Canadians are "Sponge-Worthy"

S07E09 The SpongeretroMar 4, 2003, 6:13 PM ET7 years later29 posts by 17 posters
📰 News

Fans discuss the real-world return of the Today Sponge contraceptive to Canadian markets, referencing its famous appearance in "The Sponge" episode where Elaine hoards the product.

29 posts
Geoff

Sponge contraceptive goes on sale again

Associated Press

The Today Sponge contraceptive is back on the market, eight years after it disappeared from drug store shelves in an alarming turn famously depicted on a Seinfeld episode.

The return of the sponge is expected to lead to bulk buying, and perhaps more spontaneous romance, among its fiercely loyal users.

Allendale Pharmaceuticals, a start-up business in New Jersey, bought rights to the Today Sponge from the drug company that discontinued it. Allendale began selling it this month through two Canadian Internet sites.

More sponges will hit the shelves at 4,000 pharmacies, Wal-Marts and other stores across Canada, according to Allendale. The manufacturer is hoping for Food and Drug Administration approval to sell them in U.S. stores within a year.

"I think there's just thousands of people out there waiting for it," said Marisa Dawson, a nurse in Ocoee, Fla., who is awaiting a dozen sponges she paid for in advance last spring.

Roughly 250 million polyurethane Today Sponges were sold from 1983 to 1995.

Originally made by a pharmaceutical giant now called Wyeth, it was taken off the market in 1995 after problems were found at the company's Hammonton factory. The FDA said the sponge's safety and effectiveness were never questioned. Wyeth simply stopped selling it rather than pay to upgrade its plant.

In a 1995 Seinfeld episode, Elaine runs around New York seeking the sponge, her favourite birth control. She finally locates a whole case at a pharmacy, and stretches the supply by deciding whether a boyfriend is ``spongeworthy.'' She makes her boyfriend scrub his bathroom and pass other tests before she will have sex with him.

The episode was apparently more than a work of imagination: plenty of real women ran store to store, buying up all they could. Dawson was living in New York City in 1995, and went hunting for sponges.

"I didn't do the `spongeworthy' test, but I was hoarding them," Dawson said. "You want to talk about art imitating life!"

Since the disappearance of the Today Sponge, two foreign brands have been available over the Internet, but not in U.S. stores. Protectaid, made in Canada, lacks a withdrawal cord, and some women find it difficult to remove; Pharmatex, made in France, costs twice as much as the Today Sponge.

In 1998, Gene Detroyer, Allendale's president and chief executive, and a few partners scraped together money to buy the patents and the complex manufacturing equipment.

Detroyer hoped to get the product back on shelves in a couple years. Instead, tougher new FDA standards for manufacturing and record keeping forced repeated delays and a switch from a contract manufacturer in Mainland, Pa., to one in Norwich, N.Y.

The first sponges will go mostly to 700 people who pre-ordered, 24 each on average, as far back as January 2001. Some will also go to the 8,000 subscribers to the Spongeworthy Watch, an e-mail newsletter from birthcontrol.com, said Barbara Bell, co-owner of the Internet women's products seller. She said subscribers ordered about 1,000 boxes of a dozen sponges each in the past week.

Many women preferred the sponge. It was not messy like creams and foams, was easy to insert and remove, could be kept in a purse or pocket, did not limit sensitivity, could be bought without a prescription and could be inserted well in advance of having sex. Unlike a diaphragm, the sponge does not have to be fitted by a doctor; one size fits all.

Many women also found it preferable to the pill, which has been linked to blood clots, heart attacks, strokes and other side-effects and is not recommended for women who have heart problems or have had breast, cervical or ovarian cancer.

But contraceptive sponges do not protect against sexually transmitted diseases and do not prevent pregnancy as well as the pill, which is 99.1 to 99.5 per cent effective if taken every day.

"For people who are very concerned about getting pregnant, it's probably not a good option, because it has a high failure rate," noted James Trussell, director of Princeton University's Office of Population Research and author of the book Contraceptive Technology

The MaestroGeoff

Why do the other characters laugh when Kramer says he read the sponge was taken off the market? Is it the name of the paper? The name of the reporter? I don't know why it's supposed to be funny.

"Geoff" wrote in message news:...

KittyGeoff

In article , "Geoff" wrote:

bwa ha ha!

Great post! thx!

-kit

osmiumGeoff

Geoff writes:

to

That doesn't sound good enough to be very useful. .009x56 = .504. It would seem you have a 50% chance of getting pregnant after 56 attempts. That is moderated by time of month and so on but even so .....

David Brodbeckosmium

Probability doesn't quite work that way.

as they are independent events, the P9getting pregnant) = .009 no matter how many times you have sex.

On average .009 of all 'matings' using this method will result in pregnancy.

Subtle difference, but important.

Dave 'I knew all those stats courses would be useful some day' Brodbeck

"osmium" wrote in message news:b44imb$1s2rp8$[email]...

--- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.459 / Virus Database: 258 - Release Date: 25/02/2003
Gareth OwenDavid Brodbeck

"David Brodbeck" writes:

What? Even none?

Gareth Owen September is the cruellest month
osmiumDavid Brodbeck

David Brodbeck writes:

how

pregnancy.

99.1

would

is

After thinking about it a bit I think that their figure meant that 99.1% of the *woman* who used the method religiously (so to speak) *never* got pregnant. Or within a year or something. So it had nothing to do with independent trials.

John Twernboldosmium

I seem to recall that's how it works: it's the probability a woman using that method won't get pregnant within a year. That never made sense to me, since there would obviously be a huge range for the frequency. For example, from Marla to Elaine. :-)

What's the deal with these percentages? Does anyone know for sure how they are calculated?

John Twernbold jtwernbold (at) yahoo.com
zhangbinJohn Twernbold
Hi:
        I try to explain what I thought(sorry for my poor english):
        1)at first 0.9% I think it means 1000 women use it once and 9 of
them will get pregnant. For one woman, she uses it 1000 times she will get
pregnant 9 times.
        2)if 0.9% doesn't mean use it once. I mean it came from the probability
a normal woman using that method will get pregnant WHTHIN ONE YEAR. Then for
one woman she can use it 1000 years and will have 9 children. So it is really
safe.
                                        Zhang Bin
Jacobzhangbin

Hey you must be that guy who in China how sold this creme to George so that his hair would start to grow again. You seem to have skills in selling medical products AND your name sounds Chinese ;-)

Jacob
Peter P. SzabagaJacob

Just because a person's name sounds Chinese doesn't mean he's Chinese. Remember Donna Chang, nee Changstein?

PizzaBagel

that

zhangbinPeter P. Szabaga

This time he is right. I am chinese. I like seinfeld very much. :) Zhang Bin

In article ,

David BrodbeckJohn Twernbold

and by knowing those probabilities, you can work out, with the frequency, the variance.

Statistics is cool.

Dave

"John Twernbold" wrote in message news:[email]...

example,

--- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.459 / Virus Database: 258 - Release Date: 25/02/2003
John TwernboldDavid Brodbeck

But if the probability is based on the "average" woman's chance of becoming pregnant within one year, wouldn't we need to know the average woman's frequency?

For example:

This birth control method is 99.7% effective.*

*When used by devout nuns

And we still don't know if that's what the probability describes. Okay, that's it--I'm back to jockeys!

John Twernbold jtwernbold (at) yahoo.com
J. PetermanJohn Twernbold

You know jockeys lower your sperm count

Kramer is a guinea pig or at least I have a guinea pig that I named Kramer

NooneJ. Peterman

In article , [email] says...

So don't go near those horse racers ;-)

J. PetermanNoone

its a binary experiment theres success and failure with 100 trials the chances of getting no pregnancies is 0.9991^ 100=.91389 the probability of getting exactly X pregnancies is 0.0009^X*0.9991^(X-1) lets say we plug in 2, 5 an 50 in for X chances of exactly 2 pregnancies are 0.00000741 exactly 5's probability is 0.000000000000000542 exactly 50 pregnancies 4.927*10^ -153 in laymens tems a zero followed by a decimal point followed by 152 more zeros followed by 4927

Hope my little stats lesson pays off

Kramer is a guinea pig or at least I have a guinea pig that I named Kramer

J. PetermanJ. Peterman

should i make this a bit easier how bout we take 5 tests and ill calculate every ones probability to show it adds to be 1 100 calculations is a bit much for my 18 year old mind chance of 0 approx 0.9955 chance of 1 approx 0.0045 chance of 2 .00001 chance of 3 0.0000001 chance of 4 0.000000000003 chance of 5 0.0000000000000005 add them up you get approximately 1 I admittedly ommitted a step in calculating the probability, assume n is the probability p is the number of non pregnancies and q is the number of pregnancies the probability of an exact value in an exact number of experimentation is [n!/(p!)(q!)][0.9991^p.0009^q] remembering that for any interger a, a! is (a)(a-1)(a-2)(a-3)...(3)(2)(1)

Kramer is a guinea pig or at least I have a guinea pig that I named Kramer

Gareth OwenJ. Peterman

[email] (J. Peterman) writes:

Actually, its  /n\   x      n-x
               | |  p  (1-p)
               \x/
where  the first symbol is  the binomial coefficient n!/(x! (n-x)!)
i.e.
               100!           x       (100-x)
            ----------- 0.0009  0.9991
            (100-x)! x!
Gareth Owen Table manners are for people with nothing better to do.
J. PetermanGareth Owen

i corrected myself

Kramer is a guinea pig or at least I have a guinea pig that I named Kramer

The MaestroGareth Owen

Gareth Owen wrote in message news:...

Is it a drawing of Mr. Magoo?

David BrodbeckJohn Twernbold

yes you would have to know the given frequency

if p = probability of an event ant q = 1-p and n = the frequency, then the variance = npq

Dave

"John Twernbold" wrote in message news:[email]...

--- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.459 / Virus Database: 258 - Release Date: 25/02/2003
TheNewsGuy(Mike)David Brodbeck

On Wed, 5 Mar 2003 08:49:19 -0330, "David Brodbeck" wrote:

That is true for any ONE act but if you want to know the probability of getting pregnant in say, 100 acts...

eg: the probability of a pregancy in 100 sexual acts would be

"1-probability of no pregnacies"

1 -0.9991 ^ 100 = 60%

      +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
   +      The News Guy(Mike) - Seinfeld Lists
   +            (two mirrored sites)
   +        http://membres.lycos.fr/tnguym
   +        http://waveprohosting.com/tnguym
   +    All things Seinfeld; scripts, trivia, lists,
   +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
David BrodbeckTheNewsGuy(Mike)

Yup "The News Guy(Mike)" wrote in message news:[email]...

how

--- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.459 / Virus Database: 258 - Release Date: 25/02/2003
Derek TagliarinoTheNewsGuy(Mike)

I'm glad to see someone finally figured out how to calculate probability in this group. But your answer of 60% is grossly off. 1-.9991^100 = .086. That is, about 9%. Still somewhat high, but not nearly as bad as 60%. In addition, I should note that birth control devices calculate their percentages based on people who use them correctly. Many (or some, anyway) people do not use birth control the right way. These people are not factored into the percentage.

"The News Guy(Mike)" wrote in message news:[email]...

how

Gareth OwenDerek Tagliarino

"Derek Tagliarino" writes:

Mike's answer us 1 - (0.991)^100, so I'd imagine he just mistyped in his calculator.

Gareth Owen How I want a drink, alcoholic of course, after the heavy lectures involving quantum mechanics
TheNewsGuy(Mike)Gareth Owen

On 07 Mar 2003 09:31:14 +0000, Gareth Owen wrote:

Yep, used .991 instead of .9991 - at least the formula was right.

The sponge looks a lot better using the right number.

      +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
   +      The News Guy(Mike) - Seinfeld Lists
   +            (two mirrored sites)
   +        http://membres.lycos.fr/tnguym
   +        http://waveprohosting.com/tnguym
   +    All things Seinfeld; scripts, trivia, lists,
   +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
BruceDerek Tagliarino

I think all you brilliant statisticians are in need of a date with a Portuguese waitress. "Derek Tagliarino" wrote in message news:b495mk$88qu$[email]...

in

anyway)

matter

GetRichQuick712TheNewsGuy(Mike)

In article , "The News Guy(Mike)" writes:

yes...that is totally true. You take the probability of the event occurring and put it up to the power or the number of times the experiment is conducted.

I know it for sure because it was on my statistics midterm, damn, now i can't complain that we will never use this stuff in life. Shoot :(