Altering how sperm develop could lead to a reversible male birth control
Blocking a certain protein in male mice prevented the rodents from impregnating any females
It may be possible to create male birth control by altering how sperm develop, according to new research published this week in Science. Researchers blocked a protein that plays a role in sperm production — and that was enough to render male mice temporarily infertile. Since drugs that alter this protein are already on the market, development of male birth control could happen swiftly if the method works in people too.
In the study, scientists genetically altered mice so the rodents’ reproductive cells didn’t express certain genes. This caused the male mice’s sperm to develop abnormally, preventing the sperm from fertilizing any eggs. Here’s the important part: the effect could be recreated using certain drugs.
Nowadays, the burden of birth control is usually placed on women, for whom many forms of hormonal birth control already exist. Currentlythe strongest option for men is a vasectomy, which prevents sperm from leaving the testes. This option, in addition to requiring a surgery, is mostly permanent. Condoms can be an option for men, but they can break and can also decrease sensitivity. Another product in development is called Vasalgel, which is awaiting approval by the Food and Drug Administration; it’s not permanent but does block sperm from passing through the penis for 10 years.
So an oral, reversible male contraceptive may be a much more attractive route for both men and women. It would also give couples more options to help decide which form of birth control works best for them.”The development of new approaches that will enable couples to share birth control responsibilities … has been an unmet need for a long time,” said Lee Smith, chair of genetic endocrinology at the University of Edinburgh, who was not involved in the study.
Read more HERE.
Dear ‘Gun Free Zone’ Campus Wizards: Nine Kids Died Because Of Your Stupid Policy
Last Friday night I was at my favorite cigar bar watching the news of the Umpqua Community College massacre. Like you, my buddies and I were pissed off, sad and sick to our stomachs. Three things, in particular, were ticking us off regarding this senseless slaughter.
They were …
1. Another “Gun Free Zone” Epic Fail.
2. Christians Were Targeted.
3. Apparently Only One Dude Out Of A Couple Of Dozen Fought Back.
Here’s my thoughts regarding the foul aforementioned.
GUN FREE ZONES.
I know this will be too difficult for your typical abecedarian leftist to grasp but … If there had been a good guy with a gun on campus, who was trained, licensed and allowed to carry, he could have sent that murderous spawn of Satan to an early hell where he could slow roast for all eternity. Boom. Problem solved.
Unfortunately, there was no concealed weapon in the possession of a concerned citizen to stop this demonic dipstick because guns are disallowed on that campus. How cute. How PC of UCC. I bet Obama really loves you.
Oh, by the way, your “gun free zone” rule was obviously a bad idea. Like in: “a very bad idea.” Like in: “Nine Christian kids were shot in the head”, bad idea.
Did you get that, Umpqua? Nine dead. As in one, two, three, four, five, six, seven, eight, nine … dead. All because you don’t value self-defense, the Second Amendment or the lives of the kids whose parents pay your bills.
If I were one of the parents who had my child senselessly slaughtered on your campus, I’d sue your politically correct butt off. I think places like yours should no longer be left off the litigious hook. You’re culpable because you could have prevented and yet … you didn’t. You chose stupidity over common sense and you should pay … heavily. I think a precedent should be set. Why not start with you, UCC?
Oh, I’m sorry. I forgot. You did do all you could do. Silly me. You had one Barney Fife security cop with pepper spray and a plastic badge to protect 3000 students when a mass-murderer, with multiple weapons, strode onto your campus ready to kill. Speaking of your security guard, where the heck was he when the crap was hitting the fan? Do tell.
This is simple: Gun Free Zones are target rich environments. That’s why I do not frequent them and I’d advise all those reading to do the same.
CHRISTIANS WERE TARGETED.
Dear Christian: Next time a killer asks you, “Are you a Christian?”, please kill that SOB for us all. If you’re unable to put him down and you’re around other Christians that he intends to slaughter, then have a pre-arranged pact that one of the brethren will grab the shooter and the other saints will beat and choke the Be-Jesus out of him. In Christian love, of course.
For those who think I’m being un-Christlike with that advice, I don’t believe that Jesus would have passively allowed for such a slaughter without opening up a giant, Big Gulp sized can of holy whup ass on the perp. And if for some weird reason the real Jesus would be against my advice, then he’s going to just have to forgive me because I don’t believe in letting a murderous ass-monkey rule and ruin innocent kids’ lives. Can I get a witness?!
Oh, and by the way, Obama didn’t seem to make too big of a deal over Christians being picked out and slaughtered, did he? Can you imagine his response if it were Muslim kids that were targeted?
ONLY ONE HERO FOUGHT BACK.
What has happened to our culture that one, lone Army vet, namely, Chris Mitz, fought back heroically trying to save other students. Sure he got shot, but there is no telling how many lives he saved grappling with the gun- wielding goon. What has happened to our culture is we have been systematically pussified. And that needs to change, STAT.
Parents, pastors and mentors please … for the love of God … teach your charges that there is this thing called “sacrifice” and that it is a virtue, especially when utilized in the saving of another precious life.
With that said, I think as long as schools and businesses are going to live with their heads up their backsides in “Gun Free Zones”, there should be “Mass-Murder Drills” mandated in all schools too daft to allow for concealed weapons.
I mean … why not? In my day, we had them for fire and tornadoes. Mass-murderers are killing way more than fire and twisters are so … why not have a plan for when a whiny dillweed disgraces your campus with ill-intent? One shooter cannot take on a classroom of thirty who won’t put up with his crap.
I know the above is not pretty or pleasant, but when foul zombies can walk into a classroom and kill innocent college students, as far as I’m concerned, the gloves have officially come off. My advice to students, professors and school administrators is to forego the pep rallies for a while and, instead, have a “Stomp the Sh*t Out Of The Next Perp Prep Rally.” You’ve got to unite. Develop a strategy.
Lastly, I can’t wait ’til the headlines read: “Killer walks into class to kill Christians and the Christians killed him instead.” Call me simple. Call me a redneck. Call me whatever the heck you wanna call me—but until we allow credible and licensed, proven and protective profs and students to carry a weapon on campus, we will see this murderous madness occur again and again and again.
Long live the right to keep and bear arms.
OBAMA GOES BEYOND MERE GUN CONTROL, HINTS AT CONFISCATION
When President Obama spoke in reaction to the heinous October 1 attack on Umpqua Community College, he went beyond his usual calls for more gun control and suggested instead that America consider following the path blazed by Australia and Great Britain.
In the mid-1990s Australia and Great Britain both instituted what were virtually complete bans on firearm possession.
Obama referenced the bans thus:
We know that other countries, in response to one mass shooting, have been able to craft laws that almost eliminate mass shootings. Friends of ours, allies of ours — Great Britain, Australia, countries like ours. So we know there are ways to prevent it.
And Obama is not the only one who suggested taking a gun-free approach to American life. The anti-Second Amendment message was also pushed by Slate, Vox, and Dan Savage.
For example, on October 1 Slate ran a story reminding readers that Australia enacted their gun ban in response to an attack on April 28, 1996, wherein a gunman “opened fire on tourists in a seaside resort in Port Arthur, Tasmania.” Thirty-five were killed and 23 others wounded in the attack. Twelve days later Australia’s government banned guns, period.
On October 2 Vox explained that Australia “confiscated 650,000 guns” via a “mandatory gun buyback” program which forced gun owners to hand their firearms over for destruction. Vox claims the result was that “murders and suicides plummeted’ and suggested such a path might be an option for America following “the murder of at least 10 people at Umpqua Community College.”
Vox did not mention that “firearm-related murder and non-negligent homicide” began plummeting in America in the mid-1990s as well. But in America, the decrease in violent crime did not correlate with a gun ban but with a rapid expansion in the number of guns privately owned. The Congressional Research Service reported that the number of privately owned firearms in America went from 192 million in 1994 to 310 million privately owned firearms in 2009. Subsequently, the “firearm-related murder and non-negligent homicide” rate fell from 6.6 per 100,000 in 1993 to 3.6 per 100,000 in 2000 and finally to 3.2 per 100,000 in 2011.
But none of this made any difference to Dan Savage, who responded to the attack on Umpqua Community College by calling for the Second Amendment’s repeal. Savage tweeted, “F**k the NRA, f**k the gun nuts, f**k the Second Amendment — better yet, repeal the Second Amendment.
Russian fighter jets have attacked 10 Islamic State targets in Syria in their latest airstrikes, destroying arms depots, training centers and infrastructure, Defense Ministry says. RT’s Murad Gazdiev has been taking a closer look at the fighter jets at a Russian air base in Syria.