nelson pill hearings Archives - Page 2 of 3

Birth Control and Breast Cancer: A Classic Cover-up

Published on October 12, 2016

3016 views

“Estrogen is to cancer as fertilizer is to the wheat crop.”

It was the first headline-grabbing quote from the Nelson Pill Hearings, and it threw birth control proponents into a tizzy. They complained vociferously that the hearings were alarming women everywhere, and causing them to stop taking The Pill. Senator Nelson’s reply was simple, if women had been warned about the side effects before being prescribed, they wouldn’t be alarmed hearing it now.

That one little quote about synthetic estrogens catalyzing cancer and the uproarious reaction it inspired epitomize the beauty of the hearings. It was one of the few times in recent history that the pharmaceutical industry had almost no control of the message.

Hormonal Birth Control: Fertilizer for Breast Cancer

Prior to the hearings, Big Pharma managed to suppress knowledge of their product’s link to certain cancers, particularly breast cancer. However, in the hearings, those connections came to light, and stunned viewers as they tuned into the nightly news. (Perhaps I should inform my younger readers that this was a time when our country only had three networks, none of which featured a 24-hour news cycle. Consequently, the nightly news was still a pretty big deal).

Here’s a breakdown of some key facts presented by leading physicians in those hearings:

The American Cancer Society recognized the possible risk of breast cancer as a side effect of hormonal contraceptives as early as 1961. – Dr. Max Cutler, Page 6664
It’s imprudent to prescribe oral contraceptives to a woman with a family history of breast cancer. – Dr. Max Cutler, Page 6666
There was statistical evidence that breast cancer associated with pill takers in the FDA files had been dramatically underreported. – James Duffy, Page 6069
All human carcinogens are latent. And, it could take 10 to 20 years of patient history to determine the cancer impact. – Dr. Victor Wynn, Page 6309
Not only had the synthetic hormones used in The Pill been proven to cause breast cancer in all five species of animals that had been injected with it, but it also caused the very rare condition of breast cancer in human males. – Dr. Hugh Davis, Page 5927
There should be no chronic use of The Pill. It is a cancer time bomb with a fuse that could be 15 to 20 years. – Dr. Max Cutler, Page 6669

The most important statement as it relates to us today came from Dr. Hugh Davis:

“Now, there are some 75 to 80,000 women in this country per year who are developing diagnosed carcinoma of the breast. If the chronic taking of steroid hormones eventually increased this by only 10 percent, we would have a very, very hazardous situation on our hands…” (Monopoly Subcommittee, Page 5931)

I know how easily our eyes can glaze over when someone starts quoting statistics, but please pay attention to these numbers. In 1970, 1 out of every 20 women developed breast cancer sometime during her life (Dr. Max Cutler, Page 6666). You just read that Dr. Davis said it would be ‘a very, very hazardous situation’ if we saw a long-term increase of 10% over the 75 to 80,000 diagnoses each year.

Today, we have witnessed a 210% increase; 1 in every 8 women will develop breast cancer in her life. Over 246,000 cases of breast cancer will be diagnosed this year. If the vastly underestimated 10% was considered very hazardous, then our reality hit a level of hazard that defies description.

Message Control

The hearings also pulled back the curtain on how the pharmaceutical industry manipulated the message to the media and the medical community.

In 1967, Child & Family Quarterly started a section called, “Recent Setbacks in Medicine,” which seemed to be largely inspired by the introduction of hormonal birth control. Here’s what they had to say:

The Pill quickly became big business, so that drug manufacturers began to manipulate professional opinion at an early date, stressing the wonders of the Pill and minimizing its dangers.

Speaking to this point, Sen. Nelson pointed out the conflicting statements of Dr. Louis Hellman, who chaired the FDA’s study on The Pill. He said:

I doubt whether there is one person, one doctor in a thousand in this country who is aware that [Dr. Hellman] said, “Now, in discussing the chairman’s report, the right statement has to be made. We cannot just hide behind rhetoric. We are going to have to say something, and we have an opinion; that these are not safe, and the Commissioner might have to take them off the market if he believes this. We can say these are safe and our scientific data did not really permit that kind of statement.”

The FDA committee’s official statement ended up being that hormonal contraceptives were “Safe within the intent of the legislation.” This strangely mitigated reference to Kefauver-Harris legislation was all the pharmaceutical industry needed because it contained the word ‘safe.’ Despite admitting they were of the opinion that The Pill wasn’t safe, Dr. Hellman then hit the media circuit to reassure women everywhere that it was.

Further evidence that Big Pharma was seizing control came in the testimony of Dr. Edmond Kassouf. He read the Senators an unnerving conclusion to a New York Times review of Barbara Seaman’s book, A Doctor’s Case Against the Pill. Reviewer, Christorpher Lehman-Haupt wrote, “One wonders why the drug companies have been so exercised about it. In a way, their attempts to warn book reviewers against it are more disturbing than the book itself.” To which, Dr. Kassouf responded:

Mr. Lehman-Haupt has performed a public service in exposing the drug companies’ attempts.

Cures Not Causes

At Big Pharma, manipulation is the modus operandi, but no example is more disgusting and deplorable than Breast Cancer Awareness Month. Yes, that is what I meant to say. Let me explain by first asking you a question. If an organization started promoting Lung Cancer Awareness Month but they never mentioned smoking, would you think there was something fishy in the air?

For all this search for the cure, there is no talk of avoiding the cause. There’s a good reason for that. Jim Hightower festoons the irony amusingly in his book, There’s Nothing in the Middle of the Road but Yellow Stripes and Dead Armadillos.

Breast Cancer Awareness Month is a front that was conceived, funded, and launched in 1985 by a British conglomerate with a name that could come straight out of a Batman comic book: Imperial Chemical Industries. But the $14-billion-a-year multinational behemoth is all too real. It is among the world’s largest makers of pesticides, plastics, pharmaceuticals, and paper. “Organochlorines R Us” could legitimately be its slogan, though “Pollution R Us” would also fit – one of its Canadian paint subsidiaries, for example, has been held responsible for a third of the toxic chemicals dumped into the St. Lawrence River.

In 1993, Monte Paulsen of the Detroit Metro Times wrote, “ICI has been the sole financial sponsor of BCAM since the event’s inception. Altogether, the company has spent ‘several million dollars’ on the project, according to a spokeswoman. In return, ICI has been allowed to approve – or veto – every poster, pamphlet and advertisement BCAM uses.”

ICI’s pharmaceutical division, Zeneca Group PLC later split off to become AstraZeneca, taking Breast Cancer Awareness Month with them. Kudos to Mr. Paulsen for digging into this. Most journalists who know about AZ’s ‘ownership’ of BCAM see the move as philanthropic. AstraZeneca can’t lose. They actually strategized a way to make breast cancer a win-win situation for their shareholders.

Jim Hightower continues:

It gets gooier. Zeneca’s pharmaceutical arm is also the maker of Nolvadex, the leading drug used in breast cancer treatment. Nolvadex is a highly controversial drug – it does not cure existing breast cancer, but it can help stop it from spreading in some women who are diagnosed early; however, it can also cause blood clots, uterine cancer, and liver cancer in those who take it… What a racket this company has going! It make billions selling industrial organochlorines linked to breast cancer, it finances its BCAM front to divert public attention from cancer causes to cancer detection, then it sells Nolvadex to those who are detected.

Industrial waste and toxic chemicals may be responsible for the spike in breast cancer; and synthetic estrogens may be the fertilizer that feeds it, but, ultimately, it’s Big Pharma that’s spreading the manure.

#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.

Diabetes: Another Problem With Hormonal Birth Control

by Kerry Gretchen

Published on August 29, 2016

2417 views

Diabetes is the 7^th leading cause of death in the United States according to the American Diabetes Association. Tens of millions of people have diabetes and are at increased risk for a whole host of other problems because of it. The estimated economic cost of diabetes is nearly $245 billion each year. BILLION! So shouldn’t we take a look at how to decrease these risks, lessen this economic burden, save lives?

I’ve done a lot of research on birth control pills, their side effects, and how those risks are communicated to women. My interest in the topic is both personal (I suffered a stroke from hormonal birth control at age 28) and professional. I’ve been reviewing the Nelson Pill hearings and what I’ve found is shocking. Beyond the obvious correlation between blood clots and hormonal birth control, even back in 1970 doctors and scientists knew that these medications affected, contributed to, and caused a myriad of health problems from weight gain to stroke. One of the most surprising to me, because I hadn’t come across it in any of my previous research, was the link between synthetic hormones and diabetes. Dr. Hugh J. Davis, the first doctor to testify at the Nelson Pill Hearings said the following (page 5930):

“A woman, for example, who has a history of diabetes or even a woman with a strong family history of diabetes is not an ideal candidate for using oral contraceptives… [they] produce changes in carbohydrate metabolism which tends to aggravate existing diabetes and can make it difficult to manage.”

Hormonal birth control elevates blood glucose levels, can increase blood pressure, increases triglycerides and cholesterol, and accelerates the hardening of the arteries, among other things. They knew this in 1970. But what about the research now? Well, if you’ve read any of my other articles it probably won’t surprise you that the current research is… wait for it… you guessed it… INCONCLUSIVE! Here’s a look at what I’ve found:

“Cardiovascular disease is a major concern, and for women with diabetes who have macrovascular or microvascular complications, nonhormonal methods are recommended. There is little evidence of best practice for the follow-up of women with diabetes prescribed hormonal contraception. It is generally agreed that blood pressure, weight, and body mass index measurements should be ascertained, and blood glucose levels and baseline lipid profiles assessed as relevant. Research on hormonal contraception has been carried out in healthy populations; more studies are needed in women with diabetes and women who have increased risks of cardiovascular disease.”

And:

“The four included randomised controlled trials in this systematic review provided insufficient evidence to assess whether progestogen-only and combined contraceptives differ from non-hormonal contraceptives in diabetes control, lipid metabolism and complications. Three of the four studies were of limited methodological quality, sponsored by pharmaceutical companies and described surrogate outcomes. Ideally, an adequately reported, high-quality randomised controlled trial analysing both intermediate outcomes (i.e. glucose and lipid metabolism) and true clinical endpoints (micro- and macrovascular disease) in users of combined, progestogen-only and non-hormonal contraceptives should be conducted.

Not enough evidence is available to prove that hormonal contraceptives do not influence glucose and fat metabolism in women with diabetes mellitus.”

For women with polycystic ovarian syndrome (PCOS), this is particularly troubling. They are already at an increased risk for diabetes. “Researchers in Australia collected data from 6,000 women and found that those who had PCOS were three to five times more likely to develop type 2 diabetes than women who didn’t.” Yet the first treatment doctors usually prescribe for PCOS is birth control pills. It’s unclear whether the PCOS alone increases a woman’s risk or just that most women with PCOS are treated with hormones that make her more likely to develop diabetes.

It begs the question, why are we treating a woman for a condition that increases her risk for diabetes with a drug that increases her risk for diabetes?

Even if you don’t have PCOS, you are still at risk. A recent study showed that “women who used hormonal methods of birth control had higher odds for gestational diabetes than did women who used no contraception.” So using hormonal birth control may prevent you from getting pregnant but at the cost of making a future pregnancy more dangerous? It’s not just dangerous for pregnant women, however. Hormonal contraceptives seem to predispose women to diabetes across the lifespan. For example, another study found:

“The prevalence of diabetes was significantly higher in post-menopausal participants who had taken OCs (oral contraceptives) for more than 6 months than in those who had never taken OCs. The duration of OC use was also positively associated with the prevalence of diabetes. Furthermore, taking OCs for more than 6 months led to a significant increase in fasting insulin levels and HOMA-IR in nondiabetic participants. Past use of OCs for more than 6 months led to a significant increase in the prevalence of diabetes in post-menopausal women, and increased IR in nondiabetic participants. These results suggested that the prolonged use of OCs at reproductive age may be an important risk factor for developing diabetes in post-menopausal women.”

This is further proof that taking hormonal birth control affects women for much longer than the duration they take it. A correlation between synthetic hormones and diabetes was evident to doctors and researchers back in 1970 and we’re still trying to understand those effects today. Dr. Hugh Davis testified (pg 5928) about hormonal birth control:

“While you are accomplishing your contraceptive objective you are producing very, very widespread and generalized changes.”

I’m starting to feel like a broken record here, but at what point are these risks not acceptable? And why do we still not fully understand these risks? The goal of the Nelson Pill Hearings was to determine if these medications were safe and they are clearly not. Over and over, experts testified and said the pill should not be taken off the market but that it should be studied more and replaced by something better as soon as possible. As we can see, that hasn’t happened. Women are still having to make the choice between convenient contraception and their health and safety. The risks involved with hormonal contraceptives are still being downplayed, skewed, and hidden. If a serious and potentially life-threatening condition like diabetes is not too high a price to pay to avoid pregnancy, what is? How about loss of libido? Mental health? Weight gain? Blood clots? Stroke? Loss of life? Dr. Davis also said (pg 5925):

“In using these agents (hormonal contraceptives), we are in fact embarked on a massive endocrinologic experiment with millions of healthy women.”

I couldn’t agree more. And the experiment continues.

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 Sven van der Pluijm on Unsplash.

The Feminist, the Crusty Old Reporter, and the 102-Year Old Man: Antiheroes of the Pill

by Mike Gaskins

Published on August 18, 2016

4438 views

After a well-known physician unwittingly sparked my interest in birth control, I dived into the rabbit hole of hormonal contraceptive research. The number of diseases linked to The Pill shocked me. What’s more, some of these associations dated back over 50 years.

There’s a tendency to discount early research on The Pill because we’re told the first generation pills were completely different. They contained very high doses of estrogen, but today’s pills are safe because of the lower dosage. At least, that’s how the story goes. It’s a faulty premise I will discuss in future posts. Even if it were true and today’s pill was 100% safe, it would still be important to remember the pioneers who fought for a safer pill.

The Pill met virtually no resistance on its path to FDA approval thanks to impeccable timing. The sexual revolution had just crossed paths with fears of a looming population explosion. People across the political spectrum were excited about the promises of this little miracle pill. Consequently, all eyes focused on The Pill’s efficacy. Safety didn’t even register as an afterthought until three courageous people turned the spotlight on the growing chasm that separated The Pill’s promises from its reality.

The Antiheroes of Birth Control

Barbara Seaman was a feminist and a tenacious journalist whose groundbreaking book, A Doctor’s Case Against The Pill, inspired the Nelson Pill Hearings. These congressional hearings, called by Senator Gaylord Nelson, examined whether The Pill had been proven sufficiently safe before being released to the masses. Another author who covered The Pill extensively and was frequently cited at the hearings was Morton Mintz, medical reporter for the Washington Post.

Barbara Seaman: The Feminist

Barbara Seaman’s passionate investigation of synthetic estrogens began as a young woman after her Aunt Sally died of uterine cancer at the age of 49, presumably from taking Premarin. The doctor warned the women in her family that they should never take such drugs. The warning inspired her to build a career fighting synthetic hormones and the “Don’t worry your pretty little head” mentality that prevailed in the medical industry. She continued the mission until her death in 2008. Along the way, she learned that there were many prominent physicians who shared her concerns about The Pill.

As her classic book went to press in 1969, Ms. Seaman wrote a letter to Sen. Nelson. She suspected he would be interested because he was the chairman of a committee currently investigating the drug industry. Her letter can be seen in full at the Jewish Women’s Archive linked above, but here are some key excerpts:

“Never before in history have so many millions of people taken such a powerful and unnecessary drug.”
“You cannot long knock any natural system out of balance without doing some harm, – whether it shows up immediately or years later. Furthermore, many of these pill-caused metabolic disturbances are progressive. The longer a woman stays on the pill the more her laboratory tests are altered.”
“I believe that many of the women using the pill would switch to alternative methods if they knew the extent of the already-documented body pollution the pill is causing.”
Why has the suggestive evidence about the two most frightening possibilities – cancer and genetic damage, been generally withheld from the public, including physicians?

She bolstered her argument with quotes from revered physicians like Dr. Harry Rudel, one of the developers of The Pill, who admitted: “The pill is something we entered into with the best of faith, something we truly believed affected only ovulation and fertility. It was a relatively small dose of a drug, and it appeared that it was not affecting anything except fertility. Then as we began to look, we began to see that we are influencing many systems in the body.”

She carried things a step further with a quote from Dr. Philip Corfman of the National Institutes of Health, who said, “There is no organ or system of the body which, upon examination, has not been found to be affected by the pill.”

Morton Mintz: The Reporter

As medical reporter for the Washington Post, Morton Mintz won many prestigious awards for his 1962 reports on birth defects caused by Thalidomide. In 1965, he turned his attention to The Pill. Many of his stories were referenced and can be found in the appendixes of the Nelson Pill Hearings. His dispassionate, ‘Just the facts, ma’am’ approach provides the perfect counterbalance to Ms. Seaman’s style.

When I first contacted Mr. Mintz, he began the conversation with a caveat. “I’m 93 and have forgotten mountains of stuff.”

However, the mountains of stuff he did remember were fascinating. He said that, as a reporter, he had no opinion of whether The Pill was safe or unsafe. “What concerned me was the stunning inadequacy of the evidence of safety that the FDA had in hand when it approved the pill.”

In fact, he famously called it a “scientific scandal” in one of his Post columns. When he presented the facts of the approval to the new FDA Commissioner Robert Goddard on Face the Nation in 1967, the commissioner admitted that the evidence had been insufficient, and that he couldn’t say whether he would have made the same decision. This was a stunning admission that Mr. Mintz recalled fondly, “I was invited on such shows to challenge the likes of the Commissioner of the FDA and the chairman of Philip Morris with, I egoistically thought, wonderful results… Now all we get is Newt Gingrich and the like.”

Long after the television lights faded and the headlines about the Nelson Pill Hearings disappeared, Mr. Mintz was the only major press member to stay on the story. His pill coverage continued until 1977, when he was moved back to the Supreme Court. He learned later, from a friend at the New York Times, that he had been reassigned because a well-connected woman at the Post had gone to the editor and said she was “sick and tired” of his stories on The Pill, “…she and her friends used it and knew it was safe.” Her anecdotal ‘proof’ was enough to have the final committed journalist taken off the beat.

The authenticity of Mr. Mintz’s work resulted from a true desire to be able to say The Pill had been proven safe. In the introduction to his book, The Pill: An Alarming Report, Mr. Mintz explains that he and his wife are members of Planned Parenthood, and,

“Nothing could have pleased me more than to have found that The Pill was free of hazards. However, the answers made it overwhelmingly clear that safety had not been established.”

I’m grateful to Mr. Mintz, not only for his enduring work, but for putting me in touch with Ben Gordon. As he passed along the contact information, he told me that Mr. Gordon was the lead staffer for Senator Nelson, and had put together the pill hearings. He added, “Ben’s 102-years old, but still sharp as a tack.”

Ben Gordon: Lead Staffer for Senator Nelson

Senator Gaylord Nelson inherited Ben Gordon along with the Subcommittee on Monopoly from Senator Russell Long. Mr. Gordon had spent ten years on Capitol Hill prior to working with Senator Nelson, and the senator trusted him implicitly.

Mr. Gordon assembled the roster of doctors to testify at the hearings, wrote the opening statements, and generally did all the legwork behind the scenes. Throughout the proceedings, he sat at the table next to Chairman Nelson, and frequently chimed in with questions and comments. With Senator Nelson passing away in 2005, Mr. Gordon is one of the few living people who can give a first-person account of the inner workings of the hearings.

He told me about his first meeting with Ms. Seaman after they received her letter, and how he had thought he would call her to testify. Upon reading her book, he decided it would be better to go with the doctors whose studies she cited. He said he has always had a policy to avoid indirect testimony because it is too easily picked apart.

If you’ve followed Kerry Gretchen’s posts on the hearings, the excerpts read like a who’s who of Ms. Seaman’s favorite doctors. Even with ‘direct testimony,’ Senator Bob Dole eagerly tore into physicians who suggested The Pill had safety issues. According to Mr. Gordon,

“Dole was on our committee, and when he came, there was no question he was representing the industry.”

Taking Up the Torch

As a result of the hearings, The Pill became the first medication ever required to include an information booklet for patients. Unfortunately, the oft-ignored booklet also meets informed consent requirements, and may explain why so few doctors take the time to personally warn patients about side effects.

In the aftermath of the hearings, drug manufacturers also rolled out new, lower-dose versions of The Pill, and claimed they were safer. Again, these statements were made without adequate testing, but this time, the claims went unchecked.

As proud as he is of the hearings, Mr. Gordon admits he is surprised that no other politician has ‘taken up the torch.’ When I asked Mr. Mintz whether he thought today’s journalists shared his sense of duty to protect citizens, he replied,

“Have you ever seen an editorial condemning corporate misconduct other than financial shenanigans? I can’t recall any.”

Perhaps you’re thinking, “It’s been 50 years! Surely, today’s pill has been proven safe.”

That’s a reasonable assumption. However, it’s dead wrong. The maker of today’s most popular brand of birth control pill paid out $1.69 BILLION to settle over 8,000 lawsuits as of February 2014. You needn’t go any further than the personal stories shared on this site to know the number of injuries and deaths continues to grow.

The truth behind Dr. Corfman’s statement remains,

“There is no organ or system of the body which, upon examination, has not been found to be affected by the pill.”

Yet, our politicians and journalists are no longer interested in the conversation. Sadly, neither are the feminists or even the women who take The Pill. It seems as though we have forgotten that these are in fact very strong medications – synthetic chemicals with serious side effects.

We clearly can’t count on our ‘thought leaders’ to lead on this topic. The only way they will care again is if we, the people, reignite their interest. I’m just a single voice on a small stage (a man no less), but I’ve decided to do my part to take up the torch. And that begins with these posts on Hormones Matter.

Next, I will look at a forgotten history of synthetic estrogen that should have warned us The Pill is unsafe at any dose.

#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.

See page for author, CC BY 4.0, via Wikimedia Commons; Wellcome Images.

Hormonal Birth Control 46 Years Later- Why Has Nothing Changed?

by Kerry Gretchen

Published on August 2, 2016

2465 views

Over the last several months I have been reading and writing about the Nelson Pill Hearings. I was hired by the late Karen Langhart to dig through 1500+ pages of congressional hearing transcripts. Her daughter, Erika, died of blood clots caused by hormonal birth control and Karen wanted to know what the researchers, the FDA, and Congress knew about the risks associated with these hormones back then. This matter is close to my heart because I suffered a stroke at the age of 28 caused by the pill. Could Karen’s daughter’s life, and the lives of so many other young women, have been spared had Congress and the FDA heeded the warnings of the researchers at these hearings? What was the result of all this government time and money? What was the point and what did the hearings lead to? Karen believed that if women and their doctors today fully understood what doctors back in 70s understood, fewer women would choose hormonal birth control and if they did, the risks would be understood and the side effects could be recognized and treated earlier.

Based on my personal experience, and the experience of many of the women helping with our research, doctors don’t understand the risks involved with hormonal birth control. And I think we need to ask why. The testimony given by both industry and non-industry physicians and researchers is pretty damning. The fact that the information presented at the hearings has been largely ignored is infuriating. Why did my ER doctors send me home from the hospital twice when I presented with the exact stroke symptoms testified about at the hearings? Why, over 45 years later, do we still have doctors doubting the dangers of hormonal birth control and misdiagnosing women or worse, dismissing them completely? Why do women continue to suffer from side effects ranging from mood swings to death? And why after all these years are there no better and safer options?

This is by no means a complete account, but below I’ve compiled some of the most interesting, and sometimes shocking, testimony from the Nelson Pill hearings.

What Are the Nelson Pill Hearings?

Senator Gaylord Nelson scheduled these congressional hearings back in 1970 after a number of reports, books (especially Barbara Seaman’s “The Doctors’ Case Against the Pill”), and studies brought up concerns about the safety of the birth control pill.

In his own words (page 5923):

The aim of these hearings: First, whether they [birth control pills] are dangerous for the human body and, second, whether patients taking them have sufficient information about possible dangers in order to make an intelligent judgement whether they wish to assume the risks.

I should note that it was the feminists who demanded the hearings, expressly because of the safety issues. Consider whether that would happen today?

Who Testified?

Doctors, scientists, and officials from the Food and Drug Administration testified over the course of two months. After the first few days of testimony, Senator Bob Dole implied that the hearings were biased against the pill, to which Senator Nelson responded (page 6021-6022):

These hearings will permit a presentation of all viewpoints respecting the pill, in the best balanced fashion that I know how… Every single company is invited, and if they want to have 5 days or 10 days, 8 hours a day, to present their case, I will give it to them if they want to come.

Members of the D.C. Women’s Liberation, led by Alice Wolfson, interrupted the hearings to ask repeatedly (until dragged away by guards) ”Why isn’t there a Pill for men?” and ”Why are 10 million women being used as guinea pigs?”

To this Nelson responded, “I stated in advance of the hearings that every viewpoint would be heard on this issue… There will be women who testify… I will give you all the time—if you ladies will come to see me—would you girls have a little caucus and decide which one will talk one at a time, we can then decide what ladies will testify. Your viewpoints will be heard, don’t worry about that.”

Senator McIntyre in defense of the activists said (page 6018):

I would like to say, Mr. Chairman, a few words in behalf of the young ladies who spoke up from the audience. The scientists we just heard this morning speak of side effects and drugs and so many reactions on so many thousands or hundreds of thousands of patients. However, I Think we should bear in mind, Mr. Chairman, the fact that for an individual who experiences a serious adverse reaction to the drug, her incidence is 100 percent. So, for this reason, Mr. Chairman, I hope we can arrange for at least one of these young ladies to be heard.

Even Dr. Louis Hellman, a doctor who had worked on projects funded by the pharmaceutical companies felt that the women should be heard. (page 6189):

Women use these drugs and it is important that they be presented in any decision-making body.

Yet the feminists were escorted from the hearings by security. None of them were allowed to give testimony. The only two women to testify at the hearings were doctors who championed the pill. So at these “fair and balanced” hearings, they heard from no one who had actually experienced side effects of the pill.

The Effects of the Pill

I’ve written about several of the side effects of the pill and included expert testimony and current research from stroke to weight gain to depression to loss of libido. But perhaps Dr. Victor Wynn put it most succinctly during his testimony (page 6311):

“All the disadvantages of this medication stem from the metabolic changes, whether they be changes in personality, whether they be changes in putting on weight, whether they be changes in skin pigmentation or what have you, high blood pressure… 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.”

What our research from the Birth Control and Blood Clots study has found so far is that it is not simply a matter of if a patient will experience these side effects, but when. I had been using hormonal birth control for 10 years before I had a stroke. And I was told that was rare. It turns out that it’s not so rare. And Dr. Victor Wynn agreed (page 6303):

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.

Which makes what Dr. Joseph Goldzieher said all the more chilling (page 6353):

“What is an acceptable risk of death from a pill? There is no simple answer to this question.”

I disagree. The risk of death is not an acceptable tradeoff for birth control.

Communicating Risk: Researchers, Doctors, Patients

As Senator Nelson said, one of the roles of the hearings was to determine if women were being given sufficient warning information about the dangers of the pill so that they might make an educated decision about whether to use it. You can read more about how risk is communicated with regard to hormonal birth control here.

Communication by Researchers

Edmond Kassouf gave some of the most interesting and alarming testimony of any of the doctors at the hearings. On page 6114 and 6115 he says:

On September 30, 1968, the lead article in the JAMA was “Oral contraceptives and thromboembolic disease.” It was written by Dr. Victor Drill and David Calhoun of the G.D. Searle Co. They concluded that U.S. data did not reveal a clotting or death risk. This paper is unique, being in effect, a major policy statement by the manufacturer on the safety of their own drug, which is in contention.

Dr. Kassouf makes an excellent yet disturbing point. For the first time, the pharmaceutical company is making the judgment call about whether their own product is safe. Here we see the very company that stands to profit from downplaying the risks of using hormonal contraceptives doing just that. And I dare say, they’ve been doing it ever since.

Communication to Doctors

Not only is the pharmaceutical industry doing the research, drawing the conclusions, and publishing the results, but they are also marketing directly to doctors. Dr. J. Harold Williams (page 6261) testified about these advertising materials.

A photograph of a beautiful child on the left hand side, and on the right hand side in big bold letters ‘Just what the doctor ordered.’ Now, how God-like can you get, gentlemen? In smaller print, ‘And spaced just right in the family plan, worked out years before by the physician,’ and oh yes, ‘The baby’s parents.’ I find it disgusting that this kind of appeal has to be made to American physicians to wheedle them into prescribing the pill for millions of women. If the pill is as good as they say it is, and if it is as safe as they say it is, that kind of advertising would not be necessary.

Communication to Patients

After much of the testimony, you can almost hear the frustration in Senator Nelson’s voice as he points out how women are being misled. Senator Nelson to Dr. Guttmacher (page 6610):

The literature that is going out is inaccurate. It is misleading 8,500,000 women in this country and it had been doing it for 10 years. It has not been corrected by the Food and Drug Administration, it has not been corrected by the medical profession; it has not been refuted by anybody. Here it stands. You refute it; I reject it. You would not use this in your clinics. Yet it is being passed to women all over the country. At what stage do you consider the women’s rights?

False Promises- The Results of The Nelson Pill Hearings

So what was the result of these hearings?

Senator Nelson (page 6486):

My own view is that, as a result of these hearings, we are going to see a substantial increase in the research moneys allocated for the improvement of oral contraceptives, and research into other methods of contraception.
I think all those I have talked to who have been working in the field would agree that the oral contraceptive now on the market is a sort of crude, first generation contraceptive and that we have not done enough research… So I am hopeful that out of all this, we will get a substantial increase, as I think we will, in research funds.

But what happened to all of that funding? Do we have better research now? If you’ve read any of my other articles about the side effects of hormonal birth control, you will find a similar theme. Every time I’ve looked into a health problem associated with hormonal contraception, the most recent studies still call for more research. How is it that we’ve been needing more research on this medication for nearly 50 years and we can still draw no conclusions? Perhaps Dr. Paul Meier illuminated part of the problem in his testimony (page 6553-6554):

Of far greater concern to me is the failure of our governmental agencies to exercise their responsibilities in seeing to it that appropriate studies were carried out… Frankly, the required research, although important, is not especially appealing to scientists. It is not fundamental and it is not exciting. It is difficult, it is expensive, and it is fraught with the risk of attack from all sides.
Evidently, for whatever reasons, there is no sound body of scientific studies concerning these possible effects available today, a situation which I regard as scandalous. If we proceed in the future as we have in the past, we will continue to stumble from one tentative and inadequately supported conclusion to another, always relying on data which come to hand, and which were not designed for the purpose.

So where is all this promised research that was called for at these hearings? One of the only things nearly every expert that testified agreed upon was that there needed to be more and better research. And that the birth control pill would and should be replaced by something better. Dr. Guttmacher (page 6616):

I think the two methods, the pill and the intrauterine device, have been significant contributions. I think we are still in the horse and buggy day of effective contraception. I am optimistic in feeling that in 5 years, we shall have methods that are infinitely superior and safer than either.

Where are these methods? Surely, it’s not the ring nor the patch which have proven to be even more dangerous than the pill? Or the shot which is also used as chemical castration for sex offenders? Or the implant which comes with all of the side effects of the pill but also pain, swelling, scarring, bruising at the area where it is placed? What happened to the promised funding? What happened to the requested research? What happened to communicating more effectively to patients? What happened to protecting women?

What Now?

So many women have lost their lives because of these medications. I was nearly one of them. The promises of these hearings—better communication, more conclusive research, safer alternatives—have never materialized. We cannot rely on research conducted by the pharmaceutical companies or policies developed by politicians paid by the pharmaceutical industry. They have made it clear time and time again that they are not in the business of protecting people. They continue to demonstrate that profit takes precedent over human life. So, now it’s up to us. We need to do the research, spread the awareness, and speak out. We need to demand safer alternatives. Fighting for reproductive freedom should not come at the expense of our health and safety. It should not come at the expense of our lives. Women were literally dying from the pill back then. The feminists of the 1970s knew they had to speak out. Women are STILL dying from hormonal birth control. Why are the feminists not speaking out now?

Why have we relinquished our health and safety for convenience?

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 Johnny Cohen on Unsplash.

Weight Gain and Hormonal Contraceptives

by Kerry Gretchen

Published on June 8, 2016

4333 views

Once upon a time, a 26-year-old woman went to her doctor and asked to be put on the new birth control pill that allowed women to only have four periods a year. She had seen it advertised on television. Four months later, 15 pounds heavier and suffering from mild depression, she returned to the doctor feeling miserable. The doctor told her the weight gain and depression were not from the pill because those were not side effects of hormonal birth control. This left the young woman feeling like it was her fault she had gained weight. Needless to say, that didn’t help with the depression. But she switched back to her original birth control pill and lived happily (but heavily) ever after. Well, until it gave her a stroke two years later.

I’ve written a lot about my stroke and about blood clots and birth control pills, but there are many other side effects from hormonal birth control. More often than not, we are told that these side effects do not exist; that they are all in our heads. Are they? Or are we simply being ignored and lied to?

What Does The Research Show?

When researching my thesis, I was interested in finding out what women knew about the risks associated with birth control pills. I created a survey based on a published study by researchers in this field. The original study outlined which side effects were and were not associated with birth control pills. The survey used in my thesis demonstrated the following:

“When the women were asked to select which risk factors were associated with birth control pills, most women, 76.7% of the 313 who answered the question, selected blood clots. Weight gain, which is not considered a health risk or even a side effect of birth control pills, was the selection most chosen (79.9%).”

The number one answer most women chose was weight gain, yet all the research I read said that weight gain was not a side effect of birth control pills. My own doctor had told me it wasn’t a side effect when I stood before her 15 pounds heavier after switching pills. Even as I wrote my thesis, I wondered how we could all be so wrong. Well, it turns out we weren’t. The pill can cause weight gain. And they knew it could, even back in 1970. The following is testimony from the Nelson Pill Hearings.

Dr. Francis Kane (page 6453): [In a Swedish study of 344 women] Of the 138 women who stopped using the medication, weight gain and emotional disturbances were the most frequently reported, 26.1 percent and 23.9 percent.

Dr. Louis Hellman (page 6203): My private patients… come off the pill because of a host of minor reactions. The most prevalent one is weight gain. The modern American girl just does not want to gain 5 or 10 pounds if she can help it.

What About Today’s Birth Control Pills?

I took another look at what I could find out about weight gain and hormonal contraception now. According to WebMD:

“When birth control pills were first sold in the early 1960s, they had very high levels of estrogen and progestin. Estrogen in high doses can cause weight gain due to increased appetite and fluid retention. So, 50 years ago they may indeed have caused weight gain in some women. Current birth control pills have much lower amounts of hormones. So weight gain is not likely to be a problem.”

Maybe larger doses of hormones cause more weight gain. But I don’t think that means that smaller doses cause none. And what about taking that smaller dose for a decade or more?

Most current medical information dismisses weight gain completely. On the Mayo Clinic website’s FAQ page for birth control pills it says:

“Do birth control pills cause weight gain? Many women think so. But studies have shown that the effect of the birth control pill on weight is small — if it exists at all.”

That’s right, ladies. Just like your menstrual cramps, weight gain on the pill probably doesn’t exist. But wait, the Mayo Clinic says there are studies that show hormonal contraceptives don’t cause weight gain. Where are these studies?

Inconclusive? Or Incorrect?

A recent meta-analysis (2014) conducted by Cochrane (an independent group that reviews randomized controlled trials and organizes medical research information) found the following:

Available evidence was insufficient to determine the effect of combination contraceptives on weight, but no large effect was evident. Trials to evaluate the link between combination contraceptives and weight change require a placebo or non-hormonal group to control for other factors, including changes in weight over time.

You mean to tell me in the 40+ years since the Nelson Pill Hearings we haven’t been able to conduct one conclusive study to determine how hormonal contraception affects weight? Perhaps it’s time to start asking why. All those studies that provided insufficient evidence, who funded them and who might stand to lose if they were conclusive? I don’t know for sure but I do know that one of the few things women fear as much as an unintended pregnancy is weight gain. Even the staunchest feminists among us often fret over our figures.

According to Naomi Wolfe’s The Beauty Myth, “thirty-three thousand American women told researchers that they would rather lose ten to fifteen pounds than achieve any other goal.” Setting aside how disturbing that is, we can easily see how the fact that hormonal birth control can cause weight gain might adversely affect the pharmaceutical industry’s bottom line (pardon the pun).

At the Nelson Pill Hearings, there were at least a half dozen experts–doctors specifically chosen to testify before Congress–that mentioned weight gain as a side effect of the birth control pill. Including ones who admittedly worked for the pharmaceutical industry. But now, nearly five decades later, the research is inconclusive. Doctors are telling patients that hormonal contraceptives are not responsible for weight gain, yet 80% of women surveyed thought that weight gain was a side effect. Like so much surrounding the pharmaceutical industry, something doesn’t add up here. And who is paying the difference? Women. Yet again we are being told that it’s all in our heads. Have you had experience gaining weight on hormonal birth control?

Further Testimony on Weight Gain

This testimony from the Nelson Pill Hearings just scratches the surface of the side effects caused by hormonal contraceptives. I’ll be expanding more on a lot of this testimony in future articles. But perhaps Dr. Victor Wynn explained most succinctly how these side effects manifest when he testified (page 6303):

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. Robert Kistner (page 6082): I tell her about the side effects plus a weight gain edema and I may even give her a prescription for this.

Dr. John Laragh (page 6165): We do not have any firm clues. But it does look as though those who accumulate salt and water and gain weight on the oral contraceptives might be especially vulnerable [to increased hypertension].

Dr. Francis Kane (page 6449): Complaints of moodiness, being cross and tired, alterations in sexual drive, weight gain, edema, and insomnia were commonest in the group using the estrogen-progestin group.

At the hearings, Dr. Herbert Ratner (page 6737) was asked by James Duffy, minority council:

Mr. Duffy: You use the word “disease” here. Disease to me seems to be a pretty strong word and I am just curious why you would consider weight change to be a disease?

Dr. Ratner: You realize that obesity is one of our major problems in this country.

Real Risk Study: Birth Control and Blood Clots

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

Risk Communication and Hormonal Contraceptives

by Kerry Gretchen

Published on May 19, 2016

2977 views

When it comes to the dangers associated with hormonal contraceptives, how is risk communicated to women? Back in the 1960s when the pill first came out, only the doctors and pharmacists received the information pamphlet included with birth control pills. The burden was on them to decide what information to share with women and what information to omit. This was a central theme of the 1970 Nelson Pill Hearings. What are the risks of the birth control pill and how do we inform women of these risks? Here is testimony from several experts about the issue of informed consent.

Dr. Hugh Davis (page 5928): “In many clinics, the pill has been served up as if it were no more hazardous than chewing gum. The colorful brochures, movies, and pamphlets which are used to instruct women about the pill say next to nothing about possible serious complications. The same can be said for the veritable flood of articles in popular magazines and books which have convinced many women that there are few satisfactory alternatives to these steroids and that careful studies have proved there is little or no risk to life or health in the pill… It can be argued that the risk benefit ratio of the oral contraceptive justifies their use under certain circumstances, but it cannot be argued that such a powerful medication should be administered without the fully informed consent of each woman.”

Dr. Roy Hertz (page 6039): “My view would be that the application of these medications in their present state of knowledge constitutes a highly experimental undertaking. That the individual called upon to take these materials, particularly for prolonged period of time, should be regarded as, in effect, a volunteer for an experimental undertaking. I think she should be so informed.”

Dr. John Laragh (page 6167): “I think we have to do everything we can to simplify communication, to use education, to use techniques of repetition, to simplify the package insert. We can only go ahead in this area, and with many other powerful drugs… by full disclosure.”

With so many doctors insisting that women be informed of the risks of using hormonal birth control, we now have concise, unbiased, and easy-to-read risk information that comes with every package. Or do we?

Modern Risk Communication for Hormonal Birth Control

Because of my experience of having a stroke caused by hormonal birth control, I used my master’s thesis to investigate how drug manufacturers communicate the risks of taking birth control pills with respect to blood clots. Specifically, I was interested in determining whether the package inserts fully disclosed the risks for blood clots and whether/how women were informed of these risks by their physicians. The first part of my research assessed the risk communication, provided by the manufacturers, for three different types of hormonal birth control. This included reviewing the warning materials included with each packet of pills and determining whether the following information was included:

Did the information state that blood clots are a risk of taking this medication?
If so, did the information state that genetic disorders can increase the risk of blood clots?
Did the information list symptoms of a blood clot?
Did the information tell women with symptoms of a blood clot what to do in that situation (i.e. go to the emergency room, etc.)?

In addition to these questions, each insert was given a general overview of content, design, and language. Language and design play important roles in the understanding of risk and benefit. “Risk information typically is presented in often-ignored smaller print; as part of a large, undifferentiated block of text… or simply hidden in plain view… Even when found and read, risk information often is missing key pieces of information that consumers need to evaluate drug risks” (Davis). Unfortunately for women, this is the case with oral contraceptives.

How are Risks Communicated?

All of the inserts were text heavy, used extremely small font, and were designed in such a way that the paper would need to be rotated at least twice to access all of the information.
All three inserts had a larger portion and a smaller, perforated portion (presumably for a woman to tear off the larger section and keep the smaller) which means a woman would have to thoroughly read both sections of the inserts fully for all of the risk information (something that is unlikely due to the redundancy of much of the rest of the information).
Technically, each of the inserts lists all four points of information that were examined in this study, however, clotting disorders are only mentioned in the smaller sections, while symptoms of blood clots are only listed in the larger sections.
Each insert has statistical information about the risks involved with taking the medication but without the disclaimer that it is based on studies run by the very company who makes the medication. (Research has shown that studies funded by pharmaceutical companies that make oral contraceptives produced more favorable results than independent studies of the same medications.)

In general, the most highlighted information on any risk communication for birth control pills is a version of this:

Do not use [pill type] if you smoke and are over age 35. Smoking increases your risk of serious side effects from the Pill, which can be life-threatening, including blood clots, stroke or heart attack. This risk increases with age and number of cigarettes smoked.

I didn’t smoke and I was only 28 when I had my stroke from birth control pills. But the way this is worded leads women to believe that they are only at risk if over 35 and smoke. Which is patently false. All women who use hormonal contraception are at risk for blood clots. In fact, “the reality is that the estrogenic effects of combine hormonal contraceptives increase the risk of a potentially life threatening blood clot (venous thromboembolism or VTE) by between 400% – 700% for ALL women at any age including those that don’t smoke and those that do smoke. (Comparing Annual VTE Impact across 2nd-4th Generation CHC’s in the U.S. 2013).”

As Joe Malone points out in Five Half-truths of Hormonal Contraceptives, these types of warnings (being over 35 and a smoker) infer that if you are neither, hormonal contraceptives are perfectly safe for you. They are not. They weren’t safe for me and they weren’t safe for his daughter.

Another problem with these warnings is the conditional language stating that serious side effects “can be life-threatening.” A stroke, a heart attack, a blood clot—these things ARE life threatening. But as the research shows, conditional language like that helps give the patient confidence in the medication. After all, something like that can’t happen to me…

Would women feel as confident in their choice to use hormonal birth control if the warning accurately read: “This medication increases your risk of life-threatening blood clots by 400-700%”? Doubtful.

The Right To Know

Over 40 years ago, Dr. Edmond Kassouf testified at the Nelson Pill Hearings (pg 6121) about the information the drug companies were providing about birth control pills:

“Some of the pamphlets mislead and misinform, others are frankly dangerous, but all have one thing in common—they all seem to disparage the reader’s right to know.”

I wonder, how much has really changed?

By creating documents that are so text heavy, with dense language couched in conditional terms, in font barely large enough to read, pharmaceutical companies are clearly not designing for their audience, or any audience for that matter. But perhaps that is their intention.

Real Risk Study: Birth Control and Blood Clots

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

Patients Are Not Statistics: The Case for Personal Stories in Medical Research

by Kerry Gretchen

Published on May 11, 2016

2416 views

Lucine Health Sciences and Hormones Matter have begun an important new research project to investigate the relationship between hormonal birth control and blood clots. They are surveying and interviewing women and the families of women who have suffered blood clots while using hormonal contraceptives. A big part of this study includes publishing the personal health stories of these women. (You can read my story here.) Hormones Matter has always been a place to question the status quo in healthcare and believes that one of the most powerful ways we can do that is by allowing patients to have a voice.

Patient stories, or case studies, are vital to the conversation about the safety of medications and they help drive research about health issues. I believe they are the proverbial canary in the coal mine. How else will doctors and researchers know what’s going on? Should they rely solely on the drug companies to share information that may be detrimental to their bottom line? I don’t think so, but over the years many doctors and scientists have dismissed patient stories as anecdotal and therefore not pertinent to the research conversation. They claim that the only valid forms of medical research are the double-blind placebo controlled trial or the large epidemiological investigations and nowhere is there room for the patient experience of his or her symptoms. But these studies are often cost-prohibitive or take many years (sometimes decades) to complete. What about the patients suffering now?

Case Studies Dismissed in Hormonal Birth Control Research

In my research involving birth control safety and the politics and policies surrounding hormonal birth control, the disregard for patient experience, let me rephrase that, human experience, is striking and entrenched. Even back in 1970 at the Nelson Pill Hearings, Dr. Joseph W. Goldzieher, one of the physicians testifying, was so adamant that case stories had no value that he impugned the entire British Medical Journal, the official publication of the British Medical Society and counterpart to the Journal of the American Medical Association. His claim was based on their willingness to publish an article about cervical cancer and the birth control pill when he felt that other journals “would turn it down as proving nothing.” Perhaps it is no coincidence that the British Medical Journal was the first to call attention to the problem of blood clots and the birth control pill. Dr. Goldzieher’s testimony is as follows (from page 6375 of the Nelson Pill Hearings).

Senator McIntyre: Does this statement, the statement that this journal—I am now referring to the British Medical Journal—this journal is noted for its lack of editorial discrimination, represent simply your own opinion, or is it based on some evidence?

Dr. Goldzieher: No, sir. It is my opinion exclusively, and it is based on the fact that this particular journal publishes large numbers of letters of an anecdotal nature, which are perhaps amusing, but are of dubious scientific merit, but which are then used for purposes which are not admissible. Having crept into the scientific literature as information—any statistician would call it anecdotal information—it then gets quoted and re-quoted. This is of questionable value to the medical community.

Senator McIntyre: Doctor, is it not true that letters to medical journals might very well be a manner and a way of detecting problems that may be occurring?

Dr. Goldzieher: I think there are better ways, Senator… This raw information should not, in my opinion, appear in a journal of this type… It should go to somebody which knows what to do with this information. Printing it in the British Medical Journal is no way to handle this kind of information.

Of course statistics are important. And of course we cannot make claims for all women based on the experience of one, or even a few, but in the case of hormonal birth control and blood clots (or really any of the side effects from hormonal contraception or other drugs), we are not talking about a few exceptional cases. Hundreds of thousands of people are harmed every year from medication adverse events. In fact, prescription pharmaceuticals are the fourth leading cause of death in the United States. How hormonal birth control contributes to that risk is unknown. We see from the testimony of doctors, scientists, and researchers that even in 1970 the drug manufacturers knew there were far more side effects with synthetic hormones than had been studied prior to their approval. Imagine what might have happened if more case studies were published instead of dismissed as anecdotal. Would that have driven more research and more awareness of risks?

Case Studies Drive Research

A doctor that testified after Dr. Goldzieher completely refuted Goldzieher’s stance on case studies and the British Medical Journal.

Dr. Philip A. Corfman said (in Nelson Pill Hearings, page 6400.):

“I believe the thromboembolism story provides a good example of what kinds of studies are needed. The story started with clinical observations, letters to the British Medical Journal, and case reports in Sweden and American literature. These observations brought this problem to the attention of medical science, but it was not for several years, five or six at least, until well-designed, carefully controlled studies were undertaken to show that there is indeed a positive relationship between the use of pills and [blood clots].”

“We are still in the early stage with the other problems that have been discussed, such as cancer, hypertension, and diabetes.”

Clearly, it takes patient stories to help detect these problems. We cannot afford to wait for an observable statistical jump in the mortality of young women or any group of people before we start investigating whether these medications are really safe. We really cannot trust the drug manufacturers to make this decision for us.

Pharmaceutical Companies Against Case Studies

Perhaps it is no surprise that when Senator McIntyre asks Dr. Goldzieher if he had ever worked for the drug companies, his response was, “I am a consultant at various times to various drug companies.”

So maybe it boils down to Dr. Clark’s testimony upon being asked if he would give his daughter the pill.

“There are two sensible answers to that. The first is, my daughters are both college age now and they would not do anything I told them to anyway. The second answer, I think, is that in a survey such as this, one is dealing with statistics. These have to be looked at in the light of a group of other statistics. When you come down to a question of the patient, that patient is no longer a statistic.” -Nelson Pill Hearings, page 6152.

Patients are Not Statistics

Patients are NOT simple statistics. This is why sharing personal stories is so vital and why we make that a priority at Hormones Matter. The manufacturers and many astute doctors and researchers knew over 40 years ago that hormonal contraceptives needed much more research. In 2016 we still don’t fully understand the risks for deadly blood clots and other serious side effects. Had women not been silenced then, perhaps we’d know more today; perhaps fewer women and their families would suffer the consequences of hormonal birth control related blood clots.

Real Risk Study: Birth Control and Blood Clots

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

Being a Feminist: Hormonal Birth Control Not Required

by Kerry Gretchen

Published on April 27, 2016

7061 views

Before I get further into dissecting the Nelson Pill Hearings I want to pause and talk about feminism and my intent for this project. The history of the birth control pill and the history of feminism are closely tied, because, of course, if women can control when and/or whether they have children, they have power over their own lives. First-wave feminists knew this. It was Margaret Sanger after all who coined the term “birth control” and conceived (pardon the pun) the idea of the pill in the first place. And so it’s no surprise that the release of the birth control pill in 1960 ushered in the second wave of feminism.

Somewhere, somehow, many people confused the right to choose with blind acceptance of hormonal birth control as “freedom.” These may be the same people who liken questioning the government with being unpatriotic. I suggest that in a democracy it is our most patriotic duty to scrutinize whether our government is acting in the best interest of its people. Likewise, as feminists it is our duty to scrutinize what may or may not be serving women.

The F Words – Feminism and Freedom

Many people believe that having unlimited access to every kind of birth control is the only way to be a feminist and therefore speaking out against the pill or other hormonal birth control is anti-women. Let us consider for a moment the types of birth control that are encouraged, advertised, and prescribed, and with these medications, whose body is being affected? Who will pay if these methods fail? Who has to deal with the side effects? As someone who suffered a stroke while on the birth control pill, I am keenly aware of the price that comes with this “freedom.”

Anti-feminists like to write a lot of articles about how women want to have it all—as if everyone doesn’t want to have it all. That’s not a feminist concept, that’s an American ideal. So, yes, as an American I want to have it all. I want birth control that doesn’t come with the risk of blood clots. I want birth control that isn’t going to kill me, make me fat, give me acne, create mood swings, or lower my libido. Why would I want all the freedom to have sex without getting pregnant with none of the desire to actually have sex?

Why is Birth Control the Sole Responsibility of Women?

Which brings us to the question—where is the pill for men? Still being tested? We hear about this birth control for men every few years, but it has yet to materialize. Is that because it’s being more thoroughly tested than any hormonal birth control they have ever released for women? The original birth control pill was tested on poor women in Puerto Rico who were not even informed that they were part of a study. This article cannot even begin to explore how the fertility of poor and minority women has been systematically targeted and abused in the name of limiting population growth. That’s a whole other topic. And I’ll be explaining the Puerto Rican trials more in future articles but it is important to note that there were only two years between when the research in Puerto Rico began and the birth control pill was approved for use in the United States. Yet every article about birth control for men suggests that many more years of study are required before we’ll every see this as a reality.

But maybe there is no pill for men yet because the side effects have been deemed unacceptable?

At the Nelson Pill Hearings, Dr. Whitelaw, a private physician and early fertility specialist, asked, “How many adult males would be willing to take an oral contraceptive faithfully if they were told that instead of a possible 50-plus adverse side reaction only one remained, that being the possible loss of sex drive and libido?” How many indeed.

But if loss of libido doesn’t scare you, how about the “50-plus adverse side reactions”? Even in 1970, hormonal birth control was linked not just to blood clots (and by extension DVT, PE, and stroke) but also to cancer, infertility, miscarriages, and even diabetes and rheumatoid arthritis. And that’s just the beginning.

However, and this is a big HOWEVER- it is not my goal to demonize the pill or any other hormonal birth control. It is not my goal to unnecessarily scare people. It’s simply my goal to educate about the dangers of these hormones that are over-prescribed and under-researched. Because I’m a feminist, I believe it is a woman’s right to choose. But that choice must be an informed one. Soon I’ll be writing more about how women are informed by looking at risk communication with these and other medicines.

Information or Patronization?

From what I’ve read so far in the hearings, every doctor who has testified has agreed that women need to be better informed of the dangers of hormonal birth control. Except one. Dr. Robert W. Kistner from the Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology Harvard Medical School said, “I don’t believe it is good medical practice with any medication to go through the list of possible complications.” And by way of explanation for this he says that if you tell a woman that headaches are a possible side effect of the birth control pill, then they will get headaches. I wonder if the same can be said for blood clots? It is also interesting to note when Dr. Kistner was asked by the committee if he had ever worked for the pharmaceutical companies, he answered, “Yes, all of them.”

Maybe it’s time for people like Dr. Kistner and Senator Bob Dole, who was also at the Nelson Pill Hearings, to stop being concerned with women’s “emotional reactions” to information about the pill. And give us the full story even though he thinks it may “confuse the women we seek to protect.” Because unlike Bob Dole, I think that women not only can handle the truth about hormonal birth control, but that they deserve it. It’s time to stop allowing corporations and agenda-driven legislation to decide what we can and cannot understand, what we do and don’t need to know about medications that affect us.

Because are women really liberated if we have taken the freedom to choose and handed it to pharmaceutical companies?

Real Risk Study: Birth Control and Blood Clots

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

nelson pill hearings - Page 2

Hormonal Birth Control: Fertilizer for Breast Cancer

Message Control

Cures Not Causes

We Need Your Help

Related posts:

You might be interested in

We Need Your Help

Related posts:

You might be interested in

The Antiheroes of Birth Control

Barbara Seaman: The Feminist

Morton Mintz: The Reporter

Ben Gordon: Lead Staffer for Senator Nelson

Taking Up the Torch

We Need Your Help

Related posts:

You might be interested in

What Are the Nelson Pill Hearings?

Who Testified?

The Effects of the Pill

Communicating Risk: Researchers, Doctors, Patients

Communication by Researchers

Communication to Doctors

Communication to Patients

False Promises- The Results of The Nelson Pill Hearings

What Now?

We Need Your Help

Related posts:

You might be interested in

What Does The Research Show?

What About Today’s Birth Control Pills?

Inconclusive? Or Incorrect?

Further Testimony on Weight Gain

Real Risk Study: Birth Control and Blood Clots

Related posts:

You might be interested in

Modern Risk Communication for Hormonal Birth Control

How are Risks Communicated?

The Right To Know

Real Risk Study: Birth Control and Blood Clots

Related posts:

You might be interested in

Case Studies Dismissed in Hormonal Birth Control Research

Case Studies Drive Research

Pharmaceutical Companies Against Case Studies

Patients are Not Statistics

Real Risk Study: Birth Control and Blood Clots

Related posts:

You might be interested in

The F Words – Feminism and Freedom

Why is Birth Control the Sole Responsibility of Women?

Information or Patronization?

Related posts:

You might be interested in