contraceptive

New Birth Control Warnings

2955 views

The FDA just received a Citizen’s Petition submitted by a group of physicians, scientists, and women’s health advocates regarding side effects caused by hormonal birth control. After a comprehensive review of literature, the petitioners believe there is enough compelling evidence to warrant new and more forceful warnings for all hormonal birth control products. I am humbled to have been invited to collaborate during the final stages of this project.

If approved, new black box warnings would specifically advise women of increased risks associated with breast cancer, cervical cancer, inflammatory bowel disease, systemic lupus erythematosus, venous thrombosis, cardiovascular events, depression, and suicide. The petition also requests that additional information be provided to patients regarding birth control’s link to multiple sclerosis, interstitial cystitis, bone fractures, as well as its effect on body mass. Finally, the petitioners request that Depo Provera be removed from the market “based on conclusive evidence that it facilitates the transmission of HIV from men to women.”

The Consequences of Birth Control

Adjunct Professor of Medicine at the University of Pennsylvania, Deacon William V. Williams M.D. began reviewing contraceptive studies for an article he was going to write for the 50th anniversary of the papal encyclical letter titled, Humanae Vitae. The letter came out in 1968 at a time when the Catholic Church was under enormous pressure to change its teachings on contraceptives. The rest of the world, including other Christian denominations, had embraced birth control. Many anticipated the letter would be Pope Paul VI’s official capitulation. Instead, he boldly explained why the Church would never accept contraception and offered numerous warnings that have proven to be quite prophetic.

As the editor of the Linacre Quarterly, the official, peer-reviewed academic journal of the Catholic Medical Association, Dr. Williams felt a golden-anniversary nod was fitting for this important papal document. Along with some of his colleagues, he began to review scientific literature related to some of the effects of hormonal contraceptives. As the overwhelming evidence began to mount, the group cross-referenced prescribing information for several birth control products and realized many of these side effects weren’t listed – even though there was a pretty large set of peer-reviewed data available.

That’s when the group realized that this called for action beyond the originally planned article. The shocking amount of empirical data being withheld from hormonal contraceptive users represented a serious women’s health issue. They invited others to collaborate and decided a petition to the FDA was in order.

Double Standards

Kathleen Raviele, M.D., an Atlanta-area Ob/Gyn was on the team that assembled the petition. She points out that drugs with fewer risks, such as Vioxx, have been removed from the market because they affected both men and women. She says, “Women deserve respect and certainly deserve to know the risks they are exposed to with going on any hormonal contraceptive. An article in Vanity Fair in February 2014 detailed three women who lost their lives or nearly so using the NuvaRing and this should have prompted a recall of the product, but instead the company continues to tout it as: ‘The birth control ring (AKA NuvaRing) is a safe, simple, and affordable birth control method that you wear inside your vagina.’”

However, she adds that the blame doesn’t just lie at the feet of the drug companies. She explains, “Providing contraception represents one-third of an Ob-Gyn’s practice, and in the back of their minds they think this will hurt the number of patients coming to see them. However, even for medical problems often treated with hormonal contraceptives, there is always a better, safer way to manage the problem that gets to the cause rather than acting as a cover-up.”

Mrs. Information

Aside from asking the FDA to include new warnings, the petition also requests that current warnings be modified for clarity. For example, there is significant evidence dating back to the late 1960s that suggests hormonal birth control contributes to a higher risk of stroke and heart attack for any woman taking it. That already elevated risk rises even higher for women who are over 35 and smoke.

The warning on some formulations currently reads, “WARNING: CIGARETTE SMOKING AND SERIOUS CARDIOVASCULAR EVENTS.” In fact, the warnings in many formulations are worded in a way that renders them completely ineffective. An argument is made in the petition that, “This is misleading and has shown to be misinterpreted by many women who infer that the increased risk only occurs with cigarette smoking and/or with being over 35 years of age.”

The petition also contends that it should be required that these warnings be included in all direct-to-consumer advertising.

Was It Really Consensual?

Despite the misleading and missing information withheld from the current patient information pamphlets, there are still a lot of unsavory side effects that are listed. However, with the complicated text printed in an unreadable, tiny font, it isn’t surprising that so few women know what they’re getting into when they start taking birth control. What is surprising is how few doctors seem to recognize the dangers. Many still proclaim that the benefits outweigh the risks.

Speaking to this apparent disconnect, Dr. Williams said, “Doctors who say the benefits of hormonal birth control still outweigh the risks are victims of the groupthink mentality in the medical profession right now. It goes something like this – people are going to have sex, and because they are going to have sex, we need to make sure they don’t suffer the consequences. Therefore, we need to prescribe The Pill to prevent pregnancy. That’s just the way doctors are trained to think. They’re not trained to think that in front of me is an individual who can make their own choices for better or for worse, who has a free will, and who, rightly informed, can make the right choices.”

The mentality Dr. Williams describes in today’s medical industry sounds eerily similar to Plato’s description of doctors of slaves versus the doctor of free people. The slave’s doctor visits the patient in a hurry with a lack of compassion. He “neither gives a servant any rational account of his complaint, nor asks him for any; he gives an order based on empirical belief with the air of exact knowledge, in the insolent manner of a tyrant, then jumps off to the next ailing servant.”

Ultimately, the goal of this petition is to pave the way to a better conversation – one more akin to what should be expected as free people. Plato described this approach as the doctor entering into a discourse with the patient. Through this discourse, the doctor is at once gathering information and instructing the patient to make the best choices for his/her health.

Putting the goal of the petition in its simplest terms, Dr. Williams explained, “We’re trying to make sure that when patients give informed consent to use this stuff that it’s actually informed. It’s not just consent.”

Weighing Outcomes

For her part, Dr. Raviele doesn’t have much faith that this scholarly petition will be taken seriously by the FDA. However, she does see another way it could ultimately serve its purpose. She described what she sees as the more practical possibility, “What this petition may do is give lawyers more ammunition for suing the drug companies over the harmful effects of these hormones on women and girls. These companies will not take them off the market voluntarily. It will only be through multiple lawsuits.”

To read and sign the petition, click here.

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 Debby Hudson on Unsplash

Read more about birth control’s vast problems in my new book, In the Name of The Pill.

#1
In the Name of The Pill

37 customer reviews

In the Name of The Pill*

by Mike Gaskins

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




 Price: $ 17.95

Buy now at Amazon*

Price incl. VAT., Excl. Shipping

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

Tackling the Contraceptive Conundrum: Questions and Answers

3959 views

Last weekend I had the privilege of speaking at a much overdue conference on hormonal contraceptive safety – the Contraceptive Conundrum. I was charged the unenviable task of giving the ‘overview of everything’ talk and providing a framework through which to view these medications; not easy in a 45 minute presentation. Needless to say, there was a tremendous amount of information omitted from my talk. I will be sharing some of this information in series of blog posts over the coming weeks. The presentation was videotaped and I will post it when it becomes available. For the time being, however, I would like to offer up the power point (below) and answer some of the questions posed by audience members that I was unable to address or address fully given the time constraints.

Best Medical Journals

One of presumably less controversial questions I was asked was which medical journals I prefer. As it turns out, even this question inspires indignation on social media. I am strong proponent of open access journals and the entire open data movement. I believe that health research should not be hidden behind a paywall and the raw data behind drug safety trials ought to be readily available for independent analysis and scrutiny. Indeed, all science should be in the public sphere and a part of public discourse. As a matter of course, science should not be available only to the privileged few. The mere suggestion that I prefer open access journals, however, ignited a heated debate on Twitter; the instigators of which suggesting this preference supersedes attempts to access paywalled articles. Let me assure you it does not. I always track down primary sources. Nevertheless, for the reasons stated above and many more, my preference is for open access journals.

Hormonal Contraceptives and IVF

Another audience member asked about the research and risks associated with the use of hormonal contraceptives and IVF. I should preface my response with a disclaimer: I am no expert in IVF, however, I have written about fertility medicine on a number of occasions (here, here, here), mostly with regard to this specialty’s hubris and egregious lack of insight or concern regarding the longer term consequences of many of their practices. As a point of consideration, I write about the hubris and lack of research that pervades all of women’s healthcare. Those are my biases, do with them what you will.

As far as the use of hormonal contraceptives and IVF are concerned, the research is mixed at best and unacceptably limited in scope. The reasoning for using oral contraceptives in advance or in conjunction with IVF treatments ranges from the ease of cycle scheduling to a purported increase in oocyte yields. From an IVF expert:

In my view, it is not only acceptable, but even ideal to take the BCP [birth control pills] for at least one cycle prior to starting COH [controlled ovarian hyperstimulation] in preparation for IVF. Doing so allows one (without prejudice) to better plan and time cycles of IVF. Furthermore, since the BCP also suppressed LH, it is often especially advantageous in older women, in women with diminished ovarian reserve and in those with PCOS (in whom high LH levels can compromise egg/embryo quality). 

Despite the perceived utility of these medications, some research suggests that perception diverges from reality. In fact, the use of oral contraceptives in IVF may not be beneficial in increasing oocyte yields or pregnancy outcomes, especially in older women with limited oocyte reserve. A recent study, Does hormonal contraception prior to in vitro fertilization (IVF) negatively affect oocyte yields? – A pilot study found that even in young women with sufficient oocyte reserve, combined oral contraceptives diminished the number of oocytes retrieved compared to women who were not given oral contraceptives. The androgenic contraceptives were most deleterious. This comes on the heals of a Cochrane Review that found that not only was there limited research on the topic, but oral contraceptives resulted in poorer pregnancy outcomes. Missing from these data are the very real risks to maternal health mediated by the cocktail of hormones used in IVF (Lupron being top among them, followed by dexamethasone) and the potential long-term consequences to the health of the children born from IVF. Despite the lack of data and the often contradictory research findings, the practice of using oral contraceptives in IVF is well entrenched.

Hormone and Other Differences Between Oral Contraceptives, Depo Provera, NuvaRing and the IUDs

From the hormonal perspective, the various forms of contraceptives differ mostly by the type of synthetic progestin used. Oral contraceptives use a variety of progestins (see here), while Depo Provera contains medroxyprogesterone, hormonal IUDs utilize levonorgestrel and NuvaRing uses etonogestral. Most of the oral contraceptives contain the synthetic estrogen, 17a-ethinylestradiol, as does NuvaRing. Depo Provera is a progestin only, injectable form of birth control while the hormonal IUDs are a slow-release progestin only contraceptives. In addition to the differences in formulation and dose, each of these methods utilizes a different different delivery mechanism. The delivery mechanism will affect how much of the drug is absorbed and bioavailable, how quickly, the duration of availability, and those variables (along with several others), then affect the risk for side effects. Videos on pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics can be viewed here (dynamics video follows).

How Do Oral Contraceptives Affect Mitochondrial Morphology and Replication?

While there is a noticeable lack of data in this area, there are clear indicators that ethinylestradiol induces both structural and functional damage to mitochondria in the liver and the kidney, at least in rodents. Liver biopsies of women using oral contraceptives have also demonstrated structural changes in mitochondria. I would suspect similar changes in mitochondria throughout the body.

Indirectly, we know that reduced endogenous estradiol concentrations (herehere, here) damage mitochondria and that women who use oral contraceptives have lower endogenous estradiol concentrations. We also know that oral contraceptives deplete vital nutrients that are critical for mitochondrial functioning. And we know that the metabolism of 17a ethinylestradiol, the estrogen used in hormonal contraceptives, oral and otherwise, does not follow the same path as endogenous estradiol, and thus, likely damages mitochondria. (Ethinyl estradiol metabolism produces what are called catechol estrogens. Catechol estrogens are both directly (DNA adducts) and indirectly (mitochondrial reactive oxygen species – ROS- evoked as a byproduct of the metabolism) implicated in animal models of cancer.) Complicating matters, however, endogenous estradiol depending upon the concentrations, can have both pro – and anti-oxidant properties and impact mitochondrial functioning both positively and negatively. Nevertheless, I would argue that the synthetics derail the balance of endogenous hormones and because of their very real structural and functional differences, evoke a number of processes that are not only distinct from those of the endogenous estrane hormones but are likely damaging in ways we have not yet begun to understand.

Presentation

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 Simone van der Koelen on Unsplash.

Male Birth Control – Myth or Available Science?

2600 views

I’ve never been able to take hormonal birth control. I have tried and the side effects were so extreme that I almost ended up in the ER more than once. After telling each new doctor my past horror stories, they would each reassure me that I simply had the wrong doses and had to try a different brand. I tried three times in my adult life and every single time was a disaster that seemed to progress from the last. So, I gave up on hormonal birth control.

Most women I know have been on birth control most of their adult life, some even since they were teenagers. While I always tell myself that there might be long-term side effects outside of the ‘clinical trial’ time frames (not that I wish bad health on anyone, but would be my top concern if I was on any medication long term), most women are happy poppin the pill (or now the other various forms of hormonal birth control like IUD, rings, patches, etc). Furthermore, most men are happy letting their lady take on that responsibility.

For the most part, I’m okay not being on a hormonal birth control. It is awkward when dating someone and getting to that point where things might lead to more than just dinner a movie and I have to bring up that little, unpleasant fact, but otherwise I’m happy with my natural mood swings and erratic hormones.

I’ve been with my boyfriend for over 3 years now, so I haven’t had to have “the talk” recently. However, back in my dating days, I was always shocked at how shocked men were that I wasn’t on the pill. It was like the idea of a woman not being on some form of birth control was absurd to them. What I love about Brent (well, I love a lot of things about him) is that after witnessing the extreme effects of hormonal birth control in my body first hand, he has accepted that we have to take other measures to prevent pregnancy. He’s also assured me that if a male birth control comes available he would be willing to try, but only after many clinical trials and a year or two of being on the market (I can’t blame him with the controversial drugs the FDA has approved in the past).

Male Birth Control

Turns out there are forms of male birth control. Quite a few actually and very few of them are hormonal, which would have the most risk and side effects. Some sound weird, and lots are still in clinical trials (And there is no way in hell we would even consider a clinical trial – can you imagine being in the placebo group?!). Let’s look at some of the new forms of birth control that share the reproductive responsibility.

It is important to remember that, like female contraceptives, these treatments do NOT protect against sexually transmitted diseases.

RISUG

In India, they have developed a long-term, reversible solution that is 100% effective in clinical trials. The Reversible Inhibition of Sperm Under Guidance or RISUG might be a good option if your man doesn’t mind needles. According to Techcitement the simple procedure is as follows: “A doctor applies some local anesthetic, makes a small pinhole in the base of the scrotum, reaches in with a pair of very thin forceps, and pulls out the small white vas deferens tube. Then, the doctor injects the polymer gel (called Vasalgel here in the US), pushes the vas deferens back inside, repeats the process for the other vas deferens, puts a Band-Aid over the small hole, and the man is on his way. If this all sounds incredibly simple and inexpensive, that’s because it is.” How does it work? “The two common chemicals – styrene maleic anhydride and dimethyl sulfoxide – form a polymer that thickens over the next 72 hours, much like a pliable epoxy, but the purpose of these chemicals isn’t to harden and block the vas deferens. Instead, the polymer lines the wall of the vas deferens and allows sperm to flow freely down the middle (this prevents any pressure buildup), and because of the polymer’s pattern of negative/positive polarization, the sperm are torn apart through the polyelectrolytic effect.” Another benefit, RISUG does not cause the common side effects of a vasectomy: granulomas and an autoimmune response.

Will it be approved? It has yet to get approval in India, and, according to Science Based Medicine, trials on rabbits are just starting in the US (published May 2012). Perhaps this birth control is just too good to be true and pharmaceutical companies stand to loose too much if men have to get a shot once every ten years and without side effects, are 100% reversibly infertile.

What’s more – this treatment might actually prevent HIV transmission from male to female during intercourse.

Male Hormonal Birth Control

In Denmark, studies are being conducted in hormonal birth controls that rather than taking a pill daily (because men can’t bother with that?), tiny rods are inserted under the skin of the arm that deliver the hormones. These rods deliver etongestral, a progesterone often used in female birth control pills. The etongestral blocks sperm production and is considered reversible. The downside: to block sperm production, it blocks testosterone production as well. Participants of the study have to get testosterone replacement therapy injections every 4-6 weeks to maintain their sex drive, as well as their male characteristics. If approved, patients would only have to change the rods every three years.

There are other hormonal birth controls on trial. Some involve topically applied gels, others pills, or shots every few months; but they all work the same and have the same side effect of blocking testosterone production in the testes.

Other Odd ‘n’ Ends

There are surprisingly lots of clinical trials and products out there for male birth control. And maybe not-so-surprisingly, those that were not hormonal had very few side effects. I suppose it makes sense that it would be easier to control men’s sperm that are located externally, opposed to internally manipulating our eggs.

Suspensories, a pair of brief-like garments holds the testes closer to the body, raising the temperature of the testes and suppressing sperm count and making the remaining sperm poor swimmers. Here are other heat treatments.

Intra Vas Device (IVD), is a set of implants that block the flow of sperm. According to malecontraceptives.org, “These tiny, pre-formed, flexible silicone plugs are inserted into the vasa deferentia, the tubes carrying sperm from the testes. The device is sized to the width of each recipient’s vas deferens, filling the lumen (the opening in the vas tube) but not stretching the tube. Two plugs are inserted in the same vas with a small space between them. If sperm pass around the first plug and enter the space between the two plugs, the second plug blocks them. In order to prevent the plugs from moving within the vas deferens, they are anchored with small sutures to the wall of the vas deferens itself. Once implanted, they can not be felt. The IVD is similar in function to a vasectomy, but it leaves the vasa deferentia intact.”

Hopefully these new forms of birth control will soon be on the market and women like me, who can’t or choose not to, take hormonal birth control will be able to share the responsibilities of reproduction. All I can say is it’s about damn time!

For more information on clinical trials and other treatments check out MaleContraceptives.Org, it had the most inclusive, detailed and reliable information I could find on the subject.