Hi Arvan,

I just looked up the study you refer to:

Journal of Reproduction & Fertility 1982 65(1): 9-13
"An intravasal non-occlusive contraceptive device in rats."
Misro MM, Kaur H, Mahajan S, Guha SK.

This is the same team of researchers working on RISUG. My guess is
that they've abandoned this line of research in order to focus on
RISUG, which also disables sperm using an small electric charge.

You make a good point regarding the toxicity of RISUG versus the
biogalvanic cells. One of the RISUG researchers, when discussing the
toxicity of RISUG, used an analogy that stuck with me. He said that
the complex of DMSO and SMA is stable and nontoxic. He pointed out
that saying that RISUG is dangerous becasue its components are
dangerous it like saying table salt is toxic. Pure sodium is
explosively reactive, and chlorine gas is noxious. But table salt,
NaCl, is stable and nontoxic.

The removal of the biogalvanic cells would probably require scalpel
surgery, similar to the shug and injected plugs. Even if it takes as
long as 5 years for the cells to become oxidized and ineffective, a
man might undergo 6-10 replacement procedures during his reproductive
lifespan. I would consider this a major drawback of this method.

Kirsten

--- In malecontraceptives@yahoogroups.com, "bodhi_arvana
<bodhi_arvana@y...>" <bodhi_arvana@y...> wrote:
> Hello,
>
> I've been researching alternatives to vasectomy, and have come
> across a reference to a study done in 1982, which tested a small
> device consisting of two dissimilar metals inserted in the vas.
The
> idea is that when sperm passes between the metal electrodes, a
> galvanic current is created which kills the sperm.
>
> The device allows the sperm to pass through, so there is no danger
> of the body developing sperm antibodies, as with vasectomy, the
> shug, etc. And it's non-chemical, unlike RISUG, so has no danger
of
> toxicity.
>
> In other words, it seems like the PERFECT solution to male
> contraception. A simple implantation using the no-scalpel method,
> and you get almost immediate infertility, with total reversibility
> by removing the device. It would have a limited life, as one of
the
> electrodes would gradually oxidise, but even if it had to be
> replaced every few years, that would only be a minor drawback.
>
> So the question is, why hasn't any more research been done on this
> idea? I'm almost thinking of making a pair of the devices to
> implant on myself! If anyone knows anything more about this, I
> would love to hear about it!
>
> Arvan