Donate

Vasectomies down


#21

Thanks Ethan. I will have to digest some of that as the part you quoted doesn’t make complete sense to me. I know wiki’s get edited regularly, and it makes me wonder if that part needs to be, lol.


#22

I hadn’t read that part before either, this product really needs to reach general availability and completely obsolete vasectomy and all it’s problems as soon as possible.


#23

Yes, it is not clear what is going on.

The wiki makes it sound like the sperm exit the body but are damaged when passing through the polymer. The parsemus webpage makes it sound like the sperm cannot get through the polymer at all, but smaller particles and fluid could get through which one could imagine might reduce pressure accumulation.

Maybe there are other RISUG techniques that allow the sperm through, but vasalgel does not?


#24

This would be an important contribution of websites like this one. People don’t care about vasalgel because they do not realize how risky vasectomy is.

If vasalgel has less complications than vasectomy, and if this website could inspire more men to volunteer to try vasalgel and could get it here quicker, that would be a major win.


#25

I honestly have no idea. Given the bit I read earlier today, and if what I read was factually correct, I obviously don’t know as much about RISUG, and/or vaselgel as I presumed I did, or, there’s something factually incorrect regarding the information we are referencing as fact in that literature.

I certainly wouldn’t encourage anyone to give it a whirl until we get our facts straight regarding any of these types of alternatives to vasectomy. All this stuff about fluid, and/or immotile sperm traveling through the obstruction somehow is a new one on me.

If it is indeed an obstruction type procedure like I’ve always thought it was, it definitely has the capability to screw some men up big time on the congestive end of things at minimum.


#26

If RISUG is needle only it has potential. Otherwise it’s bunk.


#27

Weird that this is not widely available or on the market yet, it’s such a simple concept.


#28

I guess the problem will likely be that this is a new “medical device”, vasectomy is a very old surgery invented by testing it on dogs in the 1830’s (!!), so dates prior to modern standards. If vasectomy was subjected to modern standards and complication analysis it seems unlikely with it’s known but little discussed negative statistics that it might be in use today…

From what I have read previously medical devices such as this will have an associated product vendor, extensive modern era testing procedures, certification, potential corporate legal liabilities for complications, pregnancy etc. Whereas in spite of the obvious relatively high occurance of chronic pain problems being caused by vasectomy, due to its era of origin and the fact is is vendor “product” free & established surgery, it has none of those requirements and associated vendor legal risks.


#29

Yes, was reading article about it, it said that it needs to pass rigorous tests and ensure no side effects. They recon that it’s still 10 years away.

And thinking that some reports say 40% complication rates with vasectomy, and this practice is still allowed, it’s absolutely maddening.


#30

I hear you. I would not want to be a guinea pig for this sort of thing, and I would not tell a man who has decided not to get a vasectomy that he should consider getting an experimental procedure.

That said, what I meant was that there are some men who wish to be surgically sterilized one way or another, and who currently have the mistaken notion that vasectomy has no significant risks. Some of these men, after realizing that vasectomy actually does carry significant risks, might decide that they would prefer to try vasalgel, even though it is experimental. Since we would learn from their experiences, and since it seems plausible that they might have a better outcome than vasectomy patients, I think that would be a good thing.


#31

I hear you @Ethan_Scruples.

I do think there’s some “potential” positive benefits regarding these experimental, and/or in clinical trials procedures as I mentioned in the link I posted earlier in this thread to the “vaselgel and/or RISUG may shed some light on things” thread I created some time ago.

Unfortunately, what sounds good isn’t always good. As of last week, some of us are continuing to learn more about stuff we don’t understand regarding these alternative procedures to vasectomy.

I’ve always heard that the reversible aspect regarding these new obstruction type procedures is likely hyped up into something it likely isn’t. What will those statistics look like? Who knows.

I do have several concerns regarding the supposed easily reversible aspect with these new methodologies. Now we have this new information regarding the possibility of fluid or immotile sperm somehow passing through the obstruction. If there’s any truth to that, does this get clogged over time? What’s to stop it from clogging up if that is the case?

Seems what I read suggests that the obstruction/s may fail by the 10~ year mark. That’s definitely a potential con vs traditional vasectomy. I see a need for check up’s, evaluations, etc to be certain men don’t spontaneously become fertile again and not know it, causing an unexpected pregnancy, etc.

The needle used to inject a substance into the inner lumens may lead to scarring. Some people may not think so, but when we are talking about injecting something into a lumen that’s comparable to a human hair in many cases, I see this to be problematic. This coming from someone thats had two microsurgical reversals that both scarred over at some point.

The reversible aspect is no different. Another needle into the inner lumens, and potential for more scarring. And what if it doesn’t dissolve the obstruction the first time? More needle’s, potential for more scarring, etc.

I still tend to strongly believe that these alternative’s would likely have better outcomes than traditional vasectomy, or other surgical sterilization procedures methodologies providing they were performed properly. One would think that if there’s no more cutting the vas deferens, electrocauterization, facial interposition, hemoclips, vas clips, and so on, a lot of trauma would no longer take place, and that alone would eliminate many factors, possibilities, etc, regarding potential reasons for why many men have so many negative complications, pvp, pvps, etc.

Tack on the fact that many men wouldn’t feel disconnected like they do via traditional vasectomy, once again, I definitely see potential for better outcomes.

Unfortunately, and as I’ve already mentioned, I don’t see these procedures solving pvp, pvps, complications that are inherent with an obstruction within the vas deferens, specifically on the congestive end of things.


#32

Figured I’d also mention that I don’t see these alternative procedures solving what many would refer to as the hormonal aspect, and the congestive end of the spectrum includes bacterial epididymis, prostate issues, and then some.

I may see some pros to these alternative procedures, but I certainly see many negatives as well.

Also, far as I know, all versions of a male birth control pill that have been evaluated, tested, etc, and are considered toxic to a man’s system.

Far as I know, and that includes things (male birth control pills) that have been posted on this site, there is no safe male birth control pill available as of now.