Contraception - Chemical Methods / Hormonal Contraception / Emergency / Morning After Pill

December – July 2012: Birth Control

  FIND PAST HOMEPAGE TOPICS UNDER "CURRENT HEADLINES/ BIRTH CONTROL" IN THE LEFT MENU…

The Mirena IUD is Becoming More Popular – and the Lawsuits are Piling Up

WORTH READING: Birth Control May Boost Risk of Carrying Staph Bacteria

WORTH READING:  Texan Surgeon Gives Hope to Sterilized Men Seeking Wholeness

Norplant is Back… Norplant, Under Any Other Name, Is Still…

WORTH READING: Biochemistry of Sex: What They Didn’t Tell You in Sex Ed

Commentary: The Real Risks of Birth Control Pills

Experts: No Need to Spend Billions on Family Planning or Contraception

WORTH READING: Study: Contraceptive Pills Put Teen Girls at Increased Risk of High Blood Pressure

WORTH READING: Hormonal Contraception Can Doubly Increase Women’s Risk Of Acquiring and Transmitting HIV

Oral Contraceptive Use Raises Blood Clot Risk in Women with Iliac Vein Condition

WORTH READING: Study: Depo Provera Use Increases Breast Cancer Risk

WORTH READING: Some Information on EC (Emergency Contraception) That You May Not Know

Dr. Lanfranchi: The Perilous Pill…

The Mirena IUD is Becoming More Popular – and the Lawsuits are Piling Up

by Steven W. Mosher

You know a contraceptive drug or device is in trouble when the lawsuits begin to multiply.

A growing number of American women are turning to intrauterine devices (IUDs), reports Lawrence Finer of the Guttmacher Institute. Of all American women using birth control, some 7.5 percent had IUDs implanted by 2009. These numbers were double what they had been a few short years before.

As befits an employee of a population control organization, Finer is pleased that women are choosing “long-acting” contraceptives over “short-acting, less effective methods.” Fertility delayed is fertility denied, as we say in demographic circles.

Most of the increase in IUD use has come from sales of Bayer’s levonorgestrel IUD, a so-called “second generation” contraceptive, which is marketed under the trade name “Mirena.” No surprise here. Since Mirena was approved by the FDA in 2000, Bayer has spent tens of millions of dollars advertising the IUD directly to the consumer.

As a result of this advertising campaign, Finer notes, “Women born in the United States appear to be “catching up” to women born outside the United States, who already had a higher level of use, likely due to a greater prevalence of these methods in Mexico.”

The implication here is that women outside of the U.S. are more “advanced” in their contraceptive use than their benighted American sisters, but nothing could be further from the truth. The reason that IUDs are more prevalent in Mexico is simple: the Mexican government coerces women into accepting them. Either accept an IUD or have your tubes tied, new mothers are told. What would you choose?

The same is true of Finer’s factoid about high IUD use in China. The reason that 41 percent of women in China have IUDs is because China’s population control authorities insist that women either wear IUDs or be sterilized after they give birth. That’s not good news for women. Indeed, it’s not good news for anybody, unless of course you fear human fertility.

Bayer’s advertising campaign for Mirena, although expensive, has more than paid for itself. More than a million American women h

ave been convinced to spend nearly $800 apiece buying the IUD. This has generated over a billion dollars in revenue for the German pharmaceutical giant, a good bargain by anyone’s calculation.

Bayer and other abortifacient contraceptive manufacturers also stand to make a lot of money from Obamacare. The HHS mandate will require all healthcare plans to cover the full range of contraceptive methods, including Mirena, at no cost to the patient. In other words, we taxpayers are about to make Bayer shareholders rich.

Finer refers to IUDs, including Mirena, as “contraceptive devices,” but IUDs act by aborting already conceived children, not by preventing their conception. An IUD is, in effect, a tiny abortion machine that prevents pregnancy by physically obstructing the normal process by which a tiny baby implants in the uterus of its mother.

Mirena, it is true, is more than just an IUD. It also contains a synthetic “hormone” called levonorgestrel that some months prevents ovulation. Even when what is called “breakthrough ovulation” occurs, the progestin sometimes still prevents conception by thickening the cervical mucus and preventing sperm from reaching the ovum. Still, when this doesn’t happen, a baby can be conceived and begin its 5 to 7 day journey down the Fallopian tube. But when it reaches the uterus itself it encounters the grim reaper in the guise of an IUD and its life is over. An early-term abortion occurs.

We should not forget the side effects, which fall into two different categories. Many women react badly to having their bodies laced with a powerful, steroid-based drug, levonorgestrel. Others find that having a foreign body lodged in their uterus can be an uncomfortable, even unhealthy, experience.

Finer claimed in an interview with Fox News that IUDs do not increase the risk of pelvic infection and jeopardize women's future fertility.

But the list of unwanted side effects of Mirena is quite long. These include amenorrhea, intermenstrual bleeding and spotting, abdominal pain, pelvic pain, ovarian cysts, headache, migraines, acne, depression, and mood swings. The Truth About Mirena website contains hundreds of detailed accounts of such side effects by women who have personally suffered from them. It makes for grim reading.

One of the more dangerous side effects is that Mirena may become embedded into the wall of the uterus, or it may actually perforate it. In fact, there have been reports of the IUD actually migrating outside the uterus through a hole of its own making, there to cause scarring, infection, or damage to other organs. If the device embeds in or perforates the uterine wall, surgery will be required to remove it.

With all of these side effects, it is no surprise that the number of lawsuits is proliferating. If you type “Mirena” into your search engine, along with information about the IUD, a number of ads offering legal representation to those harmed by the device will pop up.

In the beginning, Bayer aggressively marketed Mirena to a “Busy Mom” demographic as a hassle-free form of birth control. But in 2009, the FDA issued a warning letter to Bayer after finding its Mirena promotions overstated the efficacy of the device, presented unsubstantiated claims, minimized the risks of Mirena, and used false and misleading presentations during in-home events touting the IUD. FDA berated Bayer for its so-called "overstatement of efficacy", taking issue with marketing claims touting Mirena’s purported ability to improve a woman’s sex life and help her “look and feel great.”

According to the FDA warning letter, “at least 5% of Mirena IUD users reported decreased libido in clinical trials.”

Bayer is probably already settling lawsuits out of court as quickly and as quietly as possible, so as not to discourage other potential users of Mirena. When their legal costs begin to mount, their sales begin to drop, and their profit margins disappear, it will be time for their end game: this will involve taking the contraceptive off the market, at least in the U.S., and reaching a once-and-for-all settlement with the entire class of affected users.

I do not think Bayer is at all daunted by this prospect.

In fact, I believe that Bayer, like all contraceptive manufacturers, is already working on a successor contraceptive that will, in a couple of years, be released with great fanfare. This new “magic pill” will be heavily marketed directly to consumers. It will be sold by the millions. It will earn hundreds of millions for the company. It will not really be “new,” however. Rather, it will closely resemble an existing contraceptive drug or device, but it will have a new name, a slightly different chemical formula, and a slightly altered appearance to preserve the fiction that it is an entirely new product.

Like its predecessor, it will be foisted on a new generation of women until the side effects manifest themselves. At which point it, too, will be removed from the market in turn.

What a market plan.

[20 Nov 12, PRI Weekly Briefing, Steven W. Mosher is the President of the Population Research Institute, www.pop.org]

Texan Surgeon Gives Hope to Sterilized Men Seeking Wholeness

Dr. Mark Hickman would try to talk any man out of having a vasectomy any day.

He would begin by telling them all the horror stories that he has heard from the many men who have undergone the invasive procedure that unnaturally blocks tubes that are designed to carry sperm out of a man’s body.

Dr. Hickman would mention that many men become distraught after finding their sexual drive dwindle as a result of the procedure. He would highlight the men who say that their sense of wholeness and sense of well-being diminished soon after the procedure. And he would warn that many men relate symptoms of increased sensitivity and even chronic pain in their testicles after the procedure.

He would also speak about the married men who told him that eliminating the “risk” of impregnating their spouse through what they thought was consequence-free sex led them down the “slippery slope” to sexual relationships with other women.

If Dr. Hickman were speaking to a vasectomy seeker with a religious bent, he would state that “vasectomy circumvents God’s design for human sexuality and fertility”. He would mention the numerous men who related to him that immediately after their vasectomies, they left the doctor’s office and cried as they “knew in their hearts they had sinned.”

It is to be expected that men find themselves opening their hearts to Dr. Hickman with their stories of sorrow and woe. These men confide in him because of their hope that the good doctor will be the one to free them from anguish.

Dr. Hickman is a vasectomy reversal surgeon who has made it his life’s mission to restore infertile broken men to fertility and wholeness.
Dr Mark Hickman

Dr. Hickman has become nationally and internationally recognized in helping men through vasectomy reversals. As a Catholic who reveres the teaching of Humanae Vitae, the landmark 1969 papal encyclical on sexuality that most famously reiterated the Church’s teaching against artificial contraception, Dr. Hickman has performed close to a thousand reversals in four years in his clinic in New Braunfels, Texas. Along with his clinical team, he performs six to eight procedures per week.

Statistics indicate that five to seven hundred thousand men undergo elective sterilization by vasectomy each year in the United States. But each year, about five percent of these men regret their decision and seek vasectomy reversal surgery.

In a field where physicians charge anywhere from nine to twenty-two thousand dollars for a reversal, Dr. Hickman strives to “bring affordable, superior care to those seeking an addition to their family”. For an all-inclusive fee of three thousand dollars, Dr. Hickman offers a “pain-free surgical procedure with a short recovery time and proven results”.

Dr. Hickman explained to LifeSiteNews in a recent interview that while men have vasectomies for many reasons, there is always one underlining reason: they don’t want another child.

Some don’t want children for financial reasons, some because they are worried about how a pregnancy might negatively affect the health of their spouse, and some because they think they have reached the right family size.

No matter what the reason, Dr Hickman says, when a man takes the step of vasectomy, he is “basically putting himself ahead of God’s will by saying: ‘Well, I think I know a little more about what to do for my sexuality than God does.’”…

“He is performing very affordable vasectomy reversals so husbands can become fathers, either again or for the very first time,” he said to LifeSiteNews…

Hickman and his team have been performing successful reversals for long enough to receive notifications of pregnancies and births on a regular basis.

“Each time I hear of such blessings it reminds me of how, in our small way, our team is lashing back against the current culture of death that trivializes the sanctity of human life,” he said.

Visit Dr. Hickman’s website for further information about the vasectomy reversal process — http://micro-vas-reversals.com/
[19 Nov 12, Peter Baklinski, NEW BRAUNFELS, Texas, http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/texan-surgeon-gives-hope-to-sterilized-men-seeking-wholeness?utm_source=LifeSiteNews.com+Daily+Newsletter&utm_campaign=1b1fa4fe3a-LifeSiteNews_com_US_Headlines_11_16_2012&utm_medium=email ]

 

 

 

 

 

BIRTH CONTROL MAY BOOST RISK OF CARRYING STAPH BACTERIA
Taking birth control pills may make women's bodies more hospitable to staph bacteria, a new study from Germany suggests.

In the study, women taking hormonal contraception were about twice as likely to persistently harbor staph bacteria in their nasal passages compared with women not taking hormonal contraception.

The findings suggest that the widespread use of birth control increases the "pool" of people harboring the bacteria, which in turn, may contribute to its spread to people susceptible to getting sick from an infection, said study researcher Dennis Nurjadi, of the Institute for Tropical Medicine in Tübingen.  

The women in the study did not have staph infections. Many people carry the bacteria, called Staphylococcus aureus, on their skin or in their nasal passages without any problems. However, the bacteria can cause skin infections, particularly inside cuts and scratches, and infections can be lethal if they enter the bloodstream, according to the Mayo Clinic. People with weakened immune systems are particularly susceptible to staph infections.

The study only found an association, and not a direct cause-effect link between taking birth control and harboring staph. But if the findings hold up in future studies, it would mean that about 20 percent of women who carry the bacteria do so because they use hormonal contraception, the researchers said.

The study was published Sept. 5 in the journal Clinical Infectious Diseases.

Nurjadi and colleagues analyzed information from 1,180 young men and women who were seeking health advice before traveling to subtropical regions and provided two nasal swabs at least a month apart.

About 22 percent of participants carried Staphylococcus aureus in their nasal passages on both occasions, and were considered "persistent" carriers.

Women who took hormonal contraception were 1.9 times more likely to be persistent carriers compared with women who did not take hormonal contraception.

Additionally, the study showed that men were more likely to carry the bacteria than women who were not taking contraception. However, women taking contraception were more likely to carry the bacteria than men.

The findings held after the researchers took into account factors that could affect the likelihood of carrying the bacteria, including age, animal contact, smoking habits and history of skin infections.

Previous studies have found women with high estrogen levels are more likely to carry Staphylococcus aureus compared with women who have lower levels. It could be that high hormone levels affect the immune system, and in turn, make women more prone to carrying the bacteria, the researchers said. A study published last year found women in Africa who used hormonal contraception were at increased risk of acquiring HIV.

Because the study included mostly young people, it is important to reproduce the results in other populations, the researchers said.

Pass it on: Use of birth control may increase the risk of carrying staph bacteria.

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/health/2012/09/14/birth-control-may-boost-risk-carrying-staph-bacteria/?test=latestnews#ixzz28CQyGjMB
Read more:
http://www.foxnews.com/health/2012/09/14/birth-control-may-boost-risk-carrying-staph-bacteria/?test=latestnews#ixzz26STrDuuu
(Fox News)  Rachael Rettner, September 14, 2012, MyHealthNewsDaily

Norplant is Back–Under a Different Name

Ten years ago PRI drove a stake through the heart of Norplant, an abortifacient contraceptive that had harmed thousands of women in the U.S. and many more around the world. But it refused to die.

The population controllers have long dreamed of chemically sterilizing women for extended periods of time. That was the idea behind Norplant I, which consisted of six silicon capsules loaded with levonorgestrel that, implanted permanently in a woman’s body, was intended to shut down her reproductive system for up to five years. And it is this same idea that is driving the release of Norplant II, touted as “one of the most effective reversible contraceptives available.”

Except that, if the history of Norplant I is any guide, the second generation of this device will prove just as dangerous as the first.

No sooner had Norplant been approved by the FDA in 1990, than women who received the implant began reporting serious side effects. By 1996, over 6,000 complaints of “adverse medical consequences” had been filed by American women who were suffering from various Norplant-related ailments, from heavy bleeding and vision impairment to general malaise and lack of appetite.

But these problems paled in comparison with those suffered by women overseas, perhaps because these latter were more often malnourished and in poor health to begin with. PRI investigations revealed that these women, instead of just suffering from vision problems, sometimes went blind, and instead of just suffering from a general feeling of malaise, were sometimes actually bedridden for months on end.

When they sought to have the troublesome implants removed, their requests were turned down by population control officials. They were forced to continue in pain and suffering, and sometimes died.

So it was that PRI in 1996 launched a media campaign against Norplant, advising American women who were suffering serious side effects from the device to contact legal counsel. We also filed a “citizen’s petition” with the FDA to have Norplant taken off the market.

Both of

these efforts bore fruit. Faced with tens of thousands of lawsuits from injured women, the original manufacturer, Wyeth-Aherst, in 2002 reached an out-of-court settlement with the victims. That same year it took Norplant I off the market in the U.S., in an obvious effort to stem the financial hemorrhaging caused by the lawsuits.

It was a different story overseas. Wyeth-Aherst continued to manufacture, and USAID continued to purchase, millions of Norplant I to use on women in the developing world. Such women were, after all, easy targets. They lacked the means to fight back legally, and their complaints were brushed off by local health agencies complicit in population control programs. USAID finally ended its contract with the manufacturer in 2006, after PRI called attention to the obvious double standard at work here: How can the U.S. continue to promote the use of a drug/device overseas, we asked, that is so dangerous it has been taken off the market in the U.S.?

Now the same thing is happening all over again. It turns out that the new manufacturer, Bayer HealthCare, has no plans to market Norplant II in the United States. USAID has nevertheless signed a contract with the German pharmaceutical company to purchase and distribute the drug/device to its population control partners to implant in poor women around the world. Sound familiar?

Both Norplants are implanted under the skin of the upper arm. Both contain the same “active ingredient”: levonorgestrel is a synthetic progestin. Like other such steroid-based drugs, it thickens the cervical mucus, sometimes (but not always) inhibits ovulation, and alters the lining of the uterus to prevent implantation. This means that women on Norplant can conceive children, who are then aborted after failing to implant in the uterus.

The main difference between the two Norplants is a relatively minor one. Norplant I contains six silicon rods containing synthetic progestin, while Norplant II contains only two, albeit larger, rods. In fact the two drug/devices are so similar that when the FDA approved Norplant II way back in 1996, it relied mostly upon Norplant I studies. We already know how well that turned out.

There is one more difference we should mention. Since “Norplant” has become a byword for a dangerous contraceptive drug/device, Norplant II has been given a new name. It will be marketed under the name “Jadelle”. Of course, a dangerous contraceptive by any other name is still a dangerous contraceptive.

The U.S. Agency for International Development picked World Contraception Day to proudly announce its new Jadelle program. We think the choice of this day oddly appropriate, since our aid agency apparently does have ambitions to contracept the world: It is ordering no fewer than 27 million implants at roughly $10 apiece from the manufacturer over the next six years.

What this means is that, even if this massive chemical sterilization campaign falters for some reason—such large numbers of poor women injured or dying as a result, or a Romney administration deciding that such an assault on the world’s fertility is a bad idea—the American taxpayer will still be on the hook to the tune of $270 million dollars.

Norplant I died a very public death some years ago, pilloried in the courts and pummeled in the media. One may well ask why it has now been resurrected, under a new name and with a new manufacturer.

The answer is that implanting long-term contraceptives in poor women is one of the cherished goals of the population control movement. USAID itself reiterated its commitment to this goal at the recent London Family Planning Summit sponsored by the Gates Foundation.

A woman on birth control can stop taking her pills. A woman on depo-provera can stop taking her injections. But Jadelle, like its predecessor, is impossible to remove short of surgery. A woman who has been chemically sterilized by Jadelle will stay sterilized—for five long years.

[The pro-life Population Research Institute is dedicated to ending human rights abuses committed in the name of "family planning," and to ending counter-productive social and economic paradigms premised on the myth of "overpopulation." Find us at pop.org ; 22 Oct 12, Steven W. Mosher and Elizabeth Crnkovich]

 

 

 

 

What They Didn’t Tell You in Sex Ed: An Interview with Vicki Thorn about the Negative Consequences of Hormonal Contraception on Health, Relationships and Society

Vicki Thorn, founder of the National Office for Post Abortion Reconciliation and Healing and Project Rachel, has for decades helped women to heal from broken relationships and the pain of abortion.

Thorn's work has also led her to study current research about the biochemistry of sex and the effects of hormonal birth control.

According to the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, more than four out of five women in the United States will use some form of hormonal contraception — including pills, patches, implants, injections and intrauterine devices — during their fertile years. With this in mind, Thorn recently spoke with Columbia about the dramatic influence that hormonal birth control has had on our society since the Food and Drug Administration first approved the birth control pill in 1960.

Columbia: How do birth control pills and other forms of hormonal contraception work?

Vicki Thorn: They use steroid hormones that impact the pituitary gland, which in turn influences different systems in the body. There are many effects of this chemistry, but the “desired effect” is to stop ovulation.

Because the dosage of steroidal hormones is lessened in oral contraceptives, there may still be ovulation breakthrough, which means that fertilization can still be occurring. But the hormones also aggravate the lining of the uterus, making it inadequate to sustain a newly conceived embryo and thereby preventing implantation.

In this way, some forms of contraception can have an abortifacient effect.

Columbia: What are some of the known side effects and health risks for women?

Vicki Thorn: Some of the most serious side effects include the risk of blood clots, pulmonary embolisms, stroke and certain forms of cancer. Both the Depo-Provera shot and the birth control pill can cause bone demineralization and serious nutritional deficiencies. A number of women who are chemically contracepting experience mood swings or depression, and some suffer from migraines. The health risks are numerous, but we are not well informed about them.

Columbia: Does hormonal birth control also adversely affect men’s health or the environment?

Vicki Thorn: Absolutely. We know that in countries around the world where oral contraception has been introduced, male fertility has dropped by about half.

Research that began in England and now continues around the world has found that the water supply has been impacted wherever hormonal contraceptives are used. The estrogen is highly stable in a woman’s body and when it is passed out in the form of waste, it is very difficult to remove from the water system. This has already had a great impact on male fish and birds.

Columbia: How do these drugs affect the way men and women are attracted to each other?

Vicki Thorn: This is a really serious issue. While using the pill, women change what is called pheromone preference. Through nature, God equipped women with the a

bility to perceive through pheromones — which are hormones of affiliation — whether or not a man is a biologically good match. If they’re not contracepting, most women are first attracted to a male who is a complement in terms of their immune system.

The woman who is chemically contracepting, though, is attracted to a male whose immune system is very much like her own. One speculative reason could be that her body thinks it’s in a pregnant state and now she’s looking for a protector rather than a mate. Whatever the cause, this raises some grave concerns. We are at least three generations into pill usage, affecting the ways partners are attracted to each other. Some believe we now have at least one generation of autoimmune-compromised children because of this.

Moreover, when a woman chooses a partner and gets married while she is taking the pill, she likely won’t find her husband as attractive when she stops using it. This can cause intimacy to dissolve, significantly breaking down marital stability.

As for men, they perceive different things in terms of attraction — fertile and infertile periods and pregnancy. Men have a biological response when women are ovulating, because that’s the window for the possibility of procreation. Chemical contraception flatlines this and changes a woman’s scent, communicating that she isn’t fertile. What is this doing to the males around us? It certainly could lead in some cases to the temptation to be unfaithful. A man who is no longer having a regular elevation of interest in his wife, because she is contracepting, may suddenly become very interested in another woman who is not.

The pill also reduces libido, thereby countermanding one of the reasons that people use it.

Columbia: In addition to affecting physical attraction, does the birth control pill also influence how a woman thinks or acts in her daily life?

Vicki Thorn: There is some new research showing that the pill seems to change the way a woman’s brain develops. Under the impact of these steroid hormones, a woman’s brain starts looking a little more like a male brain, and emotional memory is affected. When shown a picture of an accident, men tend to remember the big picture, what happened, whereas women normally remember the fine details. The woman on the pill, though, describes the picture more from the male perspective and seems to lose some of her ability to see the details. Because this is fairly new research, we don’t really know what the long-term implications are.

Columbia: How does the experience of couples who do not use contraception differ from those who do?

Vicki Thorn: A husband and wife who are not using contraception are probably aware of the woman’s cycle using natural family planning, which means they are in dialogue with each other about fertility on an ongoing basis. And every month there is this hormonal dance, as the wife moves to the point of ovulation and the husband has a biological response that elevates his testosterone. I think we were designed by God to be in sync, through this constant hormonal exchange between man and wife.

Columbia: Has the birth control pill and the morning-after pill affected the rate of unwanted pregnancies?

Vicki Thorn: Risk-taking behavior is associated with the belief that sex is a possibility at any time without the consequence of pregnancy. In my experience of working with women who have had abortions, I have found that a great number of them were chemically contracepting at the time they got pregnant. The lie that abounds in our society is that recreational sex is perfectly acceptable because there are all these protective measures — the pill, the morning-after pill, abortion — which make it simple and easy. But the reality is that they leave a trail of broken hearts that it is beyond anything we could even imagine.

Columbia: Some reports claim that the pill is known to have health benefits and that some doctors regard the pill as “more natural” than menstruation. Is there any truth to these claims?

Vicki Thorn: How can steroid hormones be more natural than a regular menstrual cycle, which is truly in sync with a woman’s body? We have to remember that there are billions of dollars made in chemical contraceptives. Much of the research that is done is funded by people who have a vested monetary interest in the whole contraceptive mindset.

We’re told that it’s good for us and we trust our doctors. But the reality is that it is interfering with normal health. Pharmaceutical treatment usually has to do with illness. But fertility is not illness. Fertility is normal. And pregnancy is not a disease. Maybe the birth control pill could be prescribed for an existing condition under some very rare circumstances, but for the most part it is not good medicine.

Last December, a medical journal article proposed that we ought to be giving chemical contraceptives to all Catholic religious sisters because they never bore children and have a higher risk of ovarian cancer. But by injecting a major steroid into their bodies, it would increase the risk of more common cancers and other serious health problems. What is the true balance point here?

Often, young women will tell me that their doctor prescribed the pill for medicinal purposes, such as to help with acne. But there is no switch in the human body that we can flip and say, “OK, now this pill is only going to deal with acne.” The pill acts in the same fashion within the human body regardless of the intent.

Columbia: What advice would you have for women on the pill?

Vicki Thorn: It is not what it appears to be and it is not good medicine for women. Recognize its impact in terms of relationships. It’s possible to be well informed and make good decisions.

For women who have been on it for a long time, I encourage them to find a physician who is well versed in this information and in fertility care charting or natural family planning. Women who go off the pill may be facing some infertility issues as well. It’s important to find physicians who can give the honest truth and help restore women’s bodies to a normal state.

Women talk about how much better they feel when they get off the pill.

They hadn’t realized that the mood swings, depression, weight gain and lack of libido were all related in some way to an innocuous little pill.
[7/1/2012, Alton J. Pelowski, http://www.kofc.org/un/en/columbia/detail/2012_07_interview.html]

Commentary: The Real Risks of Birth Control Pills

[Ed. You can easily find politically-correct physicians on secular media who promote the use of chemical contraceptives: pill, patch, rods, shots, etc. This is mainly because, even if not vocalized, these physicians believe that children are a disease. They have also bought into the inverse mantra that increased birth control decreases abortion, even though anyone who honestly looks at the massive increases of birth control nationally and worldwide could easily note that abortion numbers are increasing — NOT decreasing.

[Besides all the risks of chemical birth control mentioned below, we are now dealing with massive amounts of these hormones in our water supplies… estrogens have an adverse effect on men, and are causing major problems with some species of fish and wildlife. Just search "estrogens environment" to learn more… Artificial estrogens as found in chemical contraceptives are also listed by WHO as major carcinogens…Also, there are plenty of major emotional adverse effects on women, such as self-esteem problems… When women are 'objectified' and used only for another's pleasure, one cannot he

lp but feel "used"…]

[Those who truly care about women's health and safety are] strongly opposed to advising women to take synthetic hormones for most of their adult menstruating years as a means to prevent cancer. While there may be some truth to claims that the pill could play a role in preventing certain types of cancer in some women, it also appears to increase risks of other cancers, and it has many undesirable potential side effects—including some that are life-threatening.

In my practice I’ve provided thousands of women with effective alternative birth control methods, and the vast majority of women I’ve seen have wanted to avoid the pill.

Some have said that when they took it their sex drive largely disappeared (often along with their own natural vaginal lubrication), and many reported numerous side effects, including mood swings, bloating, weight gain, menstrual spotting, breast tenderness, headaches and fatigue.

Of course, they were also concerned about potential blood clots.

[Studies have shown that chemical birth control does, indeed, lower 'libido' (sex drive). It also changes a woman's ability to smell male pheromones, and this can actually cause women to pick the 'wrong' man to marry, leading to almost certain divorce… "Major histocompatibility complex (MHC) genes are involved in immune response and other functions, and the best mates are those who have different MHC smells than you. The new study reveals, however, that when women are on the pill they prefer guys with matching MHC odors."

Visit http://www.livescience.com/2781-pill-women-pick-bad-mates.html, or search "contraceptives smell pheromones"]

And yet [some politically correct, 'pregnancy is a disease', physicians], on national television, saying the benefits of the pill outweighed its risks, and that none of the common side effects—such as lowered libido, headaches, breast tenderness, mood swings and menstrual spotting, or even blood clots—should cause fear because they aren’t dangerous.

But what about quality of life? There are also much healthier, less radical ways of preventing the specific cancers whose risks are mitigated by the pill—and those methods don’t share the pill’s potential to increase blood clots, breast cancer risk, and risk of liver tumors.

[Books have been written on] whole-health ways to reduce cancer risk, including eating an anti-inflammatory diet, making healthy lifestyle choices and using appropriate nutritional supplements.

Birth control pills are decidedly not among the recommendations for cancer prevention.

Besides the uncomfortable common side effects, the pill carries with it less common but far more serious risks.

You may have heard about lawsuits against the manufacturers of Yaz and Yasmin, two types of birth control pills that caused some women to develop blood clots. The type of synthetic progesterone used in these pills specifically increases blood clot risk, but birth control pills in general can increase blood clotting factors, leading to clots that can result in strokes or even fatal embolisms.  

As for the pill’s potential to increase breast cancer risk, [a politically-correct physician] essentially told the audience that it doesn’t—or that there’s only a small increased risk.

This is simply not the case: In 1996, researchers at the Collaborative Group on Hormonal Factors in Breast Cancer analyzed 54 studies conducted over a 20-year period in 25 countries and concluded that there’s a 24 percent higher risk of being diagnosed with breast cancer while on the pill.

Even after discontinuing the pill, women have a 16 percent higher chance of being diagnosed with breast cancer for up to four years. In the five to 10 years after discontinuing the pill, risk is 9 percent increased. It’s only after 10 years that risk returns to normal.  

An April 2009 study published in Cancer Epidemiology Biomarkers Prevention had similar findings: Birth control use in women ages 20 to 45 for a year or more was associated with a 2.5-fold increased risk for triple-negative breast cancer—one of the most aggressive and least treatable forms of the disease.

Another rare but serious potential side effect is benign liver tumor.
One of my patients developed a type of untreatable liver tumor known as benign nodular hyperplasia, as well as a rare condition called peliosis hepatis, in which multiple blood-filled sacs develop in the liver. The woman lives in constant fear that these sacs could rupture, resulting in potentially fatal internal bleeding. Her medical doctors attributed both of these conditions to her many years on the pill, and the science backs them up.

In January 2011, the International Journal of Gastroenterology and Hepatology published a paper stating benign liver tumors classically develop in women who are taking oral contraceptives. What’s worse, these benign liver tumors have a 4 percent risk of turning into liver cancer.

With all these risks, I strongly advise women to consider all other options before filling a prescription for oral contraceptives.

[http://www.wellnesstimes.com/articles/real-risks-birth-control-pills?_mid=42212&_rid=42212.24707.267844]

 

 

 

 

Experts: No Need to Spend Billions on Family Planning, Contraception

At the same time governments pledged billions of dollars to push contraception in poor countries based on the idea of an “unmet need” for family planning, an elite group of experts dismissed the term as a poor measure of development aid’s effectiveness.

“The usual numbers bandied about for estimates of ‘unmet need’ do not correspond to any definition of ‘unmet need’ that any economist (or just common sense) could agree to. They are an advocacy construct that has been successfully used in the overall political agenda for promoting family planning,” noted Harvard economist Lant Pritchett.

The remarks were part of an online discussion hosted by Berk Ozler, senior economist at the World Bank. Ozler noted that recent research has validated academics who argue family planning programs have little effect on fertility rates.

He cited a recent study from Zambia showing that couples in traditional societies don’t use contraception even when given vouchers because they are already planning their family by other means.

“A need with no demand might make sense for political activism, but not for programs or policies,” said University of California San Francisco epidemiologist Dominic Montagu. He supported Ozler’s idea of abandoning the concept of “unmet need” and replacing it with a scientifically-based indicator such as actual customer demand.

Pritchett emphasized the fact that “unmet need” is “predominantly” made up of women who do not want to use contraception due to religious or health reasons, or because they are past childbearing age or are celibate.  “The fact that the movement has consistently attributed ‘need’ for contraception to women who have articulated reasons why they don’t want it reveals the paternalistic approach inherent in demographically driven family planning programs–we population bomb advocates can override what you want with what you need,” he said.

Population Council’s vice president John Bongaarts countered Pritchett citing a 1977 study from Matlab, Bangladesh to argue that contraception-based
family programs can reduce fertility in traditional societies.  But one of the researchers who worked on the Matlab study, Shareen Joshi, said that he agreed with Pritchett that “unmet need” should not be used as a rationale for family planning programs since it does not correspond to what any economist would call demand.

David Bishai, professor of public health at Johns Hopkins University added that “John Bongaarts incorrectly attributes all of the treatment effects on household wealth to family planning–the Matlab treatment included a large array of child and maternal health services in addition to family planning.”

Bishai said using “unmet need” as an indicator for development investment is only “slightly better than randomly throwing money at reproductive health goals.” “One point of unmet need reduction is worth 0.02 points of TFR [total fertility rate] reduction, not controlling for any other variables that would confound the relationship,” a very small effect, he said. In his comments, Bishai argued that it makes no economic sense that USAID spent $649 million on family planning in 50 countries in 2010 but ignored the other factors that affect fertility such as the desires of spouses and children.

“Finite donor resources force the question of return on investment on family planning [as it does] everywhere else,” Bishai continued, “It should not be dodged by sanctimony or blind advocacy. There is an important stewardship role for all spending on behalf of the poor. …The research community can do better [than “unmet need”] to guide policy, but we haven’t done it yet.”
[26 July 12, New York, NY, http://www.lifenews.com/2012/07/26/experts-no-need-to-spend-billions-on-family-planning-contraception/]

 

 

 

 

Study: Contraceptive Pills Put Teen Girls at Increased Risk of High Blood Pressure

The results from a large study at the University of Western Australia has found that use of the oral contraceptive pill by teenage girls significantly increases their risk of high blood pressure later in their teens and adulthood.

Researchers used data from 1771 participants in the Western Australian Pregnancy Cohort (Raine) Study, who were studied at 1, 2, 3, 5, 8, 10, 14 and 17 years of age.

Subjects were asked about various lifestyle indicators such as dietary patterns, alcohol consumption, smoking, physical activity, and prescription medications including the use of oral contraceptives. The association between each of these factors and systolic and diastolic blood pressure was calculated.

The researchers found that use of the Pill was “significantly associated with raised blood pressure in the girls.” The systolic blood pressure of girls taking the Pill (30 percent of the group) was 3.3 mmHg higher than non-Pill users, and grew worse with higher body mass index (BMI).

The report indicated that the substantial differences in blood pressure found in the study due to oral contraceptive use by teen girls “are likely to significantly affect their risk of both ischemic heart disease and stroke in adulthood.”

The researchers noted that adolescence is a time of life when behaviors “tend to become entrenched”, and that “significant public health benefits may be achieved from implementation of a range of gender-appropriate lifestyle modifications within this age group of adolescents”.

The authors of the report stated the results of their research corroborate previous findings on use of the contraceptive pill in adolescent girls.

“The effects are additive and already associated with hypertension. Moreover, teenage girls taking oral contraceptives should be advised about regular blood pressure monitoring,” said researcher Dr. Chi La-Ha of the Royal Perth Hospital, according to an Asian News International (ANI) report.

Hormonal contraceptives have been repeatedly linked to increased risks of cardiovascular disease, cervical, liver and breast cancer, blood clots, elevated blood pressure, bladder disease, inflammatory bowel disease, sexual dysfunction and stroke in women.

The Pill has even been linked to cancer in men. A study conducted at Princess Margaret Hospital in Toronto in 2011 found a statistically significant relationship between the rising use of the contraceptive pill and increased prostate cancer.

The researchers speculated that the results of the study, that looked at data from 87 countries, may be explained by the fact that women on the pill excrete estrogen in their urine, which then finds its way into the water supply, where the estrogen is ultimately ingested by men.

An article in the January 4, 2009 edition of the Vatican newspaper, L’Osservatore Romano, said the birth-control pill is causing “devastating” environmental damage and plays a role in rising male infertility rates.

The author of the article, Pedro Jose Maria Simon Castellvi, president of the Vatican-based World Federation of Catholic Medical Associations, said, “We have sufficient evidence to argue that one of the considerable factors contributing to male infertility in the West—with its ever decreasing numbers of spermatozoa in men—is environmental pollution caused by the byproducts of the pill” released in human waste.

The pill has created “devastating ecological effects from tons of hormones being released into the environment for years,” Castellvi warned.

Earlier research (http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/archive/ldn/2005/may/05050411) has also determined that boys exposed to synthetic estrogen hormones in the abortifacient birth control pill while in utero are at a greater risk of developing prostate cancer and other urinary tract problems later in life.

Research conducted by Frederick vom Saal of the University of Missouri in Columbia, Missouri, found that estrogen-like hormones deform the prostates in developing embryos, which can be a precursor to developing prostate cancer or bladder problems.

“The developing fetus is extremely sensitive to chemical disturbance…so exposing a male baby to them is a very bad idea,” vom Saal concluded.
[12 July 12, Thaddeus Baklinski, Perth, Australia,  http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/study-contraceptive-pills-put-teen-girls-at-increased-risk-of-high-blood-pr?utm_source=LifeSiteNews.com+Daily+Newsletter&utm_campaign=8873ae1681-LifeSiteNews_com_US_Headlines_07_12_2012&utm_medium=email]

 

 

 

Hormonal Contraception Increases Women’s Risk Of Acquiring and Transmitting HIV

A two-year, seven-country study (2010) concluded that women using hormonal contraceptives, particularly injectable forms, are at a greater (twice) risk both of acquiring HIV themselves and of passing it on to a male sexual partner.

Researchers led by Renee Heffron of the University of Washington analyzed data from 3,790 couples (i.e. 7,580 people) in seven African countries in which one of the partners was HIV-positive. In two-thirds of the couples, the female partner was HIV-positive, and in one-third, the man. Most couples were married and had at least one child together, on average.

"Women using any hormonal method had twice the risk of acquiring HIV as other women."

Every three months, data were recorded on contraceptive use and sexual behavior, and the HIV-negative partners were tested for HIV.

HIV Acquisition in Women

Of the 1,314 HIV-negative women, 73 acquir

ed HIV.

The incidence of HIV-acquisition among women using contraception was 6.61 per 100 person-years, compared to 3.78 per 100 person-years among women not using contraception.

After adjusting for other factors, women using any hormonal method had twice the risk of acquiring HIV as other women.

HIV Transmission to Men

Of the 2,476 men, 59 acquired HIV from their partner during the study.

HIV incidence in the partners of hormonal contraceptive users was 2.61 per 100 person-years, compared to 1.51 per 100 person-years among men whose partners did not use contraception.

After statistical adjustment, men whose partners used any form of hormonal contraceptive had twice the risk of acquiring HIV as other men.

ED. NOTE: Be sure to study the charts & data; many times these important facts are not indicated in the text of the study, possibly because these findings are not politically correct.

Journal Study:
Heffron Renee, Were Edwin, Celum Connie, Mugo Nelly, Ngure Kenneth, Kiarie James and Baeten Jared. A Prospective Study of Contraceptive Use Among African Women in HIV-1 Serodiscordant Partnerships. Sex Transm Dis. Jul 1 2010;68(7):4207-4216

Second Article — Heffron R, Donnell D, Rees H, Celum C, Mugo N, Were E, et al. Use of hormonal contraceptives and risk of HIV-1 transmission: a prospective cohort study. Lancet Infectious Diseases. 2012;12:19–26.
http://journals.lww.com/stdjournal/Abstract/publishahead/A_Prospective_Study_of_Contraceptive_Use_Among.99149.aspx
[http://journals.lww.com/stdjournal/Abstract/publishahead/A_Prospective_Study_of_Contraceptive_Use_Among.99149.aspx ; The Lancet Infectious Diseases, October 4, 2011; Family Foundations, Jan-Feb 2012]

Oral Contraceptive Use Raises Blood Clot Risk in Women with Iliac Vein Condition

It is already know that the use of oral contraceptives can raise the risk of deadly blood clots by 500 percent, but California researchers have found that for women with a common vein malformation, the risk rises dramatically.

In the study published by the American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Stanford University School of Medicine’s Dr. Lawrence Hofmann and his team noted that up to 25 percent of the population has a vein malformation or narrowing, known as stenosis, in the left common iliac vein.

"Women with a common vein malformation who take combined-oral contraceptives have a nearly 18 TIMES greater risk of developing DVT.

The researchers then compared 35 women with deep vein thrombosis (DVT), a blood clot that is potentially fatal, against 35 women
without the condition.

They found the risk of DVT in women with a 70 percent venous stenosis who also use combined-oral contraceptives (COC) — containing both the hormones estrogen and progestin — to be nearly 18 times greater than women with the same condition who did not use COCs.

This finding compares with an overall risk 3.5 times for women with venous stenosis and 5 times for women with COC-use.

The researchers noted that about one to three young women among every 10,000 who are not taking oral contraceptives will develop DVT every year.
That risk is 6 times greater for young women who take the Pill for a year.
Abstract Presented at the 36th Annual Scientific Meeting of the Society of Interventional Radiology, Chicago, IL, March 26-31, 2011 — http://www.ajog.org/article/S0002-9378%2811%2900895-7/abstract
"Common iliac vein stenosis: a risk factor for oral contraceptive-induced deep vein thrombosis"
[LifeSiteNews.com, August 10, 2011; Family Foundations, Jan-Feb 2012]

http://www.ajog.org/article/S0002-9378%2811%2900895-7/abstract
ABSTRACT

Presented at the 36th Annual Scientific Meeting of the Society of Interventional Radiology, Chicago, IL, March 26-31, 2011; "Common iliac vein stenosis: a risk factor for oral contraceptive-induced deep vein thrombosis"

Objective
The objective of the study was to determine whether women with significant left common iliac vein stenosis who also use combined oral contraceptives (COCs) have a combined likelihood of deep vein thrombosis (DVT) greater than each independent risk.

Study Design
This was a case-control study comparing 35 women with DVT against 35 age-matched controls. Common iliac vein diameters were measured from computed tomography and magnetic resonance imaging. Logistic regression modeling was used with adjustment for risk factors.

Results
DVT was associated with COC (combined oral contraceptive) use (P = .022) and with increasing degrees of common iliac vein stenosis (P = .004). Compared with women without venous stenosis or COC use, the odds of DVT in women with a 70% venous stenosis who also use COCs was associated with a 17-fold increase (P = .01).

Conclusion
Venous stenosis and COC use are independent risk factors for DVT. Women concurrently exposed to both have a multiplicative effect resulting in an increased risk of DVT. We recommend further studies to investigate this effect and its potential clinical implications.

 

 

 

Study: Depo Provera Use Increases Breast Cancer Risk

A new study of women using the Depo Provera birth control drug finds the risk of breast cancer is increased, according to information released today from the on Abortion/Breast Cancer.

The group notes a study of 1,028 women ages 20-44 in the April 15, 2012 issue of Cancer Research found that recent users of Depo Provera (DMPA) for 12 months or more had a statistically significant 2.2-fold increased risk of developing invasive breast cancer.

The authors, Christopher Li and his team (including Janet Daling) at the Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center called it the “first large scale U.S. study” examining the link between Depo Provera and breast cancer. They concluded it’s the fifth study “conducted over a diverse group of countries that have observed that recent DMPA use is associated with a 1.5- to 2.3-fold increased risk of breast cancer.”

Li’s team said the 2003 Women’s Health Initiative study of hormone replacement therapy (HRT) “strongly suggest” that agents containing progestin, “medroxyprogesterone acetate (MPA), in particular, increase a woman’s risk of breast cancer.” MPA combined with estrogen raised risk by 24%, while estrogen only replacement therapy “had a nonstatistically significant reduced risk.”

Joel Brind, professor of human biology and endocrinology at Baruch College, City University of New York, commented on the new study, saying, “In the case of DMPA or any other progestin-only pill, the estrogen component is provided by the woman’s own ovarian estrogen.”

The DMPA-breast cancer link supports an abortion-breast cancer link in the same way cancer-causing oral contraceptives (the pill) and combined (estrogen + progestin) HRT, says Karen Malec of the Abortion/Breast Cancer group.

Malec faulted the Obama administration for promoting
cancer-causing drugs and devices at the same time it accuses pro-life advocates of engaging in a so-called “War on Women” by standing up for conscience rights on abortion and birth control.

“In implementing Obamacare, the federal government will require employers to purchase insurance that provides women free abortifacients, contraceptives and sterilizations, including DMPA. Why offer free drugs that damage women’s health, but not free life-saving drugs?” she asked. “That’s the perfect definition of a war on women.”

“Cancer groups should have implemented a nationwide awareness campaign about the DMPA-breast cancer link, but it’s no surprise they didn’t,” Malec continued. “They’ve lied to women about the risks of abortion, oral contraceptives and combined hormone replacement therapy for decades. They still haven’t reported that two studies since 2009 strongly linked oral contraceptive use with the deadly triple-negative breast cancer.”

Citation:  Li C, Beaber E, Tang M, Porter P, Daling J, Malone K. Effect of depo-medroxyprogesterone acetate on breast cancer risk among women 20 to 44 years of age. Cancer Research 2012;72(8):2028-2035 — Published OnlineFirst February 27, 2012; doi: 10.1158/0008-5472.CAN-11-4064 http://cancerres.aacrjournals.org/content/early/2012/02/25/0008-5472.CAN-11-4064.abstract
[http://www.lifenews.com/2012/06/11/study-depo-provera-use-increases-breast-cancer-risk/]

http://cancerres.aacrjournals.org/content/early/2012/02/25/0008-5472.CAN-11-4064.abstract
Effect of depo-medroxyprogesterone acetate on breast cancer risk among women 20-44 years of age

Abstract
Depo-medroxyprogesterone acetate (DMPA) is an injectable contraceptive that contains the same progestin as the menopausal hormone therapy regimen found to increase breast cancer risk among postmenopausal women in the Women's Health Initiative clinical trial.

However, few studies have evaluated the relationship between DMPA use and breast cancer risk. Here we conducted a population-based case-control study among 1028 women 20-44 years of age to assess the association between DMPA use and breast cancer risk. Detailed information on DMPA use and other relevant covariates was obtained through structured interviewer administered in-person questionnaires, and unconditional logistic regression was used to evaluate associations between various aspects of DMPA use and breast cancer risk.

We found that recent DMPA use for 12 months or longer was associated with a 2.2-fold (95% CI: 1.2-4.2) increased risk of invasive breast cancer. This risk did not vary appreciably by tumor stage, size, hormone receptor expression, or histological subtype. Although breast cancer is rare among young women and the elevated risk of breast cancer associated with DMPA appears to dissipate after discontinuation of use, our findings emphasize the importance of identifying the potential risks associated with specific forms of contraceptives given the number of available alternatives.

Some Information on EC (Emergency Contraception) That You May Not Know

Note the article in the June 5 New York Times on Emergency Contraception http://www.nytimes.com/2012/06/06/health/research/morning-after-pills-dont-block-implantation-science-suggests.html?pagewanted=1&_r=1

In overview, the reason for the article is this: The FDA drug labeling suggests that Plan B may inhibit implantation as well as delay ovulation. When approved in 1999, that was a politically correct conclusion: "take the EC, it will work somehow!" That the post-fertilization action would be abortifacient became more widely realized, especially in recent years. Many doctors won't prescribe an abortifacient drug, and so won't prescribe EC. And the HHS Contraception Mandate requires that we do. Suddenly, the post fertilization potential effect became a practical and a "conscience" downside. Not so politically correct now. So the "scientists" have hurried up to document that the literature does not substantiate post fertilization effect. And they are asking the FDA to change the labeling. Political correctness, not science, drives this NYT article. Fact is, current science cannot conclusively prove, nor disprove, Plan B's abortifacient action.

The NYT article also mentions that James Trussel, a leading EC expert, says Plan B effectiveness is actually 52%, not 89% as noted on the drug literature. (wait and see if THAT gets changed in the drug literature). Plan B sells for between $40 and $50, which a desperate woman (or man) will pay. It contains 1.5 mg of levonorgestrel, an inexpensive drug—consider that 21 pills of alesse, a standard birth control pill, contain a total of 2.1 mg of levonorgestrel, (plus the estrogen component) and the generic sells for about $18. The profit margin for Plan B is double. Desperation will pay money… Effectiveness may be 52%, if taken in the 5 day pre-ovulatory window when it will be effective (day 8 thru 12 of a 28 day cycle) It is no bargain, no matter how you look at it.

Did you know that Plan B delays ovulation only if given in the 5 days before the 48 hour luteal peak window? It does not work if given on day 1 to 7 of a 28 day cycle. And it does not work if given during the LH surge, or after ovulation. How many times is Plan B taken in the correct window of time? Further, it is often mentioned that Plan B will thicken the cervical mucus to slow sperm transport. Bizarre idea. The sperm is through the cervical mucus minutes after coitus, long before any mucus change takes place.

Ella, on the other hand, is different from, and more effective than Plan B. It is a progesterone blocker with a long half-life, and it affects the function of the secretory endometrium. And there is also evidence that it affects the CL function after ovulation. By these two mechanisms, it will undoubtedly adversely affect implantation (abortifacient action), which is why it can be effectively used up to 5 days after intercourse (when Plan B is useless). This fact is well noted, but the literature generally does not mention the possibility ofå abortifacient action.
[24 June 2012, American Association of Pro-Life OBGs]

Dr. Lanfranchi: The Perilous Pill

Dr. Angela Lanfranchi is an expert on the perils of the pill. Her first patient
was a young woman who had a stroke because of pill usage and as a result was hemiplegic
(paralyzed on one side of her body).

Now a breast surgeon, Dr. Lanfranchi spends her days operating on cancerous breasts. Many of her patients have been duped by Planned Parenthood and its cohorts into believing that the birth control pill is the ultimate good, and that any risks that accompany it are so small as to be inconsequential.

In her June 2 presentation at ALL's national symposium on the pill, she outlined the four major mechanisms by which the pill kills women, showing them to be anything but inconsequential:

(1) The pill causes blood clots which can result in heart attack,
stroke, or fatal pulmonary embolism;
(2) the pill causes cancer;
(3) the pill makes it easier to get potentially lethal infections; and
(4) the pill makes it more likely users will die violent death.

Blood clots: Dr. Lanfranchi presented studies that show that women who use the pill have twice the risk of myocardial infarction (heart attack), twice the risk of stroke, and two to three times the risk of pulmonary embolism, because of increased blood clottin

g. Women on pills like Yaz and Yasmin that contain androgenic progestins have an additional 60-80 percent risk of venous thromboembolism (VTE). That explains why the manufacturer of these drugs will reportedly pay at least $100 million to settle some 500 lawsuits filed by women who have been victims of the drugs.

Women with hereditary conditions that cause clotting have even higher rates of VTE, yet women are very seldom screened for these conditions and are rarely warned of the extremely high danger they are incurring by taking the pill.

Cancer: In 2000, the National Toxicology Advisory Panel put estrogen on its list of carcinogens. There are metabolites of estrogen which directly damage DNA causing mutations and cancer.

But what about the claim that the pill prevents some cancers, while increasing the risk of others, making it a “wash”?

In 2005, the UN’s International Agency on Research of Cancer (IARC) reported in its Monograph 91 that estrogen-progestin combination drugs (the pill) were a Group 1 carcinogen for breast, cervical, and liver cancer.

Although the risk of uterine and ovarian cancers was lower on the pill, there is six times more breast cancer in women than uterine and ovarian cancers combined. Any cancer-preventing benefits are greatly outweighed by the breast cancer risk posed.

Long-term pill use increases the risk of cervical cancer. Women who use the pill for five to nine years have twice the risk of cervical cancer. Those who use it for 10 years or more have more than three times the risk of cervical cancer.

In fact, since 1975, the risk of in-situ (early stage) breast cancer has increased 400 percent in premenopausal women.

Primary liver cancer, rare in developed countries, is increased 50 to 70 percent in women who use the pill.

Lethal infections: Women on the pill increase their risk of getting HIV 60 percent when compared to women not taking the pill. Women on the pill were twice as likely to transmit HIV to their partners. And women on the pill are twice as likely to get infected with HPV (human papillomavirus).

Violent death: Two 2010 studies reported a higher rate of violent death among those who had used contraception at some point in their lifetime compared to those who had not, with one study showing that the rate of violent death increases with longer duration of oral contraceptive use.

The Pill Kills Babies: Dr. Lanfranchi explained that the pill is an abortifacient.

Women on the pill have light menstrual periods because the pill reduces the thickness of the endometrial lining, resulting in difficulty of implantation of the embryo after conception has occurred, which can result in an early abortion.

The pill also results in biochemical changes such as in the levels of interleukins, which are molecules necessary for implantation.

Dr. Lanfranchi documents all the studies to which she refers in her PowerPoint presentation which can be accessed here. You can watch her talk and our other excellent speakers on our website at www.ThePillKills.com.

Find link for PPT presentation — http://www.stopp.org/article.php?id=10513

Read more here [http://www.stopp.org/]
[http://www.stopp.org/article.php?id=10513]