A community to post scientific articles, news, and civil discussion.
dart board;; science bs
rule #1: be kind
That's great but I've been seeing articles like this for decades so I'll believe it when there's an actual working product you can actually get
Right? Im scheduled for a vasectomy in a month, this ain’t stopping me.
One of the best moves I made.
After my partner and I had agreed no more kids....it was down to the doc to get the chop. Very easy, keyhole surgery; I feeling 90% by the next day, 100% the following day. 2.5 days of discomfort for years of stress free times.....worth it!
Best $50 I've ever spent. Quick procedure, quick recovery with an excuse to not do anything for a couple days.
50$???? Where do you live? Can I live there?
That shit is copay. Can't even get a cat neutered for $50.
You can also just be brown and walk in front of ICE. They have a history of forced sterilizing
Jesus, you're not making that up. I think that may ruin my night.
Scientists at Cornell University
may be
closing in
Cool. More options for reproductive agency are always welcome.
I just use my personality. Seems simpler.
The new stuff is reversible
We need this just because Republicans would never tell a straight white man what to do with his body...
And any birth control is better than none, for the periods we can't have all methods.
Are the republicans against the draft and the forced labour prison system? Quite a few straight white men there
Summary:
Scientists at Cornell University may be closing in on the long-sought “holy grail” of male contraception: a safe, reversible, nonhormonal method that completely halts sperm production. In a breakthrough mouse study, researchers used a compound called JQ1 to temporarily shut down meiosis—the critical process that produces sperm—without causing lasting harm. After treatment stopped, sperm production bounced back, fertility returned, and the animals produced healthy offspring.
ah so it's one of those articles whose title is missing "in mice"
And I question how viable it is given this:
To achieve this, scientists used JQ1, a small molecule inhibitor originally developed to study cancer and inflammatory diseases. While JQ1 is not suitable as a treatment due to neurological side effects, it is known to interfere with a stage of meiosis called prophase 1. This allowed researchers to demonstrate, for the first time, that targeting meiosis can safely and reversibly shut down sperm production.
It sounds like calling the treatment “safe” might be a bit of a stretch.
While JQ1 is not suitable as a treatment due to neurological side effects, it is known to interfere with a stage of meiosis called prophase 1. This allowed researchers to demonstrate, for the first time, that targeting meiosis can safely and reversibly shut down sperm production.
If developed for human use, this type of male contraceptive could be delivered as an injection given every three months or possibly as a patch to maintain effectiveness, Cohen said.
This kind of news is an annual event at this point.
There was this gel that got injected into the tube connecting the balls to the urethra(vas deferens?). It would destroy the sperms as it went through and you where basically sterile. To reverse they injected you again with something and it would become a liquid and you ended up busting it out in a few ejaculations. It's been stuck in early human trials for a decade.
This is the one my husband has been keeping a close eye on for years. Shame it hasn't moved much recently.
I've giving up and just saving for a vasectomy now. Whatever it costs is still cheaper than a kid
Make sure you do your follow up exams! Don't want a kid-shaped surprise after going through the hoops to get a vasectomy lol
…in mice, after massive, cancer-causing doses, probably.
I'm tired of hearing about this shit. Put it to market or stop talking about it.
Yeah just push it out to public. Just like they did with women's contraceptives.
Awesome! Most other male birth control methods have been left by the wayside because of the adverse side effects. This sounds promising.
Makes me wonder how many side-effects women birth-control had when it was approved for the public.
🙂😐🫣☠️
Oh so many side effects. Issue is that pregnancy is worse than most of those side effects and that disproportionally affects women.
The shit women deal with, I don't see how anyone could look at them and say they're weak. It's beyond me.
It's even better (worse) - women's self-reported pain levels and symptoms are often dismissed and underestimated by doctors and researchers.
So even when reporting on the side-effects on birth control, women are not taken seriously.
Oh dude I know it. In the beginning of my partner and mine's relationship, she was constantly throwing up in the middle of the night. This went on for like 3-4 yrs. The doctors gave us a bunch of bullshit about it. Told her basically it was her fault. Ended up being her birth control.
She had an iud at one time that gave her cysts in her ovaries. I have seen this woman be in so much pain and stuff it down to keep going through the day.
I'll fucking fight you (not you) if you say women are weak to my face.
To achieve this, scientists used JQ1, a small molecule inhibitor originally developed to study cancer and inflammatory diseases. While JQ1 is not suitable as a treatment due to neurological side effects, it is known to interfere with a stage of meiosis called prophase 1.
So the substance isn't a possible treatment for cancer because of neurological side effects... and their next step is "let's sell it to guys who aren't able to use condoms"?
I think the idea is that this particular drug isn't suitable as birth control, but having identified that this mechanism/biological pathway can work for birth control, they can look for a less toxic compound to achieve the same effect.
sounds that way to me. I think the thing like always is the title. its something they noticed and now a track to find something that does a similar type of mechanism without the bad side effects.
again.
Now I'm curious if irreversible methods are considered "birth control." It seems redundant to write "reversible birth control," but maybe I've been using too narrow a definition. I consider IUDs to be birth control, but not vasectomies. The distinction is the level of effort required to reverse.
If completely irreversible, is that not considered sterilization?
Sterilization is a type of birth control. It's just a permanent type.
I would consider getting tubes tied a form of birth control.
I had a vasectomy because I don't want any more children, I think that counts as birth control. Anything that prevents conception is contraceptive in nature.
They've had something similar available for years. It's a small plastic square about the size of a lego brick. You put it in your shoe and it makes you limp