The device tracks progesterone levels via saliva. It's currently possible to track those levels via urine or blood, but saliva is probably the most convenient.
But here's the catch. If you desire to avoid pregnancy, you avoid sexual activity during the fertile window that the device indicates. This is known as a fertility awareness method, and in Catholic circles it's also known as natural family planning.
It is not a contraceptive in the sense that it allows you to have sex during the fertile part of your cycle but not get pregnant.
We were discussing this in a different thread and apparently the studies surrounding that approach did not account for confounding factors at all (alcohol use, stable couple and so on), so the data is not as reliable.
Also forgive my skepticism, there is no money to be made for the contraceptive industry, so of course they will not finance it (unless they sell diapers too).
Its a lot more complex than period tracking, and requires a higher level of trust.
The existence of free software has never been an insurmountable barrier to selling software.
People sell both hardware and software. From one of the sites another comment replying to me linked to: "Unless you have a health savings account or a flexible spending account, Mira is expensive. A basic starter kit retails at $199, which includes 10 LH and E3G wands, and then a resupply of those wands costs just under $60 per month with a subscription. If you want to go with the “Max” starter kit, which also includes PdG wands, the price goes up to $229 for the kit and $80 per month for the subscription."
> Contemporary, evidence-based methods of natural family planning track the various phases of a woman’s cycle each month via observable biomarkers, such as hormone levels (taken from a urine sample gathered first thing in the morning), basal body temperature (taken by mouth first thing in the morning), patterns of cervical mucus (observed during bathroom visits throughout the day), or a combination thereof. You’ll find the studies that produced the following effectiveness rates linked in the descriptions below.
> The Symptothermal Method (STM) combines basal body temperature (BBT) readings with observations of cervical mucus and sometimes that of the cervix itself. The perfect use rate for this method is 0.4%, and the typical use rate is 1.8%.
> The Billings Ovulation Method uses cervical mucus observations to determine when a woman is fertile and when she is infertile. This universal method has been successfully taught to populations with low literacy rates, little access to technology, and even those who are visually impaired. With perfect use, the failure rate is 1%, and with typical use, it’s 10%.
> The Creighton Model is another method which relies on the categorization of observed cervical mucus. Creighton uses color-coded stickers to interpret a woman’s chart. With perfect use, the method’s failure rate is 0.5%. With typical use, the failure rate is 4%.
> The Marquette Model utilizes a ClearBlue Easy Fertility Monitor to track levels of luteinizing hormone (LH) and estrogen in the urine. Variations on the method use cervical mucus or BBT in conjunction with hormone readings. With perfect use, the failure rate is 0.1%; with typical use, it’s 7%. Marquette Method researchers are currently developing protocols for use of the Mira fertility monitor.
> The Two Day Method is a method in which a woman asks herself if she noticed any cervical secretions today or yesterday. If either answer is “yes,” then she understands herself to be fertile. If both answers are no, she understands herself to be infertile. The perfect use failure rate is 4%, while the typical use rate is 14%. Though this method, in particular, sounds simple (and it is!), it is always best to learn any method from a trained instructor.
The source you cite lacks an independent source for the Marquette model claims, and only single studies (cherry picked?) for the others. A recent Chochrane review states "the comparative efficacy of fertility awareness‐based methods for contraception remains unknown."
I’m sure some people suffer from negative side effects, they’ve just never been described as anything but good to me by the women involved (mainly less intense periods).
A long, long time ago I worked for a pharma company that had a very large diagnostics division. hCG tests were their bread and butter.
It was proposed more than once that the pregnancy testing systems could easily be converted to a conception advisor. The lawyers immediately swooped in and feared that people would use it as a birth control system (e.g. go for it on the days it says you're NOT fertile). The liability was too much for them to take.
Now that women delay their first pregnancy till their early thirthies, they often experience problems with getting pregnant when they are ready for it, especially when they are having a busy life with a job. Knowing when you are fertile, which is in the days before the egg is releases, is important knowledge if you want to become pregnant. The stress related to not getting pregnant makes things worse. Many IVF treatments could be avoided if women had a simple and reliable method for knowing when they are fertile.
Huh? This is not at all accurate. There are simple and reliable methods, they're used all the time.
I promise you, women understand their cycles quite well and absolutely nobody jumps right to IVF (which costs tens of thousands of dollars) without exhausting cheaper options first.
Also the old canard of "just relax and it will happen" is just that: an old wives tale.
€21/month [1], and that's only if you pony up €500 upfront for a 2-year subscription... otherwise the shortest commitment is for €33/month...
I wouldn't dare question the usefulness of this without much more reading, but the first impression I had when seeing the product page reminded me of the overpriced ink subscription for printers.
This is actually a crazy important development if the results can be reproduced in larger studies.
Hormonal contraceptives are absolutely terrible. None of my long term partners were happy with them—whether it was a hormonal implant, hormonal IUD or pill, the side effects have always been ridiculous.
In addition, WHO classified oral contraceptives as G1 carcinogens. So having a potential alternative is incredibly important.
It is insane to me that as a society, we’re fine asking women to “just take drugs” that mess with their reproductive system, affecting their mood, sleep, weight, libido, and blood pressure (and most likely a lot more I’m not aware of).
My wife asked herself for her IUD, and it made a huge positive difference for her. Her goal was just pain relief; we don’t need contraceptives since I got a vasectomy after our second baby.
Our daughter also asked for contraceptives on her own, and for the same reasons (though the contraceptive part is a nice side-effect in her case).
No society asked either of them for this.
I don’t doubt your partners had bad experiences with contraceptives, but that’s not a universal problem, and it’s also why it’s important to discuss them with the right professional to make the best choice for each person.
I never said they had no uses! I’m glad they are effective in managing your family’s pains (I’ve experienced that as well, so I fully understand where you are coming from).
But that wasn’t really the discussion I was trying to start. I realise I made my point quite poorly.
I was lamenting the fact that because “female contraceptives” are a “solved problem”, there is basically no research or innovation in male contraceptives. See sibling thread.
I see what you mean now, I’m afraid I misunderstood you.
I never thought about male contraceptives other than condoms or a vasectomy, so I guess I’m part of the reason for the lack of research. That said, I suspect a contributing factor may be that female contraceptives can be used for other reasons (pain relief, having more predictable periods, etc) so that is also a big driving for research (some female contraceptives can be quite expensive). Of course, those side-effects are also what can make them unsuitable in many cases too.
Yeah, that was my point, but obviously not very clear. It feels to me like male contraceptive offerings are basically non-existent, and that there is basically no research/innovation in that field because it’s sort of expected that women will shoulder that burden.
I feel like it’s more that woman have a significantly higher incentive to make it happen.
Even if male contraceptives existed (in pill form), chances are they wouldn’t be nearly as effective, since the men just aren’t the ones that end up with the child if they’re acting unsafe. You’d be mostly relying on goodwill for your contraception.
Except that in many countries nowadays the father is very much on the hook for child support. It's not 100% perfect (I can imagine a few scenarios how it can fail), but birth control works best if everyone involved pays attention to this concern instead of being lazy and relying on the woman to take care of it.
Of course it works better if you are both paying attention. I never tried to say otherwise. I’m trying to say that, as a woman, you probably never want to rely on the man alone (at least, I think I’d feel more nervous if they baby would end up growing in me)
The options for men (besides condoms) are not much better.
I'm not asking my partner (I'm married) to take any hormones while I wouldn't take any myself.
The problem is that much medicine was developed by men for a long time.
Female doctors are a (relatively) recent development and I'm sure they the situation will improve over time (maybe not in trumpet America) in civilised parts of the world.
> The options for men (besides condoms) are not much better.
I have talked about it before, but silodosin prevents ejaculation (but not orgasm) in men, which can be seen as a contraceptive. It is non-hormonal, it is an alpha-blocker. You would have to experiment with it, however.
Catholics have been doing this for ages with urine tests. Ignoring any morality whatever, this 'tech' is really old. People malign it as the 'rhythm method'.
However, keep in mind that with the 'in-use' efficacy rate of 92%, about 1/12 couples using this method will fall pregnant in a year.
Hm, not having read the article yet I had a quick vision of a product which gives a person such bad halitosis that the chance of successful procreation is reduced to an absolute minimum. No pill required, indeed.
And more than a little Juicero energy, for a lateral flow strip:
“Inne’s technology uses a lateral flow strip similar to those used in COVID-19 or pregnancy tests. Users place a small amount of saliva on the strip, which contains antibodies that bind to progesterone hormones. The strip is then inserted into a matchbox-sized reading device that takes photos of the strip over 10 minutes, analysing how hormone particles move and develop across the strip.
The reader processes these photos using biochemistry and image processing techniques to determine hormone intensity, which is then synced to a companion mobile app.”
It must be some kind of EU approval or how would you explain
> Following the regulatory approval, Innie’s birth control is now available for purchase in Germany and Austria, with plans to expand to the UK later this year
I think that just the fact that you can buy it does not make it a medical device.
You can buy contraceptive devices such as a larger con you press between your knees (just kidding) but they would not be medically approved as contraceptives.
The headline is somewhat misleading.
The device tracks progesterone levels via saliva. It's currently possible to track those levels via urine or blood, but saliva is probably the most convenient.
But here's the catch. If you desire to avoid pregnancy, you avoid sexual activity during the fertile window that the device indicates. This is known as a fertility awareness method, and in Catholic circles it's also known as natural family planning.
It is not a contraceptive in the sense that it allows you to have sex during the fertile part of your cycle but not get pregnant.
Q: What do you call a couple that uses the rhythm method?
A: parents
Still great for couples who can follow it and don't want the downsides of all the other contraceptives
Even for them it has a high failure rate.
Its also being heavily promoted on social media as "natural" and safe without making people aware of the drawback.
We were discussing this in a different thread and apparently the studies surrounding that approach did not account for confounding factors at all (alcohol use, stable couple and so on), so the data is not as reliable.
Also forgive my skepticism, there is no money to be made for the contraceptive industry, so of course they will not finance it (unless they sell diapers too).
There is lot of money to be made from it - not least the high margin business of selling apps.
How can you sell any if there are millions free apps for tracking your period?
Its a lot more complex than period tracking, and requires a higher level of trust.
The existence of free software has never been an insurmountable barrier to selling software.
People sell both hardware and software. From one of the sites another comment replying to me linked to: "Unless you have a health savings account or a flexible spending account, Mira is expensive. A basic starter kit retails at $199, which includes 10 LH and E3G wands, and then a resupply of those wands costs just under $60 per month with a subscription. If you want to go with the “Max” starter kit, which also includes PdG wands, the price goes up to $229 for the kit and $80 per month for the subscription."
https://naturalwomanhood.org/femtech-device/
> Even for them it has a high failure rate.
Care to cite a source?
Here's a run-down of some modern methods:
> Contemporary, evidence-based methods of natural family planning track the various phases of a woman’s cycle each month via observable biomarkers, such as hormone levels (taken from a urine sample gathered first thing in the morning), basal body temperature (taken by mouth first thing in the morning), patterns of cervical mucus (observed during bathroom visits throughout the day), or a combination thereof. You’ll find the studies that produced the following effectiveness rates linked in the descriptions below.
> The Symptothermal Method (STM) combines basal body temperature (BBT) readings with observations of cervical mucus and sometimes that of the cervix itself. The perfect use rate for this method is 0.4%, and the typical use rate is 1.8%.
> The Billings Ovulation Method uses cervical mucus observations to determine when a woman is fertile and when she is infertile. This universal method has been successfully taught to populations with low literacy rates, little access to technology, and even those who are visually impaired. With perfect use, the failure rate is 1%, and with typical use, it’s 10%.
> The Creighton Model is another method which relies on the categorization of observed cervical mucus. Creighton uses color-coded stickers to interpret a woman’s chart. With perfect use, the method’s failure rate is 0.5%. With typical use, the failure rate is 4%.
> The Marquette Model utilizes a ClearBlue Easy Fertility Monitor to track levels of luteinizing hormone (LH) and estrogen in the urine. Variations on the method use cervical mucus or BBT in conjunction with hormone readings. With perfect use, the failure rate is 0.1%; with typical use, it’s 7%. Marquette Method researchers are currently developing protocols for use of the Mira fertility monitor.
> The Two Day Method is a method in which a woman asks herself if she noticed any cervical secretions today or yesterday. If either answer is “yes,” then she understands herself to be fertile. If both answers are no, she understands herself to be infertile. The perfect use failure rate is 4%, while the typical use rate is 14%. Though this method, in particular, sounds simple (and it is!), it is always best to learn any method from a trained instructor.
https://naturalwomanhood.org/topic/effectiveness-rates/
A trustworthy source IMO.
https://cks.nice.org.uk/topics/contraception-assessment/back...
The source you cite lacks an independent source for the Marquette model claims, and only single studies (cherry picked?) for the others. A recent Chochrane review states "the comparative efficacy of fertility awareness‐based methods for contraception remains unknown."
https://www.cochranelibrary.com/cdsr/doi/10.1002/14651858.CD...
Yeah, I thought about that while reading too. The big benefit of the contraceptive pill is that it allows you to not think about it at all.
Except that one has to take it daily and that one also experiences its side effects daily.
Read the article, they mention its side effects.
I’m sure some people suffer from negative side effects, they’ve just never been described as anything but good to me by the women involved (mainly less intense periods).
yeah, but there are a lot of side effects and not everyone can take it.
Ha only if you are male. There are many side effects.
There already exists a saliva-based method that's all but guaranteed to avoid pregnancy.
A long, long time ago I worked for a pharma company that had a very large diagnostics division. hCG tests were their bread and butter.
It was proposed more than once that the pregnancy testing systems could easily be converted to a conception advisor. The lawyers immediately swooped in and feared that people would use it as a birth control system (e.g. go for it on the days it says you're NOT fertile). The liability was too much for them to take.
Why would they be liable for off-label uses of their product?
Because this America and the tort system can let anyone sue for literally anything and win.
> up to 100% effective
That doesn't mean anything, 0% is included in “up to 100%”.
I think the stat was hedged because of this, further down:
> ...100% effective when used perfectly, and 92% effective for typical use.
That's still highly optimistic. Sperm can apparently live for days inside a woman in some instances.
Now that women delay their first pregnancy till their early thirthies, they often experience problems with getting pregnant when they are ready for it, especially when they are having a busy life with a job. Knowing when you are fertile, which is in the days before the egg is releases, is important knowledge if you want to become pregnant. The stress related to not getting pregnant makes things worse. Many IVF treatments could be avoided if women had a simple and reliable method for knowing when they are fertile.
Do not know, but AFAIK there are valid methods to meassure & detect the cycle valid, though most are not aware of?
Huh? This is not at all accurate. There are simple and reliable methods, they're used all the time.
I promise you, women understand their cycles quite well and absolutely nobody jumps right to IVF (which costs tens of thousands of dollars) without exhausting cheaper options first.
Also the old canard of "just relax and it will happen" is just that: an old wives tale.
€21/month [1], and that's only if you pony up €500 upfront for a 2-year subscription... otherwise the shortest commitment is for €33/month...
I wouldn't dare question the usefulness of this without much more reading, but the first impression I had when seeing the product page reminded me of the overpriced ink subscription for printers.
[1]: https://inne.io/products/minilab-subscription
In case anyone else is wondering, that's their page: https://inne.io/pages/contraception
This is actually a crazy important development if the results can be reproduced in larger studies.
Hormonal contraceptives are absolutely terrible. None of my long term partners were happy with them—whether it was a hormonal implant, hormonal IUD or pill, the side effects have always been ridiculous.
In addition, WHO classified oral contraceptives as G1 carcinogens. So having a potential alternative is incredibly important.
It is insane to me that as a society, we’re fine asking women to “just take drugs” that mess with their reproductive system, affecting their mood, sleep, weight, libido, and blood pressure (and most likely a lot more I’m not aware of).
My wife asked herself for her IUD, and it made a huge positive difference for her. Her goal was just pain relief; we don’t need contraceptives since I got a vasectomy after our second baby.
Our daughter also asked for contraceptives on her own, and for the same reasons (though the contraceptive part is a nice side-effect in her case).
No society asked either of them for this.
I don’t doubt your partners had bad experiences with contraceptives, but that’s not a universal problem, and it’s also why it’s important to discuss them with the right professional to make the best choice for each person.
I never said they had no uses! I’m glad they are effective in managing your family’s pains (I’ve experienced that as well, so I fully understand where you are coming from).
But that wasn’t really the discussion I was trying to start. I realise I made my point quite poorly.
I was lamenting the fact that because “female contraceptives” are a “solved problem”, there is basically no research or innovation in male contraceptives. See sibling thread.
I see what you mean now, I’m afraid I misunderstood you.
I never thought about male contraceptives other than condoms or a vasectomy, so I guess I’m part of the reason for the lack of research. That said, I suspect a contributing factor may be that female contraceptives can be used for other reasons (pain relief, having more predictable periods, etc) so that is also a big driving for research (some female contraceptives can be quite expensive). Of course, those side-effects are also what can make them unsuitable in many cases too.
Men still rape so we'll never be able to get rid of contraceptives for women. Besides women would have to trust men to take the pill.
> women would have to trust men to take the pill
the same is valid the other way around.
My wife is very happy with her IUD. She had terrible menstrual pains and now it's all gone, including the blood (and related surprises).
So it depends on the person.
I would be super happy to use similarly effective male contraceptives.
Yeah, that was my point, but obviously not very clear. It feels to me like male contraceptive offerings are basically non-existent, and that there is basically no research/innovation in that field because it’s sort of expected that women will shoulder that burden.
I feel like it’s more that woman have a significantly higher incentive to make it happen.
Even if male contraceptives existed (in pill form), chances are they wouldn’t be nearly as effective, since the men just aren’t the ones that end up with the child if they’re acting unsafe. You’d be mostly relying on goodwill for your contraception.
Except that in many countries nowadays the father is very much on the hook for child support. It's not 100% perfect (I can imagine a few scenarios how it can fail), but birth control works best if everyone involved pays attention to this concern instead of being lazy and relying on the woman to take care of it.
Of course it works better if you are both paying attention. I never tried to say otherwise. I’m trying to say that, as a woman, you probably never want to rely on the man alone (at least, I think I’d feel more nervous if they baby would end up growing in me)
> I feel like it’s more that woman have a significantly higher incentive to make it happen.
They also had to fight for this right like crazy, mostly against men but also other women
The options for men (besides condoms) are not much better.
I'm not asking my partner (I'm married) to take any hormones while I wouldn't take any myself.
The problem is that much medicine was developed by men for a long time.
Female doctors are a (relatively) recent development and I'm sure they the situation will improve over time (maybe not in trumpet America) in civilised parts of the world.
> The options for men (besides condoms) are not much better.
I have talked about it before, but silodosin prevents ejaculation (but not orgasm) in men, which can be seen as a contraceptive. It is non-hormonal, it is an alpha-blocker. You would have to experiment with it, however.
which society is that? who are those 'we'?
Catholics have been doing this for ages with urine tests. Ignoring any morality whatever, this 'tech' is really old. People malign it as the 'rhythm method'.
However, keep in mind that with the 'in-use' efficacy rate of 92%, about 1/12 couples using this method will fall pregnant in a year.
Which, according to the article, is the exact same rate as oral birth control and much better than condoms.
‘Up to’ 100% effective is the most pointless description I’ve ever heard.
No, it can get worse. I've seen "up to X% off, or even more!" sometimes.
They’re both equally useless since the most useless X could be is… 100.
Hm, not having read the article yet I had a quick vision of a product which gives a person such bad halitosis that the chance of successful procreation is reduced to an absolute minimum. No pill required, indeed.
tldr: it's not contraception at all, just a cycle tracking app with salivary progesterone tests
And more than a little Juicero energy, for a lateral flow strip:
“Inne’s technology uses a lateral flow strip similar to those used in COVID-19 or pregnancy tests. Users place a small amount of saliva on the strip, which contains antibodies that bind to progesterone hormones. The strip is then inserted into a matchbox-sized reading device that takes photos of the strip over 10 minutes, analysing how hormone particles move and develop across the strip.
The reader processes these photos using biochemistry and image processing techniques to determine hormone intensity, which is then synced to a companion mobile app.”
> which is then synced to a companion mobile app.
So basically an even worse (for the users) form of tracking someone's cycle, in terms of privacy
Your comment reminded me of this 'digital' pregnancy test:
https://giddi.net/posts/a-look-inside-a-digital-pregnancy-te...
Yeah, it is a medical device and has been approved as such by the UK standard body. Not "Europe" by a far stretch and certainly not EU.
It must be some kind of EU approval or how would you explain
> Following the regulatory approval, Innie’s birth control is now available for purchase in Germany and Austria, with plans to expand to the UK later this year
I think that just the fact that you can buy it does not make it a medical device.
You can buy contraceptive devices such as a larger con you press between your knees (just kidding) but they would not be medically approved as contraceptives.