The Best Birth Control In The World Is For Men


If I were going to describe the perfect contraceptive, it would go something like this: no babies, no latex, no daily pill to remember, no hormones to interfere with mood or sex drive, no negative health effects whatsoever, and 100 percent effectiveness. The funny thing is, something like that currently exists.

The procedure called RISUG in India (reversible inhibition of sperm under guidance) takes about 15 minutes with a doctor, is effective after about three days, and lasts for 10 or more years. A doctor applies some local anesthetic, makes a small pinhole in the base of the scrotum, reaches in with a pair of very thin forceps, and pulls out the small white vas deferens tube. Then, the doctor injects the polymer gel (called Vasalgel here in the US), pushes the vas deferens back inside, repeats the process for the other vas deferens, puts a Band-Aid over the small hole, and the man is on his way. If this all sounds incredibly simple and inexpensive, that’s because it is. The chemicals themselves cost less than the syringe used to administer them. But the science of what happens next is the really fascinating part.

The two common chemicals — styrene maleic anhydride and dimethyl sulfoxide — form a polymer that thickens over the next 72 hours, much like a pliable epoxy, but the purpose of these chemicals isn’t to harden and block the vas deferens. Instead, the polymer lines the wall of the vas deferens and allows sperm to flow freely down the middle (this prevents any pressure buildup),  and because of the polymer’s pattern of negative/positive polarization, the sperm are torn apart through the polyelectrolytic effect. On a molecular level, it’s what supervillains envision will happen when they stick the good guy between two huge magnets and flip the switch.

Easier than aiming magnets at your junk.

With one little injection, this non-toxic jelly will sit there for 10+ years without you having to do anything else to not have babies. Set it and forget it. Oh, and when you do decide you want those babies, it only takes one other injection of water and baking soda to flush out the gel, and within two to three months, you’ve got all your healthy sperm again.

The trouble is, most people don’t even know this exists. And if men only need one super-cheap shot every 10 years or more, that’s not something that gets big pharmaceutical companies all fired up, because they’ll make zero money on it (even if it might have the side benefit of, you know, destroying HIV).

If this sounds awesome for you or your loved one, get the word out. Share this article. Or link. Or this link. Or this one. Or this one. Sign this petition. Do something! A revolutionary contraceptive like this needs all the support it can get.

UPDATE: A lot of people are asking to be kept in the loop. So here’s the clinical trial/mailing list sign-up from the Parsemus Foundation to get further information about this procedure’s development. And again, please fill out the short non-spam petition to get the procedure funded and keep buzz going.

UPDATE: Could This Male Contraceptive Pill Make a Vas Deferens in the Fight Against HIV?

, , , , ,

981 Responses to The Best Birth Control In The World Is For Men

  1. Confused March 26, 2012 at 3:53 PM CDT #

    Ok, fair enough. But can you please explain how you make the Grand Canyon sized jump from no babies to ”
    even if it might have the side benefit of, you know, destroying HIV” ?? 

    • FelisV. March 26, 2012 at 4:13 PM CDT #

      Once this form of contraception is released into the market, it could displace the use of condoms. Unlike condoms, RISUG provides no protection against the spread of sexually transmitted diseases. A study, however, is underway to test the efficacy of RISUG as an anti-HIV agent, due to a hypothesis that the styrene maleic acid lowers pH to a level sufficient to destroy HIV in semen.[7]” this was written in the Wikipedia article.

      • Daeda1us March 26, 2012 at 8:57 PM CDT #

        You realize the VAST MAJORITY of semen never comes anywhere near the vas deferens?
        I call bullshit!

        • Guest March 26, 2012 at 9:17 PM CDT #

          Check a biology book. During ejaculation, the sperm are pushed through the vas deferens into the urethra. So, all sperm go through a vas deferens. The one thing that is not mentioned is that there are two tubes, one from each teste.

          • Daeda1us March 26, 2012 at 9:55 PM CDT #

            I have checked a biology book.  Several in fact.  Part of getting a degree in Biology.  As a precursor to a degree in Medicine.  :D

            For the RISUG to be effective in destroying HIV, it would need to come in contact with ALL fluids that might contain the HIV.
            So, are you (and the author) saying ALL fluids that might contain HIV will pass through the vas deferens?

            You are right about one thing, someone needs to check a book.  It just isnt me.  :D

          • Geoff March 26, 2012 at 10:47 PM CDT #

            Read the abstract of the paper (published in a peer reviewed journal, albeit as a hypothesis) that is linked in the statement the article makes 

            “Mechanisms of action for the inhibition could include inactivating HIV in sperms passing through the vas deferens; drug release from the implant to destroy HIV entering into semen from genital structures distal to the vas deferens; and sperm acrosome released hyaluronidase mediated reabsorption of HIV. A subcomponent of the implant flowing along sperm pathway may have a role in reducing the entry of HIV from a positive female into penile tissue”

            This isn’t just pulled out of someone’s ass

          • Goforit March 26, 2012 at 11:04 PM CDT #

            That would be a different procedure.

          • Daeda1us March 26, 2012 at 11:11 PM CDT #

            As I told someone else, Extraordinary Claims require Extraordinary Proof.

            This isnt even to the “we found this to be true in one study.  Now we need to replicate the study.” stage.

            You know how many ideas never pan out?  Especially in Medicine?  Some unforseen and unacceptable complication or side effect can derail a working drug/technique.

            So, before making premature comments, perhaps the author should have waited until at least ONE STUDY had proven this technique might validate this postulate.

            The reversible destruction of sperm as a male contraceptive is exciting enough, without making unsubstantiated claims.

          • tinktonk January 17, 2013 at 9:45 PM CDT #

            i realize that this was posted almost a year ago, but i really don’t think the people attacking you actually read/understood your comments.

          • Nathan January 22, 2013 at 9:28 AM CDT #

            A claim is usual better supported with proof, but does not require it. Though I would not state the that what was said in the original article was a claim, it was merely highlighting a hypothesis that was put forth by someone on this particular method of contraception. I honestly doubt they will be able to reject the null hypothesis even if they do carry out the research, so stop worrying about it. Have you personally look through medical megasearch sites to see if there is in fact any studies that have been conducted in this area to with you can give your educated clinical analogy?

            You also state how many ideas never pan out, your correct in saying this, but does this mean that every idea has to be therefore assumed to be stricken as unacceptable and should not be at least looked into?

            And please before stating again that the author is making a claim, read through your comments, you’ll find that you said he’s only making a comment too. A comment is free, is it not? It could be said that you yourself are making claims that are not being supported by proof, and are getting up hopes of countless men wishing to knock up countless women and leave them with HIV and a child, no? So please remember, this is only a comment, not a claim.

          • Ali January 30, 2015 at 12:39 PM CDT #

            It’s only extraordinary because this is your first exposure to it.

          • Patrick March 27, 2012 at 12:26 AM CDT #

            sperm != semen.  Sperm are a COMPONENT of semen.  Therefore, the majority of SEMEN does not, in fact, come in contact with the vas deferens.  

          • EK March 27, 2012 at 2:21 AM CDT #

            Geoff: articles in Medical Hypotheses were NOT peer-reviewed until 2010.

          • Luca Febbraro March 27, 2012 at 2:36 AM CDT #

            I see you are forgetting the seminal vesicles and the prostate gland, not to mention BLOOD during micro-tearing… It’s okay I think the lot of us in the field of biology can forgive you.

          • guest March 27, 2012 at 7:39 AM CDT #

             “pushes the vas deferens back inside, repeats the process for the other vas deferens, ”  — it *is* mentioned

          • Acurarcr49 March 27, 2012 at 12:58 PM CDT #

             That would be what Bliaterally references, as in both sides.. And he mentioned semen, which would come partially from the prostate. Sperm is the only thing and one of three (major) components of semen.

          • Gjb1993 2 March 27, 2012 at 1:05 PM CDT #

            Actually, it is mentioned. ”
            Then, the doctor injects the polymer gel (called Vasalgel here in the US), pushes the vas deferens back inside, repeats the process for the other vas deferens..”
            Roughly in the middle of the 2nd paragraph

          • Aduf March 27, 2012 at 2:34 PM CDT #

            Yes, it was mentioned.  “repeats the process for the other vas deferens”  Second paragraph.

          • B_rowe March 27, 2012 at 2:41 PM CDT #

             Sperm, not semen.

          • Dermsux March 27, 2012 at 3:43 PM CDT #

             it was mentioned, they do it to both tubes.

          • Nckhoffman March 27, 2012 at 4:16 PM CDT #

            He clearly says “Then, the doctor injects the polymer gel (called Vasalgel here in the US), pushes the vas deferens back inside, repeats the process for the other vas deferens”

          • Dee March 27, 2012 at 4:32 PM CDT #

             It is mentioned in the article. It says quite clearly that they do that to *both* tubes.

          • cynical March 27, 2012 at 5:03 PM CDT #

            The article does mention both of the vas deferens, (“pulls out the small white vas deferens tube… injects the polymer gel… repeats the process for the other vas deferens”). So the pathways of all sperm are affected (since the sperm must travel through the vas deferens to get from the testes to the urethra)

          • Urnotthatdumbru? March 27, 2012 at 5:12 PM CDT #

            Yes there was actually read it again they do one side then the other …really?

          • Editingbay March 27, 2012 at 6:22 PM CDT #

            It actually IS mentioned. Read it again.

          • theOriginalPounderOfAss March 27, 2012 at 8:55 PM CDT #

            this is actually mentioned:
            “. . . pushes the vas deferens back inside, repeats the process for the other vas deferens, . . .”

          • Bobshane57 March 27, 2012 at 11:17 PM CDT #

            Read the article again… does say it is repeated to the other side.  “Then, the doctor injects the polymer gel (called Vasalgel here in the US), pushes the vas deferens back inside, repeats the process for the other vas deferens, puts a Band-Aid over the small hole, and the man is on his way.”

          • Dustin_oneal6654 March 27, 2012 at 11:33 PM CDT #

            It said there was two of em it said that they’ll do the procedure an again to the other one I had to look back myself bc it had me wondering

          • crowepps March 27, 2012 at 11:34 PM CDT #

            Actually, the fact that there are two tubes is inferred:  “repeats the process for the other vas deferens”

          • Gilbo March 28, 2012 at 12:48 AM CDT #

            @236a583349e11c10650d768c3df4b23a:disqus  You said, “The one thing that is not mentioned is that there are two tubes, one from each teste.”
            Check out the 2nd paragraph, 5th line down says “pushes the vas deferens back inside, repeats the process for the other vas deferens”

          • guest12 March 28, 2012 at 1:22 AM CDT #

            “pushes the vas deferens back inside, repeats the process for the other vas deferens” im not a mathemitician but i believe 1+1=2

          • Trevor March 28, 2012 at 3:04 AM CDT #

            Maybe you might like to read the article again to clear up your concern.

          • freedomfighter101 March 28, 2012 at 3:59 AM CDT #

            It did mention that after the doctor does this procedure to one vas deferens, he does it to the other… Is that what you were referring to?  If so….it’s in there…

          • Lauraunseen March 28, 2012 at 10:51 AM CDT #

            It mentions repeating the process for the other one

          • Bansaldi March 28, 2012 at 1:00 PM CDT #

            UM HELLO ”
            pushes the vas deferens back inside, repeats the process for the other vas deferens,” .

          • guest March 28, 2012 at 1:13 PM CDT #

            Uh, yeah the article does mention that the procedure is done on both sides.

          • Jcocol7 March 28, 2012 at 1:28 PM CDT #

            The article does actually mention that the procedure is done in both tubes…

          • Guest March 28, 2012 at 1:50 PM CDT #

            Except for the fact that the article says right in it “repeats the process for the other vas deferens”

          • Samebito March 28, 2012 at 3:50 PM CDT #

            Reread it. Yes it does. “repeats the process for the other vas deferens”

          • Avalonspawn March 28, 2012 at 4:24 PM CDT #

             @EK “articles in Medical Hypotheses were NOT peer-reviewed until 2010.” So… You are saying that until 2010 no doctors, dentists, any medical researchers of any kind had ever submitted a  paper to a medical journal for peer review?  If so, you are rather ignorant.  And if you happen to be referring to this one particular article, if it was submitted in 2010 that would be some time ago since a lot of the data I work with was published less than a month ago, and would be irrelevant.  I am not sure what point you were trying to make, but it is obvious you have never worked with medical papers before.

          • Tommy Payne March 28, 2012 at 4:46 PM CDT #

             The article clearly states that both tubes have to be done.

          • Kendallgharris March 28, 2012 at 5:05 PM CDT #

            You sadly failed to read the online article carefully! It very plainly told of injecting the polymer into each of the tubes. Read carefully before you wax eloquent without a cause!

          • Jennifer Choquette March 28, 2012 at 7:40 PM CDT #

            read it again…second paragraph
             “repeats the process for the other vas deferens,”

          • Guest March 28, 2012 at 8:40 PM CDT #

            It does mention that the procedure is done to BOTH tubes..

          • Cseeley March 28, 2012 at 10:02 PM CDT #

            umm it says process is repeted on the other teste… duh!

          • Dmcgee37 March 29, 2012 at 11:23 AM CDT #

            it is mentioned ” repeats the process for the other vas deferens”

          • Soadpyscho19 March 29, 2012 at 9:20 PM CDT #

             hey, does it mention that there are two tubes, one from each teste?

          • Epurribus March 30, 2012 at 1:18 AM CDT #

            Yes, it is mentioned.  “Repeats the process for the other vas deferens.”

          • Oldsaltysailor March 30, 2012 at 11:04 AM CDT #

            I believe the article mentioned that boht tubes were plugged.

          • Mcarraway March 30, 2012 at 4:20 PM CDT #

            -The one thing that is not mentioned is that there are two tubes, one from each teste.-

             It IS mentioned here, when it says “repeats the process for the other vas deferens”

          • Shannnon 1234 March 31, 2012 at 4:23 PM CDT #

            It is mentioned…”pushes the vas deferens back inside, repeats the process for the other vas deferens…” Did you actually read the article?

          • Joshua-uh April 1, 2012 at 9:49 AM CDT #

            “pushes the vas deferens back inside, repeats the process for the other vas deferens”

          • Carolynzaremba April 2, 2012 at 12:43 AM CDT #

            Yes it does.  “Then, the doctor injects the polymer gel (called ” here
            in the US), pushes the vas deferens back inside, repeats the process
            for the other vas deferens, puts a Band-Aid over the small hole, and the
            man is on his way.

          • Guest April 2, 2012 at 8:47 AM CDT #

             A subcomponent of the implant flowing along sperm pathway may have a role in reducing the entry of HIV from a positive female into penile tissue”
            Wait what?  How does that prevent males from getting it from females.. I thought the abstract was talking about neutralizing the HIV stuff as it goes through the vas deferens. Wouldn’t that mean females can’t catch it from males?  Science abstracts are confusing. 

            Anyway is this suggesting that the “styrene maleic anhydride” and “dimethyl sulfoxide” used in the gel also serve a purpose to destroy HIV?

          • Jason Bahr July 26, 2012 at 5:41 PM CDT #

            Females could still catch it from males via blood exchanged thru micro tearing, as a previous poster mentioned.

          • Sasssygurl118 April 3, 2012 at 5:37 PM CDT #

            Actually they did mention that.

          • Dee000006 April 4, 2012 at 5:32 AM CDT #

            Actually it does

          • A1981sweetheart April 4, 2012 at 10:16 PM CDT #

            yes it does, it says Then, the doctor injects the polymer gel (called Vasalgel here in the US), pushes the vas deferens back inside, repeats the process for the other vas deferens, puts a Band-Aid over the small hole, and the man is on his way. 

          • Niamh April 13, 2012 at 1:26 AM CDT #

            It clearly states that there are 2 tubes in the article:  Then, the doctor injects the polymer gel (called Vasalgel here in the US), pushes the vas deferens back inside, repeats the process for the other vas deferens

          • Tracey April 17, 2012 at 1:19 PM CDT #

            Actually, it IS mentioned: “Then, the doctor injects the polymer gel (called Vasalgel here in the US), pushes the vas deferens back inside, repeats the process for the other vas deferens, puts a Band-Aid over the small hole, and the man is on his way.”

          • Eatadickunogetmyeamil April 18, 2012 at 11:50 PM CDT #

            actually the article did mention both tubes “repeats the process for the other vas deferens”

          • Sloane Couch May 6, 2012 at 8:45 PM CDT #

            It’s probably injected in a part of the vas Deferens where the two tubes connect

          • Mollybrowndorf May 6, 2012 at 10:31 PM CDT #

            Yes it is mentioned.  Second paragraph.

          • JustSaying July 31, 2012 at 1:58 PM CDT #

            They mention that there are two… “Then, the doctor injects the polymer gel (called Vasalgel here in the US), pushes the vas deferens back inside, repeats the process for the other vas deferens, puts a Band-Aid over the small hole, and the man is on his way.”

          • sensorsweep February 2, 2013 at 6:12 PM CDT #

            “…the doctor injects the polymer gel (called Vasalgel here in the US), pushes the vas deferens back inside, repeats the process for the other vas deferens…”

          • Violet May 5, 2013 at 6:37 PM CDT #

            “… repeats the process for the other vas deferens, …” Someone didn’t read their biology book or the article very well……

          • Robert Dean June 10, 2013 at 3:14 PM CDT #

            No, they did mention it when they quickly described the procidure. But if you blink you could miss it.

          • Sloan July 26, 2013 at 12:27 PM CDT #

            “Then, the doctor injects the polymer gel (called Vasalgel here in the US), pushes the vas deferens back inside, repeats the process for the other vas deferens…” Right there in the article. Read much?

          • pegva September 17, 2013 at 8:02 AM CDT #

            um, that was mentioned.

          • Loveall January 6, 2014 at 9:18 AM CDT #

            It actually does mention both vas deferens in the first paragraph.

          • Kacey Beth Stringham January 6, 2014 at 12:29 PM CDT #

            Actually it did…polymer gel (called Vasalgel here in the US), pushes the vas deferens back inside, repeats the process for the other vas deferens, puts a Band-Aid over the small hole

          • UUU May 17, 2014 at 1:44 AM CDT #

            so they perform the operation twice and seal both vas deferens?

          • Cams January 2, 2015 at 2:03 PM CDT #

            Did you read the article? it clearly mentions repeating the process on both vas deferens.

        • Jamesdagmond March 26, 2012 at 9:20 PM CDT #

           The vast majority of semen sure, but the actual sperm of the semen do travel through it when you ejaculate. They pretty much inject you with plastic that fucks up sperm.

          • Jamesdagmond March 26, 2012 at 9:21 PM CDT #

             Say hello testicular cancer. LOL!

          • Anorny July 19, 2012 at 2:11 PM CDT #

            Just like females are saying hello to ovarian cancer due to the pill?
            Cry me a river, bro.

          • Lisa March 27, 2012 at 2:47 PM CDT #

            Seems like quite a bit of evidence points to quite a lot of women getting cancer from being on the pill, maybe it’s worth a potential nil chance of testicular cancer compared to factual ovarian cancer…

          • Khia March 29, 2012 at 12:05 AM CDT #

            @6f0d5f62075f96c8a8d715e827e864af:disqus There is also tons of evidence that birth control severely lowers the chances of ovarian cancer. One of the big causes of cancer and cysts of the ovaries is ovulation itself. Birth control stops ovulation. My gyno has actually used it in several cases where ovarian cancer is a never miss disease in the family. He gives it to the at risk girls until they are old enough to either have children or choose not to, after which he removes them.
            Pretty much anything can give you cancer. Natural cell function causes cancer even. Of course there is evidence saying it can cause it, since everyone’s body reacts differently. Its a new chemical in your system, it very well could trigger cancer just by what it is. Something that causes concern for cancer causes for me is something like radiation, which can go in to a perfectly healthy cell and destroy it. These other cancer causes are just triggering an already unhealthy cell. Or at least this is what I have come to understand of cancer.

        • Dijondra March 26, 2012 at 9:21 PM CDT #

          … Oh really? The Vas Deferens is the ONLY way that sperm are transported from the testicles. You poor, uneducated fool.

          • Daeda1us March 26, 2012 at 9:58 PM CDT #

            Over-educated, perhaps.  Uneducated?  LOL!  Not even close!
            Check out where the semen comes from.  Not just the sperm, but ALL the semen.  Every little bit of it.
            HIV is not specific to reproductive cells.  Not even close.  Hell, not even primarily!

            You need to read more.

          • Ms.Manners March 26, 2012 at 10:24 PM CDT #

            You may be “over-educated” as you claim but that’s no excuse for being a rude pompous ass. The author siad it “might” destroy HIV which may or may mot be true. The point this article is makeing still holds true that it would be an effective means of birth control. Given it opens the door for all kinds of STD’s to be contracted and/or spread doesn’t change the fact is would prevent more unwanted children from being born into the world. Just because you disagree with one thing the author claims the drug “might” do doesn’t make it right ,nor polite for you to call his entire artical bullshit. You seem to be the type that argues just to argue and if that’s the case you should really start working on your manners before you get that medical license or else you won’t be very successful at all in the medical feild or life.

          • Acorn March 26, 2012 at 10:41 PM CDT #

            He didn’t call the entire article bullshit.  He called the post he was replying to bullshit.  Semen doesn’t go through the vas deferens.

          • Bill March 26, 2012 at 10:49 PM CDT #

            So far, mr a1us is the only one that’s contributed factual information, and you’re resorting to attacking his manners to undermine his statement? That is a weak argument.

            Point is, if the article is trying to state facts, it can’t mix in BS and be credible trololo.

          • Ms.Manners March 26, 2012 at 11:32 PM CDT #

            No No No Bill I was saying he is calling someone’s entire artical bullshit based on one statement that wasn’t even stated as fact but as something that “might” be associated with the drug, which is quite rude. He doesn’t have to attack the entire artical based one scentence. The artical isn’t about STD or HIV prevention it is about a means of birth control. Take it for what it is (or isn’t) and if you don’t want it don’t get it. Quite frankly I just feel people should be more polite in all aspects of life even when disagreeing. If you don’t that’s fine just remember when your pointing the finger theres three pointing back have a good day and a wonderful life.

          • Sifjada January 17, 2013 at 2:00 PM CDT #

            In an article that is ‘factual’ and then spouting something about what ‘might’ be true is dangerous. I’m sure you know that there are far too many people out there that believe anything they read, will get this procedure and consider themselves immune to HIV, and then if/when it turns out to be false… well, it’s too late. Isn’t that considerably worse than being “rude” when calling the author out on this?

          • BunnyOle November 4, 2012 at 3:33 PM CDT #

            Bollox, and who said the article is ‘trying to state facts’ and only facts in the first place. Why can’t somebody say ‘it might’ do this as well? Because YOU say so? She isn’t ‘resorting to attacking his manners’ to undermine his statement. He IS a rude pompous ass, repeating the same shit in every response.

            Your argument is WEAK, a single phrase in an article does not delete the credibility of the article. How do you know it’s BS in the first place? You’re BS.

          • Russ Tavares January 9, 2013 at 9:09 PM CDT #

            “Culture, future, tech, science”… I don’t see “editorial”. So the author’s JOB is to state FACTS, and not whimsy.
            Sorry, but polite people aren’t right by that virtue, and rude people aren’t wrong by that vice. The overall point here appears to be that if you’re going to institute a measure of contraceptive that stands alone, you have to EXPECT corresponding reduction in condom usage. We’re guys, and we hate the blasted things. So if you even HINT to people that it’s going to stop HIV transmission, somewhere down the line will be a guy who gives his girlfriend (or boyfriend, no judgement) HIV, and claims that among the purported effects of his contraceptive were the destruction of the HIVirus, YOU certainly aren’t going to want your name on the piece of literature that he cites to back him up.

            People need to learn to err on the side of caution, not optimism.

          • Liz Traub January 17, 2013 at 8:35 PM CDT #

            I would say it’s a factual statement to say that there is a scientific paper out there somewhere that says the procedure might lower the amount of HIV is in semen.

          • Daeda1us March 26, 2012 at 10:52 PM CDT #

            What Acorn said!
            I got my medical degree many years ago.
            I have also seen articles like this come along and people get all excited about something that had no basis in reality from the very beginning.
            Remember when the AMA came out and said a high fiber diet might reduce colon cancer?  Ten years later they came back and admitted it doesnt.
            There are tons of examples just like that.
            Giving people false hope regarding HIV transmission is evil, imo.  How many women are married to HIV+ men and risk contracting the virus everytime they have sex with their husband, even with condoms?  It would be WONDERFUL to be able to offer those women an effective, safe and easy alternative.
            But lying to them?  No.  Unethical AND Immoral.

          • Ms.Manners March 26, 2012 at 11:23 PM CDT #

            That is true and I fully agree, but he didn’t phrase it as fact he stated it “might” have that effect. We live in a simple world nothing’s free and everything has a catch you ALWAYS need to read the fine print

          • Ms.Manners March 26, 2012 at 11:23 PM CDT #

            That is true and I fully agree, but he didn’t phrase it as fact he stated it “might” have that effect. We live in a simple world nothing’s free and everything has a catch you ALWAYS need to read the fine print

          • Russ Tavares January 9, 2013 at 9:10 PM CDT #

            Oh please. Tell me you even read the terms and conditions when you signed up here. Choose realism over optimism, in these matters.

          • Anorny July 19, 2012 at 2:04 PM CDT #

            Oh look, girls! Dudes coming out to defend one another and their mighty spurmz!

            No one give’s a fuck’s fuck about the piece of paper a bunch of gov’t tools gave you. Stop being such a whiney baybie. And so damn naive.

            The alternative you speak of is here, but will not be pushed by an industry that makes money not on health, but illness. The AMA lies constantly. Same with CDC. So try scanning/surfing instead of just swallowing whatever the lectures by fellow brainwashees you get on your golf trip-I MEAN medical conferences feed you.

          • BunnyOle November 4, 2012 at 3:37 PM CDT #

            Go pontificate somewhere else you jackass. Who the hell are you to say the hope is false and that people are being LIED too. What a total JACKASS and a windbag. YOU now have to resort to calling the author of this post as EVIL? Who the hell are you to lecture on morality and ethics, you’re on some stupid website arguing with people and telling everybody how fucking smart you are! PATHETIC. Nobody cares what you’ve seen, and even if everything you said was right – nobody will listen because people hate you because you are an arrogant TOOL.

          • Liz Traub January 17, 2013 at 8:29 PM CDT #

            MPH in Epidemiology here. I’m sorry, but considering how terribly hard it is to transmit HIV in the first place (a transmission event has about a 1/1000 chance of happening for every exposure to the virus), every decrease in the viral load of HIV in semen is a benefit. People take anti-retrovirals to decrease the possibility of transmission between mother and daughter and between couples with discordant serostatus, so who is to say that even lessening the amount of HIV in semen isn’t a desirable goal? Its not as if we’re going to have a cure or vaccine anytime soon. Really, right now we only have two really effective methods of prevention — abstinence and condoms, and after that it’s male circumcision. Considering that it’s men who generally infect people (the chance of female to male transmission is much lower due to basic anatomy), we should be working to lower the possibility of transmission in every circumstance, regardless of how effective that is.

          • BunnyOle November 4, 2012 at 3:30 PM CDT #

            over arrogant, at least.

          • Indeed March 27, 2012 at 2:29 AM CDT #

            While I agree with what Daedalus is saying, it’s just unfortunate that they come off as a condescending, self-righteous prick that no one wants to listen to out of principle. MD/PhD here, yet I would never use that to seem above other people.. It’s people like you who propagate the stereotype that doctors are assholes :D

          • tarmstrong March 27, 2012 at 2:58 PM CDT #

             pretty sure wikipedia doesn’t count as a valid reference anyway. So calling someone uneducated and then using a reference he could have written himself says something about you as well.

          • Randall Marshall January 17, 2013 at 11:47 AM CDT #

            It pretty much does. 99% of Wikipedia articles are sufficiently well-cited to be “good enough” for a casual web search.

          • Nerdgetsfriendly March 27, 2012 at 3:10 PM CDT #

            Semen is more than just sperm. The vast majority of the ejaculate volume is seminal fluid, not sperm cells, and this fluid does not come from the testes nor is is transported through the vas deferens. The bulk of the seminal fluid (which carries HIV in infected individuals) comes from the seminal vesicles and the prostate gland.

          • guest March 27, 2012 at 4:13 PM CDT #

            read some of the other comments first

          • Guest March 27, 2012 at 4:16 PM CDT #

            You cannot
            rely on Wikipedia for your information. First of all, it is not always
            accurate, and secondly, anyone can put any information they want on there.

            I am not
            saying that you are wrong or right, and I do not care to do any research to
            prove either side, I simply think that you need to recognize that Wikipedia is
            not a reliable source, and that next time you want to back yourself up, use an
            accredited source please.

          • Goshon March 28, 2012 at 4:50 PM CDT #

            ^Insults intelligence of others.  Links wikipedia as a reference.  Well played, idiot.

          • almost all of you are idiots January 23, 2013 at 11:00 AM CDT #

            why do you talk like you’re quoting a fucking meme? you must browse reddit, huh?

        • Kal Galath March 26, 2012 at 9:28 PM CDT #

          Cite your sources, or admit you don’t know what the hell you’re talking about.

          Every sperm you produce has to travel through the vas deferens to reach the urethra, and thus be expelled from the body. And SPERM, not SEMEN is the carrier of genetic payload and fertilizer of eggs. the rest of the ejaculate is simply for volume and protection.

          During a VASectomy a section of the vas deferens is removed (get it? VAS-ectomy… it’s pretty simple.) This disrupts the pathway for the sperm to travel to join the rest of the seminal fluid for ejaculation.

          Oddly enough, I’m more than willing to take the word of a medical university, the army medical site, and even that guy on Yahoo answers you explains in depth, over your unfounded, unsupported outcry of bullshit.

          Your argument fails, because you have no argument.

          Good day.

          • Daeda1us March 26, 2012 at 10:02 PM CDT #

            If they are talking about reducing the frequency of pregnancies, they may be right.  I did not address that issue at all.
            I did address the issue of “might destroy HIV”.
            As I have replied to others, for the HIV to be destroyed, it would need to come in contact with the material.  But there are glands that can contain HIV well past the vas deferens.  So any HIV in those secretions would be uneffected by the material that may effectively destroy the sperm.  The sperm is a tiny fraction of semen.

            Hence my call of BULLSHIT!

          • lsdf March 26, 2012 at 10:24 PM CDT #

            What the author is saying is that the pharm would be happy with anything even if it cured HIV if it means fewer customers. I didn’t see it as a claim that this procedure cures HIV…..

          • Daeda1us March 26, 2012 at 10:56 PM CDT #

            The authors exact words,  “(even if it might have the side benefit of, you know, destroying HIV).”

          • doug January 19, 2013 at 7:10 PM CDT #

            the key word is “might”… Meaning maybe.. Not, “Will destroy HIV” or “destroys HIV” The author used the word might! Meaning its yet to be seen.

          • twitterMEthis July 28, 2012 at 11:15 PM CDT #

            except in the case of seman hiv is attached to the individual sperm not a gland. this is why the theory of HIV making it through a condom was debunked. like most of the sex hating argument here. enjoy your lives as virgins, or your miserable lover due to the hormonal reaction to female BC.
            i would encourage most of the people playing skeptic on this thread to ya know READ A BOOK

          • Randy Goldberg January 16, 2013 at 9:12 AM CDT #

            HIV is not transmitted via sperm. The virus can be found free-floating in seminal fluid, as well as transmitted through other cells found in semen. Spermatozoa are generally themselves free of the virus.

          • ethan January 14, 2013 at 3:35 PM CDT #

            it is a straw man. there are tons of less effective, relatively unsafe female contraception strategies that do nothing against STDs. why nitpick the ONE male contraception that is actually effective and safe (let alone more effective and safer than most female contraception)?

          • Randall Marshall January 17, 2013 at 11:42 AM CDT #

            Because there’s really no studies *saying* it’s safe?

          • El Bastardo January 21, 2013 at 9:15 AM CDT #

            LOL, I’m not surprised. Every time male birth control options appear in the media you people come out of the word work with all these lame comments trying to say it is no good; or men will forever be players (you’re right! :)).

            This option is eventually going to no longer be abel to be hidden by the FDA; as feminists have tried forever to keep us under their overpriced high heel. Since they create so much social disharmony, and therefore bigger government; the Fed has bankrolled them and rolled over when they cry and complain.

            the Men’s Movement is going to get this passed. eventually, and then all these feminists will truly be stuck with cats; and replaced by foreign women who treat us the way we deserve. See, I can sidetrack too!

          • DLOnie page January 21, 2013 at 11:38 AM CDT #

            LMBO!!!! Touche’ again good sir! Your on a roll here!

          • evilfeminist January 22, 2013 at 2:52 PM CDT #

            Do you have any proof for your anti-feminist conspiracy claims? Or are you just butthurt because you can’t see through your male privilege and recognize that women don’t owe you a damn thing just because you have a dick and can’t get over getting rejected?

          • Littledan87 February 26, 2013 at 3:42 PM CDT #

            Please evilfeminist please explain what privilege being male has brought me.

          • evilfeminist January 22, 2013 at 3:02 PM CDT #

            I’d also like to add, as a feminist, I would fucking LOVE IT if men finally had some responsibility in the preventing babies business besides condom use. All the birth control out there currently a) sucks and b) is aimed at women. Because clearly we’re the only ones responsible, amirite? Do you know how liberating it would be to not have to worry about how hormonal birth control is fucking with me? To not have to worry if my diaphragm is sitting right? To not have to worry if I tracked my ovulation days correctly? To not have to worry if my IUD was put in correctly? Hell, to not have to go through the painful procedures at the OBGYN office to even GET a diaphragm or IUD or bc pills? If I could just have my partner go to the doctor and get THIS done it would make life much easier for BOTH of us. And finally men like you who whine all the time that you don’t have any say in the babymaking process can’t get all pissed off if we wind up pregnant and can’t find it in ourselves to actually abort the thing. Because the situation would never arise in the first fucking place. So there you go. Happier women AND less abortions. What the fuck is there for feminists to be pissed off about?

          • Joakim Kristiansen January 23, 2013 at 12:55 PM CDT #

            Indeed, it’s clearly a win/win in my opinion.

          • Mel February 8, 2013 at 7:42 AM CDT #

            you rock, just saying.

          • whatever_dude February 21, 2013 at 1:51 PM CDT #

            I’m in love with evilfeminist <3

            And El Bastardo is a paranoid tool, twisting something that's potentially good and liberating for everyone into a political tirade against an imaginary enemy. Way to make the world a better place, infant.

          • areinard February 22, 2013 at 10:23 AM CDT #

            You should be pissed that this breakthrough has to rely on on crowdfunding (read: donations) to proceed with trials. You should be pissed that the Gates Foundation has donated strictly to attempt to develop it as another female birth control option (which is not what it was designed to do).

          • divalicias March 7, 2013 at 6:48 AM CDT #

            Good sumation. Thank you. Would like to add how bad things are in my state (VA) for young men who unintentionally created pregnancies with young women who decided to continue the pregnancies. Now the young men are financially responsible for the children.They are all struggling, but the men are really paying a high price.They cannot afford to pay the child support on their low wage jobs, they fall behind.The women need financial help so they go to Social Services — and are required to name the fathers. Social Services then become the collection agent and the young men are now in debt to Social Services. If the men fail to pay Social Services, they get put in jail for non-payment. The child support debt continues to accrue even when they are in jail. No one wins — not the mothers, not the children and certainly not the fathers who are stuck in a horrible cycle. This does not end when the child turns 18 — if the child support debt is still owed, the parent is still responsible for up to 20 years after the month support was determined.

          • IndigoLamprey April 22, 2013 at 10:30 PM CDT #

            I saw a site recently (sorry, don’t have the link) where the author and the posters were terrified of the prospect of men having this, insisting that ONLY women should be able to make that choice. Yeah, I know, NAFALT, and all.

            “Do you know how liberating it would be to not have to worry about how hormonal birth control is fucking with me?”

            Oh yes, I do. I had an ex who drew the short end of the stick for side effects on birth control pills. I can only imagine what it’s like for the people taking them.

          • Guest February 12, 2013 at 3:29 AM CDT #

            gimme a break. you’re not a player :)) you live in your mother’s basement and yell at her if your PopTarts get too brown on the edges, just so you can feel powerful. Too bad the male birth control wasn’t invented before your dad came along and ruined her life

          • Falon Marie March 7, 2013 at 2:14 AM CDT #

            “Men’s Movement”? Are you kidding me? Men don’t need a movement because they are born with the upper hand. Sadly, women don’t have that privilege. The reason we’re fighting for women’s rights is because of ignorant people like yourself.

            “[Feminists] create so much social disharmony”…Really? Are you referring to the people that are trying to change the fact that women STILL don’t have the same opportunities as men, that we don’t get paid as much strictly because of our gender, and that men think they can decide what we do with our bodies? Because OF COURSE WE ARE. OF COURSE we are going to complain. The “social disharmony” is there because some people still aren’t comfortable with women wanting a say in the way things work. But as it turns out, we ARE allowed to voice our concerns, and we’re allowed to vote to change things – which is the case only because of those who fought for the 19th Amendment to be adopted in 1920, by causing, you know, “social disharmony.”

            I am all for male birth control options. I’m just not fond of your misogynistic opinions.

          • herr_X June 11, 2013 at 5:18 PM CDT #

            Feminists definetely cause disharmony. Norway is the #1 feminist country in the world, and women here get so uptalked all the time that men really get fed up.

            Every intelligent Norwegian man would definetely consider a girl from another country.

          • herr_X June 11, 2013 at 5:14 PM CDT #

            Good point, I am from Norway and know how out of hand feminism can get. Every other article in the news is about how brilliant women are, and how they are better at men at everything.

            I am slow to get pissed off, but I am, actually, now. Women are clearly priviledged in the society, on behalf of men.

          • Leews March 26, 2012 at 10:03 PM CDT #

            His argument was that a majority of SEMEN doesn’t travel through the vas deferens which is different from saying all sperm is produced by the testes and must travel through the VD. Sperm and semen are not synonyms in biology.. sperm is a part of semen, just like plasma and RBC are a part of the liquid we call blood. His argument is pretty healthy.

          • Leews March 26, 2012 at 10:05 PM CDT #

            I should clarify that I have the impression that the op was referring to the claims that this procedure may reduce the spread of HIV. Thats what I got out of it at least. The claims about fertility are likely true, seeing as how the slightest stricture in the VD causes pretty profound infertility.

          • Daeda1us March 26, 2012 at 10:19 PM CDT #

            Your impression was (and remains) correct.
            I made no comment regarding the efficacy of this procedure on destroying sperm cells.
            My only comment was regarding the “might destroy HIV”.
            Nice to see some analytical thought after all the knee jerk comments.
            Well done!

          • Daeda1us March 26, 2012 at 10:43 PM CDT #

            Why would anyone give a damn what I say?
            Maybe because they want to know they are being fed a line of crap by the author of the article?
            Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof.
            Would it be great to have a simple technique to prevent HIV transmission?  ABSOLUTELY!!!
            Would I support that technique?  ABSOLUTELY!!!
            Is this technique likely to be the one that can prevent HIV infected males from transmitting the virus?
            Highly Improbable.

          • bc March 26, 2012 at 10:53 PM CDT #

            Thank you for leaving and letting the I.Q. levels return to average.

          • Eve March 26, 2012 at 11:37 PM CDT #

            The issue so many have is that you seem to be straw-manning the entire article. ‘It’s all bullshit because it doesn’t cure HIV’ is considerably different than ‘it doesn’t cure HIV because Semen also carries the HIV cells and seldom uses the Vas Deferens.” you’re arguing the effectiveness of an anti-STD procedure against a contraceptive. Assuming that it doesn’t halt the spread of HIV, because it likely doesn’t, It’s still a possibility as a contraceptive, which is valuable in this day and age of over-population. 

          • Daeda1us March 27, 2012 at 12:13 AM CDT #

            Male contraception is HUGE!!!!  If there were a way to write that in bigger text I would.  I can not over-emphasize how WONDERFUL it would be to give males the same reproductive freedom women have.  It would be WONDERFUL!!!
            My only comments have been aimed at the false hope casually thrown in by the author at the end of the article regarding “destroying HIV”.  Premature at best.

          • fanube January 16, 2013 at 11:16 PM CDT #

            it’s interesting how you worded that…”how wonderful it would be to give males the same reproductive freedom women have”…hmm?

          • guy January 18, 2013 at 2:07 PM CDT #

            There is a need for this. Currently, men are slaves to reproductive decisions women make. If a man can control his reproduction up to 100%, HE CHOOSES when HE WANTS to have children.

            Unlike women, men cannot throw off obligations of pregnancy. Men can’t force abortions; we can’t abandon babies at safe havens without consent of the other parent; we can’t choose to walk away from financial obligations when a mother decides to unilaterally have a child on her own and seeks child support.

          • meimei January 18, 2013 at 4:49 PM CDT #

            wear a fucking condom, it’s not difficult

          • meimei <3's condoms January 23, 2013 at 4:23 AM CDT #

            ^^^ please kill yourself, virgin…

          • rhetoricus January 24, 2013 at 12:02 PM CDT #

            Condoms break and come off. Best to double-up protection.

          • zoe January 18, 2013 at 5:12 PM CDT #

            Are you kidding? I can’t tell if this is a sarcastic comment. Men can’t throw off obligations of pregnancy? Let’s all sit back for a moment and think about how ridiculous this statement is. Sure, for men with a conscience. It’s the woman’s body that has to endure pregnancy and so she is in charge of what happens in that sense, but plenty of man can avoid such consequences. Not to mention that they don’t carry the physical and emotional ramifications of abortion. Not that they should have to endure such experiences since it isn’t their body, but let’s not pretend that every man in the world is bound to the children he has made.

          • Hurrr January 22, 2013 at 2:36 PM CDT #

            Well to be fair it IS half his.

          • vanessa January 18, 2013 at 8:34 PM CDT #

            Are you serious? men abandon babies they’ve helped create and the women they’ve created them with infinitely more than women do. when your body can conceive then you can talk about the decision to have or not have a child after becoming pregnant. check your male privilege. your comment is extremely offensive and you are extremely ignorant.

          • El Bastardo January 21, 2013 at 9:00 AM CDT #

            You sound like a hag. The facts are actually not in your favor. You must be one of those women who routinely cut the men out of you and your kids lives; and then refuses to take responsibility for using the state to destroy your family so you can be ghetto fabulous.

          • DontThinkYouKnowWhatIgnorantIs January 23, 2013 at 2:02 AM CDT #

            You’re pretty ignorant your self there. If a man can choose when HE wants to procreate, that is the only protection we have from a mistake and this is 100% effective. Women get to choose after the mistake, men don’t, and yes they can shirk it, but if the female is persistent she can mess up his life financially FOREVER. Friend of the court is not friendly when you not only own the parent money but also FOTC (I’m speaking from the child’s perspective). If a man can circumvent that, have safe consensual sex with out worry or fear of pregnancy, and gets regular STD tests with a partner that does the same, boom no conflict over what you are labeling him ignorant for. Open your damn mind. Men do not have the benefit of the doubt in this system like women do. This allows BOTH parties to for go the heartache of a CONSENSUAL mistake.

          • Guest January 23, 2013 at 8:10 AM CDT #


          • Teru March 6, 2013 at 3:04 AM CDT #

            Last I checked, women are STILL told that it’s unethical to get an abortion. You make it sound like it’s easy. It’s not. You don’t have the government breathing down your neck about when or not you have kids. In some places, we are literally NOT ALLOWED to choose. Think of that before you start talking about who gets all the choices in this matter.

          • bella mark July 11, 2014 at 8:19 PM CDT #


            Do you believe HIV have cure if yes meet a man who cure HIV aids for 45mins
            spell, I was HIV positive for 5year and I was in a serious illness but him
            the great man save my life he is the greatest of almost all spell caster
            thanks DR.UDO native of UDO the man that lord sent to help all HIV
            patients thank for curing my virus. if you need his help contact him for
            great and happy life my friends, To get this powerful healer full article
            and trust on his origination and references please visit him now again at:
            email: DR.

          • DoYouEvenLift? March 6, 2013 at 2:39 PM CDT #

            A man can ALWAYS choose when to procreate, its called KEEP YOUR DICK IN YOUR PANTS. But most don’t, and they like to fool around with multiple people, and they like to skip the protection because “sex doesn’t feel as good with a condom”, or the ever popular, “don’t you trust me?” bit. Poor poor men that go around spreading their seed like wildfire then getting saddled with the children THEY create by way of irresponsibility and lack of self control. It might be consensual, but you cant mickey mouse the fact that most men will say anything to bed a woman and then try to skirt responsibility. Watch an episode of Maury Povich for example.

          • guest March 7, 2013 at 10:48 AM CDT #

            Nicely done… Until you got to the end and started blaming men for all of it and mentioning Maury. It’s an equal decision and fault on all parts to not be safe, knowing very well where babies come from! It’s not the womans bad if she decides to keep the baby. unless she lied about birth, they both knew there was a possibility of pregnancy…

          • Chris April 17, 2013 at 9:27 AM CDT #

            As opposed to a woman keeping her legs closed! It’s not them who get on their backs and ALLOW penetration!

          • Guest July 11, 2013 at 1:17 PM CDT #

            I know I am late to the party but…are you referring to the not the father episodes of Maury…you know the ones where they bring in some dumb slut and test like 9 dudes because she sleeps around so much she doesnt know who the father is? haha awesome!

          • I_loathe_disqus April 16, 2014 at 7:12 AM CDT #

            That’s not 100 percent true. In some areas of the USA, it is hellishly easy for women to force men to assume the financial burden of children KNOWN not to be the man’s. In some states, the ancient English law is still in effect whereby a child born to a married couple is legally considered the husband’s, even if he were separated from the wife for 365 days! (Obviously that law no longer coincides with scientific knowledge, and should be abolished.) In other states, the “best interest of the child” is allowed to trump all rational thinking: If a man is dumb enough to cohabit with a single mom, he tries to leave her, he might find himself forced to support her brood financially because he was in a “parental role” with the children-even if it’s known they’re actually fathered by, eg,her ex husband! ( This is mainly an excuse to go after the conveniently close and employed live-in, rather than track down a bio father who may be heaven knows where and possibly unemployed.) And pretty much everywhere, if a man gets a court date re:child support, he doesn’t show because the papers were delivered to the wrong address or otherwise never received, he WILL get a default judgment against him as a no-show,and be on the hook for 18+ years! There have been cases where the mother said, that’s the wrong guy, I said John H Doe and this is John G Doe, whom I’ve never met in my life…And the court STILL refused to vacate its judgment!

            Unless these laws are changed , no male contraceptive will do men much good.

            (See Bernard Goldberg’s Bias for a full account of child support injustices.)

          • Christopher 'Longcat' Anthony March 19, 2013 at 10:35 AM CDT #

            >men abandon babies they’ve helped create and the women they’ve created them with infinitely more than women do.

            This is because women are the only ones with reproductive rights that extend beyond “Don’t have sex” and even that’s a bit of a grey area considering a woman is far less likely to be convicted of rape (per 100 perpetrators) than men are. It’s not surprising that some men run away.

          • Chris April 17, 2013 at 9:31 AM CDT #

            Oh please, more feminist crap. “When your body can conceive…” the last time I heard the only way a female can conceive is by a male or artificial insemination. Sorry you don’t like having to be the incubator for 9 months but that’s life so deal with it!

            You want to the benefits of being female without the negatives. Very rarely hear men whining so much.

          • Chelle January 19, 2013 at 3:08 PM CDT #

            He can already control his reproduction 100% it is called keeping it in his pants or using a condom! Plenty also choose to walk away from their commitments to the children they help create both financialy and emotio naly.

          • El Bastardo January 21, 2013 at 9:07 AM CDT #

            You right, except your inference si wrong; it is women who “can” throw away responsibility; it is called abortion, the ability to give away with no questions asked, and the female sentencing discount.

            Men have responsibility. I use to shame men on your behalf crazed person; now I understand why they duck and run; they do not want you to have the power to destroy their lives financially, thus guaranteeing they are producing LG appliances for you to buy in prison.

            You may not know it; but men are rejecting you. If you looked at the facts; since 73 we have gone down to 34.9 marriages/1000 76.5.

            Your blatant disregard and disdain shown them is why. Take responsibility for women terrible behavior in family court. Have you gleefully used a family court judge to destroyed your ex lately?

            Of course you did; baby killer(abortion), neglecter (adoption walk-away mom). See, I can launch accusations too.

          • evilfeminist January 22, 2013 at 2:58 PM CDT #

            Who says it’s men rejecting women that’s leading to the lower marriage rate? Maybe people in general are seeing what a sham marriage is.

          • divalicias March 7, 2013 at 6:22 AM CDT #

            Throwing accusations is not helpful. People have made valid points on both sides of this discussion.

          • lola January 22, 2013 at 9:28 PM CDT #

            condoms are only 97% effective

          • guest January 23, 2013 at 1:52 PM CDT #

            i believe he is clearly stating that women may and do easily lie about their contraceptive measures. aka “im on the pill or i have had the shot” and boom what do u know there pregnant and funny enough they want to have a baby all the sudden ????????????????? valid point he is stating that if he or other men used this they would not have to worry about someone going to the extremism of a lie in order to get pregnant

          • JoHanna M. White January 23, 2013 at 6:09 PM CDT #

            condoms are not 100%. I know several children who are the result of broken ones.

          • areinard February 22, 2013 at 10:14 AM CDT #

            Condoms are not 100% successful. “Keep it in your pants” is a anti-choice rebuttal commonly thrown at women (think about that before using it).

          • Teru March 6, 2013 at 3:12 AM CDT #

            I’m pretty sure that’s it’s meant for men, actually. Seeing how men have a sexual organ that can be literally taken out of their pants, while women do not.

          • divalicias March 7, 2013 at 6:23 AM CDT #

            Women are told to “keep their legs closed.” Similar to men being told to “keep it in their pants.” Neither is really effective — both are insulting.

          • Littledan87 February 26, 2013 at 3:36 PM CDT #

            Pretty Funny Chelle I recently heard a bunch of women going nuts over a guy who stated that women should just keep their legs together. Perhaps all of those wonderful pills and implants should be taken away from you. Leaving you with the fear that you are at the mercy of any man who might get it in his head that he wants a child regardless of your opinion and just not tell you he isn’t taking the pill anymore. After all that is what men around the world deal with everyday.

            The privilege of choice should belong to both. If a woman can decide to throw off the burdens of a CONSENSUAL mistake and abort a child regardless of how the father feels(within the first trimester) thus abdicating any and all responsibilities to that child, then the father should be able to abdicate his responsibilities as well (within the first trimester.)

            “Her body, her choice!” seems to be the rallying cry all around the world for women who want to ability to abdicate any responsibility for a child or force a man to have a child regardless of his opinion, desires, dreams or hopes. So perhaps there should be a similar rallying cry for men…..”My wallet, my choice.”

          • Teru March 6, 2013 at 3:10 AM CDT #

            You, sir, are a fucking moron. “The privilege of choice should belong to both”, huh? Why don’t you apply that way of thinking to abortion debate rather than sit here complaining about unrealistic situations.
            “Oh the women are all trying to trick us! They all want our babies and our money!” Why don’t you sit the fuck down and learn some respect. Women would like to have control over their own reproductive rights before they want any of those things. They would want the ability to choose whether or not they remain pregnant. You, as a man, have no idea how much you take away from women just by existing.
            Women would like to have choices. They would also like to be paid fairly. They would also like to stop being raped and taken advantaged of by men who disrespect them.
            You’re not the victim here, so stop acting like it. It’s pathetic.

          • divalicias March 7, 2013 at 6:20 AM CDT #

            This is a bit unfair to tell men to “keep it in their pants” — it’s like telling women to keep their legs closed. It’s kind of insulting and really not effective. Sex is a powerful drive and people will engage in it even when it’s not in their best interests, given the many possible consequences of sex, If we can mitigate those risks, it’s better for all involved. Does one bad decision made in a rush of passion always have to result in a lifetime of consequences?

          • Hayley January 22, 2013 at 11:08 PM CDT #

            Wear a condom? Or just not have sex with someone that you don’t trust or arent willing to create a family with? Problem solved.

          • areinard February 22, 2013 at 10:17 AM CDT #

            Condoms can fail? Trust can be betrayed? “Pro-creation sex only” arguments are just dumb as hell? What’s wrong with another birth control option anyway?

          • Eric Echevarria January 23, 2013 at 5:53 AM CDT #

            Ever heard of a vasectomy?

          • Jayn Roxton-Wiggill January 23, 2013 at 7:58 AM CDT #

            Good points. The decision to have children should be shared:)

          • Cat January 23, 2013 at 2:52 PM CDT #

            True. However, all men have the choice to have sexual intercourse with another woman

          • March 27, 2012 at 1:13 AM CDT #

            The best part about this comments section is that everyone replying to Daeda1us didn’t actually read what s/he said.

            Daeda1us addressed the probability HIV transmission.
            Daeda1us did not address the probability of pregnancy.

            Just to recap in case the point was not driven home: HIV is not sperm. Sperm is also not HIV.

            Boy, if you have to look for ignorant fools with egos masked by anonymity, look no further than the Internet.

          • El Bastardo January 21, 2013 at 9:11 AM CDT #

            Yeah, I agree. It is definitely more important that we stop sidetracking and get the FDA to get this approved. That way the federal government will lose tax money via wealth transfer from men to women through family court theft.

            Apparently, feminists have kept an eye for male birth control for decades to keep it out of the American public’s hands. If men choose when and where they have children; there are no “oops I’m preggo” moments. Then women won’t have child support to fall back on when she no longer desires to work. Mainly because she no longer can produce a kid.

            Men’s bodies, men’s choice! YEEEAAAAAAAYYYYYYY!

          • evilfeminist January 22, 2013 at 2:50 PM CDT #

            oh strawmen. Hissssss the evil feministsssss are doing it! Hissss. Hide your children! Oh wait! You can’t! We stole them!!! Gimme a break.

          • Destiny January 23, 2013 at 8:26 AM CDT #

            Hmmm, looks to me that you would be a great test subject for this new BC. Then again, opening your mouth works pretty good too.

          • Jules January 23, 2013 at 9:18 PM CDT #

            You are one bitter man.. Someone really messed you up.

          • Teru March 6, 2013 at 3:14 AM CDT #

            …You must be a troll. If not, for your own sake don’t talk like that in public. It’s shameful.

          • Trololololo January 23, 2013 at 2:04 AM CDT #

            I guess you kind of miss the point of a ‘discussion’ thread don’t you?

          • Jordan January 17, 2013 at 12:07 PM CDT #

            Why didn’t you just click the link “Destroying HIV”

            it’s an abstract of the study in which you claim has no argument.

          • Jayn Roxton-Wiggill January 23, 2013 at 7:57 AM CDT #

            There is no need for rudeness.

      • Guest star March 27, 2012 at 9:30 AM CDT #

        Why would this displace the use of condoms?  There are plenty of women taking the pill that still insist on men using condoms to cover the areas the pills don’t (disease).  Or do you mean this would give men yet another excuse to try to get out of wearing them?

        • Carissa Condor Grihalva March 29, 2012 at 3:39 PM CDT #

          But for women with only one partner and men who dont want babies. This is awesome. Responsibilty and common sense dictates the use of condoms to prevent disease

          • mon-chan April 26, 2012 at 7:59 PM CDT #

            So, you’re saying that women with only one partner shouldn’t use a condom? ROFL. I hope that one partner has an STI then! Good luck to you.

      • Urnotthatdumbru? March 27, 2012 at 5:18 PM CDT #

        No it couldn’t. N only if ur that stupid to do that. Would u have sex with a guy if he said “oh we don’t need a condom iv had this procedure done.” it’s the same as if a guy were to say he had the snip or that he was “immune”, or the one I love the best “I no when to pull out”. Obviously this procedure would b very beneficial for couples who r not ready to have children yet or have had enough for now. (forenot: I do no that no one is immune to HIV or any other STI or STD’s, that was the point)

      • Xwedx March 27, 2012 at 11:40 PM CDT #

        FELISV.. please don’t tell me you depend on wikipedia for facts.. ?

      • Ava Wilson March 28, 2012 at 3:12 PM CDT #

         That’s stupid and is like saying putting IUDs on the market caused the displacement of condoms. People use condoms to not get HIV, whether they have an IUD or not. The same would go for male contraception. It can come with a pamphlet that reminds, ‘DOES NOT PREVENT HIV. USE A CONDOM FOR THAT!’. Jeeze.

      • Neko Rene March 28, 2012 at 3:51 PM CDT #

        This would never replace condoms

      • Lady guest March 28, 2012 at 8:48 PM CDT #

        The pH of the vagina is around 3-4 and the pH of semen is 7-8. Would lowering the pH of semen have the added benefit of not flushing the vagina with alkaline fluid, changing the natural acidic environment? Having too much semen in the vagina at once can cause the vagina’s natural acidic state to change, which can make it vulnerable to yeast infections. So if semen’s pH was lower, would that be beneficial to the vagina?

      • Dane Calderon April 2, 2012 at 5:35 AM CDT #

         If your girlfriend is on birth control, do you use a condom?  The fact of the matter is your argument simply points to the fact that we men expect women to shoulder the responsibilities of contraception, even as we fight to deny them access to it.

      • Guest April 16, 2012 at 2:33 AM CDT #

        So since when do we only use condoms to protect ourselves from HIV? Are there no other STD’s out there? I’m totally into this kind of contraceptive, but they really shouldn’t be all “no rubber” about it when there is absolutely no reason to say that. It’s not proven that it acts as an anti-HIV agent, and it defenately doesn’t act like an anti-every-possible-STD-you-can-get-agent… 

      • xXwhiteknucklesXx August 6, 2012 at 6:48 PM CDT #

        I find this quite humorous. I’ve always found abstinence to be quite effective in preventing both pregnancy and STDs.

        • marglebargle January 17, 2013 at 11:51 PM CDT #

          Meanwhile, the rest of us here in Reality-Land will continue to realize that your abstinence has no bearing on the rest of the world’s promiscuity or lack thereof. Nor is abstinence a good way to prevent rape.

          On a slightly related note, wouldn’t this be great to give to repeat sexual offenders?

          • JoHanna M. White January 23, 2013 at 6:18 PM CDT #

            Or teenage boys! 10 years of no procreating starting at 14 would be a big prevention of teen pregnancy.

      • Nemesis_Nexus January 9, 2013 at 10:01 PM CDT #

        It should not displace condom usage, unless you WANT to contract an STD, that is.

      • Cal Barker March 31, 2014 at 10:39 AM CDT #

        “in semen” what about in blood. HIV doesn’t always come from semen it’s more commonly a blood transfusion, which is why junkies can get it from sharing needles. During sex, microscopic tears in the penis and vagina (or rectum) happen, when tears from either on come in to contact, blood is transfused. Less likely to happen with vaginal sex because, well it’s more slippery than anal for want of a better word, so there’s less likely to be any tears but it does happen. cutting off sperm won’t protect you from HIV.

    • Elise March 26, 2012 at 4:16 PM CDT #

      If you click the link, there’s an explanation.

    • Jonathon Clinkenbeard March 26, 2012 at 4:24 PM CDT #

      Absolutely. The link I posted ( is to a study that postulates if the pH variation and electrochemical action of RISUG is fatally disruptive to the cell walls of sperm cells passing through the vas deferens, it should be an equally destructive environment to the protein encasements of viruses such as HIV. 
      If true, this could lead to HIV-positive males getting RISUG to cease transmitting the virus to others altogether, and an almost complete eradication of the virus with widespread adoption of this procedure in general.

      • Nate March 26, 2012 at 4:39 PM CDT #

        I think it’s important to stress that the study is a postulation at this point. What may denature the proteins in a sperm acrosome may not necessarily do the same to an HIV viral capsid. The real study hasn’t happened yet. I think it’s a neat idea, but we definitely need more data before we can really say RISUG will be effective against HIV transmission…

        I’m looking forward to seeing how this plays out!

      • Will the Magnificent March 26, 2012 at 7:20 PM CDT #

        Who’s gonna foot the bill in Africa? Or what happens when one country is all like “yeah, were thinkin about destroying HIV for the people of _____, oh what’s that? Yeah, we get it that you want to get rid of HIV as well, but you just don’t have the funds in your account homie, sorry.”

        • Rilgon Arcsinh March 26, 2012 at 8:26 PM CDT #

          I would suggest that it should be all the first world countries that ruined Africa through colonialization and arming of militant warlords, but hahahahaha.

    • Answer to Confused March 27, 2012 at 1:08 PM CDT #

      if you click the link that says ‘destroys HIV’ it brings you to an abstract about studies they’ve done

    • The Great One March 27, 2012 at 3:10 PM CDT #

      Because it destroys the cells (Sperm cells) that carry the HIV virus

      • Croaxleigh March 27, 2012 at 11:16 PM CDT #

        Actually, the majority of HIV is transmitted through semen, not sperm cells. I don’t know that HIV is even capable of inhabiting sperm cells themselves, since it requires specific cellular receptors to connect to and infect a cell. The postulation is that the procedure could cause a shift in the overall pH that would either kill the viral cells or render them inert. It’s not the result of actual study at this point and in my opinion isn’t likely to work, but that’s how the hypothesis goes.

    • Marco March 28, 2012 at 3:24 PM CDT #

      Geoff: Your quote is simply restating the hypothesis, it provides no evidence whatsoever….

    • patrick September 27, 2012 at 2:14 PM CDT #

      did you click the link that is the blue highlighted words “destroying HIV”?

    • MRR January 16, 2013 at 8:59 PM CDT #

      Did you actually try clicking the link? The text “destroying HIV” is a link leading to a study on precisely that.


    • Ninja Life Tips January 17, 2013 at 8:48 AM CDT #

      Yeah, it has Zero Protection over STIs. We go from Stopping Babies to Infecting People

    • frustrated January 19, 2013 at 1:36 PM CDT #

      Consider reading the link provided by the author of this article (the hyperlink in the text). It explains the HIV link. Basically, there is a study in progress to inject antimicrobial agents into the VD in an attempt to reduce the viral load. Thus reducing transmission of the virus. Do some research, or maybe just check the links in front of your face.

    • Caroline January 24, 2013 at 2:37 AM CDT #

      What about junkies?

    • Di January 27, 2013 at 2:50 PM CDT #

      What I got out of this article… Pharmacists in America will not allow this form of contraception (even if it destroyed HIV) because it would hurt their profits.

    • Karl Scoble September 16, 2013 at 9:52 PM CDT #

      Science is a science unfortunately and scientists make incorrect claims all the time, best to get that theory of RISUG being an anti-HIV agent to understand it better, possibly outlining any possible negative health risks associated with it before we go jumping at the idea like so many instances in the past.

      Personally I’d prefer not to have millions of men become infertile due to a misconception. Better safe (but HIV-prone) than sorry.

    • Alan January 6, 2014 at 7:01 AM CDT #

      Try reading the link the author helpfully supplied?

      “A hypothesis proposing an intra vas deferens implant of an antimicrobial compound to prevent the infection spread is presented. Mechanisms of action for the inhibition could include inactivating HIV in sperms passing through the vas deferens; drug release from the implant to destroy HIV entering into semen from genital structures distal to the vas deferens; and sperm acrosome released hyaluronidase mediated reabsorption of HIV. A subcomponent of the implant flowing along sperm pathway may have a role in reducing the entry of HIV from a positive female into penile tissue. A new drug RISUG™ (reversible inhibition of sperm under guidance) presently undergoing clinical trials for its contraceptive effect in the male (because it disrupts the sperm acrosome by an electrical charge and pH lowering effects) has also antimicrobial action”.

    • n4zhg March 22, 2014 at 10:26 AM CDT #

      HIV is more fragile than sperm.

  2. Radioguy March 26, 2012 at 4:38 PM CDT #

    What’s the “ball park” cost of this procedure vs a vasectomy? Does insurance cover it or no becauseit’s an elective procedure?

    • Trouble March 26, 2012 at 8:59 PM CDT #

      More to the point, what is the ballpark cost of this procedure vs. an IUD?

      • Dani March 26, 2012 at 11:25 PM CDT #

        I have an IUD. If it wasn’t got the Plan First program, it would have cost me at least $500 for the IUD itself, let alone other insurance fees. It only last 5 years compared to the 10K10 this lasts and there’s always a chance the IUD could destory my chances of ever having children or peirce my uterus. So this is obviously a better option.

        • Skissie March 29, 2012 at 10:29 PM CDT #

          If you red the first link near the end, its a very expanded version of the story. The cost would be minimal for the materials. They mention the gel perhaps costing less than the syringe used to inject it (pennies). What the medical field might do to that for money making reasons is different, but the actual procedure SHOULDN’T cost much of anything. Far less than an IUD, and – at material costs – less than a single condom!

  3. Back It Up March 26, 2012 at 4:52 PM CDT #

    Some links that provide back up material would go far in validating your statements here. 

  4. Lauren B March 26, 2012 at 5:10 PM CDT #

    That’s great if the study shows styrene maleic acid lowers pH to a level sufficient to destroy HIV in semen but there are a ton of other STIs that can still be transmitted. It’s quite rare for a heterosexual couple to contract HIV through vaginal sex but it’s great news for the gay community.

    • Amanda March 26, 2012 at 8:10 PM CDT #

      I don’t think it’s rare in places like Africa for heterosexual contact to spread this disease. I think this is great news for all communities if the study proves it works.

    • Michelle March 26, 2012 at 9:31 PM CDT #

      I don’t know what world you’re living in but a heterosexual couple contracting HIV is not rare. I can’t believe we live in a world where people still think HIV is a gay disease. A lot of heterosexual men and women have this disease. I see this everyday in the type of work I do.

    • Croaxleigh March 27, 2012 at 11:22 PM CDT #

      It’s not nearly as rare as you think. There are a lot of factors involved, especially in regard to which partner is HIV positive and what that partner’s viral load is. It’s much easier for a woman to contract HIV from a man than it is for a man to contract it from a woman (in fact, one of the fastest-growing infection groups worldwide is married heterosexual women), but it is possible for men to catch it from women as well.

  5. Joe Komenda March 26, 2012 at 6:27 PM CDT #

    Two shots, actually, since most men have two Vas/Testicles. 

    • Kal Galath March 26, 2012 at 9:31 PM CDT #

       odd fact… only one of your testicles actually produces sperm…. i remember reading that somewhere… let me go find a source..

  6. Pmikoart March 26, 2012 at 6:35 PM CDT #

    I wish I would have know about before I had a true vasectomy??!! :(

  7. Will The Magnificent March 26, 2012 at 7:12 PM CDT #

    Sorry folks, there is no possible way to effectively destroy the HIV virus, well, aside from a complete wipe of all life on this planet, and allowing it to cleanse itself. Agreed, this does seem like a rather nifty form of birth control. Yet, as you so eloquently stated, the knowledge of this procedure is sparse. Make posters, PSA commercials, flyer people’s cars, I’m willing to bet a solid 25 American cents that it won’t make a difference. The ideal of a female contraceptive has been driven into the non catholic populous for far too long. Trying to change it would be like trying to change the “throw away item” mentality of the post great depression consumer. Although, sex without condoms with my gal does sound kind of rad…

    • troll March 26, 2012 at 7:41 PM CDT #

       “HIV virus” >.>;  a professional

    • Kal Galath March 26, 2012 at 9:33 PM CDT #

       actually HIV is susceptible to many, many  ways of being obliterated, outside the human body.

      The problem is destroying the virus without killing the person.

    • Dave415 March 26, 2012 at 10:04 PM CDT #

      I don’t believe the issue is about destroying the virus completely. There was a study done in Switzerland and published in the Bulletin of Swiss Medicine that found a zero transmission rate because of an undetectable viral load. This is not discussed because it could give a false sense of safety to sexually active people, that’s my guess anyway. Effective drug treatment combined with this procedure could reduce transmission rates greatly if what the article is saying is true.

      “after review of the medical literature and extensive discussion,” the
      Swiss Federal Commission for HIV / AIDS resolves that, “An HIV-infected
      person on antiretroviral therapy with completely suppressed viraemia
      (“effective ART”) is not sexually infectious, i.e. cannot transmit HIV
      through sexual contact.”

    • Croaxleigh March 27, 2012 at 11:29 PM CDT #

      That’s not entirely true. PEP treatment can destroy the virus if administered soon enough after exposure, and even HAART treatment can destroy it to the point that it becomes undetectable within the body (though the infection still remains in a dormant state.) There’s been at least one documented case of a person who was effectively cured by his doctor, though the procedure used relied on a very specific set of circumstances and hinged on a bone marrow transplant from an individual who was essentially “immune” to HIV. Current research is looking at replicating this effect through genetic therapy to allow HIV-positive individuals to develop their own immunities to the virus as well as other treatment types that will target the reservoirs where the virus “hides” when it goes dormant.

    • isaac May 11, 2012 at 8:59 PM CDT #

      on curing HIV, please read this link:

      also with enough research and science nearly anything can become possible, without the destruction of life, sir.

  8. waytogo March 26, 2012 at 7:16 PM CDT #

    HIV exists in more parts of the body than the testes. What about pre-ejaculate from the prostate?

    • hashaman March 27, 2012 at 12:07 AM CDT #

      HOLY S-. 

      it’s not a disease preventative. IT’S BIRTH CONTROL. 


      • Patrick March 27, 2012 at 12:32 AM CDT #

        “it’s not a disease preventative. IT’S BIRTH CONTROL. ”

        Then “destroying HIV” ought not to have been thrown out there as a possible side benefit.  

        • Guest March 27, 2012 at 1:38 PM CDT #

          I think that the author was just throwing it out there that it could potentially have other side benefits rather than just preventing unwanted pregnancies.

          • Patrick March 27, 2012 at 1:40 PM CDT #

            Yes, but stating ‘ITS BIRTH CONTROL not a disease preventative” in the comments when someone questioned how it MIGHT have other potential effects all but ignores the fact that the author DID “throw that out there”.

          • britney robinson April 17, 2012 at 12:10 PM CDT #

            To Patrick.

            Birth control pills, claim to do stuff too, that it might or might not even do, stuff like prevents cancer(yet in increases some cancer), helps with acne, pms, could end periods, etc, etc. Its stating things that they have found through studies, that’s all this procedure is doing also, it might be a totally usless fact, but its a fact.

  9. Tender62 March 26, 2012 at 7:38 PM CDT #


  10. Eerie March 26, 2012 at 7:46 PM CDT #

    This is a great idea, plus the time it takes for the guy in question to become fertile again once the reversal injection has been done will give the couple time to get themselves healthy and prepared for baby making :)

  11. Ediee Diaz March 26, 2012 at 7:54 PM CDT #

    cost people??? i want cost. how much would this cost?

    • guest March 26, 2012 at 8:09 PM CDT #

      it said less than the syringe to give the injection…. read darlin’, read.

      • your mom March 26, 2012 at 8:20 PM CDT #

        Saline solution probably costs less than the syringe used, too. Ask your doctor how much they charge for it.

        • Hank Single March 26, 2012 at 11:49 PM CDT #

           less than we charge women for birth control.

      • other guest March 26, 2012 at 8:55 PM CDT #

         That doesn’t answer how much it costs to get the procedure.

        • Skissie March 29, 2012 at 10:32 PM CDT #

          Because you can’t get it yet. Its in Phase III triLls in India, nearing approval (in next year, plus or minus). Not that close in US, but earlier test phases.

  12. I_am_pegasus March 26, 2012 at 8:34 PM CDT #

    Great idea! In theory. Too bad my husband doesn’t want ANYTHING that close to his family jewels……. So it’s up to me to take that little daily pill.

    • 2bdrmapart March 26, 2012 at 10:03 PM CDT #

      That’s the problem, men have no problem with us putting ANYTHING close to our “family jewels” ova, fallopian tubes or other wise, it’s great that there’s an option for them now.  It shows how unbalanced our reaction is to reproductive responsibility.  

    • supercarrot March 28, 2012 at 12:40 AM CDT #

      what a gentleman.  is he fully aware of everything you go through and the potential of developing hormone-related diseases to keep yourself free of babies?  a real man would suck it up and buy a few bags of frozen peas.

      • Abc123 April 26, 2012 at 8:10 PM CDT #

        No, because I don’t use anything like that. Just condoms. It works for me, I don’t understand why it doesn’t work for others.

        • Abc321 May 21, 2012 at 12:18 AM CDT #

          because we don’t have hair trigger

        • herr_X June 11, 2013 at 5:49 PM CDT #

          I can tell you one reason: Because it is less erotic. The mere thought of skin to skin contact and having her wetness lube him up, makes many men turned on. After all, sex is much about psychology, as well as the physical. Btw the physical feeling is of course also significantly better without a condom for many guys -Unfortunately!!!

    • Abc123 April 26, 2012 at 8:09 PM CDT #

      Agree, in theory, it’s a good idea. I don’t think I could even ask. It sounds painful. I couldn’t do that to him.

  13. Flutterby737 March 26, 2012 at 8:38 PM CDT #

    Read & SHARE!

  14. Orcachic4 March 26, 2012 at 9:07 PM CDT #

    So much studying has to be done. To give a set 10 years..what breaks the polymer down in the first place, and are there cases where it could be broken down faster? What would happen if a sperm was able to get through..babies with birth defects? DO men go in for annual sperm counts to make sure the polymer is holding?If it works, its going to be a hit.But I hate seeing drugs and such pushed through quickly because noone wants to do the appropriate amount of testing.

    • Blueeyedbeauty87 March 26, 2012 at 9:31 PM CDT #

      The article states that a mixture of water and baking soda break it down…..

    • supercarrot March 28, 2012 at 12:45 AM CDT #

      because the first set of guys were injected only over 15 years ago.  they’re still studying how long it lasts.  (they don’t want to over-estimate and possibly get in hot water from incorrect estimations.)

  15. Clarification March 26, 2012 at 9:11 PM CDT #

    Not sure if missed I this part in the article, but the male would still have the ability to ejaculate but the sperm would be unable to fertilize, correct?

    • tenzin tashi March 27, 2012 at 1:17 AM CDT #

      Sounds right.   As described in this article, the RISUG process has a sterilizing effect, rendering sperm cells infertile and, allegedly, eliminating possibility of conception.  Nothing is mentioned about interference with normal orgasm or ejaculation, so I assume  (naively perhaps) that there are no adverse side-effects in this department.   

  16. franklin veaux March 26, 2012 at 9:30 PM CDT #

    Neat article. Pity about the conspiracy-mongering “The pharmaceutical companies don’t want to blah blah blah” part.

    The reason it’s not available here is that it’s not yet approved here; it’s on track to be approved in 2015. In the meantime, the pharmaceutical companies will sell anything for which there is a demand; if there’s a demand for this procedure, they’ll provide it.

    The tiresome conspiracy theories about “big pharma” are getting old. If they were true, then huge multinational pharmaceutical companies like Bayer would have no interest in marketing cheap, low-margin, unpatented drugs like…aspirin.

    • Daeda1us March 26, 2012 at 10:05 PM CDT #

      Well Said!

    • Dave415 March 26, 2012 at 10:11 PM CDT #

      Considering my HIV drugs cost $1200 per month but they’re free in Brazil because of the response by the government to the epidemic, I’m a bit more skeptical.

    • Corinekallie March 26, 2012 at 10:44 PM CDT #

      Aspirin is Bayer’s staple exceeding $100 million in sales annually. You are correct in thinking that 100 million per year is a “cheap, low-margin” drug. I’m sure that you can imagine how many hundreds of billions of dollars these pharmaceutical companies are making on the “real” conspiracy worthy drugs, their off-label uses, or things such as birth control pills every month. Heroin was a Bayer trademark, until World War I. That is not a theory, but a FACT.  Sometimes truth is stranger than fiction.
      A plethora of worthy things are available that aren’t “approved” here, but those things would be of no interest to a person like you who tires with theories other than those FDA “approved”.

    • guest March 26, 2012 at 11:01 PM CDT #

      LOL! Yeah, Bayer is only making a penny or two on the sale of aspirin but I bet Astra Zenica is making a tad more on the patented medicines they control. Really, it isn’t a theory when you have blatent evidence that pharmaceutical companies wield immense power over what gets approved and what doesn’t. Don’t be naive…

  17. Ima Troll March 26, 2012 at 9:41 PM CDT #

    Ok, fine. So this jelly renders sperm useless. But wait, there’s more! It destroys HIV? Maybe, maybe not. HIV is carried in ALL bodily fluids that don’t naturally destroy it. Semen, which is the vehicle in which sperm is deposited in the orifice or towel/drain/face/toilet (whatever) of choice, is not produced in the testicles. Based on the picture, the injection would be extremely invasive, even if a thin catheter is inserted with the needle and guided to the correct location.

  18. Mister Miscellaneous March 26, 2012 at 9:42 PM CDT #

    This is inane certainly, and borderline Insane!. Any chemist with a reasonable education as to the nature of polymers will know the implications of such a material injected in the body and tell everyone to stay away from this.

    • hashaman March 27, 2012 at 12:02 AM CDT #


      s–‘s been, and continues to be tested bro

      • Patrick March 27, 2012 at 12:38 AM CDT #


        That doesn’t mean it’s safe BRO.  How many drugs have led to lawsuits because of unhealthy side effects?  

        • Skissie March 29, 2012 at 10:35 PM CDT #

          Read the extended article linked near the end (first link). Its not a drug so much as a physical component. Like a shunt or screen. Or an IUD.

  19. Ronson March 26, 2012 at 9:57 PM CDT #

    I would consider this.

  20. Anonymous March 26, 2012 at 10:01 PM CDT #

    My understanding is that this has been tested in India for some time- with zero ill consequences. I couldn’t find the source as it was over a year ago that I read a lengthy medical article on the subject. But I think it’s more than worth the studies, testing, and eventual approval. People- how you do or do not make babies is, for most cases, a choice. Whats wrong with having an additional option to choose from. It’s not as if vasectomys and tubal ligation are so phenomenal and safe!

    • Agu Saiba March 27, 2012 at 12:24 AM CDT #

      Sad that this kind of reversible procedure wasn’t available in India during the campaign of forced sterilizations under Indira Gandhi’s “Emergency”– just a few decades ago, when rounding up poor people and neutering them seemed like a good way to combat India’s growing population problem…   

    • Daeda1us March 27, 2012 at 12:56 AM CDT #

      Anytime anyone tells you a medical procedure or prescription medication has “zero ill consequences” you should be suspicious.  WATER has ill consequences.  So does Oxygen.  The procedure itself is going to have a rate of infection, therefore not “zero ill consequences”.  And that doesnt begin to address the injection of foreign substances into the body.
      BTW, I am not saying this is a bad technique or that it should not be persued.  Male contraception is a GREAT THING.
      But “zero ill effects”?  Not buying it.

      • Skissie March 29, 2012 at 10:38 PM CDT #

        Did you read e extended article? If not, first link at the end of this piece. Read it. Yes, there are POSSIBLE effects from anything, including brushing your teeth, cutting fingernails, or even showering! Doesn’t mean its not well worth it. I think it’s implied, if not stated in the extended article, that there were no SIGNIFICANT I’ll effects in anyone. Slight swelling and discomfort initially, but far less than vasectomy, and probably less risk than IUDs in women.

  21. Bad_data March 26, 2012 at 10:36 PM CDT #

    All the best scientific reporting is written by actors living in NYC.  “Its easier than aiming magnets at your junk.”

  22. Sympull March 26, 2012 at 10:49 PM CDT #

    How would this precedure, the way you describe it, stop at all the HIV virus?

    • hashaman March 27, 2012 at 12:01 AM CDT #

      It’s birth control, as in- it stops you from getting pregnant, not infected. If you are promiscuous, or don’t trust your partner, then clearly you still want to use a condom.

      To protect yourself from diseases. This is for protecting yourself from babies.


      • Patrick March 27, 2012 at 12:40 AM CDT #

        (even if it might have the side benefit of, you know, destroying HIV).”

        You did perhaps see that part?  Hence Sympull’s question.

  23. Sympull March 26, 2012 at 10:50 PM CDT #

    How would this procedure, the way you describe it, stop at all the HIV virus

    • AncientAsaKun March 27, 2012 at 3:22 AM CDT #

      That is a WONDERFUL question and i’m glad someone finally asked it without making a pompus statment bashing the entire article. The way this could help fight the the HIV virus is simple really. HIV can be carried through sperm obviously, by limiting the sperms ability to preform it’s required function, you are decreassing the chances of spreading HIV. Now obviously this percentage is low and frankly not high enough for alot of visible results however any fraction no matter how small is one step forward. For example, let’s say there is a problem with idiots who bash opinions simply because they disagree with them, we could limit the amount of internet access these people have to one hour a day thereby reducing the amount of crap they post. The numbers are not visibly decresed and they will still be able to spout their self centered ideals but it still helps in some way. hope this explanation was useful and cleared things up. Sincerely, Asakura Hirohito   

      • Daeda1us March 27, 2012 at 8:26 AM CDT #

        If you have a problem with people disagreeing with you, you should stay away from the internet.

        Contracting HIV is kind of like being pregnant, in that it is a YES/NO proposition.
        Are you pregnant?  Yes/No.
        Whether the sperm that got you pregnant was from a man technically infertile due to a low sperm count is entirely irrelevant.  You either are pregnant or you are not.

        Likewise with HIV.  Whether the viral load that resulted in your contracting the disease was from your partner’s prostate, seminal vessicals, testes, etc… is totally irrelevant.  You either are HIV+ or not.

        Using your analogy regarding limiting something as a step toward a good thing, we can imagine the case of a condom… with a hole in it.  It will contain some of the sperm.  Your words, “any fraction no matter how small is one step forward”
        That is not how it works.

        And the author’s choice to throw that one sentence in at the end was bad judgement on his part.

        PS, the hypothesis that sentence was based on is almost a DECADE old.
        For something that can be tested easily (viral loads in ejaculate) there is no excuse for this not being validated by now.  Unless it just doesnt work.

        So, continue to scratch your head and wonder why this isnt on the market today as an HIV+ treatment.  After all,  “any fraction no matter how small is one step forward”.

        Those of us with a clue will continue to work on the actual problems in Medicine.
        (Which apparently does not include this author.)

        • AncientAsaKun March 27, 2012 at 11:14 AM CDT #

          I said before i wouldn’t be back but somehow I KNEW you of all the posters would respond to my post and now i’m going to humiliate you infront of everyone. “Using your analogy regarding limiting something as a step toward a good thing, we can imagine the case of a condom… with a hole in it.  It will contain some of the sperm.  Your words, “any fraction no matter how small is one step forward”
          That is not how it works” listen to me very carefully you illiterate, self centered, neanderthal. That entire sentence is in and of it self a COMPLETE contradiction. You are so wrapped up in your own ideals that you are dismissing any form of valid argument that defends the poster of this article. your opinions are completely biased, you have missed the entire point of the article and in an entire post responding to me you did not mention 1 fact about this product. However that is not why i’m to the point of wishing i could slap you in the face. I’m at that point because of the sentance i quoted from you above. If you think for one fraction of a second that limiting the amount sprem will not help stop pregnancy you are an idiot at best. Basically what you are saying is that if we limit the amount of speed to the avergae persons home computer it wont slow there computer down at all. Are you fucking kidding me? You claim yourself a doctor which i highly doubt considering your lack of basic knowledge on subjects taught in public schools and your inate ability to repeat yourself over and over again. If however you are a doctor please tell me where you got your medical degree so i may send my children to that school since they will obviously hand over a degree to anyone now. GOOD DAY TO YOU! 

          • Daeda1us March 27, 2012 at 12:05 PM CDT #

            The analogy is valid.  Your inability to follow it does not negate it.
            People do not use birth control to reduce by “any fraction no matter how small” the chance of getting pregnant.
            Likewise, reducing the transmission of HIV through the sperm, WHICH HAS NOT BEEN PROVEN EITHER, is not sufficient to significantly reduce the chances of contracting HIV, since the MAJORITY OF THE VIRAL LOAD DOES NOT COME FROM THE SPERM!

            So, condom use is still the prefered mechanism to reduce transmission rates of HIV.  It is MUCH MORE EFFECTIVE than this technique is.

            It really is that simple.

            This technique has not been approved in ANY COUNTRY anywhere.  There is NO PROOF of reducing HIV transmission rates, even though the initial hypothesis was made in 2004 and this is incredibly EASY to test.

            So, what is your beef?  Do  you own stock in the company trying to fast track this in the US?

            If reducing HIV transmission is your thing, invest in condom companies.  MUCH more effective.

          • Patrick March 27, 2012 at 1:50 PM CDT #

            Between you, who throws around insults and can’t seem to be civil (OR use paragraphs) and someone who not only self-identifies as an MD but appears to be more educated than you (despite your assertions to the contrary), and also conducts themselves civilly in the forum, makes reasonable FACT BASED posts, and is comprehensible without rambling inanely…

            I’ll give  Daeda1us’s posts more weight/credence than yours

            PS: Your snark in your original reply to Sympull makes you appear hypocritical. Just saying.

  24. Steve Simitzis March 26, 2012 at 10:57 PM CDT #

    Male birth control will always be limited by the fact that women, not men, ultimately bear the brunt of an unwanted pregnancy. “Trust me, baby, I had the shot” just isn’t going to be (or shouldn’t be) convincing, and should always be followed with “that’s nice, now put this on.” 

    That said, within the context of long-term, monogamous partnership/marriage it sounds like a promising option.

    • klhayes March 26, 2012 at 11:38 PM CDT #

      I think that needs to change…one good thing out of the bc national controversy was that it got men and women talking…something that needs to happen BEFORE we jump into bed with each other.

    • Nickos f March 30, 2012 at 11:45 AM CDT #

      “Male birth control will always be limited by the fact that women, not men, ultimately bear the brunt of an unwanted pregnancy. ”

      50 years ago then perhaps this was true.  It isn’t true today, at least not in west.   A woman has a variety of methods to prevent or terminate an unwanted pregnancy or give up the child after it is born.  A man can do none of these and has 18 years worth of all earnings above survival money taken away from him and few if any custody rights, effectively preventing him from starting a family of his own.

      Sadly this isn’t widely known and men are much more vulnerable than they often think. 

      • vnally January 9, 2013 at 2:11 PM CDT #

        I fail to see how terminating an unwanted pregnancy doesn’t count as “bearing the brunt” of it. Abortion is expensive and hard to procure in many parts of the country, and the adoption process often does not cover the mother’s medical expenses through pregnancy either. There is also still a great deal of institutional prejudice against single mothers who seek job employment or education, which often puts them at a much lower income bracket and cripples them financially.

        if male birth control were more socially accepted and more men took responsibility for their contribution to unwanted pregnancies BEFORE they occur rather than after — and if single mothers were not looked down upon in the job market to the degree that they currently are — then I suspect that the discrepancies in alimony and custody rights would start to level out as well. Currently established gender roles hurt men just as much as they do women in that regard.

      • marglebargle January 18, 2013 at 12:00 AM CDT #

        Holy naivete, Batman! Pregnancy takes a *huge* toll on women, as does abortion, as does adoption. It’s an emotional, physical, and financial toll that women face and men do not, nor ever will. Having to pay child support will never replace the years lost to keeping a child and actually taking care of it. Plus, guess what? When you decide to raise a child, your responsibility doesn’t always end at 18. And “effectively preventing him from starting a family of his own?” Please. Why don’t you take care of the child you helped bring in to this world before thinking about having another one? I hope you either grow up, or never have children, effectively punishing them as you realize what child support really is.

  25. Bill March 26, 2012 at 10:57 PM CDT #

    Everyone seems to be overlooking the real issue here.  A needle any where near my nut sack!!!!!!

    • Missing Agloe (DFTBA) March 28, 2012 at 4:38 PM CDT #

      I’ll bet you cash money that it hurts a hell of a lot less than all the pain the poor woman you knock up will go through during 9 months of pregnancy and childbirth and breastfeeding. 

  26. Anonymous March 26, 2012 at 10:58 PM CDT #

    Only problem with this is that styrene was added to the probably carcinogen list last year.

  27. S Sarran March 26, 2012 at 11:18 PM CDT #

    That is so interesting!

  28. S Sarran March 26, 2012 at 11:18 PM CDT #

    That is so interesting!

  29. Anirudh Shivkumar March 26, 2012 at 11:42 PM CDT #

    Now we wait for the Jesus freaks to voice opposition.

  30. Philip Mann March 26, 2012 at 11:43 PM CDT #

    My ideal birth control doesn’t involve getting stabbed in the balls.

    • Jkoskie33 March 27, 2012 at 12:45 AM CDT #

      Yeah and my ideal birth control doesn’t involve being stabbed/tweaked/shoved with pokey iud’s up the Ying yang, or given hormones that mess with my mood/weight/etc, or being injected or implanted with tiny little pieces of junk that get lost inside your body, or even being interrupted mid love-making. Grow some real balls!!! Women go thru so much crap with this and if this really works all men should do it for their loved one. If they won’t, they are stupid & selfish jerks.

      • Spenc March 28, 2012 at 10:29 PM CDT #

        That’s a pretty arrogant and thoughtless statement. Getting a needle to the scrotum doesn’t sound at all appealing. And I’m well aware that women get shots, IUDs, pills etc etc and it’s rather kind they take them.

        But personally? Just stick to condoms.

        • Skissie March 29, 2012 at 10:46 PM CDT #

          Ignorant statement! First, many, many, MANY men would willingly do this for the women they love! Secondly, I know more than one guy who became a father because his wife/fiancé/girlfriend was providing birth control with pills, but then didn’t take them, thus trapping the guy. Even in monogamous relationships, people are not always honest! This is just one more way for men to ensure they are protected from unwanted pregnancies, and YES, some men consider themselves equally involved in that situation! It prevents them being misled or tricked into parenthood (just like a girl taking the pill so that a guy can’t “accidentally” have the condom fall off and impregnate her!).
          Besides, here’s a nugget of info for you – many of us WOMEN don’t like condoms either! And while I DO want “relations” with my significant other – WITHOUT latex involved – I do not any another child at the moment. The 5 we currently have is enough for us! We would consider this in a heartbeat!

    • Paul Turnbull March 28, 2012 at 1:30 PM CDT #

      Suck it up princess and take responsibility for yourself. It doesn’t hurt a whole lot and there’s nothing special about your balls.

      • Missing Agloe (DFTBA) March 28, 2012 at 4:39 PM CDT #

        You, sir, just won the internets.

  31. Hank Single March 26, 2012 at 11:56 PM CDT #

    This sounds fantastic. I’ve worked in pharmaceuticals for most of my life, and have always struggled to accept the very one-sided affair of birth control, and the burdens it places on women. I was privy to the very real and life changing side effects of hormone therapy, the difficulties in finding a balance and the subsequent negative impact of things like insurance mandated switches in prescriptions. It has seemed very unfair – but I have, because of my awareness to these things, been averse to the idea of hormone therapy for myself. I see the enormous effect on personality and health every day.

    My girlfriend uses and IUD and even that has a noticeable effect in her day to day life – I’m thrilled to think I might be able to shoulder a bit of the load, while still enjoying the incredible benefits of having unprotected sex – which is great, but also dangerous, complicated and scary when the threat of child birth is on the line.

    This is fantastic.

    • Mystical_lime March 27, 2012 at 12:47 AM CDT #

      Hear hear I was on birth control for over a year on two separate occasions. During which I turned into a raging [censored], but the only other option of non hormonal birth control is an iud. Which can have almost worst side effects and scares me to death. If this turns out to be a safe procedure it has my full support and out should have every one eles’s too!

      • supercarrot March 28, 2012 at 1:06 AM CDT #

        not exactly.  i’ve been using the fertility awareness method for nearly 100 cycles (if you’re a math whiz, you’ll see that means it’s over 99% effective.  that’s backed up by actual studies, too.)  waking up at the same time every morning to take my temperature has gotten old, but at least i don’t have any rugrats.  if i have to interrupt my sleep for one reason or the other, i’d prefer it’s for 3 minutes a day warm in my bed with a thermometer in my mouth as opposed to up with a screaming baby. (and $12 for the thermometer is more reasonable than whatever it costs to have a baby nowadays.)
        p.s. FAM is totally different from the rhythm/calendar method. in case you were wondering.  FAM=science, rhythm/calendar=guessing

        • Missing Agloe (DFTBA) March 28, 2012 at 4:42 PM CDT #

          I’ve got to say, it is awesome that that works for you but honestly it doesn’t work for every woman.  My entire adult life my cycle has only been predictable while I’m on hormonal birth control.  If I go off of it, my cycle can be 5 weeks one month and 3 weeks the next, or any damn thing it feels like doing.  I have tried and tried to track it and it always surprises me.   If this method works for you then more power to you.  But it’s not something everyone can rely on.

          I also have a chronic illness which causes my body temperature to change drastically from day to day, making it so that I don’t really have a constant to measure against.

          • supercarrot March 28, 2012 at 5:34 PM CDT #

            i was mostly responding to mystical lime’s comment of “but the only other option of non hormonal birth control is an iud.” (i was pointing out another form of non-hormonal BC for those who don’t want to use it.)

            also, like i said, FAM is not the rhythm method. FAM doesn’t “predict” your cycle so much as help you track it. (it’s great for people with erratic cycles to help them determine when their period will come once they’ve confirmed ovulation.) sorry about your illness that affects your temperatures. that does throw a wrench into the works, but even still, the temperatures are only one part of the method. if your temperatures aren’t reliable, you can always go off of the secondary indications instead, such as cervical fluid/position, pains/tenderness, salinity of saliva (it’ll make a ferning pattern as it dries, and you can see it in a special little microscope) but not being able to use the temperature data really would make it less reliable as a sole form of birth control, since that’s the major way you confirm ovulation has passed.

            i totally understand that you wouldn’t want to go through the trouble, and prefer the predictable cycles. nobody can fault you for that.

    • Emma Maha January 15, 2013 at 5:16 PM CDT #

      contraceptive pill side effects can be a royal pain as well. i remember having to mess around with dosages for quite a while because i had the delightful side-effect of random nausea and vomiting!

  32. Daeda1us March 27, 2012 at 12:10 AM CDT #

    @Bo-Diddy: I never said the author claimed a CURE for HIV.  Set up another strawman while you are at it.  LOL!!  The author stated, “(even if it might have the side benefit of, you know, destroying HIV).  THAT and THAT ALONE is what I disagreed with and called, “BULLSHIT” on.  Not until after I posted did I find out so many people apparently do not know that semen is not only sperm or there are glands located distal to the vas deferens that produce the bulk of the semen.  They teach that in public school!  The author has NO PROOF of the “HIV destroying” capability of the procedure.  So, why include it at all?  Male contraception is exciting enough, without gilding the lily.

    • Baroodym March 27, 2012 at 3:14 AM CDT #

      Your initial response was appropriate, and could just as easily been said, “think critically. Why did the author need to throw that in there? Why didn’t the author back the statement with credible cites? Does the author lack confidence in the sources and statements of the main point? Are the author’s resources primary or secondary or tertiary? How biased is the author and what is said to reveal that bias ? ” BTW I’m stil amazed at how many people think Wikipedia is a credible resource.

  33. mingtian March 27, 2012 at 12:25 AM CDT #

    Or…women could just use the pill(etc.), since they are the ones who are burdened with pregnancy anyways. I think it’s silly to put ALL the responsibility on the man when the woman is the one who should be responsible for it as well.

    • responsibility? March 27, 2012 at 12:45 AM CDT #

      Yeah, and it’s probably better if, say, the copilot of a jet dozes off during intense weather. Because, eh, it’s ultimately the pilot who shoulders the blame for a grave error, right? Why should he have ALL that responsibility of paying attention when the pilot’s the one in charge?

      Or for that matter, why should one spouse kick in more for groceries than the other? It’s really his fault if he starves because that job is lower paying. He’s gotta be responsible for himself.

      I mean really, WTF??

    • Jkoskie33 March 27, 2012 at 12:49 AM CDT #

      Women could use the pill and be TORTURED by synthetic hormones, and then pee them out into our water supply so we all suffer from them. Great idea genius.

  34. Kryjo222 March 27, 2012 at 1:05 AM CDT #

    AHEM…..if everyone could focus on the point here… BIRTH CONTROL FOR MEN?!?!?!  best news ever… now men can blow congress for some rights to their own bodies.

  35. Whiskeysour13 March 27, 2012 at 1:11 AM CDT #

    Wow…Men should use this so there girlfriend or wife don’t have to worry about using the pill and everything else that belongs with unexpected pregnancies.

  36. Service March 27, 2012 at 1:57 AM CDT #

    Could this be too effective?

  37. Celeste068809 March 27, 2012 at 2:26 AM CDT #

    umm ok people i read the article fully then read comments and after reading comments i forgot what the article was about……reguardless of educational background everyone needs to take it all with a grain of salt, im sure this wasnt intended to start a big arguement about whether or not sperm or semen actually go through the vas deferens…..its simply trying to introduce another possible birth control….women have a dozen different methods many of which effects our moodyness this could be a positive alternative for those guys who cant handle the bitchyness or the crying thing….as far as HIV and STDs rome wasnt built in a day theres going to be side effects with anything but the most important thing is for people to have options and be informed of them

  38. AncientAsaKun March 27, 2012 at 3:06 AM CDT #

    After reading this article and reading through the vast amount of spam arguments that have generated due to the articles statments, I have concluded the following. Half of the people on here talking about this article are complete idiots with nothing better to do but sit around and argue about topics FAR beyond their own intelligence levels. Here are the FACTS about this article and i hope it clears up some of your idiotic beliefs.FACT: This article does show a process that does have the potential to stop unwanted pregnancy.FACT: This article does show a process that COULD HELP FIGHT HIV.FACT: This article NEVER states the process WILL stop HIV.”even if it might have the side benefit of, you know, destroying HIV” Now unless you are a complete idiot you can read this quote and realise that the article clearly states a theory. “EVEN IF IT MIGHT!”Q: Are there fluids other than sperm that carry HIV? A: YES! Q: Is it still possible after this process to contract HIV? A: YES!
    Q: Can this process help stop unwanted pregnancy? A: YES!Q: Can this process be reversed? A: YES!Q: Will this process completely destroy HIV: NO!Finally we reach my favorite part of this which is my ending. I have taken the time to sort all of your arguments about this article and process and address each issue according to its validity. I understand alot of you do have concerns about new contraception as it becomes available but that is no excuse for you to argue on the internet and degrade each other like little children. I advise all of you to grow up a little bit, read the article for what it is, (which is a way to promote a new contraceptive) and stop nit picking the article looking for every little sentence you can use to bash the whole thing. Taking a sentence that clearly has only one meaning and changing that meaning does NOT work as clearly shown by the U.S. government and the constitution where they have taken certain areas and altered “ammended” them to fit their own beliefs. Now, if anyone here feels that i have offended them in any way or feels that they would like to argue with my post, kindly make yourself look like a childish neanderthal as i will not be responding. Sincerely, Asakura Hirohito.

    • Daeda1us March 27, 2012 at 8:35 AM CDT #

      “This article does show a process that COULD HELP FIGHT HIV.FACT”

      Really?  FACT?

      Great!  Cite your peer reviewed sources for the studies that proved it.

      What?  You have no peer reviewed sources to cite?  Why not?  Could it be, it doesnt actually work for HIV transmission prevention???

      This theory is over 8 years old, is incredibly easy to test, and yet I could not find a single peer reviewed article proving this statement correct.

      You rest your entire case on the ambivalent quality of “could”.
      Well, you could be a moron.
      The Sun could fail to come up tomorrow.
      Life could be a dream and we are but figments of the dreamer’s mind.
      It could happen.  It could be true.  Could.

      I rarely recommend anything on the basis of it “could” help.  Last ditch measure for a patient who is terminal and the other (better) options have been exhausted.

      Rather I recommend the most likely to help techniques/medications.
      As do all medical doctors.

      “Now, if anyone here feels that i have offended them in any way or feels that they would like to argue with my post, kindly make yourself look like a childish neanderthal as i will not be responding.”

      Variant of “if you respond to me, you are a loser.  Pfffftttttt!”
      That only works on the playground in grade school.

      The Neanderthal (with more understanding of the issue than you have… which makes you what?  Australopiteicus?  :D  Have a Great Day!

    • Olylifter84 March 27, 2012 at 10:22 AM CDT #

      alot is not a word.

      • AncientAsaKun March 27, 2012 at 11:36 AM CDT #

        That had what to do with anything i said? lol.

  39. HeatherRose March 27, 2012 at 3:20 AM CDT #

    Ummm….while you guys were hating on each other, did anyone else notice that the whole point of the article was to draw awareness and inform people that more testing needs to be done?  He even attached a link to get on the clinical trial/mailing list and requested help in keeping this research funded.  Every study out there started with a theory and hypothesis and had to be tested, retested, then tested again by thousands and thousands of people across a decade or more to study side affects and effectiveness before being released to the public.  The author is just trying to draw attention to the current theories that no one (or very few) knows about.  He admits this is still in study and concludes nothing but that it is still experimental.

  40. shallowman March 27, 2012 at 4:41 AM CDT #

    wow- Had this been around when I had a vasectomy let alone it being mainstream and accepted practice it would’ve been my preferred option. 

    Perhaps the only question yet to be answered is the long term effects will this become another silicon issue just like the girls with their implants I’m not in favour of chemical compounds being inject. 

    And so what its just a added bonus it “may kill HIV”

    But that’s only protecting who I come into contact with – It does not protect me. 

    And that’s the issue with HIV everyone’s learnt to live with it, better drugs have improved the life expectancy and quality of life for those infected. If this does prove to be true it is nothing more than another tool in the box and it’ll still be prudent to protect yourself because this isn’t the silver bullet that’ll keep you safe.     

  41. Mamorhall March 27, 2012 at 6:08 AM CDT #


  42. Hopeful March 27, 2012 at 6:36 AM CDT #

    Well, if our politicians want to deny women access to birth control, maybe men should be required to have this procedure done to avoid the next inevitable baby boom. Or maybe… We can just leave each other’s reproductive rights alone and allow for personal choice. Just a thought

  43. Navyspark1988 March 27, 2012 at 7:17 AM CDT #

    Ok where do i sign up for this. And when can i see this hit the market

  44. Guest March 27, 2012 at 7:42 AM CDT #

    Earth to posters on here: women on hormonal BC or IUDs almost never insist in condoms . . .

    • Skissie March 29, 2012 at 10:53 PM CDT #

      Well, for those of us in monogamous, loving marriages shouldn’t have to… And where do you get your info? How many of these frills are you in contact with!?

  45. Apocalypticality March 27, 2012 at 7:47 AM CDT #

    It’s funny how all of you are arguing where semen comes from, yet I haven’t seen a single post on here as to the effectiveness as birth control.

    • AncientAsaKun March 27, 2012 at 10:41 AM CDT #

      Did you read my post? and the reason you see so much arguing and little talk about its birth control properties is because some people have nothing better to do. sad really.

      • Daeda1us March 27, 2012 at 10:55 AM CDT #

        Nothing better to do that prevent people misundertanding this article and what it implies?  Absolutely!

        • AncientAsaKun March 27, 2012 at 11:25 AM CDT #

          Oh right i forgot. You still think you know it all. You are NOT a doctor. You are NOT intelligent and you lack basic knowledge. You think limiting something is useless. “Not going to stop it completely why bother with the small percentages?” yeah ok. I’ll believe that when my asshole turns inside out and starts talking. If you were infact a doctor which i doubt you would know that limiting sperm = limiting the chance of pregnancy. “Using your analogy regarding limiting something as a step toward a good thing, we can imagine the case of a condom… with a hole in it.  It will contain some of the sperm.  Your words, (any fraction no matter how small is one step forward) That is not how it works” Go away and come back when you actually understand the laws of basic math which are subtract any percentage from a postivie base no matter how small and you still get a lower number. 3 – 1 = 2 Idiot! 

          • Daeda1us March 27, 2012 at 12:11 PM CDT #

            Strange, my diploma says “Doctor of Medicine”.
            What does yours say?

            Pregnancy and HIV+ status is binary.  ON/Off.  YES/NO.
            The person that gets HIV from the partner who had this procedure is not going to feel better because the partner had this procedure and AncientAsaKun said online that reducing the rate of transmission is a good thing.

            Condoms, still MUCH more effective.
            If you are advocating a method of reducing HIV transmission, condoms are still the way to go.

            See?  REAL INFORMATION.  Condoms reduce the rate of HIV transmission.  FACT.  It has been PROVEN.
            RISUG “could destroy HIV”.  NOT FACT.  UNPROVEN.

            It is that simple.

  46. Tripledevils March 27, 2012 at 8:40 AM CDT #

    II’m sorry but I cannot believe that it could stop the transfer of the HIV virus. I had a family member who had the disease so I’ve looked it up. For one semen is not the only way it can transfer, example while having unprotected intercourse both male and female parts get small tiny cuts or tears that they might not even notice. Which could spread the disease VIA blood or other fluid

    • AncientAsaKun March 27, 2012 at 10:42 AM CDT #

      You are absolutely correct but the article does not claim it can STOP the virus it said it can help fight it. Remember that HIV is most commonly spread through sexual intercorse.

    • Daeda1us March 27, 2012 at 12:12 PM CDT #

      Your interpretation is correct.
      Well reasoned!

  47. Emo_guy_song March 27, 2012 at 8:57 AM CDT #

    Ok by saying no HIV does that mean no diseases what so ever??? or just HIV??? or does it even prevent that,cuz you did not mention that at all really…

    • AncientAsaKun March 27, 2012 at 10:44 AM CDT #

      it does not say no HIV what so ever. It says that it has the probability to help fight HIV as HIV is most commonly spread through sexual intercorse.

  48. Emo_guy_song March 27, 2012 at 8:57 AM CDT #

    Ok by saying no HIV does that mean no diseases what so ever??? or just HIV??? or does it even prevent that,cuz you did not mention that at all really…

  49. Adam March 27, 2012 at 9:15 AM CDT #

    Knowing men, if this stuff comes to market and if it works, I predict a lot of babies born 121 months into a lot of relationships! (yeah, yeah, I’ll get it recharged!)

  50. Kibber_SF March 27, 2012 at 9:27 AM CDT #

    no mun, no fun, no pharma…

  51. asia March 27, 2012 at 9:46 AM CDT #

    What is air?

  52. nwb March 27, 2012 at 9:46 AM CDT #

    Would have to see what the long term effects are before endorsing this.  Too many drugs and procedures have been trotted out only to enrich drug companies while harming the public.  Believe my guardian angel was watching over me when I refused the Fen/Phen combo in the ’90s for a weight problem, and sadly watched friends damage themselves while doctors and drug companies made fortunes.  Just one of many examples.

    • Guest. March 27, 2012 at 12:42 PM CDT #

      Too many drugs and procedures have been trotted out only to enrich drug companies while harming the public” Kinda like hormonal birth control for women……

  53. Jaylivestrong March 27, 2012 at 9:49 AM CDT #


  54. Dawnaforeman March 27, 2012 at 9:59 AM CDT #

    Brilliant … Any clinical trials proving the gems leave no cancer causing effect in the man’s body!?

  55. Kevin Sheppard March 27, 2012 at 9:59 AM CDT #

    I definitely will not risk this.

  56. anonymouseFTW March 27, 2012 at 10:28 AM CDT #

    This would be swell for contraceptive purposes but, as illustrated in the comments, the only thing other than abstinence that can protect from STD’s is apparently knowledge! No, kids, a lack of sperm in semen will not keep you STD free. 

  57. Tawni Aline Burton March 27, 2012 at 10:35 AM CDT #


  58. AncientAsaKun March 27, 2012 at 10:51 AM CDT #

    Ok I suppose in my last post i droned on about this article and alot of you missed my entire point so i’ll keep this short and sweet. Since HIV is most commonly spread through sexual intercorse this proceedure could very well help fight the spread. Not that it will completely cure HIV nor will it COMPLETELY stop the spread but it can help to some degree. Rememeber this because I’m telling you for your own good. HIV or any other STD for that matter can only be prevented 100% by NOT HAVING SEX! So please dont mistake this as some STD curing proceedure. This is simply an alternative to female contraception that could very well save people alot of money in the long run and really help stop unwanted pregnancy. There it is in black and white. It doesn’t get any more simple than that.

  59. Shelgin March 27, 2012 at 11:04 AM CDT #

    Been saying this needs to be done for years!!

  60. Daeda1us March 27, 2012 at 11:07 AM CDT #

    I dont care what you think about me.  :D
    If I am as big an ass as some have decided I am, why do you think I would care if you say I am?  Your opinion would be meaningless, because I am an ass.  Catch 22.  :D

    Arrogant?  Depends on the perspective of the observer.  No surgeon has ever called me arrogant.  I fit right in.  :D :D :D
    Insecure?  LOL!  Yeah, cause all doctors are insecure.  Point of fact, the insecure ones tend to get weeded out.  You need thick skin to survive medical school.  Surviving a medical practice, with patients that think they know more about medicine than you do because they looked something up online?  Takes even thicker skin.  :D

    Here is the short version of my argument.
    The author claims there is a “simple” but effective and REVERSIBLE technique that will act as male contraception by destroying sperm as it passes through the vas deferens.
    Initially I made no comments regarding that, although with further research there are huge holes in those statements.

    My contention was and remains the claim this “could destroy HIV”.
    There are no studies to support that claim.  There is no pathological or phsyiological reason to believe this claim without strong evidence.
    The author should not have included that sentence in the article.  Period.

    You want to argue against that contention?  Provide evidence.
    Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof.
    This claim doesnt even have the ordinary level of proof.
    Thus, I call Bullshit on this claim of modifying the rate of HIV transmission.

    PS, if you feel less intelligent than you think I am, that is on you.  I am making a rational argument.  Your feelings regarding that argument, are your own responsibility.

  61. Irishlass March 27, 2012 at 11:26 AM CDT #

    lol, talk about making me laugh!   1st.  I have been a Professional Nationally Licensed Surgical Technician for more than 30 years.  I have been privileged to work on many 1st. in the surgical field.  1. yes the article does mention both of the vas deferens cords, read it again.  2.  ALL sperm that gets ejaculated must go through the vas deferens (it is the exit pathway) 3. you are miss reading Wikipedia,  and please remember everyday people are also posting on this site so no, it is not the bible of all information. It does state the sperm collects other seminal fluids from other “tubes” along the way, this to only to help facilitate the ease for the little ones to move and to help them survive the passage.  4. when the man gets a vasectomy (not the above procedure) a small portion of his vas deferens is cut out. then the severed ends are cauterized. (burned) the remaining ends are put back into the testicular sac, and the man is either sewn shut or a liquid suture called Collodion  is applied.  End results;  no more babies, he is now sterile,  but please note for those of you who would argue this last point;  on rare occasions yes a man can begin to reproduce babies this is only because (call it what you will) a sm miracle, the human bodies natural survival mechanism kicks in and the two ends of the vas deferens heal, reconnecting themselves.  although this is not super common it does happen.  (the same with a woman’s fallopian tubes).  As far as the HIV factor in this article; it does state (even if it might have the side benefit of, you know, destroying HIV).  the key word here; might.  that should tell everyone it is not set in stone yet,  more testing is still being done.   Now i do have one question; Jon Clinkenbeard,  He posted this artical,  where did he get it from his bio states i quote “a writer and actor living in NYC. He’s the founder of and
    co-author of The Pirate Treasure of the Himalayas. He loves writing
    flash fiction (especially horror). Jon regularly performs improvised
    theater”  for me the key here is his love of writing “flash fiction”.  Is this one of his articles?  i find it interesting NO ONE questions who the author is, not the man who posted the article.

    • Skissie March 29, 2012 at 10:59 PM CDT #

      If you follow the links at the bottom, there is a much longer article with extensive info on the history of this procedure, its testing in India, how it came to US, and so forth. Not detail on this author, but enough to know it’s a real story. Not picking a fight, just pointing you toward more info. I ENTIRELY agree with your point about verifying sources! Though it WOULD be hilarious if all the arguing here were over a War of the Worlds report!

  62. Hempfun420 March 27, 2012 at 11:32 AM CDT #

    listen up guys you now have complete control and only have to think about it once, no she told me she was on the pill, the condom ripped, etc.  Do it no more single parents, abortion goes down, abuse of the welfare system, and hello not trapped for 18 years with someone you just had a slip with. 

  63. Alyson Magoon March 27, 2012 at 11:33 AM CDT #

    what’s the difference between a garden hose and a prostate? There’s a vas deferens.

  64. AncientAsaKun March 27, 2012 at 11:33 AM CDT #

    Im sick of this endless rambling about fake doctors! Daeda1us I want to see a picture of your medical degree and i want the link to this “degree” posted right here in response to me for everyone to see. until you provide this i am calling you a liar and hopefully you realise that imperssonation is a federal offense. End of story.

    • Daeda1us March 27, 2012 at 11:51 AM CDT #

      I am not posting my credentials here.  But you have an easy redress for your grievance.  IT IS A FELONY TO PRETEND TO BE A MEDICAL DOCTOR.  :D
      So, turn me in!  :D  I will gladly show my credentials to the appropriate authorities.

      Your inability to follow a reasoned argument does not negate it.

      So, by all means, PLEASE turn me in!  I want to see your name on the complaint!

      • AncientAsaKun March 27, 2012 at 12:25 PM CDT #

        luckily my uncle who is an an anesthesiologist has just told me that when asked for credentials a true doctor will present them upon request and that usually failure to provide their credintials means they either have stains on their record or that they are telling a lie. Also a good doctor will communicate well and be respectful two things you have failed to do. So far without any proof of your medical background and your lack of ability to communicate with others in a respectful manner you have shown me that you are little more than some pre-pubescent child who feels the need to make false claims of having a medical background in order to provide some validity to your pompus statments. Either post your credintials for public knowledge so that we may verify the extent of your knowledge on the subject at hand or shut up. it’s simple really.

        • Intelligenceisavirtue April 17, 2012 at 6:50 AM CDT #

          Actually AsaKun, the only thing which is “simple really” is the clear difference in intelligence between you and the good doctor. I am more inclined to believe that Daeda1us, a well-spoken, logical and informed poster is a doctor than I am to believe you are intelligent or that I should bother reading any more of your posts. 

          FACT – Everyone has started attacking Daeda1us on a personal level because you can’t find fault with his argument
          FACT – You’re an idiot
          FACT – You continually claim to be of superior intelligence, yet can’t spell and don’t seem to understand basic grammar
          FACT – The majority of the people here who disagree with Daeda1us are probably uneducated. Go to a university and do a degree other than Arts, and you will learn how to structure a proper argument. You will also learn to give no credit to articles giving vague claims about HIV prevention with no sources.

          All you emotional idiots – Daeda1us is not ‘hurting the author’s feelings’ or ‘putting him down’ or any other whingy shit, he is being logical and analytical, and so far none of you have managed to come up with ONE argument against his position!! USE THE BRAIN YOU WERE BORN WITH!

        • Intelligenceisavirtue April 17, 2012 at 6:54 AM CDT #

          On another note – “luckily my uncle  who is an an anesthesiologist has just told me that when asked for credentials a true doctor will present them upon request and that usually failure to provide their credintials means they either have stains on their record or that they are telling a lie” 
          What the fuck sort of argument is that?

          Luckily, my uncle is all-knowing and all-powerful, and has just told me you’re an idiot.

  65. Tbone9_53 March 27, 2012 at 11:44 AM CDT #

    The trouble with a lot of people posting is they do not actually read the entire article and only attack one part of it and that part was written in a text of “maybe”  and this is supposed to be educated people?  Learn to read before u insert foot into mouth people.  And the most i have seen against it is males trying to say it doesnt work which are the ones who are to chicken…. to do something about their controlling birth in the first place.  In my younger days only one way to stop it and I did it with vasectomy.  Have seen too many others tho that wouldnt do that cause theyr are afraid of it. 

  66. ebeth March 27, 2012 at 12:14 PM CDT #

    interesting how most of the comments are over a claim which isn’t even what the article is about.  Can we get back on topic and discuss the option of a cheap, MALE form of birth control please?

  67. Double-A Ron March 27, 2012 at 12:15 PM CDT #

    Don’t be a dummy, just cum on the tummy.

  68. AnE March 27, 2012 at 12:17 PM CDT #

    After reading the comments here I am glad to hear about any form of new birth control. More than half of the commenters, who seem educated enough, are acting like squabbling children themselves. Do we really want people who act like this to raise children? What kinds of lessons will we teach young people with this kind of behavior?

    I am especially enraged by the “don’t touch my junk” “its the woman’s responsibility” comments. Absolutely sickening and exactly what’s wrong with society. For far too long women have bared the brunt of unwanted pregnancy and birth control, which comes with many side effects. Regardless if this works or not, regardless if it has an impact in HIV, the fact that the medical community is even looking into possible forms of male birth control should be celebrated. 

  69. JL March 27, 2012 at 12:27 PM CDT #

    Confused, click the LINK. It tells you WHY and HOW he made that leap. It’s an article in Medical Hypothesis.

    • Daeda1us March 27, 2012 at 12:43 PM CDT #

      It was published in Medical Hypothesis in 2004, before the journal was peer reviewed.
      It is a very direct hypothesis with easily tested criteria.
      Yet, in the 8 years since publication, not a single study has verified it.

  70. Guest. March 27, 2012 at 12:40 PM CDT #

    Oh yes, because it’s totally the woman’s responsibility to prevent unwanted pregnancies, 100% of the time.

  71. Nessij17 March 27, 2012 at 1:20 PM CDT #

    This sounds like bs. Prevent HIV? Ha.

  72. Break March 27, 2012 at 1:27 PM CDT #

    Ah, bad internet journalism getting taken at face value. No, this will never, ever stop or even reduce HIV, that’s foolish.

  73. Suesmisu March 27, 2012 at 1:32 PM CDT #

    But how can it do anything to HIV or any other STD?

  74. heyheynow March 27, 2012 at 2:12 PM CDT #

    There seem to be a lot of skeptics posting comments. Have you ever wondered what it’s like to be a woman, having take birth control medications, worry about potential side effects, trying to trouble-shoot which might be the best type for her particular body and hormonal make-up? These are things that we men sometimes take for granted. Oh, and did you ever wonder how much money women spend on birth control each month? It’s ABSURD. A rough estimate from one dubious google-searched source is in the ballpark of $60-70,000 between 18 and menopause. I’m not saying this is a miracle invention. I’m not saying that I would definitely go out and get this done. Heck, I want a bit more research to be done as well — but as the author indicates, something like this is a huge threat to the corporate operations of the pharmaceutical industry…  What I’m a bit surprised about is the lack of “whoa, this would be awesome!”. Instead, what seems to be the focus of communication is: “stay away from my balls with that stuff!”

  75. Ms. Bettie March 27, 2012 at 2:15 PM CDT #

    Being a woman who has gone through a significant number of procedures to implant, extract, or adhere various copper, plastic, or hormone-impregnated appliances (which are frequently applied with instruments resembling fishhook pliers and very large knitting needles) I find the prospect of men having the foreign object injected into his bits somewhat of a relief.

    Cheers, gentlemen, I am in favor of these developments.

  76. Guest March 27, 2012 at 2:16 PM CDT #

    Possible effects on HIV aside, there are people in monogamous relationships who are just looking for birth control. This is a great alternative to 15+ years of hormonal birth control for women.  Not every new discovery can fix every problem. Take it at face value. I’m excited about this possibility!!

  77. Michael Dixon March 27, 2012 at 2:58 PM CDT #

    that sounds safe, new form of contraception: sperm ripping

  78. HOA March 27, 2012 at 3:21 PM CDT #

    Put a hole in each testicle and inject some sort of Epoxy like substance into them to alter sperm function? No thanks, y’all must be crazy if you think that’s some sort of ‘easy’ birth control alternative… Lay off ‘the goods’, son.

  79. Awake4now March 27, 2012 at 3:24 PM CDT #

    I thought this was a Rush Limbaugh joke like put an aspirin between your knees boys….

  80. Bug March 27, 2012 at 3:25 PM CDT #

    Possibility of DESTROYING HIV?!?!? What is wrong with an industry–any applicable industry–that wouldn’t take full advantage of this potential? Women’s struggle for the right to birth control has lasted long enough. Our struggle with birth control and its side effects in exchange for the ability to responsibly plan a family has gone on long enough. The fact is it takes two to tango, and it’s about time we take into consideration how men can play their part. And when we do, we find a possible way to prevent the spread of HIV? Any person, corporation, industry, or government that inhibited the availability of such a procedure should be ashamed of itself.

  81. C March 27, 2012 at 3:37 PM CDT #

    Who cares about the HIV thing. Hiv is pretty much a gay disease anyway. Most straight white men don’t get it. It’s usually blacks and homosexuals. I’m neither so why do I need this?

    • Daeda1us March 27, 2012 at 3:41 PM CDT #

      Fail Troll Fails!

  82. Sbcracer March 27, 2012 at 3:41 PM CDT #

    Its like getting “Male fixed ” but only lasts for 10 years…..If anyone (Even if its a Dr.) puts anythng in my nutsack best damn near be permament cause I guarantee it is NOT gonna happen again…..especially if its a pair of medical scissors….heard ya feel a tugging in the lower stomach….nah……not gonna even entertain the idea for any longer………my stomach hurts………F*CK THAT….

  83. Ben March 27, 2012 at 3:52 PM CDT #

    I came up with their slogan.

    No babies, no condom? No problem.

  84. ThinkFirst March 27, 2012 at 4:23 PM CDT #

    This does sound amazing but before everyone runs out to India to get this done this is a slanted article, as well as its sources.  See here  Now it is a remarkable procedure and compared to birth control for woman I would strongly debate it is a safer and cheaper alternative.  I just want to let people know there are risks to consider, and to think critically about the whole picture in this case.  The claim that it could destroy HIV is pretty bold claim as I have delved through sources from article to article and through wiki and found nothing but dead ends.  Also accusing pharmaceutical companies of keeping this a secret is a little out there as well.  Not going to debate that big companies do underhanded things all the time but it should also be considered that the side effects have not been 100 percent tested as the first test subjects will only be hitting the 10 year mark around now.  Skeptic optimism is what should be taken away from this.

    • Daeda1us March 27, 2012 at 4:41 PM CDT #

      Well reasoned!

  85. Harlokkin March 27, 2012 at 4:25 PM CDT #

    This wont stop HIV at all, anymore than the pill does now, stopping sperm does not stop viral output from the exchange of bodily fluids, so STD transmission is still a large risk. Please get your medical facts straight before you endager your life and others with misinformation.

    • AncientAsaKun March 27, 2012 at 4:29 PM CDT #

      read my post befre you bash the article and that goes for EVERYONE. It can help fight hiv math people MATH!!!! take any percentage no matter how small and subtract from a whole number you get a lesser number. sperm can carry hiv… limit sperm = limit sperm carrying hiv = limits hiv contraction… wtf is wrong with you people.

      • CaddyShack44 March 27, 2012 at 5:46 PM CDT #

        SPERM DO NOT CARRY HIV. HIV infect and live in your T-cells, remember? White blood cells? Not sperm? Seminal fluid can carry and transmit HIV. Science appears to be what the f is wrong with “us people”. 

  86. Dan March 27, 2012 at 4:43 PM CDT #

    How is this so complicated for people to get

    Step one-Make tiny hole in scrotal sack
    Step two-Locate BOTH vas deferans (which is connected to the sole poducer of sperm, the testicles) and inject with RISUG
    Step three-Reinsert vas deferans and bandage
    Step four-Have unprotected sex and only worry about STD’s

    Very simple

  87. Rwd March 27, 2012 at 5:04 PM CDT #

    how could this prevent hiv?

  88. Daeda1us March 27, 2012 at 5:11 PM CDT #

    “Limit one of the ways of HIVs ways of transmission = limits spread HIV in that way”
    It is simple math.  Too bad you do not understand it.
    Let me help you.
    Let’s keep the math simple.
    Semen is the TOTAL ejaculate and includes sperm and everything else ejected from the male urethra during orgasm.  Of that semen, only 5% is sperm.
    Now ignoring for the moment that no one has proven the virus is actually destroyed by contact with the polymer in vivo and assuming the entire viral load associated with the sperm is destroyed… what does that mean?

    ~5% of semen is sperm.  Therefore 95% of semen is not sperm and would be unaffected by the polymer.

    Last numbers I recall regarding Male to Female transmission of HIV during vaginal intercourse is 1:200.  So, you have about 1/2% chance to contract HIV during “normal” vaginal intercourse.  So, the destruction of any HIV associated with the sperm would reduce the rate of transmission by ~1/4000.  Yes.. that is one in four thousand.  From an accepted rate of 200/4000.

    Sounds like improvement, doesnt it?  Too bad it doesnt work like that.

    Instead, it works more like this…

    Think of standing in a dark room.  There is a gunman in the room firing randomly into one of the 200 places you may be hiding.  199/200 you are going to be ok.  1/200 times, you are screwed.  Imagine further the gun is a shotgun and each shell contains 20 pellets.  The difference between being hit with 19 pellets vs 20 pellets wont really matter to you.  Either way, you got shot.
    Now put on a condom.  Used properly it is effectively taking the bullets out of the gun.
    So, would you take the 199/4000 chance with this technique or use a condom and reduce it to closer to 1/4000 without the RISUG.

    I know which I would recommend my patients choose.  But hey, it is your life, spend it as you will.

    That math simple enough for you?  I suppose I could construct an analogy using M&Ms.  *shrug*

    BTW, you have no idea what Medical Doctors are and are not like.  Friend of mine went bowfishing over the weekend.  Guess you think Doctors dont know how to shoot a bow, eh?  I know one that builds hand crafter furniture.  Another makes chain maille.  Another is an artist.  Another bikes 100+ miles every week.
    We are a diverse group.  :D

    I notice your post lacks the civility and communication ability you claim I lack.  Yet, I have never threatened you with physical violence.  You have now threatened me with physical assault and now you want me shot.

    Seems to me, you are the one unable to make your point in a socially acceptable manner.  It happens often when someone has no valid point.  I understand.

    So, let your male relatives test this.  I will do what I said up front.  I will wait until it has been FDA approved for AT LEAST 15 YEARS before I recommend it to any patients.

    You may put your loved ones at risk as you desire.

    • AncientAsaKun March 27, 2012 at 7:32 PM CDT #

      For the sake of argument how about we try this instead since i’m frankly tired of discussing this with you. Doctors a diverse group? yeah i’ll admit to that. I’ll also admit to the fact that I read the article as a whole and understood what the author was trying to say. I did not however read bits and pieces then form a hypothesis on those pieces and badger anyone who believed otherwise, further more for you to come at me in a hostile manner calling my theory of the relativity of this proceedure and its affects on HIV stupid, as you so delicately put it, was childish to say the least. you claim to be a medical expert and i almost believed that until you carried yourself the way you did. I have NEVER met a medical expert who refused to hand over their credintials ESPECIALLY if it was going to show they had more knowledge on a subject than someone else. You want me to believe you? well i wont because simply put you misinterpreted everything i said in the beggining and probably will this as well. Until you can grow up and act like a civil human being and accept the fact that maybe someone else can know what they are talking about or until you provide me medical documentation showing that you know half of what your’e talking about i am now going to disregard every word exchanged between us and move on as if none of it happened all the while remembering that in the end you refuse to accept any valid argument or for that matter refuse to present me with any form of respect when it comes to handling a simple debate. you started with the insults and i retaliated. childish on my part and ignorant to say the least i should have handled the situation with a little more delicacy however i didnt but the past is what it is and i do not intend to change it. you think you’re 100% right and that my good sir is where i’m calling your bluff as i have clearly tryed time and time again to show you that you are not and even used some of your statments against you. in the end though i guess it was all worth it. i realised that no matter how hard i try there will always be that one guy or girl out there who thinks they know everything and refuse stubbornly to accept anyone elses opinions. good day to you sir and i hope that if you are really a doctor that one day you will realise you cant be right all the time no matter where you went to school and maybe one day you will accept that people have opinions and just because you dont like them doesnt mean you can try to silence them.

      • Daeda1us March 27, 2012 at 8:00 PM CDT #

        I told you how to verify my medical credentials.
        I see absolutely no reason to give my identifying information to someone who wishes me physical harm.  Give up on that one.

        Frankly, I dont care if you believe I am a Medical Doctor or not.  The only reason the subject came up was a poster suggested I read a biology text book.  I refuted his implication that I had never read one, soundly.

        I refuse to present you with any respect?  LOL!  You failed to earn any respect as soon as you resorted to name calling, followed by threats of physical assualt, including a threat of homocide.  How many times did I call you a “twat”?  Or any of the other names you threw at me?  How many times did I threaten you with physical harm and death?  ZERO.

        So, play the martyr if you wish.  Your comments are on display for all to see.

        The author was trying to “sell” the idea of this form of male contraception.  THAT is why he dropped in the “could destroy HIV”.
        After researching the technique further, even the spermicidal aspect becomes suspect, due to lack of the appropriate controlled tests.

        Maybe someday you will learn that an opinion is not the same as a fact.
        And I hope every time you try to argue the wrong side of an issue, there is someone just like me there to show you the difference.

        I dont want you silenced.  I want you educated.

      • Hazel March 30, 2012 at 12:49 PM CDT #

        “Until you can grow up and act like a civil human being…”

        What, like you?
        “Daeda1us you son of a bitch i swear you are without a doubt the most annoying, illogical, selfcentered, disrespectful, pompus, halfbrained, emotionally unstable, twat i have ever met.”

  89. Kelly_Ann_Hobson March 27, 2012 at 5:18 PM CDT #


  90. Cynical March 27, 2012 at 5:23 PM CDT #

    From what I can gather the treatment lowers the pH and creates an electrical charge. This supposedly disrupts the acrosome (head) of the sperm, so that it can’t fulfill the functions that it needs to in order to be able to fertilize the egg. There are a few different theories as to how it can reduce HIV including: the  acrosome (following the disruption from the electrical charge and low pH) releasing a chemical called hyaluronidase which supposedly could assist with resorption of the HIV; or a component of the treatment reducing entrance of the HIV from a positive female into the penile tissue. I think the treatment is more likely to reduce HIV viral loads rather than completely destroy all HIV but I’m not sure, I only really looked it up today. I hope that helps Confused.

  91. orlly March 27, 2012 at 6:01 PM CDT #

    How would this destroy HIV?

  92. Jim March 27, 2012 at 7:17 PM CDT #

    This article doesn’t raise the possibility of granulomas that can develop in the vas. They aren’t always serious, but they can be. I had them after a vasectomy and they were painful for awhile, but eventually went away.

  93. AncientAsaKun March 27, 2012 at 7:47 PM CDT #

    I am truly sick of the hours of questioning so I will keep this as short as possible. This article like many others shows an alternative form of contraception.However apparently the big discussion is its affect on HIV which has been both accepted and denied. here’s my thoughts:Show me documentation no matter how old that proves THIS treatment helps fight HIV or doesn’t.Until such a time arises i suggest everyone do the following. Take the article for what it truly is which is a way to promote a new form of contraception.I swear some of you people are so hell bent on knowing everything that you’ve lost all real sense of marketing which is what this article is. Marketing a product.
    Good day to you all and good bye!

    • Daeda1us March 27, 2012 at 7:51 PM CDT #

      Marketing?  Ah, that explains the lies and misdirections.
      Marketing is very different from Science.
      In Science, it is about proof.
      In Marketing, it is about what sells.

      Put me down as not wishing to purchase this product until due diligence has been performed, i.e. double blind testing in reputable labs.

      Marketing… now it makes sense.

  94. Dondouglion March 27, 2012 at 9:01 PM CDT #

    HIV can be transmitted by women’s fluids and through abrasions in the skin. This will absolutely NOT prevent the spread of HIV. It could lessen the odds of a female contracting the virus from semen, but it is not a guarantee, condoms are still more effective at preventing transmission to any partner(s) in any kind of sex act.

  95. Tom March 27, 2012 at 9:07 PM CDT #

    I don’t buy it at all. If it destroyed HIV there would be a Nobel in the offing. I would like to see a controlled study that could be replicated.

  96. Vaalea D March 27, 2012 at 9:34 PM CDT #

    Join the RISUG/VASALGEL group on Facebook! 

  97. likeamovie March 27, 2012 at 9:35 PM CDT #

    all of a sudden a lot of guys are going to do it and something goes horribly wrong and they all become sterile and some how it ends up like “Chilrdren of Men”

  98. other STIs? March 27, 2012 at 9:43 PM CDT #

    Even IF it proves effective for HIV, how about the other STIs that exist? You’d still need condoms to prevent herpes, gonorrhea, chlamydia, and so on.

  99. Jknoff March 27, 2012 at 9:54 PM CDT #

    I have learned that if something sounds too good to be true, it usually is. Even if the pharmaceutical companies aren’t interested, urologists would definitely be. They could charge the same as for a vasectomy. There is definitely a catch:
    Increased risk of cancer, testicular necrosis, chronic pain, etc.

  100. Aurora1 March 27, 2012 at 9:56 PM CDT #

    How exactly is it going to destroy HIV? I’m pretty sure bodily fluids can still flow. This disappoints me. I was absolutely going to repost this till I came across this extremely uninformed comment. Being a nurse that’s not quite okay with me. 

    • Talia March 27, 2012 at 11:39 PM CDT #

      Where did it claim it would protect against HIV? It seemed to be clearly labeled as *birth control* from the start

  101. Aurora1 March 27, 2012 at 9:56 PM CDT #

    How exactly is it going to destroy HIV? I’m pretty sure bodily fluids can still flow. This disappoints me. I was absolutely going to repost this till I came across this extremely uninformed comment. Being a nurse that’s not quite okay with me. 

  102. Svlueker March 27, 2012 at 10:04 PM CDT #

    This sounds like the best thing since popcorn.. The IUD was the only other birth control that didn’t involve putting hormones into our bodies. I had great results with and had two great boys after removal .

  103. karen March 27, 2012 at 10:06 PM CDT #

    not approved for human use in the united states. 

  104. Keener March 27, 2012 at 10:33 PM CDT #

    Most are speculating on something that has not been widely studied yet. Try it out, if your rubber breaks, buddy, you’ve got a possible back-up. If the Vasalgel gives you problems, go get it taken care of (dissolved in the baking-soda/water solution) and get on with your day. We do know that epoxy-like polymers, because they are so stable and do not dissolve are relatively, *if not completely* non-toxic in the conditions that our bodies present. This is not to say you shouldn’t be cautious trying it out, but wherever would we get without riskin a little here and a little there. And hey, still, condoms are legit to use. Just because this treatment would claim to stop you from spreading HIV, it does not mean you are immune to contracting HIV.

  105. Mark R March 27, 2012 at 10:44 PM CDT #

    Yes, let’s all get excited over sterilizing ourselves so we can have sex without consequences. 


    • Talia March 27, 2012 at 11:34 PM CDT #

      Yes, lets all assume that there won’t be any commited/married couples who desperately need this. And lets also assume that people are dumb enough not to see STDs/STIs as consequences.


  106. jerett March 27, 2012 at 10:51 PM CDT #

    can you do this for me tommorow?

  107. Greattechnologybutbadidea March 27, 2012 at 11:09 PM CDT #

    this won’t protect men from infections and diseases. not to mention the social rewrite of ‘sleeping with somebody’.

  108. fix3dgears March 27, 2012 at 11:15 PM CDT #

    what about ejaculation?

  109. ouch! March 27, 2012 at 11:47 PM CDT #

    did any other male out there cringe when the article said, ”
     …puts a Band-Aid over the small hole”?

  110. Mumbles March 27, 2012 at 11:49 PM CDT #

    stops babies, doesnt stop STIs

  111. Mrs. L March 28, 2012 at 12:07 AM CDT #

    I can’t wait for this to come to the US. My husband wants something that’s reversible, so thank GOD for this!!

  112. Notdareal1 March 28, 2012 at 12:09 AM CDT #

    oh yeah getting an injection into the vas deferens is way easier than taking a pill….girls need to stop bitching about birth control

  113. Sarah_Sauzier March 28, 2012 at 1:21 AM CDT #

    Don’t get your panties in a twist boys, you may do some serious damage down there ;-) lol. I’ve heard men can get this thing implanted and it comes with a control whether you want it to flow or not. Reminds me of Homer Simpson in the hospital bed “sperm stays in, sperm comes out” (and repeat) lol

  114. Robin Ludvig Isomaa March 28, 2012 at 1:58 AM CDT #

    Why can’t people just put on a condom? It’s a cheap rubber thingy you put on your dick, no need for surgery or anything else invasive.Also, no permanent effects.

    Scientifically, I’m curious about this new form of birth control, but the problem is that it doesn’t protect you against STDs as well as a properly used condom.

    • AnonNemo March 28, 2012 at 7:28 AM CDT #

      In the long run this solution is better and cheaper than the pill and condoms, but you are completely right, protecting against STDs are just as, or even more important than to protect oneself against getting pregnant. 

      I also think that most guys will think ten years is an awfully long time, if they could reduce it to 3-5 years then there is more money to make for the doctors too.

      • Missing Agloe (DFTBA) March 28, 2012 at 4:54 PM CDT #

        My understanding is that you can get it reversed any time you want with the baking soda injection, it’s just that it can last up to 10 years if you end up wanting it that long.

  115. Phenix1st March 28, 2012 at 2:23 AM CDT #

    While the sperm may not have HIV that doesn’t mean that micro tearing of the tissue wouldn’t occur. and the sperm and semen don’t mix till after the vas deferens. The semen is a carrier of the virus as well. So you have a reduction but not “Hey it’s the 70’s let have an orgy” Though in all fairness the thought of actually being cut, is one of the only reasons that I haven’t been snipped. This sounds a lot less invasive and like a fantastic family planning tool. There are a whole lot of other STD’s out there to worry about,many of which never go away. really only something that is suitable for long term couples. I mean by the logic that the sperm can’t get any one sick getting snipped isn’t that invasive, it costs even less as far as “drugs” and in men is 95% reversable, as well as there is NO sperm to cause infection only the semen which I stated earlier is also a carrier for the virus

  116. Ticked Off March 28, 2012 at 2:32 AM CDT #

    Read the link, Confused. That’s what it’s frikkin’ there for.

  117. Palmbeach81 March 28, 2012 at 3:24 AM CDT #

    I want this for us!!!! Had an awful month with an incomplete miscarriage because my almost perfect contraception failed. Easy options like this need to be available for everyone without a doctor sticking their big nose in the patients business. Spread the word

    • Daeda1us March 28, 2012 at 6:54 AM CDT #

      “Easy options like this need to be available for everyone without a doctor sticking their big nose in the patients business”

      ???  You are aware this is a medical procedure and requires a physician to perform… right?  So the doctor is going to be “sticking their big nose in the patient’s business.

  118. never. ever. March 28, 2012 at 4:02 AM CDT #

    i’m a guy. not letting anything near my junk.

    • Bell March 28, 2012 at 4:26 AM CDT #

      I’m a girl. I have to let something near my “junk” in order to get the benefits of long-term contraception for my partner and I. I’d like to say “fuck that shit”, especially because long-term contraception can mess with some people big time. But now that you mention it, the proven downsides for some women and contraception are, of course, a much better option than the potential ZERO downsides for men and this. Sounds like you’re the kinda guy who makes a considerate, caring partner….

  119. Criscousa March 28, 2012 at 5:59 AM CDT #

    Interesting, had not heard of this ten year gel before…

  120. Tshoales0001 March 28, 2012 at 6:43 AM CDT #

    Wow about time bet u guys will be lining up for this!!!!! LOL

  121. Guesksjhfs March 28, 2012 at 6:59 AM CDT #

    wow, the things people will do just to have sex….

    • T.R. Wolfe March 28, 2012 at 10:00 AM CDT #

      This is nothing.

  122. Redbosn March 28, 2012 at 7:17 AM CDT #

    The thoroughness of carcinogenicity, teratogenicity, and toxicity testing in clinical trials has been questioned. In October 2002, India’s Ministry of Health aborted the clinical trials due to reports of albumin in urine and scrotal swelling in Phase III trial participants.[5] The Indian Council for Medical Research noted that dimethyl sulfoxide used as a solvent for the injection is known to cause kidney damage.[6] Although the ICMR has reviewed and approved the toxicology data three times, some[who?] United States researchers say that the studies were not done according to recent international standards.

  123. Brian Miles March 28, 2012 at 8:57 AM CDT #

    So is this reversible? Just cause, you know, I might want kids in like 8 years. 

    • Daeda1us March 28, 2012 at 9:05 AM CDT #

      Supposedly.  It is still experimental.

  124. Anatol March 28, 2012 at 9:45 AM CDT #

    Why do you guys keep fighting about the fact that it’s “SPERM” and not “SEMEN”…? Correct, sperm are only one of three parts of the ejaculate, however, it is the only part that actually induces pregnancy. 
    The other two components from the prostate and seminal vessicles (80% of the ejaculate) are only released to lubricate the tubes to facilitate motility of the ejaculate…
    In other words, i can add as much oil to my car as I want, but it’s NOT going to drive any faster or more efficiently if there is no gas…

    No Sperm = no Pregnancy 

    P.s. It was stated the procedure is done bilaterally (both sides), otherwise it would be the silliest idea if it were only unilaterally performed.
    (Let’s block ONE of my pistons… so what if i have 7 more…)

  125. Jeremy March 28, 2012 at 9:57 AM CDT #

    When mentioning  this procedure and it’s possible effectiveness on the HIV virus, the author quite clearly uses the word “might”.(past tense of may) Also, if I’m not mistaken, I detect a bit of irony in that statement as it relates to the previous issue of drug companies and profiteering. The only thing I see wrong with this statement is that he might perhaps have used the present/future tense of the word as the clinical tests have yet to be determined. Lack of a vocabulary  can make you look really ignorant on your comments.

  126. Stayler March 28, 2012 at 10:03 AM CDT #

    “no babies, no latex, no daily pill to remember, no hormones to interfere with mood or sex drive,”

    Copper IUD. There is the chance for health problems due to it being more invasive, but mine’s been working out pretty darn well.

  127. Lauren Everett March 28, 2012 at 10:04 AM CDT #

    Yes, men are wusses…but I think if more people knew about this, more men in their early years (the ones where they spread their seed more freely) might have this done. It’s cheaper than condoms, and they’ll never have to worry about forgetting to have one in their pocket  :)

  128. Single_Minded_Deviation March 28, 2012 at 10:24 AM CDT #

    Am I the only female posting here? hard to tell for sure, but there seems to be a lot of testosterone and “My biology can kick your biology’s butt”.

    That bemusement aside…
    I do wish my husband and I had been aware this procedure existed before he chose to get a vasectomy. For some men it is an easy recovery. My husband, sadly, was in severe pain for three days.  His libido has taken a major hit, which almost makes it irrelevent that we can no longer get pregnant.

  129. just stopping by March 28, 2012 at 10:53 AM CDT #

    this is freaking crazy.  If it is so natural to just have sex whenever you want, how does this make it natural?  This is the exact opposite of natural.  

  130. samanchezzz March 28, 2012 at 11:12 AM CDT #

    Pretty sure it does mention both bad deferens

  131. samanchezzz March 28, 2012 at 11:13 AM CDT #


  132. Rebeccamaupin March 28, 2012 at 11:14 AM CDT #

    When is this supposed to be available in the usa?

  133. Rappa March 28, 2012 at 11:22 AM CDT #

    Ok, you can’t get a woman pregnant, but you still get HIV. I’ll choose being a Dad over HIV and other STDs anytime. The “be safe” frase of condoms advertising is mostly about HIV and STDs.

    At least is how I see it.

  134. Voripetcu March 28, 2012 at 11:35 AM CDT #

    I am teriffied! I belive it’s something covered in this message! I am woman and I beleive man’s have right to chose have children ! ” Only”10 years. Brrrr!

  135. Diana Wells March 28, 2012 at 11:57 AM CDT #

    No one else seems to think this is a priority, but to me, I want there to be a visible sign that a guy has had this procedure. I sure as hell hope it becomes popular, but any fool will be able to lie about it unless there is some way to prove it. Although incredible numbers of people don’t think creating a human life is a big deal, it is, and there should be a way for women to be sure their partner did the procedure. One little prick on his junk can prevent her junk from literally tearing apart so a baby can get through it. And yeah, dudes, birth control pills are NOT FUN. Maybe you think puking and mood swings are sexy, but I don’t. Luckily, my boyfriend is man enough to consider doing this.

    • Kimberly March 28, 2012 at 8:42 PM CDT #

      I get what you’re saying, but as a woman with an IUD, I’ve never been asked (nor have I expected to have to provide) any kind of proof beyond my word. If you don’t trust your partner, don’t have sex or use other/additional methods of birth control (like a condom).

  136. Sestagl March 28, 2012 at 12:31 PM CDT #

    So wrong!!! ( Sarcastic- hey ya lets put more chemicals in our body ,, just wrong

  137. Referencegirl March 28, 2012 at 12:47 PM CDT #

    This article is grossly misleading. It is an example of the bad health information available online and  why it is important that we educate people to be more literate regarding health issues. Vasalgel is still in testing phase. I hardly find the procedure described as simple or easy. The implications that big pharma will prevent its adoption in the US are completely unfounded. And there is no proof, what so ever, that it will protect against HIV.  

    • Daeda1us March 28, 2012 at 1:16 PM CDT #

      Ding Ding Ding!  We have a winner!
      I only wish I could “like” your comment a few dozen times.
      Well reasoned!

    • Rappa March 28, 2012 at 1:39 PM CDT #


  138. guest March 28, 2012 at 1:03 PM CDT #

    We live in a sexist world if we aren’t all shouting for males to share the burden of messing with their bodies to prevent unwanted pregnancy. 

    • Jbean January 18, 2013 at 10:43 PM CDT #

      well, we do live in a sexist world. : /

  139. Baffled March 28, 2012 at 1:33 PM CDT #

    I would like to know how this can “Destroy” HIV. Last time I looked HIV is a lentivirus and a part of the retrovirus family. Funny how as a writer you omitted the fact that HIV is transferred blood, semen, vaginal fluid, and pre-ejaculate. Oddly enough I see two of those transmission methods capable by women alone. I suggest before you bombard common folk with delusions of grandeur you at least first consult an actual medical physician before claiming it could “destroy” HIV. You have to understand that the “Average” person be it man or woman will think “oh gee I can or my souse can get this shot and have no fear of HIV” And in essence will take your word as truth making you no better than the insane “bushmen” witch doctors in Africa claiming that having sex with a virgin will cure HIV…

    • Rappa March 28, 2012 at 1:38 PM CDT #


  140. Twelve0five March 28, 2012 at 1:43 PM CDT #

    How does it destroy HIV?

  141. Paul Turnbull March 28, 2012 at 2:00 PM CDT #

    The procedure sounds virtually identical to a vasectomy and far less invasive than the surgical solutions women have. I’d suggest that you man up a bit.

  142. JFontaine March 28, 2012 at 2:00 PM CDT #

    Its a nice method when you’re married and dont want to have childrens like my wife and I (and that doesn’t mean we dont intimate a lot!)… we are focused in our jobs so we like our lives and the freedom (i know im going to gain hate for this) we get by not raise kids.

    • Attendee March 28, 2012 at 4:52 PM CDT #

      No hate here. Thank you for making an informed decision instead of playing the odds and getting knocked up.

      I love kids, just I don’t want to have them. There’s nothing wrong with that.

  143. Zubzim March 28, 2012 at 2:18 PM CDT #

    Has this gone through rigours trials yet to check the safety of this untested treatment. 
    Call me old fashioned but I still think not having sex is the best form of contraceptive.
    Despite what religious nuts might preach it is still unproved that you can get pregnant from looking at each other.

    • Daeda1us March 28, 2012 at 2:29 PM CDT #

      In answer to your first question… No.  It has not.

      • Daeda1us March 28, 2012 at 2:37 PM CDT #

        Ok, the nuts seem to have left and some very well reasoned comments have been made in the last few hours.
        So, I leave you to it.

        Remember, the internet is a cesspool of misinformation.
        Before you get too excited about something, verify it first.
        My initial comments regarding this technique challenged the “might destroy HIV” comment the author casually threw in at the end.
        But, after researching the issue further, there are serious doubts about the technique itself, both from a health safety stand point (side effects profile and adverse events) and the reversible aspect at ten years.

        So, short form, dont believe everything you read (not even this!)
        Do your own research and become informed consumers.
        Dont let someone “market” you into bad decisions.

        Wishing everyone well and Stay Safe!

        (unsubbing now.  :D)

  144. mrtrantastic March 28, 2012 at 2:40 PM CDT #

    a shot in the arm, maybe, a shot in the nads. no thanks

  145. Dsg338 March 28, 2012 at 3:39 PM CDT #

    aint nobody cutting my scrotum for shit. my vas deferens will stay where it belongs. the pill is not that big of a hassle and there are less harmful ones. and women can also get an IUD! also you would still have to use a condom with this procedure to protect against STD’s if you have sex outside of a monogamous and faithful relationship.

    • Kimberly K Brady March 28, 2012 at 6:27 PM CDT #

      As you are clearly a male, I think it’s pretty presumptuous of you to say “the pill is not that big of a hassle.” It can also have hormonal effects which are more than just a “hassle.” IUDs are an option but also require a medical procedure which some would find just as invasive (although non-surgical) and also uncomfortable if not painful. Yes, with this procedure you would still have to use a condom to protect against STDs; the same is true of IUDs and birth control pills. What is exciting about this possibility is that if it is research more and found safe, it would provide another option for effective contraception for MEN. If I was a guy, I imagine I’d want to take matters into my own hands, so to speak, to do my part to prevent unwanted pregnancies.

  146. Chris P March 28, 2012 at 3:39 PM CDT #

    Totally incorrect on the motivations of big pharmaceutical companies.  First, it takes a long time to produce a drug or therapy.  On average 17 years.  So an idea that looks promising now will not be available for a long time.  Second, big pharma has produced thousands of cheap drugs.  They are not out any money if they cure problem “X”, because eventually you will get problem “Y” and “Z” and etc.  Drop the sensationalism; its an interesting enough article without it.  

  147. Poetryforpaint March 28, 2012 at 4:50 PM CDT #

    This needs to go viral.

  148. female1 March 28, 2012 at 4:54 PM CDT #

    It’s about bloody time!!  Like a lot of things, contraception seems to be another responsibility predominantly shouldered by women.  It’s fine for us to pop a pill or have our organs sliced into, but a tiny little hole and it’s reversible and to Dsg388 who thinks “the pill is not that big of a hassle and there are less harmful ones and we can also get an IUD!”, why don’t you get past your cowardice and be a man, or why don’t you remember to take a pill for the majority of the year and suffer any uncomfortable risks or side effects for awhile. Sex is something shared, the responsibilities that stem from it should also be shared! 

  149. Guest March 28, 2012 at 5:49 PM CDT #

    However, If there any knowledge about removing/undoing this treatment before the 10 years is up?

  150. Mark Slivka March 28, 2012 at 6:02 PM CDT #

    this is silly. the only 100% effective form of birth control is abstinence. this gel may work, but to make an outrageous claim like 100% effectiveness for 10 years only undermines your argument.

  151. JamieHaman March 28, 2012 at 6:13 PM CDT #

    They’ve probably been doing this in India, not Europe for the last 20 years…But this is definite NOT a money maker.

  152. User March 28, 2012 at 6:25 PM CDT #

    This would not prevent the spread of HIV anymore than the hope method. As in, “I hope I don’t get infected.” But what do I know, I just work in and hold a phd in human biology with a specialization in pathology.

  153. BrenS March 28, 2012 at 6:49 PM CDT #

    Ok you people are annoying me i am currently taking anatomy and physiology in high school so i may be wrong or not but the prostate gland and the seminal vesicle only add substances to aid in the travel of sperm through the vagina they don’t add any sperm to semen therefore blocking the vas  deferens will work just fine as a contraceptive.  Sperm is what gets a girl pregnant. Semen is sperm + different substance released by the prostate gland seminal vesicle and others  If all that is ejaculated is the products of there various other glands and organs than there is no chance of the girl getting pregnant.   Again im only a junior in hig hschool so i may be wrong

  154. Jack_1 March 28, 2012 at 7:07 PM CDT #

    This is bullshit people. STDs are transferred through microscopic tears in skin to skin contact… HIV doesn’t have to be in the sperm to be transferred. It’s the microscopic tears in the genitalia that transfer STDs like HIV, Gonorrhea, HSV 2…etc. And why would you want some foreign chemicals in your balls? Do you have any idea what else they can do there? The clinical trials don’t have a very long follow up period. Might as well go get a vasectomy. If this was true, pharmaceuticals would be all over this…

  155. Elizabeth Casto March 28, 2012 at 7:36 PM CDT #

    now if only men would take responsibility for their sexual health instead of forcing women to

  156. Elizabeth Casto March 28, 2012 at 7:36 PM CDT #

    now if only men would take responsibility for their sexual health instead of forcing women to

  157. Timoyoro March 28, 2012 at 7:41 PM CDT #

    I am speaking as someone woefully uneducated on urology, but being a general medicine resident, I have concerns about reversal.  The vas deferens is a thin, fragile tube and wonder about the risks of the procedure causing scarring or adhesions that would prevent future sperm from traveling from the testes to the urethra.  All forms of female contraceptions are nearly completely reversible (>90%) within a few months.  I would be interested to know the rate of infertility following reversal of this method in a study with a large cohort.

  158. Sweetsweetgman March 28, 2012 at 8:18 PM CDT #

    I’m not a doctor but the destroys HIV sounds a little hokey.  HIV does not live in sperm.  It lives in other components of semen as well as blood, anal mucas, vaginal secreations and breast milk.  If there are any medical articles on how this procedure destroys HIV I would like to read them.  It would be a valuable inovation in HIV prevention therapy.

  159. Daisyolivia6198 March 28, 2012 at 8:24 PM CDT #

    If you don’t want it to last 10 years, can you reverse it at anytime?

    • Cthulhu Shrugged March 28, 2012 at 11:03 PM CDT #

      The article clearly lays out its reversibility…

      “Oh, and when you do decide you want those babies, it only takes one other injection of water and baking soda to flush out the gel, and within two to three months, you’ve got all your healthy sperm again.”

  160. polkm123 March 28, 2012 at 8:43 PM CDT #

    WTF is wrong with you people? 522 words in the article entitled THE BEST BIRTH CONTROL IN THE WORLD IS FOR MEN. 13 words about HIV and the vast majority of the comments are about HIV.  In case most of haven’t figured it out the procedure is about BIRTH CONTROL. Read some of the links in the article this procedure started animal testing in 1979, the first humans were injected in 1989.

    • Intelligenceisavirtue April 17, 2012 at 7:11 AM CDT #

      What is wrong with you? If this were peer-reviewed there is NO WAY it would pass. You simply CANNOT include unfounded claims in your article, regardless of the content of the rest of the article. The majority of the comments are about the HIV prevention because of how ludicrous that claim is! It has already been ascertained that it may work as a prophylactic, and there is some science behind that claim (although it still lacks controlled testing). There is however nothing to suggest it could work to prevent HIV transmission, and so that is what people will be commenting on. Simple enough, right?

  161. Fernando1958 March 28, 2012 at 8:48 PM CDT #

    I’m sure there is a good market if you are a Democrat, because… you know… Republicans only have sex to procreate :)

  162. Oliver Janney March 28, 2012 at 10:14 PM CDT #

    You lost me at “it’s what supervillains envision will happen when they stick the good guy between two huge magnets and flip the switch.”

  163. Mag March 28, 2012 at 10:23 PM CDT #

    WOW. This just blew my mind a little.

  164. Jjerjejc March 28, 2012 at 10:41 PM CDT #

    I think instead of looking at the spread of HIV from partner to partner it is possibly talking more on the reproduction side of spreading it.

  165. Danny White March 28, 2012 at 11:40 PM CDT #

    “No, I don’t have a condom, but some doctor put a needle in my sac and injected this stuff that will keep me from getting girls pregnant for 10 years!”  Good luck getting her to believe that.

  166. striver March 29, 2012 at 12:04 AM CDT #

    would this stop ejaculation completely?

  167. JenniferFu March 29, 2012 at 12:47 AM CDT #

    And then some poor spermie does get through, say if the chances were 1 in a million. You’d have 50 or so injured soldiers making it to the enemy line. Given the damage said spermie has suffered, it still completes the voyage. How is that baby going to turn out? 3 hands and four feet?

    • Intelligenceisavirtue April 17, 2012 at 7:13 AM CDT #

      Sperm are not soldiers and that analogy is irrelevant. 

  168. Guest March 29, 2012 at 1:27 AM CDT #

    How do you expect to spread the word with this shitty article that doesn’t even name the procedure? What am I supposed to tell people, “uhh there’s this thing that men can do that I read about, doesn’t really have a name, but it like, makes you sterile for ten years. no it doesn’t really have a name but in india there’s an acronym for it. no i’m not making this up, i swear!”

    • GoogleSalesperson March 29, 2012 at 1:27 PM CDT #

       Alas, if only there were a way to discover more information about this mysterious acronym..

      • Intelligenceisavirtue April 17, 2012 at 7:14 AM CDT #

        LOL at your post name

    • Fgncvnfgf March 30, 2012 at 12:19 AM CDT #

      “The procedure called RISUG in India (reversible inhibition of sperm under guidance) “

  169. DoloresIsabella March 29, 2012 at 1:52 AM CDT #

    I may talk to my partner about this. I can’t take hormones (due to other medication I am on), so the only super-effective things for me are IUDs

    • ink January 18, 2013 at 11:15 PM CDT #

      Why on earth wouldn’t you just use condoms? Like, really? Why would you “just accept the cramps and anemia” from your IUD when you could use a condom and not have to suffer.

      • Alice Johnson January 19, 2013 at 2:47 PM CDT #

        1) A large number of men get extremely squeamish with regard to ‘doing anything down there’. I took a short (admittedly not a fair unbiased double blind study) poll and found that some men would pretend they were in favor of it, but you could see on their faces that they just hadn’t bought into the idea and probably never would.
        2) Condoms are somewhat expensive, though in some circumstances (like having sex with someone whose sexual history you are not certain about) it is necessary for prevent the spread of STDs. but
        3) Many men I’ve spoken to about this says they hate condoms, it interferes with their pleasure, and (believe it or not) ruins the moment when he has to stop and open the package and deal with it.
        A long time ago, when I had a new boyfriend and we were just deciding to consummate the relationship, we were in my bed and undressed; at that point I pulled out the condom and proceeded to put it on him. His answer was, “I’ve never used one of those things in my life and I’m not going to start now!”. And he was actually enraged to realize that I wanted him to participate in contraception. That man is one of a large group of men who cause pregnancy because they ‘want it when they want it’ and don’t want to have to think about anything other than their pleasure.
        I remember one guy (casual sex, I admit it) who start pouting – lower lip stuck out! – because I had to go to the bathroom and insert my diaphragm. When I got back to the bed, he was still cranky about it.
        To sum up: my admittedly small sample of men that I knew or know now are just not buying into male contraception unless the woman forces them to be. They just don’t feel like they’re responsible for it.
        Of course, there has not been a push toward education (I’m picturing ads on the buses) nor a push by the women (think Lysistrata) to use it or else.

        BTW, I DID use the IUD for quite a while, because diaphragms don’t perform as well, and they’re messy. The IUD was – uncomfortable. Cramps, nausea, not to mention the actual installation of the device (hurts like a MF) – but it, too, has nothing to do with STDs.

  170. Gerritharkness March 29, 2012 at 2:04 AM CDT #

    has anyone considered using this product to make a filter that will separate blood cells and viruses and sent the smaller virus cells such as HIV through this to be destroyed ? seems like a practical cure since your immune system can handle small amounts of the virus and you can stay alive longer or be cured without actual drugs

  171. Theferph March 29, 2012 at 2:55 AM CDT #

    What the article doesn’t mention is that the local anesthetic is delivered via a needle in your gonads. At least taking a pill everyday doesn’t hurt like taking a shot in the pills.

    • Duh March 30, 2012 at 12:59 AM CDT #

      The Depo-Provera contraceptive is a shot taken to the lower hip region every three months. I’m sure a man can handle a needle to the balls once every 10 years.

      • robcypher March 30, 2012 at 5:13 AM CDT #

        Speak for yourself.

      • Guest May 5, 2012 at 8:31 AM CDT #

        I agree. This procedure is a miracle. It will enable men to have true reproductive control for the first time, a luxury women have had for the last 50 years. And all these teenagers are crying because they are afraid to have a trained medical professional perform a surgery that makes vasectomies and teeth pulling look like the Spanish Inquisition.

        I hate to say this but fellow men, but man the fuck up and enjoy this amazing breakthrough when it is available.

  172. Karen Lincoln March 29, 2012 at 4:53 AM CDT #

    And interesting step forward…
    It would be wonderful for women to be free of the chemicals and/or invasive surgery, they have to use to prevent pregnancy. However, what sane woman would believe any man, (other than if she is in a stable long term relationship), who has said he has had this procedure. It reminds me of the phrase “It’s alright darlin’ I’ve had the ‘snip’.”

    (Oh and of course, NOTHING but a condom will help in the transfer of disease!)

    • SpicyCrispyPuppy March 29, 2012 at 7:20 PM CDT #

      There’s responsibility on both sides. As Sam Kiniston once said, “If you don’t TRUST the p****y, why are you F***ing the p***y?” I’ve seen both genders lie in order to get laid.

  173. Colin Burgoyne March 29, 2012 at 5:26 AM CDT #

    Just FYI, without even looking up the procedure, there is a major false hood in this article. Destroying sperm production ABSOLUTELY DOES NOT prevent HIV spread. Just as the birth control pill does not prevent it. Egg and sperm meeting has nothing to do with HIV. The virus is transmitted via semen and vaginal fluids, and only a complete barrier between the 2 partners (ie: a condom) can stop that. Sperm are only one of several parts of semen. Killing them does not stop ejaculation to occur (much like having a vasectomy… In which the vas deferens is cut to prevent sperm release) and does not prevent HIV. This is a dangerous error in this article and

    • Bill Swears March 29, 2012 at 8:27 AM CDT #

      Colin, you’d have ameliorated your comment if you had looked up the link in the article.  Just sayin’

    • Sarah S. March 30, 2012 at 2:26 AM CDT #

      Both have a point- yes, the article in Medical Hypothesis does hypothesize that it could affect HIV virus not just in the vas deferens. But on the other hand, even if it had such an effect on prostatic fluid and seminal fluid nearby (which is a little scary if you think about it), the effect being strong enough to count on seems pretty unlikely…

      In the next article, the one about the pill that is designed SPECIFICALLY to get rid of all the semen (not just the sperm), it says the makers of the U.S. version of this one aren’t claiming any anti-HIV effect. It was just a hypothesis in that journal. So yeah, it seems like it detracts to throw in that hypothesis, when the rest of the article is based on actual studies with hundreds of men. It’s a shame. As one of the comments about a million comments back said, “Extraordinary claims demand extraordinary proof” or something to that effect.

      The thing I don’t understand is, if everybody is so concerned about HIV, why isn’t the OTHER article spreading like wildfire? It’s about a drug that, in actual men, eliminates ALL semen (not just the sperm), which ought to be a pretty good way to cut down on male-to-partner transmission of HIV (since it’s the virus in the semen, not just on the sperm, that gets into tears and penetrates membranes). It’s an old blood pressure drug and a schizophrenia drug that had this weird “side effect”, so they’re busy breaking it down and isolating just the no-semen part and getting rid of the blood pressure or schizophrenia part.

      Does a quick-acting pill (like Viagra) not sound so good? People forget pills (it’s human nature), so usually pills aren’t such a good idea, but this one seems pretty good, since if a guy only had to take it before he was expecting to have sex (like Viagra), I don’t know of any guy who’s looking forward to having sex that evening but doesn’t think about it once during the day!! And it seems like a nice backup for guys and couples who don’t want to take any — i.e. zero– chances if there’s a condom mishap. And what about all the countries where HIV is everywhere and yet even after all these years of trying to get people to use condoms, hardly anybody does? Wouldn’t it be worth seeing whether giving people another option might make a difference? (Yeah, it wouldn’t prevent other STDs that are on the skin as well as condoms do.  But most of those aren’t deadly.)

      So why doesn’t anybody care about the other article? Why isn’t it going viral? Yeah, the long-term method sounds good to me– you just do it and forget about it, no pill to take, no question about side effects. But the other one, the pill one, you can actually contribute to; it says this one they’re not taking donations for the U.S. version until they do rabbit studies and make sure it’s working as well as the Indian version, but the pill one they’re trying to crowdsource.

      Or do people not really care that much about HIV anymore when it comes right down to it? Opinions?

  174. Wawanne March 29, 2012 at 5:47 AM CDT #

    scientific data, presse ?

  175. Yukonjack89 March 29, 2012 at 8:58 AM CDT #

    it sounds to me like if men didnt have to wear condoms to avoid pregnancy, they wouldn’t. greatly increasing the amount of std’s floating around. it certainly wouldn’t destroy HIV…

    • Cherry Lu Vin March 29, 2012 at 4:46 PM CDT #

      but say for a married couple for instance it would make it a whole lot easier to not have to worry about condoms everytime if (for instance) the woman was breastfeeding and couldn’t take the pill, or has had bad reactions to it in the past. This is not a substitute for std protection and I understand what you are trying to say but in some cases STD protection isn’t a concern, or some people want a lower failure rate than just condoms alone, it is not meant to be a substitute for common sense.

  176. JesuCristoJaJaJa March 29, 2012 at 9:31 AM CDT #

    This is totally antithetical to the teachings of Jesus.

    Just kidding, everyone please share this!!!!!!!!!

  177. SmugBanana March 29, 2012 at 11:20 AM CDT #

    Looks like all this HIV and STD debate led to a new techcitement article. Long story short, it looks like there could soon be a medical way to prevent pregnancy and HIV all at the same time –

  178. Plasticpony365 March 29, 2012 at 11:56 AM CDT #

    My $1200 a month income has worked perfectly for 25 or more years now.

  179. Ana March 29, 2012 at 12:50 PM CDT #

    OMG I am so relieved to see this! As a 23-year old woman, this is such a relief to see that men are interested in having some control as well. So many women are not on birth control for money reasons or otherwise and to put all the onus on women for not having babies seems so archaic. Also, leaves it as a game of chance for the guys! thank god for this. 

    • Guest May 5, 2012 at 8:27 AM CDT #

      Thank you. I am sick and tired of hearing the BS “men don’t want birth control/are too stupid to use it/ are too irresponsible.” As a responsible man I want this option. 

  180. Tubular March 29, 2012 at 12:56 PM CDT #

    Are there any scientific articles you can cite speaking to the efficacy of this? Or long-term effects and potential hazards?

  181. .sal March 29, 2012 at 1:20 PM CDT #

    Now, If only we could inject the entire male population……….

    • Volucre March 31, 2012 at 10:45 AM CDT #

      Why don’t you just stay away from them?  You and they will be happier.

    • Guest May 5, 2012 at 8:25 AM CDT #

      How about we give men the option, hum? Rather than force them, which I guess is what you want.

  182. Celestevill March 29, 2012 at 1:43 PM CDT #

    You comment about destroying AIDS makes me scratch my head. Most of the seminal fluid does not come from the Vas Deferens. It comes from accessory glands near the prostate which secrete the HIV virus in the fluid directly into the urethra.. Please be careful about making statements, where clearly the anatomy does line up with what your claiming. I can follow your logic about the potential contraceptive value of this procedure, but claiming it may be the next big HIV destroying is going a little too far.

    • Celestevill March 29, 2012 at 1:52 PM CDT #

      The study mentions there may be some protection against the male from contracting the virus, but not the other way around. Even though that may be helpful in slowing the spread of HIV, that is in no way adequate! Condoms prevent both partners from getting HIV. 

  183. Jcvancleve March 29, 2012 at 2:46 PM CDT #

    this seems very disconcerting to say the v least. 

  184. Heidi Hunt Kagarakis March 29, 2012 at 8:46 PM CDT #

    Pass this on.

  185. Dggg March 29, 2012 at 10:54 PM CDT #

    Biatches in my home town use birth control pills dude!

  186. P Diddy March 29, 2012 at 11:15 PM CDT #

    the emasculate contraceptive!  is what it should be called, right?

  187. robcypher March 30, 2012 at 5:09 AM CDT #



  188. Rita Oliveira March 30, 2012 at 6:22 AM CDT #

    It was going very well until the “destroying HIV” bit. That just reduced the article to trash. I seriously hope not many gullible people read this.

  189. zaphod phoenix March 30, 2012 at 6:47 AM CDT #

    This procedure is NOT considered reversible. While the plug can be removed many men will develop sperm antibodies which renders them infertile.

    Exactly the same problem as seen with vasectomies. Reconnecting the plumbing is not enough!

    • Guest May 5, 2012 at 8:23 AM CDT #

      It’s not a plug. The sperm pass through. Read the whole article before spreading misinformation.

  190. Carlin70 March 30, 2012 at 7:08 AM CDT #

    Pretty cool!  However, there needs to be much more research done about the HIV claim, and what about Chlamydia, Syphilis, Trichomoniasis, Gonorrhea, HPV, and Herpes?  All 6 of these are spread from direct contact with an infected person, generally prevented with consistent condom usage.  I suggest that IF a couple knows their STD status and are both clean and are 100% monogamous, this is a great idea.  However, if both of those requirements are not met, then really the only thing this procedure is good for is not getting women pregnant, which is a good thing, but in my opinion STD’s are a pretty serious risk to take in order to have sex with no condom.  Just sayin’…

  191. Phakt March 30, 2012 at 8:08 AM CDT #

    Life will find a way….  

  192. Zach March 30, 2012 at 9:29 AM CDT #

    I fully expected this post to say ABSTINENCE in bold. Pleasantly surprised.

  193. Grejsi March 30, 2012 at 9:42 AM CDT #

    So how much is a round trip flight to India from the United States? If it is not done here then that is the price of getting this procedure.

  194. Grejsi March 30, 2012 at 9:42 AM CDT #

    So how much is a round trip flight to India from the United States? If it is not done here then that is the price of getting this procedure.

  195. Lawrence Henderson March 30, 2012 at 9:46 AM CDT #

    Sure the Catholics will be opposed…

  196. Raychum3 March 30, 2012 at 10:05 AM CDT #

    10 plus years is a long time can the procedure be reversed if you wanted or do you have to wait for the effects to ware off?

    • Guest May 5, 2012 at 8:22 AM CDT #

      10 years is a minimum. In some men the initial injection has worked for 25 years or more.

      If you want it reversed you make another appointment with the urologist. He will do the same procedure again, but he will inject a combination of water and backing soda into the tubes, which clears out the gel from the initial injection. After a few months it’s safe to have kids.

      You didn’t read the whole article did you?

  197. guest March 30, 2012 at 11:18 AM CDT #

    This is the best news the world has received in decades.  I have long believed the world would be better off stabilizing world population.  In spite of making this a better more sustainable world the religion side of the equation may not want to endorse global stabilization.  This procedure is a win/win approach towards population stabilization without the guilt of giving up your unwanted child through abortion just because some frivolousness.  I now have more than a glimmer of hope for our planet.

  198. Hazel March 30, 2012 at 12:35 PM CDT #

    Your opinion of yourself is far too high. 
    Also… what are YOUR credentials? So far I have seen you belittle and insult anyone who doesn’t share your opinion. You’ve made some decent arguments, but I have to sort through too much pretentious, self-glorifying rambling to find anything pertinent. Someone truly intelligent, as you claim to be, is willing to discuss and acknowledge others’ points of view, even if they don’t agree with them. “I’m right and everybody who doesn’t agree with me is an idiot” is an insanely uneducated and narrow minded stance.

  199. guest March 30, 2012 at 1:05 PM CDT #

    Anyone who argued against this is obviously male.

  200. No March 30, 2012 at 1:27 PM CDT #

    There are reasons why this procedure has failed to make it past clinical trials in India for the last 15+ years.   Trials got shut down at least twice for bad side effects/ toxicity issues .  

    The Parsemus foundation is claiming over 30 years of research in India (?).  They’ve just barely begun testing rabbits in the US, yet they’re already talking about tossing Vasalgel in uteri to see what happens.  And they’re still working on the testicular ultrasound method, but that turned out to be better for dog sterilization than human contraception. 

    I’m not so sure I see the reasoning behind backing this long and unproductive line of research.

  201. Rowdy123 March 30, 2012 at 3:50 PM CDT #


    no knife, needle or other implement of destruction is going near my ‘equipment’ – nah-uh, no-way sayonara…. LOL 

  202. Brody garrett March 30, 2012 at 5:47 PM CDT #

    local?!!!??? PUT ME OUT FOR THAT SHIT

  203. lyn March 30, 2012 at 10:47 PM CDT #

    have you had the procedure?

  204. owie March 30, 2012 at 11:10 PM CDT #

    Just a local anesthetic, and then a puncture, pulling out the vas defrenes, injecting it,… then pushing it back in? That leaves a whole lot of tugging and pulling to feel.. and to anyone who has ever had a local anesthetic … say for wart or mole removal… will vouch that it does not do a whole lot. And thats not invasive.. just topical lol

    • Guest May 5, 2012 at 8:17 AM CDT #

      I’ve had local anesthetics to have four wisdom teeth pulled at once. I didn’t feel a thing except for the little prick of the needle in my gums. That lasted for a second. Since you haven’t had the procedure maybe you should wait until you can judge.

      I’d much rather have two pin sized holes punctured in my scrotum than knock some girl up and be stuck for life.

      Women are right. We men today are turning into pussies.

  205. Sarah S. March 30, 2012 at 11:41 PM CDT #

    It says it’s basically the same procedure as a vasectomy, up until the cutting the vas deferens part (when the gel is put in instead).  Half a million men a year in the U.S. get vasectomies, so I’d say they docs have figured out how much anesthetic is needed or that would quickly come to an end…

  206. Guest March 31, 2012 at 2:35 AM CDT #

    how does that stop aids exactly?

  207. Young wife March 31, 2012 at 5:00 AM CDT #

    Hey, I use birth control but a person should always use condoms when they don’t know their partner’s sexual history.

    As a lady who has recently gone off of birth control after years of weight and sexual interest problematized from birth control I have to say this sounds like an excellent, affordable investment for young married adults not ready for kids but sexually active.

  208. Pestman125 March 31, 2012 at 8:51 AM CDT #

    Yet another idea big pharmacy will snuff out in no time flat…

  209. Hexadecimal1 March 31, 2012 at 12:19 PM CDT #

    um, April Fools?

  210. James Morgan March 31, 2012 at 9:56 PM CDT #

    Yaya.. sounds totally safe for my babies. She’d have to be outrageously hot for me to commit to this. I don’t know, in all honesty, I’d rather sit with the risk of pregnancy than have a non-toxic jelly in my sack, plus I don’t want to know if that would feel like 3 balls or not.

    I don’t know about you guys,but it’s 2012 and I’m pretty sure the world’s going to end soon, if not a Zombie apocalypse is definitely on the rise, have you seen all the commercialism lately?! I’d rather not take the risk of having to fend off the undead for the better half of a decade just so I’m able to impregnate the most decently looking survivor and repopulate the Earth.

    I tell you… Science! They say they think these things through and got it alllllll figured out, but I don’t know man…

    But seriously, men want a pill, it’s just a matter of convenience, I know a majority of the guys I’ve met would agree this is really cool and awesome, but wouldn’t go for it themselves, probably some sort of moral principle about nature and all that crap.

  211. Randall April 1, 2012 at 1:46 AM CDT #

    I am disturbed that the author would dare to mention it preventing HIV when not only is there no proof of that but there is currently no trial examining if there could be proof.  It is an idea for a theoretical application of this procedure, there are currently as far as I have been able to discover from the material, no experiments that suggest this is even a possibility of the current treatment.  Obviously using this to defeat HIV would be a wonderful thing but that it can defeat HIV is like saying that a blindfolded Magic Johnson could make a basketball fall through a basketball hoop with 100% accuracy from a mile away using a cannon.  There is the potential for that to happen, even for it to happen with reliability.  There is a whole lot of experimentation and fleshing out of theories that needs to be done before it can eve occur once, especially when no one has called Magic Johnson or rented a canon yet.  

       To me this is another example of the selfish evil done by journalists and the media when they neither think nor know what they are talking about.  If you write, “X can defeat HIV” for sure someone with no more knowledge of biochem than the author is going to get this done and start having condom-less sex despite their HIV and people’s lives will be ruined.  Simply because “radical new near-painless, semi-permanent yet reversible,  absurdly cheap birth control is now available” wasn’t a big enough story for their greedy little paws.  There is little so dangerous as the careless and/or carefully chosen words of someone who controls information.

    • LanceSmith April 1, 2012 at 1:33 PM CDT #

      Ummm…did you actually read the link?

      • Me April 4, 2012 at 7:28 AM CDT #

        The link is an article for a hypothesis.
        Ummm….do you know what that means?

      • Jon April 4, 2012 at 9:44 PM CDT #

        I did. Better yet, I read the full article. I seriously don’t understand why it was even published, it seems like a modified grant proposal. The author should’ve just sat on his idea, and run the study himself when the 

        The proposed study would not be difficult to run at all, if the procedure ever passes phase III clinical trials.

        Also, it is absolutely ridiculous that this Jon Clinkenbeard speaks of destroying HIV the way he does, that sort of statement would correspond to a single study reporting decreased HIV levels, not the expected results of a proposed study. I agree with Randall that Clinkenbeard is a best a poor writer. Linking readers to a mere abstract when the full article can be found with a Google search is absurdly lazy. This is techcitement, not TMZ.  

        • Deraj Nelson April 10, 2012 at 3:36 PM CDT #

          Hey buddy, there is this thing called sarcasm. And this guy used a little bit at the end there. No need ti get worked up about it.

    • Cane May 6, 2012 at 10:43 PM CDT #

      He mentioned it as a theory, calm down there buddy.

  212. Ashliedanielle86 April 1, 2012 at 5:48 AM CDT #

    Great ,more std’s to be passed around ,

  213. Sara__sara April 1, 2012 at 4:50 PM CDT #

    Still won’t protect against most STD’s but it sounds awesome!

  214. Guest April 1, 2012 at 8:32 PM CDT #

    If I were going to describe the perfect contraceptive I’d also say it shouldn’t require a hole being made in my scrotum 

    • Guest April 21, 2012 at 10:32 PM CDT #

      Deal with it. As a woman, the side-effects we have to deal with are much worse than having a tiny temporary incision in our private areas. That’s what the bandaid is for, reassurance that it will heal. 

    • Guest May 5, 2012 at 8:14 AM CDT #

      Seriously you sound like a little pussy dude. Are you afraid of having your teeth pulled too? What happens if you ever get testicular cancer, are you going to sit in a corner and die because your afraid of a needle?

      We’re not talking about stinking a ten inch needle directly into your balls without anesthetics. Vasectomies, which tens of millions of men have had in the past, are a thousand times more invasive than this.

  215. Sss April 2, 2012 at 12:52 AM CDT #

    It seems like it may not be perfected yet, but a treatment like this has the potential to do some real good once it has been. Looks like it deserves some attention and further funding.

  216. Tinadanzy April 2, 2012 at 6:39 PM CDT #

    Wow this is awesome

  217. Djflorke April 2, 2012 at 11:28 PM CDT #

    wouldnt that destroy possible evidence in rape cases and other sexual type crime cases

  218. robcypher April 4, 2012 at 3:10 AM CDT #


  219. Amelia Bedeilia April 4, 2012 at 1:19 PM CDT #

    I’m a woman, and hearing the details about the procedure made me cross my legs together so hard you could crush coal into diamond.  JESUS CHRIST.

    • Guest May 5, 2012 at 8:11 AM CDT #

      You should read the horror stories about botched vasectomies. As a man, I would be happy to undergo this procedure.

  220. Kylepaxoll April 4, 2012 at 4:54 PM CDT #

    Has it been through at least phase III trials?  Side effects?  Complications?  While a nice little sound bite of an article it doesn’t do much other then inform people it exists. 

  221. Guest April 4, 2012 at 5:08 PM CDT #

    If this is so cheap… I vote that Plan Parenthood use this instead of issuing pills to women. Government would save a ton!

  222. Wolfesteiner Capitaner April 4, 2012 at 9:12 PM CDT #

    I dont want a injection in my ballz. 

  223. FU April 4, 2012 at 11:16 PM CDT #

    Meh, I’ll skip the ball shot thanks…plus I love shooting my live kids all over her unsuspecting smile too much.

  224. Sootnsab April 5, 2012 at 2:36 AM CDT #

    I don’t think it would help against HIV or AIDS because it is a virus carried in the fluid not the sperm, that’s why it can be transmitted by blood and breast milk.

  225. Lindashq April 5, 2012 at 3:54 AM CDT #

    can’t be bad as long as it is really reversible.

  226. healthSciGeek April 5, 2012 at 8:12 AM CDT #

    Hm- -m-m   sounds good enough.  AND really great payback!  However, have there been large enough double blind RCT safety and side effect and efficacy trials on this as well as big E epidemiologic (surveillance) on the public health issues regarding social habit change with this intervention (condom use re all STDs and other responsible sexual habits) 
    So much has been learned and has changed around the world in developed and developing world regarding equanimity for human rights.  This bigger picture also needs to be addressed when evaluating these new technologies with the technological, social and scientific rigor we also have available. (

  227. Lucia Alof April 5, 2012 at 7:15 PM CDT #

    But, even that would be against christian beliefs.  You should have sex only when you intend to procreate.  Not my idea, jus the good cults that run a lot of peoples lives.

  228. Shameem251 April 7, 2012 at 4:20 AM CDT #

    where and which city this program can be join with

  229. Killer Blonde April 9, 2012 at 10:02 PM CDT #

    What about cruelty to the tiny sperm cells?  After all, it rips their long tails off! (The procedure does not necessarily kill the sperm, it just inhibits mobility.)

  230. Mseevers95 April 10, 2012 at 12:21 AM CDT #

    When you masturbate or ejaculate with a woman you are murdering several hundred thousand potential children. Spread the word, when you release semen you are committing hundreds of thousands of abortions.

  231. Guest April 10, 2012 at 5:46 PM CDT #

    Uhh… so its a vasectomy?

  232. BSmalls April 11, 2012 at 1:21 AM CDT #

    I see a picture of a syringe near some testicles. Heheh. yea, no thank you.

  233. Ecmarquez April 11, 2012 at 1:43 AM CDT #

    i agree. please explain why destroying sperm with risug also destroys HIV?

  234. Martin Matej April 11, 2012 at 1:08 PM CDT #

    That sounds really awesome!

  235. Suckmybutt April 11, 2012 at 3:04 PM CDT #

    so… does it actually destroy hiv? you guys worded it in a weird way that suggests you aren’t actually sure if it can. 

  236. NYCCUP April 11, 2012 at 9:24 PM CDT #

    Sorry but how would this prevent the spread of STDs and AIDS?

  237. Ramzes6969 April 12, 2012 at 3:37 PM CDT #

    I think people need to learn how to read… probably need to learn more than that.
    All those people complaining about you making a “jump” in assuming it will kill HIV need to have their eyes and brains checked. Even a 6 yr old kid would notice that you hyper-linked to an article detailing how it kills HIV in the testicles and prevents it from spreading to the other person.

    You idiots need to learn how to read and research before you spout off at the mouth.
    God, why are people so effing stupid?

  238. GuestZ April 12, 2012 at 11:48 PM CDT #

    Nothing more dangerous than all these idiots who think they know enough to disprove every blog post they ever read.  Undergrad bio major = not a doctor.  Not even doctor = knowledgable on these studies.  Also, everyone coming down hard on the fact that they mention the HIV hypothesis?  They clearly call it an untested hypothesis.  Are they supposed to NOT mention the theory?  Quit trying to have something to say.  Idiots.

    • GB May 6, 2012 at 10:33 PM CDT #

      Well said.

  239. Roanna_b April 13, 2012 at 9:00 PM CDT #

    Finally! Put the responsibility on the guy. How about the politicians that complan about the costs of women’s birth control, step in board for this inexpensive fix…or is the “male’s junk” too sacred to legislate?

    • Guest May 5, 2012 at 8:08 AM CDT #

      As a man I completely agree. Rather than spend thousands a year on hormonal female birth control, which not only alters personality and weight but effects animals and nature (the excess hormones are released into nature through urination and the sewer system), the government could subsidize the procedure for men who want it.

      Since it takes 15 minutes and is non invasive, and last a decade or more it would be the most cost efficient solution.

      All that remains is to cure viral STD’s (herpes, HPV and HIV) and we can have all the sex we want without any fear.

      • louderthanthunder June 11, 2012 at 6:39 PM CDT #

        I do think this is great, but it got me thinking. Maybe I’m just not understanding this right, lol, but if you block the passage of sperm (not sure if some semen minus the sperm can get through still), does this mean that any guy who gets this procedure done can’t masturbate like they normally would? Sure there’s no sperm, but I feel like if a guy was told “After this, you won’t be able to impregnate a woman, and you can masturbate all you want without a release”, it might sway his opinion. At least for the guys who think jerking off is really important. I feel like if I told my husband about this he might want other options if he thinks he’ll have “blue balls” for the next however many years. Because to him I don’t think it would be the same without “cumming”. Ha.

        • Kelly Colwell January 9, 2013 at 7:24 PM CDT #

          It still allows for the passage and release of sperm, but they are ripped apart in the process. Also, the semen comes from different areas and is released as well. The gel lines the vas deferens and destroys the sperm as they go through. So there isn’t a difference in how an orgasm feels, there are just no viable sperm in the semen.

  240. Thebebster April 14, 2012 at 12:14 PM CDT #

    …”it might have the side benefit of, you know, destroying HIV.” really??

    First of all, something in the vas deferens, can’t stop the spread of HIV from fluids excreted from the prostate or seminal vesicle, from man to women or the other way around,

    And second, something like this is actually more likely to increase the spread of HIV, condoms are the only things that actually help prevent the spread. If this was to give men the freedom to go condomless, then they are much more likely to have unprotected sex and spread or get HIV themselves.

    Very poorly thought out claim

  241. NoSignUp April 14, 2012 at 8:39 PM CDT #  –Check out controversy

    • Guest May 5, 2012 at 8:05 AM CDT #

      Since then  they have found they can use a solution of water and backing soda to reverse the process. The controversy is ten years old. If you go their website you will see that things have evolved since 2002.

      Also. before it is available in the US and Europe it will have to pass clinical trials set by American and European standards.

  242. Dude April 19, 2012 at 7:57 PM CDT #

    I feel like people here did not read the summary of the HIV study. They mention the other genital structures distal to the vas deferens being injected with the substance as well. …

    “Mechanisms of action for the inhibition could include inactivating HIV
    in sperms passing through the vas deferens; drug release from the
    implant to destroy HIV entering into semen from genital structures
    distal to the vas deferens; and sperm acrosome released hyaluronidase
    mediated reabsorption of HIV”

  243. grig April 20, 2012 at 5:44 AM CDT #

    Is it still in clinical trial?

  244. Guest April 22, 2012 at 12:32 AM CDT #

    Why do all males not get this done at age like 15?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!

  245. Nate April 22, 2012 at 3:59 PM CDT #

    Nope… Not visiting a doctor office to get a needle in the nuts twice a month.  Guys don’t even like going to the doctors office with a finger almost hanging by a piece of flesh.  Im for male birth control but nobody’s going to go for it, if it involves that twice a month. 

    • Kt April 24, 2012 at 8:55 PM CDT #

      Where have you got twice a month from?

    • Guest May 5, 2012 at 8:03 AM CDT #

      You’ve been misinformed Nate. The procedure takes 15 minutes and last forever, or until you decide to get it reversed. Would you rather visit abortion clinics every now and then and pay hundreds of dollars, as well as have a woman be in complete 100% legal control of your future rather than be a man and take a little needle to the vas deferens tubes (not the ‘nuts’)

    • Hb May 6, 2012 at 10:30 PM CDT #

      You clearly didn’t read any of this article you fucking idiot.

  246. Link14year April 23, 2012 at 9:43 PM CDT #

    When can i get this done!!!!!!!!

    • Link14year April 23, 2012 at 9:43 PM CDT #

       And where?

  247. HonestMike April 24, 2012 at 8:10 AM CDT #

    Granted, it’s a great product – but the one big disadvantage it has over the compared to the old condom is the injections can’t prevent the spread of transmitable disease. How, for example does it stop me spreading ‘coodies’, or leftistism, stinky breath, short-temperitis, forgetfulness, or even, errr…. the other one.  Oh dammit, I can’t recall the name right now…. D’oh 

  248. mon-chan April 26, 2012 at 8:06 PM CDT #

    I’ll pass. I won’t put my husband through this kind of procedure. We’ve been sexually active for over 15 years together using only a condom and we’ve never had a pregnancy scare… I don’t understand why so many have so many problems… The part that bothers me the most is the reversal. It will take a few months? But when you decide to have a baby, waiting that long would be annoying.

  249. NYR April 28, 2012 at 12:35 PM CDT #

    I just can’t imagine that putting polymer inside your body is good for you.  Common chemicals or not let me wait 10 years to see what happens to our first test subjects.  Also, why are people so lazy about birth control? This just goes to further empower our lazy, “it’s not my problem” kind of thinking in the present day.  The decline of the modern world. 

    • A January 17, 2013 at 11:33 PM CDT #

      not your problem huh? Agreed… why should men shoulder any responsibility for sex or reproduction? I’m being sarcastic of course: one would think that considering the woman is the one who has the baby, the very least we could do to even things out in the least is make males solely responsible for NOT getting a woman pregnant when she doesn’t want to… and of course we know men are so good at accepting the word no… guys like you sicken me.. you’re all so incredibly pathetic… I’d rather have a procedure like this than an IUD, but it’s the best I have… go fuck yourself loosers. It’s time you act like good MEN if you want the best out of us women.

  250. Gltucker April 29, 2012 at 11:30 AM CDT #

    The Best Birthcontrol is Babies Just babies.   We did this and got 2 babies back to back now they R teenagers.   Mrs T

  251. Tess May 4, 2012 at 2:16 AM CDT #

    But what is one wants to have kids in the near future and not have the birth control last for a whole ten years?!

  252. Katy Bowler May 10, 2012 at 12:48 PM CDT #

    It’s about time!!  It’s the men’s turn to be responsible for birth control!  No more stupid chemicals and hormones for the women!

    • Benedict Edwards May 14, 2012 at 6:16 AM CDT #

      Just stupid chemicals for the men? Nice.

  253. Risug works May 11, 2012 at 3:53 AM CDT #

    This has been tested in India for over 25 years with 100 percent success. Lack of funding caused endless delays. Search risug in google. I have been following this for over 5 years.

  254. Playwithdice May 14, 2012 at 5:25 AM CDT #

    suggesting the removal of condoms totally is asking for sexually transmitted diseases to run even more rife than they already do. 

  255. just sayin' May 28, 2012 at 7:07 PM CDT #

    Who cares if there’s no money to be made. And, have they shared this secret with Africa? I think we should use it on all the child abusers & sex offenders (if we aren’t going to castrate them)

  256. Eric May 30, 2012 at 6:05 PM CDT #

    What if I want to have a kid? Do I have to wait 10 years after the procedure? Might as well just get a vasectomy.

  257. Alexandra Danielle White June 5, 2012 at 12:19 PM CDT #

    I hope I don’t sound crude in asking this. The article says that RISUG doesnt affect sex drive, but then what happens during sex? Is there still a physical release of something? Or does he have an orgasm without ejaculation? And if so, is it just as pleasurable? Also, how does this effect pre-cum at all?

    How long has the study for this contraception being going on? What are the long term effects on the male? After reversing the procedure, does the sperm count remain the same as from before the procedure?

    • Meg June 25, 2012 at 5:07 AM CDT #

      Semen =/= sperm. Seminal fluid would still come out, it just wouldn’t contain any sperm.

  258. louderthanthunder June 12, 2012 at 3:38 PM CDT #

    I do think this is great, but it got me thinking. Maybe I’m just not
    understanding this right, lol, but if you block the passage of sperm
    (not sure if some semen minus the sperm can get through still), does
    this mean that any guy who gets this procedure done can’t masturbate
    like they normally would? Sure there’s no sperm, but I feel like if a
    guy was told “After this, you won’t be able to impregnate a woman, and
    you can masturbate all you want without a release”, it might sway his
    opinion. At least for the guys who think jerking off is really
    important. I feel like if I told my husband about this he might want
    other options if he thinks he’ll have “blue balls” for the next however
    many years. Because to him I don’t think it would be the same without
    “cumming”. Ha.

  259. Chris Cullen June 19, 2012 at 5:59 PM CDT #

    “If I were to describe the perfect contraceptive it would go something like this: NO SURGERY.”

  260. steeeeve June 21, 2012 at 1:54 AM CDT #

    My question… Do you still “blow you load”

  261. JD June 23, 2012 at 5:54 AM CDT #

    Easier than aiming magnets at your junk??

  262. joebob July 2, 2012 at 3:11 PM CDT #

    I definitely wouldn’t rush things, because from what I’ve read, even in India studies surrounding this technology aren’t even complete. it’s safe to say any technology advances you read about in popular news sources aren’t even close to half the full story.

    My impressions: it’s a pretty invasive procedure. A doctor literally cuts a tiny hole in your junk, pulls out your tubes with tweezers and injects a gel in (i’m betting theres a non-neglible possibility for permanent damage). Some problems: the mechanism by which this lowers fertility is unknown. currently, the effects last 10 years. the reversal procedure (equally invasive) has only been tested on primates. it is unknown if having this gel sit around in your junk has cytotoxic effects, carcinogenic effects, etc (all things the US requires to be tested, thankfully, before going to market). also, the article deceptively tries to claim that the technology would eliminate HIV. this is false. the reference they cite is a PROPOSED study by the same author.

  263. joebob July 2, 2012 at 3:11 PM CDT #

    I definitely wouldn’t rush things, because from what I’ve read, even in India studies surrounding this technology aren’t even complete. it’s safe to say any technology advances you read about in popular news sources aren’t even close to half the full story.

    My impressions: it’s a pretty invasive procedure. A doctor literally cuts a tiny hole in your junk, pulls out your tubes with tweezers and injects a gel in (i’m betting theres a non-neglible possibility for permanent damage). Some problems: the mechanism by which this lowers fertility is unknown. currently, the effects last 10 years. the reversal procedure (equally invasive) has only been tested on primates. it is unknown if having this gel sit around in your junk has cytotoxic effects, carcinogenic effects, etc (all things the US requires to be tested, thankfully, before going to market). also, the article deceptively tries to claim that the technology would eliminate HIV. this is false. the reference they cite is a PROPOSED study by the same author.

  264. missczeck July 11, 2012 at 2:25 AM CDT #

    the link to RISUG is empty… takes away from the legitimacy of your article.

  265. Nick July 11, 2012 at 6:40 PM CDT #

    so what kind of climatic enjoyment will be left for us men if we can’t ejaculate to show we are satisfied…….wouldn’t that be that be a turn off for women believing that they are now incapable of bring satisfaction us, if they can ejaculate and we as men can’t?

    • ink January 18, 2013 at 11:28 PM CDT #

      Jesus christ! So many of you need to take biology, or learn how to read up on things you don’t understand. You don’t even know how your OWN anatomy works! This doesn’t stop ejaculation. Not one bit. Look up how semen is produced.

  266. Reginald V. Finley Sr. July 26, 2012 at 3:01 PM CDT #

    A huge syringe in close a proximity to a scrotum makes me nauseous. No thanks.

  267. Jason Bahr July 26, 2012 at 5:48 PM CDT #

    As HIV is transferred thru
    body fluids from one participant entering micro tears in the other, this
    will do nothing to prevent it. Or any other STD, as none (that I am
    aware of) require healthy sperm for transmission. Not saying the birth
    control aspect of it ain’t awesome, just that the article is inaccurate
    on it’s disease prevention capabilities.

  268. Carlos Boquin July 27, 2012 at 10:55 AM CDT #

    Jon, destroying a man’s ability to procreate does NOT destroy the HIV virus. I am no doctor, but I really think that it is not the sperm that spreads the HIV virus. It is the SEMEN that the sperm is transported in that does. Even someone who has had a vasectomy can still infect his partner(s) with the HIV virus. So, really not sure what the source for your assertion is. Makes me wonder why you posted this story at all. For whatever reason you did post it, it’d be nice for you to check the facts of the same before you do post them. Based on your credentials, I suspect that you didn’t and if you would have, ou would have never known the difference between truth/myth/hearsay.

    • Matt Algren July 27, 2012 at 12:09 PM CDT #

      This has come up several times since this article was posted, so I want to speak very briefly to it. Jon wasn’t making an assumption or hypothesizing on his own; HIV prevention is posited by researchers at the School of Medical Science and Technology, Indian Institute of Technology, Kharagpur at this link, which is also provided in the body of the article. Their hypothesis is not that destroying the ability to procreate stops HIV directly, but that RISUG’s change of pH in semen and antimicrobial effects of the procedure.

      It’s very experimental and too early to tell whether HIV prevention will be seen with RISUG, but that’s why Jon used the word “might.” I hope that clears it up.

  269. Name July 27, 2012 at 11:57 PM CDT #

    But how does it affect the taste?

  270. Ember August 2, 2012 at 3:56 AM CDT #

    What about STIs?

  271. Guy August 10, 2012 at 11:00 PM CDT #

    ok, ok. The science is cool and all, but what sounds better? Buying some condoms or getting a needle shoved in your scrotum followed by the opening of said scrotum? I rest my case

    • techsupp0rt January 7, 2013 at 5:23 PM CDT #

      The pain of the needle will go away. The pain of a broken condom never will.

  272. TimeHorse August 18, 2012 at 7:17 AM CDT #

    Hey, baby, trust me, I got Vasalgel.

  273. Cameron Purdie September 12, 2012 at 2:22 PM CDT #

    I think I’ll just wait for something that doesn’t involve pulling out my insides. Sorry ladies.

    • Sarah Andersson September 13, 2012 at 11:13 AM CDT #

      Yeah, I understand.. Id wait too, I’re two in a relationship and it cant be just one that makes sacrifices..because pushing a 5 pound baby out of a small hole isnt really like having to get a shot, not really. Shots hurt, man. They hurt.

  274. Jenn October 16, 2012 at 5:23 PM CDT #

    Seriously, what about Herpes? Or other STIs? It may destroy the semen but a woman could still give a man HIV from vaginal fluid and such (though not as likely its still a huge risk to take with your health).

    • Jean-Marc Jon Deschamps January 4, 2013 at 10:11 PM CDT #


    • LivinginVA January 12, 2013 at 1:24 PM CDT #

      True, but for a married couple (many of whom use birth control), it would be a great help.

  275. guy November 1, 2012 at 11:01 PM CDT #

    this had to of been written by a woman

  276. Hurricane November 14, 2012 at 7:27 AM CDT #

    My only real concern is has there been enough testing to see if there are any real medical consequences to having polymers injected into your body like this? Also what are the failure/success rates on this procedure? While I did understand the point of the HIV comment and think people are reading it too literally I also think it interferes with the main point of the article; which is this is a cheap and effective way to implement male birth control. I think it should not have been included because the easier point to make is that Big Pharma would not support this because it is hard to monetize.

  277. Touchet November 27, 2012 at 9:18 PM CDT #

    do you even realize how painful this would be to have sperm build up in the vas deferens? The street language for this is blue balls. You would suffer blue balls every time you ejaculated. No thanks.

    • Jean-Marc Jon Deschamps January 4, 2013 at 10:10 PM CDT #

      Re-read……Paragraph 3. Makes it clear that blockage is NOT an issue.

  278. Touchet November 27, 2012 at 9:22 PM CDT #

    No to mention the fact that if you have a very active sex life, eventually the vas defernce could possibly rupture or grow so large that the blockage is by passed. This happens with scar tissue around the blood vessels of some men, and so you get varicose viens down there. I would have to see the clinical trials of this. India must have less regulation.

  279. Andy November 30, 2012 at 12:58 PM CDT #

    Do you still ejaculate?

    • Jean-Marc Jon Deschamps January 4, 2013 at 10:08 PM CDT #

      Yes, the only difference is the sperm in the ejaculate is dead and non-viable.

  280. james December 1, 2012 at 8:55 PM CDT #

    where do i get this procedure its great no more trusting women, i mean really boys like cars boats tools etc girls like babies makeup clothes hello

  281. JP December 3, 2012 at 4:31 PM CDT #

    The link regarding destroying HIV is simply a proposed study and there is no data to support you presenting it in such a way as to misguide readers into believing it does in fact destroy HIV. By saying that and linking to a proposed study summary, the layperson may believe that this is a real therapeutic benefit, not the subject a proposed study. You should edit your article immediately.

  282. damnetdan December 8, 2012 at 7:23 AM CDT #

    where can I go to get this done

  283. Carlos December 17, 2012 at 10:41 AM CDT #

    Is it reverseible? How?
    Condoms and pills are.

    • Jean-Marc Jon Deschamps January 4, 2013 at 10:07 PM CDT #

      Did you read the article? clearly not. Paragraph 4, third sentence.

      • Eyeball_Kid January 17, 2013 at 7:58 AM CDT #

        While I don’t have to worry about whether this procedure would work for me or not, I’d be concerned about what happens around the 10 year mark, when, apparently, the polymer loses its effectiveness and you still don’t want to have a kid. It’s fairly chancy. I’m also wondering why so many of the posters nevertheless want the birth control responsibility on women. It’s like, “OH, leave my precious jewels in pristine condition and make the women suffer.” How incredibly self-centered!

        if you’ve got a problem with this method, guys, just stick with the tried and true vasectomy. Get a shot of valium, lay back, and let the doc go at it. You even get to keep the tubes in a vat of formaldehyde for souvenirs if you want. After a few days, you can forget all about it. Then you can have all the sex you want and know that you won’t get a big surprise down the road somewhere.

  284. health insurance December 28, 2012 at 9:50 AM CDT #

    Great post. Sperm are a component of semen. Therefore, the majority of semen does not, in fact, come in contact with the vas deferens. Thanks.

  285. Mel O'Drama January 8, 2013 at 12:19 PM CDT #

    This article is really misleading. This product is still in TRIAL phase. That means there could be lots of safety/efficacy problems that we don’t know about yet. Also, this article makes it sound like the product would be readily available if it weren’t for EVIL BIG PHARMA, when in fact it looks like it is still moving through the proper channels of study and FDA approval for market. Also, citing that HIV research which is a single unchallenged study, seems irresponsible. I couldn’t access the rest of the study do to paywall, so I have no idea if this was preliminary research, controlled, etc. The above article sure doesn’t say much about it!

  286. lmk January 8, 2013 at 7:57 PM CDT #

    “The funny thing is, something like that currently exists.”

    Am I the only one who does not find this funny at all? – What with money being the reason for a lot of suffering for one of the sexes? My sister got an embolism because of the pill and it’s funny that it wasn’t prevented and it could have?

  287. Reid Hodikoff Johnson January 9, 2013 at 9:59 PM CDT #

    Sort of annoyed with the same things other people are annoyed about in this article. This won’t destroy HIV and I’m confused as to how the author came to that conclusion, or even that implication. HIV isn’t usually transmitted through male female vaginal intercourse. HIV is usually transmitted through anal sex, or other sex acts which may involve tearing of the skin and/or open wounds/sores, many of which may be microscopic. That’s why we see a high incidence of HIV in people who have STDS (herpes, genital warts, anything which may cause the skin to break down), and in people who engage in anal sex (sphincters are tender and prone to ripping when they have something hard shoved inside).

    RISUG would solve neither of these problems.

  288. Unconvinced January 11, 2013 at 9:43 AM CDT #

    Bit late on this….but two issues scream out at me 1. Men will have a nice excuse to not use a condom “Oh don’t worry, I got that RISUG thing, I can’t get you pregnant unless I have it reversed”…. OR DID HE!? and 2. If everything in this article is factual, then it will prevent men from passing on STD’s in their sperm…..but not women. Everyone should be using condoms until they have had STI tests to confirm they are all clear.

    • Kim Martin January 17, 2013 at 3:45 PM CDT #

      Well, everyone should be practicing safe sex regardless of their method of birth control. With married couples who have tested clean or have only been with that one partner not as necessary, but for the majority of the world who have had multiple sex partners it’s the wise thing to do. No matter what pill you’re taking, etc., it’s always the better idea to use a condom to protect yourself from STDs. This article is not diminishing the importance of prophylactics, it’s just pointing out that you can “unload the gun versus shoot at a bulletproof vest”.

  289. John M. January 11, 2013 at 11:41 AM CDT #

    I like how they used a silhouette of late-stages Steve Jobs for the diagram.

  290. Rufrignkidnme January 12, 2013 at 2:10 AM CDT #

    All I need to know is needle and penis. No.

    • Miss Andrist January 12, 2013 at 2:24 AM CDT #

      Suck it up, cupcake. Stand up and take it like a woman.

      • Rufrignkidnme January 12, 2013 at 3:47 AM CDT #

        No one is talking about putting a needle in any clitoris. Make something that goes under the skin of our arm and okay.

        • Miss Andrist January 12, 2013 at 1:07 PM CDT #

          Oh, you mean the ones that tend to migrate from the implanation site and end up invisible to xray? Yeah those are super fun to replace.

          So, you know they have these thingies called IUDs, which require opening a woman’s cervix with a dilator and brute force, are inserted into her uterus. Without any anasthetic. Just – “deep breath” – *sensation not unlike having your uterus bulldozed; hard pokey metal object shoved into soft organ. Usually, implanting devices into major organs involves some consideration for pain management, but I guess that’s only for organs that count (you can tell which ones qualify because men will have them) because having). But what do I know :)

          • Rufrignkidnme January 12, 2013 at 4:38 PM CDT #

            I’m not advocating that procedure or devices either.

        • laura iaccino January 14, 2013 at 12:13 AM CDT #

          yes, because comparing a needle in your scrotum is the same as a needle in the thing that has the most concentrated nerve endings in the human body.

          learn more.

          • Rufrignkidnme January 22, 2013 at 3:30 AM CDT #

            You’ve obviously never been kicked in the gonads.

  291. astralislux January 12, 2013 at 2:11 AM CDT #

    Just be responsible and stop having sex with everything that moves.

    • LivinginVA January 12, 2013 at 1:22 PM CDT #

      It may come as a shock to you, but MANY married couples use birth control.

      • astralislux January 12, 2013 at 2:34 PM CDT #

        Even for married couples, there are consequences to having sex and living a life focused solely on sex is the downfall of many marriages. Accept responsibility.

        • LanceSmith January 12, 2013 at 2:59 PM CDT #

          Yeah, be responsible and use birth control. Done.

          • astralislux January 12, 2013 at 3:00 PM CDT #

            It’s a band-aid to the real problems. Be open to creating taking responsibility and you’ll be surprised how deep the relationship really is, or isn’t.

          • LanceSmith January 12, 2013 at 3:01 PM CDT #

            Clue: there is nothing wrong with sex.

            Again:Yeah, be responsible and use birth control. Done.

        • Erica_JS January 16, 2013 at 8:09 AM CDT #

          There is a whooooole lot of space between “a lifestyle focused solely on sex” and “having sex twice in your marriage, once for each kid.”

          Hi there, fallacy of the excluded middle!

          • astralislux January 17, 2013 at 2:56 PM CDT #

            No one says you can’t have sex, but when you exclude the possibility of consequences from the action, the focus is merely on sex and that is what causes problems.

          • Jeffrey Muhr January 18, 2013 at 2:18 PM CDT #

            Which problems are you referring to? What are all these “problems” that are caused by committed or married couples having sex with each other? I don’t know what you are talking about… The “problems” come in when committed couples AREN’T connecting with each other, including sexually. Then they go out and try to meet their needs elsewhere. Connecting sexually is one of the best things a couple can do. That’s not to say that other efforts in partnership are not important. You sound a bit naive to me…

  292. SayHi2YourMom4Me January 14, 2013 at 7:23 PM CDT #

    Ahh I saw this shared twice on facebook. Miracle Medical procedures being circulated on facebook.. you know it’s gotta be legit! Also, taking gel that rips apart cells and stays there for 10 years and injecting it directly into your junk…. what could go wrong? Especially since it has to be strong enough to instantly kill millions of cells rushing past…. I guess I’m skeptical.

  293. judas-priest January 14, 2013 at 7:58 PM CDT #

    oooooh me plums!!!

  294. Desizinnia January 14, 2013 at 9:08 PM CDT #

    Wow. I had no idea. This is awesome. I hope many people learn of this.

  295. Indifferent January 15, 2013 at 3:20 AM CDT #

    Likely problem with this , and why oral contraceptives or condoms may be more popular than this option would be because it is a somewhat invasive procedure. The procedure involves the insertion of a syringe through epithelial tissue and puncturing the vas deferens. This is very different from simply taking a pill a day, or wearing a condom, and likely has some risks, especially if a doctor is not trained appropriately.

    Furthermore, the lifetime of this procedure may be variable, and the procedure may not be fool proof, because blockage of the vas deferens may not be fully achieved if the procedure is not done correctly.

    All I can say is there are advantages and disadvantages to both, but it is definitely a great advancement to see!

  296. Adam Whisnant January 15, 2013 at 2:05 PM CDT #

    I would argue heavily against calling something that’s been patented for 5 years the “best birth control in the world” over methods that been studied for decades. It may very well end up as the best in the world but remember how DDT was once the “best” pest control agent in the world and asbestos the best insulation?

  297. Danie Francis January 15, 2013 at 3:28 PM CDT #

    GUYS! Um….no, what about STDs? And would this not give creeps like rapists the wrong idea?

  298. jake January 15, 2013 at 4:55 PM CDT #

    holy shit the idea of this procedure is terrifying but i’d still get it done. just with a lot of sedation, i’d probably have a heart attack seeing my vas deferens literally outside of my body.

  299. No nobody's got time for that January 16, 2013 at 12:46 AM CDT #

    I still think woman contraceptive is the way to go just because anything can happen in 10 years to make someone want to change their mind. But also the fact that for 10 years i wouldn’t have the “mojo” to bust all over a girls face would make me sad.

    • Erica_JS January 16, 2013 at 8:08 AM CDT #

      You can reverse the procedure any time. 10 years is the maximum duration, not the minimum. And you would still have “mojo” while it was in, just not pregnancy-creating mojo!

  300. Marcus2012 January 16, 2013 at 7:43 AM CDT #

    NO ONE is giving me a vasectomy.

    • Kim Martin January 17, 2013 at 3:39 PM CDT #

      Sigh. Nobody’s trying to, guy.

      • Marcus2012 January 17, 2013 at 7:07 PM CDT #

        LOL what a dumbass.

  301. Randy Goldberg January 16, 2013 at 9:09 AM CDT #

    There are only two papers on RISUG and HIV, both in “Medical Hypotheses.” While this is a real journal, it’s basically a place for researchers to go “We think this will work – someone please give us money to test it.” There is ZERO validation to their theory to date. It’s a good idea, but no one has the first clue if it works.

  302. gnomemaker January 16, 2013 at 2:30 PM CDT #

    So basically a stopcock?

  303. Matt January 16, 2013 at 11:33 PM CDT #

    How does this destroy HIV? It might prevent a lot of other horrible things like unexpected teen pregnancy and help slow population growth but only a barrier can protect against the exchange of fluids. I’m a firm believer in the idea that big pharma is bad but don’t hurt you credibility by not doing your research or making false claims.

  304. peabody3000 January 17, 2013 at 12:50 AM CDT #

    the only drawback to this is it requires PUNCTURING YOUR FREAKING BALLSACK. suddenly, abstinence doesnt sound so bad…..

  305. London January 17, 2013 at 1:59 AM CDT #

    They need to come up with something like this for women. If women want something effective but reversible, they generally need constant pills or somesuch, and that’s of course not failsafe. Longer-lasting options include an intrauterine device, but that still needs to be changed out after five years tops or thereabouts, and it does come with a failure rate up to a little over 2%, at least in the first year. Might not seem like much, but it only takes once, and a year’s wait for that extra certainty is a lot longer than a mere three days. If women want something as failsafe, reversible and long-term as this treatment offers to men, there really isn’t one, aside from getting the tubes tied, which is *generally* reversible but is also not 100% failsafe, as they can become untied on their own, or ligated which is almost impossible to reverse after all. Perhaps something similar to this gel, that can be injected into the Fallopian tubes that deteriorates the egg in some effective manner? The tubes are quite small of course, and a bit more complicated than a mere passageway, so some advanced scanning would be needed to ensure an accurate injection, but hey, if it would eliminate the need to perform surgery that requires downtime, that would be nice. Might not be practical at the moment given a number of factors, but it would be a marvelous thing to have. Would save on a lot of pill-and-bill drama, on all sides.

  306. eli January 17, 2013 at 2:50 AM CDT #

    hahahaha wow. for women.

  307. Katharina Glomb January 17, 2013 at 5:50 AM CDT #

    I feel like this discussion about STDs, although very interesting, totally misses the main point of the article. You know, popping a pill every day that changes your entire hormonal balance is neither “simple” nor “failsafe” nor is it clear what the long-term side effects of this hormonal change might be. So no, this is not the way to go.
    Although it is of course true that this contraceptive is not yet ready for the market, the remarkable thing is that it shows the other possible approach to contraception. Instead of saying: women should take care of it because it’s much easier to manipulate their hormones than men’s, this article says, well, men’s anatomy is actually much easier to manipulate. And it is both safer and simpler to manipulate someone’s anatomy with a minimally invasive procedure. The majority of people (both men and women) doesn’t know the first thing about how the female cycle works because if they would they would maybe understand that you might not want to flood it with chemicals almost every day for years at a time.
    The biggest problem is that a lot of guys’ reaction is to be afraid of having their balls cut off which is not at all what is being proposed. At the same time, the same guys expect women to not be afraid of having their hormones fucked with. And all this because we all don’t love condoms that much. It’s just that women are the ones who can’t run away from an accidental pregnancy. I will leave it to you to figure out what the effects of this on the willingness to take the risk of not using a condom might be.

    • Kim Martin January 17, 2013 at 3:33 PM CDT #

      I agree– and men wouldn’t have to deal with the mood swings, weight gain, etc. associated with female contraceptives that last for a LONG time after they’re discontinued. I gained about 30 pounds while on Depo, and even after being off it for almost two years my body is still irregular.

  308. Steve January 17, 2013 at 6:42 AM CDT #

    Interesting reading the comments to this article. I hope none of you have access to guns.

  309. Christopher Stephens January 17, 2013 at 10:18 AM CDT #

    My junk already is a magnet awwwwww yeah.

    Jokes aside, I desperately hope that our American electorate and political leaders were *ahem* mature enough to make this an option; I want it.

  310. Salomeh Ghorbani January 17, 2013 at 10:58 AM CDT #

    The only problem with male contraception is the inability of the woman to know for sure that her partner is in fact participating in this program. Men will lie to get laid. That is a fact…and the woman in this instance may not realize the lie until 6 weeks later.

    • Nyx January 17, 2013 at 11:33 AM CDT #

      The only problem with female contraception is the inability of the man to know for sure that his partner is in fact participating in this program. Women will lie to get laid. That is a fact…and the woman in this instance may not realize the lie until 6 weeks later.

      Sounds sexist as hell when I say it, doesn’t it?

  311. Greg Z January 17, 2013 at 11:10 AM CDT #

    Pharm companies are great at figuring out ways to make a buck, don’t sell them short with some heavy handed explanation/conspiracy.

  312. Greg Z January 17, 2013 at 11:13 AM CDT #

    Also, where’s the discussion of the safety/effectiveness in the literature?

  313. extreme January 17, 2013 at 11:38 AM CDT #

    so this birth control is only for single men who want lots of sex and no babies. a man in a serious relationship might want children within 10 years. so women still need to be on birth control if they ever plan to have a family in the future.

    • M January 17, 2013 at 12:19 PM CDT #

      no… it says right in the article that all it takes to reverse it is a flush of baking soda and water and full fertility is restored in 2-3 months. that makes it the same type of option as an IUD for women- can remain in place for 5-10 years but can be removed at any time to restore fertility.

  314. Randall Marshall January 17, 2013 at 11:44 AM CDT #

    You lot can have some back-alley doc in India inject a bunch of chemicals into your nuts, but until they do *a lot* better safety testing, count me out.

  315. casualguy538 January 17, 2013 at 3:01 PM CDT #

    is this the same as a vasectomy?

  316. Holland Cowger January 17, 2013 at 4:42 PM CDT #

    Can I do this at home with a pair of tweezers and some grape jelly? No? Crap, too late.

  317. Mix January 17, 2013 at 4:56 PM CDT #

    I’m concerned that there doesn’t seem to be any information on actual clinical trials and testing. If it’s only in India, I’d be a little concerned. I hope we can make this a reality!!

  318. sam January 17, 2013 at 6:05 PM CDT #

    asks: so, say i get this “birth control”… my girlfriend loves facials. will my ejaculate look the same…? if she swallows, is it bad…? feel different…? just wondering. i dont wanna ge a vasectomy cuz i like shooting my loads… just telling the truth… reply with truth, not bullshit hater comments please & thanx…

  319. Kelsey H January 17, 2013 at 8:05 PM CDT #

    I think something such as this does make it much easier to just toss the use of condoms out the window, and does give the risk of spreading STI/Ds a higher chance.. BUT, if you are sexually active it is your responsibility to get checked for these kinds of things, and I think anyone that does decide to go on BC of any kind just to have ‘unprotected’ sex with lower risks of getting preggo, should be getting tested, y’know?
    I think that in itself can solve a lot of problems right there over the possibility of something like HIV and every kind of STI spreading.
    people just need to be fully informed, schools need better sexual education programs, doctors need to be more on top of these things, and you as a person need to be smart about what you’re doing with other people in a sexual nature. It’s the person’s responsibility to be informed and inform their sexual partners.

  320. tower52 January 17, 2013 at 9:19 PM CDT #

    grr the pettion link was blocked saying it has malware

  321. Debbie Boynton January 17, 2013 at 11:14 PM CDT #

    No real man would bitch about this simple procedure when his wife has passed a 7-8 lb baby out her body. Grow up and be the Man Pussies!

  322. justathought January 18, 2013 at 3:07 AM CDT #

    the sterilization could not be reversed in more than half of the test subjects.

  323. HoneyBearW/Sugar January 18, 2013 at 7:48 AM CDT #

    Hopefully by the time I have kids who are old enough to have sex (we’re planning on getting pregnant in the next two years) the US medical system will be as advanced as India’s.

  324. Marti Graham January 18, 2013 at 10:57 AM CDT #

    they had me until the comment of the side effect of no HIV?? What?

  325. nerdynerd January 18, 2013 at 12:55 PM CDT #

    “Oh, and when you do decide you want those babies, it only takes one
    other injection of water and baking soda to flush out the gel, and
    within two to three months, you’ve got all your healthy sperm again.”
    How about this? Any proof? All I could find was, that it works on rats and removal has not been tested on humans.

    • Sam June 10, 2013 at 6:38 PM CDT #

      that’s probably because it’s still being tested, or did you read that far? (y)

  326. ladymulti January 18, 2013 at 1:13 PM CDT #

    The best birth control in the world? Not having sex.

    • AZVern January 18, 2013 at 1:21 PM CDT #

      Thanks for the moral input, but that’s not birth control, it’s behavior control.

      • ladymulti January 18, 2013 at 10:53 PM CDT #

        I didn’t say that for a moral reason. If one does not want to create a baby, which is what sexual intercorse is intended to do (create a baby), one can simply just not have it. I’m sick of people being “OMG, I’m pregnant!”.. well, they know what caused it and they chose to do it.

        People make choices to use condoms, the pill, the other female birth control, and this. They can also make the simple choice of just not having sex at all, regardless of what their moral compass is, if they don’t want to have children.

        Not having sex is a form of birth control simply by the fact that you can’t get pregnant (get someone pregnant) if you just don’t do it.

        • AZVern January 19, 2013 at 1:58 AM CDT #

          Sexual intercourse is intended for pleasure, or it wouldn’t feel good. It has a side effect of potential pregnancy.

          Also, your use of the language “well, they know what caused it and they chose to do it” makes it clear you are approaching this from a moral position, rather than a pragmatic one.

          How about you worry about yourself not having sex, and let others do what the fuck they please?

          • deadlyserious January 19, 2013 at 5:21 PM CDT #

            AZ, I couldn’t agree less with the “abstinence only” peanut gallery, but sexual intercourse is biologically intended for procreation. It feels good because that’s how you motivate procreation in order to ensure the survival of the species. You can’t fight these people by being just as casual as they are about facts.

  327. freud123 January 18, 2013 at 1:40 PM CDT #

    condom until vasectomy. done.

  328. Sam January 18, 2013 at 4:08 PM CDT #

    This is not the best birth control in the world…….abstinence is.