Birth control vaccine in the works

KilljoyKlown

Whatever
Valued Senior Member
This is something I believe in, but this vaccine is only going to be effective for about 6 months at a time. It's a good start, but I still feel that people that want kids should have to meet minimum requirements before their fertility is restored.

From Correspondent Lori Waffenschmidt

CNN Family planning experts say whats needed to prevent unwanted pregnancies among women of all ages is a method of birth control thats foolproof and easy to use. Researchers think they may be on track towards developing just that a birth control vaccine, something that could prove to be the most effective birth control method ever.

Common bacteria, which sometimes causes food poisoning or typhoid fever, could be the key to the vaccine. Researchers are taming salmonella and genetically altering it into a protein factory of sorts. The goal is to produce proteins that will cause the body to have an immune reaction to sperm, thus blocking fertilization. In simple terms, scientists want to treat fertilization like a disease.

Roy Curtiss, a professor at Washington University, says the concept makes sense because the interaction between a sperm and an egg is sort of like the interaction between a virus and a cell. Curtiss hopes to use proteins unique to sperm and eggs to make vaccines that could be used by men or women.

He says an oral vaccine that would be taken only once or twice a year could have many advantages when it comes to birth control. Its very, very inexpensive and safe, Curtiss said. Theres no need for refrigeration, which makes its use in the developing world attractive. And you dont need to remember to do something 21 days in a row.

Experts say theres a huge need for such convenient birth control. Around the world, 230 million women of reproductive age, about one in six, still lack access to adequate family planning. Reports show that womens ability to have the number of children they want, when they want them, is central to the quality of their lives and the wellbeing of their families.

Experts say this new birth control vaccine is years away, but animal testing is under way and researchers are already getting results with mice. In some tests, immunized mice did not get pregnant at all, while in other tests litter size was greatly reduced. Researchers hope that in humans the contraceptive effects could last six months to one year.

Dr. Robert Hatcher of Emory University says that if women are going to gain control of their lives, safe and effective family planning is a critical issue. He says the status of women also must change 162K AIFF sound or 162K WAV sound. Popes, presidents, politicians and physicians, usually men, have controlled the reproductive destinies of women for all too long and this must stop, Hatcher said.
http://articles.cnn.com/1997-08-20/...cine-roy-curtiss-family-planning?_s=PM:HEALTH
 
VI there IS a permanent sterilisation procidure if your sure you want one

KilljoyKlown that SOUNDS good but if your body is producing antibodies to sperm there maybe a risk that it could become permanent. There is also a risk that it could become an alergic reaction (some people are already alergic to sperm)
 
VI there IS a permanent sterilisation procidure if your sure you want one

KilljoyKlown that SOUNDS good but if your body is producing antibodies to sperm there maybe a risk that it could become permanent. There is also a risk that it could become an alergic reaction (some people are already alergic to sperm)

Yeah, all good things have a dark side. Hopefully any adverse affects will be small in number and manageable.
 
I have wondered why they don't develop a similar temporary sperm control mechanism for men, as they are fertile 365 days of the year, while women cycle monthly. In my observation, men generally demonstrate even greater libido than women and such might even keep them more focused on other tasks that require their attention.

Just curious as to what the arguments and validation are for making birth control the sole responsibility of the woman. :shrug:
 
I have wondered why they don't develop a similar temporary sperm control mechanism for men, as they are fertile 365 days of the year, while women cycle monthly. In my observation, men generally demonstrate even greater libido than women and such might even keep them more focused on other tasks that require their attention.

Just curious as to what the arguments and validation are for making birth control the sole responsibility of the woman. :shrug:

a) its not, the main forms of birth control are condoms (used by men) followed by the pill (women) and then vesectomy (also men), hardly any women use the female condom

b) they are trying, i belive the male contraceptive pill is either just starting (or just about to start) human tials. However there are actually differences in anatomy which oviously make it harder to create a pill for men (as shown by the fact it hasnt been created yet)
 
We could also just ties ever humans tubes (so to speak) and then untie them at a later time, say 25 yo.

Imagine that? People would go ballistic.

"the governement is tying my tubes"
 
I have wondered why they don't develop a similar temporary sperm control mechanism for men, as they are fertile 365 days of the year, while women cycle monthly. In my observation, men generally demonstrate even greater libido than women and such might even keep them more focused on other tasks that require their attention.

Just curious as to what the arguments and validation are for making birth control the sole responsibility of the woman. :shrug:

The original article I read talked about using the fertility vaccine for animal control, both male and female vaccines. Although they did say the male version was a few years behind the female version and they didn't describe how it would work as compared to the female version.
 
a) its not, the main forms of birth control are condoms (used by men) followed by the pill (women) and then vesectomy (also men), hardly any women use the female condom

b) they are trying, i belive the male contraceptive pill is either just starting (or just about to start) human tials. However there are actually differences in anatomy which oviously make it harder to create a pill for men (as shown by the fact it hasnt been created yet)

I observe that there is more research presently underway and that there are anatomical differences to contend with.

Additionally I would expect extreme reluctance from a number of men from the psychological perspective of being restrained or controlled as virility is a matter of male ego, is it not? Always considered that it may be the male attitude that has caused the research to lag.....

Phenoxybenzamine has been found to block ejaculation, which not only gives it the potential to be an effective contraceptive, but could also lead to much cleaner sex. Studies have found that the quality of the semen is unaffected and the results are reversible by simply discontinuing the treatment.

Silodosin, an α1-adrenoceptor antagonist with high uroselectivity, has been shown to completely block ejaculation in human males while permitting the sensation of orgasm.
 
If it effects people opinion of there sexuality its a non viable treatment, simple as that, further more male orgasium is related specificaly to discharge. I dont think its possible to orgasium without SOME discharge. So basically your saying that the best contraceptive is one which stops male orgasium. The pill wouldnt be so popular if it made female orgasium impossible.


Also if my partner is anything to go by then lack of male ejaculation effects female orgasium, ie she cant get off either.

How do i know? i take antidepressants which cause delayed ejaculation (i actually had to stop taking them because we want to have a baby but thats beside the point).

As for a psycological perspective do you think the pill would be utilised if it caused womens breasts to disapear (its ok though, they will come back). Your drifting into huge body image issues which are just unsustainable. You cant just ignore these issues and then say "its just men being selfish".

The resurch i have seen is for a male pill which would stop sperm production, not semen production (ie would have the same effect as a vecetomy)

However your post didnt address the point, its only during long term relationships where the option of having children down the track is preserved that female contraception is used.

In new relationships, permiscuas couples and other "uncontroled" situations condoms are prefered and latter in a relationship when no more children are desired then a vecetomy is prefered. So why is it "opressive" (or whatever) for women to take responcibility for that middle section?
 
If it effects people opinion of there sexuality its a non viable treatment, simple as that, further more male orgasium is related specificaly to discharge. I dont think its possible to orgasium without SOME discharge. So basically your saying that the best contraceptive is one which stops male orgasium. The pill wouldnt be so popular if it made female orgasium impossible.


Also if my partner is anything to go by then lack of male ejaculation effects female orgasium, ie she cant get off either.

How do i know? i take antidepressants which cause delayed ejaculation (i actually had to stop taking them because we want to have a baby but thats beside the point).

As for a psycological perspective do you think the pill would be utilised if it caused womens breasts to disapear (its ok though, they will come back). Your drifting into huge body image issues which are just unsustainable. You cant just ignore these issues and then say "its just men being selfish".

The resurch i have seen is for a male pill which would stop sperm production, not semen production (ie would have the same effect as a vecetomy)

However your post didnt address the point, its only during long term relationships where the option of having children down the track is preserved that female contraception is used.

In new relationships, permiscuas couples and other "uncontroled" situations condoms are prefered and latter in a relationship when no more children are desired then a vecetomy is prefered. So why is it "opressive" (or whatever) for women to take responcibility for that middle section?

From the link in the opening post:
Popes, presidents, politicians and physicians, usually men, have controlled the reproductive destinies of women for all too long and this must stop, Hatcher said.

I believe I spoke entirely to the point in suggesting we control men's reproductive capacity also, rather than place all of the responsibility and risk on the female reproductive system.

Women assume the greater risk and burden in reproduction and it concerns me that it is acceptable to meddle with our plumbing and leave women to bear the associated health risks.

As for your cavalier attitude toward condoms, I don't know any woman who would trust that Trojan he's been packing around in his wallet for who knows how long, lol.... Many guys have a reluctance to use them and then again the statistics suggest they fail 2% of the time even when used properly.

I don't quite understand what you are alluding to in this sentence...
However your post didnt address the point, its only during long term relationships where the option of having children down the track is preserved that female contraception is used.

Females need to use contraception AT ALL TIMES, whether in a long term relationship or not, to prevent unwanted pregnancy and to preserve the capacity for the planned time.

In my experience, birth control is not really what most guys are thinking about when they are just out on the town on a Saturday night.....:bugeye:

Birth control through condom use may well have received a boost through increased public awareness of STD's.
 
I'm paranoid about STDs, I don't even like to roll the dice on (bare) oral from someone I don't know well. And Damn...single women really seem to like to do that nowadays. Being single is stressing me out...lol
 
I don't think very many men want to be responsible for a child with a woman they don't want to live with. Especially if they get stuck with child support. As a guy I'd much rather take birth control that I had control of, rather than worry about a lying gold digger saying she's protected, or how about the cheating girlfriend that claims it's yours and wants you to be responsible for it. IMO you wouldn't have to do much arm twisting to get men to take reliable safe birth control.
 
I'm paranoid about STDs, I don't even like to roll the dice on (bare) oral from someone I don't know well. And Damn...single women really seem to like to do that nowadays. Being single is stressing me out...lol

Discretion is the better part of valor, in some circumstances. I don't think one can be too cautious when it comes to STD's today. Whenever you are having unprotected sex with someone, you are sharing their entire sexual history, and some of the STD's especially chlamydia, may not be evident.

Cases of chlamydia have increased every year bar one since reporting began in 1984. Much of this rise can be attributed to the expansion of chlamydia screening activities, use of more sensitive screening tests, and improvements in the reporting system. Yet despite such developments, many people who have chlamydia do not know they are infected. Increased availability of urine testing is hoped to increase the number of men tested for chlamydia.
 
I don't think very many men want to be responsible for a child with a woman they don't want to live with. Especially if they get stuck with child support. As a guy I'd much rather take birth control that I had control of, rather than worry about a lying gold digger saying she's protected, or how about the cheating girlfriend that claims it's yours and wants you to be responsible for it. IMO you wouldn't have to do much arm twisting to get men to take reliable safe birth control.

That's a responsible and refreshing attitude.

Perhaps we are moving forward together, as a species. :cool:
 
From the link in the opening post:

I believe I spoke entirely to the point in suggesting we control men's reproductive capacity also, rather than place all of the responsibility and risk on the female reproductive system.

Women assume the greater risk and burden in reproduction and it concerns me that it is acceptable to meddle with our plumbing and leave women to bear the associated health risks.

As for your cavalier attitude toward condoms, I don't know any woman who would trust that Trojan he's been packing around in his wallet for who knows how long, lol.... Many guys have a reluctance to use them and then again the statistics suggest they fail 2% of the time even when used properly.

I don't quite understand what you are alluding to in this sentence...


Females need to use contraception AT ALL TIMES, whether in a long term relationship or not, to prevent unwanted pregnancy and to preserve the capacity for the planned time.

In my experience, birth control is not really what most guys are thinking about when they are just out on the town on a Saturday night.....:bugeye:

Birth control through condom use may well have received a boost through increased public awareness of STD's.

So the purpose of this thread isnt about the science of contraception but rather is just an example of "male bashing", your name wouldnt be Melinda Tankard would it?

Women DONT take on all the risks of pregancy i hate to tell you. Infact with the advent of RU486 and the Morning after pill there is an argument to be made that women can be more caverler about contraception than men can aford to be. Further more the time when women are the ones who tend to be given responcibility for contraception by a relationship tend to be the same time when men could be said to be the most vunerable (ie in a commited relationship where even without a peternity test the partner is held to be finatially responcible for a child and in some countries EVEN WHEN HES NOT the father).

As for your comment about how long a condom has been there that goes for women too. Even if they ARNT trusting "that Trojan he's been packing around in his wallet for who knows how long" they still arnt seeking FEMALE contraceptives (ie the female condom) but are rather just providing there own MALE condom which the male partner is surposed to trust she hasnt vindictivly poked holes in "because she wants a child no matter what he thinks".

Women in westen countries like Australia have innumerable outs along the way, for instance if a condom fails they can get the morning after pill with no script at any chemist, if that doesnt work they can get an abortion, if they CHOSE not to do that then they can decide to adopt out the child with no finatial penelties. In other words any "risk" of pregancy is one she choses to take on herself.
 
So the purpose of this thread isnt about the science of contraception but rather is just an example of "male bashing", your name wouldnt be Melinda Tankard would it?

Women DONT take on all the risks of pregancy i hate to tell you. Infact with the advent of RU486 and the Morning after pill there is an argument to be made that women can be more caverler about contraception than men can aford to be. Further more the time when women are the ones who tend to be given responcibility for contraception by a relationship tend to be the same time when men could be said to be the most vunerable (ie in a commited relationship where even without a peternity test the partner is held to be finatially responcible for a child and in some countries EVEN WHEN HES NOT the father).

As for your comment about how long a condom has been there that goes for women too. Even if they ARNT trusting "that Trojan he's been packing around in his wallet for who knows how long" they still arnt seeking FEMALE contraceptives (ie the female condom) but are rather just providing there own MALE condom which the male partner is surposed to trust she hasnt vindictivly poked holes in "because she wants a child no matter what he thinks".

Women in westen countries like Australia have innumerable outs along the way, for instance if a condom fails they can get the morning after pill with no script at any chemist, if that doesnt work they can get an abortion, if they CHOSE not to do that then they can decide to adopt out the child with no finatial penelties. In other words any "risk" of pregancy is one she choses to take on herself.

What is trust? Usually a feeling you want to convey when getting involved with someone. But when you have the opportunity to project that feeling without taking on the risk of being wrong. Wouldn't you jump on that? If I'm protected and she gets pregnant. I might be a little sad about it, but I won't be financially compromised and stuck in a bad relationship with miss wrong.
 
actually legally if your in a relationship and your partner gets pregant you ARE held responcible unless proven your not and even if you ARE proven not to be the father you can still be held responcible for the child because the law doesnt care who the father is, it only cares about getting as much money for the child as possible. Further more no fault divorce means that you are also responcible for giving at least 50% of your assets (for ever in the US aparently) to surport the women who cheated on you and probably her new partner.

However i was hopping this thread would be on the science of contraception concidering where its posted. Tiassa can you please move this to ethics or free thoughts if its just going to be about the "ethics" of reproduction or whatever
 
Back
Top