Hi Jim,

I acknowledge your point of view, and the many arguments you advance in
favor of heat-based contraception.

We discourage self-experimentation because we are concerned that
someone who has not done their homework might cause themselves serious
harm while attempting heat-based contraception, and then feel that our
website failed to adequately warn them of the potential risks involved.

I will freely admit that we do not have a comprehensive body of
information on the risks associated with hot water baths. The quoted
section on Hazards of Testicular Heating referred to internal scrotal
temperature, as opposed to external water temperature, and described
effects in rats, not humans. The point was simply to show that there is
evidence that a risk exists, not to quantify that risk precisely.

I encourage you to put any further information you uncover about
heat-based contraception online. If you would like you can submit a
page to us and we will consider putting it in our heat methods section.
Alternately, if you send us a URL to your own site, we will be glad to
link to it.

Especially without clear information on the level of risk, we feel that
it is important for us to err on the side of caution. I hope you at
least understand why we are taking this position, even if it is not one
you agree with. I also hope you realize that we are not likely to
change this policy - so posting your own material would be a more
constructive use of time than repeatedly attempting to persuade us to
change ours.

Regards,

- Joe

--- jp40177 <jp40177@...> wrote:
> 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...
>
>
> ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
>
> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> malecontraceptives-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
> http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>


__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
HotJobs - Search Thousands of New Jobs
http://www.hotjobs.com