Comment (18)
Email
Print
del.icio.us
Technorati
diggProtecting the pill
Why does the medical establishment keep playing down the risks of oral contraceptives?
Imagine you are an expert on some medication and research comes to hand that shows the drug, used long-term by a large proportion of the population, is riskier than you thought -- or, at least, than most users thought. Would you: A) have a good think about whether you should continue to recommend this medicine; B) call your colleagues and organise a press conference to ensure people know they should have a searching interview with their doctor about whether to use it; C) take the media calls one by one and emphasise how minimal the risks really are.
Most of us, probably, see ourselves taking the cautious options (A and B), and hope that our own doctor would. But when The Lancet published a study last week confirming the link between oral contraceptives and cervical cancer it was the C option that the professionals chose. Media headlines and reports were studded with "not to worry" and "small risk" and "don't stop taking it" reassurances for the 100 million women around the world who take the pill and who could thus, on average, double their risk of invasive cancer of the cervix.
The pill has undoubtedly changed sexual behaviour, and in the direction of greater promiscuity. HPV infection is critically dependent on the number of lifetime partners. One could truthfully say, therefore, that the pill is the underlying cause of the cervical cancer epidemic -- and of much else that ails us today.
A bit of worry, however, would have been in order. Cervical cancer is only one of the risks elevated by the pill; breast cancer and liver cancer are implicated and there is a well established link with blood clots and high blood pressure in some women. Only a few days before the Lancet article was published, researchers from Belgium at an American Heart Association conference had presented their discovery of another pill-related risk for heart attacks and strokes: a build-up of plaques in the arteries of pill users they had studied.
Lead researcher of the Belgian study Dr Ernst Rietzschel was so carried away with the novelty of his findings that he admitted it was "incredible that a drug which has been taken by 80 per cent of women … is almost bereft of any long-term outcome data, safety data". As if to correct himself he then hastened to advise women not to abandon their birth control pills. Follow the guidelines and cut down on other risky things like smoking, being overweight and not exercising, he said.
Ah yes, smoking. Has there been a single piece of evidence about the risks of tobacco in the last 40 years that health experts have not brandished in front of the public and thrust under the noses of government officials with the purpose of dissuading people from smoking? Why? Because the habit of filling one's lungs with pollutants on a regular basis leads to millions of deaths each year -- 438,000 in the United States alone -- and a huge burden of disease. Nothing but billboards, educational programmes and bans will do when it comes to preventing the harm of smoking.
The pill is an unnecessary pollutant, too, filling women's bodies with excess hormones to prevent the natural consequences of sexual intercourse. In many ways it is a lifestyle drug, like tobacco. It cures nothing. It alleviates the psychological pain of having to say no (or yes) to oneself or a partner, or deal with difficult issues. Although it happens to reduce the risk of ovarian and endometrial cancer in women, its dangers are, so far, more numerous and, as Dr Rietzschel's comment indicates, largely unknown.
How, then, can reproductive health specialists justify their protective attitude to the contraceptive pill? Partly they are playing a numbers game: relatively few deaths can be traced to the pill compared with cigarettes or -- according to a favourite comparison -- pregnancy and birth. That is what Dr Jane Green, of Oxford University, one of the authors of the new cervical cancer study, implies in a media report where she explains that the increased risk of cervical cancer is "less than one extra case per 1000 women by the age of 50 for 10 years' use of the pill". Even so, that is 100,000-odd women a year globally, by my calculation. Are people like Dr Green saying that is a reasonable sacrifice to the god of fertility control, who pays us back, anyway, with fewer cases of other cancers?
Not quite. Teetering on the brink of crass utilitarianism they are saved by the existence of screening programmes and now the advent of vaccinations against the strains of the human papillomavirus that are the most likely cause of cervical cancer. Such programmes, dependent largely on the public purse -- and therefore beyond the reach of most women in developing countries -- can, in the words of one doctor, "circumvent" much of the danger of oral contraceptives by picking up early signs of cancer. It appears that exposure of women to the risk of a lethal disease is quite ethical if when disease does strike it can be nipped in the bud.
There is one further excuse for gambling with women's lives and health in this way and it goes like this: The pill does not cause cervical cancer, HPV infection does. We don't know exactly how the pill interacts with the infection and it may be that it has nothing to do with it. There may be a certain kind of pill user who, coincidentally, behaves in a way that makes it more likely she will get the virus and therefore cancer. The whole pill-cancer link is in question.
Actually, there is something in this line of reasoning that makes sense, although not in the way intended. The pill has undoubtedly changed sexual behaviour, and in the direction of greater promiscuity. HPV infection is critically dependent on the number of lifetime partners. One could truthfully say, therefore, that the pill is the underlying cause of the cervical cancer epidemic -- and of much else that ails us today.
That is not a diagnosis that will carry any weight with reproductive health boffins, but if they would just attend to their core business they would find reasons enough for warning women clearly about the dangers of the pill, and seriously rethinking the whole business of birth control.
Carolyn Moynihan is Deputy Editor of MercatorNet.
Interesting article. I will try to remember this good information.
Thanks Carolina for a truthful and good article.
This pill kills people and everyone in every country has to know about it!
Why don’t they tell it in news? My friends from Europe even didn’t heard about this risk!
The PILL… is behind almost every problem. If men were the ones taking the PILL… and all these side effects were found ...it would be taken off the market. Women blindly open their mouth… and swallow this synthetic, steroidal hormone
Trusting blindly that it is safe ... just like abortion…
Every system in our bodies are connected...so it is not shock to find that the Pill affects the bones, heart, immune system
reproductive system… etc. etc.
I LAY BEFORE YOU LIFE AND DEATH…
Con-ception brings us new life....Contra-ception kills the new life and the lives of those who use it
What a powerful article unfortunately I read many powerful articles such as this almost daily and the main stream media just ignores it. The way to women’s hearts (yes their hearts not minds) is through one to one contact with the health care provider and clergy. Those in the health care field who have taken up the cause get beaten down and some rise and others are never heard from again. Prayer is our best defense, prayer for the stamina so needed in this battle prayer for the health care providers and the clergy to speak the truth with conviction! Prayer for those convicted to counter the argument with good solid evidence based research.
By the way when one takes a good look at the article which the media ran with over a year ago about the condom preventing about 99% of HPV infections. Even a person who isn’t an expert knows that the ethics of the study is seriously flawed. Where was that information when the media splashed the news on the front page of newspapers and magazines?
Thanks for the arguments against the pill and keep them coming!
Thanks Carolyn for a great article, its unfortunate that many African women will not see this article, to realize the depth of lies donor agencies have been peddling to them over the years about these pills.
Hello
Very good article. I just want to say one thing (from a medical point of view) which you might want to consider in future articles.
There are 2 types of cervical cancer; squamous cell carcinoma, and adenocarcinoma.
The squamous cell carcinoma type is the one caused by HPV infection.
The adenocarcinoma type however is the one which the oral contraceptive pill can cause.
God Bless
Your article and the comments are a reminder of the importance of educating people about the side effects of the pill and of the need to help physicians educate their patients with pamphlets and in other ways.
Aside from other moral side effects, when the pill fails to impede ovulation a major side effect is of course Abortion. And then there is Procured Abortion when pregnancy occurs. As we know a great number of abortions is related to false propaganda regarding the pill and “safe sex”.
Then with procured abortion some women suffer Post Traumatic Stress Disorder which for many goes untreated because in the first place they “are not supposed to feel bad” after an abortion. Here too the psychiatric associations have fallen in line with political agendas. Dr. Miriam Grossman’s book “Unprotected” speaks about this.
Thank you for arguments against the pill.
As the author stated ...
‘The pill is an unnecessary pollutant, too, filling women’s bodies with excess hormones “
Those hormones do not stay in the womans body.
The hormones flow out throughout the environment, impacting fish and wildlife. They flow out into our drinking water too. There are cases of fish populations becoming both male and female - and sterile. Movies that depict a time when humanity can no longer reproduce are becoming, perhaps, no longer science fiction.
This will not just stop human life - it can impact the entire
The gentleman who sits next to me at work has been married for just over a year. His wife started onthe pill, but she’s off it for life new!
One of the little side effects - blood clots on the brain.
Just two weeks into the pill, she was rushed to hospital, where the clotss were discovered. She has spent the last year on other medications - mostly blood thinners to remove the clots and avoid any new ones.
They had asked - and were told that it was perfectly safe.
My good friend’s girlfriend is taking “Gynera”, a contraceptive pill. I warned him to tell her that there are many known side effects of contraceptives in general. So far, the fear of side effects does not appear to work.
According to my friend this pill is safe, his girlfriend consulted a gynecologists. Of course, they will say its safe. I have not personally research on this product but I am sure it has unwanted side effects.
How can I politely make them understand?
Thanks Carolyn for high-lighting this issue. Over the years I’ve grown very accustomed to reading and hearing the “don’t panic, keep taking the pill” responses to various negative studies in regard to the contraceptive pill.
One point you haven’t mentioned, but which is covered well in three books I own, is the fact that the hormones in contraceptive pills cause changes in the lining of the cervix that can make it more susceptible to infection and cancerous changes. Dr John Wilkes, author of “A Consumer’s Guide to the Pill and other Drugs” (1996), summarises it thus: “...there is strong evidence which implicates the hormones in the pill as the crucial link in the pill-cervical cancer nexus. The combination of HPV and the pill represents a far greater risk of cervical cancer than does the pill or HPV alone.” Dr Ellen Grant says researchers found in 1969 when testing progestogen-only pills “that doses too low to have any effect on the lining in the womb changed the cells lining athe cervix...progesterone is [also] highly immunosuppressive”.From “Sexual Chemistry” (1994). And finally Emmanuel van den Bemd in his book “The Ultimate Con-traceptive” (1990) refers to what he calls the “Pill cervix”, which has observable structural changes to the cerbvical lining which “as well as altered acidity, favour both malignancy and growth of harmful organisms that cause infections...most women on the pill have undiagnosed inflammation of the cervix; which if left untreated could very well progress to carcinoma in situ...”
These books also detail many other side effects of the pill and it should be noted that similar hormones are used in HRT and “emergency contraceptive” pills.
Strange how it’s ok to vaccinate teenagers against HPV, but apparently not ok to warn them or their mothers about the effects (known for over a decade) of artificial hormones.
Thank you so much for goig into a topic most prefer to ignore, we all pretend this is not a problem meanwhile many women are getting hurt ...always the mighty dollar takes precedence over human wellbeing. thank you.
The Pill is an instrument of death.
Why would you be surprised that there are consequeneces?
Why would you expect them to tell you?
If there are additional deaths - isn’t that just a bonus?
In August, 2005, the cancer research arm of the World Health Organization issued an international press release that the pill is now rated level one carcinogenic (the highest level, I might add). Therefore, the pill will cause breast cancer. Hmmm, I didn’t see any mention of it in our newspaper.
The HPV & Pill connection comes from the progesterone & estrogenic affect of the Pill on the cells of the cervix. The Pill alters the cervical mucus allowing cancer agents to enter. When HPV 16 is introduced into the woman’s body, it has a site in its structure which recognizes & responds to the hormones in the Pill. The HPV cells can replicate & infect the cells of the cervix with the aid & assistance of the Pill.
There is the added comment by pharmaceutical companies that the pill does protect against ovarian cancer. But this cancer is very rare...it’s like killing a gnat with a sledge hammer. I just don’t understand why women’s bodies (& fertility) are treated so terribly by pharmaceutical companies. And doctors who peddle their wares to unsuspecting female patients.
Thankyou Caroline for the clarity of this report and the contradictions it highlights.
Oh, that some brave and influential medical doctor would take these findings on board and attempt to row back the effects of one of the greatest deceits visited on women ( and indirectly on men)of the 20th century.
The psychological effects of the same pill, not to mention the effects on libido, are another can of worms which dare not risk being opened ......
Page 1 of 2 : 1 2 >