oral contraceptives Archives - Page 2 of 4

Why I am Backing Sweetening the Pill, the Documentary

Published on June 29, 2015

3259 views

There are just three days left for the Kickstarter campaign launched by Ricki Lake and Abby Epstein to raise the $100,000 needed to make their next documentary. Inspired by the provocative 2013 book Sweetening the Pill: Or How We Got Hooked on Hormonal Birth Control by Holly Grigg-Spall, Sweetening the Pill, the documentary, aims to fairly critique hormonal birth control and raise awareness of non-hormonal alternatives. Lake and Epstein hope to do for birth control what their acclaimed documentary The Business of Being Born did for birth, get us thinking beyond a one-size-fits-all approach. Currently for contraception, that one-size approach is all about synthetic hormones packaged as—what are now being called—modern contraceptive methods.

Will this film ever get made? I bloody well hope so, and so should the thousands upon thousands of women who have experienced side effects associated with hormonal contraception, from those considered a mere nuisance, to adverse experiences that impair quality of life, to those that threaten a woman’s life itself.

I am not an alarmist, although I do believe that young women dying, however rarely, because they are using hormonal contraception is an unacceptable outcome, especially when safer hormonal and non-hormonal alternatives are available. Women’s health and safety absolutely matter to me, but I want this film to be made so that issues I have been advocating about for 30 years will finally get an accessible, comprehensive public airing.

With that said, here are five take-aways for viewers that I am expecting from the documentary Sweetening the Pill:

1) Hormonal birth control does not, has never, and will never regulate or normalize periods.

There is a false belief held by girls and women of all ages that problem periods are regulated or fixed by taking the Pill. Periods on the Pill are shorter and lighter because they are not real periods. Lara Briden, ND, author of Period Repair Manual: Natural Treatment for Better Hormones and Better Periods, sets the record straight in this June 3rd piece for Hormones Matter: Pill Bleeds are not Periods.

2) Contrary to what women are constantly being told, there are health benefits to consistent ovulatory menstrual cycles. By suppressing ovulation and normal menstrual cycle function we are, over time, depriving ourselves of these benefits.

You won’t get this information from your gynecologist, but you will from endocrinologist Dr. Jerilynn C. Prior, scientific director of The Centre for Menstrual Cycle Research at the University of British Columbia. Prior has over 40 years experience researching the very thing that all hormonal contraception disrupts: ovulation and normal menstrual cycle function. She has written a series of papers on the Preventive Powers of Ovulation and Progesterone that explain the impact of ovulation on our bone, breast and heart health. It is not “incessant menstruation” that’s bad for women’s health, as many OBGYNs would have us believe, but ovulatory disturbances. As I wrote once in a letter to Ms. Magazine challenging the assertion that suppressing ovulation and menstruation is good for our health: “Ask not what those cycle-stopping pills will do to you, but what a healthy ovulatory menstrual cycle can do for you.”

3) The pill should NOT be the standard-of-care treatment for being a girl.

In the foreword I wrote for Grigg-Spall’s book, I noted that: “Prescribing the pill, or other forms of hormonal contraception, has become, in the minds of most health-care providers, the ‘standard of care’ for being a girl.” It’s being used to treat every manner of menstrual cycle problem—irregularity, heavy bleeding, painful periods—associated with the maturation process of an adolescent’s reproductive system. The only sure thing these drugs will do is interrupt this maturation process. Alternative treatments for these problems can be found in the adolescence section on the CeMCOR website. On June 11, 2015, Twitter menstrual cycle advocate Kylie Matthews (@AuntFlo_28) Tweeted me this: “would you believe my 11 year old’s pediatrician already ‘recommended’ I put her on the pill? Of course I know better!” I expect the STP documentary to make sure all mothers know better.

4) Fertility Awareness Methods (FAM) of birth control, taught by skilled educators and enhanced with new technology, qualify as modern contraception.

The mainstream sexual and reproductive health community’s dismissiveness of fertility awareness based methods of birth control and its frustration with women who use or want to use them, must stop. In a previous Hormones Matter piece, I said that women who can’t, won’t, or don’t want to use drug- and devise-based birth control, have the same right to information, support and services as women who are willing and able to use hormonal birth control. Failure of the SRH community to adequately meet the needs of these women is contributing to unplanned pregnancies. But they aren’t the only show in town anymore, and women are seeking out alternative health-care providers, fertility awareness educators, and technological FAM support in droves. The roster of Justisse-trained Holistic Reproductive Health Practitioners is growing world-wide; women can readily access the services of HRHPs like Amy Sedgwick at redtentsisters.com and Ashley Ross at Conscious Birth Control. Tech companies like Kindara and Ovatemp are introducing thousands of women to the scientific principles that underpin fertility awareness methods that are as effective as the Pill at preventing pregnancy. I expect Lake and Epstein’s documentary to leave viewers fully informed as to how women can access the resources and experts they need to learn and use FAM effectively and confidently. If FAM is hot, and it is, then it’s modern contraception.

5) Body literacy, understanding how our bodies work and how hormonal contraception works, must precede birth control decision-making.

Girls deserve to grow up body literate. They must understand how their bodies work and how a normal menstrual cycle unfolds. They must be encouraged to develop a personal relationship with their bodies before they start making decisions, or have decisions made for them, on how to manage their cycles and their fertility. This is a tall order, but if the wave of 20- and 30-something women who are quickly acquiring this foundational knowledge is any indication, it just could be that the next generation of girls will grow up with the life skill of body literacy. They will understand how their sexual, reproductive and general health and well-being are connected to their menstrual cycles. Body literacy supports, if not compels, our fully informed participation in health-care decision making. This is the message I expect Sweetening the Pill to deliver.

So, back to the beginning. There are just three days left to become a backer of Sweetening the Pill, to support the making of a documentary that has the power to change the way we think about our bodies, our health and our birth control. There will always be a place for hormonal contraception, and that’s a good thing. But women need more and better options. We need to know that we don’t need to take it at all if that’s our preference, and that if we do, we don’t need to take it, and probably shouldn’t, for more than a few years of our reproductive lives.

Sweetening the Pill is about the future. Will you be a part of it? To echo my conclusion of the book’s foreword: This film will offer a new perspective on the Pill and its influence on our bodies and our lives, as well as evidence that affirms and confirms we make sacrifices—large and small—to live under its influence. It will remain for viewers to decide what to do about it.

Sweetening the Pill, the Documentary

About the author: Laura Wershler, B.Sc., is a veteran pro-choice sexual and reproductive health advocate and women’s health critic who has worked for or volunteered with Planned-Parenthood-affiliated organizations in Canada since 1986. Laura graduated with a Certificate in Journalism from Mount Royal University in 2011. She has contributed columns on women’s health to Troymedia.com and blogs regularly for re:Cycling, the blog of the Society for Menstrual Cycle Research. Follow her on Twitter @laurawershler.

Participate in Research about Oral Contraceptives

Hormones Matter is conducting an ongoing, online survey of oral contraceptive side effects. If you have ever used oral contraceptives, you are eligible to participate. The survey takes 10-15 minutes and is anonymous. Take the oral contraceptives survey today.

Hormones Matter conducts other crowdsourced surveys on medication reactions. To take one of our other surveys, click here.

If you’d like to share your health story contact us here.

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.

Pill Bleeds Are Not Periods

by Lara Briden, ND

Published on June 3, 2015

11928 views

The Pill is not just contraception anymore. It has become standard treatment for everything from acne to endometriosis to irregular periods. Yes, hormonal birth control can mask symptoms, but it cannot “regulate” hormones or periods in any meaningful way.

Hormonal birth control does not augment or regulate hormones. Instead, it suppresses ovarian function and shuts down hormones completely. It replaces endogenous hormones with synthetic steroids, and that’s not good enough for women’s health. Real hormones have many benefits for health that synthetic steroids simply cannot deliver.

Real Hormones versus Synthetic Hormones

Our real endogenous hormones are estradiol and progesterone. In contrast, synthetic steroids are ethinylestradiol, levonorgestrel, drospirenone, and many others. Real hormones and synthetic steroids are similar molecules, but they’re not identical and as a consequence, synthetic steroid have many different effects on the body, some of which we are only now beginning to understand.

For example, estradiol improves insulin sensitivity. Its synthetic counterpart ethinylestradiol impairs insulin sensitivity [1] (which is one of the ways the Pill causes weight gain). Progesterone is beneficial for hair, brain health, and bone density, but its synthetic analogues levonorgestrel, drospirenone, and medroxyprogesterone have quite different effects. They cause hair loss, depression [2], and reduced bone density. Moreover, the drospirenone progestin found in the Yaz, Yasmin and Ocella series of birth control pills, increases the risk of heart attack and stroke six fold. Its modified shape blocks what are called the mineralocorticoid receptors. These receptors are responsible for salt and water balance (think swelling) and blood pressure.

The only way that ethinylestradiol and progestins are similar to real hormones is that they induce a uterine bleed. They can even induce it monthly, but only if they’re dispensed that way.

Why Bleed?

Who really cares about a bleed for its own sake? If women can’t have real hormones, then why have a monthly bleed at all? It is merely to give the appearance of a period, and reassure women that they’ve had a period (when they haven’t). A bleed does prevent excess build-up of the uterine lining, but it does not have to be monthly. It can be quarterly or yearly or any time we withdraw from the synthetic steroids. Regardless of when we choose to bleed, the pill bleed is not the same as menstruation. Remember, the purpose of oral contraceptives is to block ovulation and prevent pregnancy. Without ovulation, our bodies do not produce endogenous hormones. Indeed, as any woman who has gone off of the pill after a long period of usage will tell you, it takes some time for ovulation and hormone production to begin again.

Normalizing our Periods: A Myth

Interestingly, the “regulation” of periods was the Pill’s earliest cover story. When the Pill was first developed, it could not be sold as contraception because contraception was not legal. Instead, the Pill was ostensibly prescribed to “normalize” periods. “Normalize” was a quaint euphemism which really just meant to be “not pregnant” (wink-wink).

Five decades later, and the Pill’s early cover story has now taken hold as a kind of weird counterfeit reality. Doctors readily prescribe oral contraceptives for all manner of female reproductive disorders, the most common of which is to ‘normalize’ the menstrual cycle. What they, and most women, fail to realize is that the monthly bleed precipitated by the withdrawal of synthetic steroids, is not a real period. It is simply a withdrawal bleed.

It’s time to end it. It’s time to bring back real periods.

There Is Another Way

As a naturopathic doctor working in women’s health for twenty years, I want my patients to have real periods. More precisely, I want them to have a follicular phase and make estradiol. I want them to ovulate, so they can then have a luteal phase and make progesterone. In short, I want my patients to make real hormones and to enjoy their many benefits.

There’s another reason I want my patients to have real periods. A healthy, regular period tells me that all is well with her underlying health. If a woman does not have healthy periods, then I keep working with her until she does. We use her period as a helpful, useful marker guiding her health decisions. We think of it as her monthly report card.

It’s not always easy to restore healthy periods, but it can be done. But with a little perseverance, natural treatments such as diet, supplement and herbs work well, and they give women what they deserve: A real period rather than a pharmaceutically induced bleed.

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.

References

Kojima T et al. Insulin sensitivity is decreased in normal women by doses of ethinyl estradiol used in oral contraceptives. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 1993 Dec;169(6):1540-4. PMID: 8267059
Kulkarni J et al. Depression associated with combined oral contraceptives–a pilot study. Aust Fam Physician. 2005 Nov;34(11):990. PMID: 16299641

Antibiotics during Pregnancy: Finally Pharmacokinetic Research

by Chandler Marrs, PhD

Published on February 5, 2015

2771 views

A common refrain of mine is the lack of drug testing in women, especially pregnant women and relative to the enormous hormone changes women experience across a cycle, across pregnancy or postpartum and frankly across the lifespan. Hormonally, a 16 year old is not the same as a 45 year old. A woman’s biochemistry is not the same early in her cycle as it is late in her cycle. Nor is it the same when she is on oral contraceptives or hormone replacement therapies compared to when she is not and most especially, the pregnant woman’s biochemistry is hugely different than that of a non-pregnant woman. And yet, despite the lack of testing, lack of data, and limited understanding about how medications work relative to a woman’s hormonal state, women, pregnant and non-pregnant alike, are routinely prescribed medications for which we have a very poor understanding of the basic pharmacokinetics (how a drug travels through the body) or pharmacodynamics (what it does and how it works).

Ever so slowly, this may be changing. A group of researchers from the University Chicago, recently published a study on the Influence of Body Weight, Ethnicity, Oral Contraceptives and Pregnancy on the Pharmacokinetics of Azithromycin in Women of Childbearing Age. Though the study was small with only 53 pregnant women and 25 non-pregnant women, it represents one of the few published pharmacokinetic studies done on a drug routinely prescribed to pregnant women that evaluates hormone state.

Azithromycin: the Most Common Antibiotic Prescribed During Pregnancy

Azithromycin, more commonly known as Zithromax, Azithrocin, Z-Pack or ZMax, is the most frequently prescribed antibiotic for a range of bacterial infections of the ears, skin, throat. It is believed to be safe during pregnancy, despite having a pregnancy category rating B (a designation given a medication that has not been tested in human pregnancy but appears to be safe in animal studies). Some research shows that Azithromycin appears to have no more adverse reactions than other antibiotics, but whether it is truly safe, whether pregnant pharmacokinetics are different than non-pregnant or how they are different had never been determined. The University of Chicago study demonstrated what many have always suspected:

pregnant women metabolize medications differently (more slowly) than non-pregnant women
oral contraceptives slow drug metabolism
and interestingly enough, African American women show different pharmacokinetic patterns than Caucasian, Hispanic, Pacific Islander or Asian women

Pharmacokinetics: The Basics of Drug Disposition

The disposition of a drug (how it travels through the body), is affected by a number of physiological variables including plasma volume (greater when pregnant, lower when dehydrated), protein binding (fat soluble drugs travel through the system bound and protected from metabolism-preparation for excretion- by carrier proteins), liver and kidney function (our waste removal systems). Any alteration to these variables affects how long a drug stays in the body, how much of the drug is available to exert its effects on the tissues or organs, and how effectively it is cleared from the system. Determining the disposition of the drug- the pharmacokinetics- is very important for drug dosing and ultimately, safety. Every one of those drug disposition variables is affected by the hormone changes of pregnancy, postpartum (menstruation, menopause, oral contraceptives, HRT, etc.).

In the case of Azithromycin, pregnancy significantly slowed metabolism and clearance of the drug in pregnant Caucasian, Hispanic, Pacific Islander and Asian women, but not apparently in African American women or women not taking oral contraceptives. Translated, this means that pregnant Caucasian, Hispanic, Pacific Islander and Asian women were exposed to more drug, for a longer period of time, than were African American women. Ditto for women taking oral contraceptives versus those who were not taking oral contraceptives.

The researchers did not investigate whether hormonally-related changes in immune function interacted with the pharmacodynamics of the drug–rendered it more or less clinically effective. Nor did they evaluate whether or how other medications may have influenced drug disposition. As an aside, women in the pregnant group were taking more medications, in addition to the antibiotic in question, than the non-pregnant group.

What this research does show, however, is that hormones, or at least ‘hormone state’ affects drug disposition significantly. Additional studies are needed to determine how and if more customized dosing is required in pregnant and non-pregnant women alike.

This article was posted previously in September 2012.

Can the Pro-Choice Community Embrace a Birth Control Dichotomy?

by Laura Wershler

Published on September 23, 2014

3568 views

In 2004, when I was executive director of Planned Parenthood Alberta, I gave an introductory presentation on fertility awareness for women looking for alternatives to hormonal birth control. One young woman who’d been on Depo-Provera for five years had been recently diagnosed with severe osteopenia. After quitting the drug, she said she realized in retrospect that for those five years she had felt like she was living “under the surface” of her life.

Another told the story of how she had struggled with serious mood issues while on the birth control pill. She would stop taking it, rely on condoms and emergency contraception for a while, then visit her doctor who would urge her to go back on the pill. After a few of cycles of on-off-on, she quit the pill once and for all. She said she decided to “just stop talking to this doctor about birth control.”

I’ve heard scores of stories like these over the past 30 years, and read hundreds more from women commenting on blog posts and online articles. For decades women have stopped using hormonal contraception to improve their health and well-being. Advocating on their behalf has been a major focus of my work as a pro-choice activist.

The Birth Control Dichotomy

I’ve been a pro-choice sexual and reproductive health advocate since I was 15 years old. Today I turn 60, celebrating a 45-year commitment to pro-choice values. But I mark the occasion with frustration and disappointment because the sexual and reproductive health (SRH) community to which I belong has failed to adequately–unreservedly–serve women who won’t, don’t or can’t use hormonal birth control.

I believe that what is keeping them from doing so is failure to acknowledge and embrace the dichotomy that exists within the pro-choice contraceptive framework.

A dichotomy is division of a whole into two mutually exclusive, opposed, or contradictory groups. If pro-choice contraception is the whole, two mutually exclusive groups are:

women who use and like, or want to use hormonal birth control (HBC)
women who use and like, or want to use non-hormonal birth control (NHBC).

Both groups deserve equal attention, support and services to use the birth control methods they decide are right for them. But this is not happening.

Just as we who hold pro-choice values don’t judge or hassle women for the reasons they choose to have abortions, we should not judge or hassle women for the reasons they choose not to use HBC, nor try to deter them. Yet anecdotal evidence abounds that women who want to quit the birth control pill, have their IUDs removed, or learn fertility awareness based methods (FABM) are often actively dissuaded from acting on their choices. It takes extreme self-assurance to do what one young university student told me she did when her doctor questioned why she didn’t want to use HBC. Her response: “My reasons are none of your business.” She said she knew the doctor would try to overcome her objections to the side effects she refused to incur.

I believe that pro-choice sexual health advocates and care providers can and must find a way to do their work effectively within this birth control dichotomy. We must acknowledge the right of women to choose HBC or NHBC depending on which best serves their health and contraceptive needs. And it’s our obligation to help them use their chosen method effectively and confidently, without persuasion or dissuasion.

This is not being done to the standard I believe it should.

Media, social media, and the blogosphere tell us that young women are ditching HBC, but not finding much information or support from their doctors or sexual health clinics for doing so. So why aren’t SRH organizations researching this identifiable “unmet need” or offering workshops on successfully transitioning from HBC to NHBC?

A one-size fits all diaphragm is in the works, and another silicone version is on the market but incredibly hard to find, as is the spermicidal gel required to use with it. So why don’t SRH clinics have programs in place to make them more accessible to women who want them? After all, the diaphragm was the contraceptive of choice for arguably the most influential sexual role model of the last 15 years – Carrie Bradshaw.

Evidence-based medicine proves that pro-choice FABM are as effective as HBC methods, and can be used with condoms to prevent STIs and emergency contraception if indicated, just as for HBC users. So why doesn’t every SRH clinic or organization provide certified FABM training on site or seek collaborative partnerships with certified, secular-based instructors?

Bottom line? The SRH community is failing to fully meet the needs of women who won’t, don’t or can’t use HBC. The current hoopla over LARCs – long-acting reversible contraception including copper and Mirena IUDs and hormonal implants – as the next best birth control “technology” is mere tangent, not solution. Other than the copper IUD, these are still drug-based methods many women want to avoid.

Women who want to use NHBC effectively and confidently, or seek treatments for menstrual cycle problems that do not require hormonal contraceptives, are turning to care providers and information sources outside the SRH community. Is this what we want?

I don’t get it. If I can embrace the birth control dichotomy and retain my pro-choice commitment why can’t other pro-choice health-care professionals, non-profit organizations, and advocates do the same?

My pro-choice values have co-existed for decades with my advocacy for NHBC and menstrual cycle education. But I admit that because of my chosen focus, it is often wrongly assumed that I seek to deny options rather than to increase them, that somehow I cannot possibly be pro-choice.

Successfully using fertility awareness for birth control from age 27 through menopause (See p.4-5) did not keep me from serving 10 years on the board of Planned Parenthood Federation of Canada, or from bringing me back as a current board member of what is now the Canadian Federation for Sexual Health.

Promoting body literacy – acquired by learning to observe, chart and interpret our menstrual cycle events so that we become fully informed participants in health-care decision making – as a life skill that all girls and women should learn, did not keep me from being executive director of Planned Parenthood Alberta. The organization, which became Sexual Health Access Alberta and closed in 2010, distributed educational resources that included the most comprehensive Birth Control Demonstration & Sexual Health Promotion Kit still available for SRH professionals.

Sharing evidence-based medical information about the value of ovulation to women’s health and how to treat menstrual cycle disorders without the use of hormonal contraceptives, did not keep me from writing commentaries in support of abortion rights.

Within the pro-choice sexual and reproductive health community, I’ve chosen to focus on body literacy, menstrual cycle education, and advocacy for increased access to NHBC. At 60, I’m more committed than ever to promote a broader perspective within my community, one that will fully acknowledge and embrace the birth control dichotomy, one that will serve equally, without reservation, the contraceptive needs of all women.

About the Author: Laura Wershler, B.Sc., is a veteran pro-choice sexual and reproductive health advocate and women’s health critic who has worked for or volunteered with Planned-Parenthood-affiliated organizations in Canada since 1986. Laura graduated with a Certificate in Journalism from Mount Royal University in 2011. She has contributed columns on women’s health to Troymedia.com and blogs regularly for re:Cycling, the blog of the Society for Menstrual Cycle Research. Follow her on Twitter @laurawershler.

Participate in Research

Hormones Matter^TM is conducting research on the use patterns and side effects associated with oral contraceptives – the birth control pill. If you have used and/or are currently using oral contraceptives as a birth control option, please take this important, anonymous survey. The Oral Contraceptives Survey.

To take one of our other Real Women. Real Data.^TM surveys, click here.

To sign up for our newsletter and receive weekly updates on the latest research news, click here.

Adventures in Natural Family Planning

by Samantha Wiessing

Published on June 19, 2014

3137 views

Ten years ago, I began researching fertility and natural alternatives to achieving and avoiding pregnancy. The more research I did, the more I realized that there was a decided lack of current, accurate information on the internet. After becoming pregnant with my first child, I focused my research to learn how to space my children without using birth control. Though my family has a long history of breastfeeding and childbirth, they did not provide me with any information that I could use. I didn’t want to use hormones while breastfeeding but neither did I want to get pregnant again immediately. While there has been significant research validating ecological breastfeeding, at the time it had not caught on. There was very little information on the internet about practically applying it in everyday life. Needless to say, using the information on the internet, I was soon pregnant with my second child and then my third child. At that point, my forays into natural family planning were not working.

Natural Family Planning and Physicians

I was desperate to find a way to space my children without artificial hormones or invasive devices; I looked to my OB/GYN and the local health department. My OB and the health department could not provide me with any information about natural family planning, and in fact I was openly mocked by the doctors and nurses. The health department tried giving me Cycle Beads with very little instruction. I refused them, knowing that they would be completely ineffective as I was breastfeeding and didn’t yet have a menstrual cycle. It seemed that I knew more about managing my fertility than they did.

Do-it-yourself Natural Family Planning

Discouraged and outraged, I obtained as much information as I could and assembled my own version of natural family planning. It worked for two years until I found myself pregnant with child number four. When my family and I relocated to another state, I was soon able to find a natural family planning instructor. I learned the Billings Ovulation Method. I cannot stress enough how important an instructor is when using natural family planning. This system taught me what I had been doing wrong all these years (I will write more about this and other methods in subsequent posts). I was able to successfully navigate breastfeeding my fourth child without getting pregnant.

However, my hormones started acting up in very obvious ways shortly after giving birth. None of the doctors I spoke to about it could give me an answer. I was experiencing what is known as “tail-end brown bleeding” from the end of my menstrual cycle on up to and including the day of ovulation. I went to two OB/GYNs and a hematology specialist. The answers I received ranged from “it is normal” to “there is nothing wrong.” Not one of them could explain this very obviously abnormal symptom. They all seemed unconcerned even though I knew that something was up.

I continued my research of the female reproductive system, as I realized that neither the Billings Ovulation method nor the Sympto/Thermal Method did anything to help the women who had health problems such as PCOS, endometriosis, infertility, or in my case abnormal bleeding.

Natural Family Planning With Irregular Cycles

My continued search for answers led me to another method of natural family planning called the Creighton Model FertilityCare System. The Creighton Model is considered the gold standard of the natural family planning world. Creighton has been able to research and document in a woman’s chart hormonal irregularities and how they relate to her overall fertility and health. Finally, I had a method of not only diagnosing but also treating the abnormality I experienced. With the use of the Creighton Model and NaPro Technology it is possible to work cooperatively with a woman’s cycle to help seek treatment for health problems like my abnormal bleeding pattern.

I fell in love with this method and went through the extensive training course to become a presenter and promoter for the Creighton Model. I originally set out to become a practitioner for this method so that I could help other women get the education they needed. I soon learned about the politics that surround natural family planning. We’ve all heard the jokes. “You know what you call a woman who uses natural family planning?……….. Pregnant.” Well, that pretty much sums up what most people think of natural family planning. Teachers are abundantly available for those interested in learning any method of natural family planning; but there is much more work to be done to change our culture’s current paradigm surrounding natural family planning

Luckily, we have come pretty far over the last decade. There is ever more press and discussion these days about the side effects of hormonal birth control (I will add a few links here). More and more women are deciding against hormonal birth control. Though, there is still much work to be done,natural family planning is becoming a viable alternative to the pill and other devices.

A New Approach: Fertility Awareness

Fertility Awareness is catching on as the new bias free catch phrase for a concept that has been around since the beginning of the birth control explosion. I have dedicated my life to spreading and sharing the wonder that is natural “organic birth control.” What we women really need is more voices who advocate for, and promote today’s modern Fertility Awareness Methods (FAM).

Over the coming weeks, I will be writing articles about the various methods of Fertility Awareness; the pros, the cons and my personal experiences with each. If you’d like learn how to navigate pregnancy naturally or if you have been diagnosed with a women’s health problem that you are currently treating with birth control, follow me on Hormones Matter. If you’d like to share your own experiences with natural family planning and fertility awareness, click Write for Us and send us a note.

The Yasmin Chronicles: Bad Medicine, Big Money and Bayer

by Chandler Marrs, PhD

Published on May 2, 2014

9643 views

Perhaps you’ve heard of the Yasmin line (Yaz, Ocella, GIanvi, Loryna, Beyaz, Safyral and Zarah) of birth control pills. For a while they were some of the most highly promoted, highly prescribed on the market. Indeed, they were so highly promoted, Bayer, the manufacturer was slapped with not one, not two, but three warning letters by the FDA for mismarketing this contraceptive, specifically suggesting the drug could be used to treat PMS and acne, when it had been approved for neither. Bayer was also cited for downplaying and failing to communicate the risks of these contraceptives. Though Bayer eventually changed their lifestyle ads promoting Yaz and Yasmin, the damage was already done. The perception that these pills were safer and more effective than older birth control pills was cemented in the minds of physicians and patients worldwide and Bayer had garnered 18% of the coveted birth control market share. A mere 100 million women worldwide use oral contraceptives daily. With the Yasmin line, however, there is 3-fold increase of thrombo-embolitic events over the already high risk associated with the older birth control pills. Compared to women not taking oral contraceptives, the risk for these side effects is 6-fold higher; risks not to be taken lightly.

What Makes the Yasmin Line so Dangerous?

The Yasmin line of contraceptives contain the fourth generation progestin, drosperinone. Unlike previous generations of synthetic progestogens (progesterone-like compounds) derived from testosterone, drosperinone is a completely different animal. Drosperinone is analog for a common drug called Spironolactone (Aldactone),an aldosterone receptor antagonist that tells the kidneys to remove water and salt from the body. It’s a diuretic used to treat hypertension, congestive heart failure, kidney disease and cirrhosis of the liver.

Spironolactone comes with a serious list of side effects, including a condition called hyperkalemia or high potassium levels. Unregulated potassium levels, either too high or too low can cause serious heart rhythm irregularities leading to death, and so, physicians are advised to monitor potassium levels in patients using Spironolactone. Have any young woman using either Sprionolactone or Yasmin ever had potassium levels measured? Nope.

Additional side effects of spironolactone include: GI bleeds and gastritis, agranulocytosis, urticaria, maculopapular or erythematous cutaneous rashes, anaphylactic reactions, vasculitis, mental confusion, ataxia, headache, drowsiness, lethargy, renal dysfunction and Stevens Johnson Syndrome; perhaps not something one wants to give to otherwise healthy young women. Indeed, sprironolactone was prescribed for young women with acne, before becoming a birth control pill and then prescribed along with its analog, Yasmin, rather cavalierly.

Drosperinone is a spironolactone analog, meaning drosperinone binds to and blocks the aldosterone receptor just as spironolactone. In fact, binding affinity studies comparing Yasmin to the older generations of contraceptives, showed that it has 500X the anti-mineralocorticoid (aldosterone receptor) binding affinity of the other contraceptives and is equivalent to the 25mg dose of spironolactone. So, from that information alone, one might prescribe this pill a little bit more judiciously, but when we remember that Yasmin is a combination oral contraceptive that comes a dose of ethinyl estradiol, the synthetic estrogen rife with its own side effects (blood clots and stroke), caution should have prevailed. It didn’t, and many women were injured, likely more so that we know of.

Yasmin Lawsuits

Deep vein thrombosis. As of early 2014, Bayer has settled $1.69 billion in lawsuits for deep vein thrombosis and pulmonary embolisms related to Yasmin. These included over 8000 claimants. Yet to be settled, over 4000 suits remain and likely many more as publicity and recognition of the side-effects increase. It’s important to note that, like with most drug settlements, the pharmaceutical company admits no blame, simply pays the settlements and continues with business as usual.

Gallbladder. Gallbladder disease was recently recognized as side effect, and though, Bayer initially denied a relationship, they are now settling cases there too. Only here, the amounts are paltry in comparison. Bayer has set aside $24 million for gallbladder cases; $2000 per case for disease and $3000 per case when gallbladder removal was necessitated. Currently, there are approximately 8000 of these cases pending. Whether more will emerge is unclear.

Stroke. Most recently in Zapalski vs. Aniol et al, a jury awarded Mariola Zapalski $14 million in a suit against her physician for failing to recognize and warn about the risks of Yasmin. Ms. Zapalski suffered a severe stroke two just weeks after her doctor prescribed Yasmin. She suffered permanent brain damage and now requires 24 hour per day medical care. Compared to the class settlements that range approximately $200,000 per claimant and likely include similarly disabled women, the $14 million is significantly higher. To my knowledge, this represents the first case, outside the class-action cases, against an individual physician for failing to recognize and warn of risk. This may be a new trend, but it is too early to tell.

Why is Yasmin Still on the Market?

Money, pure and simple. As I have reported previously,

The Yasmin line of birth control is one of Bayer’s most lucrative product lines with over 4 million women taking these pills monthly in the US alone. Even with the negative publicity surrounding for these products, revenue for the Yasmin line of products neared 1.1 billion for the first nine months of 2012. After 11 years on the market, total revenue for these products was likely well over $10 billion. If the company pays out $1-2 billion in claims, but makes $10-15 billion, the cost-benefit ratio is skewed in favor of maintaining their market presence. The fines become just another cost of doing business.

What about the FDA?

It goes without saying that the FDA has limited power or interest in regulating these drugs. Particularly where women’s health is concerned, the FDA has exhibited an egregious lack of regulation extending back to the DES tragedies and just about every drug or device marketed towards women since. With Yasmin specifically, attempts to include a black box warning on Yasmin were foiled by industry insiders in 2011, despite the medical experts arguing in favor of the warnings. For more details see: The High Cost of Bad Birth Control.

What Should You Do?

As with any medication, it is up to the patient to understand the risks. Do your homework, read the research, make your decision based on the data not the marketing. Drosperinone based contraceptives may not be worth the risk.

Participate in Oral Contraceptive Research – Take a Survey

If you have ever taken oral contraceptives, please take a few minutes to complete this important, anonymous, online survey about oral contraceptives. We’ve had over 800 women complete the survey so far.

You do not have to be currently using oral contraceptives to complete the survey. Please share the link among all your female friends and family. We’re relying on the power of women and social media to help make this survey a success. The Oral Contraceptives Survey.

Is Biology Destiny? Being Female and Hormonal Birth Control

by Holly Grigg-Spall

Published on September 5, 2013

3041 views

What does it feel like to be female?

Why is discussion of female biology so controversial?

How does “biology is not destiny” thinking and anti-essentialism impact how we think about being female?

In a blog post I wrote some years back titled ‘Beyond Female’ I asked those questions. It would later became the catalyst for my forthcoming book ‘Sweetening the Pill or How We Got Hooked on Hormonal Birth Control.’ Over the years, I had come to realize discussing biology, and specifically female biology, was a very contentious issue mired in the politics of the “biology is not destiny” mantra of mainstream feminism. The notion that biology is not destiny impacts how we view birth control and as such it precludes the very mention of any potential dangers associated with hormonal contraception. What follows here is an excerpt from my book with some additional text specifically for Hormones Matter^TM, where I explore what it means to be female and the role the pill plays in that discussion.

Female Biology is Important

In order for us to be able to honestly and openly discuss that the pill negatively impacts women it must be acknowledged that female biology is important. Such a discussion cannot avoid the claim that female bodies are different from male bodies.

By arguing that a drug changes female biology and negatively impacts mood specifically, it must be admitted that our experience of life is connected to our biology. It is necessarily claimed that who we are is linked to our biology. To say that the ovulatory cycle, a specifically female bodily system, can not be shut down and ignored without serious repercussion, because it is vitally important to women’s health, is to run the risk of inciting the furor of those who feel they have fought long and hard to wrestle down and defeat the connection between women and their bodies. Such statements are controversial. Even using the word ‘female’ can be contentious today.

In regards to the pill, we need to talk about “women” and “femaleness” because this is integral to how and why the pill came to exist and why it is still taken by so many women. To say that the pill can change the way a woman feels by meddling with her biology reads as anti-feminist. It is also anti-feminist to not take women at their word and validate their personal experience by acknowledging it to be right and true.

Marketing the Pill – Beyond Femaleness

Taking the pill might be seen as an act of trying to get beyond femaleness. As femaleness in our culture is understood in the negative, escaping its confines is good and progressive. Any dislike we develop of being female and of having a female body is rooted in the history of female bodies being seen as problematic and in need of male control.

This drug is not just birth control; it is, as a Yaz tagline once explained “beyond birth control.”

Taking these drugs is about being ‘beyond female.’ Female is not good, female is not something you want, female needs to be controlled, influenced, changed and organized into something neater, easier and less frightening to you and those around you. When we take the pill we shut down the interior indicators of our femaleness. The exterior remains and it is this that makes it acceptable. In actuality, the pill makes women more physically attractive within the boundaries of our Western patriarchal capitalist culture. We are free of messy periods, we may have clearer skin, be slimmer, we may have bigger breasts, and we are supposedly rid of troublesome PMS.

The former YazXpress area of Bayer’s promotional Yaz website asked women to ‘Get with the program!’ Women taking or interested in taking Yaz were able to sign up for an “insider’s guide to Yaz, fashion, music and style.” The articles in this guide were co-created by the magazine editors at Elle and Cosmopolitan, the pages of which frequently feature print adverts for birth control brands. Yaz was associated with an affluent, glamorous way of life.

Taking Yaz would lead to the life of an attractive, confident ‘Sex And The City’ type of woman. Coolness, sexiness, modernity and glamor were linked to taking this brand.

In 2009 Bayer took on Lo Bosworth, star of The Hills, a popular Los Angeles-based reality show about a group of twenty-something women aspiring to make it in Hollywood, as a spokeswoman for Yaz in Canada. Of her support for the drug, Bosworth remarked, “As a ‘Gen Yer’ working in the entertainment industry, I need to be disciplined. I need to make sure I’m taking care of myself so nothing interrupts my day.”

Plastic Surgery versus the Pill

Although certain procedures have entered the mainstream in the US, women who have plastic surgery can come up against much criticism. Discussion circles around ideas of women taking plastic surgery choices too far, getting obsessed with making changes, making choices based on their insecurities or in response to difficult experiences such as the failing career and the bad break up. A woman who chooses to undergo plastic surgery is choosing to change her body. She is exerting control over her body. She is choosing to be ‘beyond’ human through changing her very physicality. She is choosing to not age or not submit to what her genes, her biology, have given her.

How does plastic surgery factor under the women’s liberation message of “my body, my choice” and why is so much said about the psychological and social impacts of this choice?

Why are people who have lots of plastic surgery a concern, but not people who take a drug to shut down their ovulatory cycle, stop their periods and ‘perfect’ their bodies from the inside out?

Environmental Estrogens

We are used to seeing labels for “BPA-free” plastics as we have become more aware of the synthetic estrogens in many everyday plastic products. One study shows seventy percent of items made of plastic leach chemicals that act like estrogen.

The perfected body, as our ideology teaches, is not female but male. If we shut down the essential biological center of femaleness, the primary sexual characteristics, then can we say that women on the pill are still “female”? The mythology of the pill reveals how femininity is valued within our society. Women on the pill still have their secondary sexual characteristics. We understand judgment and valuation of our femininity is directly correlated with our appearance, significantly our attractiveness. Women who are not attractive by the Western cultural standards have their femaleness questioned, as do women who have less defined visual secondary sexual characteristics, such as smaller breasts or a wider waistline or shorter legs. The ideal body in this age of plastic surgery has exaggerated exterior signs of femininity.

Legitimate Concerns For Oral Contraceptives

In a piece for the Vice magazine website, porn actress Stoya writes on her experience choosing a birth control method. She admits she feels hormonal contraceptives are the best choice for an actress having sex with men but states, “the pill and I don’t seem to get along well.” After suffering with side effects in her teens Stoya had not considered using the pill again until she began performing in scenes with men. She started taking the latest brand, “Four months into taking Yaz, I was miserable. I bled profusely the whole time. Instead of migraines once or twice a month, I had them multiple times a week. I had intense mood swings and was constantly dizzy. I had planned on giving it another one or two months, hoping that my body would adjust, and then I fainted while waiting in line at the bank.”

She came off Yaz and four years later decided to try Ortho Tricyclen Lo, but only lasted three months. She now takes Loestrin 24 Fe and still experiences continuous bleeding and mood swings but describes how pleased she is with one particular side effect – an increase in the size of her breasts, “Dragging myself out of bed became a herculean effort, and the idea of showering or brushing my teeth was beyond my abilities. Everything felt tragic and hopeless. My only redeeming qualities were my tits. They were by no means giant hooters, but they were noticeably fuller, which was pretty cool. I started to think hormonal birth control was a patriarchal plot to keep women down by rendering us completely loony. The question, “How can we ever break the glass ceiling, if we can’t stop crying?” actually came out of my mouth. I still feel nuts, but hey… at least this B-cup kind of fits.”

Stoya has self-awareness and insight into her situation but she sacrifices her health and well-being partly, it seems, because she’s not aware of the alternatives or feels they are off-limits to her. She wryly jokes about her predicament.

Female Sexuality

A woman on the pill is likely to experience low libido and will certainly feel some detachment from her sexuality. The feeling of sexuality is different from female sexuality, but is vitally important, as it is personal to women and separate from their relationships to men. Not feeling sexual could lead to a desire to look exaggeratedly sexual and to appear and behave very sexually in an act of over-compensation. Such a desire can be fulfilled in part through plastic surgery.

The Blame Game – On Being Hormonal

We support modifying and suppressing our bodily functions with science to perfect our faulty bodies even when we are generally healthy and well, and even when the notion of what it means to be faulty is so spurious. When experiencing the side effects from hormonal contraceptives women have a tendency to blame what they view as their own overly hormonal, unpredictable, difficult bodies that in reacting negatively to these drugs are behaving badly. It is their bodies that are not good enough for the drugs.

Medical Marketing and Birth Control

Even if we are not ill, science is making us better. We are becoming better humans, better women. The pill is no longer about birth control; it is about being a better, improved woman. It is about moving beyond our femaleness, about asserting loudly that biology is not destiny; but should it be?

Pharmaceutical companies move the target constantly from birth control to menstruation suppression, from acne control to mood control and in so doing they are betraying their motivations. By medicalizing the normal physiology of the female body, and saying overtly that it needs to be controlled and improved upon they are betraying the foundations of pill promotion. If we believe we should get beyond our femaleness we are accepting that women’s bodies are bad and need to be made good. The consumer economy is crafty; it will always find an avenue for assimilation. The pharmaceutical companies are listening at the door to our presumed post-feminist talk. What do you think?

About the Author: Holly Grigg-Spall is a writer and activist. Her work has featured in the Washington Post and the UK Times and Independent newspapers. She has contributed to re:Cycling, the F-Bomb, Bedside Manners, Ms. magazine’s blog, and Bitch, amongst others. You can find out more about her forthcoming book ‘Sweetening the Pill’ and documentary project at Sweetening the Pill, on Holly’s Facebook page or by following Holly on twitter: @hollygriggspall.

Participate in Research

Hormones Matter^TM is conducting research on the use patterns and side effects associated with oral contraceptives – the birth control pill. If you have used and/or are currently using oral contraceptives as a birth control option, please take this important, anonymous survey. The Oral Contraceptives Survey.

To take one of our other Real Women. Real Data.^TM surveys, click here.

To sign up for our newsletter and receive weekly updates on the latest research news, click here.

Birth Control vs Hysterectomy in Catholic Hospitals

by WS

Published on September 4, 2013

6602 views

I was raised Catholic but did not agree with some of Church doctrine and left the Church as a young adult. In my wildest dreams, I never imagined that I would have a hysterectomy and be castrated in a Catholic hospital (or any hospital for that matter) for a benign ovarian cyst. You can read about my Unnecessary Hysterectomy here. I suspect many other women have had healthy organs removed at this greater metropolitan Catholic hospital or some other Catholic hospital. With hysterectomy the second most common surgical procedure and the prevalence of Catholic hospitals growing, millions of women likely have had unnecessary hysterectomies at Catholic hospitals. This made me wonder, why would the Catholic Church condone (and profit from) unnecessary hysterectomies but prohibit contraception. It seems a bit hypocritical at least, unethical at worst.

A Spider Web of Contradictions in Catholic Hospitals

Catholic doctrine prohibits contraceptives. Yet, Catholic hospitals perform hysterectomies and ovary removals (castrations) for benign conditions that can typically be treated with less drastic measures such as contraceptives. Hysterectomy is permanent birth control. So is removal of ovaries. How is hysterectomy justified but not contraceptives?

In an article entitled Do Religious Restrictions Force Doctors to Commit Malpractice, the hazards of treatment at religious hospitals are discussed. In the case of a potentially fatal ectopic pregnancy, removal of the fallopian tube which negatively affects fertility complies with Catholic doctrine while an injection of methotrexate that preserves the tube and fertility does not.

According to Catholic moralists, an injection that destroys an ectopic embryo is a direct abortion, while removing the part of a woman’s reproductive system containing the embryo is not.

But the end result is the same – a pregnancy is terminated. So why not at least preserve the woman’s fertility and health-promoting hormone production by administering the drug versus removing her fallopian tube?!

Another story in the cited article involved a woman with Lupus who was pregnant with a nonviable anencephalic fetus. Although continuing the pregnancy risked the woman’s health and her very life, pregnancy termination was denied.

The above situations would be considered medical malpractice since they caused harm to the patients. And what makes even less sense is that neither of these were viable pregnancies. Catholic Church dogma caused (intentional) harm to these women.

Another treatment done in Catholic hospitals that has me scratching my head is endometrial ablation. Although it reduces fertility, pregnancy can still occur but can be dangerous to mother and unborn child. So some form of birth control is recommended after ablation if tubal ligation was not also performed. Yet according to Is the Novasure System Ethical?, Novasure ablation has been given a passing grade by the Catholic Church. With the Church’s mandate against contraceptives, I wonder how many women are prescribed contraceptives to treat their heavy bleeding BEFORE this procedure is offered. However, in defense of the article, it does state that drug therapy is typically the first-line treatment after doing a full work-up to determine the cause of the bleeding. And if that fails then D&C should be the next step which should include polyp removal if polyps are found. However, it does not mention removal of fibroids despite being a common cause of abnormal bleeding. Although the article recommends starting with conservative treatments, the high rate of unwarranted hysterectomies and ablations indicate poor compliance with these standards.

According to a study published in 2008, the long-term problems caused by ablation too often lead to hysterectomy, the rate being highest (40%) for women having the procedure before age 41. This is further discussed in Endometrial Ablation – Hysterectomy Alternative or Trap?. However, again, in defense of the above cited Novasure article, it was published in 2005, three years prior to this study on the long-term effects of ablation. And, in addition to surgical risks, the article does mention the long-term risks of accumulation of blood in the uterus and the risk of impeding diagnosis of endometrial hyperplasia or cancer. Despite this 2008 study showing the long-term harm of ablation, the use of this procedure does not appear to be declining.

According to Catholic Doors,

To obtain a hysterectomy is a mortal sin.
The ruling by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith stipulates that the only time a woman is morally permitted to have a hysterectomy is when the uterus is so damaged it presents an immediate threat to her health or life. [National Catholic Reported; August 12, 1994]
In general, an hysterectomy is morally justified if the removal of the uterus is necessary for grave medical reasons. It is not justified when the purpose is direct sterilization.
Therapeutic means which induce infertility are allowed (e.g., hysterectomy), if they are not specifically intended to cause infertility (e.g., the uterus is cancerous, so the preservation of life is intended). [Humanae Vitae]

Unnecessary Hysterectomy, Ethical Principles and the Hippocratic Oath

Birth control issues aside, how do all these overused gynecological procedures comply with the three ethical principles of the Catholic Church – respect for persons, beneficence, and nonmaleficence? For that matter, how do they comply with the Hippocratic Oath to “first, do no harm?” Since they cause harm, they violate the three ethical principles of the Catholic Church as well as the Hippocratic Oath. One must question if women are getting INFORMED CONSENT in any facility, religious or secular, but that is a topic for another day.

Ascension Health defines beneficence as follows:

As a middle principle, the principle of beneficence (and nonmaleficence) is the basis for certain specific moral norms (which vary depending on how one defines “goodness”). Some of the specific norms that arise from the principle of beneficence in the Catholic tradition are: 1) never deliberately kill innocent human life (which, in the medical context, must be distinguished from foregoing disproportionate means); 2) never deliberately (directly intend) harm; 3) seek the patient’s good; 4) act out of charity and justice; 5) respect the patient’s religious beliefs and value system in accord with the principle of religious freedom; 6) always seek the higher good; that is, never neglect one good except to pursue a proportionately greater or more important good; 7) never knowingly commit or approve an objectively evil action; 8) do not treat others paternalistically but help them to pursue their goals; 9) use wisdom and prudence in all things; that is, appreciate the complexity of life and make sound judgments for the good of oneself, others, and the common good.

Why is Hysterectomy So Pervasive at Catholic Hospitals?

For Catholic hospitals with accredited Graduate Medical Education (GME) programs, resident minimum surgical requirements may very well increase the rate of unwarranted hysterectomies. But that is certainly a poor excuse for removing an organ. Even so, if they can get around the GME abortion requirements for religious reasons (Catholic hospitals will not perform abortions) they should be able to do the same for hysterectomies, 98% of which do not meet the “grave medical reasons” test.

Hysterectomies and ablations (that too often lead to hysterectomy) are big business. Hysterectomies are estimated at generating $5-16 billion annually, and so revenues may be another reason Catholic hospitals prefer gynecological procedures over medical (pharmaceutical) intervention (birth control or other). Refusing to prescribe contraceptives may increase their ablation and hysterectomy business and therefore their bottom line. So the 76% of hysterectomies that don’t meet ACOG criteria may be even higher in Catholic hospitals. And the ongoing negative health effects of these procedures further contribute to the bottom line of these “health care” conglomerates.

Could profits trump Catholic doctrine on contraceptives and Catholic ethical principles when it comes to performing destructive gynecological procedures in Catholic hospitals?

My experience certainly proves this as all my sex organs were removed for a benign ovarian cyst, certainly not a “grave medical reason.” I can say the same for many other women with whom I’ve connected since my unwarranted hysterectomy and castration. And the overuse of ablation appears to be just as rampant. This procedure is being done on women in their 20’s and 30’s, many of whom are now considering hysterectomy or have had one to get relief from the post-ablation pelvic pain.

Just as a man’s sex organs have lifelong (non-reproductive) functions, so do a woman’s. Any procedure that disrupts their normal functioning can cause permanent adverse effects. At least medications can be stopped if the side effects outweigh the benefits.

For more information on the necessity of the uterus beyond the childbearing years, watch this video.

Participate in Research

Hormones Matter^TM is conducting research on the reasons for and outcomes of hysterectomy. If you have had a hysterectomy, please take this important, anonymous survey. The Hysterectomy Survey.

To take one of our other Real Women. Real Data.^TM surveys, click here.

To sign up for our newsletter and receive weekly updates on the latest research news, click here.

oral contraceptives - Page 2

Participate in Research about Oral Contraceptives

Real Risk Study: Birth Control and Blood Clots

Related posts:

You might be interested in

Real Hormones versus Synthetic Hormones

Why Bleed?

Normalizing our Periods: A Myth

There Is Another Way

Real Risk Study: Birth Control and Blood Clots

References

Related posts:

You might be interested in

Azithromycin: the Most Common Antibiotic Prescribed During Pregnancy

Pharmacokinetics: The Basics of Drug Disposition

Related posts:

You might be interested in

The Birth Control Dichotomy

Participate in Research

Related posts:

You might be interested in

Natural Family Planning and Physicians

Do-it-yourself Natural Family Planning

Natural Family Planning With Irregular Cycles

A New Approach: Fertility Awareness

Related posts:

You might be interested in

What Makes the Yasmin Line so Dangerous?

Yasmin Lawsuits

Why is Yasmin Still on the Market?

What about the FDA?

What Should You Do?

Participate in Oral Contraceptive Research – Take a Survey

Related posts:

You might be interested in

Female Biology is Important

Marketing the Pill – Beyond Femaleness

Plastic Surgery versus the Pill

Environmental Estrogens

Legitimate Concerns For Oral Contraceptives

Female Sexuality

The Blame Game – On Being Hormonal

Medical Marketing and Birth Control

Participate in Research

Related posts:

You might be interested in

A Spider Web of Contradictions in Catholic Hospitals

Unnecessary Hysterectomy, Ethical Principles and the Hippocratic Oath

Why is Hysterectomy So Pervasive at Catholic Hospitals?

Participate in Research

Related posts:

You might be interested in