26 replies to this topic

[doug123]

News source

The Pill May Raise Breast Cancer Risk

Analysis Suggests Small Increase in Risk When Oral Contraceptives Used Before First Pregnancy By Salynn Boyles
WebMD Medical News Reviewed By Louise Chang, MD
on Tuesday, October 31, 2006

Oct. 31, 2006 -- Women who take oral contraceptives have a slightly increased risk of developing breast cancer early in life, with the risk being greatest for women who use oral birth control before they have their first child, a new analysis suggests.

Researchers combined the findings from 34 previous studies designed to examine the impact of oral contraceptive use on breast cancercancer diagnosed before menopausemenopause.

Twenty-one of 23 studies that followed women who took oral birth control before having their first child showed an increased risk of early breast cancer.

Measuring Risk

Based on these studies, the researchers concluded that taking oral contraceptives before a first full-term pregnancy increases premenopausal breast cancer risk by 44%, compared with women who have never used oral contraceptives.

The increase in risk was 52% among women who took the pill for four years or more before having their first child.

"I think women should know about this risk, and they are not being told," researcher Chris Kahlenborn, MD, of Altoona Hospital in Altoona, Pa., tells WebMD.

"Anyone who is prescribing oral contraceptives has a duty to tell women that 21 out of 23 studies showed an increased risk."

Breast cancer is most often diagnosed in women over the age of 50, but cancers that occur in younger women tend to be more aggressive. It is the leading cancer killer among women between the ages of 20 and 59 in the U.S.
Kahlenborn says he conducted the analysis because he believes far too few women know the risks associated with oral contraceptive use.

"As I studied the medical literature, I noticed that a trend appeared," he says. "Namely, oral contraceptive use prior to first full-term pregnancy seemed to consistently increase the risk of premenopausal breast cancer. Although the trend was apparent, premenopausal women have continued to hear that oral contraceptives are safe."

The 34 studies chosen for the analysis included women who were premenopausal or younger than 50 whose breast cancers had been diagnosed during or after 1980.

Studies examining breast cancers diagnosed before this were excluded in an attempt to approximate the risk with oral contraceptives as they are currently prescribed.

When all the studies were combined, use of oral birth control was associated with a 19% overall increased risk of breast cancer diagnosed before menopause. But the increase in risk more than doubled among women who took oral contraceptives before a first pregnancy.

Risk Still Small

In an editorial accompanying the study, Mayo Clinic epidemiologist James Cerhan, MD, PhD, points out that though the link between oral contraceptive use and early breast cancer appears real, the risk is still quite small.

Cerhan notes that a previous analysis calculated the risk of excess breast cancers occurring up to 10 years after stopping oral birth control. Researchers concluded that one excess breast cancer could be expected for every 20,000 women who used oral contraceptives from ages 16 to 19 and 4.7 cancers could be expected for every 10,000 women who used them from ages 25 to 29.

According to Cerhan's editorial, there is evidence that oral contraceptive use can reduce a woman’s risk for ovarian and endometrial cancers, and recent studies suggest that it may also protect against colorectal cancercolorectal cancer.

He writes that use of oral birth control is also believed to reduce the risk of pelvic inflammatory disease, benign breast disease, ovarian cystsovarian cysts, and other reproductive-related health problems.

Cerhan concludes that if oral contraceptive use early in life increases a woman’s breast cancer risk, other early-life influences probably do, too.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

SOURCES: Kahlenborn, C. Mayo Clinic Proceedings, October 2006; vol 81: pp 1290-1302. Chris Kahlenborn, MD, department of internal medicine, Altoona Hospital, Altoona, Pa. James R. Cerhan, MD, PhD, division of epidemiology, Mayo Clinic College of Medicine, Rochester, Minn. The Lancet, 1996; vol 347: pp 1713-1727.

[celeste]

Yes this is true, and unfortunately is a major downside, although could be considered to be a double edged sword in the cancer department. Some of the most common side effects on taking the combined pill include getting bigger breasts, mood changes and less bodily hair etc,. [tung]

But the good news is that women may have to no longer rely on the pill:

With hormonal male contraception likely to be available in the near future, results of a study in this week's issue of The Lancet highlight how such contraception is reversible within a few months.

Currently available male contraceptive methods (condoms, withdrawal, and vasectomy) are not acceptable to many couples because they are either not sufficiently reliable or not easily reversible. In a similar way to ovulation suppression by hormone treatment in women, sperm production can be fully inhibited by androgen or androgen-progestagen treatment combinations in men. With such hormone treatment, azoospermia (no sperm in ejaculate) or severe oligozoospermia (less than 3 million sperm per mL of semen), which is sufficient for contraceptive purposes, can be achieved. Currently, a large phase III study with an androgen treatment and a large, multicentre phase II study of androgen-progestagen combinations are being completed in China and Europe, respectively.

But the question is could you trust a man to take a pill everyday?!


Source:
http://www.scienceda...60428151836.htm [thumb]

[kylyssa]

I don't like the idea of pumping men's bodies full of hormones, either. Women's bodies are used to hormonal fluctuations and the abnormal hormone levels caused by "the pill" is enough to seriously tweak us - men's bodies have a more level hormonal environment naturally so I fear what these relatively massive hormonal changes could do to their bodies.

For women there's also Centchroman, the non-hormonal contraceptive pill. I've been on it since February. Centchroman is a SERM and has none of the major side effects associated with the hormonal pills. It works by desynchronizing ovulation and uterine wall readiness. It actually reduces fibroid tumors in women as well as preventing pregnancy. Another up side is that you only take it once a week.

[doug123]

But the question is could you trust a man to take a pill everyday?!

I take about 90 or so pills a day. You could count on me to take 91 without complaining too much. [!]

Versus condoms, withdrawal, or vasectomy? Come on.

Edited by nootropikamil, 22 November 2006 - 07:57 AM.

[Shepard]

Yeah, I'm not taking a brand new male contraceptive pill.

[doug123]

What if it just selectively makes your sperm fail transmission with no side effects? Come on, Jeremy, it isn't fair to make women have to take the pill and we get the easy ride all the time.

[Shepard]

I don't ever ask my girls to take the pill.

I have lots of coat hangers.

In actuality, depending on the exact effects and significance of the studies, I might be persuaded. But, there are several ways to take precautions now.

[doug123]

You said that all seriously, Jeremy.

The way you say "my girls" it almost sounds like you've got yourself a harem. [lol]

If you are afraid to be a guinea pig for the first male contraceptives, I cannot blame you for that. However, once they are safe, I would consider it seriously.

[Shepard]

The way you say "my girls" it almost sounds like you've got a harem. [lol]

That's what I love about these high school girls, man. I get older, they stay the same age.

[doug123]

Lucky dude. I'd probably encounter more luck with the ladies if I just could remember to bring my I Ching with me everywhere I went.

An intellectual is a person who has discovered something more interesting than sex.

Aldous Huxley

English critic & novelist (1894 - 1963)

[doug123]

Okay, so is this saying that the pill may increase breast cancer risk meanwhile protecting against endometrial cancer?

News source

Contraceptives protect against endometrial cancer

Tue Nov 21, 2006 9:50 PM GMT

NEW YORK (Reuters Health) - Oral contraceptives and intrauterine devices (IUD) appear to provide long-term protection against endometrial cancer, researchers report in the International Journal of Cancer.

This has been reported by several studies, but few have been conducted in Chinese populations, Dr. Xiao Ou Shu of Vanderbilt University, Nashville, Tennessee, and colleagues note.

To investigate further, the team studied 1,204 women from Shanghai with newly diagnosed endometrial cancer and 1,212 healthy women, matched to the cancer patients for various characteristics. The endometrium is the lining of the uterus, or womb.

Overall, 223 of the cancer patients (18.5 percent) and 302 of the controls (24.9 percent) reported using an oral contraceptive.

After accounting for other known risk factors or protective factors for endometrial cancer, the use of oral contraceptives was associated with a 25 percent reduced risk. The risk decreased with long-term use. After 72 months, the cancer risk was reduced by 50 percent.

This protective effect was maintained, even after 25 years or longer after oral contraceptives were discontinued.

IUD use was associated with a 47 percent lower risk of endometrial cancer. The duration of IUD use, and age when it was first and last use did not significantly alter the association.

The researchers suggest that the "the inverse association between oral contraceptives use and endometrial cancer may be due to the progestin component of oral contraceptives," which may help reduce the overgrowth of cell in the endometrium.

The protective effect of IUDs, they add, may be prompted by "inflammatory actions that eliminate abnormal and precancerous endometrial cells; decreased abnormal cell growth -- a known risk factor for endometrial cancer -- and reduce the concentration of estrogen receptors."

SOURCE: The International Journal of Cancer, November 2006.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

© Reuters 2006. All rights reserved. Republication or redistribution of Reuters content, including by caching, framing or similar means, is expressly prohibited without the prior written consent of Reuters. Reuters and the Reuters sphere logo are registered trademarks and trademarks of the Reuters group of companies around the world.

[FunkOdyssey]

Breast cancer is by FAR the more significant danger.

The most common and immediately detrimental side effect of birth control that I've witnessed in women (from my selfish perspective) is a reduction in libido. It is joked that the real mechanism of action lies there.

Kylyssa- How/where do you obtain Centchroman? It sounds like a great alternative to traditional birth control. I'm guessing it didn't catch on in the West because you are potentially fertilizing eggs that are unable to implant in the uterus and survive -- analogous to frequent mini-abortions. The religious right would have a fit.

[doug123]

Another update on this issue posted in today's news:

News source: BBC



Sperm-blocking contraceptive hope

Scientists are working on a contraceptive treatment which would stop men producing sperm.

King's College London researchers saw blood pressure and schizophrenia drugs had this effect, and have identified chemicals which can do the same thing.

The team now plan to test the chemicals in animal and human studies and hope to have a treatment in five years.

Fertility experts welcomed the work, saying it could mean couples could share contraceptive responsibility.

It gets really tiring for women always to be the one in charge of fertility

Several other male contraceptives, given as injections, implants or patches are under development. Most are based on hormones which trick the brain into switching off hormone production.

The treatment being developed at King's acts by preventing the longitudinal muscle in the vas deferens contracting to propel sperm out of the penis.

The drugs designed to treat schizophrenia and high blood pressure stopped men ejaculating were found to have this effect over a decade ago.

But they have side effects such as dizziness and drowsiness, which meant they could not be used as contraceptives.

Tests on human tissue have helped identify chemicals which have the same effect.

The team are now set to test the treatment on animals and then humans.

'Welcome'

It is proposed men would take a pill each day, as women do with the female contraceptive pill, or could take one a few hours before they plan to have sex.

Because the contraceptive is not dependent on hormones, the researchers suggest a man's fertility should return the following day.

Dr Christopher Smith, who worked on the research, said: "If a man was taking the pill over a period of several months and decided to come off it, we would expect his fertility to return just as quickly as if he had taken it on a one-off basis."

Rebecca Findlay of the fpa, formerly the Family Planning Association, said: "It gets really tiring for women always to be the one in charge of fertility.

"For women, it would be another form of liberation."

And Dr Allan Pacey, honorary secretary of the British Fertility Society, said: "I would welcome the concept, if further tests showed it to work.

"There is a need for something that men can take."

But he said he was concerned that sperm would be 'redirected' into urine, or be present in the urethra, and could that pregnancies could therefore still occur.

Story from BBC NEWS:
http://news.bbc.co.u...lth/6186962.stm

Published: 2006/11/27 15:15:48 GMT

© BBC MMVI

[zoolander]

for some women taking the pill is not all about preventing pregnancy. Some women are prescribed the pill to correct hormonal imbalances and to minimise menstural pain

[Athanasios]

It gets really tiring for women always to be the one in charge of fertility

< rant >
I just wanted to say that that is a ridiculous quote. It amounts to: "It gets really tiring being responsible all the time."

On top of it there are some pretty heavy assumptions in there.

If any man wants to be scared into being responsible, look at polls that ask if women have, at least once, lied to lovers about being on the pill. Let us just say, it is pretty high.
< /rant >

Now that I think about it, it is probably another dupe quote to raise controversy. Oh well.



Props nootropikamil for putting in that quote:

An intellectual is a person who has discovered something more interesting than sex.

Aldous Huxley

[doug123]

Another update on the topic from BBC news:

Abortion pill could fight cancer

Abortion pill could fight cancer


Some women are genetically prone to breast cancer

A chemical used to abort pregnancy could fight breast and ovarian cancer, say scientists.

The compound mifepristone or RU-486 works by blocking the sex hormone progesterone, which feeds the growth of certain cancers.

The Science study on mice suggests the chemical would be most effective in women genetically prone to the cancers.

By the age of 70, more than half of women with a faulty BRCA1 gene will develop breast or ovarian cancer.

Hormone block

Mifepristone is designed to abort pregnancy in its first three months by blocking the action of progesterone and ending the life of the foetus.

In smaller doses, it is also used as an emergency contraceptive - stopping a foetus developing in the first days after intercourse.

Professor Eva Lee, from the University of California at Irvine, and colleagues studied genetically engineered mice lacking the BRCA1 gene.

This is an interesting discovery, which could one day help prevent breast cancer
Dr Kat Arney from Cancer Research UK 

They found that mammary glands in the mice accumulated large numbers of progesterone receptors - molecules that allow progesterone to exert its effects.

When progesterone attached itself to the receptors, it appeared to encourage abnormal cell growth.

By eight months of age, all the mice had developed tumours.

But similar mice treated with mifepristone had not developed tumours, even after a year.

Future hope

The scientists do not believe mifepristone would be the best treatment to give to women to prevent cancer because the drug acts on other receptors that could produce unwanted side effects.

But they think that harnessing its specific progesterone-blocking action could work.

Dr Kat Arney from Cancer Research UK, agreed, saying: "This is an interesting discovery, which could one day help prevent breast cancer.

"We already know that sex hormone levels can have a big impact on breast cancer risk, and can fuel the growth of some breast cancers.

"These new results tell us a lot about the way that flaws in the BRCA1 gene may lead to breast cancer, by making faulty breast cells more responsive to progesterone.

"The next step is to prove that this finding holds true in human breast cancers."

Only a minority of breast cancers are due to BRCA1 mutations.

Story from BBC NEWS:
http://news.bbc.co.u...lth/6197878.stm

Published: 2006/12/01 10:39:47 GMT

© BBC MMVI

[operationivy]

Female contraceptives are unavoidable. The risk of cancer, a remote possibility, is far outweighed by pregnancy, an inevitable consequence of having unprotected sex.

The idea of a male contraceptive pill is absurd. When we hear about female contraceptives and their side effects, what do you think would happen to the male population? Increasing male hormones causes hair loss, aggression, delusional behavior, prostate cancer. Decreasing male hormones will feminize a man and maybe permanently handicap his ability to impregnate a woman. Hormonal balance seems critical. Something like that would be more damaging to the male population than female contraceptives have ever been to women. Who wants to be sterile?

I don't see any way around this. Perhaps new drugs will be developed in the future without the same side effects. Just my own uneducated opinions, judging from what little I've read on this topic.

[doug123]

Hey: Planned Parenthood is giving away the Plan B "morning after pill" free these days...all the more reason to go have MORE unprotected sex...

We should probably ask now about whether the Plan B is bioavailable enough as it is or whether it needs special storage conditions...

From: http://www.reformer....ines/ci_4786898

Planned Parenthood hands out free morning-after pills
By KRISTI CECCAROSSI, Reformer Staff
Brattleboro Reformer

Wednesday, December 6

BRATTLEBORO -- It's officially available over the counter at local pharmacies, but all day today Planned Parenthood will be handing out free emergency contraception pills.
Planned Parenthood staffers say they're trying to raise awareness that the treatment, known widely as the morning after pill or Plan B, is one more avenue women can pursue to prevent unwanted pregnancy.

The Planned Parenthood on Canal Street is joining 350 other Planned Parenthood centers across the country today in the emergency contraception initiative.

The Food and Drug Administration ruled in August that Plan B could be sold over the counter, but regular commercial production didn't start until a few weeks ago, according to Barrie Silver, spokeswoman for Planned Parenthood of Northern New England.

That's why Planned Parenthood is giving pills away today, to sort of "kick off" the wide availability of the drug.

"We feel every woman deserves the right to prevent any unintended pregnancy," said Ann Fielder, of the Brattleboro office.

When the FDA OK'd over-the-counter sales, it was with a provision that it be purchased by men and women 18 or older. Anyone under 18 must first visit with a doctor and receive a prescription for the pill.

Vermont, however, is one of few states that has passed legislation that would allow a woman under 18 to purchase the drug from a trained and participating pharmacist, without a doctor's visit. The law was passed during the last legislative session, but it hasn't been fully enacted yet, Silver said.

Today, Planned Parenthood in Brattleboro will offer pills to women of all ages. Anyone under 18, however, will first be required to sit with a practitioner affiliated with the office to discuss use of the drug. That consultation will also be free today.

The clinic is open from 9 a.m. to 7 p.m.

Emergency contraception is available at Planned Parenthood for $25. It sells in pharmacies for up to $40 and $45.

Plan B consists of two pills, each containing a high dose of the same synthetic version of the hormone progestin, which is in regular birth control pills. It can be taken up to 120 hours after unprotected sex to significantly reduce the risk of pregnancy, according to information provided by Planned Parenthood. It is not a medication abortion and if a woman is pregnant, the pill would not harm a fetus. It prevents pregnancy by interrupting the process of ovulation or fertilization.

The drug's passage by the FDA was controversial and in more conservative and rural parts of the country, there have been reports of pharmacists refusing to sell it.

Several local pharmacists confirmed on Tuesday that they are and have been offering the drug over the counter since this summer and with prescription since 1999.

Organizers for today's Planned Parenthood event aren't anticipating any controversy here. The Canal Street center is not subject to the regular protests that other clinics are.

Organizers say the event is meant to help give women more information about Plan B, but, says Silver, of Planned Parenthood of Northern New England. "We also want to show we're a resource for women of all ages."

[doug123]

I guess this story is sort of related:

News source: Zee News Limited

Breast cancer may be sexually transmitted


Sydney, Dec 13: A new study has revealed that breast cancer could be sexually transmitted.

Emeritus Professor James Lawson of the University of New South Wales and colleagues have found the same form of the human papillomavirus (HPV) associated with cervical cancer in almost half the breast tumor samples they tested.

It`s the first study of its kind in Australia, although international studies have also found cervical cancer-related HPV in breast cancer cells. He says while the evidence is far from conclusive, "it`s possible and totally worthy of investigation" to suspect that HPV could also cause breast cancer.

Lawson says it`s possible that HPV is spread by sexual activity or during showers or baths, when the virus could be transferred from the genital area to the breasts via the nipple ducts.

"We know that the virus explodes out of the cell and is spread by touch, so it`s fairly obvious that it could be spread by sexual activity to the breast, you could also argue that it would be spread by washing and bathing," he was quoted by ABC, online, as saying.

Lawson says more research is needed to establish whether HPV is actually causing the breast cancer or if women with breast cancer are more prone to infection with the virus.

Lawson and colleagues last year published the results of a DNA analysis which found 24 out of 50 breast cancer samples also tested positive to HPV 18, the same form of the virus implicated in breast cancer.

A subsequent review, published in the journal Future Microbiology in June this year, found various forms of high-risk HPV had been identified in 10 separate breast cancer studies since 1999.

In a letter published online in the British Journal of Cancer last month Lawson reports that a review of the 2005 study found women with HPV positive breast cancers were on average about eight years younger than those whose tumors did not test positive to the virus.

Bureau Report

[doug123]

I don't ever ask my girls to take the pill.

I have lots of coat hangers.

In actuality, depending on the exact effects and significance of the studies, I might be persuaded. But, there are several ways to take precautions now.

Damn, dude...Jeremy: there's like a new pill your girls might like...take it just once a year...no worries, right?

New Oral Contraceptive May End Periods: Lybrel Designed for Continuous, Year-Round Contraception
By Salynn Boyles
WebMD Medical News
Reviewed By Brunilda Nazario, MD
on Wednesday, December 13, 2006

http://www.webmd.com.../130/117803.htm

Dec. 13, 2006 -- Menstrual periods may soon be just another lifestyle choice for American women.

The continuous oral contraceptive Lybrel was shown to be highly effective for eliminating monthly bleeding in a yearlong study.

The study was published in the December issue of the journal Contraception.

After a year on the pill, roughly 60% of the women in the study experienced no periods and 20% had some spotting.

Wyeth Pharmaceuticals, which funded the study, hopes to launch the low-dose oral contraceptive early next year, pending approval by the FDA. Wyeth is a WebMD sponsor.

Choosing Not to Have Periods

Birth control control pills designed to limit uterine bleeding to just four times a year are already on the market in the U.S. But Lybrel is the first oral contraceptive designed to do away with periods.

"There just is no good medical reason for a woman to have menstrual periods if she doesn't want them," gynecologist and study researcher David F. Archer, MD, tells WebMD. "It really does come down to an issue of preference."

That hasn't always been the case. When they came on the market in the early 1960s, all oral contraceptive regimens included 21 days on active hormones and seven days off each month to imitate a 28-day monthly cycle, complete with uterine bleeding.

Before the age of accurate at-home pregnancypregnancy tests, monthly periods reassured women on the pill that they were not pregnant.

Women taking oral contraceptives have what is called withdrawal bleeding during the seven days they are off active hormones.

Women on Lybrel get continuous hormones -- without days off the active pills -- so they should have little or no uterine bleeding.

In the newly reported study, 2,134 women between the ages of 18 and 49 took the low-dose oral contraceptive for a year to 18 months.

After a month on the birth control pill, 94% of the women in the study still experienced uterine bleeding, with or without spotting.

The number of bleeding and spotting days per month decreased steadily with increased duration of use of the birth control pill. However, 21% of the women in the study were still bleeding after a year on the pill.

The researchers say that the effectiveness of the continuous oral contraceptive was similar to that of a traditional 21-day regimen. They add that the continuous pill also demonstrated a good safety profile.

Long-Term Safety

Archer acknowledges, however, that the long-term safety of continuous contraception remains unknown.

The biggest concern has been that continuous hormone treatment could increase the risk of breast cancerbreast cancer, but he says there is no evidence to back this up.

Gynecologist Anita L. Nelson, MD, tells WebMD that continuous low-dose oral contraception will be a welcome addition to the limited amount of highly effective birth control options.

Eliminating periods with continuous oral contraceptives has been shown to be an effective treatment for many reproductive-related health problems, including endometriosisendometriosis, as well as possibly reducing the symptoms of premenstrual syndrome.

But all women seeking birth control can benefit from having more control over their bodies, Nelson says.

Nelson is a professor of ob-gyn at the David Geffen School of Medicine at the University of California, Los Angeles.

"I don't mean to denigrate women on oral contraceptives who, for whatever reason, want to continue to have withdrawal bleeding," she says. "But women need to realize that there is no health benefit to this and there may be a significant downside."


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

SOURCES: Archer, D.F. Contraception, December 2006; online edition. David F. Archer, MD, CONRAD Clinical Health Center, Norfolk, Va. Anita L. Nelson, MD, professor of ob-gyn, UCLA David Geffen School of Medicine.

[doug123]

A related story...

FDA Weighs Birth Control Drug Standards; News Source: Forbes

Press

FDA Weighs Birth Control Drug Standards
By MATTHEW PERRONE 01.23.07, 7:01 PM ET

The government is considering setting higher standards for birth control drugs used by millions, saying that newer pills appear to be less effective at preventing pregnancy than those approved decades ago.

The Food and Drug Administration asked a panel of experts Tuesday whether it should require new contraceptive drugs to meet a standard of effectiveness before they are approved for the market. The panel meets again Wednesday.

More than 60 percent of U.S. women between the ages of 15 and 44 use some sort of contraception, with 11.6 million choosing birth control pills, according to a 2005 survey by the Guttmacher Institute, a nonprofit research group. The global market for hormonal contraceptives was $5 billion in 2005, according to an estimate by U.K. research firm Piribo.

In briefing documents posted to its Web site, the FDA says newer contraceptives appear to be less effective - at times, with twice the failure rate - than previous products, most likely because manufacturers have started using lower doses of hormones that stop ovulation.

"The very first pills were very high dose and carried risks of blood clots and cardiovascular problems that would be unacceptable to most women," said Amy Allina, program director of the National Women's Health Network. "Today most birth control pills are very safe for the vast majority of women."

The original birth control pills approved in the 1960s allowed less than one pregnancy when taken by 100 women for at least a year, the FDA said. But in the last decade, the government has approved pills allowing more than two pregnancies for every 100 woman-years of use.

The FDA asked 14 members of its reproductive drugs panel whether that difference in performance is large enough for concern. The panel is chiefly made up of gynecologists and obstetricians, but it also includes a statistician and a neurologist.

After Tuesday's discussions, an FDA spokeswoman said the agency does not believe the effectiveness of different contraceptive drugs can be compared due to the way their clinical trials are designed. Moreover, spokeswoman Karen Riley said the FDA considers all contraceptives it approves to be safe and effective.

Separately, FDA is looking at requiring manufacturers to include a more representative mix of women in the clinical trials for their new products.

Companies often exclude women who smoke, are overweight or have a history of heart problems from their trials. The FDA says this makes it difficult for scientists to judge the safety and efficacy of the drugs in the real world.

Heather Boonstra, a policy analyst for Guttmacher Institute, said the FDA is likely holding its two-day meeting now to stay abreast of a number of innovative contraceptive products that are now in development.

One such product is Wyeth Pharmaceuticals' Lybrel, which is designed to be the first birth control pill for continuous use, 365 days a year. The drug is pending approval in the U.S. and in Europe. A Wyeth representative said the company would attend the meeting but did not plan to make a presentation.

Other recent innovative products have proved problematic for the agency. In September, for example, the FDA warned women that Johnson & Johnson's birth control patch Ortho Evra could raise their chances of developing blood clots in the legs and lungs. Johnson & Johnson markets a number of traditional contraceptives, including its top-selling birth control pill, Ortho Tri-Cyclen.

The FDA also weathered heavy criticism over its handling of Barr Pharmaceutical Inc.'s controversial "morning after pill," Plan B, which was only approved for over-the counter sales after two years of wrangling between politicians and consumer advocates.

Barr also markets the more traditional pill Seasonale.


Copyright 2006 Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed

[kylyssa]

Breast cancer is by FAR the more significant danger.

The most common and immediately detrimental side effect of birth control that I've witnessed in women (from my selfish perspective) is a reduction in libido.  It is joked that the real mechanism of action lies there. 

Kylyssa- How/where do you obtain Centchroman?  It sounds like a great alternative to traditional birth control.  I'm guessing it didn't catch on in the West because you are potentially fertilizing eggs that are unable to implant in the uterus and survive -- analogous to frequent mini-abortions.  The religious right would have a fit.

Sorry, I didn't notice your question before - I buy Centchroman from India under the trade name Saheli. I've been using it almost as year now and I love it. I have none of the side effects I experienced with hormonal birth control (low libido, difficulty achieving orgasm, hair loss, acne, increased depression, weight gain, headaches, and bitchiness) and has a few side effects I like. My cycles have stretched out to 55 days instead of 28 and I experience lighter periods and zero cramps. But even better, my family has a history of breast and uterine cancer which was preceded by fibroid tumors - since starting this pill my fibriods have disappeared.

[doug123]

Related story:

CNN: News Source



Story Highlights:

o Consumer group wants certain low-dose birth control pills pulled from the market
o Pills that contain desogestrel can double the risk of blood clots
o Risk is low: 30 clots per 100,000 users; older pills' risk is 15 clots per 100,000

WASHINGTON (AP) -- Certain low-dose birth control pills increase a woman's risk of a potentially deadly blood clot more than others and should be pulled from the market, a consumer group says.

All contraceptive pills carry a very low risk of blood clots that, even more rarely, can travel to the lungs and kill. It is a side effect of the pills' hormones, estrogen and progestin.

But "third-generation" oral contraceptives that contain a type of progestin called desogestrel can double that risk, the advocacy group Public Citizen said in a petition being filed Tuesday with the Food and Drug Administration that seeks to stop the sale of just those newer pills. (Dr. Sanjay Gupta wants to know what you think. )

That means about 30 blood clots per 100,000 users, compared with 15 blood clots per 100,000 users of older "second-generation" birth control pills that are just as effective, Public Citizen said.

It is not a new issue: Labels of desogestrel-containing birth control pills already list that increased risk in fine-print warnings of side effects. And in 1995, Britain's drug regulators sparked a pill scare by issuing warnings about the same progestin, which sold abroad for years before hitting the U.S. market.

Public Citizen contended that after years of research that showed no extra benefit for desogestrel-containing contraceptives, it was time for users to switch to older, safer birth control pills. It was posting a video explaining the petition on YouTube to get that message to younger pill users.

"FDA will carefully review the petition," agency spokeswoman Susan Cruzan said.

Copyright 2007 The Associated Press. All rights reserved.This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.

Find this article at:
http://www.cnn.com/2...irth.control.ap

[doug123]

Hey: Planned Parenthood is giving away the Plan B "morning after pill" free these days...all the more reason to go have MORE unprotected sex...

We should probably ask now about whether the Plan B is bioavailable enough as it is or whether it needs special storage conditions...

From: http://www.reformer....ines/ci_4786898

Planned Parenthood hands out free morning-after pills
By KRISTI CECCAROSSI, Reformer Staff
Brattleboro Reformer

Wednesday, December 6

BRATTLEBORO -- It's officially available over the counter at local pharmacies, but all day today Planned Parenthood will be handing out free emergency contraception pills.
Planned Parenthood staffers say they're trying to raise awareness that the treatment, known widely as the morning after pill or Plan B, is one more avenue women can pursue to prevent unwanted pregnancy.

The Planned Parenthood on Canal Street is joining 350 other Planned Parenthood centers across the country today in the emergency contraception initiative.

The Food and Drug Administration ruled in August that Plan B could be sold over the counter, but regular commercial production didn't start until a few weeks ago, according to Barrie Silver, spokeswoman for Planned Parenthood of Northern New England.

That's why Planned Parenthood is giving pills away today, to sort of "kick off" the wide availability of the drug.

"We feel every woman deserves the right to prevent any unintended pregnancy," said Ann Fielder, of the Brattleboro office.

When the FDA OK'd over-the-counter sales, it was with a provision that it be purchased by men and women 18 or older. Anyone under 18 must first visit with a doctor and receive a prescription for the pill.

Vermont, however, is one of few states that has passed legislation that would allow a woman under 18 to purchase the drug from a trained and participating pharmacist, without a doctor's visit. The law was passed during the last legislative session, but it hasn't been fully enacted yet, Silver said.

Today, Planned Parenthood in Brattleboro will offer pills to women of all ages. Anyone under 18, however, will first be required to sit with a practitioner affiliated with the office to discuss use of the drug. That consultation will also be free today.

The clinic is open from 9 a.m. to 7 p.m.

Emergency contraception is available at Planned Parenthood for $25. It sells in pharmacies for up to $40 and $45.

Plan B consists of two pills, each containing a high dose of the same synthetic version of the hormone progestin, which is in regular birth control pills. It can be taken up to 120 hours after unprotected sex to significantly reduce the risk of pregnancy, according to information provided by Planned Parenthood. It is not a medication abortion and if a woman is pregnant, the pill would not harm a fetus. It prevents pregnancy by interrupting the process of ovulation or fertilization.

The drug's passage by the FDA was controversial and in more conservative and rural parts of the country, there have been reports of pharmacists refusing to sell it.

Several local pharmacists confirmed on Tuesday that they are and have been offering the drug over the counter since this summer and with prescription since 1999.

Organizers for today's Planned Parenthood event aren't anticipating any controversy here. The Canal Street center is not subject to the regular protests that other clinics are.

Organizers say the event is meant to help give women more information about Plan B, but, says Silver, of Planned Parenthood of Northern New England. "We also want to show we're a resource for women of all ages."

First, with respect to a Huxley quote referenced earlier in this topic:

"An intellectual is a person who has discovered something more interesting than sex."

Aldous Huxley
English critic & novelist (1894 - 1963)

I kinda like Einstein's take on the matter:

“Intellectuals solve problems, geniuses prevent them.”

Albert Einstein (German born American Physicist who developed the special and general theories of relativity. Nobel Prize for Physics in 1921). (1879-1955)

Back to plan B: an update:

Sci-Tech Today

News Source: Sci-tech Today.com



Washington Officials Rule Pharmacists Can't Block Plan B
By Curt Woodward Associated Press Writer
April 13, 2007 7:50AM 

Under the new state rule in Washington, pharmacists with personal objections to a drug like the Plan B pill could opt out by getting a co-worker to fill an order, but that would only apply if the patient is able to get the prescription in the same pharmacy visit. Sold as Plan B, emergency contraception is a high dose of the drug found in many regular birth-control pills.

Pharmacists who believe "morning-after" birth control pills are tantamount to abortion cannot stand in the way of a patient's right to the drugs, regulators in the U.S. state of Washington have decided.

In a unanimous vote Thursday, the state Board of Pharmacy ruled that drug stores have a duty to fill lawful prescriptions despite an individual pharmacist's personal objections to any particular medication.

Pharmacists or drug stores that violate the rules could face discipline from the board, which has the power to revoke state licenses.

The Washington State Catholic Conference and Human Life Washington, an anti-abortion group, predicted a court challenge, saying the rule wrongly forces pharmacists to administer medical treatments they consider immoral.

"I don't think pharmacists who adhere to traditional moral precepts are going to allow their conscience to be overrun by the Board of Pharmacy," said Dan Kennedy, Human Life's chief executive.

Planned Parenthood spokeswoman Amy Luftig said the ruling "ensures that men and women will have access to their health care."

"It also respects a pharmacist's personal beliefs, so long as that doesn't come before a patient's needs," she said.

Sold as Plan B, emergency contraception is a high dose of the drug found in many regular birth-control pills. It can lower the risk of pregnancy by as much as 89 percent if taken within 72 hours of unprotected sex.

Some critics consider the pill related to abortion, although it is different from the abortion pill RU-486 and has no effect on women who already are pregnant.

The federal Food and Drug Administration made the morning-after pill available over the counter to adults in August.

Under the new state rule, pharmacists with personal objections to a drug could opt out by getting a co-worker to fill an order. But that would only apply if the patient is able to get the prescription in the same pharmacy visit.

Pharmacies would be required to order new supplies of a drug if a patient asks for something that is not in stock.

Pharmacists are also forbidden to destroy a prescription or harass patients, rules that were prompted by complaints from Washingtonians, chairwoman Rebecca Hille said.

The rule will take effect in mid-June, Health Department spokesman Jeff Smith said.
 
© 2007 Associated Press. All rights reserved.
© 2007 Sci-Tech Today. All rights reserved.

[lucid]

Pill prevents against some types of cancer:
From Wiki on Breast Cancer:

Research into the relationship between breast cancer risk and hormonal contraception is complex and seemingly contradictory.[64] The large 1996 collaborative reanalysis of individual data on over 150,000 women in 54 studies of breast cancer found that: "The results provide strong evidence for two main conclusions. First, while women are taking combined oral contraceptives and in the 10 years after stopping there is a small increase in the relative risk of having breast cancer diagnosed. Second, there is no significant excess risk of having breast cancer diagnosed 10 or more years after stopping use. The cancers diagnosed in women who had used combined oral contraceptives were less advanced clinically than those diagnosed in women who had never used these contraceptives."[65] This data has been interpreted to suggest that oral contraceptives have little or no biological effect on breast cancer development, but that women who seek gynecologic care to obtain contraceptives have more early breast cancers detected through screening.[66][67]

From Wiki on Cervical and Ovarian Cancer:

Combined oral contraceptive use reduces the risk of ovarian cancer by 40% and the risk of endometrial cancer by 50% compared to never users. The risk reduction increases with duration of use, with an 80% reduction in risk for both ovarian and endometrial cancer with use for more than 10 years. The risk reduction for both ovarian and endometrial cancer persists for at least 20 years.[34]

[doug123]

First, I'd suggest cross checking anything you find on wikipedia.

Please let me begin by referencing ImmInst advisor, Dr. Brian Wowk:

However it appears that a frequent point of contention is that science can be advanced by Internet debates and Wikis rather than labs and journals.  I strongly disagree.  Internet discussions are fine for discussion of broad basic issues, and recreation, but they are no substitute for the discipline of organizing ideas into complete papers.

There is a reason why many institutions (not just in science) require correspondence in writing, not emails or Internet posts.  It's too easy to put forth half-formed ideas and out-of-context information in brief Internet posts.  Forums, blogs, and wikis are intrinsically undisciplined media.  The barriers between having a thought and publishing the thought are way too low.  Even worse, if a Wiki with broad access politically positions itself as an authority on some subject, scientists who really are authorities will have to spend inordinate amounts of time on edit wars rather than getting real work done.  This is not how science gets done.

If you take a look at the first post in this topic, I quoted in red

"Anyone who is prescribing oral contraceptives has a duty to tell women that 21 out of 23 studies showed an increased risk."

So yes, it seems one or two studies say one thing...just like you'll get the oil industry to tell you there's no such thing as global warming and the tobacco lobby to tell you that cigarettes don't cause cancer -- but that's just politics, didn't ya know? I try my best to stay out of that stuff as much as I possible. I strongly favor sticking to the evidence.

But why did I bring up the Einstein quote and furthermore then compare it with Huxley's? Well, it appears everyone's interested in sex, and the more you tell them to not have it, well -- the more it seems they'll want to do it. It seems we are just genetically programmed that way -- Terence McKenna said: "the name of the game in Darwinian Evolution is successful copulation."

Yep, even when as much as 1 billion dollars is spent on such programs, they appear to be a big time waste of cash. Is the entire scientific community in agreement regarding this particular issue?

It seems that billion dollars might have been more efficiently allocated on something like health care for the needy, or maybe victims of hurricane Katrina.

News Source: Buzzle.com



$1bn 'don't Have Sex' Campaign a Flop As Research Shows Teenagers Ignore Lessons

Findings undermine Bush 'keep zipped up' stance - Survey shows 23% given advice chose to ignore it

It's been a central plank of George Bush's social policy: to stop teenagers having sex. More than $1bn of federal money has been spent on promoting abstinence since 1998 - posters printed, television adverts broadcast and entire education programmes devised for hundreds of thousands of girls and boys.

The trouble is, new research suggests that it hasn't worked. At all.

A survey of more than 2,000 teenagers carried out by a research company on behalf of Congress found that the half of the sample given abstinence-only education displayed exactly the same predilection for sex as those who had received conventional sex education in which contraception was discussed.

Mathematica Policy Research sampled teenagers with an average age of 16 from a cross-section of communities in Florida, Wisconsin, Mississippi and Virginia. Both control groups had the same breakdown of behaviour: 23% in both sets had had sex in the previous year and always used a condom, 17% had sex only sometimes using a condom; and 4% had sex never using one. About a quarter of each group had had sex with three or more partners.

Since his days as governor of Texas, George Bush has been a firm advocate of abstinence education programmes, which teach that keeping zipped up is the only certain way to avoid unwanted pregnancy and sexually transmitted diseases, and that to deviate from the norms of human sexual activity is to risk harmful psychological and physical effects. "Abstinence hasn't been given a very good chance, but it's worked when it's tried. That's for certain," he said.

But even in 1990s Texas, where Mr Bush spent $10m a year on abstinence education, the state had the fifth highest teen pregnancy rate in the US. Over the past six years he has stepped up the programme to more than $100m a year. He recently braved ridicule by extending it to adults aged 20-29, an age range in which 90% of people are sexually active.
In the Mathematica survey, which was released by sex education activists after the health department sat on it, the mean age at which the control group, that had been taught about contraception, lost their virginity was 14.9 years. That seems strikingly low, until you look at the mean age of first sexual experience for the abstinence control group - 14.9 years.

In the context of findings like this, health workers and statisticians conclude that it is far better that children have safe sex, with knowledge of and access to contraception, than that they are preached a message of abstinence only to ignore it.

Federal funding for abstinence education began as a small part of Mr Clinton's welfare reforms but was stepped up substantially by the Bush administration. Its supporters claim that the fact that though teenaged pregnancies have fallen in the US from a high of 62.1 per 1,000 women aged 15 to 19 in 1991 to 41.1 births per 1,000 in 2004 shows the campaign is working.

But the Mathematica findings, building on earlier research, cast that optimism in doubt. Anti-abstinence activists have long argued that the movement is dangerous because it leaves young people exposed to the risk of teen pregnancy and infection because the teaching shuns any mention of condoms or contraception. Of about 19m new STD infections in the US each year, almost half are recorded among people aged 15 to 24.

By Guardian Unlimited © Copyright Guardian Newspapers 2006
Published: 4/15/2007

Take care.

P.S. I am not a scientist. I'm just a wanna be.

Edited by nootropikamil, 16 April 2007 - 10:50 AM.

[doug123]

News Source: Buzzle.com



$1bn 'don't Have Sex' Campaign a Flop As Research Shows Teenagers Ignore Lessons

Findings undermine Bush 'keep zipped up' stance - Survey shows 23% given advice chose to ignore it

It's been a central plank of George Bush's social policy: to stop teenagers having sex. More than $1bn of federal money has been spent on promoting abstinence since 1998 - posters printed, television adverts broadcast and entire education programmes devised for hundreds of thousands of girls and boys.

The trouble is, new research suggests that it hasn't worked. At all.

A survey of more than 2,000 teenagers carried out by a research company on behalf of Congress found that the half of the sample given abstinence-only education displayed exactly the same predilection for sex as those who had received conventional sex education in which contraception was discussed.

Mathematica Policy Research sampled teenagers with an average age of 16 from a cross-section of communities in Florida, Wisconsin, Mississippi and Virginia. Both control groups had the same breakdown of behaviour: 23% in both sets had had sex in the previous year and always used a condom, 17% had sex only sometimes using a condom; and 4% had sex never using one. About a quarter of each group had had sex with three or more partners.

Since his days as governor of Texas, George Bush has been a firm advocate of abstinence education programmes, which teach that keeping zipped up is the only certain way to avoid unwanted pregnancy and sexually transmitted diseases, and that to deviate from the norms of human sexual activity is to risk harmful psychological and physical effects. "Abstinence hasn't been given a very good chance, but it's worked when it's tried. That's for certain," he said.

But even in 1990s Texas, where Mr Bush spent $10m a year on abstinence education, the state had the fifth highest teen pregnancy rate in the US. Over the past six years he has stepped up the programme to more than $100m a year. He recently braved ridicule by extending it to adults aged 20-29, an age range in which 90% of people are sexually active.
In the Mathematica survey, which was released by sex education activists after the health department sat on it, the mean age at which the control group, that had been taught about contraception, lost their virginity was 14.9 years. That seems strikingly low, until you look at the mean age of first sexual experience for the abstinence control group - 14.9 years.

In the context of findings like this, health workers and statisticians conclude that it is far better that children have safe sex, with knowledge of and access to contraception, than that they are preached a message of abstinence only to ignore it.

Federal funding for abstinence education began as a small part of Mr Clinton's welfare reforms but was stepped up substantially by the Bush administration. Its supporters claim that the fact that though teenaged pregnancies have fallen in the US from a high of 62.1 per 1,000 women aged 15 to 19 in 1991 to 41.1 births per 1,000 in 2004 shows the campaign is working.

But the Mathematica findings, building on earlier research, cast that optimism in doubt. Anti-abstinence activists have long argued that the movement is dangerous because it leaves young people exposed to the risk of teen pregnancy and infection because the teaching shuns any mention of condoms or contraception. Of about 19m new STD infections in the US each year, almost half are recorded among people aged 15 to 24.

By Guardian Unlimited © Copyright Guardian Newspapers 2006
Published: 4/15/2007

This is a little bit off topic, I guess; however, I feel this is important enough of a topic to warrant a little bit of digression.

This is a topic that individuals should probably be discussing with their physicians; however, it seems this news report is in the public arena; that's why I am addressing it here at all.

With respect to what is in bold above, I want to emphasize that I agree that sex education is very important, but I feel that the most effective way to ensure youths (and adults) practice abstinence and/or safe sex is to inform them fully of the dangers of sexually transmitted diseases and the (social and emotional) cost of pregnancy (and the politically and religiously heated topics: abortion and contraception), as I attempted to do in some respects in this post.

I feel that the most mature and responsible way to handle sexual relationships in our day and age is to not engage in any sexual activity whatsoever (AT LEAST) until both you and your prospective partner have both been fully tested for STDs -- best (I feel) in each other's presence -- i.e. go to the doctor's office or clinic together and get tested together -- and view and discuss the results in each other's presence. "Trust no one," as the X-files character Fox Mulder said.

This is especially important today as many STDs appear to be potentially deadly and in some cases never seem to fully go away (e.g. AIDS, certain forms of HPVs, and herpes).

Anyways, I know this might be a sensitive issue for many, and it might be difficult for some parents to discuss these issues with their children, so public education seems to be a safe route. But I strongly feel that just telling kids: "don't have sex...because we say so" will not be effective and this recent study seems to concur.

Take care.

Edited by nootropikamil, 17 April 2007 - 08:56 AM.