Talk:Reversible inhibition of sperm under guidance

message: Due to a lack of activity regarding improving the tone of the Advantages section, all comments in that section that did not cite their source were removed.  128.83.68.58 21:36, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  disputed "Advantages" section shrunk 

message: Once this form of contraception is released into the market, it could displace the use of condoms.
It's used in a totally different way and does not protect from STDs, so I can't just accept the above statement as a fact  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.78.167.76 (talk) 12:40, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Really, you can't logically see how a male contraceptive could ever be used by anyone as an alternative to condoms? Nachturnal (talk) 15:38, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  another advertisement like sentence 

message: It looks like the article has circa-2006 information. More recent developments can be found at the MCIP's page. (Perhaps we could get permission to just use their article). Vectro (talk) 15:44, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Out of Date 

message: Whoever wrote the following doesn't likely doesn't understand what the word hydride really means. Hydrolysis of an anhydride does not generally produce a hydride, it produces a diacid. 
"One explanation is that the polymer is an anhydride, and hydrolizes in the presence of water in the spermatic fluid. Due to the breaking of a cyclic group, the polymer becomes a hydride and has a positive charge."
50.156.1.102 (talk) 04:24, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Faulty explication of chemistry 

message: "though there are also unconfirmed reports of kidney problems"
'''
Article in THE HINDU newspaper claiming kidney side effects:
http://www.thehindu.com/2002/10/23/stories/2002102302860900.htm
2014 published scientific article in the Indian Journal of Medical Research disproving such claims:
http://www.icmr.nic.in/ijmr/2014/nov_supplement/1111.pdf
I recommend the sentence be deleted as no citation is provided originally and the article in THE HINDU does not rise to medical referencing standards.
amosabo  t@lk;  09:58, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Kidney problems 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Reversible inhibition of sperm under guidance. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20050317145639/http://www.lib.utah.edu:80/epubs/undergrad/vol6/peterson.html to http://www.lib.utah.edu/epubs/undergrad/vol6/peterson.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 21:03, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Reversible inhibition of sperm under guidance. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.dailypioneer.com/307917/Poor-response-from-male-volunteers-hits-RISUG-clinical-trial.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121014135626/http://www.parsemusfoundation.org/Parsemus/New_male_contraceptives.html to http://parsemusfoundation.org/Parsemus/New_male_contraceptives.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:56, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: The way the Mechanism of Action section is currently written reads as if 0.2 MGray is applied to the scrotum. This is clearly not true, maybe it can be written better? cannywizard (talk) 21:38, 26 February 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Radiation 

message: This is a copy of a section I took out of the article. 
--
Some of the advantages, according to Guha, are: 
* Effectiveness - There has been only one unplanned pregnancy among partners of the 250 volunteers who have been injected RISUG — apparently due to an improperly administered injection. Out of the 250 volunteers who have been injected RISUG, 15 received the injection more than 10 years ago. 
* Convenience - There is no interruption before the sexual act. 
* Cost - The shot itself costs less than the syringe used to administer it, and its long term effectiveness would make it theoretically only a four or five time cost, in the entire lifetime of someone who chose to continue to be on it. 
* Outpatient procedure - Patients can leave the hospital immediately after an injection and resume their normal sex lives within a week. 
* Duration of effect - A single 60 mg injection can be effective for at least 10 years. 
* Reduced side effects - After testing RISUG on more than 250 volunteers, neither Guha nor other researchers in the field report have reported any adverse side effects other than a slight scrotal swelling in some men immediately following the injection which goes away after a few weeks. Because semen, including inactive sperm, still exits the body following ejaculation, patients do not experience the pressure or granulomas that sometimes result after a vasectomy procedure. 
* Reversibility - The contraceptive action appears to be completely reversible by flushing the vas deferens with an injection of dimethyl sulfoxide or sodium bicarbonate solution. (The sodium bicarbonate solution cannot be used as the solvent in the initial injection since it would neutralize the positive charge effect). Although this reversal procedure has been tried only on non-human primates, it has been repeatedly successfully. Unlike in a vasectomy (see blood-testis barrier), the vas deferens is not completely blocked, the body does not have to absorb the blocked sperm, and sperm antibodies are not produced in large numbers, making successful reversal much more likely than with a vasovasostomy.
--
What I can source with appropriate resources that says these are advantages, I'll put back in. GBFEE (talk) 18:41, 14 September 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Why wouldn't these be advantages? 73.8.2.185 (talk) 08:25, 30 May 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Advantages 

message: The whole section seems to be not well sourced
"The thoroughness of carcinogenicity and toxicity testing in clinical trials had been questioned" -  questioned by whom? The cited article in the Wire mentions that someone sent a Xerox copy to the ICMR. The sentence in the Wiki makes it seem that the concerns were raised by someone competent not a supposedly anonymous letter.
"[...] he went to the Supreme court and the next round of clinical trials resumed afterwards" the two actions aren't as related as this sentence makes it seem. Again, it suggests that it was a Supreme Court decision that made it so that the trials resumed and doesn't mention the highly relevant fact that the Supreme Court didn't even consider the case nor does the wiki mention what exactly was Guha's petition. The precise information is also lacking in the The Wire article. 
"WHO and Indian researchers say that the studies were not done according to recent international standards." again, which researchers say that? And shouldn't the citation for this be an original source like a WHO report not an article in Wired? 
I'm not a Wikipedia editor so I may be wrong about some things but this section (and the article as a whole) doesn't inspire confidence in its validity. I understand that primary sources are also scarce and the information about the drug is also quite sketchy but I recon this should be reflected in the article. As it is I don't find the information about the procedure provided here to be reliable
31.61.224.21 (talk) 14:45, 18 August 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Safety section 

message: How can we ensure that there aren't influential "contributors" here who suppress inconvenient facts on behalf of third-parties who have vested interests in presenting a certain narrative or maintaining certain (false) perceptions about a topic or subject?
For example, why would this edit have been removed:
Never before in the history of pharmacology has there been a substance which has undergone the same kind of scrutiny and protracted evaluation process as RISUG has and, as such, is singularly unique, even though its effectiveness as a contraceptive was established decades ago.
On a related note, there has been a years-long campaign on this article to promote the false perception that men consider contraception to be a "women's issue" and are too lazy, reticent, etc. to take personal responsibility for their own fertility when there is evidence to the contrary, the contents of which has also been scrubbed from this page in the past. 73.8.2.185 (talk) 16:07, 14 June 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dubious "edits"