That does sound highly inflated, especially given that psychological side effects (namely libido) of oral contraceptives have had conflicting evidence at best. In fact, I'm reading through the literature and I can't find an association between hormonal contraceptives and depression30% if women who take birth control suffer from depression and have to take medication for it? Anyone have a link to that statistic as it seems insanely high. That's a 400% increase over the general population.
If your doctor is responsible, they should be screening for risk factors for coagulopathies before starting you on contraceptives, but it's true that there is a slightly increased risk.
IUD's are pretty god damn stellar. Copper ones last ten years, are *very* cheap and, last i checked, had a better track record at preventing pregnancies than condoms or the pill.
Hormonal IUD's are even better, since they often reduce/eliminate blood flow. Price goes up and they "only" last 5 years tho.
Sadly, apparently, if you've never given birth, they can be quite painful to put in place.
Wish there was a male version, tbqh.
May I ask what type? Professional curiosity
If your doctor is responsible, they should be screening for risk factors for coagulopathies before starting you on contraceptives, but it's true that there is a slightly increased risk.
Aren't condoms by far the most used pregnancy prevention method?!Fascinating really a study within a study. Women are expected to be essentially the gatekeepers of pregnancy prevention and undergo all the issues that come with it, the first serious attempt to bring men into that equation gets shut down early because of the very same side effects (at a lower rate) that medicine has deemed acceptable for women to undergo.
30% if women who take birth control suffer from depression and have to take medication for it? Anyone have a link to that statistic as it seems insanely high. That's a 400% increase over the general population.
I don't think it's common to do any tests. At least, in my personal experience, they just gave me a pap smear and then wrote out a prescription.
IUDs have their own set of scary potential side effects, though. Including perforating the uterus during insertion or migrating out of the uterus. This is one of the forms of birth control that they'll warn could render you infertile, if it isn't put in correctly. Also, my doctor warned that it could cause months of bleeding. I considered it as post-baby birth control, but got spooked by all the negatives and just went back to the pill (which worked for me, before).
The CDC says the pill wins: https://www.guttmacher.org/fact-sheet/contraceptive-use-united-statesAren't condoms by far the most used pregnancy prevention method?!
The CDC says the pill wins: https://www.guttmacher.org/fact-sheet/contraceptive-use-united-states
I'm guessing among teens the condom wins, but I think men underestimate just how many sleezy guys there are out there who basically refuse to have anything to do with contraceptives. Even ignoring the jerks who refuse to wear a condom, there are a lot who would never have anything to do with something that affects their sperm production. Their entire self image is based on their dick.
1k mg of some sort of testosterone every eight weeks sounds ridiculously low. No wonder dudes were getting depressed. Sounds like their nat test production shut down for quite a god damn while.
Wonder what the half-life on what they used was.
"Since 1982".
Yeah, I'm going to need a more modern sample size. Some shit has happened since 1982 and I'm willing to bet condom use has consistently increased in the wake of it.
N=320
Study basically worthless tbh for how many people may end up on this if approved
Birth control is tough. It's a shame there isn't a perfect solution yet. All solutions people have come up with so far have some dealbreaking flaw.
My girlfriend and I just use condoms. They're annoying because putting them on and taking them off interrupts the action. But the alternative is my girlfriend using the pill or an IUD, and neither of us wants her to have to go through that.
what?27 billion condoms was sold last year so saying birth control is mostly a burden of women seems incorrect.
I wonder if the standards for acceptable medicine have changed? I mean, if contraceptive pills for women were invented now, maybe they'd be deemed unacceptable as well?
I can't believe that this is being used as a tool to fuel conflict between genders.
Condoms are an inconvenience for both genders.
Its not dangerous because women have been taking them for decades now, with worse side-effects apparently. So yes, if it works and the side effects are even less than womans birth control it should be put on the market. If there is a better option, sure, that would be nice, but clearly that is still many years away, so withholding this option really is unfair to women.Some of the arguments here are really crappy. "I suffered through similar shit when I start BC, therefore men should too" is a thoughtless argument. It reminds me of those "we shouldn't raise the minimum wage because I had to work to X first!" arguments.
Making more shitty birth control, but this time for men, doesn't solve the issue that we need better birth control. Shoveling out another unstable solution for seemingly no other reason than you want men to suffer just as much as you do both does nothing more than serve to create unnecessary problems and reeks of pure schadenfreude. Do the current solutions available put more of the weight on a woman? Yes. Does that mean we should haphazardly throw dangerous drugs out on the market to even the scale, purely out of spite? Of course not.
got people to click the link though didn't it?
You have no idea how any of this works.
Not to mention, they're the only method of birth control to protect against unwanted pregnancies and STD's.I think condoms (the one for men) are the best method thus far and really have yet to be topped. By best, I mean with the least number of harmful side effects for both partners, but that's my view not a fact.
Where is that method where they inject something into your balls? Still in the (early) testing phase I pressume. Because I am desperately waiting for that one.
Vasagel will be out 2018 at the earliest.
No, I wasn't referring to tests. By screen, I meant ask pertinent questions about family history, smoking history, and medical history primarily to identify patients at increased risk of adverse eventsI don't think it's common to do any tests. At least, in my personal experience, they just gave me a pap smear and then wrote out a prescription.
glad tey talked about it in the article themselves....also release that shit, now. I want it!
Its not dangerous because women have been taking them for decades now, with worse side-effects apparently. So yes, if it works and the side effects are even less than womans birth control it should be put on the market. If there is a better option, sure, that would be nice, but clearly that is still many years away, so withholding this option really is unfair to women.
Wasn't there one attempted suicide associated with this two? I'm sure the article I read on the study noted the suicide (which was unrelated) and an attempted suicide which was relate to the study -I'd assume due to the side effects? or scrutiny?
Its an interesting study and one I've been interested in for years - my interest started out due to mistrust of an Ex, who 'forgot' to take contraceptives quite frequently, so I wanted something other than condoms that I could control. but the reasoning developed overtime as I matured into wanting to control my own options and a sort of "why should women have to be the sole one responsible for this" attitude
The side effects are interesting and whilst not ideal I'd hope they would continue to research this
Wasn't there one attempted suicide associated with this two? I'm sure the article I read on the study noted the suicide (which was unrelated) and an attempted suicide which was relate to the study -I'd assume due to the side effects? or scrutiny?
Its an interesting study and one I've been interested in for years - my interest started out due to mistrust of an Ex, who 'forgot' to take contraceptives quite frequently, so I wanted something other than condoms that I could control. but the reasoning developed overtime as I matured into wanting to control my own options and a sort of "why should women have to be the sole one responsible for this" attitude
The side effects are interesting and whilst not ideal I'd hope they would continue to research this
Results: Of the 320 participants, 95.9 of 100 continuing users (95% confidence interval [CI], 92.8
97.9) suppressed to a sperm concentration less than or equal to 1 million/mL within 24 weeks
(Kaplan-Meier method). During the efficacy phase of up to 56 weeks, 4 pregnancies occurred
among the partners of the 266 male participants, with the rate of 1.57 per 100 continuing users
(95% CI, 0.59 4.14). The cumulative reversibility of suppression of spermatogenesis after 52 weeks
of recovery was 94.8 per 100 continuing users (95% CI, 91.597.1). Themost common adverse events
were acne, injection site pain, increased libido, and mood disorders. Following the recommendation
of an external safety review committee the recruitment and hormone injections were terminated
early.
Conclusions: The study regimen led to near-complete and reversible suppression of spermatogenesis.
The contraceptive efficacy was relatively good compared with other reversible methods available
for men. The frequencies of mild to moderate mood disorders were relatively high. (J Clin
Endocrinol Metab 101: 0000 0000, 2016)
There was 1 death by suicide in the efficacy phase that
was assessed as not related to the study regimen. The participant
received 3 injections and committed suicide 1
month after the last injection. The family indicated that he
could not cope with his academic pressure. Other nonfatal
serious AEs were 1 case of depression (assessed as probably
related) and 1 case of intentional paracetamol overdose (assessed as possibly related) during the suppression
phase, as well as 1 case of tachycardia with paroxysmal
atrial fibrillation (assessed as possibly related) during the
recovery phase. Ten other serious AEs were assessed as not being related to the study regimen.
Especially when the person doing so is seemingly lying about the data to make her case.I can't believe that this is being used as a tool to fuel conflict between genders.
The CDC says the pill wins: https://www.guttmacher.org/fact-sheet/contraceptive-use-united-states
I'm guessing among teens the condom wins, but I think men underestimate just how many sleezy guys there are out there who basically refuse to have anything to do with contraceptives. Even ignoring the jerks who refuse to wear a condom, there are a lot who would never have anything to do with something that affects their sperm production. Their entire self image is based on their dick.
Didn't realise that there was a prevalent amount of men that refuse to wear condoms. The only one I knew like that basically did it to himself by doing so much drugs that he could barely keep it up even bareback.
I agree with the posters on here that we should be encouraging women off birth control with harmful side effects rather than getting men to start taking them too. Had 2 exes on the pill, and the hormonal changes were startling. Wouldn't want my current GF or daughters to be on them if at all possible.
The mini-Pill remains one of the most popular methods of birth control – though it's still nowhere near as widely-used as the 'ordinary' Pill.
The big difference between the mini-Pill and the Pill, is that the mini-Pill contains only one hormone instead of two.
This makes it milder than the regular combined Pill. It's often referred to as the 'progestogen-only Pill' or 'POP'.
This is because the female-type hormone it contains is a progestogen (known in the USA as a 'progestin'). There is no oestrogen in the mini-Pill.
The mini-Pill is really a very good method of contraception. It's been around since 1973, and during that time it has proved remarkably safe to use.
How does it work?
The mini-Pill:
thickens your cervical mucus, so that it's more difficult for sperms to get through
thins the lining of your womb, therefore making it much less likely that an ovum (egg) will implant there
affects the motility in your Fallopian tubes, thus reducing the chances of fertilisation
in some instances, prevents ovulation (egg release) – this is particularly so with Cerazette.
What are the mini-Pill's advantages?
The main advantages of the POP are:
it has fewer side-effects than the combined Pill
it can be taken at any age (unlike the combined Pill, which is generally 'phased out' after the age of 35)
it can be taken by breastfeeding women
it can be taken by smokers
it doesn't raise your blood pressure
it can help to ease PMT (pre-menstrual tension).
Are there any drawbacks?
The main drawbacks of the mini-Pill are the following.
It doesn't control your periods, in the way that the combined Pill does.
It's slightly less effective than the ordinary Pill.
It's not always effective in preventing ectopic pregnancies.
It may not be as effective in women who weigh over 70 kilogrammes (11 stone).
You have to remember to take it at roughly the same time each day (within three hours. In the case of the older mini-Pills).
You have to remember to take it at roughly the same time each day (within three hours. In the case of the older mini-Pills).
Vasectomy is the way to go.
Then if you need kids you can just adopt.
No, I wasn't referring to tests. By screen, I meant ask pertinent questions about family history, smoking history, and medical history primarily to identify patients at increased risk of adverse events
Not a health expert but Ive always thought birth control 'balanced out" hormone levels in women??