Hi Joe,

Your comments of Voegeli are confusing. You began your message by
suggesting that even Voegeli herself was skeptical of her method, but
you ended by acknowledging her complete confidence.

I think that you were mistaken in suggesting that even Voegeli
herself offered room for permanent sterility from hot baths. You
quote Voegeli,

"Dr Voegeli herself admits that it was 'impossible to record
reliable statistics' ("Data on the Thermic Method for...") and says
that 'for solid statistical backing, I would like to see my method
subjected to test in a number of laboratories' ("On Overpopulation").

These quotes are out of context. WHEN was it impossible to record
reliable statistics? Was it in ALL circumstances, or just in SOME
circumstances, and in WHAT circumstances? What "solid statistical
backing" did Voegeli seek? Your comments make only innuendo, no
clear answers.

Voegeli did explain that collecting certain reliable field statistics
WAS difficult. But she cast no doubt on her LAB work. Moreover, the
field work was still important, because from the field work AND the
lab work comes one VERY RELIABLE statistic: Voegeli CLAIMED to have
researched her method for 30 years, in the lab and in the field, with
a large number of people, and during all of that time, and among all
of those people, NOT ONE PERMANENT STERILIZATION SURFACED!

From this one VERY RELIABLE statistic comes one VERY RELIABLE
conclusion: Either Voegeli CONCEALED cases of permanent sterility,
OR permanent sterility was VIRTUALLY NON-EXISTENT.

The possibility that Voegeli concealed permanent sterility, either
accidentally or deliberately, is the weak link in her research.
For "solid statistical backing", Voegeli's research, like any such
research, REQUIRES independent testing to resolve the competence and
credibility issue. So of course Voegeli called for independent
testing.

Voegeli's call for independent testing does not mean that she doubted
herself. To the contrary, Voegeli declared specifically,
unequivocally and emphatically that permanent sterility from her
method was impossible.

Your passage, Hazards of Testicular Heating, looks meticulous and
detailed. Indeed, it is easy to lose one's self in the detail and
overlook the absence of reference to hot bath, or to hot bath induced
sterility, or indeed to ANY description of HOW the "intra testicular
temperature" was controlled or measured. In any case, the passage
cites no hot bath induced sterility, so that Voegeli is still batting
1.000.

Do not misconstrue my criticism of your passage. The research IS
interesting, and I thank you for the citation. But the passage
simply does not address the hot bath method, even if it SEEMS to do
so.

On the other hand, Dr. Lissner claimed that the Japanese government
had conducted several successful Voegeli hot bath experiments.

Let us put the hot bath method in perspective. Hot water is not an
exotic material found mainly in research labs. It is not a
prescription item. Hot water is common; it flows straight from the
home faucet.

Home hot faucet water is often regulated to an adjustable setting
from 120F to 160F. In MY home, this regulator adjustment has seized
and is stuck at 120F. I commonly draw the hottest bath that I can,
whose initial temperature I recently found is 115F. I have been
doing this years, long before I ever heard of Voegeli. Doubtless,
plenty of men are bathing in water hotter than I use. Medical
science literature should have an abundance of permanent sterility
examples from simple use of home hot water. But evidently, you have
found no such examples.

And then there is the sauna, ubiquitous in Finland. These devices
operate at 150F and UP! Over 200F is possible, and the HIGHER end of
the scale is generally preferred in Finland. How does the population
of Finland manage to reproduce itself? Finland should have given you
a wealth of heat induced permanent sterility examples. Evidently, it
did not.

Commonplace heat sources made heat induced temporary sterility known
even to Hippocrates, 2400 years ago. If there were a THIN LINE
between TEMPORARY and PERMANENT sterility, then likewise, permanent
sterility would be common and well known. But it is not; you do not
have even ONE example.

Clearly, if you do not feel comfortable encouraging the hot bath
method, then you should not do so.

But you should not expressly discourage hot baths, either. You
should not demand an unusually high, and therefore unreasonable,
safety standard. You should not give prejudicial weight to studies
which seem to suggest a vague possibility of hazard. You should not
misrepresent the hot bath with out-of-context quotations. Perhaps
most importantly, you should not discount the hazards of the
alternatives; ALL hazards must be BALANCED--FOR EACH MAN AND BY EACH
MAN.

Currently, there are 4 AVAILABLE possibilities: The Voegeli hot
bath, the condom, the vasectomy, and reliance on the female partner.
Surely, you do not suggest that either condoms or vasectomy is safer
AND more reliable than Voegeli's hot bath. And as for relying on the
female partner, following is a passage of Christopher Peterson and
Margaret P. Battin, Department of Philosophy, University of Utah,
GENDER ROLES AND MALE CONTRACEPTION,
http://www.lib.utah.edu/epubs/undergrad/vol6/peterson.html

"It cannot be doubted that men gamble every day that the
contraception currently available to them will be sufficient to
protect their choices about when, how, and with whom to reproduce,
and every day men end up wrong. It might be teenage fathers who are
then forced to choose between abandoning either their partner and
child or their plans for the future. Or it might be late middle age
married fathers who are obliged to return to parenthood perhaps much
later in life than they wish to. A lack of contraceptive options for
men shapes and distorts the reproductive destiny of men every time
they engage in sexual intimacy with a partner where a potential for
conception exists."

Jim

--- In malecontraceptives@y..., Joe Wielgosz <jwielgos@y...> wrote:
> Hi JP,
>
> Firstly, Dr Voegeli herself admits...