Birth Control Pills do not protect against sexually transmitted diseases. Many of the older STDs are now resistant to antibiotics and becoming more prevalent.
I'd rather insist on my partner using a condom than risk getting an STD.
More than just the pill, people should start questioning the use of soy in just about everything today, including vitamins that are designed for breast health. As someone who has had estrogen positive breast cancer, 20 years after taking the pill, I question the role that soy (a natural estrogen) plays in such a dramatic increase in breast cancer. Some oncologists tell me that I'm not alone in that school of thought.
"Providers do tend to think a preference for a nonhormonal method is inherently unscientific, and we tend to dismiss that preference as not being founded in fact, and we have to recognize that women have real personal reasons for their preferences..."
This bias against non-hormonal and barrier methods of contraception is, frankly, shocking.
6
I'm one of the women who never touched the pill because I always thought dumping hormones in my body would cause some problem or other, and I regularly heard negative comments from women who'd gone on and off the pill: "I gained weight/lost weight/got depressed/picked the wrong guy . . ." There was a 2008 study observing that the pill had an influence on a woman's ability to desire the kind of guy she'd prefer without it: https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/birth-control-pills-affect-wo...
So I avoided the pill--the diaphragm worked fine--and I breastfed three kids, but I still came down with estrogen-positive breast cancer. After 16 chemos, two operations, 28 cycles of radiation and buckets of pills, I got to keep my breast, minus eleven lymph nodes. Maybe the vaginal estrogen creme (1% estradiol) caused the cancer? The oncologists have advised me never to touch that stuff again. Oh, and nobody in my family ever had breast cancer, either. I'm still glad I never took the pill.
http://www.thecriticalmom.blogspot.com
3
I'm the same. The idea of taking pills that would alter my natural hormonal makeup didn't appeal to me in the least. I've never liked taking any headache pills, antibiotics, etc., and only do so when really necessary. But the idea of taking birth control pills, and the ensuing risks and uncertain affects that come with it, and all for 'convenience'? No thank you. Using other birth control methods was really not that complicated or inconvenient for me.
Now in menopause, I also never considered any hormone replacement therapy, as to me, the loss of estrogen etc. is clearly intended after menopause. Again, I don't think we should be messing with something as impactful as hormone levels, especially when they are behaving as is typical, and based on one's age/gender.
1
I'm confused why you repeatedly say that younger women do not need to worry, when my reading of this was that the risk PERSISTS if you have taken the BC pill for 5-10 years. So, correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't the research saying that even if you only took the pill from 18-28, you still face an increased risk of BC when you're 45 just because of the earlier use. If that is true, this article is dangerously misleading. Author, please step in and correct.
10
Messing with your hormones by taking synthetic hormones = all sorts of unintended consequences, some of which just aren’t worth it.
5
Last time I checked, cancer is a pathology and fertility isn't. The "Pill" may make some people's wishes come through, but medication it isn't, at least not for the way it is usually used.
2
With all the concern about
Eating Healthy,
Living Healthy,
Being Healthy
why would any pill that
has a such a drastic effect
on women's hormones
be considered medicine
to take unless you absolutely had to ?
2
Carrying an umbrella exponentially increases your risk of being struck by lightning, but people can grasp that the absolute risk of being struck by lightning is so small that umbrellas are not viewed as inherently dangerous.
If you understand that, you should know that these statistics are really expressing that birth control pills aren’t an effective way to cause or to prevent cancer. But they’re very good at preventing pregnancy, among a host of other benefits.
8
I really appreciated the detailed list of advice at the end of this article. As important as it is for learning more about women's reproductive health and cancer, this study will unfortunately be politicized and cited without context to scare women away from family planning and gynecological care. For that reason it's imperative that we all inform ourselves of the benefits and risks associated with various forms of contraception so we know what concerns to discuss with our doctors. And someone give Dr. Manson a megaphone for that vasectomy comment!
1
As a cancer researcher, I would like to point out that studies such as this one make the assumption that the test population (taking birth control) and the control (not taking birth control) are the same in every way except for the drug. Do you believe that that is remotely possible? The hope is that if the test and control populations are large enough, all the other variables will cancel out. Hope is not science.
3
Great I've been taking birth control for 17 years and I am 34. My doctor tells me there is no risk...
I took the Pill on and off from the age of 16.
I felt I should "take a break" now and then for reasons I now realise were silly, like the idea it wasn't "natural", etc., but I wish I had known I could have taken it non-stop to totally prevent menstruation, which I hated.
I loved being on it. Not only did I feel free of any worry about unwanted pregnancy, but it smoothed out my irregular cycles so I wasn't continually worried about "accidents", reduced the symptoms of bloating, and made my periods lighter and shorter. I felt great when I was taking it, better than when I wasn't.
At least the first few decades, then the formula changed and the low-dose ones were not as effective for all that.
However, I remember a doctor who told me at 40 "You realize these cut your risk of ovarian cancer, right?" (I knew). Well, 10 years later, I got ovarian cancer...
But it got caught in time (stage 2c), surgery and chemo treatment were a breeze, and 15 years later, I'm fine, as is my general health.
So, did I get ovarian cancer because of the pill, or despite its protective effects? Who knows. But it was worth it.
1
Well well, so here we are terrifically trying to fight breast cancer, then a reason is found (one of many no doubt), and then we wave it away saying the benefits of the pill may outway the costs? How much did it cost in research dollars to find this out? As a famous man recently said, "Come ON!" There are other ways to prevent pregnancy.....
Why not adopt behaviors that decrease the risks of all disease, such as healthy lifestyles and--dare I say it--sex without penetration!
1
Breast cancer is very common. Actually breast cancer alone is the top cause of death for women age 40 to 50. While ovarian cancer could be deadlier it is much rarer as well as endometrial cancer. So the total harm will be much worse by using birth control pills. Also do not forget the other noncancerous side effects such as increased blood cloth risk and stroke risk as well as increased blood pressure. There are several other birth control methods with much lesser side effects. Off course condoms is on top of the list. however in a male dominated society rather then promoting condoms we need to expose women to cancer risk because men do not like to use condoms.
7
Most women in their 50s have no reason to take birth control pills, so the incidence of breast cancer among women in their 50s is completely irrelevant.
Read the article again; they already addressed "total harm". Breast cancer is common, but nevertheless *most* cases are unrelated to contraceptive use.
Let me get this straight---the 'appearance' of reducing the incidence of other kinds of cancer is worth risking the PROVEN increased risk in getting breast cancer? What big pharmas' pockets were these researchers in? Oral and other kinds of hormonal birth control is linked to breast cancer in women, period. Nothing is worth that risk.
14
There is no "proof" for one effect and not the other. These are the same kinds of studies.
And how could "nothing" be worth an increased risk of breast cancer? Of course reducing the risk of another cancer could be worth it.
Overall, these very small epidemiological findings may just be random fluctuations - or if Dr. Ionnidis correct, simply reflections of the prevailing biases in cancer research.
5
One article says birth control pills cause cancer and this one says it prevents it. Keeping people confused and sick is key to money. I'll stick to what nature intended take logical precautions and run from synthetic man made concoctions.
10
Read the article. Different cancers.
The hormones increase the risk of one type of cancer - breast cancers which are susceptible to hormones - and decrease another type of cancer - endometrial for instance which can be affected by conditions like endometriosis that are controlled by hormones.
It isn't all that confusing. Nature is great, and natural is great, but a lot of nature can kill us, including pregnancy. Stick to what you want, but consider the bigger picture for others. It isn't all about profits.
1
I wonder whether the increase in breast cancer risk is tied to whether the cancers are estrogen sensitive (or not?). And whether this sensitivity (or lack of it) is tied to other cancers (e.g. cervical, ovarian ...). The information would not change the observations, but might give us some clue about mechanism and interactions.
4
Many of the comments vilify "big pharma". Not so fast! While synthetic estrogen and prgestin are not in the same class of life saving drugs as vaccines and antibiotics, they have contributed immensely to quality of life for women. Yes there is a risk of cancer that has never been hidden, but there is a risk of vaccines failure, and antibiotic side effects too along with the responsibility to educate yourself of risks and benefits. This debate is reflective of a women's ability to choose their reproductive futures and the education needed to preserve it.
25
I'm 55, and I am still waiting for the day we will see male contraceptive methods (other than condoms and the vasectomy, of course). I would like to see men grapple with the potential risks, and the discipline to not forget taking their pills. I bet a whole new perspective would develop on contraceptives if men were taking them too! Sadly, chances are I will be dead before this will become a reality
24
Really? Would you depend on that happening, even if it was equally possible?
3
Effective birth control gave women control over their own fertility, and you would be happy to hand it back to a man?
7
The only safe way to ensure male "help" with birth control is a vasectomy. Short of that, we women have this amazing, tiny little pill that is 99% effective and it's not that hard to remember to take something if it means the difference between a baby and no baby. The article mentions the rhythm method, and a previous poster actually suggested sex without penetration (which is not feasible for daily life; we were designed with male and female parts that fit nicely together lol). These suggestions along with relying on a man to use a condom or any future possible birth control method that requires daily action on their part are unbelievably horrible birth contron ideas. We are SO lucky to have the pill, and control over our reproduction.
No drug is ever 100% risk free; no one should expect it to be. We make choices. I choose to prevent unwanted pregnancy despite a cancer risk. (The biggest risk for cancer is genetics, so the truth is, you can be the healthiest, skinniest, non-hormone-using person and still have a higher risk because of family history than someone with an unhealthy lifestyle and taking the pill.)
4
I can’t understand why, in all this discussion, there has been no mention of synthetic hormones versus bioidentical ones. If it is true, as many cutting-edge doctors are saying, that the use of bioidentical hormones does not increase the likelihood of cancer, as opposed to the use of synthetic hormones, which does, then why aren’t women given the option of birth control pills which contain those that mimic the hormones in our bodies instead of those that are patented drugs? Why not promote the use of bio-identical estrogen (estradiol) and progesterone instead of, say, premarin which is a combination of estrogen made from mare’s urine and progestin, a synthetic?
Is it because non-drugs cannot be patented and thus are not money makers for the drug industry that holds doctors in its thrall?
9
What "cutting edge doctors are saying", doesn't have any significance. What matters is research, evidence and data. Unfortunately there is absolutely no reliable evidence that supports the idea that bioidentical hormones are any safer, or have less side effects than other manufactured estrogens/ progestins. It is important for a woman to have the option to use the hormones (or not), which she prefers for whatever reason, but believing that bio identical hormones do not increase the risk of cancer or deep vein thrombus the way other forms of hormones do is just not supported by clinical evidence
4
It's not surprising that there is not a lot of clinical evidence pointing to the safety of bioidentical hormones. Who would fund these studies? Certainly not the big drug companies. I think you are taking up an argument that is often used to criticize vitamins and supplements which, for the same reason, often remain unresearched and thus scoffed at by the medical profession.
I have nothing against taking drugs when necessary. The trouble is that they are taken far too cavalierly without regard to their side effects and consequences when they should be kept as a last resort. This is especially true in North America. If I am to choose between synthetic hormones, which have been shown to raise cancer rates, and bioidentical hormones, which are drug-free and mimic the chemistry in my own body, that is not a difficult choice for me.
3
C'mon now. There's tons of good clinical studies/evidence showing the efficacy and safety of bio-identical hormones. Reject them at your leisure but don't deny others from their positive health effects.
I've read that the propecia tablet I take daily will minimize the possibility of my getting prostate cancer. Its a relief it its true.
1
As a clinical Associate Professor at Stanford Medical School in Adolescent Medicine and CEO of a birth control delivery company www.PandiaHealth.com, I actually pulled the article and looked at the data.
They did NOT control for smoking! The "never used hormonal contraceptive control group" had 22% smokers vs 27% of those that used hormonal contraceptives. That is very significant difference!
February 28, 2013 in the Journal of the National Cancer Institute, researchers analyzed data from 73,388 women in the American Cancer Society’s Cancer Prevention Study II (CPS-II) Nutrition Cohort. During more than 13 years of follow-up, researchers counted 3,721 cases of invasive breast cancer. The rate of new cases was 24% higher in smokers than in nonsmokers and 13% higher in former smokers than in nonsmokers.
The smoking alone could account for the increased risk. I'd like to see the data controlled for smoking.
50
Dr Yen I am a physician too. Birth control pills does increase breast cancer risk , evidence is very clear. Remember medical profession is still dominated by males, and you are thought by them or by women who still has not been able to get rid of the dogma they have been thought by their respectful male colleagues. This teaching predominantly but the burden of birth control on women. Birth control pills were such an easy convenient solution, it even looked so good for women. I wished it worked but it has many unfair flows . Greatest one is increased breast cancer risk . i had patients who had blood cloths ( DVT) and Strokes on pill. It is not fair to women to trough this adverse effects to prevent pregnancy. women deserve better
2
Once again, women have to be saddled with this responsibility. Many men won't wear condoms which is reprehensible.
5
I am duly reprehended by such men. I trust I should also be reprehended by those women who do not enjoy intercourse with a condom?
In all seriousness, it isn’t just men who would prefer to forgo the condom in favor of other forms of birth control.
1
Does anyone reading this article know any woman that has had breast cancer? Case closed. You wouldn't before the birth control pill.
As someone who owns and has read several medical textbooks that were published before the mid-1950s, I can tell you that breast cancer has always been with us. There are many factors that can lead to or add to one's risk in developing it. Taking hormonal supplements or using hormonal contraception is merely one factor.
13
I'm sorry, but I don't understand your point here. Would you make that more clear?
4
What????
3
I am sure some conservatives will call out an end for birth control now. But here's the rub; pregnancy has far more risks than taking birth control. And mother/infant mortality rates in the U.S. are relatively high compared other western industrialized nations.
21
Except pregnancy is what a female body is designed to do, risks and all, so that's the baseline. The baseline isn't zero, which is what you're implying.
Regardless, the specific disease risks associated with taking a particular drug, have nothing to do with the generalized risks associated with a natural physical process. You're comparing apples to oranges.
Last, one of the reasons we have high infant mortality rates is because we have significant technology that allows for very early intervention in premature babies. Naturally, more premature babies die, thus increasing the rate.
3
Cancer is also a completely natural process and something that our bodies were “designed” for - tumors evolve their cell markers to avoid detection by the immune system to survive.
Death is also completely natural and is what our bodies are all ultimately designed to do.
The risk of birth control pills is nominal in most women and the risk of pregnancy is also low in most women. The risks associated with birth control pills is much lower.
Women get to choose, either way.
1
Dying from pregnancy complications doesn't make women any less dead than dying of breast cancer, even if that's a risk our bodies were "designed" for us to take.
It isn't too surprising cervical cancer is increased. If the pill is being used, then another form of birth control that might prevent STDs isn't such as HPV
2
It was in the 70's know that the pill increases ones chances for cancer, and why a lot of women went off the pill.
"A British study of over 46,000 women who were recruited in 1968, during the early days of the pill, and followed for up to 44 years found that despite increases in breast and cervical cancers"....This quote illustrates the difference between cause and effect and association. Cervical cancer is caused by papilloma virus which is an STD. Now it may be that women who take the pill are more likely to get STDs, but that doesn't me the pill causes STDs
13
I'm inclined to believe the reduced risk for ovarian cancer is overstated. My mother took the pill in the mid-60's for 2 years after having 5 children. Within 10 years she developed ovarian cancer at only 40. She told me she felt certain it was the Pill as she said her female troubles began after she started taking it. Fortunately, she survived for 30 years by not doing the chemo/radiation route which at that time was brutal.
5
As a young breast cancer survivor, I can tell you that anecdotally, the most common shared factor that many young breast care patients and survivors have....is long-term use of birth control. This article acts like women in their 20s and 30s are a negligible concern because it is so "rare" for us to develop breast cancer. Although we do constitute only about 5% of yearly breast cancer diagnoses, that still comes out to about 12,000 young women annually diagnosed with breast cancer. That is NOT a negligible number. Breast cancer in women 40 and under is often caught later, is more aggressive and is more often fatal. A good friend of mine just died from stage IV breast cancer last month... at age 30. The medical industry has pushed birth control pills at young women for decades, and for purposes that are not actual birth control. I deeply regret taking the drug for about ten years, and mostly it was for the touted benefits of clear skin and stabilization of my menstrual cycle.
30
My mother was diagnosed with breast cancer in the early 1970s, when she was only thirty; she died ten years later. She always attributed her cancer to the use of birth control pills. There is no way to prove it, but I firmly believe it. My mother most probably lost her life because of a drug that had been touted as safe, but was not. She left behind four children who sorely miss her.
5
That is a tragic story, but without the pill she may have left eight children without a mother.
3
She did not need the pill for birth control there are other very reliable ways
3
It is much more sensible to look at overall cancer rates, which are reduced, rather than focusing on a small increase in breast cancer rates.
Many of my friends are suffering from insomnia because they are afraid to take estrogen, which reduces insomnia.
6
Your friends should probably find out why they can't sleep, instead of masking this particular symptom with a carcinogenic band-aid.
2
This reminds of that old dish washing detergent ad, that shows a condescending mother telling her child that you have to WASH the dishes before putting them into the dish washer.
You have to risk GETTING cancer, before you can help PREVENT cancer, silly.
I hear that the pill cures acne too. Why don't we just put it into the water supply like flouride, if it's so great.
4
It is already in our water supply, sadly.
10
Well, it certainly cured my acne. I had horrible acne--face, back, chest, in my hair, virtually everywhere. Starting when I was about 16 and continuing until I was about 30 and getting ready to be married and went to get the pill. Meanwhile, I had been to the dermatologist for years, where my face was frozen with dry ice and sulphur, among other things.Within two weeks of starting on the pill my face cleared magically, and people in my hometown stopped me on the street to ask me what I had done.
7
The estrogenetic compounds in the water supply are mostly from the breakdown of plastics.
Why would anyone want to change natural physiology with synthetic. This is insane.
9
Really? You and 5 others can't guess why a woman might want to change her natural physiology? Well some women desire to have some semblance of "control" over "births" and pregnancies in her life. By all means, have 12-17 children if that is your desire but many other women wanted to limit it to a couple to a few, even at the expense of changing her natural physiology. Lots of other people choose to change natural physiology for all sorts of other reasons- to live from cancer instead of letting it kill naturally, to induce birth to safeguard mother and child, to kill pathogens to preserve life, to replace hormones that the body doesn't make adequately due to a myriad of conditions. There are all sorts of reasons to change natural physiology with synthetic properties. If there are risks then we need to know what they are and how those risks are balanced against benefits.
35
I might very well have to live on disability if I couldn't take bcp. And yes, I've tried other options to manage my "natural" body.
14
Well said!! Anyone who thinks they have a birth control method better than synthetics (other than surgery or total abstinence) is OUT. TO. LUNCH.
This article appears to be propaganda for the drug companies to save face for a leaked research study.
How dear them say that a women and/or 14 year old girl shouldn't be told all the facts when given medication. This article is calling women unknowledgeable and unable to look at the facts ourselves and that we have to depend on doctors to make the decisions for us. This is so controlling.
It's crazy that the article is telling me that i have to pollute my body with synthetic drugs and ignore the side effects just so i can have small level of protection of SOME cancers with an increased risk of others. On top of that what about the water pollution going on with these synthetic hormones that our water systems are not designed to handle? Haven't you seen the studies about male fish loosing their sexuallity? How about the studies in Europe related to the pill affecting the women's choice in a guy? This pill is dangerous on many levels. I for one am not going to pollute my body with these. There are natural methods out there that have worked for me for over 20 years now without problems. My marriage is strong and i think is better with it and well as my body
19
PS, I did really well on the pill with no bad effects. And a few years later we decided to have a baby, which took only about three months off the pill to get pregnant. And I think I had the easiest Pregnancy, even though I am a very small woman, known to man. My labor was very mild and minimal and the baby arrived in less than 5 hours after getting to the hospital, And he was smiling as we were returned to my room, and he has been a smart, happy kid ever after.
1
The article is not telling you to do anything. It offers an opinion, that is all. Take it or leave it. Don't like contraceptives? Stay away from them. Millions of women are happy to be able to used them and face their risks. Freedom of choice. No need to get hysterical.
7
It's hormones from factory farmed livestock that are adding so much estrogen to the water supply. Birth control pills account for less than 1% of it.
Thank you for this informative, calming, rational article.
29
I am dismayed at the lengths people will go to protect the pharmaceutical lobby. “An adolescent who uses birth control pills ... should not be hearing she has an increased risk of breast cancer.” REALLY? In what world is it acceptable to not inform patients of the risk they take with stuff they put into their bodies?!?
And then there is the part about birth control actually reducing the chances for cancer which implies that the good outweighs the bad. Let’s look at the numbers. According to the National Cancer Institute’s SEER numbers, the risk of endometrial cancer in women as measured over a 5-year period is 4.6 per 100k women. The risk for ovarian cancer over the same period is 7.4 per 100k. Compare that to breast cancer which has a risk of 124.9 per 100k. So the argument that the benefits of reducing the risk of endometrial and ovarian cancer outweigh the risk of getting breast cancer is like saying you’re going to take a hang-glider to work because you’re afraid you might get hit by a car while walking there. Use some common sense.
Looks to me like the big pharm lobby is more interested in the profits from one of their biggest sellers than they are informing women of the risks of peddling a Class I carcinogen (according to the WHO) to unsuspecting women. And according to one person in this article, we should refrain from educating anyone on it so they don’t have to worry (except I guess when they’re told they have breast cancer).
30
Well said.
Let me add that the article does not mention the risk of blood clots, Stroke, and Heart Attack with these hormones. East to ignore when they add to the risk of these potentially toxic drugs. Breast cancer effects 1/7 women and ovarian cancer 1/75. Your point is spot on that a marginal drop in ovarian cancer rate is nothing to brag about when the additional breast cancer rate is already so high.
I also have to add that I have had so many women tell me they don't like taking these hormones. they have told me, "I don't like the way they make me feel". That is now confirmed with the new (previous studies showing same) study out of Denmark showing a 300% rise in suicide risk in women who take these hormones. http://mailchi.mp/1f277ee34933/whats-speaking-to-us-youre-not-crazy-you-....
Natural Family Planning (NFP) has the same "use effective rate" as the birth control pill without the side effects. One example is: http://creightonmodel.com.
Why don't they tell women that Estrogen has been declared a "Class I Carcinogen" by the World Health Organization" (WHO). I guess they feel it is not important?
Thanks for your input.
25
Please remember, ovarian and other "rare" cancers are only rare if you don't get them. Rare cancers have limited diagnostic tools and treatments. And to every women who has one of these rare cancers, they are not rare enough.