Vasalgel ( Male birth Control)

Donvolga92

It looks like this will be on the market soon. Would you adk your partner to use this? It removes to the need for women to mess with their hormones.

meeeeh

Maybe with my current partner because I consider him for life and trust him but otherwise not in a million years. If woman messes up contraception she gets pregnant, if man messes up contraception a woman still gets pregnant.

sullivlo

Define soon... This site suggests that trials will only begin in 2016: https://www.parsemusfoundation.org/projects/vasalgel/

It appears to be a non-surgical vasectomy. I'd need to see the full statistics - in rabbits it lasted more than a year but is that the case in humans? Also it's a gel that is impenetratable by sperm, but how frequently is it tested? If a guy ejaculates three times a day for a year is that going to break down the barrier or degrade the gel? Would the individual person react differently? Like if semen can taste like pineapple, could pineapple degrade the gel?

Albert Shinestein

sullivlo wrote: »

Define soon... This site suggests that trials will only begin in 2016: tps:.parsemusfoundation.org/projects/vasalgel

It appears to be a non-surgical vasectomy. I'd need to see the full statistics - in rabbits it lasted more than a year but is that the case in humans? Also it's a gel that is impenetratable by sperm, but how frequently is it tested? If a guy ejaculates three times a day for a year is that going to break down the barrier or degrade the gel? Would the individual person react differently? Like if semen can taste like pineapple, could pineapple degrade the gel?

12 months of testing and not one sperm was detected, think that seems pretty good.

I think they would be confident enough that pineapple tasting semen would be safe, , such a ludicrous thing to say.

Albert Shinestein

meeeeh wrote: »

Maybe with my current partner because I consider him for life and trust him but otherwise not in a million years. If woman messes up contraception she gets pregnant, if man messes up contraception a woman still gets pregnant.

You can't really mess it up, the doctor injects the polymer and it lasts 10 years.

njs030

Albert Shinestein wrote: »

You can't really mess it up, the doctor injects the polymer and it lasts 10 years.

Can you provide a scientific link to this please? 10 years is quite a claim!!

meeeeh

Albert Shinestein wrote: »

You can't really mess it up, the doctor injects the polymer and it lasts 10 years.

Yeah but how can you trust that someone you just met is telling the truth? It will offer men some reassurance if they don't want to become a father but as a woman I would rely on my own contraception. Long therm partners that don't have trust issues are obviously exception but in those cases more permanent methods exist.

Albert Shinestein

notjustsweet wrote: »

Can you provide a scientific link to this please? 10 years is quite a claim!!

Google it.

Albert Shinestein

meeeeh wrote: »

Yeah but how can you trust that someone you just met is telling the truth? It will offer men some reassurance if they don't want to become a father but as a woman I would rely on my own contraception. Long therm partners that don't have trust issues are obviously exception but in those cases more permanent methods exist.

Likewise mem in relationships don't have to rely on their partners.

meeeeh

Albert Shinestein wrote: »

Likewise mem in relationships don't have to rely on their partners.

Exactly I think it will more offer men peace of mind but considering women risk more I don't think it's enough to make me comfortable.

robyntmorton

Albert Shinestein wrote: »

Google it.

Saying Google it is a very lazy way of doing things. If you want us to listen to you, back up the claim.

The product has been in development since 2010. The longest trial listed by the foundation on their website says 1 year in rabbits.

Without having a 10 year trial, you cannot guarantee 10 years. You may be able to say a similar product being trialled in India has had success in humans for x years, but it is still a different product.

intheclouds

Albert Shinestein wrote: »

Google it.

You made the claim, it's up to you to back it up, otherwise it's just your opinion.

Could well work for me and my husband, although full vasectomy is probably more likely to be the choice.

eviltwin

I would trust him but I still wouldn't use it.

It's not enough that he can't get me pregnant, I want to be sure that I can't get pregnant if that makes sense.

njs030

Albert Shinestein wrote: »

Google it.

I did there's no mention of ten years.

Albert Shinestein

intheclouds wrote: »

You made the claim, it's up to you to back it up, otherwise it's just your opinion.

Could well work for me and my husband, although full vasectomy is probably more likely to be the choice.

It's not up to me. I'm not obliged to spoon feed you.

Albert Shinestein

eviltwin wrote: »

I would trust him but I still wouldn't use it.

It's not enough that he can't get me pregnant, I want to be sure that I can't get pregnant if that makes sense.

The pill is harmful to a woman's body, if I were a woman I'd certainly be happy about this news

sullivlo

Albert Shinestein wrote: »

12 months of testing and not one sperm was detected, think that seems pretty good.

I think they would be confident enough that pineapple tasting semen would be safe, , such a ludicrous thing to say.

I didn't mean that the taste would influence the gel. I meant that the composition of semen can change, and the variety of compositions may react differently with the gel.

Also yes, 12 months is fab, but you're claiming it lasts 10 years. Link please.

sullivlo

Albert Shinestein wrote: »

Google it.

Mod

Albert! Welcome to tLL.

You provided a statistic, you were asked to back it up. Don't respond to a poster in this fashion again.

Your posts are also borderline at times. Please take a read of the charter before posting again.

Any questions PM me - don't reply on thread.

sullivlo

In principle it's a fantastic idea.

But the scientist in me would like to see some data. Another red flag for me is that they are crowd funding the project. Not exactly confidence inspiring!

Anyone who casually trusts someone else with avoiding making them pregnant or a parent is taking a risk.

If I was a man who definitely didn't want to father children, I'd take it no problem. A woman who definitely doesn't want a pregnancy should take similar measures to protect herself.

Might be an excellent option for long termers, otherwise - no.

Albert Shinestein

I think the pill has been the cause of destroying many relationships and broken families. It harms women's health, can be terrible for a couple's sex life and their relationship. I really hope non hormonal forms of birth control become readily available.

average_runner

Albert Shinestein wrote: »

The pill is harmful to a woman's body, if I were a woman I'd certainly be happy about this news

Do you know the side effects of this gel?

Vasectomy is the best option once your done with kids.

The pill also appears to have a protective effect against some cancers, and has liberated women from the fear of unplanned pregnancy.

It's also not the only contraceptive available for womens use.

average_runner

Candie wrote: »

The pill also appears to have a protective effect against some cancers, and has liberated women from the fear of unplanned pregnancy.

It's also not the only contraceptive available for womens use.

The pill is a chemical, short term is ok but not a long term solution.

All chemicals are dangerous after over use.

eviltwin

Albert Shinestein wrote: »

The pill is harmful to a woman's body, if I were a woman I'd certainly be happy about this news

I don't use the pill

Albert Shinestein

Candie wrote: »

Anyone who casually trusts someone else with avoiding making them pregnant or a parent is taking a risk.

If I was a man who definitely didn't want to father children, I'd take it no problem. A woman who definitely doesn't want a pregnancy should take similar measures to protect herself.

Might be an excellent option for long termers, otherwise - no.

For a young man who doesn't want kids until his thirties or so it is a much better option than a vasectomy.

average_runner

Albert Shinestein wrote: »

For a young man who doesn't want kids until his thirties or so it is a much better option than a vasectomy.

Obviously a vasectomy is not till your finished as very hard to reverse it successfully.

But this gel could have serious side effects, could kill the sperm.

More testing needs to be done over a 20 year period.

robyntmorton

Albert Shinestein wrote: »

For a young man who doesn't want kids until his thirties or so it is a much better option than a vasectomy.

Parsemus Foundation wrote:

IS VASALGEL REVERSIBLE? HOW IS THAT DONE?
The idea is to develop a fully reversible long-acting male contraceptive, and recently-completed rabbit studies showed rapid restoration of sperm flow. This was accomplished by flushing the Vasalgel from the vas deferens with an injection of sodium bicarbonate (baking soda) solution. Additional preclinical studies are underway to further test the methods and efficacy of reversibility in larger animals. Until reversibility studies are done in men, Vasalgel should be thought of as a vasectomy alternative.

Src: https://www.parsemusfoundation.org/projects/vasalgel/vasalgel-faqs/

Even the foundation marketing this are not saying it is definitely reversible. I wouldn't be so quick to hail it as the wonder contraceptive for men until those tests are done and proven.

Parsemus Foundation wrote:

Our current understanding of Vasalgel is that fluids can pass through the gel, but sperm cannot.

Also sourced as above from the FAQ's. I'm very worried by the term "our current understanding". That means they are really not sure if it does what they say or not. Again, until tests are done, it is all just theories based on what they believe is the case.

Chaos Black

As a guy, i'd be wary of taking it, i'd need some fairly rigorous testing to be done on a large scale over a period before i'd consider it. I would think, many men/couples would be in the same boat.

Dial Hard

average_runner wrote:

All chemicals are dangerous after over use.

I shall expect to drop dead from long term use of O2 any day now so.

L1011

Dial Hard wrote: »

I shall expect to drop dead from long term use of O2 any day now so.

http://www.diverite.com/articles/oxygen-toxicity-signs-and-symptoms/

Anything which further encourages a reduction in condom use for casual sex is not something I want to see on the market right now - unless we want to see the growth in antibiotic resistant STIs continuing.

micdug

average_runner wrote: »

The pill is a chemical, short term is ok but not a long term solution.

All chemicals are dangerous after over use.

Water is a chemical. Water is not dangerous after "over use".

In any case the Pill is a hormone with a well understood action on the female reproductive system which has an infertile state. It is in fact prescribed to mitigate many reproductive health issues. Stating "chemicals are dangerous after over use" is both nonsensical and scaremongering.

On the other hand the current attempts to create a male "pill" are not as well understood and and attempting to alter an always fertile male reproductive system is much more challenging despite the old canard around males getting pregnant.

I suspect considerably more research is required before we have something available in the local pharmacy. And either way it doesn't deliver safe sex.

sullivlo

micdug wrote: »

Water is a chemical. Water is not dangerous after "over use".

In any case the Pill is a hormone with a well understood action on the female reproductive system which has an infertile state. It is in fact prescribed to mitigate many reproductive health issues. Stating "chemicals are dangerous after over use" is both nonsensical and scaremongering.

On the other hand the current attempts to create a male "pill" are not as well understood and and attempting to alter an always fertile male reproductive system is much more challenging despite the old canard around males getting pregnant.

I suspect considerably more research is required before we have something available in the local pharmacy. And either way it doesn't deliver safe sex.

I dunno. I wouldn't fancy breathing in any dihydrogen monoxide...

I personally don't see a way for an effective male contraception currently. The pill has other functions in terms of cycle regulation and dealing with problematic periods.

mahamageehad

Water is dangerous after over use, you can basically drown your cells and overwhelm your kidneys. It's called hyponatremia.

Back on point, while this is interesting, I would certainly like to see prolonged tests over a good span of time (15-20 years). Even at that, with a new partner I would still treat it as a fail safe and ensure another kind of protection was used also.

sullivlo

mahamageehad wrote: »

Water is dangerous after over use, you can basically drown your cells and overwhelm your kidneys. It's called hyponatremia.

Back on point, while this is interesting, I would certainly like to see prolonged tests over a good span of time (15-20 years). Even at that, with a new partner I would still treat it as a fail safe and ensure another kind of protection was used also.

This. There is no proper testing completed. It needs to be done over an extended time with a variety of people and in depth analysis.

seamus

Candie wrote: »

Anyone who casually trusts someone else with avoiding making them pregnant or a parent is taking a risk.

If I was a man who definitely didn't want to father children, I'd take it no problem. A woman who definitely doesn't want a pregnancy should take similar measures to protect herself.

Might be an excellent option for long termers, otherwise - no.

I think even for single men, it's a good measure on top of bagging it up.

Bagging it up will fail 15% of the time, it's a pretty dodgy method, and after that he's hoping that his partner has a fallback method. At least if he has his own fallback, a failed condom is less of a reason to freak out.

If anything, it seems like it's more ideal for single people than long-termers. The latter are in a better position to manage an accidental pregnancy.

ted1

seamus wrote: »

I think even for single men, it's a good measure on top of bagging it up.

Bagging it up will fail 15% of the time, it's a pretty dodgy method, and after that he's hoping that his partner has a fallback method. At least if he has his own fallback, a failed condom is less of a reason to freak out.

If anything, it seems like it's more ideal for single people than long-termers. The latter are in a better position to manage an accidental pregnancy.

Where did you get the 15% figure? Is it not 1%?

Board Walker

Didn't Tommy Tiernan have a joke about this? Which is pretty accurate!
"We'd take all 7 at 6pm of a Saturday night"

TheBoyConor

As a man, I wouldn't trust it at all if I were to get it. No more than I would trust a woman taking the pill. Even if all being used perfectly.
Vasalgel is all well and good when it is working as intended but inevitably there will be times when it ceases to work for one reason or another - fluke chance, imperfect placement in the first place, breakdown, or otherwise a loss of effectiveness of the gel for one reason or another.

The problem with things like this is that you don't know they have failed until it is already too late to do anything about it and the woman is pregnant.

Perhaps, if i was in a long term relationship and I was full sure that the woman was either on pill or bar contraception I would make a considered risk to use vasalgel+pill/hormone bar. At least then there is a backup if one or other method loses effectiveness or there is an underhand accident plan by one or other party.

I wouldn't trust pill as far as I'd throw a truck load of them. Way too dodgy and the risk of "accidents" is not acceptable to me. I've heard too many stories. I'd take the chance on the hormone bar but even then I'd consider it to be taking a risk and I'd want to check every now and again to satisfy myself that it was still there.

I would consider a full, traditional vasectomy to be the only non-barrier method I would place full trust in as the risk of failure is very very low. I wouldn't trust a no-scalpel vasectomy as the surgeon does not physically see and thus cannot visually verify that the vas is severed. This leaves scope for incomplete or imperfect stoppage of sperm flow. I'd accept the greater pain, swelling,stiches and recovery for the sake of peace of mind.

As I'm sure you'll agree, I take this very seriously and I am not taking any chances on getting caught out. i've seen too many friends and aquaintances have accidents.

So to conclude, I as an extremely cautious man in this regard, would not trust vasalgel. It will be condom for me for the foreseeable future and, probably eventually, open surgery vasectomy.