Fascinating articles, captivating images, satisfying videos, interesting projects, stunning research and more.
Share something you find incredibly interesting.
Prefix must be included in the title!
It helps to see at glance what post is about and certain clients also offer filters that make prefixes searchable/filterable.
Note: Photon (m.lemmy.zip) frontend used for links above.
If someone is interested in moderating this community, message @brikox@lemmy.zip.
Still impacted by the major limitation that sperm are matured for three months, so it only becomes effective after three months of consistent use
Doesn't seem that big of a deal, all things considered.
Medication non-adherence is a pretty big deal when it comes to contraception. This isn't some chronic disease where a drop in efficacy can be tolerated or not noticed. Contraceptives need to have high efficacies, to the point where it is all but guaranteed to work. Not seeing results for months affects medication adherence
House Season 4 Episode 5:
(House to Cuddy) And I know when my Vicodin isn't Vicodin. Do you know when your birth control pills aren't birth control pills?
Horrible side effects are also a big issue and people don't give much of a shit about that when it comes to female contraceptives.
They do. However, those side effects are being compared to the alternative - pregnancy can be a major health risk for a woman.
Men don't have that comparison to justify the side effects against.
It takes two to make a baby.
Putting the whole burden on the ones with ovaries (that are already a big fucking burden on their own) is absurd.
I'm aware. I'm saying from the standpoint of medical science, that's the benchmark being used.
Organism 1 taking Med A causes health issues. Not taking Med A suffers no ill effects.
Organism 2 taking Med B causes health issues. Not taking Med B could suffer worse I'll effects.
Approving Med A to be taken by Organism 1 in order to prevent Organism 2 from suffering ill effects...is not how medication testing is done.
Yes, but if at some point the benchmark being used is obviously, undoubtedly flawed on a matter that can be solved, then it's time to ignore the benchmark.
The medical sector is always loooving to make exceptions and ignore rules, but when it comes to women's health suddenly the protocol is set in stone, that seems pretty convenient for a sector that is pretty well known to be extremely set in their sexist ways.
I know someone that eventually went with an IUD because the various pills she tried made her feel extremely emotionally unstable. Really shitty situation.
Snip-snip gang represent.
Present and accounted for.
The seedless grape club!
Going several months with blocked vitamin A metabolism sounds like it'd lead to a vitamin deficiency of some kind.
The daily pill, called YCT-529, blocks a vitamin A metabolite from binding to its receptor in the testes; this action prevents the chain of gene-expression changes that are required to start the sperm-making process.
It’s not supposed to effect the rest of the body, but I assume that’s one the side effects they’d be on the lookout for in this trial
Even if this works, you’d need to be jacking it for a week to clean out the swimmers in your tubes. And I’d bet it’s still not 100% It probably just brings it below “ideal sperm count.”
What happened to vasalgel?
As my 50th college reunion approaches, I recall my organic chemistry professor telling us around 1975 that male birth control pills were already available, there just weren't enough takers to make them commercially viable.