitely good for you, with no unmeasured and unexpected side effects!

derektank• 1 year ago

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.

Traubenfuchs2• 1 year ago

This is important, as women coercing men or ignoring their consent regarding pregnancy is not uncommon.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forced_fatherhood

polalavik• 1 year ago

Uhh this is important because the onus and health risks of contraceptives have been entirely shouldered by women. Not because a very low percentage of men have been “coerced” into fatherhood.

There’s lots of comments in this thread on the risks of cancer and this and that risk with male contraceptives. meanwhile, these are already real issues women have to consider when using modern day hormonal contraceptives. The discourse in this thread is so dude-centric tone deaf.

bruce343434• 1 year ago

Not because a very low percentage of men have been “coerced” into fatherhood.

This dismissal is in bad taste and detracts significantly from the rest of your points made.

perching_aix• 1 year ago

Sorry that a thread on male contraception is dude-centric? How is what you bring up a reason for men not to discuss these things?

Traubenfuchs2• 1 year ago

Discussions around pregnancy, childbirthbirth and raising children are very gynocentric and minimising men.

They are disregarding men having to face a disproportionate economic burden paired with lower (often, NO) rights to have a say. For example, even if they desire abortion, women can force men to pay alimony. Another example would be the common paternity testing prohibition, allowing women to plant cuckoo children as they see fit.

Pharmaceutical contraception for men gives then back their reproductive rights.

thecupisblue• 1 year ago

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 RARα 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 RARα 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• 1 year ago

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?

ses19842• 1 year ago

2) but it can still be very traumatic. Miscarriages are traumatic. Getting abortions is traumatic.

edelbitter• 1 year ago

The target group may well be strongly biased towards failures resulting in children born. Using birth control for, well, being in control. And we lack data on how bad messing with RAR regulation really is.. too much confounding effects from how bad deficiency & over-supplementation are on the mother.

codr73• 1 year ago

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.

JumpCrisscross4• 1 year ago

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...

codr73• 1 year ago

They would say so, yes, because profits.

BriggyDwiggs422• 1 year ago

How about we nationalize the drug companies AND shoot blanks

water-data-dude2• 1 year ago

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

Vilian2• 1 year ago

It inhibit the sperm not ejaculation

water-data-dude2• 1 year ago

Whoops, you’re right! I read the article and then some comments that were (I see now) tangentially related. Stuff got jumbled up, and I confidently posted something incorrect.

pftburger• 1 year ago

99% effective? That’s three kids a year.

Tajnymag• 1 year ago

That's not how that statistic work

bitshiftfaced• 1 year ago

I believe when they report this, they're talking about whether there has been an unplanned pregnancy over the course of a year with either typical use or "perfect" use. Someone correct me if I'm wrong.

Voultapher• 1 year ago

There is a hormone-free option for men today https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heat-based_contraception. It's not widely known but has solid science backing it up and even though the wikipedia article claims no long term studies were done, in the 1930s IIRC there was a series of tests done in India and it had men conceive healthy children after a couple of years of using this method. And there have been other long term studies suggesting the same absence of long-term effects if anyone is interested I looked them up a while ago and could go looking for the links.

Ericson2314• 1 year ago

This is really good news...and a total surprise!

Hope this makes my fellow Americans reconsider science funding :/

First hormone-free male birth control pill enters human trials

Related Stories