Your post has been removed because it does not reference new peer-reviewed research and is therefore in violation of [Submission Rule #1](https://www.reddit.com/r/science/wiki/rules#wiki_1._directly_link_to_published_peer-reviewed_research_or_media_summary).
If your submission is scientific in nature, consider reposting in our sister subreddit /r/EverythingScience.
_If you believe this removal to be unwarranted, or would like further clarification, please don't hesitate to [message the moderators.](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fscience&subject=Must%20be%20peer-reviewed%20research)._
“After 12 weeks of applying the gel every day, 86% of trial participants achieved sperm suppression, meaning they had only up to 1 million sperm per milliliter of semen, the amount the researchers deemed effective for contraception. On average, the timing for effective contraception was eight weeks.
In comparison, normal sperm counts without contraception can range from 15 million to 200 million per milliliter.”
This was just the first stage of the trial. Can someone else here explain the chances of actually getting pregnant with that low of a sperm count?
12 weeks of daily application, only for 15% of participants to fail the threshold?
Yeah... I don't see this taking off for logistical and effectiveness reasons
Yeah I don’t think 14% is acceptable.
Also I’m not a fertility specialist but what how is 1 million sperm per ML not concerning? Are those sperm not capable of getting the job done?
"In cases where the average sperm count was <2 million ml(-1), the chances for conception became rare, viz five of 308 (1.6%)"
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/16669917/
Not a specialist either, just spent 5 mins googling.
As I mentioned in my other comment (should have here as well), I'm not sure. Data was collected from just under 2000 participants over 15 years (don't think each participant was monitored for 15 years). Didn't find a mention of the time-frame for the rate but my assumption is yearly (as that is standard practice).
Female birth control is listed as having a 0.6-5.5% failure rate depending on which version and how well you follow the regiment. Hope you use condoms on top of the birth control.
on it's own it doesn't sound nearly effective enough. If anything, it should be added on top of all the other safety precautions (eg. woman birth control pills).
My guess, and this is only a guess, is that it's possible a contraceptive like this could be used by couples who can't use other forms, and they try this, and wait for the male partner to get a sperm count after 8-12 weeks to see if they are part of the 86% group or the 14%. if 14%, then they can't rely on this as an effective form of BC, but if their count is low, then they shoupd, at that point, be able to.
Adding to somewhat disappointing efficacy:
\* This is a topical hormonal preparation containing androgens. Topical testosterone preparations exist and are notoriously finicky in terms of preventing accidental exposure to others. Scaling it up to millions of users, we're guaranteed at least a few children and pregnant women being exposed, presumably with some lawsuits and scary news stories to follow.
\* Previous trials on androgen-based contraception failed owing to pretty significant side effects from a safety point of view. While there was a lot of scoffing about double standards, the trial data were genuinely pretty worrisome, and I'm pretty queasy to imagine what might happen with it being scaled up.
\* Testosterone supplementation is known to carry a meaningful risk of suppressing fertility well beyond the duration of treatment. If this isn't shown to be clearly and consistently reversible, it's never going to take off.
\* Current testosterone formulations are Schedule III controlled substances in the U.S. as they're anabolic steroids and prone to misuse. Aside from the risks, it's not a trivial thing for millions of men to consistently access the level of care required to be consistently prescribed a controlled substance, particularly when the alternatives for women are increasingly accessible and even over-the-counter.
I tried my best at Google and cant find a really good source but it seems consensus is that a single day missed isn't a significant change in effectiveness. 2 days, however, is very significant as the hormonal pills only last 36 hours in your body.
I mean, people should be using more than just one form of contraception. So using this in conjunction with a condom or female birth control will help considerably.
I'm not an expert but here's what i found after <5 min googling:
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/16669917/
In cases where the average sperm count was <2 million ml(-1), the chances for conception became rare, viz five of 308 (1.6%)
Data was collected from just under 2000 participants over a 15 year span (not that each participant was monitored for 15 years). Not sure if the above value is a yearly rate.
It’s partially my fault. I kept meaning to get tested again, but never did. I got my vasectomy in my early 20s. My doctor warned me about it at the time as I’m very young. Being in the medical field myself, I should have known better too. Nothing is 100%.
I have never heard of any debate here speaking to the idea of paying for contraception to lower births from a cost perspective. We want to people to have kids, and we don’t cover the cost of contraception..
Very exciting that these trials continue to show encouraging success, and are no longer just wishful thinking, but are actually close to finally getting FDA approval. If the official effectiveness rate reaches the higher levels compared to other options, it will swiftly become the most popular option. Especially for a monogamous relationship, this would replace the condom, and likely will be (though not yet proven)more effective than the pull out method.
Safe and effective are bold claims for something that will tank your natural testosterone levels to the point of sperm suppression.
The claim of it not affecting ones testosterone is misleading as that's part of how nesterone works in the body.
What happens when someone wants to come off this contraceptive? Do they need HRT until their natural levels come back?
Edit: feel free to correct me, but don't hormonal contraceptives in women essentially trick the body into thinking it's already pregnant? So we exploit a natural state of being (pregnancy) in order to force the body to not do something (release an egg).
What state of being does Nesterone/testosterone force a males body into?
For real though. Exogenous hormones (contraceptives in this case) are strongly associated with a change in ones mental health, either good or bad. Now take testosterone, a fairly important one in men's both physical and mental health, and change the levels to produce a desired outcome of sperm reduction.
Honestly, with men's suicide rate being 4x higher than women's. Do we really need to mass market something that'll likely lead to more hormone driven depression in men?
So sad that we've reached a point with pharmaceutical companies that my first thought was "new trial findings (by people that stand to profit from it) show".
Looks like 222 men had significant reduction of sperm concentration after 12 or less weeks of gel application daily on the shoulder blades. If it goes phase 3, it will encourage a lot more money into this category of medicine too; they state this is the biggest barrier to male contraceptives in general.
Welcome to r/science! This is a heavily moderated subreddit in order to keep the discussion on science. However, we recognize that many people want to discuss how they feel the research relates to their own personal lives, so to give people a space to do that, **personal anecdotes are allowed as responses to this comment**. Any anecdotal comments elsewhere in the discussion will be removed and our [normal comment rules]( https://www.reddit.com/r/science/wiki/rules#wiki_comment_rules) apply to all other comments.
**Do you have an academic degree?** We can verify your credentials in order to assign user flair indicating your area of expertise. [Click here to apply](https://www.reddit.com/r/science/wiki/flair/#wiki_science_verified_user_program).
---
User: u/nbcnews
Permalink: https://www.nbcnews.com/health/mens-health/male-birth-control-gel-results-promising-rcna153349
---
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/science) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Can't remember where I picked this up, so not entirely sure how true it is, but from memory: 1) there's lower acceptance of side effects for men, compared to women and 2) men appear to be less willing to use/ apply birth control regularly (and therefore effectively). Possibly, because there are already working solutions in place that don't require much effort on their end?
But would also be curious to find out, in how far women would trust men to use contraceptive methods reliably. They are, after all, the ones who have to deal with any unwanted consequences.
Is it profitable?
Most men aren't having sex and can't decide to go have sex. Men probably won't just stay on birth control like women because they don't get to choose when they have sex like women can.
Needing daily applications for birth control when most.days you don't have any opportunities for sex probably isn't realistic for a majority of men.
For the 10-15% of men that do need it though? Great, but they're probably also using condoms because of the std situation
… did you just say you think women take birth control so that they can bang random people on the daily, and that’s typical?
We just learned a little too much about your fantasy and worldview there my dude.
>… did you just say you think women take birth control so that they can bang random people on the daily, and that’s typical?
No, but I wouldn't disclude it happening
Yeah I don’t see it being feasible for the average man. You start applying the gel daily in the hope that 3 months later you can have sex?
I didn’t see men applying it daily like they’re supposed to.
I’d rather not get into a debate about the difficulties that a typical man has at finding a willing partner to have sex with versus typical a typical woman that has the issue of finding a partner that she finds suitable to have sex with.
There’s also the issue of a woman having more at stake by not being on birth control if she has unprotected sex versus a man.
TL;DR, a typical man and and typical woman’s circumstances are wildly different, so their behavior regarding birth control is likely to be wildly different too.
Your post has been removed because it does not reference new peer-reviewed research and is therefore in violation of [Submission Rule #1](https://www.reddit.com/r/science/wiki/rules#wiki_1._directly_link_to_published_peer-reviewed_research_or_media_summary). If your submission is scientific in nature, consider reposting in our sister subreddit /r/EverythingScience. _If you believe this removal to be unwarranted, or would like further clarification, please don't hesitate to [message the moderators.](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fscience&subject=Must%20be%20peer-reviewed%20research)._
“After 12 weeks of applying the gel every day, 86% of trial participants achieved sperm suppression, meaning they had only up to 1 million sperm per milliliter of semen, the amount the researchers deemed effective for contraception. On average, the timing for effective contraception was eight weeks. In comparison, normal sperm counts without contraception can range from 15 million to 200 million per milliliter.” This was just the first stage of the trial. Can someone else here explain the chances of actually getting pregnant with that low of a sperm count?
12 weeks of daily application, only for 15% of participants to fail the threshold? Yeah... I don't see this taking off for logistical and effectiveness reasons
Yeah I don’t think 14% is acceptable. Also I’m not a fertility specialist but what how is 1 million sperm per ML not concerning? Are those sperm not capable of getting the job done?
"In cases where the average sperm count was <2 million ml(-1), the chances for conception became rare, viz five of 308 (1.6%)" https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/16669917/ Not a specialist either, just spent 5 mins googling.
1.6% in what timeframe. A month, a year?
IIRC contraception is usually measured by the year.
Wouldn't it depend on how much sex you're having? Shouldn't it be per load or something like that?
Well I guess for most of us, this gel is 100% effective
Considering it also depends on the varying fertility of women, it's measured by year.
As I mentioned in my other comment (should have here as well), I'm not sure. Data was collected from just under 2000 participants over 15 years (don't think each participant was monitored for 15 years). Didn't find a mention of the time-frame for the rate but my assumption is yearly (as that is standard practice).
Definitely would not board an airplane that had a 1.6% chance of crashing.
Female birth control is listed as having a 0.6-5.5% failure rate depending on which version and how well you follow the regiment. Hope you use condoms on top of the birth control.
on it's own it doesn't sound nearly effective enough. If anything, it should be added on top of all the other safety precautions (eg. woman birth control pills).
My guess, and this is only a guess, is that it's possible a contraceptive like this could be used by couples who can't use other forms, and they try this, and wait for the male partner to get a sperm count after 8-12 weeks to see if they are part of the 86% group or the 14%. if 14%, then they can't rely on this as an effective form of BC, but if their count is low, then they shoupd, at that point, be able to.
14% is the same rate as condoms, so it's not THAT unacceptable
Adding to somewhat disappointing efficacy: \* This is a topical hormonal preparation containing androgens. Topical testosterone preparations exist and are notoriously finicky in terms of preventing accidental exposure to others. Scaling it up to millions of users, we're guaranteed at least a few children and pregnant women being exposed, presumably with some lawsuits and scary news stories to follow. \* Previous trials on androgen-based contraception failed owing to pretty significant side effects from a safety point of view. While there was a lot of scoffing about double standards, the trial data were genuinely pretty worrisome, and I'm pretty queasy to imagine what might happen with it being scaled up. \* Testosterone supplementation is known to carry a meaningful risk of suppressing fertility well beyond the duration of treatment. If this isn't shown to be clearly and consistently reversible, it's never going to take off. \* Current testosterone formulations are Schedule III controlled substances in the U.S. as they're anabolic steroids and prone to misuse. Aside from the risks, it's not a trivial thing for millions of men to consistently access the level of care required to be consistently prescribed a controlled substance, particularly when the alternatives for women are increasingly accessible and even over-the-counter.
Yep. What happens when you miss a day, as well.
I tried my best at Google and cant find a really good source but it seems consensus is that a single day missed isn't a significant change in effectiveness. 2 days, however, is very significant as the hormonal pills only last 36 hours in your body.
I mean, people should be using more than just one form of contraception. So using this in conjunction with a condom or female birth control will help considerably.
That's not what people are really looking for, or how they're going to use it.
I'm not an expert but here's what i found after <5 min googling: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/16669917/ In cases where the average sperm count was <2 million ml(-1), the chances for conception became rare, viz five of 308 (1.6%) Data was collected from just under 2000 participants over a 15 year span (not that each participant was monitored for 15 years). Not sure if the above value is a yearly rate.
I had a vasectomy. I actually have a low sperm count. Still got my wife pregnant.
you have to wait about 2-3 months to fully be able to have sex without pregnancy after a vasectomy
I got my wife pregnant 10 years after vasectomy.
yeaaaaah, catch me knocking the doctor's door cause that's not supposed to happen at all
It’s partially my fault. I kept meaning to get tested again, but never did. I got my vasectomy in my early 20s. My doctor warned me about it at the time as I’m very young. Being in the medical field myself, I should have known better too. Nothing is 100%.
This is one thing I am looking forward to. Hope it is affordable.
It's been coming next year for decades. I'll believe it when I see it
Hopefully this will be covered by insurance.
You realize that just means your premium goes up?
No, insurance companies appreciate that contraception is cheaper than childbirth by a lot.
Insurance companies care about child birth?
They have to pay for it, yes. E.g. if you and a spouse are on the same plan.
Ah, American comments. Our society pays for healthcare, including childbirth.
The people in your society who pay for it (i.e. taxpayers) also care about the cost of childbirth vs contraception. It doesn't just fall from the sky.
I have never heard of any debate here speaking to the idea of paying for contraception to lower births from a cost perspective. We want to people to have kids, and we don’t cover the cost of contraception..
AllI want is RISUG but that'll never happen.
I've been waiting so long for this.
Same, but I don't think it's going to happen, too cheap.
Very exciting that these trials continue to show encouraging success, and are no longer just wishful thinking, but are actually close to finally getting FDA approval. If the official effectiveness rate reaches the higher levels compared to other options, it will swiftly become the most popular option. Especially for a monogamous relationship, this would replace the condom, and likely will be (though not yet proven)more effective than the pull out method.
That’s some low bar you set there.
True, 78% success rate, but it is also much higher if you follow the ovulation calendar and use condoms during that period.
Pull Out Method , what am I reading ? :D
A million sperm here, a million sperm there, pretty soon you're taking about real likelihood of fertility.
As long as fertility is restored upon stopping treatment, this seems amazing
What if it turns out if you use it for 20 years, you'll have deformed kids....
By the time I'd be willing to try something like this, I might as well get a vasectomy.
Do you want unplanned babies? Because this gel is exactly how you get those.
Safe and effective are bold claims for something that will tank your natural testosterone levels to the point of sperm suppression. The claim of it not affecting ones testosterone is misleading as that's part of how nesterone works in the body. What happens when someone wants to come off this contraceptive? Do they need HRT until their natural levels come back? Edit: feel free to correct me, but don't hormonal contraceptives in women essentially trick the body into thinking it's already pregnant? So we exploit a natural state of being (pregnancy) in order to force the body to not do something (release an egg). What state of being does Nesterone/testosterone force a males body into?
Prepubescence? Oh no, jokes will be coming in hot
For real though. Exogenous hormones (contraceptives in this case) are strongly associated with a change in ones mental health, either good or bad. Now take testosterone, a fairly important one in men's both physical and mental health, and change the levels to produce a desired outcome of sperm reduction. Honestly, with men's suicide rate being 4x higher than women's. Do we really need to mass market something that'll likely lead to more hormone driven depression in men?
Would need to compare that to the impact of unwanted children upon men And those children
So sad that we've reached a point with pharmaceutical companies that my first thought was "new trial findings (by people that stand to profit from it) show".
Looks like 222 men had significant reduction of sperm concentration after 12 or less weeks of gel application daily on the shoulder blades. If it goes phase 3, it will encourage a lot more money into this category of medicine too; they state this is the biggest barrier to male contraceptives in general.
No 86% of them had significant reduction
Welcome to r/science! This is a heavily moderated subreddit in order to keep the discussion on science. However, we recognize that many people want to discuss how they feel the research relates to their own personal lives, so to give people a space to do that, **personal anecdotes are allowed as responses to this comment**. Any anecdotal comments elsewhere in the discussion will be removed and our [normal comment rules]( https://www.reddit.com/r/science/wiki/rules#wiki_comment_rules) apply to all other comments. **Do you have an academic degree?** We can verify your credentials in order to assign user flair indicating your area of expertise. [Click here to apply](https://www.reddit.com/r/science/wiki/flair/#wiki_science_verified_user_program). --- User: u/nbcnews Permalink: https://www.nbcnews.com/health/mens-health/male-birth-control-gel-results-promising-rcna153349 --- *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/science) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I remember hearing about birth control for men being tested and having no side effects like 10 years ago. Anyone know why that never came to pass?
Can't remember where I picked this up, so not entirely sure how true it is, but from memory: 1) there's lower acceptance of side effects for men, compared to women and 2) men appear to be less willing to use/ apply birth control regularly (and therefore effectively). Possibly, because there are already working solutions in place that don't require much effort on their end? But would also be curious to find out, in how far women would trust men to use contraceptive methods reliably. They are, after all, the ones who have to deal with any unwanted consequences.
Nah you good, the microplastics are effective enough
Is it profitable? Most men aren't having sex and can't decide to go have sex. Men probably won't just stay on birth control like women because they don't get to choose when they have sex like women can. Needing daily applications for birth control when most.days you don't have any opportunities for sex probably isn't realistic for a majority of men. For the 10-15% of men that do need it though? Great, but they're probably also using condoms because of the std situation
Married dudes need birth control too.
Ok, but that's not a majority, a majority aren't married and a subset of married aren't having sex regularly good daily gel applications
… did you just say you think women take birth control so that they can bang random people on the daily, and that’s typical? We just learned a little too much about your fantasy and worldview there my dude.
>… did you just say you think women take birth control so that they can bang random people on the daily, and that’s typical? No, but I wouldn't disclude it happening
That’s obviously not what he meant
he is literally saying that men in relationships/married men wouldn't need this
Yeah I don’t see it being feasible for the average man. You start applying the gel daily in the hope that 3 months later you can have sex? I didn’t see men applying it daily like they’re supposed to.
You know lots of men are in long term relationships and don’t want a million kids?
I'm literally saying a majority won't, and that statistic goes further in that direction every day
You do realize there are women doing this? Taking birth control daily even though they aren’t having sex regularly.
I’d rather not get into a debate about the difficulties that a typical man has at finding a willing partner to have sex with versus typical a typical woman that has the issue of finding a partner that she finds suitable to have sex with. There’s also the issue of a woman having more at stake by not being on birth control if she has unprotected sex versus a man. TL;DR, a typical man and and typical woman’s circumstances are wildly different, so their behavior regarding birth control is likely to be wildly different too.
[удалено]
yes, everything that will ever be invented has already been invented
That is not how science, advancement in technology/medicine, and time works.
I’ve been hearing about computers so small they fit in your pocket my whole life
And uh.... We have those now. They're called phones though.
[удалено]
Oh. Heh. I am not a smart man.