side effects

Let’s Talk About Sex, Baby: Hormonal Contraception & Libido

5001 views

“If sexuality is one dimension of our ability to live passionately in the world then in cutting off our sexual feelings we diminish our overall power to feel, know, and value deeply.” –Judith Plaskow

This quote raises an interesting question. If owning our sexuality gives us power, then who benefits from limiting that power? And why is limiting that power an acceptable side effect of hormonal contraception?

During the Nelson Pill Hearings, Dr. M. James Whitelaw testified (page 6015): “How many adult males would be willing to take an oral contraceptive faithfully if they were told that instead of a possible 50-plus adverse side reactions only one remained, that being the possible loss of sex drive and libido? [Laughter]”

What is the implication here? Women can be denied their full sexual capability but the idea of men suffering the same is laughable? Holly Grigg-Spall speaks to that in her book Sweetening the Pill (page 50):

“The pill’s impact on the libido has been publicized but it is generally dismissed with humor. The libido is seen as distinct from women’s emotional and physical health, whereas with men it is linked. The female sex drive is not celebrated or seen as essential to her femininity or sexuality… Research that indicates that lowered libido is experienced by a large number of women on the pill is undercut by the cultural assumption that most women have little real interest in sex regardless of this drug.”

Sexy But Not Sexual

And she’s right. Women are constantly told to be sexy but not sexual. It would seem that hormonal birth control would provide exactly that type of woman. One who could have sex without the consequence of getting pregnant, therefore highly desirable to men; but one who could not fully embrace the power of her own sexuality due to a medication-induced lack of libido. Is this really what we want? A society of women that are physically available for sex but completely disconnected from the powers of her own sexuality? Again I will ask, who benefits from keeping women in that robot-like state?

“The quality of a woman’s sex life, unlike that of a man’s, does not seem to concern the drug companies or the (male) research establishment… Women who reported changes in their sex drive often heard that old refrain: ‘It’s all in your head.’ But the male sex drive is considered so important by the drug companies that it is always studied in conjunction with new male contraceptives, just as it is almost always mentioned in arguments against the condom.” –Barbara Seamen in The Doctors’ Case Against the Pill

It’s true. We hear the argument that condoms lessen sensation during sex. But for whom? Men. Yet for women who use hormonal birth control, low libido and loss of sensation during sex are some of the least dangerous side effects they can expect. Heather Corinna put it so well in her article “Love the Glove” that even Grigg-Spall quoted her:

“If we’re going to talk about condoms changing how sex feels, we need to remember that something like the pill does too, and, unlike condoms, it changes how a woman feels all the time, both during and outside of sex… Other methods of contraception can cause pain and cramping, unpredictable bleeding, urinary tract infections, depression and a whole host of unpleasant side effects. Condoms are the LEAST intrusive and demanding of all methods of contraception, even though some guys talk about them — without considering this perspective — like they’re the most. If guys could feel what life can be like on the pill, use a cervical barrier or get a Depo shot, they’d easily see condoms for the cakewalk they are.”

It’s not just the pill that is damaging to women. As Grigg-Spall explains, Depo Provera (“the shot”) is specifically used to decrease sex drive in sex offender rehabilitation programs. There is something seriously wrong when a birth control option offered to women is the exact same medication used as pharmaceutical castration for sex offenders.

FSD – Female Sexual Dysfunction or Female Sexuality Discouraged?

According to a study of female German medical students published today in The Journal of Sexual Medicine, women taking non-oral and oral hormonal contraceptives were at highest risk of Female Sexual Dysfunction (FSD). Interestingly, women using non-hormonal contraceptives were at lowest risk for FSD, more than women not using any contraceptive.

“Sexual problems can have a negative impact on both quality of life and emotional well-being, regardless of age,” said researcher Dr. Lisa-Maria Wallwiener of the University of Heidelberg, Germany. “FSD is a very common disorder, with an estimated prevalence of about two in five women having at least one sexual dysfunction, and the most common complaint appearing to be low desire.”

Side Effects – Affecting More Than Just the Patient

Why is this okay? Why do we accept this? If a woman is experiencing sexual dysfunction, it not only affects her but it affects her partner as well.

Dr. Philip Ball testified about this very problem at the Nelson Pill Hearings back in 1970 (page 6493): These unhappily newly married women do not know if it is the wrong man, the wrong town, the wrong job, the wrong year, the wrong apartment, or yet something else, when it is really many times the wrong pill.

And he’s not incorrect. Research now shows that taking birth control pills affects women’s taste in men. According to this article from the Scientific American, women on the pill seem to prefer men who are genetically similar to themselves.

“Women who start or stop taking the pill, then, may be in for some relationship problems. A study published last year in Psychological Science found that women paired with MHC-similar men are less sexually satisfied and more likely to cheat on their partners than women paired with MHC-dissimilar men. So a woman on the pill, for example, might be more likely to start dating a MHC-similar man, but he could ultimately leave her less sexually satisfied. Then if she goes off the pill during the relationship, the accompanying hormonal changes will draw her even more strongly toward more MHC-dissimilar men. These immune genes may have a “powerful effect in terms of how well relationships are cemented,” says University of Liverpool psychologist Craig Roberts, co-author of the August paper.”

How any of this is connected to relationship issues, divorce rate, infertility, one can only speculate. But it’s clear that the sexual side effects caused by hormonal contraception are no laughing matter.

Sex is a big part of life. The ability to connect with each other and derive great pleasure from sex is not just a perk of being a human. It is our birthright. And to deny that birthright is to limit our power as women. That’s not what I consider an “acceptable side effect.”

We Need Your Help

More people than ever are reading Hormones Matter, a testament to the need for independent voices in health and medicine. We are not funded and accept limited advertising. Unlike many health sites, we don’t force you to purchase a subscription. We believe health information should be open to all. If you read Hormones Matter, like it, please help support it. Contribute now.

Yes, I would like to support Hormones Matter. 

Image by Pana Koutloumpasis from Pixabay.

This article was published originally on July 14, 2016.

What If We Are Wrong? Medication, Medical Science and Infallibility

6693 views

What if we are wrong? Such a simple question, but one that seems all but absent in modern medicine. Patients, particularly women, routinely present with chronic, treatment refractory, undiagnosed or misdiagnosed conditions. More often than not, the persistence of the symptoms is disregarded as being somehow caused by the patient herself. If the tests come back negative and the symptoms persist, then it is not the tests that are insensitive or incorrect but the patient. If the medication prescribed does not work or elicits ill-understood side effects, then somehow the patient is at fault. If the patient stops taking the medication because of said side-effects, then they are labeled non-compliant and difficult. The patient is always at fault. It is never the test, the disease model, or the treatment.

What if we are wrong? What if the tests to diagnose a particular condition are based on incorrect or incomplete disease models? What if a medication universally prescribed for a given condition doesn’t work or creates adverse reactions in certain populations of people? What if the side-effects listed are incomplete? Is it so difficult to admit that gold standards evolve or that medical science is fluid? Certainly, if a patient is presenting with a constellation of symptoms that create suffering and those symptoms do not remit with a given medication or medications and/or do not appear on the available diagnostic tests, why is it so difficult to consider that either the medication doesn’t work, the diagnostic was insufficient, or the diagnosis itself was incorrect? Why is it that we assume it must be a mental health issue or somehow the patient is causing the symptoms herself?

Here, one doctor tells how he learned that he was wrong about diabetes and metabolic disorder. He gleaned this not from a book or from his training and not from listening to his patients, but when he, a previously healthy young man, developed a metabolic syndrome that led to obesity and type 2 diabetes. It was by his own personal crisis that he began to question the model of diabetes and its relationship with obesity. Dr. Peter Attia asks:

What if we are wrong?

What if we are wrong, indeed. There are so many areas of medicine where we may be wrong; where we are likely wrong, but where no one is asking the question.

We congratulate Dr. Attia for his discovery, but why does it take a personal crisis for a physician to question the status quo? Why is there such fealty to particular disease classifications or disease models even when there is evidence to the contrary? Is it the nature of modern medicine to lay down guidelines and be done or is it simply human nature to resist the notion that we can be wrong? Maybe a combination of both; I don’t know the answer, but I do know that if one is certain of everything there can be no room for learning or discovery.

On the other hand, if we begin with the notion that humans, and thus, the structures humans create are fallible – that we do not know or understand everything – and if we add to that humility a dose empathy, perhaps then we can begin healing patients rather than managing them.

We Need Your Help

More people than ever are reading Hormones Matter, a testament to the need for independent voices in health and medicine. We are not funded and accept limited advertising. Unlike many health sites, we don’t force you to purchase a subscription. We believe health information should be open to all. If you read Hormones Matter, like it, please help support it. Contribute now.

Yes, I would like to support Hormones Matter.

Image by Carlos Lincoln from Pixabay.

This post was published originally on Hormones Matter in July 2013.

Iatrogenic Illness and Pharmaceutical Side Effects

3697 views

Are you familiar with the phrase “iatrogenic illness”? An affirmative answer is more likely among the readers of this website than the public at large, but I would argue that even we (those of us who frequent this website) don’t give it the attention it deserves. In fact, if we changed the way we looked at iatrogenic illness, it could reframe the way we look at the entirety of medicine.

The Effect of Side Effects

Iatrogenic means an ailment that is actually caused by a medical examination or treatment. Perhaps the reason it receives less attention than it should lies in the fact that the classification would usually require an admission of guilt from the person most likely to identify it. Most doctors aren’t inclined to draw attention to the fact that something they did caused a new problem.

Consequently, we tend to associate iatrogenic illnesses with things like infection after a surgery, where it happens despite the medical team’s best efforts to prevent it. And, the only time we weigh the iatrogenic effect of pharmaceuticals being administered comes in extreme cases, like chemotherapy, where the patient and their family often weigh the quality of life versus the quantity.

However, we really should start considering the quantity of effect versus quality much sooner in life.

The Primary Effect

Think about the early development of a new drug and then consider this old phrase:

“There are no side effects, only effects.”

When a new drug is in development, the chemical engineers have a sense of what the desired effect will be, largely because most new drugs are variations on existing medications. But, this focus on a primary effect can lead us to discount the other effects on the body. It’s as if simply labeling an effect as a ‘side effect’ trivializes it in our minds.

What we must keep in mind is that by introducing these compounds into our bodies, we open ourselves up to the potential to experience any and all of the various effects. The doctor may give it to us to treat a specific ailment, but the reality is we’re susceptible to the entire array of effects.

Granted, these other ‘side’ effects may not happen as frequently as the ‘primary’ effect, but are drug makers still failing to give them proper attention as they weigh the benefit-to-risk simply because of how they may negatively impact marketing?

Creating a Drug Market

Let’s look at a couple of examples to see how marketing ultimately determines which is the ‘primary’ effect of a drug. We will begin with a brand so familiar it has almost become a generic term for analgesics.

In the late 1800s, an inexperienced pharmacist mistakenly sent acetanilide instead of naphthalene to a couple of French doctors who were experimenting with treatments for intestinal parasites. By chance, the doctors soon discovered the new compound reduced fever in some patients and later realized it offered some level of pain relief.

While unexpected, the ‘side’ effects were marketable. That’s why nearly 150 years later acetanilide, which metabolizes in the body to become acetaminophen, is still marketed under the brand name Tylenol, and has become synonymous with its ‘primary’ effects of pain relief and fever reduction, rather than its effect on parasite motility.

What about the other effects – the less marketable ones? Liver damage would probably fall into that category, And, despite the long history, researchers didn’t really start looking into the impact of acetaminophen toxicity on livers in both adults and children until this millennium. It makes one wonder how many people suffered severe liver damage before it caught researchers’ attention.

To some extent, the failure to notice the negative effects can be chalked up to human nature. As we look for the hook to hang our hat, we aren’t likely to notice the corner of the dresser until our little toe ultimately discovers it at a most inopportune time.

One Effect Stands Out

Drug makers aren’t completely oblivious to ‘side’ effects as they develop a new drug. In fact, they become acutely aware of secondary effects when they provide the potential for more profits.

It is a well-known story that the makers of one new drug being developed for high blood pressure and angina discovered that the drug also effectively induced erections in many of their male patients. Once they stripped away the labels of primary effect versus side effects, it probably didn’t take Pfizer’s MBAs long to recognize Viagra’s potential.

Rather than join the crowded, competitive field of blood pressure drugs, they had the opportunity to essentially create a new market catering to those suffering from impotence.

Of course, erectile dysfunction sounds much more like something that needs to be treated so they put their ad budget toward branding the ‘ailment’ as much as the new drug and it paid off in spades. Viagra managed to stay in the range of $2 billion in each year of its patent protection.

Don’t Take Your Eye Off the Ball

The drug and medical industries, which are so clearly on top of the ball when it comes to drug outcomes and profitability, have an abysmal record when it comes to drug outcomes and actual patient experience. It is precisely this focus on profits that clouds their vision, and turns side effects into new symptoms.

This is problematic with any drug, but none more so than with birth control because the patient is typically young and healthy. Plus, I can think of no other drug that is designed to be given to a healthy patient with the intent of stopping a natural process.

Given the disease-free state of so many patients who begin birth control, you would think this is one drug where it would be easy to identify an iatrogenic effect when side effects begin to arise. However, this is rarely the case, and the story of a young woman who recently contacted me provides a perfect example.

A Pattern of Side Effects

After seven years of taking birth control pills, Alexa changed over to the Mirena IUD. She began to notice facial hair growing and mentioned it to her doctor. He ran some tests and discovered her DHEA-S levels were high. A subsequent ultrasound revealed the classic string of pearls on her ovarian tissue, and she was diagnosed with PCOS.

When she questioned her birth control, the doctor insisted that she NEEDED to be on birth control or she would likely end up with endometrial cancer. She felt almost like he was using cancer to threaten her into continuing with birth control. He began to discuss other medicines she would also need to treat her condition.

But, she knew that her ovaries had been fine before starting on Mirena, and just couldn’t accept what the doctor was telling her. She searched online and found the patient information pamphlet for her IUD and learned that the documented side effects include “cysts on ovaries” and “facial hair.”

Alexa opted to take supplements to help balance her hormones and began charting her cycle after removing the IUD. Her cycle normalized quickly, her mood stabilized, and her energy rebounded.

It was the first time she began to realize how much the synthetic hormones had dragged her down over the years. She began to take inventory of all the “symptoms” that she encountered after starting birth control that might have actually been “side effects.”

Not only had the doctor recently missed that the two symptoms (facial hair, ovarian cysts) he used to diagnose PCOS were clearly listed as side effects of the contraceptive device he inserted, but she began to question previous interactions.

The IUD contributed to multiple vaginal infections, which in turn, led to several antibiotic prescriptions, but her doctor never acknowledged that the IUD could have played a role, even though these types of infections had never been a problem prior to the IUD.

She could see a pattern developing.

Then, she remembered when she first started taking The Pill at age 15. She experienced her first bouts of depression, which triggered new scripts for Paxil and then Lexapro.

Depression and anxiety represent some of the most common side effects of hormonal birth control. Yet, they are treated as mere symptoms of a new, unrelated disease by a vast majority of doctors.

A Cascade of Symptoms

I wonder how many young women have lived a similar experience? They unwittingly trade in their health for a cascade of symptoms.

When you hear a story like Alexa’s, you begin to understand why 131 million people in the US take at least one prescription drug, with the average being 4 prescriptions. We lead the world, spending $1,376 annually per capita on these drugs, nearly 50% more than our nearest competitor, Germany.

I don’t mean to insinuate that these new symptoms aren’t in fact new diseases. The subsequent effects of birth control often manifest as long-term, even chronic, new diseases. It isn’t uncommon for synthetic hormones to trigger an autoimmune disease, nor is it uncommon for depression to linger long after a woman stops taking birth control.

These long-term consequences are precisely why the next time your doctor casually hands you a prescription and you feel compelled to bite your lip and not ask the questions bouncing around in your head, ponder the phrase “iatrogenic illness” and don’t be afraid to start questioning the doctor.

After all, you will be the one living (or dying) with the consequences.

#1
In the Name of The Pill

37 customer reviews

In the Name of The Pill*

by Mike Gaskins

The FDA approved The Pill despite it not being proven safe. Today, it has been linked to everything from blood clots and cancer to lupus and Crohn’s disease — and still has not been proven safe.
This book explores the medical and historical disconnects that brought us to this point.




 Price: $ 17.95

Buy now at Amazon*

Price incl. VAT., Excl. Shipping

Last updated on October 21, 2023 at 9:38 pm – Image source: Amazon Affiliate Program. All statements without guarantee.

We Need Your Help

More people than ever are reading Hormones Matter, a testament to the need for independent voices in health and medicine. We are not funded and accept limited advertising. Unlike many health sites, we don’t force you to purchase a subscription. We believe health information should be open to all. If you read Hormones Matter, like it, please help support it. Contribute now.

Yes, I would like to support Hormones Matter.

Image Credit: Photo by krakenimages on Unsplash.

This article was originally published on September 26, 2022.

The Catastrophic Effects of Polypharmacy and Medical Incompetence

12698 views

Polypharmacy and Iatrogenic Injury: More Common Than Recognized

My life should never have taken the catastrophic negative turns that it did. I am well educated, was a minivan driving soccer mom and a devoted wife. I enjoyed a successful career as a pediatric audiologist working in a variety of fast-paced medical settings. I was well liked, a loyal friend to many and an active member of my community. My very vibrant and blessed life was obliterated by a perverse cascade of errors from a broken medical system. This affected my loved one’s lives as profoundly as mine. Had medical providers looked for, and addressed root causes, I’d still be driving that minivan.

It has taken me a long time and immense research to piece together and understand what happened to me. I would like to share my story for whatever understanding can do to ease the pain, and for whatever help it could give to prevent others from experiencing what our family did. First and foremost, however, I want my husband and children to understand the truth of what happened to me.

I did not suddenly develop perverse mental illness out of thin air. I was a victim of repeated misdiagnoses, unrecognized adverse drug reactions/drug toxicity and profound polypharmacy.

This is described in the literature as “medication induced iatrogenic chronic health syndrome, or iatrogenic injury.” It is more common than one would think and it unnecessarily destroys lives.

The First Hit: Toxic Mold Effects Misdiagnosed as Depression

The circumstances which led to my catastrophic outcome are cumulative. It was no one thing, but several hits to my system.

In the late 1990’s, my husband and I were a happy, newly married couple enjoying a carefree dual income lifestyle. We had successful and fulfilling careers, great friends, and loved life; the world was our oyster. Despite all this, however, we both found ourselves incredibly tired all the time and experienced frequent brain fog. My husband also began having recurrent sinus infections. I developed unrelenting headaches, fibromyalgia, dry eyes, vision issues, G.I. disturbance, frequent urination, skin rashes, excessive thirst, irregular menstruation, and disorientation – I was getting lost going to familiar places.

When seeking medical attention for this cluster of symptoms, we were both told we were suffering from mild depression and were prescribed an anti-depressant (SSRI). Neither one of us actually felt “depressed,” though. Yet, we trusted our doctors knew best and so took the anti-depressant medication as prescribed.

It’s absurd that we were given a psychiatric diagnosis given the physiologic symptoms we were experiencing. More unbelievable is that we did not even question the doctor. I would later learn that the constellation of symptoms we had is consistent with toxic mold illness, a subcategory of biotoxin illness known as Chronic Inflammatory Reactive Syndrome (CIRS). I was, in fact, subsequently diagnosed with CIRS.

We unknowingly lived in a home with hidden toxic mold, where up to two feet of water collected in the crawlspace underneath the home seasonally every winter. The root cause of our symptoms which doctors diagnosed as “depression” was completely missed. We did not need antidepressant medication. We needed out of our water damaged home and treatment for mold illness/CIRS. Instead, we got put on an unnecessary neurotoxic medication with serious adverse health risks including the effects “medication spellbinding.”

The Second Hit: IVF Treatments Lupron and Synarel

When we decided to start our family, I experienced infertility. My husband and I utilized in vitro fertilization (IVF) to conceive our two children. During this process many different pharmaceuticals are prescribed for women. The doctors assured us the medications were all “safe”.

I was given Lupron and Synarel as part of my IVF treatment protocols. Both are antineoplastic agents, meaning they are cancer chemotherapy drugs, used off label for fertility treatment. Like all antineoplastics, they are harmful to both cancerous and non-cancerous cells — particularly to pregnant women and developing fetuses. It’s incredibly scary that it is actually used for conception, isn’t it? They are neurotoxic and can induce systemic damage-CNS, connective tissue, mitochondrial, immune, etc.; damage that unfolds over time.

Equally disturbing is that I was advised to stay on an antidepressant throughout pregnancy for a depressive disorder, it turns out, I never had. When I requested to be tapered off of the SSRI before attempting to achieve pregnancy, I was told that the risk of harm to the baby of a mother with untreated depression was greater than any potential adverse effects of in utero exposure to an anti-depressant medication. Really? This made absolutely no sense to me in my circumstance; the only qualifier for my diagnosis of mild depression was unrelenting fatigue. Yet, the doctor instilled such terror in me that I would be irrevocably harming my child if I did not not stay on an antidepressant during pregnancy, I reluctantly followed his advice. Prenatal exposure to an SSRI can be damaging to a developing brain and nervous system. Both my children were born with severe nervous system dysregulation and have developmental and immunological issues.

Toxic mold exposure and SSRIs can both cause various hormonal issues. My infertility was due to anovulatory cycles likely induced by the antidepressants that were inappropriately prescribed for the toxic mold. I had also been on hormonal birth control for many years prior to our attempts at conception. Suffice it to say, I was not healthy. Despite my compromised health, the fertility doctors added more toxic chemicals to my body to initiate conception.

The Third Hit: Fluoroquinolones

My children were both born via Cesarean section-my daughter due to vasa previa, my son due to failed VBAC, failure to descend. In each instance, IV Cipro (drug class fluoroquinolone) was given prophylactically.

Fluoroquinolones are associated with prolonged (up to months or years), serious, disabling and potentially irreversible drug reactions affecting several, sometimes multiple, systems, organ classes and senses”. Fluoroquinolone toxicity can lead to a subsequent systemic health cascade.

Within a couple days after receiving IV Cipro, I experienced acute onset of significant arm weakness and severe wrist pain, requiring the use of wrist guards for several months. I had difficulty physically caring for my children after their birth because of this. I also experienced photosensitivity, hyperacusis, drenching night sweats, constipation/G.I., hair loss, hyperactivity, brain fog, short term memory issues and fatigue. Additionally, I had irritability, emotional blunting, and personality changes after my son’s C-section. All of these symptoms were much more severe after my son’s delivery and they did not ever resolve completely.

After my son’s birth, I was prescribed multiple consecutive courses of oral Levaquin plus steroids for persistent pneumonia I developed during the second trimester of my pregnancy with him. The concomitant use of steroids with fluoroquinolones exponentially magnifies the damage to the body.

Levaquin and Cipro belong to the class of medication known as fluoroquinolones. They are essentially chemotherapy drugs, that negatively impact the immune system, CNS/ANS/PNS, alter DNA, cause mitochondrial and connective tissue damage as well as severe neuropsychiatric/cognitive issues.

“Fluoroquinolone adverse-reactions are categorically different from allergic reactions, rather, fluoroquinolone toxicity is a syndrome of multi-symptom, chronic illness that does not go away when administration of the drug has stopped. Fluoroquinolone adverse-reactions are similar in symptoms and scope to autoimmune diseases, fibromyalgia, ME/CFS, POTS, psychiatric illnesses, neurodegenerative diseases (like ALS and Parkinson’s), and other chronic, multi-symptom, illnesses that involve multiple bodily symptoms. Like many of those diseases, fluoroquinolones adversely affect gut healthmitochondrial healthliver healthneurotransmitter balancemineral homeostasishormones, and more. Fluoroquinolone toxicity is a multi-symptom, chronic, syndrome, that, for many, is incurable.”

Following the fluoroquinolone exposures, my health declined significantly and systemically over the next several years. Extreme fatigue, fibromyalgia, persistent headache, head pressure, G.I. issues, recurrent infections, cognitive issues, muscle wasting and visual disturbances. I also began to develop multiple chemical sensitivities, food sensitivities and electro-hypersensitivity. I have been told by physicians and researchers this is all consistent with fluoroquinolone toxicity which can lead to a progressive health cascade. However, this went unrecognized and, instead I was given large doses of antidepressants which only exacerbated my declining status.

The Fourth Hit: Multiple Viral and Fungal Infections and More Medications

Next, I was diagnosed via lab testing with neurological Lyme disease, bartonella, erichliosis, parasitosis, babesia, CIRS, systemic fungal infections, Epstein Barr and other chronic viral infections (2010). As my health had been decreasing for many years, I was relieved to finally have what doctors thought was the “root,” and I was eager to address it. I was a compliant patient and followed their complex protocols. An utterly insane amount of pharmaceuticals were given over the next six years (listed at the bottom of this post) for treatment, including more rounds of fluoroquinolones (Levaquin, Avelox) and their “second cousins” -Mepron, Malarone, Flagyl. The years of aggressive treatment proved disastrous.

Very well-intentioned doctors missed the pre-existing fluoroquinolone and SSRI toxicity. No regard was taken for the growing burden on organs, most notably the liver and brain. My G.I. system was decimated by dozens of antibiotics. Aggressive “Lyme” treatment involving years of polypharmacy only served to poison me more, further impairing my CNS and immune system. My health status continued to decline.

The Fifth Hit: Sedatives and Anticonvulsants to Quiet the Immune System

After years of Lyme treatment and with medication toxicity already through the roof, the next approach was to add Ativan, a benzodiazepine, and Gabapentin, an anticonvulsant. This was to calm mast cell activation and aide intractable insomnia that had developed. Both were used for off label purposes. Fluoroquinolone exposure can trigger mast cell activation. Toxic mold exposure can also trigger mast cell activation.

I suffered an immediate adverse drug reaction to Gabapentin in February 2015. Within the first day of beginning this medication my handwriting changed. I could not walk straight and began dropping things. I had an obvious and immediate decrease in executive function and short-term memory, along with hyperactivity, twiddling my fingers and other symptoms that I would later learn fall under the umbrella condition called akathisia. According to the Akathisia Alliance for Research and Advocacy:

“[Akathisia] …is an extremely distressing neuropsychiatric syndrome with symptoms including severe agitation, inability to remain still and an overwhelming sense of terror implicated in many suicides and acts of violence. It is a medication side effect.”

I reported all this to my doctor who instructed me to stay on the medication and that my body would “adjust with time”. These were not harmless “side effects” that would fade. This was a serious adverse drug reaction which went unrecognized as such and led to more polypharmacy.

Progressing Neurotoxicity: Let’s Up the Doses of the Contributing Medications

Over the next several months, my cognition and proprioception continued to rapidly decline. Additionally, I experienced the onset of deeply troubling new symptoms – an extreme fear to be alone, intense inner restlessness, confusion, blurry vision, severe headache, hand tremor, worsening insomnia, terror, and derealization/ depersonalization. Repeated changes were made to my Lyme treatment protocol with the assumption that these new symptoms and decline were related to that chronic health condition. The gabapentin and ativan doses were also increased. Changes were made to the SSRI. The adverse drug reaction and increasing toxicity was missed completely and, in fact, additional pharmacy worsened it.

Something was very, very wrong; I just kept declining. In no way did this feel like it was simply an exacerbation of Lyme. By the fall of 2015, things had deteriorated to the point to where I had to stop driving for safety reasons as my vision and motor skills had become too impaired. We had to hire household help and childcare because I had become essentially non-functional. I was acutely aware that my decline was negatively impacting my children and I wanted to make sure there was a capable adult in the home at all times with them. I tried hiding in the bedroom away from their view because my presentation and behavior had become very disturbing…and, I knew it. I would later come to understand that all the new symptoms beginning with the adverse reaction to gabapentin were consistent with medication induced akathisia.

Confirmation: It Was the Medications All Along

In December 2015, after ten months of searching for answers to my abrupt and progressive decline, I finally got confirmation from my doctor and own research that indeed I was experiencing numerous, severe negative medication effects and not solely an exacerbation of Lyme disease.

“In summary, the benzodiazepines can produce a wide variety of abnormal mental responses and hazardous behavioral abnormalities, including rebound anxiety and insomnia, psychosis, paranoia, violence, antisocial acts, depression, and suicide.” Dr Peter Breggin

I also learned that a supervised slow taper off of these psychotropic medications was required for my safety. I was referred by my doctor to a psychiatrist for a guided taper.

I was not “addicted” to the medications, rather my brain had become dependent on them and cessation had to be gradual and monitored.

The psychiatrist advised me to crossover from Ativan to Valium because it has a longer half-life to reduce inter-dose withdrawal effects. Then, once stable on an equivalent dose of Valium, taper slowly off of that. She also wanted to add in other medications to counter the negative side effects of the withdrawal process.

Crossing over to Valium was extremely problematic for me. I experienced an immediate adverse reaction to it with increased agitation and pacing on the very first dose. (It turns out I cannot metabolize Valium properly). Upon reporting this to my physician, she told me just to “go slower” with the process and things would “even out” over time. Despite following her instructions to slow down the crossover, nothing “evened out”. I experienced ever-increasing negative and disturbing symptoms. I now I understand that I suffered multiple drug-to-drug interactions and adverse drug reactions, drug toxicity that went unrecognized for what it was. I had developed medication induced akathisia.

Even So, Let’s Add More Medications

To counter these growing negative effects, the doctors continually changed dosages of existing drugs and added many new ones, all trial and error, with no discernible rationale. This only worsened things, causing even more frightening and violent new symptoms – rapid pacing, twisting dystonia, severe depersonalization, disinhibition, myoclonic jerking, derealization, panic, agitation, aggression, severe insomnia, paranoia, vocal tics including profanity, mono-phobia, agoraphobia, rage, stuttering, disequilibrium, severe confusion, heart palpitations, visual disturbances, air hunger, motor slowing, oppositional behavior and more. My environmental sensitivities also escalated.

The tapering protocol involved adding Valium to cross taper Ativan according to the Ashton Method recommended by my physician. I had a severe adverse drug reaction to Valium which the doctor failed to recognize, escalation of negative symptoms increased. At one point low-dose Seroquel, an antipsychotic, was prescribed to me in an off label use for the extreme insomnia that developed on this cocktail of drugs. Off label use of low dose antipsychotics for insomnia is NOT recommended.

After Seroquel was added, I developed vocal tics, suicidal ideation, extreme terror, delirium, the pacing and other movements increased dramatically. Despite reporting this immediate negative side effect of feeling intense agitation and rage, the doctor denied that a low dose of Seroquel could cause this and told me it must be underlying or emerging psychiatric illness. They continued to add and abruptly remove many other medications.

I lost my sense of human connection and self. I felt completely lobotomized. The collateral damage on my children and husband was and is INHUMANE.

Despite my reporting the immediate negative side effects with the addition of Seroquel, doctors denied that a low dose could cause them and told me it must instead be symptoms of an underlying or emerging psychiatric illness. Really? How do you suddenly develop severe psychiatric illness out of nowhere?

Prior to being put on Ativan and Gabapentin and the subsequent polypharmacy, I had NEVER before experienced suicidal ideation or the other extreme negative behavioral and cognitive changes. I was repeatedly told that my very classic symptoms of akathisia were not akathisia and not related to medications. The Barnes Scale, a standardized tool to assess drug induced akathisia, was never administered.

The very behaviors that were unfolding right before the physicians’ eyes and that I was reporting are known and dangerous medication side effects, included on manufacturers’ warnings. So why then did so many doctors fail to recognize this?

Spinning Out: Let’s Go Cold Turkey. What Could Possibly Go Wrong?

My physical/cognitive/mental health continued to spin out of control with the medication merry-go-round. In August 2016, I was admitted to a psychiatric unit from the ER due to severe confusion, pacing akathisia, and dystonia. The uninformed doctor there forced an abrupt discontinuation of the polypharmacy cocktail I had wound up being put on (in the name of “safe” tapering). Cold turkey off of four psychotropic medications overnight. This severely shocked my CNS. Over the next few weeks, I experienced what I felt were seizures, difficulty forming words, severe vertigo, worsening cognitive function, visual disturbances, racing heart, auditory hallucinations etc. Fearing for my life, as I spiraled into mania, psychosis and suicidality from this abrupt cessation, I sought reinstatement of some of the medications six weeks later. I was accused of “drug seeking” for this decision. It’s not that I wanted to be on any of these poisons ever again; I was simply trying not to die.

The partial reinstatement did stabilize me a bit.

Then, only one month later, I was again rapidly tapered off the polypharmacy cocktail at an outpatient facility. Originally, I understood, the program was completed over 15 days. I have since learned from my medical records that my rapid detox was longer and more intense than the prescribed protocol. According to my records, I received 23 days of treatment with the administration of daily six hour infusions of IV NAD+ with B complex and amino acids (December 2016). My dose was significantly greater than the maximum standard dose of 250 mg, provided at too fast a drip rate and over a treatment course that was many times longer than is typical. I also learned that it was done without proper methylation support.

From what I have learned, this treatment is purported to protect the brain and ease medication withdrawal syndrome. However, this was not at all what happened for me. I had a severe negative response to it, utterly catastrophic, inducing permanent profound physical disability. During the IV administration, I experienced extreme brain burning, increased heart rate/blood pressure, auditory hallucinations, seizures, extreme agitation, terror, tremors, fever, hypomania, worsened akathisia with pacing, violent dystonia, hand clawing, delirium, jerking and twitching, homicidal and suicidal ideation. Most horrifically, the severe adverse reaction caused an impulsive akathisia induced suicide attempt.

With pre-existing mitochondrial issues, a suspected underlying connective tissue disorder and years of cumulative toxicity (medication and environmental), it has been suggested by physicians and researchers that NAD+ would increase the cytotoxic effects through reactive oxygenation species. This seems to have accelerated my mitochondrial dysfunction leading to catastrophic connective tissue damage and a progressive musculoskeletal collapse.

There is a genetic/epigenetic researcher, Bob Miller, whose work focuses on Lyme patients and others with complex chronic diseases. He discusses NAD+ in an interview where he mentions that while for some it can be a miraculous molecule, improving many things metabolically, for others it can have serious adverse effects. He believes this could be caused by something he coins the “NADPH-steal”, where NADPH starts acting like a free radical due to other compromised enzymes stealing away the NADPH (excess of sulfites, glutamate, histamine, things like that). With the compromised methylation and Kreb’s cycle that I have, treating all those things prior would be necessary to not to overload the system and cause serious damage. No provider recognized this serious contraindication with their recommendation of NAD+.  In fact, they blindly touted the opposite claiming it to be neuroprotective for all. An interview with Bob Miller’s latest research and perspective can be seen here and here. Another researcher, who specializes in drug neurotoxicity, confirmed the negative effects of NAD+.

The Results of Polypharmacy and Failed Treatments

I have experienced profound progressive connective tissue destruction since the IV NAD+. At the age of only 54, I am now non-ambulatory, bed-bound requiring full physical care in an assisted living facility. This has left me unable to bathe or dress myself. I have difficulty feeding and swallowing. I have very limited use of my hands; my manual dexterity is poor. I have profound autonomic nervous system dysfunction and cannot tolerate even supported sitting. It feels as though my entire spine has collapsed, bone on bone-discs and other supportive connective tissue severely compromised. My tendons and ligaments feel too lax systemically throughout my body, head to toe-my feet now literally curl and bend in ways that they should not. My upper palate has fallen and my lower jaw swings so much so that it often feels like I’m being choked. Speech articulation is difficult because of the laxity in my oral cavity. Systemic collagen and cartilage loss. My internal organs don’t feel supported and I’m experiencing prolapse.  I am right side lying 24/7, propped up at an angle and need assistance repositioning my body. Toileting is difficult. My vascular and lymphatic system have been severely affected. I have full body tissue swelling, like an exploded baby diaper.

It feels as if the structural integrity of my connective tissues, the glue that holds *everything* together, is gone…like chewing gum on hot pavement or stretched out pantyhose. I quite literally feel as if I’m melting from the inside out. Additionally, I have constant severe acid burning sensation throughout my body and deep bone pain, head pressure, central vision and auditory processing issues.

And Yet They Insist It Was All In My Head

It has been a grueling 35 months since that IV NAD and rapid taper of toxic medications. During this time period, my mental and cognitive state has steadily and dramatically improved. I no longer have any psychiatric symptoms and my personality has fully returned. I am once again gentle, kind, funny thoughtful and empathetic. Doctors kept insisting that the extreme cognitive and behavioral changes I experienced, beginning with that original adverse reaction to Gabapentin, was an emerging, intrinsic psychiatric illness. It most definitely was not. Rather, it was severe psychogenic effects of drug toxicity that they failed to recognize as such.

They wanted me to continue on various psychotropic medications and strongly recommended I seek treatment in a long-term inpatient psychiatric facility for the severe mental illness they thought I had. If they had been correct in their assessment, I would not have experienced the dramatic return to a healthy mental and cognitive state that I have despite declining their medication/treatment.

I NEVER had emerging severe psychiatric illness that the doctors said I had. Rather, the perverse neuropsychiatric manifestations were actually CAUSED by repeated misdiagnosis and careless polypharmacy. The medications caused these problems.

Misinformed doctors told my family I became perversely mentally ill versus I suffered extreme adverse drug reactions and toxicity. Because of their ignorance, my family believes I abruptly lost my mind at the age of fifty. When I rejected the false diagnoses of emergent psychiatric illness and refused further treatment (i.e., re-starting psychotropic medication), I was labeled non-compliant. This caused my family to believe I didn’t care enough about them to seek “treatment”. In fact, it is because I love them so deeply that I refused treatment. I knew my decision would appear non-compliant, but had I gone back on the poisons that induced this catastrophe in the first palace, I would not have regained my mental and cognitive health. I may have lost my life.

Without an authentic understanding of what happened to me, how are my children supposed to process this trauma? I absolutely did not just lose my mind one day. I was successively and cumulatively poisoned.

In today’s modern world, physicians are grossly misinformed regarding the very real dangers of pharmaceuticals, especially the grave dangers of polypharmacy and adverse drug reactions. Our medical system does not look for root cause. The healthcare system is dangerously broken. Patients are dismissed and gas-lighted when reporting negative side effects and misdiagnosed with psychiatric illnesses instead of recognizing medication toxicity.

I was systematically poisoned into oblivion by modern medicine and labeled with perverse psychiatric illness that did not exist prior. My children deserve to know the truth of what happened. This absolutely never should have happened to me, to my husband, nor to my children.

Over the last 6-12 months, I have had multiple objective tests completed that verified my cognitive, psychological and physical status. As a result, four separate doctors concluded that my past decline was due medical error and polypharmacy. While this is validating, it does not change the fact that my family is now gone and I am left permanently physically disabled due to a fatally flawed medical system and its love affair with prescription drugs.

What They Prescribed

These are most of the medications I was prescribed for the complex umbrella of Lyme disease, co-infections, CIRS, etc. with no regard for toxicity to the liver, brain or organs. Many of these were extended courses, long-term, and given concurrently. Looking back, I cannot believe that I survived. This is what medical polypharmacy looks like. It is not one or two drugs, it is dozens.

  • Macrobid (nitrofurantoin)
  • Ceftin (cefuroxime)
  • Cephalexin
  • Moxatag (amoxicillin)
  • Cefdinir
  • Minocylcline
  • Doryx (doxycycline)
  • Cedax (ceftibuten)
  • Tindamax (tindazole)
  • Minocycline
  • Clindamycin
  • Biaxin (clarithromycin)
  • Rifampin (rifampicin)
  • Augmentin (amoxicillin and clavulanate potassium)
  • Deplin/Duleek-DP (l-methylfolate)
  • Fluconazole
  • Ketoconazole
  • Itraconazole
  • Voriconazole
  • Rocephin (ceftriaxone ) – IV via Hickman catheter
  • Azithromycin – IV via Hickman catheter
  • Mepron(atovaquone)
  • Alinia (nitazoxanide)
  • Malarone (atovaquone/proguanil)
  • Biltricide (praziquantel)
  • Nystatin
  • Bicillian (penicillin G benzathine) – IM injection
  • Albendazole
  • Mebendazole
  • Stromectol (ivermectin)
  • Bactrim/Septra (sulfamethoxazole/trimethoprim)
  • Vancomycin – IV peripheral
  • Cortef (hydrocortisone)
  • Testosterone/progesterone (BHRT)
  • NAD/B complex – IV
  • Meyers cocktails – IV
  • Glutathione – IV
  • Phosphatidylcholine – IV
  • Cholestyramine (CSM)
  • Ketotifen
  • Hydroxyzine
  • Vitamin B12 – Subcutaneous Injection
  • Low-dose naltrexone (LDN)
  • Cipro (ciprofloxacin) – IV
  • Levaquin (levofloxacin) – Repeated and extended courses
  • Avelox (moxifloxacin) – Repeated and extended courses
  • Valtrex (valaciclovir)
  • Medrol (methylprednisolone) – Given concurrently with fluoroquinolones
  • Symbicort (budesonide/formoterol)
  • Synarel (nafarelin acetate)
  • Lupron (leuprorelin)
  • Vioxx (rofecoxib)
  • VSL-3 (bifidobacterium, lactobacillus, and streptococcus probiotics)
  • Singulair (montelukast)
  • ProAir (albuterol)
  • Xopenex (levalbuterol)
  • DuoNeb (ipratropium/albuterol)
  • Alvesco (ciclesonide)
  • Prednisone
  • Promethazine/codeine
  • Chloestyramine
  • Probalan (probenecid)
  • Ursodiol – Given because of rocephin
  • Ferrous gluconate (iron)
  • Nexium (esomeprazole magnesium)
  • Xyzal (levocetirizine)
  • Allegra (fexofenadine)

…And HUNDREDS of oral herbal medicines and supplements

The cascade into unnecessary and catastrophic psychotropic polypharmacy:

  • Celexa (citalopram)
  • Lexapro (escitalopram)
  • Zoloft (sertraline)
  • Remeron (mirtazapine)
  • Buspar (buspirone)
  • Benzodiazepines
  • Ativan (lorazepam)
  • Valium (diazepam)
  • Clonazepam
  • Antipsychotics
  • Seroquel (quetiapine)
  • Risperidone
  • Zyprexa (olanzapine)
  • Antihistamines
  • Benadryl (diphenhydramine)
  • Hydroxyzine
  • Anticonvulsants
  • Gabapentin
  • Lyrica (pregabalin)
  • Baclofen

We Need Your Help

More people than ever are reading Hormones Matter, a testament to the need for independent voices in health and medicine. We are not funded and accept limited advertising. Unlike many health sites, we don’t force you to purchase a subscription. We believe health information should be open to all. If you read Hormones Matter, like it, please help support it. Contribute now.

Yes, I would like to support Hormones Matter. 

This article was published originally on: November 13, 2019. 

 

Thinking About Side Effects

4994 views

I have been thinking a lot about how we characterize the side effects of drugs. Truth be told, that is a topic that I have pondered on a number of occasions since beginning this website. More often than not, we have no idea about the true breadth and depth of these reactions. We think we do, because assuming some semblance of understanding, even an incomplete one, is what allows us to operate in this space, but when we unpeel the layers of that supposed understanding, it is difficult not to be impressed by how little we actually know.

The manufacturers of these products are required to report adverse reactions and side effects before a drug reaches the market and surveil reactions in the broader population after it reaches the market. From here, regulatory agencies, physicians, researchers, and consumers are expected to trust that we know how these drugs do or do not work. Importantly, we are encouraged by this understanding that any negative reactions experienced will be rare, time-limited, and easily mitigated by other medical products. The possibility that there might be side effects not identified by the original research, that ‘rareness’ is relative, and that ill-effects may not be time-limited or easily corrected is difficult to digest. It throws a wrench in the very foundation of the heavily fortified trust in all things modern medicine.

In reality, it is very difficult to ascertain the scope and depth of potential side effects. This is due in part to the complexity of the interactions between the drug, the human, and the totality of his/her environmental exposures and stressors and in part to the economic underpinnings of these endeavors. If one had to include a broader array of variables in a drug trial, no drug would ever be approved, at least not in a timely or cost-efficient manner. Instead, the initial trials utilize the most healthy of participants, perhaps excluding the disease process in question, and all other variables are excluded, both from the subject pool itself and analytically. Who wants to trial a drug on individuals typical of those who would be taking the drug; on individuals with multiple, often chronic comorbidities, for whom both chronic and acute polypharmacy are the norm and not the exception? No one. That would unfavorably skew the data. Better to have a clean subject pool and limit a priori what might be considered an adverse reaction to those that fall within the typically narrow anaphylactic framework and those that are directly related to the purported mechanisms of action of the drug itself. Addressing potential off-target effects must be eliminated or minimized; ditto for potential interactions between the drug and the unique characteristics of the individual. A clean sample and favorable data are the goal.

To that end, adverse reactions research, analyses, and reporting become a ‘see no evil’ approach. If we do not acknowledge the possibility that these reactions exist, then for all intents and purposes, they do not. This means that only the most severe and ‘on-target’ or anaphylactic reactions may be recognized. Any off-target reactions or side effects are labeled as rare and attributed to extraneous variables, unrelated to the drug but entirely related to some inherent weakness of the human who takes the drug.

If confronted with the prospect of negative reactions or even simply negative data e.g. the drug does not work, it is incumbent upon those involved to utilize analytical tools that highlight the good and hide the bad. Data or participant responses that do not fit the desired narrative must be cleaned or removed, post hoc. When that does not work, it is common to select complex statistical methods that no one but the statisticians themselves understand to obfuscate negative findings. Inasmuch as few physicians and even fewer consumers understand even the most basic statistics, this all but eliminates any questions regarding the veracity of the findings. What is written in the abstract or summary is all that will matter. The lede is buried in the stats so that everyone involved might trust in the medication’s safety, trust in their own knowledge, and move comfortably along with their lives.

I admit, this is a cynical perspective, but it is hard-won. After a decade of publishing HM, researching the analytical methodologies employed by drug companies, of investigating the mechanisms of action of many popular and presumed safe drugs, it is difficult not to be jaded. So flimsy are the safety and efficacy data that one is hard-pressed not to question everything. And so here I am amidst a global pandemic for which multiple products have been rushed to market. Pressure to use these products is intense and I and others are left with the sinking feeling that we do not yet know what we think we know about these products or even what we do not know. What we do know is that the developers and manufacturers of these products have a long and well-established history of shady research practices, of burying negative data, of vilifying anyone who questions these practices, and of financing unquestioning support from politicians, ‘thought leaders’, media, and generally, anyone who might be of use. It is not difficult to recognize those same practices at play here but the desire to be safe quells those concerns for most. We’ll take anything and do anything to end this mess, except perhaps ask why we are here in the first place.

We Need Your Help

More people than ever are reading Hormones Matter, a testament to the need for independent voices in health and medicine. We are not funded and accept limited advertising. Unlike many health sites, we don’t force you to purchase a subscription. We believe health information should be open to all. If you read Hormones Matter, like it, please help support it. Contribute now.

Yes, I would like to support Hormones Matter. 

Image credit: PalmaHutabarat

This article was published originally on November 4, 2021. 

More Side Effects from Birth Control- The Liver and the Gallbladder

14349 views

This time of year, the holiday season, can be a time of overindulgence for many of us. And how can we talk about overindulgence without taking a look at the liver? To say the liver is important is an understatement. It is the body’s largest gland and while estimates of the number of functions of the liver vary, many textbooks generally cite around 500. Nearly everything we ingest, from drugs and alcohol to vitamins and nutrients, is metabolized by the liver. The vital role it plays in the functioning of our bodies makes the testimony from the 1970 Nelson Pill Hearings about the effects of oral contraceptives on the liver that much scarier.

Research Presented at the Nelson Pill Hearings

Dr. Victor Wynn was one of the first physicians to testify about the effects of hormonal birth control on the liver.

On page 6341 he states, “if you will take cells out of the liver and examine them under the electromicroscope of women taking oral contraceptive medication, you will find some extraordinary changes.” Of these and other changes caused by the pill, he says: “When I say these changes occur, I mean they occur in everybody, more in some than in others, but no person entirely escapes from the metabolic influence of these compounds. It is merely that some manifest the changes more obviously than others.”

Later to testify was Dr. William Spellacy who was specifically called upon to speak about the metabolic effects on the liver. His testimony about the liver begins, “The biochemical effects of the sex hormones on the liver are legion.” Below is a list of liver functions that, based on the research presented in Dr. Spellacy’s testimony, are altered or impaired (NPH 6427):

  • Lowering of total plasma protein level
  • Decrease in the albumin and gamma globulin and increases in other fractions
  • Tests may be abnormal in women on oral contraceptives without disease being present
  • Estrogen (including that in oral contraceptives) interferes with liver function and varies with dosage
  • Some women taking oral contraceptives have abnormally high blood bilirubin levels
  • 1/3 of women who have jaundice on oral contraceptives will get it when pregnant
  • Discontinuation of oral contraceptives “cures” jaundice

He summed up his thoughts on the liver damage caused by hormonal birth control:

“The immediate effects include the alteration of several of the laboratory tests used in medical diagnoses. Aggravation of existing liver disease, if present, to the point where jaundice may be seen has also been shown. There is no answer to the query of will permanent liver damage result from the use of the oral contraceptives.”

The honorary Chairman of the Population Crisis Committee, a “pro-pill” organization focused on population control added his two cents about the effects of oral contraceptives on the women using them. “While metabolic alterations affecting the liver and other organs do result from use of the pill, there is no evidence at this time that they pose serious hazards to health;” General William Draper, Page 6705.

Of course, we shouldn’t assume that just because a medication causes a “legion” of biochemical effects on the livers of otherwise healthy women that there will be any lasting problems, right?

Research Since the Hearings

“Women more commonly present with acute liver failure, autoimmune hepatitis, benign liver lesions, primary biliary cirrhosis, and toxin-mediated hepatotoxicity,” according to a 2013 article in Gastroenterology and Hepatology.

Like I mentioned in my piece about rheumatoid arthritis, whenever a health issue affects women disproportionately, there is often a connection with hormonal birth control. While this study doesn’t specifically mention that, it does call for further studies assess the role of sex hormones and other behaviors on liver problems in women.

These connections were well-documented at the 1970 Nelson Pill Hearings but the subsequent research gets more confusing.

Timeline of Liver Research

1980: Lancet published an article showing the connection between malignant liver tumors and women using oral contraceptives.

1989: The British Journal of Cancer found “confirmation in this population of the association between oral contraceptives and hepatocellular carcinoma” and “the relative risk was significantly elevated in long-term users [of oral contraceptives].”

1992:This study, the largest to date, adds to the number of investigations demonstrating an increased risk of primary liver cancer with use, particularly long-term use, of oral contraceptives.”

2006:Long-term use of oral contraceptives (OCs) and anabolic androgenic steroids (AASs) can induce both benign (hemangioma, adenoma, and focal nodular hyperplasia [FNH]) and malignant (hepatocellular carcinoma [HCC]) hepatocellular tumors.”

Yet a 2015 meta-analysis concluded that “oral contraceptive use was not positively associated with the risk of liver cancer.” However, the analysis also conceded that “a linear relationship between oral contraceptives use and liver cancer risk was found.” And the authors noted the need for further research into specific formulations of oral contraceptives and the duration of usage.

It makes you wonder how we went from pretty convincing and highly damning connections between oral contraceptives and liver cancer to no positive association at all. Did all the scientists from the 1960s to 2006 get it wrong? Or is something else going on here?

What About the Gallbladder?

Perhaps we can look at the liver’s little buddy, the gallbladder, for some more information. The two are intimately connected in that the liver is constantly making bile and sending it to the gallbladder for storage and dispensation. Like problems with the liver, women are more likely to develop gallstones than men. According to the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases, “Extra estrogen can increase cholesterol levels in bile and decrease gallbladder contractions, which may cause gallstones to form. Women may have extra estrogen due to pregnancy, hormone replacement therapy, or birth control pills.”

This was proven shortly after the Nelson Pill Hearings. According to the revised edition of The Doctors’ Case Against The Pill by Barbara Seaman:

“The Pill also has serious adverse effects on the gallbladder, and women who take the Pill face an increased risk of someday facing surgery for gallstones. Pill use causes higher levels of cholesterol saturation in the bile, according to a study reported in the New England Journal of Medicine in 1976. This high level of fate in the bile is considered ‘an early chemical stage of gallstone disease,” according to Dr. Donald Small of the Boston University School of Medicine… The risk of gallbladder disease rises with the length of time a woman has been on the Pill… In some studies, Pill users are two and a half times as likely to suffer from gallstones as comparable women.”

A meta-analysis conducted in 1993 found “Oral contraceptive use is associated with a slightly and transiently increased rate of gallbladder disease” and “Considering…the rapidly changing formulas of oral contraceptives, the authors suggest that the safety of new oral contraceptives be evaluated by studying bile saturation and biliary function rather than by waiting for gallbladder disease to develop.”

A much more recent study (2011) found that there was even more risk of gallbladder disease with the newer formulations:

  • Long-term use of an oral contraceptive is associated with an increased risk of gallbladder disease compared with no use
  • There was a small, statistically significant increase in the risk of gallbladder disease associated with the use of desogestrel, drospirenone and norethindrone compared with levonorgestrel
  • Both estrogen and progesterone have been shown to increase the risk of gallstones
  • Estrogen has been shown to increase cholesterol production in the liver, with excess amounts precipitating in bile and leading to the formation of gallstones
  • Progesterone has been shown to decrease gall-bladder motility, which impedes bile flow and leads to gallstone formation

The gallbladder shows us that these hormones are damaging the body.

What Now?

So what do you do when you have a gallbladder that’s not functioning properly? The current practice is to take it out! Of course, removing the gallbladder is not the quick fix many think it is and often leads to other health complications like irritable bowel syndrome, acid reflux, and Sphincter of Oddi Dysfunction.

What about when your liver isn’t functioning properly? That’s not as simple. You can’t just take a liver out. How can the gallbladder, an organ so fundamentally connected to the liver, experience drastic and dangerous changes from hormonal birth control but the liver is supposedly unaffected? Have we researched ourselves out of that problem by declaring that it isn’t a problem? Has there been some spin-doctoring going on when it comes to the liver?

As Dr. Wynn said at the hearings, “There are more than 50 ways in which the metabolic functions of the body are modified, and to say therefore that normal physiological function has been demonstrated in the years of oral contraception is to overlook a very large amount of information.”

I think a very large amount of information has indeed been overlooked.

We Need Your Help

More people than ever are reading Hormones Matter, a testament to the need for independent voices in health and medicine. We are not funded and accept limited advertising. Unlike many health sites, we don’t force you to purchase a subscription. We believe health information should be open to all. If you read Hormones Matter, like it, please help support it. Contribute now.

Yes, I would like to support Hormones Matter.

This article was first published December 15, 2016.

Blinded By Side Effects: Vision and Hormonal Birth Control

7871 views

I don’t know about you but my vision is pretty important to me. I’m using it right now to type this article. I use it all the time, every waking hour of the day (except maybe when I’m meditating). So when I read the Nelson Pill Hearings and I came across the testimony of Dr. Guttmacher, I was shocked.

“Now, in addition to the danger from thromboembolism which has been described to this committee on several occasions by several witnesses, I think that there are other dangers for the pill… such as high blood pressure, headache, depression, interference with vision, and so on.” (page 6566)

Wait… the birth control pill affects your vision??? How can that be? And how could he just say that in passing? Why did no one on the Senate committee stop him and make him explain that that statement? It turns out, just like diabetes, yeast infections and UTIs, depression, weight gain, and so many other side effects, no one had told me that my vision could be affected by using hormonal birth control.

How Hormonal Birth Control Affects Vision

Hormones affect every system of the body so perhaps it should come as no surprise that they can greatly impact your vision. In fact, it is the fluctuation in hormones that is the primary reason for worsening eyesight with age. So of course, manipulating the body’s natural chemistry by using hormonal birth control can cause a variety of vision problems.

Dry Eye

According to the National Eye Institute (NEI), “Dry eye occurs when the eye does not produce tears properly, or when the tears are not of the correct consistency and evaporate too quickly.” While usually more uncomfortable than dangerous, if dry eye is left untreated it can cause pain, ulcers, scars on the cornea, and in rare cases, some loss of vision.

The NEI also states that it can be temporary or chronic and that one of the causes of dry eye is medications such as birth control. Unfortunately, that means dry eye is often overlooked in young women and teen girls using the pill. As Dr. Reiser of the Cornea Institute at the Children’s Hospital of Los Angeles points out, doctors “may not even think of it, but these drugs are frequently prescribed to treat skin problems and dysmenorrhea. Some [ocular] symptoms can mimic what you see in menopausal women.”

We also see dry eyes as a side effect of women who’ve had hysterectomies. Robin Karr details her experience with it here. It’s obvious that eye health is linked to hormones but the vision problems associated with hormonal birth control don’t stop there. Dry eyes may be the least of our worries.

Glaucoma

Dry eye may be uncomfortable and inconvenient but glaucoma, another eye condition linked to hormonal birth control, can be much more dangerous. Glaucoma causes damage to the optic nerve and can lead to permanent loss of vision. Perhaps the scariest thing about glaucoma is that most patients have no symptoms and are only diagnosed when having an eye exam. A researcher and ophthalmologist from the University of San Francisco found that use of birth control pills for three years or longer doubles the risk of glaucoma.

The fact that glaucoma is the second leading cause of blindness and that there is no cure  is very disturbing. The American Optometric Association downplays the findings of this study and calls for more research. Yet, that seems to be the response to all of the research about the dangerous side effects of hormonal contraception. How much more research do we need to show that these medications are dangerous and dangerously over-prescribed? A woman could literally go blind from a medication she’s been prescribed to treat acne.

Retinal Occlusion

As someone who had a stroke while using hormonal birth control, this risk probably shouldn’t have come as a surprise to me. Retinal occlusion is a stroke of the eye caused by a blockage in the blood vessels of your retina. These blockages can be caused by blood clots, a well-researched and documented side effect of hormonal contraception. Like with a stroke of the brain, recovery isn’t guaranteed. Some people who suffer these retinal occlusions will never see again.

In fact, the risk with oral contraceptive use is so substantiated that you can find it in the “Practicing Ophthalmologists Curriculum Core Ophthalmic Knowledge” on the American Academy of Ophthalmologists website.

It should also be said that many of our Real Risk: Birth Control and Blood Clots study participants experienced vision changes before and during their blood clots. This was the case not just in the women who had had strokes but surprisingly also in the women who suffered pulmonary embolisms.

Seeing Clearly

I used birth control pills for 10 years and I never once had a healthcare professional- not my gynecologist, not my general practitioner, not my ophthalmologist- tell me that vision problems were a side effect. That Dr. Guttmacher mentioned it in passing at Nelson Pill Hearings seemed to indicate that the risk was well-known, even back in 1970. Current research supports that hormonal contraceptives adversely affect vision. Where does that leave us? What would you be willing to give up for a medication? Your physical health? Your mental health? Your libido? Your vision? Your life?

What else do we need in order to see that hormonal contraception is not worth it?

Real Risk Study: Birth Control and Blood Clots

Lucine Health Sciences and Hormones Matter are conducting research to investigate the relationship between hormonal birth control and blood clots. If you or a loved one have suffered from a blood clot while using hormonal birth control, please consider participating. We are also looking for participants who have been using hormonal birth control for at least one year and have NOT had a blood clot, as well as women who have NEVER used hormonal birth control. For more information or to participate, click here.

The Real Risk Birth Control Study: Take Charge, Find Answers

2517 views

I recently read an article about how fewer women are taking birth control pills now. The article claimed:

“The reasons behind the shift are hard to pin down. Study after study has shown the pill is generally safe for most women, and is 99 per cent effective with perfect use. The pill’s safety has only improved since it was introduced in 1960. It is perceptions that are changing.”

This is completely untrue. It wasn’t safe in 1960 and it certainly isn’t any safer now. It’s also not true that study after study has shown it to be safe. At the Nelson Pill Hearings, the 1970 congressional hearings on the safety of the birth control pill, every doctor that testified agreed that more research was necessary. Yet, every modern study I have found (from research on depressionweight gaindiabetes and more) has said that even more research is necessary to make any conclusions. So in the 46 years since, we still don’t adequately understand the risks with hormonal contraceptives. Dr. Paul Meier, who testified at the hearings, spoke about the challenges of conducting said research:

“Of far greater concern to me is the failure of our governmental agencies to exercise their responsibilities in seeing to it that appropriate studies were carried out… Frankly, the required research, although important, is not especially appealing to scientists. It is not fundamental and it is not exciting. It is difficult, it is expensive, and it is fraught with the risk of attack from all sides.

Evidently, for whatever reasons, there is no sound body of scientific studies concerning these possible effects available today, a situation which I regard as scandalous.

If we proceed in the future as we have in the past, we will continue to stumble from one tentative and inadequately supported conclusion to another, always relying on data which come to hand, and which were not designed for the purpose.”

We can see that what Dr. Meier warned against is exactly what has happened. Experts testified in 1970 that the pill was linked to depression and possibly suicide. They warned that the pill should not be given to women with a history of depression. Yet, in 2004 when I was depressed after switching my brand of pill, my doctor told me that wasn’t a side effect. It wasn’t until last month that a European study on hormonal contraception said what no American study has dared. The pill is irrefutably linked to depression.

Unfortunately, depression is only ONE of the side effects of hormonal birth control. Obviously, blood clots are one of the most dangerous and why we are looking at them with this research study. Other side effects that were warned about at the Nelson Pill Hearings but for which the current research claims even more research is necessary include: diabetes, weight gain, cancer, loss of libido, urinary tract and yeast infections, lupus, infertility, hypertension. So no, studies do not actually show that “the pill is generally safe.” What studies show is that there STILL needs to be more research. Well, if they haven’t done it in the past 46 years, when are they going to do it?

As for the pill’s safety improving, just look the increased risk with newer formulations. Third and fourth generation pills have significantly higher risk for deadly blood clots.

“The problems with Yaz and its sister pills stem from drospirenone, a fourth-generation progestin.

After years of blood clot reports, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA), reviewed studies on oral contraceptives and found that an estimated 10 in 10,000 women on newer pills will experience a blood clot versus 6 in 10,000 with older pills.

Another study conducted by the French National Agency for the Safety of Drugs and Health Products (ANSM) found that birth control pills were linked to more than 2,500 cases of blood clots annually between 2000 and 2011. But third- and fourth-generation pills were responsible for twice as many deaths as earlier pills.

Two studies appeared in the British Medical Journal in 2011 and indicated newer pills were two to three times more likely to cause blood clots.

Why would the pharmaceutical industry make newer birth control pills that are less safe? Maybe because once the patent runs out on medication they don’t make as much profit. So they change the formula and market it as a new and better pill. As history has shown though, there never seems to be enough research done before these products are approved. And women are paying the price. Dr. Ball warned of this at the Nelson Pill Hearings when he said (page 6500):

“Each time we change the dose or the chemical, you have a whole new ball game statistically, and then a long period of time has to go by for evaluation. Again, is it going to be just this unscientific, hand-out-the-pills-and-see-who-gets-sick business, which I say is wrong and which has been done. Each time there is a new pill, there is a new problem.”

Alas, that’s exactly the business that’s been taking place. Throw in the fact that doctors often dismiss the complaints from women as psychosomatic and you have a recipe for a completely misrepresented medication.

I don’t know about you but I’m tired of being a rube for the pharmaceutical industry. If we want to know what’s really going on with hormonal contraception, we’re going to have to start looking at it ourselves. We can’t wait for the government or the pharmaceutical industry to provide us with perfectly funded, unbiased research. They haven’t done that in the near 50 years since the Nelson Pill Hearings and there’s little indication they are going to start now. That’s why we’re conducting this research ourselves. We need information to help women assess what their REAL RISK is for taking a medication. Not what their doctors are telling them based on studies conducted by the pharmaceutical industry. The aim of this study is not to take away contraceptive options but to provide more accurate information about which women may have more risk for serious side effects like blood clots and which forms of hormonal contraception may be more dangerous than others.

It’s time to take charge of our health and find our own answers. That’s exactly what this research hopes to do but we need your help to do it. Please participate. And please share our study with those you know who might be willing to help. Thank you.

Take Charge: Participate in the Birth Control and Blood Clots Study

Lucine Health Sciences and Hormones Matter are conducting research to investigate the relationship between hormonal birth control and blood clots. If you or a loved one have suffered from a blood clot while using hormonal birth control, please consider participating. We are also looking for participants who have been using hormonal birth control for at least one year and have NOT had a blood clot, as well as women who have NEVER used hormonal birth control. For more information or to participate, click here.