birth control side effects Archives

Why Does Yaz Get a Pass?

Published on April 11, 2024

1849 views

In the early days of hormonal birth control, many physicians and politicians seemed extraordinarily indifferent to the side effects linked to the magic little pill, and world-renowned neurologist, Dr. David Clark could not hide his dismay. He lamented incredulously that it was as if The Pill had been granted some sort of “diplomatic immunity.”

In those days, when you referred to “The Pill,” you meant Enovid. It represented the only formulation – the only brand of hormonal birth control available. Yet, despite the limited exposure, specialists from many fields had already begun to sound alarm bells. They witnessed healthy, young women suddenly experiencing unusual outcomes, such as depression, lupus, and strokes. Unfortunately, those outcomes are not so unusual or uncommon today.

Now, a variety of methods deliver the potent drugs: patches, implants, injections, and even the IUD. We are nearly a quarter of a century into the fourth generation of progestins, while the estrogenic component of combination birth control has never changed. It is still the same ethinyl estradiol first tested by Nazi scientists on concentration camp prisoners as a means of chemical sterilization.

You would think that, with all the current options for birth control, if one method or one formulation stood out as particularly egregious, the diplomatic immunity for that specific method might be waived. I wrote previously about how the Depo injection still seems to enjoy protected status despite having some pretty serious flaws above and beyond other forms of birth control.

But surely the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) would respond differently if a new version of the same old combo pill presented more worrisome problems, right?

Checkered Record

Yasmin hit the market in 2001, and Yaz followed in 2006. Both featured a new synthetic steroid, a fourth generation progestin called drospirenone. Bayer tagged the new formulations with the slogan “Beyond birth control” because they claimed that, beyond pregnancy prevention, this new generation provided a solution for those suffering from acne and/or premenstrual dysphoric disorder (PMDD).

However, controversy began to enshroud the new drugs before Yaz even came to market. In 2003, the FDA notified the drug’s makers that their advertisements for Yasmin were misleading because their claim that it was more effective than other brands was unsubstantiated. Perhaps even worse, these ads failed to warn that the new formulation could elevate a user’s potassium to dangerous levels.

Shortly after the release of Yaz, the FDA began sending similar notifications. First came the same warning about exaggerated claims of efficacy. Then, they took issue with Yaz’s marketing that implied it treated PMDD and acne.

After discovering internal emails from Bayer executives discussing how they could get TV talkshow doctors to promote these “off label benefits,” it appeared that the FDA was finished playing games. They issued a recall of Yaz and Yasmin – well, sort of.

I Don’t Recall the Recall?

It was the most confusing recall ever. In the aftermath, even CBS news ran a story with the headline, “Did You Know the FDA Recalled Bayer’s Yaz Contraceptive? Neither Did Anyone Else.”

Something much more sinister than marketing misinformation and misleading semantics triggered the recall. Instead, the recall process was triggered because clinical trial data submitted to the FDA during the approval process had been tweaked to downplay the drug’s elevated risk of blood clots. Bayer took their data and averaged certain measurements to get the numbers they needed.

By 2009, blood clot lawsuits had begun to pile up. The French drug safety agency, ANSM would ultimately release findings that the new pills were responsible for twice as many deaths as previous generations of hormonal birth control. Other studies found that these drugs could be as much as three times more likely to cause blood clots than the already elevated risk of other birth control brands. By 2016, Bayer would pay out over $2 billion to settle more than 10,000 blood clot related lawsuits.

The FDA rarely takes action against any form of birth control, but they finally moved forward with the recall. The only problem was they buried it in the “Enforcement Report” section of their website instead of where recalls are normally posted. Even more confusing was the recall itself. Despite having raised concerns about dubious practices during the approval process, the recall seemed to focus on quality control issues at a particular factory in Germany. Ultimately, the recall only targeted approximately 33,000 boxes of Yaz and 122,000 boxes of the generic version, Ocella.

The Choice of a New Generation

Recall or not, it did not take long for the new birth control formulation to become one of Bayer’s top performers. The various brands associated with the new progestin brought in over $1.5 billion in sales in 2010, and the company’s profits increased by double digits.

All the while, the FDA compounded the confusion by continuing their investigation into the increased incidence of blood clots and mortality associated with drospirenone. By 2011, the scrutiny intensified as new studies showed that women on this combination were 74% more likely to suffer blood clots than other forms.

The insanity of the the mixed messages became equally intense. As the FDA’s advisory committee on drospirenone moved toward a plan of action, the agency suddenly disqualified Dr. Sidney Wolfe, the respected Director of Public Citizen, from the committee because of his “intellectual conflict of interest.” In other words, he had already expressed disapproval for this drug based on its poor safety record.

It would be hard to exaggerate the absurdity of this move. Our first thought might be to equate this to a juror being dismissed for coming into a trial with a biased prejudice against the defendant, but pharmaceuticals are NOT innocent until proven guilty! In fact, the burden of proof for both safety and efficacy is supposed to fall on the drug companies from the outset.

The FDA should never remove a qualified doctor from a committee for having pre-conceived, scientifically sound opinions about the drug in question.

A Toothless Penance

When the dust settled, the FDA ruled that Bayer needed to change the verbiage in the clunky patient information pamphlet that nobody reads anyway. But hey, at least it’s in there, so when more families look to sue Bayer for the loss of their daughter, Bayer can claim they were warned. It’s right there in black and white.

The temptation exists to think this entire situation perfectly portrays the ineptitude of a large governmental bureaucracy – incompetence run amok. Maybe they got sidetracked by the QC issues at the plant in Germany, but they hung with it and eventually forced Bayer to publish information about the elevated risks. Could we have really expected anything more from the jack-wagons at the FDA? I think we could have (and should have).

While it isn’t exactly a heroic example of consumer advocacy, the FDA did demonstrate a little more chutzpah when it came to another drug around the same time.

An Alternative NSAID

In 1999, Merck released a new drug to treat osteoarthritis. Primed to compete against Naproxen, a popular NSAID commonly known by the brand name, Aleve, Merck believed their new product, Vioxx, held a distinct advantage because they were convinced that it would cause less gastrointestinal issues than Aleve.

Eager to accentuate this key differentiator, they launched a massive study of 8,000 patients in January that same year. The Vioxx gastrointestinal outcomes research (VIGOR) study kicked off with points of comparison focused on gastric perforations, ulcers, and bleeds.

Things looked promising when the VIGOR data and safety monitoring panel (DSMP) made their first report to the FDA in October. Soon, they would publish the encouraging results in the New England Journal of Medicine (NEJM). Vioxx patients did indeed exhibit fewer ulcers and less gastrointestinal bleeding, but upon closer inspection, all those green pastures would be revealed to be astroturf.

The following month the DSMP admitted that nearly twice as many Vioxx patients in the study died from cardiovascular events than Naproxen patients, but they contended that the numbers were still low and voted to continue the trial. Without any evidence to back it up, the DSMP suggested that, rather than Vioxx contributing to cardiac issues, perhaps Naproxen provided a protective effect similar to aspirin that brought their numbers down.

Follow the Money

Much like Bayer with Yaz, it was later discovered that Merck took a little creative license with the numbers they presented to the FDA. The researchers took the highly unusual step of recording gastrointestinal events after they stopped recording cardiovascular events. By moving the goalpost for one and not the other, they were able to generate numbers that were much more favorable to Vioxx than what was reality.

Slowly, details of the unsettling truth behind Vioxx came to light. However, since we are talking about medicine and government agencies, we could just as accurately say that they came to light rather quickly.

In early 2000, Michael Weinblatt, the Chairman of the Vioxx DSMP filled out a disclosure form, where he admitted to owning $70,000 in Merck stock. Later that same month, he signed a lucrative new consulting contract with them.

Over the next year, news of at least three previously unreported heart attacks from among the Vioxx users in the study came to light – as did their clunky attempts to cover them up.

In February 2001, the FDA committed to transparency after holding an advisory board meeting related to the Vioxx trials. They sent a warning letter to Merck about their misrepresentation of the drug, and their attempts to downplay its higher risk of causing a stroke.

The agency subsequently published the entire database from the VIGOR study on their website. This allowed researchers outside Merck’s sphere of influence to perform a meta-analysis of the data, which ultimately knocked the wind out of the hypothesis regarding Naproxen’s protective affect on the heart.

Unlike their approach with Yaz and Bayer, the FDA’s charges against Merck and Vioxx were direct, clear, and well publicized. Their release of the entire VIGOR database left the company vulnerable.

As more evidence began to mount, Merck’s researchers wiped the egg off their faces and published a correction in NEJM. By September 2004, after continued intense pressure from the FDA, Merck decided to withdraw Vioxx from the market.

As the final bit of dust settled four years later, Merck settled thousands of heart attack and death lawsuits for $4.85 billion.

Corporate Conscience?

Ultimately, the downfall of Vioxx precipitated from the fact that there was already a safer drug on the market that met the same need. If Naproxen did not exist, it is entirely possible that the FDA would have determined that Vioxx’s benefits outweighed the risks and allowed it to remain on the shelves.

So, what about Yaz and Yasmin, for which there are numerous safer alternatives?

After the clunky recall and the required changes in patient information literature, the FDA acted as if it had done its job. When it came to Vioxx, it was ultimately Merck that decided to pull the product from the shelves after coercion from the FDA. Is it possible that Bayer would demonstrate a similar level of corporate conscience?

Believe it or not, this is where the story gets truly interesting, and it flew below my radar for years, until a young woman reached out to me to share her story. For the sake of telling it here, I will refer to her as Sara.

Sara’s Story

As the daughter of two physicians, Sara grew up feeling like the ultimate guinea pig. Since birth, with every symptom or vaguest sign of a symptom, one of her parents always seemed to have a sample drug from the office to try.

As she grew into the age of reason, she resented the perpetual overmedication. While she did not become anti-medicine, she did avoid running to pharmaceuticals with every sniff, cough, and tummy ache. She also vowed to be much more diligent about the chemicals she put in her body. She researched side effects for herself anytime a doctor proposed a new prescription.

Oddly, the same attention to detail did not apply when it was time to start birth control. Like so many women, in her mind, it was almost like hormonal birth control was not a drug. Her doctor prescribed Yaz, and she took it for a while with minimal side effects.

After a couple of years, Sara happened upon information about the questionable recall and concerns about the elevated risk of blood clots. She scheduled an appointment with her ObGyn and told him about her trepidation with continuing on Yaz. He listened empathetically and said he had some good news. He assured her that after so many questions had been raised, Bayer came out with a new, safer formula, called Beyaz.

Elated, Sara started the new prescription. Again, it took a couple of years for her natural pharmaceutical skepticism to activate, but it finally did. It did not take too much digging for her to discover that Beyaz was actually the exact same synthetic steroids at the exact same dosage as Yaz. The only difference – Bayer added a touch of folate.

Sara was outraged.

Why Beyaz?

Bayer claimed the inclusion of folate within the hormonal birth control would help reduce the risk of neural tube defects in case of any pregnancies that might happen while taking the drug.

Even NPR was confused by this “creative” twist on birth control, noting,

Like other modern birth control pills, Beyaz is 99 percent effective. But now the company can tell women their babies are less likely to have certain kinds of serious birth defects, if the pill fails to work for them.

Indeed, this must have presented a nearly impossible quandary for the marketing department. How do pitch a drug that offers benefits to the baby that it is supposed to prevent?

Everything about this enigmatic new formulation inspires questions beginning with why it was even necessary. There is a feasible explanation.

Bayer introduced Beyaz in late 2010 during the height of the fallout over Yaz’s elevated risks. One would have to be truly special to not at least entertain the notion that Beyaz was a strategic response to the bad news cycle.

Sold as Safer

It would be conjecture for me to suggest that Bayer trained their sales reps to tell doctors that the new drug resolved any problems swirling around Yaz. What isn’t conjecture though is that many doctors have been telling women who raise concerns about Yaz that Beyaz is Bayer’s safer alternative.

Sara reached out to me because she had joined several birth control groups on Facebook and found many other women who had a similar experience. They went to their doctor expressing concerns about Yaz and were prescribed Beyaz with the narrative that Bayer had created it as a safer alternative.

It’s possible that when you compare and contrast Vioxx and Yaz it reveals a difference in the two companies. After all, one company pulled their drug from the market, while the other, not only didn’t remove their drug from the market, but doubled-down with a devious new twist on their killer drug.

I think it has more to do with the difference between the two drugs being a pain reliever versus hormonal birth control. Both drugs gained FDA approval based on dubious data. In safety studies, each drug performed poorly against competing drugs that were already on the market. And the companies making both drugs paid billions of dollars to settle outstanding lawsuits. In the end, the pain reliever was removed from shelves, while the birth control formulation and all its sister products remain on the market all these years later.

For me, it represents one more example in a long line of curious situations over the past 60 years that seem to affirm that birth control has, in fact, been granted diplomatic immunity – consequences be damned.

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 Fathromi Ramdlon from Pixabay.

Birth Control Deserves Honest Discussions

by Mike Gaskins

Published on November 28, 2023

3709 views

All throughout school I was something of a class clown. The only difference between then and now is that now I have no class. So, it’s no surprise that it was a joke that first made me start thinking critically (some would argue cynically) about the medical industry.

Q: Do you know what they call the person who graduates at the bottom of their medical class?

A: Doctor.

Seriously. This was something of an epiphany for me as a young man. Prior to that, I automatically put all doctors and even the pharmaceutical industry on a pedestal.

I think it serves us well to remember that, for better or worse, doctors are only human. We especially have to keep this in mind in any conversation we have with them regarding birth control. Most of them have been trained to believe in a very rigid dogma that regards The Pill as a panacea.

The Systemic Indoctrination Surrounding Birth Control

Since my book, In the Name of The Pill came out a few months ago, I’ve received several notes from women thanking me because the book gave them information they weren’t getting elsewhere and brought them comfort as they fought against a system that encourages birth control use at every corner. Some have even said the book made them cry tears of joy because it affirmed that they weren’t crazy. It would be impossible to express how meaningful these messages are to me.

I knew before the book came out that the indoctrination of women began at an early age and I knew that it was relentless. From the time they are young girls, doctors browbeat them with conversations about acne, glowing skin, cramps, PMS, fuller breasts, regulating hormones… With all these benefits, one would be crazy not to want birth control. But even being deeply involved, I am constantly reminded that, as a man, I still have no idea just how bad it is.

This weekend, I received an amazing note from a young woman who was only halfway through my book, but she wanted to thank me because she stopped taking The Pill on the one-year anniversary of starting them. She wrote:

“I decided to stop because I came to the realization that for one whole year I hadn’t felt like myself at all. I suffered from extreme paranoia and depression, my hair was falling out in clumps and I felt so fatigued all the time that I couldn’t even see my friends or enjoy my life. I went to the doctor at least once a month with worries and fears about clots and I just couldn’t do it anymore. My body has been struggling a lot coming off of it but mentally and emotionally I am in such a better place and your book has provided me so much comfort in knowing that I’m not crazy!”

You might wonder, “If it was that bad, why did she wait a whole year before she stopped taking them?” But if you’re wondering that, you’re probably a man because most women already know the answer. She continued:

“I tried to go off of birth control once this past year and felt so sick and my doctors persuaded me to go back on it because I ‘obviously need to be using it, if I don’t feel well.’”

Unfortunately, that seems to be a pretty common outlook from the medical field. When you complain about side effects like paranoia, depression, hair loss, or fatigue while you’re on The Pill, they downplay them or dismiss them altogether. But, when you mention feeling bad as your body tries to readjust after you stop the flood of synthetic hormones, that’s proof that you need The Pill.

A little bit wiser the second time around, she took a different approach:

“I have also convinced another close friend to come off of it and we have been supporting each other through the transition – it’s been tough but so worth it to feel like myself…I am now working on healing and am using non-hormonal methods as birth control and feel empowered and liberated!”

The Truth Will Set You Free

I love that she discussed this with a friend and they formed their own support team. It’s no wonder Holly Grigg-Spall, the author of Sweetening The Pill, subtitled her popular book, “How We Got Hooked on Hormonal Birth Control.” As she documents her own struggles to ditch The Pill, she concludes:

“The silencing of honest discussion causes many women to suffer unnecessarily. It wasn’t until I stopped taking the pill that I developed the needed energy, motivation and clarity of thought to express why I had to stop and to question why it had taken me so long to make that decision.”

As simple as it sounds, honest discussion may be the biggest weapon in our arsenal to fight the ubiquitous messages of misinformation coming from the medical community. There is no informed consent. That’s a myth. Our recent citizen’s petition to the FDA demonstrated that even the patient information pamphlets are incomplete. If informed consent is the goal, that information has to come from somewhere. Unfortunately, in the current culture, open and honest discussions among friends are about the only chance a woman has to be informed about the real risks of taking hormonal contraceptives.

Turn the Spotlight on Hormonal Birth Control

Without these discussions (which shouldn’t be limited to women), the damage being caused by The Pill goes unrecognized and leads to under-reporting. It’s hard to believe, but despite the vast number of documented cases of women being harmed by birth control, those numbers are most certainly insufficient in reflecting the real damage being done because people never consider the link.

Let me give you an example. Earlier this year I joined a client on a project that was going to last a couple of weeks. Knowing I was in the final stages of working on my book, he said that he wanted to hear all about it while we were together. He added, “I’m not sure I agree with your position, but I’m willing to keep an open mind. My ex-wife took The Pill for 20 years and never had any problems.”

I told him that it wasn’t my contention that every single woman who took birth control suffered devastating consequences, but that I did think that fact put her in the minority. Over the next two weeks, we had several in-depth conversations about The Pill, my research, the political landscape, and the broad range of side effects.

In the end, I’m still not sure he was completely convinced, but he did offer this, “I have to tell you, my ex-wife had breast cancer and had her gallbladder removed but we never even knew it could have been related to The Pill.”

The more we all discuss these things – the more the damage will be brought out into the light. That’s why one of the shortest reviews of my book on Amazon may be my favorite. A reader named Melissa wrote:

“Very educational makes me want to start a study group and have each member do a study on 3 family members that have taken the pill to see results.”

Wow, that sends chills down my spine. Can you imagine a room of three or four women – or 20-25 women – the numbers don’t matter – just picture a small group of women suddenly piecing together a family history that reveals the toll that birth control has taken on their mothers, sisters, nieces, and cousins.

Now THAT would be an honest discussion that could liberate and empower an entire group of women at once.

For more information about the history of hormonal birth control:

#1

37 customer reviews

Books

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.

Hormonal Contraceptives: Do We Really Know What We Think We Know?

by Chandler Marrs, PhD

Published on August 31, 2023

7788 views

If you have read any of my posts, you know that this is one of the questions that pervades my work. Do we really know what we think we know? More often than not, the answer is no. Upon examination, what we hold true falls short. In the field of pharmaceutical medicine, where money plays an enormous role in determining what is known about a particular drug, finding the real and honest truth about a medication is difficult and sometimes impossible. Hormonal contraception, because it has been on the market for decades and because as women we really want it to be safe and absent negative side effects, is one of those drugs where what we think we know and what we actually know are two entirely different things.

Over the last few years, we have been commissioned for a two studies on the safety of hormonal contraceptives. One study, the Real Risk project, ended early due to a loss of funding. As a result, Phase 2 data were never analyzed. (We decided to continue collecting data in the hopes of finding funding to complete the study at some point. We haven’t found the funding yet.) Nevertheless, we learned a lot and what we learned should be public. Slowly, some of that information is making its way into blog posts.

Below is a portion of the final report covering the history of the pill, a sort of ‘what they knew when’ of side effects. Looking back at the history of the development of the pill and other forms of hormonal contraception, it becomes clear that the health and safety of the female population was not a primary objective. Indeed, more often than not, the serious side effects were ignored, particularly in the US, setting the precedent for the almost total acceptance of the drug’s safety that we see today. As a woman who used hormonal birth control and developed many of the side effects noted by early researchers, side effects that were ignored by my physicians, reading this is eye-opening. If I had known then what I know now I would have never used this drug.

The History of Birth Control Induced Side Effects

The first case of birth control induced thrombosis, a pulmonary embolism, was reported in 1961, only one year after the drug’s release. This was soon followed by the first contraceptive induced myocardial infarction in 1963. In the years that followed, research groups, primarily in Great Britain, began delineating the risks and mechanisms by which hormonal contraceptives induced the state of hypercoagulability that led to thrombotic events. Much of this research, along with the publication of Barbara Seaman’s book, The Doctor’s Case Against the Pill, formed the impetus for the Nelson Pill Hearings (NPH) in 1970.

Early on, British researchers noted significant changes in blood clotting mechanisms in the women using oral contraceptives compared to those who did not, but also compared to pregnant women. Hormonal birth control, it appeared, increased several pro-clotting factors while simultaneously decreasing anti-clotting factors; changes in hemodynamics that were in many ways, though not entirely, akin to late pregnancy and early postpartum where blood clots are known risks. This was in addition to systemic vessel wall damage that simultaneously set the stage for both clotting and hemorrhage. They also found that clot risk increased over time and was compounded by other variables such as exercise and smoking. In 1967, based upon the results of three studies, the British Medical Research Council issued a preliminary communication that stated:

“The sum of the evidence, however, is so strong that there can be no reasonable doubt that some forms of thromboembolic disorder are associated with oral contraceptives. The association is particularly strong in the group of women with no known medical condition predisposing to thrombosis.”

Politics and Money Rewrite History

These findings, though clearly implicating hormonal contraceptives in thrombosis, became immediately controversial and were all-but-entirely dismissed by American medical societies who argued an inherent difference between British and American women (NPH pages 6222-6259); one that supposedly predisposed British women more strongly towards blood clots than their American counterparts.

Additionally, according to testimony made in the Nelson Pill Hearings, the American Medical Association allowed industry experts to write and publish the early safety statements while simultaneously refusing to publish research and case reports indicative of risk (NPH page 6113). G.D. Searle, one of the early manufacturers of oral contraceptives, went so far as to ‘vote away’ the risk of thrombosis at a medical conference (NPH pages 6108-6133). Sales and marketing materials were designed to dismiss the risk and obfuscate the research (NPH pages 6218-6296). This led American doctors, researchers, and the population as a whole, to presume falsely that the pill was safe and without risks. It bears noting that by failing to publish the evidence implicating the pill in thrombosis and by allowing industry experts to write and publish the safety reports, the American Medical Association set the precedent for what has now become a complete abrogation of scientific and medical ethics, not only regarding contraceptives, but also, for every other drug on the market.

Beyond Thrombosis: System Wide Side Effects

A persistent notion in contraceptive research is that progesterone and estradiol, the two hormones mimicked in contraceptives, are singularly involved with reproduction. What follows is a presumption that these hormones have no impact on other tissues and altering them affects nothing but the intended target. Contrary to this popular belief, these steroid hormones are not solely involved in reproduction. Hormone receptors are distributed throughout the brain and the body, on every organ, in every tissue, and in every fluid. Hormones, thus, regulate every physiological system. When synthetic hormones bind to endogenous or native hormone receptors, they effectively override the body’s natural regulatory functions in ways we have yet to comprehend fully. It is not unexpected then that the use of hormonal contraceptives would have broad based effects. Thus, in addition to the higher incidence of thrombotic events in otherwise healthy women, physicians and researchers testifying at the hearings noted clear associations between the use of hormonal contraceptives and a broad array of disease processes. Some of those effects are highlighted below.

Metabolic Disturbances

Perhaps some of the least well-recognized effects of these hormones include those to a woman’s general metabolism. Hormonal birth control induces wide ranging metabolic disturbances in insulin and glucose regulation, lipid control, and in heart rate, rhythm and pressure leading to weight gain, diabetes, high blood pressure, and cardiovascular disease. One researcher testified accordingly:

“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 (Dr. Victor Wynn, NPH page 6311).”
“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 (Dr. Victor Wynn, NPH page 6303).”

And yet another said:

“These alterations, which have been demonstrated, include changes in carbohydrate metabolism, fat metabolism, protein metabolism, and the endocrine, liver, nervous and vascular system, among others. The findings are straightforward and reproducible (Dr. Hilton Salhanick, NPH pages 6382).”

Impaired Reproductive Capacity

Impaired reproductive capacity, likely due to the pill’s effects on the pituitary gland and its ability to prevent ovulation was noted (Dr. James Whitelaw, NPH pages 6009-6019). Case studies presented by the physicians indicated use of hormonal birth control often delayed fertility while the body re-adjusted to its non-pill state. In at least 1-2% of the women who used the pill, however, it caused permanent infertility. Ovulation never resumed. Additionally, women who used the pill were more prone to miscarriage, stillbirth, and chromosomal abnormalities in the offspring; abnormalities that as one researcher indicated were:

“…completely incompatible with live birth…”

Sadly, much of this research was disregarded and there has been very little work since. In fact, the use of oral contraceptives to regulate cycles in advance of fertility treatment is now commonplace. Despite research suggesting it is contraindicated.

Beyond the immediate effects to fertility and reproduction, early researchers postulated potential transgenerational effects. That is, when women use hormonal contraceptives, ovulation is suppressed unnaturally and germ cell damage to the ovarian follicles is possible: damage that may not only express itself in the first generation, but also in subsequent generations, e.g. in her grandchildren and great grandchildren.

“An unequivocal abnormality produced by estrogen-progestogen is the suppression of ovulation itself. It is only reasonable to consider the ultimate fate of the ovum that would have been normally released from the ovary. We do not know whether the ovum dies or survives. If it survives, is it altered in any way?”

Cancer

One of the most damning, but again disregarded and disputed, findings of the early researchers was the association between hormonal birth control and cancer. Researchers testifying at the Nelson Pill Hearings noted that cancer developed in all animal models tested when oral contraceptives were administered. In fact, the use of synthetic estrogens is banned in animal husbandry in Europe because it causes cancer in the animals and also in the workers. In the US, there is no such ban, owing partly to the decades delay in cancer onset but mostly to industry lobbying.

“I think here is the proper place to point out that when we talk about the pill being used by 18 million people in the prime of life throughout the world, we are in fact considering an internal pollution, the extent of which is not yet known, but the nature of which is indeed known. And we are threatening the destruction of a large segment of one of our most precious natural resources, the young women of our society (Dr. J. Harold Williams, NPH pages 6219).”

Liver

Liver function, because of its role in drug metabolism and detoxification, is inevitably altered by the use of any medication. To what extent the liver is impacted, is a key safety issue reviewed during drug approval considerations. As one might expect, hormonal contraceptives degrade liver function. At the hearings, researchers testified to four key changes in liver function.

A 40% reduction in the ability to clear sulfobromophatalein (a compound used to test liver function)
An increase in liver enzyme activity (a marker of liver damage) in 20% of the women who use hormonal contraceptives
Jaundice in 1 in 10,000 women that subsided after discontinuation of OC (Dr. Philip Corfman, NPH Pages 6391-6426)
Reduction in total plasma protein level (Dr. William Spellacy, NPH Pages 6426-6445)

Overall, the changes in liver function were summed up as follows:

“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.”

We have yet to answer the question of permanent damage, although a large study in 1997 suggests that liver damage abates upon cessation.

Disturbed Immune Function

One of the most commonly recognized but simultaneously disregarded effects of hormonal contraception include disturbances in immune function. Autoimmune diseases such as lupus and rheumatoid arthritis are significantly more common in women than men, especially in women who use hormonal contraceptives. Once again, the onset and increased incidence post-pill use was noted as soon as these medications hit the market, but because of the complexity of these diseases, all but disregarded. Early researchers noted that with new onset cases once contraceptive use ceased, symptoms resolved and most patients remained symptom free for at least the 2.5 years of the study period (Dr. Giles Boles, NPH pages 6086-6108). In recent years, awareness of this connection has increased somewhat.

“Over the past three years we have seen 22 young women who… after beginning oral contraceptives developed [arthritic symptoms]. The joint swelling was usually limited to the hands. On cessation of the oral contraceptive, the symptoms disappeared… We specifically inquire as to the use of oral contraceptives in all young women we see with rheumatic complaints…”

In addition to the increased incidence of autoimmune diseases associated with hormonal contraception, other immune system changes were noted, and again, dismissed.

“The Pill, by interfering with the natural secretions of the vagina, leaves women susceptible to a variety of infections, including syphilis and gonorrhea. Those who use the Pill develop VD, other sexually transmitted infections, and vaginitis twice as often as the female population as a whole.”

Namely, the use of hormonal contraception increases the incidence of bacterial and fungal infections and the risk for developing sexually transmitted diseases. More recently, researchers have identified the mechanisms by which contraceptives initiate these disease processes – via changes in cervical immune composition that increase a woman’s vulnerability to infection. Hormonal contraceptives also predispose women to persistent MRSA infections.

Psychiatric Illness

Perhaps one of the more disturbing findings regarding hormonal contraceptives is their role in new onset psychiatric illness and their capacity to induce suicide. In the original trials, at least one women committed suicide while taking the pill. Her case, along with at least 18 other deaths (Dr. Edmond Kassouf, NPH pages 6108-6133), was omitted in the reports filed to the FDA.

“There is considerable incidence of mild to moderate psychiatric morbidity [disease] associated with the use of combination oral contraceptive agents… In three of the four studies, there seems to be agreement that those who have required psychiatric care in the past will be more at risk for the development of morbidity, including psychosis. One study also suggests that there may be some increase in the depth of illness the longer the medication is taken (Dr. Francis Kane, NPH page 6457).”
“The emotional or psychiatric problems are the complications which seem to me to have the most serious potential danger. Three patients have stated that they were desperately afraid that they were going to kill themselves… After the pills were omitted, the depression and suicidal fears of the three patients disappeared, as did the depression of the other patients (Dr. John McCain, NPH page 6473).”
“It is disturbing to consider the patients on the pills whose depression may have ended in suicide and/or homicide with no recognition of any association with the contraceptive pills… Personality changes could be a factor in other conditions such as automobile accidents and divorces (Dr. John McCain, NPH page 6473).”

Despite the early research, connections between hormonal contraceptives and mental health have been largely ignored. In fact, since the nineties, hormonal contraceptives have been marketed specifically for depression and anxiety in direct opposition to the data suggesting these medications cause and/or exacerbated psychiatric illness. As recently as three years ago, an epidemiological study suggested,

“…a protective association between hormonal contraceptive use and depressive symptoms, as well as suicide attempts, in a population-based sample of young, sexually active US women.”

Fortunately, the tide appears to be changing. Fifty years after the release of these medications and after generations of women have complained of serious mental health issues while using hormonal contraceptives, a large study published definitive data indicating that hormonal contraceptives did indeed induce depression, especially in adolescents. No doubt, industry sponsored studies will surface shortly and contradict these findings.

Hormonal Contraceptives Today

Today, 80% of American women will use hormonal contraception at some point in their lives, mostly oblivious to their risks for thrombosis or any other of the side effects. Indeed, most women and physicians consider the side effects extremely rare, if they consider them at all. This is largely due to the fact that the American College of Obstetrics and Gynecology and other medical associations routinely claim they are safe. At any given time, 62% of women of reproductive age are using at least one contraceptive method. In contrast to the perceived lack of side effects, the numbers tell a different story. Fully 60% of women will cease using hormonal birth control within six months of initiation because of side effects and 30% will try up to five different types of hormonal contraceptives, switching between brands to temper side effects. Given that most brands may vary in name only, switching between brands is often a fruitless endeavor, something prescribing physicians seem not to appreciate.

That there are over 200 brands currently available on the market worldwide, suggests an abundance of options, but from a pharmacological standpoint, not much has changed in hormonal contraceptive technology over the last half century. The predominant estrogen used in contraceptives remains the same as was developed decades ago, a compound called ethinyl estradiol (EE2). With the exception of the fourth generation progestins, the progestins used in modern contraceptives involve only slight modifications to the original compounds. Even the ‘newer’ delivery methods, like the intrauterine device and the cervical ring, were developed decades ago, in the 1950s and 1960s. For all practical purposes, contraceptive technology remains as it was over half a century ago. Therefore, today’s contraceptives carry as many or more of the side effects and risks as their predecessors did.

Only now, our increased familiarity with these drugs has fostered a deeply ingrained but false sense of safety. Phrases suggesting that after 50 years on the market these are among ‘the most studied medications’ pepper the literature. When in fact, these medications were never studied properly before their release:

“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 (Dr. Paul Meier, NPH pages 6548-6560).”

And they have not been studied conclusively since. For all intents and purposes, safety issues associated with hormonal birth control remain largely under-investigated and unrecognized. What research exists generally favors commercial interests, and if we’re honest, our interests as women. We want easy, safe and effective birth control. We need it and so we ignore the side effects and ignore any research that confirms our suspicions. We allow ourselves to accept the risks. Maybe it’s time we didn’t. Maybe it’s time we dig in and find out what is really going on and then fix the problems.

Share your Story

If you have a birth control story, please consider sharing it on Hormones Matter.

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 created in Craiyon.com

This article was published originally in June 2017.

The Promise of Drug Safety

by Mike Gaskins

Published on August 24, 2023

1463 views

What they say:

“Birth control is the safest, most tested drug on the market.”

What their tone says:

“Did you just crawl out from under a rock?”

I am not even sure the drug companies say this anymore. They don’t need to. It is buried into the psyche of a significant number of people who are willing to repeat it ad nauseam. Consequently, the masses hear it so frequently that they accept it as truth. It has become a part of our collective consciousness that few people question.

These implied messages that exist as a sort of “common sense truth” in our culture are not limited to birth control. Drugs occupy such status in our zeitgeist that you could probably quote a mantra implying the safety of nearly any of the most familiar drugs.

“Statins have been around for decades, and they’re the most prescribed drug in the world.”

“Accutane has to be safe. They wouldn’t give teens a dangerous drug for something as innocuous as acne.”

“Ritalin is a cute little pill they give kiddos to help them sit still.”

As Georg Cantor famously said, “A false conclusion once arrived at and widely accepted is not easily dislodged; and the less it is understood, the more tenaciously it is held.”

Beyond Statins and Birth Control

Pharmaceutical companies cultivate and manipulate these implied messages to their benefit. They know that we want their pills to work, and we want to believe any bad outcomes are rare. Consequently, we do not question the commonly accepted messages… until it is too late.

It would be an understatement to say Larry and his wife, Carly learned that the hard way. As Carly studied to become a nurse, she became more aware of the side effects associated with the steroids in hormonal birth control. She assumed she was safe because she had been taking them without issue since she was 18 years old.

However, when she turned 32, she discovered the limits of that carefree confidence. While undergoing a scan for something else, Carly learned that her liver had several large lesions, known as adenomas. The doctors told her they were a rare side effect caused by her hormonal birth control, and if left unattended, they could become cancerous. The doctors highly recommended surgery to remove the lesions.

The implied message behind the stated “rarity” of her condition was that Carly had simply lost the genetic lottery. She did not question how rare adenomas as a birth control side effect actually are.

Ultimately, she elected to have the expensive and very painful surgery to remove the large lesions. Then, she and Larry returned to life as normal. By itself, this event was not enough for them to seriously question Big Pharma’s implied messages – because said messages are “not easily dislodged.”

A Weakened State

A couple of years later, Larry started to notice he was losing strength in his arms and legs. At work, he found it harder to lift gear that had previously been no problem. As things progressed, he noticed that all his motor skills were getting “sloppy.” His feet felt floppy and kind of slapped as he walked.

He discussed it with Carly, and they agreed that it probably had something to do with his Ehlers-Danlos syndrome, an inherited disorder that had affected his joints for most of his life. They hoped that building in more time to rest and not overdoing it at work would help. However, over time, things progressed, and Larry feared it was something worse. Lately, he had trouble eating correctly and swallowing. Even breathing had become more of a task than any involuntary bodily function should be.

The couple began visiting specialist-after-specialist in an effort to untangle the mystery that was quickly growing more urgent. Multiple tests, scans, and even a $20,000 whole exome study of his DNA offered little more than educated guesses. The couple was told that Larry could have everything from ALS (Lou Gehrig’s disease) to limb-girdle muscular dystrophy, and with each pseudo-diagnosis, the implied message was that he had been issued a death sentence.

The specialists made little effort to hide that they were grasping for straws with each diagnosis; many seemed uninterested in the challenge of digging for a real, substantiated diagnosis. But, Larry and Carly found hope in one neurologist who seemed genuinely interested in finding answers for them. Her passion and dedication kept them going — right up until it became the vehicle that delivered them to their lowest point, when she told them that she was moving away because New Orleans had become too unsafe.

Out of the Darkness

Mentally, the couple felt like they were flailing out of control. With the exodus of their favorite doctor, the insurance company said their only option was a residency clinic. Larry was not excited about turning over his complicated case to a resident. How could he expect a medical student to find answers to an enigma that had stumped so many experienced physicians? But, if something is presented as your only option, you tend to roll with it, and that’s what Larry did.

The sympathetic young doctor-in-training listened intently as Larry laid out the narrative of his complex “patient history.” When he mentioned their attempts to land an appointment with the leading neurologist in the state of Louisiana, the resident said he might be able to facilitate a meeting (if not an appointment). That doctor’s office was right across the hall, and the resident thought he might be able to arrange something.

This was huge! The doctor’s schedule was packed, and there was no chance he would be taking new patients anytime in the near future.

Indeed, the good doctor agreed to meet with them after completing his rounds one evening. They sat on a hospital bed at the end of a long corridor waiting as the sun outside faded into evening. The anticipation made the wait seem longer, but it was worth it the moment he stepped into the room in his jeans and a polo shirt.

While this was not an appointment, the couple clung to a hope that his forensic analysis of their journey could lead to some pearls of wisdom. Maybe he could steer them in a new direction – anything that could help them feel like they weren’t just wandering through the desert alone.

For the next two hours, they shared every detail they could recall. The doctor interjected occasionally to ask questions. Most of his curiosities had already been explored. Disappointment was welling up in their souls. As the meeting began to wind down, it felt like this was going to be yet another pointless waste of time, but at least they did have the curiosity of a great mind that was now thinking about their case.

Then, as he was leaving the room, the doctor turned around and asked a question that changed the course of their lives forever, “Are you taking statins?”

Are You Taking Statins?

Even though Larry affirmed he was taking Lipitor and that the symptoms had commenced shortly after he started taking the drug, the doctor said it was a long-shot, but he asked them to run a test for anti-HMGC Reductase antibodies.

The test came back positive, and Larry was informed that he had a VERY rare disease known as statin-induced necrotizing autoimmune myositis. The implied message – he had really lost the genetic lottery. What are the chances that one couple could end up with two of these lottery tickets from hell?

We will get back to that. But first, this was not the end. It was the beginning of a different journey!

Sure, Larry had a diagnosis in hand, but he also had a LONG road ahead of him. The “implied messages” became much more overt.

What they said:

“We don’t see you going back to work…”

“You’re on disability, right?”

“You can get extra services if you will just apply for Medicare…”

What their tone said:

“This is your lot in life.”

“You will never be independent again.”

“Give up!”

Larry and Carly literally had to fight for his right to be self-sufficient. Carly spoke up when she thought his prednisone dose was too high. She used her medical knowledge as a nurse to be a strong advocate for her husband.

When one doctor expressed doubt that Larry would ever be able to regain his strength and essentially suggested they should give up, Carly exclaimed, “Get him back to 40%, and he will run the rest of the way!”

Striving for Normal

The trek back to (almost) normal has been and will continue to be arduous. Here’s what the treatment looks like that keeps Larry alive. Two days every month he goes into his doctor’s office to receive an IVIG (Intravenous Immunoglobulin) injection, which is a biological agent of pooled antibodies from thousands of people around the globe. Each injection takes six or seven hours and costs $64,000. That’s a little over $1.5 million per year.

On top of that, Larry takes 21 pills every day. That costs him about $500 per month out-of-pocket with his insurance plan.

So far, Larry’s insurance has covered the treatment, but he fears the day will come when they find a way to drop him. He has already had a taste of what life would be like without this treatment plan. The demise would be quick. His ability to walk and lift objects would go first, then his ability to speak. After that, he would need a feeding tube and then a respirator that would simply prolong the agony.

But, Larry does not dwell on what could be. He is too busy living his life and being grateful that things are (almost) back to normal. With that normalcy, Larry and Carly have begun to question some of the “common sense truths” and “implied messages” tied to the drug industry, “truths” that might actually be more like the “false conclusions” Georg Cantor spoke of.

Cholesterol as a Four-Letter Word

Most Americans grow up thinking of cholesterol as a bad word. More recent attempts to distinguish between good and bad cholesterol have done little to shift this perception. Before questioning some of the commonly held beliefs about statins, it is necessary to reframe our understanding of cholesterol.

First, your liver and intestines make cholesterol naturally, and let’s be clear – that is a good thing! You need cholesterol because it plays a key role in the production of vitamin D, bile, and hormones. It is also an essential building block of cell membranes throughout your body, and only about 20% of your cholesterol comes from the foods you eat.

Cholesterol is a waxy substance transported throughout the body by particles made up of proteins and fats, known as lipoproteins. There are two main classifications of these particles: high-density lipoproteins (HDL) and low-density lipoproteins (LDL), which you most likely know of as “bad cholesterol.”

The belief is that these low-density lipoproteins can form fatty deposits in your blood stream. If their levels get too high, they can interfere with blood flow and could eventually contribute to blood clots.

The Role of Statins

By 1976, the villainization of cholesterol had been in full-force for years, and researchers knew that the enzyme, HMGC reductase, controlled the rate of cholesterol production in the body. So, Japanese microbiologist, Akira Endo’s discovery of a biological agent that inhibited the production of this enzyme sent the drug industry into a frenzy.

From there, the developmental plan was pretty straightforward. They would create a drug that throttled the liver’s natural production of HMGC reductase. This would lead to less cholesterol, and theoretically less heart disease. And voila, you would have another new drug that could be handed out like candy.

Today, statins are the most prescribed drug class in the United States, with nearly 40 million people taking them every day. They also lead the way in the United Kingdom with nearly six million Brits taking them daily. However, continental Europe has taken a different approach, and the fallout has led to what has been labeled a Statins War.

While the US and UK have moved toward prescribing statins for anyone with a 5-10% risk of cardiovascular event, other European countries contend that the risks of side effects do not justify such a low threshold. For many of these countries, statins are only prescribed to try and prevent a second heart attack.

What Are the Risks?

Critics suggest that even the attempt to isolate “bad cholesterol” is based on a fallacy. They maintain that the body produces both forms of the lipoprotein for a reason, and that there has been no evidence proving a link between LDL and heart disease. However, statins have definitely been linked to some significant side effects, such as increased risk of Type 2 diabetes, memory loss, and muscle damage. In fact, one of the most common complaints associated with statins is muscle pain ranging from mild to demobilizing, but the industry has made a concerted effort to downplay this concern.

They claim your chances of experiencing any kind of muscle pain is only about 5%. Despite being such a low percentage, the drug companies allege that enough people have heard about muscle pain as a consequence that it has spawned what the industry describes as a kind of phantom, psychosomatic pain. In a play on the term “placebo effect,” they call it a “no-cebo” effect. In other words, the pain you think you feel is not real.

Their ironic, illogical attempt at drug-splaining has made its way into your local doctor’s office as well. When physicians were at a loss in diagnosing Larry’s ailment, they suggested he might be faking the symptoms – this is a common philosophy of modern Western medicine – “When in doubt, gaslight the patient.”

Muscle Damage

Scientists do not yet know exactly how statins damage muscles, or why it affects some people more than others.

Statins were designed, developed, and marketed with the entire focus on how it affects the production of a single enzyme within the liver. It accomplished what they wanted, but they ignored the unintended consequences.

Anytime you throw a natural process out-of-balance, secondary effects will occur. Recently, a team at the Max Delbruck Center (MDC) in Berlin conducted a study to see what effect the removal of this central enzyme might have on muscle tissue. They discovered that some 2,500 genes in the cells regulated differently, and this altered the production of more than 900 proteins. The head of MDC’s Myology Lab, Professor Simone Spuler concluded, “It is quite obvious that normal amounts of statins applied as active substances exert dramatic structural, functional and metabolic effects on the muscles.”

So, we may not know exactly how statins damage muscles, but we can see mountains of evidence that confirm something unsavory is happening. Perhaps doctors should stop acting surly when they don’t have answers and focus on finding those answers instead.

Inner Strength (and an Awesome Wife)

There are a lot of things that Larry wishes would have happened differently, beginning with that fateful day when his doctor first prescribed Lipitor. His cholesterol test came back a little high for the first time ever and because of his family history the doctor strongly recommended he start statins. Larry asked if he could try exercise and changes to his diet first, but the doctor insisted.

Larry tries not to dwell on the past or things he cannot change now. He accepts that his diagnosis is incredibly rare. However, he also knows that it is probably severely under-diagnosed. Very few doctors have the patience and wisdom to sleuth out this diagnosis.

Beyond that, he knows that muscle damage in general is not nearly as rare as the industry would have us believe. Some studies show that up to 20% of people who take statins develop myopathy.

Now that Larry belongs to the world of those who have been injured by statins, other people share their stories with him. He is blown away by the number of people who tell him they had to stop taking statins because the muscle-related side effects were affecting their quality of life. This is not a rare problem.

In the end, Larry no longer cares whether he lost the genetic lottery or any of the other implied messages they may want to throw at him. He knows a lot of women would have run away after hearing what his recovery process was going to be like, but Carly showed a resolve and determination that was almost superhuman – still working her nursing job through the day and then coming home to help him sort through his recovery. Her dedication and faith in him is what inspired him to take off running when they got him back to 40%.

Though necrotizing autoimmune myositis will always represent a persistent, unpleasant wrinkle in his life, Larry celebrates the accomplishment – knowing that he has not let it define him nor dictate how he lives his life.

Carly, too, considers herself fortunate that the damage inflicted on her body by hormonal birth control was not worse, for it surely could have been.

A New Resolve

Ultimately, the monstrous attacks on their bodies at the hands of dangerously overprescribed pharmaceuticals solidified their marriage. Each had the opportunity to demonstrate their commitment, not only to each other, but to the oath that joined them in sickness and in health. In the battle, individually and collectively, they developed an immunity to the implied messages of modern medicine and the tone in which they are delivered.

In their triumph, they have become health advocates for themselves and take nothing the doctors say at face value.

Perhaps Larry and Carly’s spirit of determination can inspire us all to cling to this new, and very real “common sense truth.” We should strive to be advocates for our own health and make sure we are fully informed before consenting to any treatment, especially when it involves a drug that is handed out like candy.

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, and like it, please help support it. Contribute now.

Yes, I would like to support Hormones Matter.

Image by Peter Timmerhues from Pixabay.

Ding, Dong! Hormones at Your Door!

by Raquel Latona

Published on June 20, 2023

2719 views

Online birth control pills delivered to your door

The side effects of hormonal birth control are notoriously under-recognized. So much so, that I filmed a documentary about them, entitled, Hormoneously Alone, highlighting the severe lack of research since the 1950s. What I learned was shocking. Because hormonal birth control has been available for over 60 years, everyone, doctors included, presume these drugs are completely safe and have very few, ‘rare’ side effects. I spoke to experts in women’s health who have researched the effects of the pill and other forms of hormonal birth control and, contrary to the general consensus, these drugs do elicit many ill-effects that are detrimental to health. These side effects can develop while on the pill but also upon withdrawal as the body struggles to adapt to the loss of synthetic hormones.

My original post on this website documenting my own experience is what drove me to investigate the side effects of hormonal birth control, and ultimately, make a documentary to inform other women. Over four years, hundreds of women have left comments indicating they had similar experiences with hormonal birth control and even more have reached out to me personally for advice. Research on this website and other case stories concur.

With all of the potentially negative health consequences attributed to hormonal birth control, imagine my surprise when I learned that these drugs can be ordered online, without so much as a physician consultation. Of course, since most physicians do not recognize the side effects, I guess ordering online is no less safe than from a physician who ignores the health or experience of his/her patients.

My goal is that women will research and educate themselves about the risks they are taking when ordering birth control online. I hope my articles and my documentary will encourage them to speak up, and ask questions, but what if that does not happen? At least when these drugs are prescribed by a physician there is a small chance the more serious side effects will be recognized. When ordered online, with no health intake or counseling of any sort, the possibility for potentially dangerous health interactions between the pill and the patient increases. This risk is increased for young girls, who do not have the experience to understand the side effects associated with these drugs.

Ordering Birth Control Pills Online

Anyone can order hormonal birth control online. While doing research for my documentary, I investigated the process. There are no safety mechanisms in place to determine whether the information one inputs is truthful or not, or whether the individual might have a family medical history that can affect the choice of the type of hormone prescribed. I know this because I tested it. I went online and created a fake profile with fake information and submitted a request for a three month trial. It took me about five minutes from start to finish. I tried multiple vendors, some of the more popular ones, and none of them had any issues with prescribing a pill for me. Surprisingly, none of these vendors asked when my last OBGYN appointment was or if there was a family medical history for any cancers that the birth control pill may help promote or any other health issue that might be exacerbated by the pill. A genetic predisposition may increase one’s risk for certain illnesses and cancers. Breast cancer, for example, may be exacerbated by certain synthetic hormones. Autoimmune disease may also be exacerbated by these hormones.

I wanted to see how far I could push the dial, so I also falsely claimed to smoke cigarettes daily, had high blood pressure and migraines with aura. These are all cases where hormonal birth control is clearly contraindicated because of the elevated risk for blood clots. And yet, even with these risk factors, I was able to order a prescription. There was no dialogue with an online doctor or chat system. It was just me, my mouse, and my keyboard.

I am all for women’s rights and easy access to medications, but as a woman who understands the risks of these drugs, who has experienced some of them, this enraged me. Why are women not told of these risks? Online prescriptions seriously lack the ability to oversee a patient’s full chart and medical history, to understand a patient’s concerns, and to have the foresight to avoid a medication that may catalyze a genetic predisposition. This seems totally careless.

Women’s Rights

In today’s highly politicized landscape, it is difficult to talk about birth control safety and side effects, especially with the current onslaught of attacks against women’s health care options. Recently, over the counter hormonal birth control has been approved by the FDA. This eliminates any and all preliminary precautions and the online ordering has become even easier. Regardless of where we are buying these pills, I think we have to acknowledge that talking about safety and accessibility is not an attack on women’s rights, rather a concern for their well-being. I believe the ability to order medication online is generally a good thing. The accessibility of these online birth control pills not only allows a user to obtain them quickly, but also, discreetly, and inexpensively. It is, for the most part, hassle-free. This works well for the quick-click generation and society that we have evolved into. Women should always be in charge of their bodies, and this new technology affords them that opportunity, which is a really powerful and important idea in and of itself. I do, however, struggle with the idea that we might be missing possible interactions that could result in serious side effects and health issues. These websites do not have a warning anywhere, just, in my opinion, a vague questionnaire. As you will see below, there is little to no health intake when ordering and no counseling regarding side effects.

The Age of Consent

In my research for the documentary, I wondered about the accessibility of online ordering to young girls. As I flipped through the magazines that I once read religiously as a teenager, now, from an adult’s perspective, I see just how targeted the ads can be. In the most common teenage magazines, there are ads almost every 5 pages that push ordering hormonal contraceptives online. These ads are impossible to miss and can be very persuasive to young girls.

Imagine a parent and not knowing what medications your child was on. Imagine a child not understanding the seriousness of the birth control pill and taking too many because they missed a few? Imagine a child taking the pill not knowing why they are feeling poorly, suddenly getting migraines, a possible sign of neurological issues including stroke, or having labored breathing, a sign of pulmonary emboli. These side effects are more common than you would think. Is it smart to have such accessible medications with potentially severe side effects available online without so much as a health warning? Will teenagers read the fine print? Yet, the FDA allows online ordering. It would be easier for a child to click and order rather than having the uncomfortable conversation with their parents or their doctor. A fake profile and credit card is all that is needed.

Since most patients do not ask questions when being prescribed the birth control pill by a physician and, from my experience, most doctors do not offer this information up, what would prompt the conversation online? Is a child who is taking the pill going to read the pamphlet, and if so, will they understand it?

Candy From Strangers

When the package of hormonal birth control came to my door about a week after placing the order, it had some candies and chocolates with it. This felt ironic. “Don’t take candy from strangers,” feels oddly similar to “Don’t take pills from the internet,” or the idea of candy not being healthy for you accompanying the controversial birth control pill. It all felt wrong. Because of the emphasis that providers put on the safety of birth control pills, it seems to negate the impact these pills have on the female body. The pill may be generally safe to take every day, but what are the effects that we are missing under the surface? Are they actually safe even if we do not see the effects immediately? Is the pill for everybody?

It is extremely important that women be in charge of their bodies, but having autonomy means having an understanding of the full picture. Women should absolutely be able to order pills online, but they should also be given adequate information to make that decision and protect themselves against possible harm. Omitting critical health information in favor of accessibility does nothing to serve women’s health interests. Women need to understand the side effects associated with these drugs in order to make an informed decision.

I believe we, as a society, are sacrificing leniency on a topic we truly do not know much about for quick and cheap pill availability. I think we need to revisit the accessibility of these pills and take a step back to understand the potential harm we are causing.

Hormoneously Alone

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.

Photo by the blowup on Unsplash.

Connecting the Dots: Health Problems, Hashimoto’s, and Hormonal Birth Control

by Mike Gaskins

Published on May 15, 2023

1918 views

I have always found it curious that many health-conscious women will pay more for meat and dairy products that promise “No Artificial Hormones,” but then don’t think twice about taking the powerful artificial hormones in birth control.

Based on observations from a recent work trip, I began wondering if this paradox could be just a strange quirk of human nature. I was working with a man who obsessed over everything he put in his body. He intently read nutrition labels to compare juices, perused the ingredients before purchasing a protein bar, and asked waiters at restaurants about their food preparation.

It is difficult to eat healthy when you are living on the road, and I was impressed by his commitment to doing so. He really took his health seriously. Then, one afternoon, he said he was going to take a break, picked up his laptop bag, and pulled out a pack of unfiltered Camels.

I wondered what kind of compartments must exist in his brain for this to make sense, and it brought my mind back to the women who make a concerted effort to avoid artificial hormones… except when they don’t.

The Perfect Example

I might have also wondered how my brain could be so de-compartmentalized that his smoking immediately triggered thoughts of birth control, but this isn’t about me. So, I’ll save that for the therapist.

Meanwhile, his dichotomy of action had piqued my interest, and I was unsure where my curiosity would lead me. Then, I met the perfect woman to help me take a deep dive into the topic.

Brandy Searcy has worked as a developmental scientist for pharmaceutical companies for over a decade. As the daughter and granddaughter of nurses, she grew up immersed in conversations centered around healthcare. So, pursuing a PhD in organic synthesis seemed almost a natural extension of her genetics and heritage.

Through her work, which has included forays into cancer research and pesticide development, she honed a keen understanding of endocrine disruptors. Her concern over xenoestrogens in health and beauty products led her to develop Rain Organica, a line of skin care products designed specifically for women looking to detox their lives.

I met Brandy when she invited me on her podcast to talk about my book.

Birth Control and the Compartmentalization Conundrum

After we finished recording, Brandy mentioned that she could not believe how long it took her to connect the dots and realize that so many of her problems were linked to hormonal birth control. This opened the door to a fascinating discussion.

As you might imagine, her family was deeply vested in Western medicine. So, when she began to battle acne at around the age of 14, her mother did what any loving mother would do. She drove her around the state of Georgia trying to find a dermatologist who would conjure up a magic potion to make her acne worries vanish.

After a few years and some bad experiences with Accutane, Brandy’s mindset began to shift. It was around the age of 20 that she decided that she would “treat my skin as an organ to be loved rather than as a battleground.”

Although she had identified the problems with Accutane, it would take another 20 years for her to recognize the role hormonal birth control was playing in her health struggles. Consequently, this would become the first of many milestones she would later identify as missed opportunities to connect the dots.

Living Both Sides of the Coin

“It’s almost like there were two of me. One side was touting this new, healthy approach to life, and the other side was completely ignoring the effects of hormonal birth control on my body.”

When Brandy reflects back on those days before the blinders came off, you can see clouds of guilt and maybe a hint of embarrassment cross her eyes. She says there were any number of events that should have been enough to make her see the light earlier. Like the time red flags and sirens went off in her head when her doctor suggested a form of birth control because the “hormones were localized.”

Looking back at it now, she laments, “If she (the doctor) thought hormones can be localized, why didn’t I question her wisdom on prescribing me birth control in the first place?”

Beyond the common misrepresentations by doctors, Brandy can pinpoint some very specific, significant events in her personal and professional life that she believes should have been enough for her to walk away from hormonal birth control.

Missed Warning Signs

“It’s mind-blowing to me that I couldn’t let myself connect the dots. How I couldn’t see it is beyond me.”

Brandy still feels overcome with dismay as she recounts the significant events, the missed warning signs. Here is her summary of those key events:

2008 – Right leg numbness – The doctor thought she might be experiencing transient ischemic attacks (TIA) caused by the synthetic estrogens in her birth control. He told her to stop taking it until they could identify the culprit. The issues turned out to be structural rather than a stroke, and she returned to The Pill without a second thought.

2012 – Lyme disease – Brandy became very ill. As they worked through the process of diagnosing her illness, the doctor told her to stop taking birth control for six months. During the course of testing, they learned that her ANA and CRP levels were high. Ultimately, she was diagnosed with and treated for Lyme disease. Once again, feeling better, the diagnosis was taken as an exoneration of hormonal birth control. She forgot all about concern for her ANA and CRP levels, and started right back on The Pill.

2012 – Literal warning signs – That same year, she visited a facility that previously manufactured synthetic estrogens. As she walked through the plant, she noticed the bright red “Carcinogen” signs everywhere – on the walls, on the pipes – literally everywhere. Even as one of her co-workers told her this is where estrogens used to be made, she never connected the danger and all these literal warning signs to the same little pill she was taking every day.

2016 – No periods – Brandy was already experiencing gall sludge when her gynecologist recommended a different birth control formulation that, when taken continuously, would allow her to never have a period again, right up until menopause. She loved the idea of eliminating her period and didn’t even make the connection when signs of Hashimoto’s thyroiditis began almost immediately after switching to this brand.

2017 – Gallbladder disease – She had to have her gallbladder removed. While Brandy was still unaware of hormonal birth control’s link to gallbladder issues, she also had a family history of gallbladder disease that kept her from even considering The Pill’s role in her gallbladder’s demise.

2018 – Hashimoto’s diagnosis – After two years of tests, Brandy was diagnosed with Hashimoto’s thyroiditis, yet another disease that has been linked to birth control use. This was the event that would finally open her eyes, but the realization still took a circuitous route as it wasn’t the diagnosis itself that helped her make the connection.

When Western medicine told this self-described type-A control freak that there was no cure, she began digging for herself and discovered a book on treating your thyroid using Ayurveda techniques.

Ayurveda is an alternative form of medicine originating from Asia, which focuses on the necessary balance of internal and external influences to maintain proper health. And, it provided the shift in mindset that finally caused Brandy to question birth control.

Looking back at everything now, Brandy says, “We are not made to live in a diseased state. We are made to be healthy, and if we aren’t healthy, it isn’t because our body is broken, it’s because we are putting something in that is making us not healthy.”

Seeing the Light

I asked what she might tell other young women to help them wake up to the dangers of The Pill, or at least give more thought to its potential risks. This led to another interesting rabbit hole as we discussed the various factors that prevent young women from truly contemplating the dangers. Here are some of the variables we discussed:

Lack of reproductive education – Young women aren’t taught about the phases of their cycle, nor how its ebbs and flows can actually help them monitor their health, nor are they educated on how their cycles may change over time.

In Brandy’s case, she had very heavy, irregular, and painful periods as a young girl. No one ever told her this was common when going through menarche. As a result, she said The Pill gave her a false sense of control. She had fully bought into a false narrative that periods should be embarrassing and that they serve no useful function. At some level, she believed that completely stopping her menstruation with potent chemicals might actually be better for her than respecting her body’s natural processes. This did not change even after two doctors had her stop hormonal birth control for health concerns.

Western medicine – We tend to give doctors an inordinate authority over our health decisions to the point of almost idolizing them. This is reinforced by a notion that they have taken the Hippocratic Oath, promising to first, do no harm. However, only slightly over half of all physicians today have taken the oath, and that percentage drops with each new graduating class.

The more entrenched a young woman’s faith in Western medicine the less likely she is to question birth control.

Addiction – Some women seem to develop a type of addiction to hormonal birth control. The mere suggestion that they should look for another option is enough to create severe anxiety.

Stockholm syndrome – Closely related, some women may take on a type of Stockholm syndrome that prevents them from connecting the dots. Stockholm syndrome is described as a coping mechanism that some victims of an abusive situation develop in which they actually grow fond of the abuser.

Brandy recalled, “In a lot of ways, if feels like I was in an abusive relationship, but I wasn’t able to see how abusive it was until I stepped away.”

Withdrawal – Beyond the addictive nature, quitting any synthetic steroid cold turkey can be hard on the system. There’s a reason doctors taper you off of prednisone and other steroids.

Many women experience withdrawal symptoms when they try to stop, and this is enough to drive them right back to The Pill.

Little support – Historically, there has been a lack of support for women coming off these potent synthetic hormones – some after decades of use. Even the medical professionals who prescribe the drug are woefully undertrained on dealing with the detoxification process necessary for a healthy transition off of The Pill. Actually, that is an understatement. Most doctors have not even contemplated the effects of coming off the synthetic steroids in birth control. They act is if you just stop and your body returns to normal.

When Brandy came off The Pill, she immediately began to see and feel changes in her body, including her first UTI, at the age of 40. This was the lightbulb moment when she realized how much impact the synthetic steroids had been having on her body. Despite having made it through 40 years with no UTIs, two of her doctors, who are still clearly wearing their birth control blinders, told her it sounded like she had poor hygiene habits. Somehow, in their eyes, I guess it took 40 years for those bad habits to catch up to her.

By the way, Brandy recently developed a course to help women through the transition off of hormonal birth control.

A Unique Formula

Clearly, there are lots of variables that can influence the way a woman perceives and judges birth control.

Every woman is different. Each has her own unique body chemistry. That is why a birth control formulation that seems harmless to one woman can be deadly for the next.

Brandy mused that the way women weigh their thoughts on The Pill is equally idiosyncratic. There is no one phrase or thought that will lead women to suddenly see the realities of hormonal birth control. Each woman has to hear the right message at the right time to help her properly weigh the benefits and risks for her situation. I say “properly” because the system is so stacked against women getting accurate information about this potent drug.

Brandy added this last thought related to one of the first big hurdles that women encounter – the overwhelming tendency to mitigate and downplay side effects. She advised, “The subtle symptoms are the first indicators. Don’t dismiss them because they seem insignificant. They are frequently pointing to something bigger.”

#1

37 customer reviews

Books

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.

Photo by Almos Bechtold on Unsplash.

Don’t Minimize the Small Changes With Birth Control

by Mike Gaskins

Published on April 17, 2023

2238 views

When I discuss risks and side effects with birth control advocates, one of the most common things they like to tell me is that no drug is one hundred percent safe. This statement has been something of a mantra for propagandists since the very inception of The Pill.

The problem is that The Pill isn’t like any other drug, and it shouldn’t be held to the same standard. Although we’ve been programmed to look at birth control through a certain lens for over 60 years, it’s time we shift our perspective and reconsider things based on a few very important facts.

The Pill was the first (and only) drug created to be taken by the healthy. It is the only drug designed to interfere with a natural process rather than treat an illness. And, it is expected to be taken chronically for many years, although it was originally promoted as something that would only be taken for a couple of years to help space out children.

If anything, the standards for a drug like this should be much more stringent than the norm. Unfortunately, the safety protocols have been non-existent. As I detailed extensively in my book, hormonal birth control was pushed through the FDA without ever having been proven safe.

A Tradition of Mitigation

In those early years, many leading doctors expressed apprehension about changes they were witnessing in the bodies of birth control patients. One of the primary concerns centered on changes they were seeing in the breast tissue of these young women. Doctors warned that this could lead to a tragic rise in breast cancer cases.

The drug companies responded by turning it into a marketing ploy, telling women that The Pill would make their breasts fuller. Meanwhile, the incidence of breast cancer did, in fact, increase dramatically. In 1970, at the time of the Nelson Pill Hearings, one in every 20 women was diagnosed with breast cancer. Today, it’s one in every eight women.

The prophetic warnings have been all but forgotten. Many women continue to notice their breasts feeling tender or fuller when they start birth control, but very few think about what the long term consequences of these changes may actually be.

I wrote more about breast cancer and birth control at these links.

What a Headache

Migraines represent a less subtle but equally mitigated early-warning sign of potential bigger problems to come. Once again, doctors in the early days of The Pill recognized that young women with migraines and severe headaches were at a much higher risk of suffering blood clots, strokes, and pulmonary emboli.

Consequently, the common recommendation was that women should avoid the synthetic steroids in hormonal birth control, if they had a family history of migraines. Take note – not only a personal history, but even a family history of migraines was enough to make most doctors shy away from prescribing birth control.

Today, the narrative has flipped. Recognizing that there is a relationship between hormones and headaches, some doctors have taken up the dangerous practice of actually prescribing birth control to “treat” migraines.

Birth Control Changes Everything

Whenever a woman tells me she hasn’t had any issues with her birth control, I can’t help but wonder how low she set the bar. After all, we have a history of downplaying birth control side effects. Doctors continue programming women to think that their concerns are “no big deal.” Consequently, when a woman contemplates whether she has had any side effects, she probably isn’t taking fuller breasts into account. If she has headaches, she is convinced they are nothing to worry about. And, she’s definitely not paying attention to things like dry skin, vision changes, weight gain, anxiety, gastro problems, or issues with her thyroid.

Of course, I am speaking in broad terms. Some women pay very close attention to these changes. The problem is that every woman should be. We need to educate women to watch for these details because they all indicate that things are changing at a cellular level.

I am not saying that every woman who experiences a “mild” side effect will suffer a major crisis later, but it is worth considering what these cellular changes might lead to down the road.

I know the study will never be done, but it would be fascinating to see what correlations might exist between mild versus more severe side effects.

Moodiness and Anxiety

I doubt there is any side effect where the crossover from mild to severe is more fluid than with changes to brain chemistry. One of the most common complaints of birth control users is mood and personality changes. Doctors typically respond by prescribing a second drug, such as Xanax, to treat the new anxiety rather than wrestle with what caused these changes and what it could mean for the future.

There is no shortage of severe brain-related consequences linked to birth control. The most obvious include depression and suicide, and in fact, a recent large scale study found that women taking birth control are 70% more likely to experience depression, and three times more likely to commit suicide. Those are problems that often arise soon enough after starting birth control that women recognize the connection. And unfortunately, they are problems that can linger long after she’s stopped taking the synthetic hormones.

Other problems are not as easy to connect because they take longer to manifest. Though the correlation is still being debated, at least one major study found that women taking birth control are 50% more likely to develop a particular kind of brain tumor, known as a glioma. Those who take it for more than 5 years increase their risk by 90%.

More Cancers To Count

Unfortunately, the cancer risks tied to birth control don’t end with the brain and breasts. Separate studies have also linked birth control use to cervical cancer and even skin cancer.

One study found that women who take birth control for less than five years increase their risk of cervical cancer by 10%, but after five years, that increase jumps to 60%. The hormones in birth control thicken the cervical mucus and leave women more susceptible to the HPV virus. Cellular changes that may seem hardly noticeable or relatively insignificant when you start The Pill.

What about dry sky – or even clearer skin? Is it possible they could lead to negative consequences in the long run? Well, the fact is, in either case, cellular changes are taking place in your skin. Who knows whether this means you could be more susceptible to skin cancer down the road, but we do know that birth control has been linked to a higher incidence of skin cancer.

The Weighting Is the Hardest Part

Think of other “mild” side effects and how they correspond to more significant side effects. Things like weight gain and changes in cholesterol or blood pressure are often dismissed as mere inconveniences, but what impact might they have on future issues like diabetes, heart disease, or gallbladder disease?

Could feeling gassy or bloated today have any connection to future issues like IBS, Crohn’s disease, or ulcerative colitis?

Would changes in vision today seem more worrisome when considered in light of future glaucoma? What about joint aches and pains once you consider the link to lupus, Sjogren’s syndrome, and other connective tissue disorders?

Would you be more worried about fatigue, dry skin, constipation, and hair loss if you looked at it through the lens of thyroid disease?

Preaching Informed Consent

We simply are not doing enough to inform women of the potential side effects of birth control before they begin taking it. Once they take it and start to experience problems, we aren’t educating them on what those changes could mean in the long run. Rather, doctors frequently tell them to give their bodies time to adjust, even when the existing side effects could lead to deadly consequences.

A medical system that mitigates and dismisses practically any complication this side of death is clearly not focused on women’s health as much as it is profits.

I encounter women on an almost daily basis who tell me they are giving up on birth control. They say they wish they had been warned about the side effects. The women who have told me this were experiencing everything from having their gallbladder removed, to recovering from a stroke, to undergoing chemotherapy for breast cancer.

We think differently when we are younger. Who knows if women really would say no to The Pill if someone gave them the facts. And honestly, that doesn’t matter. What does matter is that they deserve to be told. They deserve the opportunity to make an INFORMED decision.

In short, women who choose to use birth control with synthetic steroids should walk into that decision with their eyes every bit as wide open as anyone who still chooses to smoke cigarettes.

#1

37 customer reviews

Books

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.

Photo by danilo.alvesd on Unsplash.

Migraines and Birth Control: A Neglected Stop Sign

by Mike Gaskins

Published on March 21, 2023

6727 views

No sooner had we landed than my phone began to convulse with a cacophony of bells and chimes. Most of the notifications were last minute details about the live broadcast that brought me to town. In one voice message, a coworker informed me that the producer cancelled our pre-production dinner meeting because of her migraines. He added, “When she eats certain breads, it triggers her headaches.”

This happened early in my research on hormonal contraceptives, but I had read enough to know that birth control could cause migraines, and women with migraines were at a higher risk for strokes. I also knew that doctors at the Nelson Pill Hearings testified that birth control pills affect the way a woman’s body metabolizes carbohydrates in myriad ways. I had no idea what the mechanism of action could be, but at that moment I would have bet my children’s milk money that our producer was on hormonal birth control, and I intended to ask her about it.

This was my client’s client. I wondered if it was safe to broach the subject of birth control with her, but I knew the answer before I could even fully form the question in my head. I wouldn’t be able to forgive myself if she ever had a stroke, and I hadn’t warned her.

The next morning she felt better and showed up for the load-in. When no one else was around, I asked some questions about her headaches, ending with, “I’m curious, did you start getting migraines after you began birth control?”

When you ask a question like that, you know there’s a better than zero chance the reaction could be negative. Thankfully, not even a glimmer of disapproval flashed in her eyes as she replied, “Oh no, I took The Pill for a long time before I had my first migraine.”

I said, “That’s still after you started.”

She laughed it off as a silly question. However, after sleeping on it, she approached me the next morning, “You know, you may be onto something. I hadn’t thought about it, but my migraine symptoms did get a lot worse when I switched birth control brands.”

Connect the Dots: Birth Control and Migraines

The correlation between birth control and migraines has been known for decades, as has their connection to an increased risk of stroke. However, two hurdles probably play a key role in preventing patients and their physicians from making the connection in the real world today – those being familiarity and latency.

Many side effects of hormonal birth control occur as extremely common ailments, such as breast cancer, strokes, and migraines. Not coincidentally, they’ve grown even more common in direct correlation to the introduction and prevalence of hormonal contraceptives. Paradoxically, they’ve become so familiar and so unremarkable that doctors rarely look for the primary culprit that causes the migraines. Essentially, they can’t see the tree for the forest.

Some side effects, such as migraines or depression, can happen almost instantaneously. (Even so, doctors frequently miss the connection.) However, it usually takes some time for the symptoms to precipitate. This latency can hinder even the most astute physician from considering hormonal contraceptives as the likely cause of problems. I’m being generous in my phrasing. In reality, I can’t help but wonder what role fear of litigation plays in this ‘blindness.’

Ultimately, why they overlook the correlation to birth control is less important than the consequences it creates, which include dramatic under-reporting of complications. In 1970 while discussing strokes at the Nelson Pill Hearings, Senator Gaylord Nelson expressed this prescient concern:

Every time the issue has been discussed here concerning the increased incidence of this disorder or that disorder, they always end up saying, “but the statistical sample is so small that there is room for error, and we can only make sort of an educated guess.”… I am just concerned with the fact that the reporting of these side effects and their effect on the cause of death may not be related to the pill at all. (Monopoly Subcommittee, page 6419)

Dr. Herbert Ratner added his perspective (Monopoly Subcommittee, page 6743), “For the first time in medicine’s history, the drug industry has placed at our disposal a powerful, disease-producing chemical for use in the healthy rather than the sick.” [my emphasis] Yet, forty-five years later, we still have no national registry, no way of tracking patients on birth control so that scientists can conduct comprehensive etiological studies that would connect the dots and precisely reveal the consequences of hormonal contraceptives. In fact, our healthcare reporting system is so fractured we can’t even put our finger on an accurate estimate of how many women take hormonal birth control. Estimates from trusted sources range from 11 million to 18 million.

The Pill, Migraines, and Strokes

The University of Virginia student health services published a document on their website outlining the definitive link between migraines and strokes. Beyond warning that the “increased risk of stroke is amplified by the use of estrogen-containing birth control methods,” the doctors who prepared the document boldly state,

it is strongly recommended that women with a personal or family history of migraine headaches should select non-estrogen methods of contraception. [Their emphasis]

This information should be part of every ‘informed consent’ conversation before a doctor writes the first birth control script. Not to mention the many other complications that need to be discussed. This kind of warning should be the norm. Unfortunately, it’s the exception.

Strokes Redefined

It took only three generations of users for hormonal contraceptives to redefine our perception of strokes. A young women starting on The Pill today may not even realize that when her great grandmother began birth control, strokes were considered an old person’s disease.

But, strokes aren’t just for grandparents anymore. A recent article in the Washington Post leads off with this troubling statement about strokes in young people:

In a study released Wednesday in the Journal of the American Heart Association, researchers found that between 2000 and 2010, hospitalizations for ischemic stroke, the most common type, dropped nearly 20 percent overall – but among people ages 25 to 44, there was a sharp 44 percent increase in the rate.

There are a couple of other interesting facts later in the article – or rather, one interesting fact, and another made interesting by its glaring omission. The first comes from a description of the study:

The data analyzed includes information on 8 million hospital stays and came from the Nationwide Inpatient Sample, the largest publicly available database in the United States on these patients.

In stressing the importance of a large database, the author underscores the necessity for a national registry to track patients so that important lines can be drawn. Of course, the second part is that the lines actually need to be drawn. Amazingly, here’s what the Post article says about what might have contributed to the increase:

Doctors attribute the apparent rise in strokes among younger adults to the same lifestyle risk factors traditionally found in older patients, such as obesity, diabetes and high blood pressure.

It isn’t until much later in the article that they include:

Each year significantly more women die from stroke than from breast cancer — and yet many women think of stroke as a man’s disease. According to a 2015 national survey, only 11 percent of the 1000 women surveyed could identify female-speciﬁc stroke risk factors, like migraine headaches with aura, hormone-replacement therapy, oral contraception and pregnancy, particularly in the ﬁnal month and postpartum.

Talk about burying the lede. Maybe women would stand a better chance of identifying these factors if journalists dared include them in the “lifestyle risk factors” mentioned previously.

Testimony Without Equivocation

The science linking birth control pills to strokes hasn’t changed. As far as I can tell, no one has disputed the correlation since The Lancet first published Dr. Victor Wynn’s study in 1966.

Pay attention to this excerpt from Dr. Alan Guttmacher’s testimony at the Nelson Pill Hearings. Dr. Guttmacher was the founding president of Planned Parenthood/World Population, and was arguably the staunchest proponent of The Pill ever to live:

We know the facts about thromboembolism. I think this is pretty uncontested. We know the facts about development of high blood pressure in a certain small proportion of patients. We know the fact that certain patients get depressed on the pill. These are the facts we are all privy to. (Monopoly Subcommittee, page 6615)

Earlier in the hearings, Dr. J. Edwin Wood explained the phenomenon that caused healthy young women to develop strokes:

One of the major contributing causes of thrombosis in veins appears to be that of reduced velocity of flow of blood in the veins or relative stagnation or stasis of flow in the veins…
Studies of women taking oral contraceptive agents have led to the clear-cut finding of dilatation of the veins of the extremities – other veins as well perhaps but they have not been studied. These dilated veins carry the same amount of blood as before but since they are wider in diameter the blood flows more slowly.
The net effect of this series of events is a slowing of the blood flow during oral contraceptive therapy. This finding is distinctly abnormal and is not observed in any other circumstance in young women except during pregnancy or in the presence of varicose veins. (Monopoly Subcommittee, page 6157-6158)

The facts about hormonal contraceptives and strokes were well known in 1970, yet they somehow seem to have escaped the curriculum in today’s medical schools. It may be uncomfortable but if you know a woman who suffers migraines, don’t hesitate to ask her if she’s on hormonal contraceptives. Then, please share the facts about migraines and birth control.

#1

37 customer reviews

Books

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.

This article was first published on November 21, 2016.

Image by Ingrid from Pixabay.

birth control side effects

Checkered Record

I Don’t Recall the Recall?

The Choice of a New Generation

A Toothless Penance

An Alternative NSAID

Follow the Money

Corporate Conscience?

Sara’s Story

Why Beyaz?

Sold as Safer

We Need Your Help

Related posts:

You might be interested in

The Systemic Indoctrination Surrounding Birth Control

The Truth Will Set You Free

Turn the Spotlight on Hormonal Birth Control

We Need Your Help

Related posts:

You might be interested in

The History of Birth Control Induced Side Effects

Politics and Money Rewrite History

Beyond Thrombosis: System Wide Side Effects

Metabolic Disturbances

Impaired Reproductive Capacity

Cancer

Liver

Disturbed Immune Function

Psychiatric Illness

Hormonal Contraceptives Today

Share your Story

We Need Your Help

Related posts:

You might be interested in

Beyond Statins and Birth Control

A Weakened State

Out of the Darkness

Are You Taking Statins?

Striving for Normal

Cholesterol as a Four-Letter Word

The Role of Statins

What Are the Risks?

Muscle Damage

Inner Strength (and an Awesome Wife)

A New Resolve

We Need Your Help

Related posts:

You might be interested in

Ordering Birth Control Pills Online

Women’s Rights

The Age of Consent

Candy From Strangers

Hormoneously Alone

We Need Your Help

Related posts:

You might be interested in

The Perfect Example

Birth Control and the Compartmentalization Conundrum

Living Both Sides of the Coin

Missed Warning Signs

Seeing the Light

A Unique Formula

We Need Your Help

Related posts:

You might be interested in

A Tradition of Mitigation

What a Headache

Birth Control Changes Everything

Moodiness and Anxiety

More Cancers To Count

The Weighting Is the Hardest Part

Preaching Informed Consent

We Need Your Help

Related posts:

You might be interested in

Connect the Dots: Birth Control and Migraines

The Pill, Migraines, and Strokes

Strokes Redefined

Testimony Without Equivocation

We Need Your Help