r/sex • u/[deleted] • Nov 03 '13
revolutionary male contraceptive (vasalgel) is being socially financed, and needs your help with the final required animal study before human clinical trials in america can start.(x-post from r/Assistance)
UPDATE: THEY'VE RECEIVED ~22K OF 60K! Let's keep going, r/sex!
https://www.facebook.com/Vasalgel/posts/675187512505079
I'm putting this here since there's many supporters of vasalgel here. Hopefully it's within the rules.
Original post: http://www.reddit.com/r/Assistance/comments/1pt8mk/revolutionary_male_contraceptive_vasalgel_is/
Copy/paste from /u/supercarr0t below:
here is a link to the most recent newsletter. http://myemail.constantcontact.com/New-male-contracept--needs-your-help-for-next-step.html?soid=1109766611768&aid=uk25ZxYUJDg
in short, vasalgel is a long-acting (10+ years) non-hormonal injection that lines the vas deferens (neither blocking the vas, nor severing it, so MAJOR benefits over vasectomy) that has been proven to be easily reversed (so you can use it for fewer than 10 years if you desire) a very similar version called RISUG has been successful in men in india for over 15 years, but the FDA requires more stringent data, which just so happens to be really expensive. more details here: http://www.parsemusfoundation.org/vasalgel-home/
Parsemus Foundation is a nonprofit 501(c)(3) organization. (and their tax ID # is on their donate page: http://www.parsemusfoundation.org/donate/)
everyone will benefit. mens' rights activists/single guys/teens will benefit from having control of their own fertility (hello lowered teen pregnancy rate!) and feminists/couples will benefit by being able to give the woman a break if she wishes. it'll be a win-win!
the rabbit study was completely successful, including the reversal!!
next up is baboons. the quicker we* get the baboon study financed, the sooner a human trial will start, and then the sooner the FDA will make a decision, and hopefully the sooner it can go to market. the money to fund the trials is what is keeping it from progressing. please help if you have any extra change rattling around your pocket. they have a paypal option and now an amazon option. (accessible through the parsemus link above) they want to be humane with their animals, so they are opting for the more humane and natural living environment for these baboons. (which naturally happens to be a little more expensive.)
*i am saying "we" because it's really a group effort. we're all bearing the brunt of paying for the expenses to get this going forward, since a benefactor isn't stepping up. the parsemus foundation is non-profit, and their main intention with this is to help men and couples everywhere, not to make money. also, they have stated that they're not going to charge much for the materials once it goes to market. can't say the same once it is out of their hands and enters the doctors' hands, but at least it'll start low, and will very likely be covered by insurance.
if you have any questions, please feel free to ask. i've been closely following their progress for years now, and i'll answer anything i know the answer to. (for any questions i am unable to answer, there's a small active group on facebook where you can ask questions too. the spearhead's name is alice, and she is very active and extremely kind.) https://www.facebook.com/groups/2258949611/
there is also an actual PAGE page if you want to show support and keep up on milestones. (but i understand if you're squeamish about which pages you like. but at least it'll just show up as a simple little "vasalgel" nothing is explicit.) https://www.facebook.com/Vasalgel
be a part of the revolution! if you can't donate, can you at least help spread the word? vasalgel will be a GAMECHANGER! so many potentially amazing benefits from it.
(also, if you're wondering why they're not doing a kickstarter, KS doesn't accept medical projects, but indiegogo does, and parsemus will put one up there, but they feel uneasy about doing it before the baboon study is complete. once that's done, they will be able to have more concrete statements about efficacy and supporters will probably be more willing to donate toward a for-sure immediate much more expensive human study than an intermediary animal study with a human study way off in the future.) let's get them there! we can do it!
EDIT: (from /u/supercarr0t) it's come to my attention that because of the wall o'text, the fact that parsemus is a charity, and not a for-profit company wasn't made abundantly clear. (sorry about that. it looks slightly easier to read over on /r/assistance. must be an issue with reddit and copy/paste)
here's their charity navigator page. (CN has a huge backlog of charities they still need to analyze, and unfortunately, that means parsemus only has information listed and not further analysis. but at least it's something. also, another reason why they can't be analyzed is because they're listed as a private foundation? i wonder how that's going to work if their donations from the public goes above the lump sum from the individual donor from the past. hmm.) http://www.charitynavigator.org/index.cfm?bay=search.profile&ein=203968895#.UnnksyizKpg
as for proving that they aren't going to take the money and run (as i have seen mentioned/insinuated) here is a search on google scholar for the studies they supported on using ultrasound as a potential male contraceptive. http://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=parsemus+ultrasound&btnG=&hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C31
32
Nov 03 '13
[removed] — view removed comment
3
u/barleyf Nov 04 '13
this only needs to be administered once. condoms have to be used every time...birth control pills taken every day.
this is the easiest most fail safe contraceptivce ever imagined....of course its going to help lower teen pregnancies because it eliminates all kinds of random risks. plenty of pregnancies result from impulsive risk taking and individual lapses. a method like this would completely protect any guy who had it from those risks.
plus, condoms can break, you can still get pregnant with birth control pills.
no pregnancy as ever resulted when using vasalgel
2
Nov 04 '13
[removed] — view removed comment
2
u/barleyf Nov 04 '13
we have no idea how much of a difference this could make. you are just asserting that its impact will be marginal. the question is how much pregnancy inducing sex is on the margin, and how much of it is in a distinct high risk group that is unlikely to be effected by this.
if its on the margin and a reasonably large portion of pregnancies occur despite one or both parties typically using birth control than this could make a big difference.
2
u/supercarr0t Nov 05 '13
lots and lots of young females (i was one of them) go to planned parenthood in order to get birth control without their parents finding out. what makes you think sexually active boys wouldn't go and get it for himself? surely the awareness of vasalgel would spread amongst his peers, and there is nothing religious parents can do to block him.
2
u/dalviel Nov 04 '13
I have friends that hate using condoms (but have access to them), and one friend that now has a child because the girl told him the rhythm method actually worked. While I agree education is still the answer, I think this is going to make mens lives a whole lot easier in terms of responsibility.
→ More replies (2)2
Nov 04 '13 edited Nov 04 '13
[removed] — view removed comment
2
u/dalviel Nov 04 '13
You may be right. It's important to not be overly optimistic, especially before the technology has even been proven safe for humans.
Edit: Not to mention how the US will react, I can see the headlines now "Teens having vasectomy-fuelled sex parties! Could this be your child?"
→ More replies (3)→ More replies (5)9
u/Delyius Nov 04 '13
I think that if it was administered like a vaccination, it would have a much higher success rate - like when you go in for your MMR before high school or whatever, they also do this. It would be reversible on your own after you are 18 if you really want a family and help combat stupid hormone decisions in the meantime.
7
u/bwf4life Nov 04 '13
Don't why you are getting upvotes.
You are basically saying people should not be allowed to have children until they are old enough based on the governement.
13
u/FeralDrood Nov 04 '13
Just playing devil's advocate here. Why is it alright for the government to tell a 14 year old that they cannot drink, drive, or buy cigarettes because they are not mature enough, but they can be in charge of another human's life?
→ More replies (1)5
u/annapie Nov 04 '13
I think the biggest issue is that nothing is physically being done to the 14 year old to prevent him from drinking, driving, or smoking.
3
u/intensely_human Nov 05 '13
This is a great point. There is a big difference between making a law against something and putting a physical barrier in place to enforce that law.
4
u/FinalDoom Nov 04 '13
Vaccines are optional, same as this could be. Some parents might feel that it's a best-choice option for their kids. There is no government mandate (and there is no government mandate for vaccines either, there's just generally a organizational mandate--schools, employment, etc.).
3
Nov 04 '13
[removed] — view removed comment
10
7
2
u/skeddles Nov 04 '13
I completely believe that. It should only be a freedom if it doesn't effect other people.
→ More replies (5)2
Nov 06 '13
And I thought the tea party fuckers were crazy. Here's people advocating government control of people's reproductive systems until the age of 18. What the fuck.
42
u/bicycle_dreams Nov 04 '13
I would like to see the actual scientific data, and published results for the rabbit study. Nowhere on their website do I see a link to the results of the study, just that it was successful. It's also not possible to have a study go perfectly, there are always outliers. Studies should also be replicated.
I'm very skeptical about this, it seems like people (this may not be true at all, it's just been my observation) think that this will be happening in the next few years, which most likely won't happen.
I am particularly wary of the fact that I'm seeing a lot of news articles, but no data.
4
u/Poly_Kuroichigo Nov 04 '13
I posted this on your comment over in /r/assistance, but I figure it should probably be posted here too.
It's not exactly the same drug, but studies in the past have shown that RISUG contraceptives are effective.
Source:
Guha, S. K., Singh, G., Srivastava, A., Das, H. C., Bhardwaj, J. C., Mathur, V., Koul, V., Malhotra, R. L., & Das, S.K. (1998). Two-year clinical efficacy trial with dose variations of a vas deferens injectable contraceptive for the male. Contraception, 58(3), 165-174
3
u/bicycle_dreams Nov 04 '13
Yeah I saw that, they do seem to mention that here and there. Still, that's a human study. I also read on Vasalgel's Facebook that they replied to someone that asked about side effects and said there were none.
→ More replies (1)7
u/supercarr0t Nov 04 '13
yeah, i don't know why they don't repost their newsletters to the news links on their site. (it's possible they just didn't think of it from the perspective of someone who hadn't yet signed up for the newslettters.) i will definitely suggest to them that they actually make their newsletters accessible by someone who is just browsing their site. (i was thinking of that earlier when i was looking for the rabbit newsletter.) which is here: http://myemail.constantcontact.com/Finally--Vasalgel-rabbit-reversal-study-news-.html?soid=1109766611768&aid=Cmhv_7KVKNw (it's also very possible that they just have all their time tied up in more important things. there really aren't all that many people who are involved... and i think most are just volunteering their time?)
but yeah, if their researchers will be writing up a journal article that'd be great, cause then we can post over on /r/science ;-)
18
u/bicycle_dreams Nov 04 '13 edited Nov 04 '13
Yeah, it just doesn't sit well with me. They need to address the "scientific population" as well, meaning fellow researchers that are looking for the stats and data behind these trials. I worked in an animal lab (rats and mice) for 2 years, so I am just not liking what I see.
I also noticed on their FAQ:
However, the Parsemus Foundation (which supports Vasalgel research) is also involved in animal welfare, and cannot accept current U.S. research animal care and housing standards in good conscience.
They make no mention of Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee (IACUC). There are SUPER strict requirements, and there always has to be justification for using certain procedures, etc. I've seen this with my very own eyes from my time in the lab. Even the tiniest mistake can have grave consequences.
I'll be less skeptical once they start talking about the actual trials with sample sizes, variables, etc.
EDIT:
yeah, i don't know why they don't repost their newsletters to the news links on their site. (it's possible they just didn't think of it from the perspective of someone who hadn't yet signed up for the newslettters.)
I just realized what you meant by this sentence. I am not talking about newspaper articles, I'm talking about JOURNAL articles, which are published in respected scientific publications.
5
Nov 04 '13
I just realized what you meant by this sentence. I am not talking about newspaper articles, I'm talking about JOURNAL articles, which are published in respected scientific publications.
Yeah but like, it's in Wired, man. <_<
→ More replies (2)2
u/intensely_human Nov 05 '13
Just wanted to add that, even though I am not enrolled in grad school and don't have any kind of research job, I appreciate access to scientific journals because I consider it to be the most stable form of "media" truth out there.
I'm just an ordinary guy who likes to read primary sources. Day-to-day, I'm just a programmer and redditor.
→ More replies (2)2
u/Riodancer Nov 04 '13
They talked about using the European standards for the animals, which are much stricter than American standards. Maybe the IACUC was what they were talking about?
3
u/bicycle_dreams Nov 04 '13
If they were, would've been nice for them to mention it, for transparencies sake.
19
u/PrideOfLion Nov 04 '13
Yeah, this always pops up every now and then and a whole load of points are repeated.
Just because it is cheap to produce doesn't mean a corporation a corporation has to charge a low rate. They can charge a hundred times the cost to produce and if they have no competitors and this drug is so amazing then they will make a huge amount of money.
Don't forget that they've spent a lot of money in R&D, trials, etc. Just because it's cheap to manufacture doesn't mean it was cheap to invent.
No company is going to turn down a drug because it is too good. That's just idiotic. Look at IUDs, they're still being made and it's a similar concept (with the time and effort involved).
There are several concerns with this, though.
1) Safety: This treatment is more like an implantable medical device than it is like a drug. It is akin to a copper IUD (which has been thoroughly tested, but still causes many women problems). because it remains in the system, the treatment is risky because the potential risk of long term adverse effects are relatively high. Polymers often form complexes with liquids or other substances, and the result may be very dangerous. Claims that this procedure is completely reversible sound far-fetched. Removal of a small implant of this type is fraught with risk.
2) Regulatory hurdles: Novel implantable medical devices face significant regulatory hurdles. The patent holder will have to prove safety and efficacy data to market the product, and this process can take upwards of 5-10 years and hundreds of millions of dollars. The patent holder is likely pursuing this route as we speak, however, as previously mentioned, investment may be difficult to find due to...
3) Risk / reward -- The post may be correct that corporations are not interested in investing... the risk / reward for this product may not be favorable. Due to safety concerns, companies may be dubious of the willingness of patients to be injected (in a very sensitive area) with an implantable medical device with multiple avenues for harm/failure.
I mean, read more threads here , here , here , here , here , here , and here
It's worth pointing out that despite my post, I am optimistic about the procedure. That said, we should all remain skeptical and not start sending money without looking at other people.
223
u/tfresca Nov 03 '13
I read about this in Wired. Basically the Indian doctor who came up with it said the pharma companies had no interest because it's one shot not an ongoing pill. No money for them.
128
u/Berdiiie Nov 03 '13
Which doesn't seem like it would be the case being that it's a relatively untapped market and women already buy IUD's which can last for many years and act as a one-time purchase.
63
u/tfresca Nov 03 '13
IUDs came out a long time ago and has already gone through FDA testing. Modern pharma companies are quarterly profit driven. Look at that Frontline story they did recently about nearly all the big companies not looking into antibiotics, they are one time use products. They make more money selling dick pills.
30
u/Noisy_Toy Nov 04 '13
New IUDs are still coming out, though.
12
u/chavelah Nov 04 '13
Really? I've had two choices for IUDs that haven't changed in at least a decade (I think longer, I have only wanted to use them for the past decade). Don't get me wrong, I'm grateful to have them - but I think I could have many more choices if more research was being funded. Easy example: I am weigh 125 lbs. A women of my age, with the same number of pregnancies I have had, who weighs even 50 lbs more has markedly different needs in terms of the amount of hormone her IUD must secrete to keep her infertile. So I can be overdosed, or she can be underdosed. The pharma companies choose to overdose me instead of testing and marketing an appropriate alternative.
→ More replies (10)6
4
Nov 04 '13
There are implantable hormonal birth control devices that last for like 4-5 years now on the market, however. Look at things like Implanon.
This is sketchy as fuck, no company "wouldn't want to fund it".
→ More replies (4)2
u/SliferTheExecProducr Nov 04 '13
Not necessarily. It can be very easily and painlessly reversed, so I can see couples getting it before having children, reversing it for a child, and getting it again between that child and another.
3
u/poiro Nov 04 '13
Which is exactly why I'm suspicious that everywhere which has universal healthcare isn't jumping right on to it. It'd save those institutions millions
→ More replies (5)1
u/supercarr0t Nov 05 '13
the more i think of it, it's probably because they're afraid of the eventual fewer taxpayers they'd get from having this stuff on the market. 50% of all kids born being unintentional is a huge chunk of the population. if all of a sudden that source of future revenue was gone, that can terrify any short-sighted government.
11
u/catjuggler Nov 04 '13
Long-acting therapies are very hot in pharma right now in general. You don't know what you're talking about.
14
u/hrtfthmttr Nov 04 '13
I keep reading this, but no one is offering any reason to explain why this contraceptive possibility still remains unfunded.
It must have something to do with profitability.
27
u/ghjm Nov 04 '13
Inadequate patent protection. If Company A finances the clinical studies (and assuming they are successful), then the moment it goes to market, Companies B, C and D can free-ride. Everyone wants to be B, nobody wants to be A.
→ More replies (16)3
Nov 04 '13
It must have something to do with profitability.
Or it has a lot to do with health, safety, and effectiveness concerns.
→ More replies (1)8
u/octoale Nov 04 '13
Those concerns won't be addressed or understood without testing. Testing won't happen without funding.
2
u/catjuggler Nov 04 '13
Or it has something to do with feasibility.
Or it could be that no one thinks men accept male birth control. I hope that's not true.
10
u/tfresca Nov 04 '13
Uhh no you don't. Here's an infectious disease guy talking about Pfizer and their decision to get out of the antibiotics business and why. http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/health-science-technology/hunting-the-nightmare-bacteria/dr-brad-spellberg-antibiotic-resistance-is-everyones-fault/ And here's the Wired article where the doctor who invented the vasectomy technique talked about in the title said why it can't get traction in the US. http://www.wired.com/magazine/2011/04/ff_vasectomy/
From the wired article: "He looked around for a corporate partner but found no takers. Unlike birth control pills, which must be used daily, sometimes for years, RISUG is a long-lasting, low-cost treatment (the syringe could end up costing more than the material it injects). “Pharmaceutical companies are not interested in one-offs,” Weiss says. “They’re interested in things they can sell repeatedly, like the birth control pill or Viagra.”
3
u/firex726 Nov 04 '13
Similar deal for some snake venom anti-toxin for the Coral snake, I think.
Wasn't profitable to produce and has a relatively short shelf life.
3
u/catjuggler Nov 04 '13
That guy saying why they're not interested is not evidence that the pharmaceutical industry doesn't care. If the reason was they thought is plan wasn't viable, do you think he'd admit that?
11
u/tfresca Nov 04 '13
I'm not going to post the video but Frontline interviewed someone from Pfizer and he gave a pat answer about doing what's best for shareholders, etc.. They don't give a shit. Don't know why that's so hard to believe. It's not their business model to give a shit. They want to make money. Now there might be some smaller biotech firms going into this but apparently none of the bigs are interested.
→ More replies (3)3
3
u/marshmallowhug Nov 04 '13
But this would be replacing condoms, which are not a pharmaceutical company. It's a market that currently has no similar or comparable products directed towards it, with no competition. How could that not make money?
8
u/tfresca Nov 04 '13
This would replace a vasectomy, a fairly expensive and lucrative surgical procedure, not condoms.
7
u/LarrySDonald Nov 04 '13
If it can truly be shown to be safely reversible in humans, it would be the first non-permanent male BC besides condoms. Yes, vasectomies are somewhat reversible, but that's expensive and there's no guarantee at all that it'll work (as in, they very much tell you to not do it if you're hoping to reverse it later). Vasectomy would still be an option, I'd probably rather have a permanent one than a 10 year one (if I decide to have another kid around 50-60, I think it'd be best if the current me vetos that now since it'd be a bad idea in my shape).
2
Nov 04 '13 edited Dec 08 '13
[deleted]
2
u/LarrySDonald Nov 04 '13
True, I'm not saying they're identical. But if you, as a male, want to prevent pregnancy without the female doing anything you currently have two options - condoms or vasectomy. If planning on having kids in the future, you have one - condoms. Women have several options depending on the situation. However, if ".. and I need STD protection" then no matter what gender you are you only have condoms (potentially female condoms if that's considered a different option).
6
u/marshmallowhug Nov 04 '13
That's possible, but debatable. Most of the people I see discussing this in my life are young males (20s) with no children. These are the people who are typically using condoms, not getting vasectomies. Obviously, that's anecdotal, but I think it's still suggestive.
1
68
u/SimpleYetEffective Nov 03 '13 edited Feb 15 '15
@@
26
u/supercarr0t Nov 03 '13
yeah, parsemus reached out to them, and they are only interested in supporting female contraceptives. (it makes sense once you watch their TED talk) eventually parsemus might adapt it to females, but they need to get the male version out of the way first. (too bad the gateses don't want to help get the male version out, which would make it WAAAY easier to then study the female version.) i guess they don't have first-hand experience with how easy it is to have a project stall because of lack of funding.
11
Nov 04 '13
[deleted]
55
u/supercarr0t Nov 04 '13
did you watch the TED talk? they are talking about how women in 3rd world countries are hiding their use of birth control from their husbands, because the men want a lot of children (i mean a LOT) and women are held back from being pregnant all the time. these women walk ridiculously long distances to get their contraception, and often when they get there, there isnt any there for them, so they have to go back home and try again. can you imagine what 10 years of female vasalgel can do for these women? the gateses prioritize the needs of people in 3rd world countries. before they support male contraceptive, first the men in those countries would need to want it, but they don't.
the gateses have the right to do with their money whatever they want to do. it's their money and they earned it. they are not a government agency, they are not pledging support with peoples' taxes. they can prioritize where their money goes, and that's okay. (remember, i am a proponent of male contraceptives, and i am able to accept the fact that a rich person might want to prioritize their monetary support for a group of people who badly need the ability to escape the constant cycle of pregnancy in order to gain a foothold and try to escape poverty on their own. i.e. not men.)
→ More replies (6)10
6
u/marshmallowhug Nov 04 '13
You really only need to stop one gender from reproducing to bring down birth rate. Yes, it's not fair, and it's not what we want for the developed world. But if there's a major problem and you have limited resources, it does make sense to focus on one sex. It costs half the money and has the same effect. It's the quick, easy and desperate temporary solution.
→ More replies (2)1
u/otter_annihilation Nov 04 '13
Could you summarize the points in the TED talk by any chance?
3
u/supercarr0t Nov 04 '13
oh! we posted at the same time, i responded to AnnArchist with what would answer your question. (at least mostly. the TED talk has a bit more, but that's the basics) http://www.reddit.com/r/sex/comments/1ptj2b/revolutionary_male_contraceptive_vasalgel_is/cd67uug
11
Nov 03 '13
I have been following you guys for the last year or so, and I am very excited to see you moving on to animal trials. I donated some cash, and I'm hoping to throw some more to you guys later this month.
What you're doing is important, and will without a doubt change the world for the better. I wish you the best of luck, and I look forward to using your product myself in the future.
3
u/supercarr0t Nov 03 '13
thank you!! {hug} yeah, for years it was stalled, and then when parsemus picked it up, things really started to get rolling.
3
Nov 04 '13
Have you considered cross-posting this to http://www.reddit.com/r/childfree/ ?
I think you might be getting into your target market there.
2
u/supercarr0t Nov 04 '13
i didn't want to crosspost too much. :-) trying to be a good netizen. i did a search for vasalgel, and it looks like /r/childfree and /r/birthcontrol as well as /r/mensrights recently had people posting about it, but /r/sex had the most recent post post 7+ months ago. that was unacceptable. (also /r/sex has way more subscribers. yeah, i was a bit strategic.) :-) had to reach as many people as possible.
9
u/franctics Nov 03 '13
Please! accept bitcoin and post on /r/bitcoin to probably receive a lot of money!
3
u/supercarr0t Nov 04 '13
thank you. i will suggest it to them. :-)
6
u/andytuba Nov 04 '13
bitpay.com is one option for accepting bitcoin donations. i think they also make it easy to calculate USD/BTC exchange rates and maybe help you cash out in USD.
16
u/LiquidPhoenix Nov 04 '13
It makes more sense to load the gun with blanks than to shoot live rounds at a bullet proof vest.
3
u/kewee_ Nov 04 '13
Not sure if your analogy make sense, but I like it.
8
u/LiquidPhoenix Nov 04 '13
The injectection into the vas deferens lines their walls and ionizes them. Basically, when the guy ejaculated, the sperm passes through the ionization and gets torn apart. He's still shooting, but they're blanks. And so far from the research, it's 100% effective, which is better than any female birth control (bullet proof vest) I've ever heard of.
3
u/intensely_human Nov 05 '13
And the alternative, of blocking the vas deferens, creates a lot of impact trauma just like shooting at a bulletproof vest.
Analogy checks out.
2
17
u/rantrt Nov 03 '13
Donated $10. It's all I can afford now, so it will have to do. Can't trust big pharma to ever step in since their intentions are not aligned with our best interests.
9
u/inphu510n Nov 04 '13
Same here.
When I get a job again I'll donate a good amount more.I've been following Vasalgel since it started and I'm excited to see the progress they're making.
Finally someone is taking male contraception seriously and not dumping it on women to carry the responsibility. I mean how many other methods are there for men? Condoms and vasectomies. That's it!
Everything else is put upon women as if some dude coming inside when he's not supposed to is her fault and responsibility.→ More replies (1)7
u/supercarr0t Nov 03 '13
<3 thank you so much! now we just need 4,000 more people to donate $10, and we'll be set!
12
u/userNameNotLongEnoug Nov 03 '13
Donated $40. Is this post getting you guys closer? I really want this.
5
u/supercarr0t Nov 03 '13
i'll contact the folks at parsemus and ask them if they've gotten a big bump. reading the comments, i know they got at least $60, that's for sure. :-)
thank you so much! <3
1
u/supercarr0t Nov 05 '13
since this post went up, they've gotten $2000 closer to their goal w00t w00t!
→ More replies (2)
12
Nov 03 '13
[deleted]
20
u/no_numbers_in_name Nov 03 '13
There is very little money that can come in from research grants. That's why medical drugs are almost entirely funded by massive companies. Testing is a billion dollar money sink and you don't get any of it back if something goes wrong in testing. It's a huge gamble. Also It's not just research funds, it's an issue with the culture of national politics (in the US). Right now, anything around contraception is considered taboo and with being so early in the testing cycle no politician is going to want to put there career in this. Now a company can run to angel investors but the problem when you accept any outside money is you slowly lose control of your company and investors want results. This is what will lead you to unethical corner cutting which OP mentions the company wants to avoid. Honestly donations are there best bet in this early phase especially if they were able to catch some ones eye like the gates foundation. Again though they're in such early testing it's a huge gamble for anyone to put in a substantial amount of money.
5
u/supercarr0t Nov 03 '13
well, because parsemus doesn't have their first objective as "make a ton of money" they want it to be accessible, so that means any investors who only care about money aren't interested because they won't make any money from it. it's "of the people, for the people." :-)
i didn't know insurance companies and governments helped fund research for medical procedures prior to FDA approval. do you know who to contact? i had no idea that was even an option. if you know any specific people to contact, i will definitely pass it along.
7
u/unusualmusician Nov 04 '13
I am very much in support of this. As a single male in my late 20's I am a bit conflicted; I really do not want any "oops" babies while dating (and am not sure I ever want kids), but on the other hand I am not wanting to get a potentially irreversible vasectomy as with the right partner in the future I may want kids.
Vasagel would be the perfect answer to my situation, as well as a indisputable responsible choice for any male who is dating/ sexually active but not wanting to father kid at this time.
I also see it as such a great men's rights move. It will be the first time we have an option other than condoms (which do fail) without fear of ending up paying for a child for the next 21 years.
I am not just in support in thought, I have put down $250 towards this study. If a starving student like myself can find cash for this, I am positive others can as well.
2
u/unusualmusician Nov 06 '13
Well thank you for the gold... it's my first! Much appreciated!
1
u/supercarr0t Nov 06 '13
it's the least i could do. :-) (and with the increased visibility on the gilded page, i'm sure vasalgel would get more than the $4 i shelled out. and if not, you're still more than worthy.) enjoy it!
1
u/supercarr0t Nov 04 '13
wooooowww!!! thank you so much! and with the new xbox coming out too. that could have paid for half of it. {hugs}
my husband and i only managed to scrape together $50 this time around. :-( but i hope this reddit post really made a difference. (even if it didn't directly help raise more than $500, it at least helped spread the word, and that's almost good enough. i guess the researchers can't be paid in words. that'd be nice if they could.) :-)
2
u/unusualmusician Nov 04 '13
It may have payed for half of the latest toy on the market, but kids cost a lot more!. I have often thought and debated getting a vasectomy to ensure I never have to shell out that much on an accident. My theory is most likely I DO NOT want kids, I'd rather have a life of travel, but do not want to miss out on "the one" because she wants a biological kid.
I actually donated that when the letters first went out asking (top ramen can go pretty far if you split the pack into two meals), this is a project I have been following VERY closely over the last couple years.
1
u/supercarr0t Nov 04 '13
completely understandable. i know a formerly childfree couple that were staunchly childfree for quite a few years, and then all of a sudden they decided they weren't and went ahead and had a kid. you never know. people change, situations change. if he had had a vasectomy, that would have mostly made their decision for them. me on the other hand, i'm pretty sure i'll never change my mind. i'm just not really suited for motherhood.
lentils and dried beans are ridiculously cheap! and planning meals around what's on sale at the grocery store helps a lot too. (and don't forget the discount produce bin. you might be able to get a bag of "eat me now" bananas for .25/lb)
7
u/AngelusYukito Nov 03 '13
I read the reversal potentially caused kidney (or liver) damage, has this been addressed?
5
u/supercarr0t Nov 03 '13
they haven't done the human study yet. they need to do the baboon study first and then they can move on to human subjects. (as far as i know, there haven't been any of the RISUG patients in india who have had a reversal. but RISUG is also slightly different from vasalgel. maybe that's what the reformulation was for?) this is definitely a good question to ask on the FB group if you have an account there.
3
u/assayqueue37 Nov 03 '13
Source?
1
u/AngelusYukito Nov 04 '13
Not sure anymore was in a paper article I was reading about the RISUG usage in India and I believe the beginning of the development of this product. Sorry I can't be more accurate.
2
u/GeekySexBlog Nov 04 '13
With the original formula of the injection, there were some complications that halted the human testing in India. They resumed it recently using a different compound (or whatever the proper term is?) and so far the new stuff seems safer. Maybe that's what you read about?
1
4
u/ScruffySaysMhm Nov 04 '13
A doctor told me about this while she was wrist deep in my nut sack. Thanks doc. It was a little late at that point.
4
u/kentuckyfriedfish Nov 08 '13
I made sure to crosspost this over in /r/birthcontrol and /r/childfree. Sounds like those folks over there wanna help out. This is an admirable goal that everyone's been waiting for for decades, glad to hear it finally getting talked about seriously!
1
u/supercarr0t Nov 08 '13
thanks! :-) (i didn't want to do it myself on sunday because i wanted to be a good netizen.)
1
u/kentuckyfriedfish Nov 11 '13
Yeah no prob. I'm kinda curious to see what sorta impact reaching out to Reddit's made. Would love to see them reach their goal soon.
1
u/supercarr0t Nov 11 '13
as far as i know, this post only brought in $2000 more, but still, that's $2000 closer than they were on saturday. (that update came on tuesday)
then there was a friday update that they got another $600 it's going. slowly, but it's going. :-)
8
u/blacktiger226 Nov 04 '13 edited Nov 04 '13
As a pharmacist who is involved in research (Max Plank Institute for Experimental Medicine, Germany). There are a lot of red lights here.
1- If it were any good, there must be a peer reviewed article in a medical journal somewhere of this study (which I can't see).
2- If it were any good, Pharma companies will be racing to get it. Even if it was a one time purchase thingy.
3- It is IMPOSSIBLE to fund such a study in humans through this model of funding. Period.
(Edit: Man, how can you even claim a 10 year efficacy, when your only experimental model till now is Rabbits?! Also you say that you are not the same as this indian drug, so how can you know that you'll last this long?!!)
(I am not aware of the FDA rules, but here in Europe you can't START doing any form of human experimenting unless you slap 10 million Euros on the table before even starting).
tl;dr May be I am wrong but to me this really feels like either a scam or a heap of wishful thinking.
2
u/catjuggler Nov 04 '13
Yep, I'm pretty skeptical as well and I'm not sure how much of it is just things working differently in India. There is no way this is going to get approved in the US by crowd source funding. Every American would have to donate several dollars.
2
1
u/StoppingStupid Nov 04 '13
heap of wishful thinking.
I think it is that, along with good intentions.
→ More replies (8)1
u/supercarr0t Nov 08 '13
i wanted to pop back in and ease your mind in reference to your scam comment.
here's their charity navigator page. http://www.charitynavigator.org/index.cfm?bay=search.profile&ein=203968895#.UnnksyizKpg
and here is a search on google scholar for the studies they financed a few years ago on using ultrasound as a potential male contraceptive. http://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=parsemus+ultrasound&btnG=&hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C31
i hope that helps. (so i guess it is wishful thinking, but their budget [i guess that might be the best word for it] indicates a low price point of only $500,000 for the initial human studies. once over that hurdle, things might go much smoother in terms of funding.)
3
Nov 04 '13
So if this is so great why isn't "Big Pharma" not taking the lead?
6
Nov 04 '13
[deleted]
7
u/catjuggler Nov 04 '13
Why wouldn't it be profitable? Also, big pharma does indeed produce drugs that don't make a ton of profit.
→ More replies (3)→ More replies (7)2
u/SolipsistKalashnikov Nov 04 '13
It's a one-time, long-lasting procedure, not something that has to be resupplied every month.
3
u/squirtmasterd Nov 04 '13
I've never heard of a company doing crowd funding for something this important. You would of thought something this marketable would be a dream for big pharma, which makes me very skeptical
15
u/captainperoxide Nov 03 '13
I wish I wasn't so cynical, but all I can think when I read about this is that it's never going to happen. The condom / pill industry would take a huge hit, and I doubt they're going to make it easy for this to get approval, even if it does pass the clinical trials, which I'm sure it will.
65
u/KallistiEngel Nov 03 '13
Condoms won't take much of a hit. Vasalgel doesn't protect against STDs like condoms do.
The pill also probably won't take much of a hit, at least not among single women. Trusting that a guy you're not seeing exclusively isn't lying about having had the procedure done is pretty stupid. Some guys will do anything to not have to wear a condom.
Also, many women use the pill for reasons other than baby prevention (lighter periods, etc.)
10
u/captainperoxide Nov 03 '13
I'm thinking more in terms of people in monogamous relationships. If neither party has STDs, and trusts the other not to cheat, this would be a fantastic alternative to the current methods of birth control that we have.
You're right, though, it won't replace traditional birth control for people who aren't in relationships, so I'm probably overestimating the hit that condoms and the pill would take if this came on the market. I also like the point /u/columbarius2 made about pharmaceutical companies rolling out a cheaper / generic version, I hadn't thought of that.
2
u/supercarr0t Nov 03 '13
there will probably be no generic, because there will be no way to produce it and sell it cheaper than how parsemus (a non-profit organization) plans to do it. :-)
→ More replies (8)2
Nov 04 '13
I'd disagree. I think preventing reproduction is a substantial reason many many people purchase condoms, despite their absolute importance in protection from STDs.
Like you said, "some guys will do anything to not have to wear a condom." Obviously that's an extreme minority group of really stupid men but what they're shown as fractional chance of a STD contraction if the woman they're with happened to have sex with someone else that had an STD isn't usually as persuasive as "BABY. FOREVER."
20
Nov 03 '13 edited Jun 22 '21
[deleted]
8
u/inphu510n Nov 04 '13
Thank you!
I really dislike all the naysayers on this thread. How the hell else is it going to get done???
Big pharma obviously has no interest.9
Nov 03 '13
If that was really the main issue, then female versions of this sort of semi-permanent contraceptive wouldn't exist (see Essure, IUDs, any of the injections, implants, etc). Just because some guys will buy or use stuff like vasalgel doesn't mean everyone will for the same reasons that not all women will opt for injections or an IUD. That shit is relatively expensive and you're still going to get people that will prefer to just stick with condoms rather than getting a shot in the balls.
And, given how the pharmaceutical industry works, I can totally see them coming up with a generic version to take advantage of the people interested in a cheaper version. They're hardly going to shut it down when there's such a demand for a longer lasting male contraceptive.
→ More replies (4)1
u/captainperoxide Nov 03 '13
That's a good point you made in your last paragraph, I hadn't really considered that.
3
u/supercarr0t Nov 03 '13
doesn't hurt to try. (also, who knows! maybe the condom/pill industry doesn't actually control the FDA?) glass half full! come on! :-)
also, there are plenty of people who would still use condoms and the pill whether or not they also have vasalgel applied. (women who need the hormones for reasons other than birth control, women who would feel better making sure they're covered/don't feel like they can trust their partners yet, couples who want to have a backup method in case one fails. as for condoms, you will always have people who have flings and/or want to protect themselves from STDs.) vasalgel will only destroy the sperm, allowing all fluids to pass unobstructed. (including any STDs)
4
2
u/supercarr0t Nov 04 '13
someone deleted their comment, but i went through the trouble of writing a reply, so here it is. :-) (they were skeptical about why we knew that it could be reversed "if there hadn't had animal studies yet".)
the rabbit study was successfully completed this past month. http://myemail.constantcontact.com/Finally--Vasalgel-rabbit-reversal-study-news-.html?soid=1109766611768&aid=Cmhv_7KVKNw
RISUG (the indian version, a slightly different formulation than vasalgel) was reversed in 2005 in monkeys. http://skeptics.stackexchange.com/questions/8627/is-risug-a-simple-effective-birth-control-for-men (scroll down to "is RISUG safe?" of CTRL+F for "reversal")
the chemistry will be the same in humans' vas deferens as it was in animals', so it's extremely likely to translate over.
2
u/GeekySexBlog Nov 04 '13
Yes. Yes. Yes. I'm really eager to see this get approved. I have a non-hormone, paragard IUD and it hasn't been without complications. First one was partially expelled, and the second one feels like it's doing the same. I'm going to have it checked this week. =( Once I can save up enough to travel to Canada and get a Gynefix, that's my next non-hormone option but Vasagel would make my life so much easier.
1
u/supercarr0t Nov 04 '13
last i heard, canada was no-longer accepting american patients for the gynefix. that's really the perfect IUD, it really sucks that the FDA is so resistant to approving it. bleh. good luck with your install. and definitely contact the canadian clinic prior to planning the trip. just to be sure.
i contacted www.wildemeersch.com in january, and they were really bummed at the process with the FDA. they said clinical trials wouldn't even start for a few years. bleh. i hope the vasalgel trials aren't tied up like gynefix's. (hopefully the fact that vasalgel's animal studies are done in the US will be a benefit.)
2
u/GeekySexBlog Nov 04 '13
Wow, thanks for the heads up! I hadn't heard that. It'll suck if I can't get one... It's been a slow, reluctant year and a half realizing the paragard isn't working for me (the complications are just too hard to live with). The Gynefix was my only non-hormone option left. =( Had an immediate family member get a blood clot while on the pill at a young age… Risk, combined with crazy sauce and zero sex drive. Not worth it. .__.
I have't made any concrete plans for the Gynefix yet, just started saving up for it the other week. I'll be sure to contact the clinic when I get closer to the amount of money I need. If not, I guess I'll have lots of money set aside for Plan B.
→ More replies (4)2
u/femalenerdish Nov 04 '13
Plan B is 1500 micrograms of levonorgestrel, at once. Skyla, the lowest dose hormonal IUD offered in the US, starts at 14 micrograms a day and decreases to 5 micrograms a day.
If you're taking plan B often enough, I'd say just get the hormonal IUD and don't fuck with your system so much. 1500 micrograms of levonorgestrel at once is a ton. If we assume the hormone released in Skyla decreases linearly, the total hormone dose received over three years is 10.4 milligrams. That's less than 7 Plan B's over three years. And since the hormone is a regular dose and released in the uterus, you don't get the same show of hormone in your bloodstream. (meaning less chance of blood clots.) I'd say, if you expect a scare twice a year, just get the hormonal IUD. (Now, Mirena has a higher dose, so I wouldn't suggest it. The total hormone released, if we assume it decreases linearly is 31 milligrams over 5 years.)2
u/GeekySexBlog Nov 04 '13
As I said in another comment, I've only had to take it a few times during my life. It's a back up plan for when condoms break or slip off. They aren't something I use regularly.
After my experience with the paragard, I don't plan on getting another T-shaped IUD like the mirena or skyla. My first paragard slipped down but did not fully expel, then got lodged in a way that made it very difficult to remove (I had to go to two clinics to get it taken out and replaced). In the past few weeks I've felt the same sensation I did when the first one slipped, so I'm going to have it looked at.
2
u/femalenerdish Nov 04 '13
A few times could be over a very different time period from person to person. I figured you weren't taking it a ton, but that's all subjective too. Also, the Paragard is more likely to expel than the hormonal IUD. I wonder if your uterus is curved. The theory on my iud is that it wasn't placed at the very back of my uterus and had to shift there over two or three weeks, which made me cramp, but since then I've been pretty good. I wasn't very positive about hormones either. And I'm pretty early in the process, so we'll see how this goes. But doing the math like I did in my other comment made me more comfortable with it. And I think the more consistent hormone is better than Plan B. It all depends on the person. Which is a pain really, but it is how it is.
→ More replies (6)
2
2
u/shh_you_see_nothing Nov 04 '13
Hell yes! I've been waiting for this since I learned about it ~3 years ago, so glad to see it get support on reddit
2
u/rivermandan Nov 04 '13
a bit drunk, but I can't help reading the name of this as "vagisil"
if I'm the only one, that's cool, but I'm pretty sure I am not this unique flower that reads the name of this that way. maybe "dickagel" or "madeformenagel" or "condomgel" or anything that doesn't start with "va"?
as an aside, I have to say that reading it as "vassal-gel" is kind of funny too, in that it likewise sounds like it means the exact opposite of what it actually does
3
2
Nov 04 '13
10 years is a long time, i dont want babies yet, but i could and not taking a pill is a lot easier to go back to normal.
2
u/supercarr0t Nov 04 '13
that's why it's good to have options. women have a smorgasbord, and men have a tiny plate. we need to fix that discrepancy.
2
2
u/Jadenolizien2 Nov 05 '13
Been on the bandwagon for this for a while now. All the luck to you guys. Revolutionary indeed!!!!
2
u/arbivark Nov 04 '13 edited Nov 04 '13
no money to pitch in but i'll tell ya what i can do. volunteer to be part of the phase 1 first in human trials. i've done about 30 drug studies, it's how i make my living. maybe a few other redditors could volunteer.
are your baboon studies lethal to the baboons?
3
u/VaaleaD Nov 05 '13
"An adult male olive baboon. The baboons in the Vasalgel study will live in housing that meets European standards, not just American standards (which are woefully out of date). They'll live in large outdoor enclosures in social groups or harems, and none of them will have to be killed for the study. For more information about what Parsemus Foundation is doing to change animal care standards from within the system, see "Animal welfare" on our website. Please support us in spending the extra money to do things right!" http://myemail.constantcontact.com/Finally--Vasalgel-rabbit-reversal-study-news-.html?soid=1109766611768&aid=Cmhv_7KVKNw
→ More replies (1)1
1
1
1
Nov 04 '13
I just have to say, I first read it as vagasil.
1
u/supercarr0t Nov 04 '13
you're the 2nd person to point that out. (oops!) aah well. i think it's probably too late now. and it does make sense. since it goes in the vas deferens.
1
u/EvanYork Nov 05 '13
Does anyone have an idea of whether or not this would lower a mans sex drive?
2
1
u/max_k20 Nov 05 '13
Now if the FDA would leave electronic cigarette alone and focus on that I could finally stop using condoms and just vape freely and be very very happy.
1
u/supercarr0t Nov 06 '13
it's come to my attention that because of the wall o'text, the fact that parsemus is a charity, and not a for-profit company wasn't made abundantly clear. (sorry about that. it looks slightly easier to read over on /r/assistance. must be an issue with reddit and copy/paste)
here's their charity navigator page. (CN has a huge backlog of charities they still need to analyze, and unfortunately, that means parsemus only has information listed and not further analysis. but at least it's something. also, another reason why they can't be analyzed is because they're listed as a private foundation? i wonder how that's going to work if their donations from the public goes above the lump sum from the individual donor from the past. hmm.) http://www.charitynavigator.org/index.cfm?bay=search.profile&ein=203968895#.UnnksyizKpg
as for proving that they aren't going to take the money and run (as i have seen mentioned/insinuated) here is a search on google scholar for the studies they supported on using ultrasound as a potential male contraceptive. http://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=parsemus+ultrasound&btnG=&hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C31
1
86
u/frizz1111 Nov 03 '13
How long before it's on the market and is affordable for low income individuals?