Gotta side with Imp here. I see no reason why any man should take this.
I'm very skeptical about the claims that it is safe and fully reversible, given that it is changing a significant part of how a man's body functions.
And, correctly used condoms have nearly the same effectiveness as this pill. So, why risk messing with your body's functionality when you don't have to?
I'm very skeptical about the claims that it is safe and fully reversible
As you should be. The media has been maliciously claiming that vasectomies are reversible, even though urologists have screaming until they're blue in the face to treat them as irreversible because the reverse procedure doesn't always work and gets less likely to work over time. Not to mention insurance almost never covers it.
Something I noticed off hand in my own life, women who were on the pill and then started families had mostly or all girls, while women who never used it had mostly/all boys. I joked that the pill is actually a "Shiksa breeding program" to shift society to blonde sex slaves for the dark masses. Now I read somewhere about Y chromosome sperm being more sensitive to biological damage and I really wonder sometimes...
Kinda want to start this as a meme on 4-chan like back in the day.
same, I would only see something like this necessarily if someone is so sex crazed that they can't control themselves from having sex on a whim when a condom might not be available to them, yet they still somehow want to have a child at some point maybe.
If it's hormone free then what is the mechanism? Saying what it's not doesn't tell me what it is. How is this supposed to function? Because I'd wager it's something equally as unholy and harmful as mRNA.
The new pill works by inhibiting retinoic acid receptor-alpha (RAR-alpha). This is a protein in a family of nuclear receptors that bind to retinoic acid, a derivative of vitamin A that plays a role in sperm formation. By blocking this pathway, YCT-529 consequently prevents sperm production.
This is what it's claiming. My instinct says that this isn't as bad as mRNA, but this area isn't my forte and I don't trust these clowns as far as I can throw them. The major problem is that regardless of how they do this it will be decades after it's approved before we find out about any nasty long term side effects, and that's on the off chance that those side effects aren't intentional.
It also plays a vital role in neurological development during the fetal stage. Impacting or inhibiting the RAR-alpha proteins in any way, and then attempting at a later stage in life to have kids, could result in severe neurological impairment of the fetus.
We won't know exactly how that all plays out until longitudinal studies appear.
Also, let's not forget how immunity manipulation played a pretty big role in the mRNA jabs.
Impacting or inhibiting the RAR-alpha proteins in any way, and then attempting at a later stage in life to have kids, could result in severe neurological impairment of the fetus.
I don't see how that could possibly happen. You wouldn't get sperm cells in that case and this drug effect reverses when you stop taking it. It's not editing the DNA that codes for these proteins, just temporarily disabling them.
Way more likely to either give you cancer or prevent cancer especially if you take it for a long time.
But I bet this contraceptive comes with a big warning not to let pregnant women look at the pill or even be in the same room.
You wouldn't get sperm cells in that case and this drug effect reverses when you stop taking it. It's not editing the DNA that codes for these proteins, just temporarily disabling them.
Well, that's what they say... but again we don't actually know. Kaarous brought up an excellent point about the means in which Inhibiting the RAR-alpha proteins takes place. Is it partial or full inhibitor? Are there signs of linkage mutation? Does it work like a viral inhibitor? Can it bind to work as a multi-variant inhibitor of other proteins?
Way more likely to either give you cancer or prevent cancer especially if you take it for a long time.
This I absolutely agree with, because some partial inhibitors can do exactly that by mutating and evolving into potential cancer cells:
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34519269/
This goes back to my concerns over longitudinal studies... because if there are lasting inhibitory factors associated with the RAR-alpha, or potentially induced inhibitory factors to other proteins from partial inhibition, then yes we could see some serious side-effects in the long-term.
And again, we don't have any longitudinal studies to know for sure if there will be partial reactivation, full reactivation, partial inhibition, or full inhibition of the proteins and how that may affect mutating effects or potential long-term effects, until we know for sure exactly how its being inhibited and through what means.
This goes to the biggest of my two main objections to the mRNA vaccine:
You just can't alter a complex system without unknown side effects. You can do your best to make it problem-free, but ultimately you just have to test it (really well) and see what happens. A normal vaccine is just the immune system doing it's normal job of recognizing and removing something new and even still things can sometimes go wrong.
The other being that there was no mechanism for the mRNA only infect arm muscle cells. Like who thought that was a good idea?!
Which still begs the question, how are they saying this is supposed to work? The listed effect is to degrade a protein binding amino acid, sure. But they go out of the way to not explain how that is done and that is worthy of suspicion from anyone with two working eyes.
You claim that various countries are controlled by feminists. If that's true, they don't need a "chance", only to be fooled by a mentally ill tranny on the internet. Noone needed a "chance" to create sarin or weaponized smallpox. You fucking histrionic pooner.
But Africans are the problem. Sure. The last bastion against globohomo's LGBT agenda need to be eliminated by the pro-LGBT Western powers. Very very "based".
Yes, they would benefit from Western powers leaving them alone to develop as they should. The "poor Africans starving" is a Western myth made up so Westerners could virtue signal in the 1980s. Look at us giving money to charities that redirect money to Western food giants and undermine food production in Africa. We are such "good people".
Are there starving Africans? Sure. Is the whole continent starving? Not even close.
The hilarious thing about this is all the women saying "I will never trust a man to take this!" It's all projection. Never believe a woman when she says she was on the pill and still got pregnant, she's just a liar.
Anyway, pulling out is effective for everyone who isn't black.
That's why it's such a shame that we'll never be able to trust any male birth control that comes out. I'd love a way to foil baby trapping whores that isn't as permanent as a vasectomy, but the wokies in the medical industrial complex can't be trusted.
MGTOW-types have been pining for artificial wombs, sex robots, and other technology that they think will "obsolete" women. I've been saying that all this technology that you guys think will save you will be controlled by DEI-loving corporations for a while. Technology, the market, etc. aren't going to "liberate" you.
There's a terrible article about this from The Guardian, so I used a source that's hopefully less shitty than that feminist propaganda outlet. I'm wondering what the catch here is. The gynocracy isn't going to put a damper on women's ability to baby trap men and steal their resources without something horrible for men being part the deal. They seem to be laying the groundwork for claiming that it's Safe and Effective, so it it's looking like another clotshot situation.
Brave New World is the future. It will take a while for all this to be approved and normalized and by then Agenda 2030 will be well underway. Men, you can have all the sex you want as long as you stay in the pod and eat the bugs.
I'm sure that there will be no adverse side effects...
Screwing with stuff like this, even without hormones is always a put off to me, as we have seen what Birth-Control does to women, I'm sure this will screw up men big time as well.
I was just thinking about you and your claims about the clotshot when I wrote my comment. Since it's only aimed at men they're not going to give a shit about any side effects. The "racist conspiracy theory" part of my mind has me thinking that those side effects will be intentional. Women aren't going to give up their baby trapping abilities for nothing.
Gotta side with Imp here. I see no reason why any man should take this.
I'm very skeptical about the claims that it is safe and fully reversible, given that it is changing a significant part of how a man's body functions.
And, correctly used condoms have nearly the same effectiveness as this pill. So, why risk messing with your body's functionality when you don't have to?
As you should be. The media has been maliciously claiming that vasectomies are reversible, even though urologists have screaming until they're blue in the face to treat them as irreversible because the reverse procedure doesn't always work and gets less likely to work over time. Not to mention insurance almost never covers it.
Something I noticed off hand in my own life, women who were on the pill and then started families had mostly or all girls, while women who never used it had mostly/all boys. I joked that the pill is actually a "Shiksa breeding program" to shift society to blonde sex slaves for the dark masses. Now I read somewhere about Y chromosome sperm being more sensitive to biological damage and I really wonder sometimes...
Kinda want to start this as a meme on 4-chan like back in the day.
same, I would only see something like this necessarily if someone is so sex crazed that they can't control themselves from having sex on a whim when a condom might not be available to them, yet they still somehow want to have a child at some point maybe.
that's a very niche demographic.
If it's hormone free then what is the mechanism? Saying what it's not doesn't tell me what it is. How is this supposed to function? Because I'd wager it's something equally as unholy and harmful as mRNA.
This is what it's claiming. My instinct says that this isn't as bad as mRNA, but this area isn't my forte and I don't trust these clowns as far as I can throw them. The major problem is that regardless of how they do this it will be decades after it's approved before we find out about any nasty long term side effects, and that's on the off chance that those side effects aren't intentional.
It could be, though, because it can affect the immune system, as it can alter the regulation of immunity cells:
It also plays a vital role in neurological development during the fetal stage. Impacting or inhibiting the RAR-alpha proteins in any way, and then attempting at a later stage in life to have kids, could result in severe neurological impairment of the fetus.
We won't know exactly how that all plays out until longitudinal studies appear.
Also, let's not forget how immunity manipulation played a pretty big role in the mRNA jabs.
Yeah, like I said this isn't my forte. It's not like I would have trusted them anyway, but this is good information.
I don't see how that could possibly happen. You wouldn't get sperm cells in that case and this drug effect reverses when you stop taking it. It's not editing the DNA that codes for these proteins, just temporarily disabling them.
Way more likely to either give you cancer or prevent cancer especially if you take it for a long time.
But I bet this contraceptive comes with a big warning not to let pregnant women look at the pill or even be in the same room.
Well, that's what they say... but again we don't actually know. Kaarous brought up an excellent point about the means in which Inhibiting the RAR-alpha proteins takes place. Is it partial or full inhibitor? Are there signs of linkage mutation? Does it work like a viral inhibitor? Can it bind to work as a multi-variant inhibitor of other proteins?
This I absolutely agree with, because some partial inhibitors can do exactly that by mutating and evolving into potential cancer cells: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34519269/
This goes back to my concerns over longitudinal studies... because if there are lasting inhibitory factors associated with the RAR-alpha, or potentially induced inhibitory factors to other proteins from partial inhibition, then yes we could see some serious side-effects in the long-term.
There have been some cases where reactivating proteins doesn't always work: https://jeccr.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s13046-022-02269-6
And again, we don't have any longitudinal studies to know for sure if there will be partial reactivation, full reactivation, partial inhibition, or full inhibition of the proteins and how that may affect mutating effects or potential long-term effects, until we know for sure exactly how its being inhibited and through what means.
This goes to the biggest of my two main objections to the mRNA vaccine:
You just can't alter a complex system without unknown side effects. You can do your best to make it problem-free, but ultimately you just have to test it (really well) and see what happens. A normal vaccine is just the immune system doing it's normal job of recognizing and removing something new and even still things can sometimes go wrong.
The other being that there was no mechanism for the mRNA only infect arm muscle cells. Like who thought that was a good idea?!
Yeah I read that. See, that's the effect. They go out of their way to not say how and by what means they get there.
As my children would say, that is mad sus.
Which still begs the question, how are they saying this is supposed to work? The listed effect is to degrade a protein binding amino acid, sure. But they go out of the way to not explain how that is done and that is worthy of suspicion from anyone with two working eyes.
You claim that various countries are controlled by feminists. If that's true, they don't need a "chance", only to be fooled by a mentally ill tranny on the internet. Noone needed a "chance" to create sarin or weaponized smallpox. You fucking histrionic pooner.
Good, put it in the drinking water of every fucking African and Asian on the planet.
You know they'll do exactly the opposite, poison the white wells and import more darkies because of the "labor shortage"
Based.
This will backfire and be weaponized against other populations(read: Whites).
Meanwhile African bishops are opposed to the Vatican declaration on “the possibility of blessing couples in irregular situations and same-sex couples”, while bishops in European countries and the US are supporting the declaration.
But Africans are the problem. Sure. The last bastion against globohomo's LGBT agenda need to be eliminated by the pro-LGBT Western powers. Very very "based".
All those fucking migrants only exist because of Unicef and Bono.
That charity shit should have been OUTLAWED, and those motherfuckers left to fucking starve.
Yes, they would benefit from Western powers leaving them alone to develop as they should. The "poor Africans starving" is a Western myth made up so Westerners could virtue signal in the 1980s. Look at us giving money to charities that redirect money to Western food giants and undermine food production in Africa. We are such "good people".
Are there starving Africans? Sure. Is the whole continent starving? Not even close.
The hilarious thing about this is all the women saying "I will never trust a man to take this!" It's all projection. Never believe a woman when she says she was on the pill and still got pregnant, she's just a liar.
Anyway, pulling out is effective for everyone who isn't black.
That's why it's such a shame that we'll never be able to trust any male birth control that comes out. I'd love a way to foil baby trapping whores that isn't as permanent as a vasectomy, but the wokies in the medical industrial complex can't be trusted.
MGTOW-types have been pining for artificial wombs, sex robots, and other technology that they think will "obsolete" women. I've been saying that all this technology that you guys think will save you will be controlled by DEI-loving corporations for a while. Technology, the market, etc. aren't going to "liberate" you.
There's a terrible article about this from The Guardian, so I used a source that's hopefully less shitty than that feminist propaganda outlet. I'm wondering what the catch here is. The gynocracy isn't going to put a damper on women's ability to baby trap men and steal their resources without something horrible for men being part the deal. They seem to be laying the groundwork for claiming that it's Safe and Effective, so it it's looking like another clotshot situation.
Brave New World is the future. It will take a while for all this to be approved and normalized and by then Agenda 2030 will be well underway. Men, you can have all the sex you want as long as you stay in the pod and eat the bugs.
I'm sure that there will be no adverse side effects...
Screwing with stuff like this, even without hormones is always a put off to me, as we have seen what Birth-Control does to women, I'm sure this will screw up men big time as well.
Better solution: just don't fuck women that aren't legally your property.
Bye condoms. Finally men can plow for STDS without making a baby. /s
I was just thinking about you and your claims about the clotshot when I wrote my comment. Since it's only aimed at men they're not going to give a shit about any side effects. The "racist conspiracy theory" part of my mind has me thinking that those side effects will be intentional. Women aren't going to give up their baby trapping abilities for nothing.
The side effects will be "women most affected", somehow.