Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Surgeon: birth control pill a ‘molotov cocktail’ for breast cancer
Life Site News ^ | December 6, 2010 | KATHLEEN GILBERT

Posted on 12/07/2010 11:17:27 AM PST by NYer

WASHINGTON, D.C., December 6, 2010 (LifeSiteNews.com) - How often do doctors in America prescribe a Group One carcinogen - one recognized as a “definite” cause of cancer - to otherwise healthy patients?

Answer: as often as they prescribe the hormonal birth control pill.

This little-known fact about the pill was presented by Dr. Angela Lanfranchi, a breast surgical oncologist and co-founder of the Breast Cancer Prevention Institute, who shared her expertise on the drug at the “50 Years of the Pill” conference in Washington, DC on Friday.

“When is it ever right to give a group one carcinogen to a healthy woman?” she asked the audience. “We don’t have to take a group one carcinogen to be liberated.”

Lanfranchi offered a wealth of statistical data from various sources to support a fact that is known by the medical community to be true yet is rarely acknowledged: use of the pill has been strongly linked to an increased risk of breast cancer. The pill is also believed to increase the risk of cervical cancer and liver cancer.

“This stuff is not new, it’s not magic, it’s in the literature,” she said, linking pill use to the 660 percent rise in non-invasive breast cancer since 1973. “Women want to know, and women have a right to know, what researchers have known for over 20 years.”

She compared media treatment of the pill’s cancer risk to that of hormone replacement therapy (HRT), which was found to be carcinogenic in 2002. Once word got out, 15 out of 30 million women in America taking HRT stopped; by 2007, invasive breast cancer in women over 50 for estrogen-receptive positive tumors dropped 11 percent.

Meanwhile, she noted, hormonal contraception - essentially the same drug as HRT and with a similar cancer risk, about 25-30 percent - continues to be touted as harmless and even healthy. And yet, the International Agency on Research of Cancer, a branch of the World Health Organization, classified hormonal contraceptives in 2005 as a group one carcinogen along with asbestos and radium.

Unlike the HRT discovery, “I don’t remember one six o’clock news report about that information,” said Lanfranchi.

While even medical textbooks attest to the 30 percent increase in cancer risk, Lanfranchi noted a pervasively dismissive attitude: one British medical textbook she cited said that, “Considering the benefits of the pill, this slight increased risk is not considered clinically significant.”

Not clinically significant? “To whom?” Lanfranchi asked, showing a sobering photograph of one of her own cancer patients, Suellen Bennett. While breast cancer caused by the pill is often caught early, she said, the pill’s “benefits” are hardly a reason not to mention its dangers.

“This is what you have to go through when you’re cured. You lose your hair, you lose your breast,” she said. Had Suellen been told of the risk, Lanfranchi said, “she would very well have been one of those women who would have chosen not to take the pill.”

The surgeon explained that the extra estrogen received by taking the pill not only encourages excessive multiplication of breast tissue - usually a normal occurrence in the menstruation cycle - but, when metabolized, can also directly damage breast tissue DNA.

Because breast tissue remains susceptible to cancer until it undergoes a stabilizing transformation in the childbearing process, said Lanfranchi, the pill is particularly dangerous to women who have not yet had their first child: perhaps the most popular demographic among pill users in the U.S.

To show just how much of a threat the pill posed to young women, Lanfranchi pointed to several statistics, including a 2006 Mayo Clinic meta-analysis that concluded that breast cancer risk rises 50 percent for women taking oral contraceptives four or more years before a full-term pregnancy. In 2009, the Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center found that women starting the pill before 18 nearly quadruple their risk of triple negative breast cancer. Even more shocking, Swedish oncologist Hakan Olsson concluded that pill use before the age of 20 increases a young woman’s breast cancer risk by more than 1000 percent.

“It’s like you took this molotov cocktail of a group one carcinogen and threw it into that young girls’ breast,” said Lanfranchi. “Is this child abuse?”

In a world where 50 percent of teenagers are on the pill, Lanfranchi lamented that publicly controverting the deep social dependence on the pill has become nearly impossible - even though the message would save countless women’s lives. She sympathized with doctors who would find the information hard to swallow.

“It’s hard to talk about this because you’re changing a culture ... I want to think that I did good, that I helped my patients, that I did better because of what I did,” she said. “25 years down in my career, when I hear that I’ve been handing out a group one carcinogen for the last 25 years, I’m going to be resistant to that.”


TOPICS: Business/Economy; Culture/Society; Government
KEYWORDS: contraception; lanfranchi; moralabsolutes
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-70 next last

1 posted on 12/07/2010 11:17:31 AM PST by NYer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: netmilsmom; thefrankbaum; markomalley; Tax-chick; GregB; saradippity; Berlin_Freeper; Litany; ...
Catholic Ping
Please freepmail me if you want on/off this list


2 posted on 12/07/2010 11:18:31 AM PST by NYer ("Be kind to every person you meet. For every person is fighting a great battle." St. Ephraim)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: NYer

Because breast tissue remains susceptible to cancer until it undergoes a stabilizing transformation in the childbearing process, said Lanfranchi, the pill is particularly dangerous to women who have not yet had their first child: perhaps the most popular demographic among pill users in the U.S.

____________________________________________________________

I didn’t know this either. Childbearing makes women less likely to have breast cancer?


3 posted on 12/07/2010 11:24:22 AM PST by November 2010
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: November 2010
I didn’t know this either. Childbearing makes women less likely to have breast cancer?

So does breastfeeding.
4 posted on 12/07/2010 11:26:07 AM PST by Carpe Cerevisi
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: November 2010
Childbearing makes women less likely to have breast cancer?

Absolutely. Childbearing reduces the risk of breast cancer. Link

5 posted on 12/07/2010 11:29:48 AM PST by SC DOC
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: NYer

BC was the only thing that helped my wife’s horrendous periods. They were literally debilitating. She could not work for 3-4 days while on her period until she was prescribed the pill 20 years ago.


6 posted on 12/07/2010 11:36:25 AM PST by hoyt-clagwell (5:00 AM Gym Crew)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Carpe Cerevisi

Isn’t it funny. If we use our bodies as they were designed to be used they are healthier?


7 posted on 12/07/2010 11:37:22 AM PST by brytlea (Jesus loves me, this I know.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: November 2010

“I didn’t know this either. Childbearing makes women less likely to have breast cancer?”

It’s a hormonal thing.

You have a higher rate of ovarian cancer if you are childless, also.

Breastfeeding is also a hormonal thing. Breastfeeding is best for mother and baby when possible.

By the time you have breastfed for seven years (total, not continual!) you have almost 0% chance of getting breast cancer.


8 posted on 12/07/2010 11:37:25 AM PST by Persevero (Homeschooling for Excellence since 1992)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: NYer

BUMP!
The BCP lobby is very clever the way they package their non-scientific studies.
Never using control groups containing women who have NEVER taken BCPs.


9 posted on 12/07/2010 11:38:32 AM PST by G Larry (When you're right, avoid compromise!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: hoyt-clagwell

Yes, hormones are often prescribed that way. It is not really natural for a female human to have periods every month year after year. Normally she would be pregnant or nursing for much of her life.


10 posted on 12/07/2010 11:39:38 AM PST by brytlea (Jesus loves me, this I know.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: NYer

More of the “Poison Fruit of the Tree of Liberalism”.


11 posted on 12/07/2010 11:40:44 AM PST by GladesGuru (In a society predicated upon freedom, it is essential to examine principles,)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SC DOC
Absolutely. Childbearing reduces the risk of breast cancer

Michelle Duggar is going to live to age 150....

12 posted on 12/07/2010 11:42:32 AM PST by hoyt-clagwell (5:00 AM Gym Crew)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: NYer
What a suprise.

Not.

13 posted on 12/07/2010 11:46:37 AM PST by Celtic Cross (I AM the Impeccable Hat. (AKA The Pope's Hat))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: NYer

Expect to see this reported on CBS, NBC, ABC and MSNBC—because they love you (and run tons of pharma commercials).

They love you so much and want you safe—LOL!


14 posted on 12/07/2010 11:50:05 AM PST by WKUHilltopper (Fix bayonets!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: hoyt-clagwell

She may have been (and could be) suffering from fibroids. A simple ultrasound will show if this is the case.


15 posted on 12/07/2010 11:56:31 AM PST by MeganC (January 20, 2013)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: brytlea
Yes, hormones are often prescribed that way. It is not really natural for a female human to have periods every month year after year. Normally she would be pregnant or nursing for much of her life.

She tried everything. We were both concerned about the cancer risk but when going through what she did that pretty much went out of the window. Her condition was so bad she even did some experimental clinicals at several universities but to no avail.

The last several years she has pretty much weaned herself off of BC as she enters into what Archie Bunker called "the change". (that was a great show)

16 posted on 12/07/2010 11:56:31 AM PST by hoyt-clagwell (5:00 AM Gym Crew)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: MeganC
She may have been (and could be) suffering from fibroids. A simple ultrasound will show if this is the case

I think that was probably checked with what she was going through. Alot of what she went through was before we were married so I don't know all the exact details. She had it under control by then for the most part.

17 posted on 12/07/2010 11:59:30 AM PST by hoyt-clagwell (5:00 AM Gym Crew)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: hoyt-clagwell
Absolutely. Childbearing reduces the risk of breast cancer

Most things, such as pregnancy (rather than childbirth), later menarche, earlier menopause, and breastfeeding, that suppress monthly cycles of ovulation, will reduce the risk of breast cancer. On the one extreme, all girls who began their menarche in their teens, got pregnant every other year for 20 years starting in their teen years, breastfed each baby for two years, and then entered menopause in their 30s would, as a group, have the lowest risk of breast cancer. On the other extreme, celibate nuns who went through menopause in their 60s would, as a group, have the highest risk of breast cancer.
18 posted on 12/07/2010 12:01:09 PM PST by aruanan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: NYer

A lot of women are on birth control due to endometriosis. My little niece just had to go on them. Poor little thing.


19 posted on 12/07/2010 12:05:45 PM PST by Paved Paradise
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Carpe Cerevisi

It is my understanding (and this is old news) that childbearing prevents a lot of things. A woman’s body was not meant to have so many menstrual cycles. However, let’s be honest and admit that many pregnancies also wreaks some havoc on women’s bodies as well and that doesn’t even count the risk of the labor and deliver aspect.

P.S. I AM Pro-Life!


20 posted on 12/07/2010 12:09:46 PM PST by Paved Paradise
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: hoyt-clagwell

You gotta do what you gotta do. Being a woman isn’t for wimps. ;)


21 posted on 12/07/2010 12:10:33 PM PST by brytlea (Jesus loves me, this I know.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: hoyt-clagwell

I brought it up because I was on the pill to deal with pain and when I went in for treatment of breast cancer it was only then that fibroids I’d had for a lifetime were found. When I had the hysterectomy the fibroids wrapped around my uterus and ovaries weighed almost ten pounds. Like I said, a simple ultrasound will show this but you have to insist that they look.


22 posted on 12/07/2010 12:10:48 PM PST by MeganC (January 20, 2013)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: brytlea

That is true in every way. Just like our sedentary lives. We were not meant to be so inactive.


23 posted on 12/07/2010 12:11:07 PM PST by Paved Paradise
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Paved Paradise

I suppose it’s a mixed bag. However, I had 3 children, and I didn’t find labor and delivery to be nearly the horror that many women make it out to be. 2 of mine were without medication (first one I let the doctors and nurses talk me into pain meds). Sure, things go wrong and everyone is an individual, but when I watch a woman on TV screaming her head off having a baby I always think either I’m super woman or that was really fake.


24 posted on 12/07/2010 12:18:04 PM PST by brytlea (Jesus loves me, this I know.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: Persevero

Whew - then I am safe!

Why does the left/science always want to defy nature?


25 posted on 12/07/2010 12:18:56 PM PST by 30Moves
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Paved Paradise

Hey, stop talking about me! ;)
No, you’re exactly right. If we all just had to have normal activity levels I bet most people wold be fairly healthy.


26 posted on 12/07/2010 12:19:07 PM PST by brytlea (Jesus loves me, this I know.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: hoyt-clagwell
(that was a great show)

It was. Poor Edith. She really did change (temporarily).

27 posted on 12/07/2010 12:21:42 PM PST by Faith
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: NYer

A pro-life group recently held a forum on this topic. Three doctors who refuse to prescribe birth control pills were on the the panel. Planned Parenthood was invited to be on the panel as well. They refused to attend. However, the media gave Planned Parenthood a huge amount of rebuttal time in their news write-up for the local paper. It was totally unnecessary for them to waste their time in the forum where they would lose their arguments, when they could simply spew their lies to the press and get them published as fact.


28 posted on 12/07/2010 12:27:37 PM PST by Faith
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: November 2010

Yes it does.The only thing worse than not having children is ending a pregnancy eapecially a first one before the age of 20 by abortion.So women who have done that and use the pill are basically doomed.I’m shocked by the 1000% increase that is very dramatic.


29 posted on 12/07/2010 12:29:56 PM PST by chris_bdba
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: NYer

bttt


30 posted on 12/07/2010 12:30:30 PM PST by The Californian (The door to the room of success swings on the hinges of opposition. Bob Jones, Sr.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: hoyt-clagwell

A hysterectomy would’ve had much less risk especailly if she’sbeen on the pll for the past 20 years.Many doctors recommend that women with her problems have as many kids as they want as quick as they can and then have the surgery.


31 posted on 12/07/2010 12:32:01 PM PST by chris_bdba
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: 30Moves

“Why does the left/science always want to defy nature?”

I guess because they hate its Author.


32 posted on 12/07/2010 12:34:07 PM PST by Persevero (Homeschooling for Excellence since 1992)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: MeganC
Like I said, a simple ultrasound will show this but you have to insist that they look.

It's a mute point for my wife right now because she is premenopausel and is off of the BC but good information for other women who may suffer with this condition.

33 posted on 12/07/2010 12:35:18 PM PST by hoyt-clagwell (5:00 AM Gym Crew)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: brytlea

There is a risk with the delivery - it has nothing to do with the screaming woman.

I had to do a survivorship study for a class I took. It was for species survival in humans. What I found was that in the 25 span of male/female born from 1880-1905 (way before we had the modern obstetrical methods), women died disproportionately to men during the childbearing years, even when factoring in the fact that the male mortality rate is higher. Once women passed the childbearing years and reached their late 50s, then the women surpassed the men significantly, which we even see today. There are much greater numbers of old women.

Even accounting for a host of other variables, the truth is that childbearing carries risk and it shows up statistically. It was a very interesting finding for me since I had thought the males would have had lower survivor rates (esp. due to war and farm accidents, etc.).


34 posted on 12/07/2010 12:36:02 PM PST by Paved Paradise
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: brytlea

I have seen women scream their head off during labor, and yes you are superwoman. It is such an individual thing- I had mine “natural” and it was more a case of hard work scooting those little ones out-but body build plays into it- my first OB doc told me my hips were made for having babies.

It also depends on how the woman is raised- I remember one mom telling the about to be new mother to hang on to her hand and scream as loud as she could- the mom got kicked out of the labor room and the new mother to be had her baby. I don’t remember where the dad to be was, but he was not there although he was in the picture.


35 posted on 12/07/2010 12:39:18 PM PST by handmade
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: NYer

WOW!


36 posted on 12/07/2010 12:43:54 PM PST by janereinheimer ((I can do all things through Him who strengthens me.))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Paved Paradise

Of course, that’s not what I said.


37 posted on 12/07/2010 12:51:48 PM PST by brytlea (Jesus loves me, this I know.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: handmade

One thing, it’s hard to scream and push effectively at the same time. In addition, women tend to like to tell how awful it was to other women and set them up for it before they ever get to that part. I won’t say it’s something I would do as a fun excursion, however, when I see young women scared to death and already set for what type of drugs they want before they are even pregnant, and then complaining about the expense, I have to wonder.
My preference would be to have a baby with medical help close at hand, but as little intervention as possible. My worst delivery was the one with the most medical intervention. It appears (from women I talk to) that fewer women have unmedicated deliveries than they did when I was having my children (30 years ago). And I’m not on a crusade at all, people should do what they want, I think the drugs they have are perfectly safe. But I also have to laugh (to myself) when I hear them complain about the expense, but they also want these expensive things, some of which they could probably do without. However, I’m not going to suggest against anything, because if something goes wrong....well, I don’t want that on my conscience.


38 posted on 12/07/2010 12:58:54 PM PST by brytlea (Jesus loves me, this I know.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: handmade

Oh, btw, my Mom and Mother in Law BOTH advised me to have drugs during labor. So, it certainly wasn’t how I was raised. ;)


39 posted on 12/07/2010 12:59:43 PM PST by brytlea (Jesus loves me, this I know.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: NYer

I’m not sure who this is news to, outside of the posters so far on this thread. It’s certainly not news to anyone who has inquired with a doctor about bc pills.

I am over 40, and have known for years that because I have an already high risk of breat cancer from genetic factors, no doctor would prescribe birth control pills to me. Nor will they prescribe BC pills for any women over 35 who smokes. Because of increases in breast cancer risk.

None of this is new. But I’m glad it makes some feel smug in their choices. :~)


40 posted on 12/07/2010 1:02:10 PM PST by HairOfTheDog
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: November 2010
I didn’t know this either. Childbearing makes women less likely to have breast cancer?

According to literature I've read, having your first baby before age 30, and then breastfeeding the baby, helps to protect against breast cancer.

41 posted on 12/07/2010 1:08:03 PM PST by Nea Wood (Silly liberal . . . paychecks are for workers!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: NYer; 185JHP; 230FMJ; AKA Elena; Albion Wilde; Aleighanne; Alexander Rubin; Amos the Prophet; ...
Moral Absolutes Ping!

Freepmail wagglebee to subscribe or unsubscribe from the moral absolutes ping list.

FreeRepublic moral absolutes keyword search
[ Add keyword moral absolutes to flag FR articles to this ping list ]

Where's the huge Breast Cancer organizations and pink ribbons and stuff on this? Hmm?

42 posted on 12/07/2010 1:08:15 PM PST by little jeremiah (Courage is not simply one of virtues, but the form of every virtue at the testing point.CSLewis)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: little jeremiah

Now they tell us.


43 posted on 12/07/2010 1:14:38 PM PST by combat_boots (The Lion of Judah cometh. Hallelujah. Gloria Patri, Filio et Spiritui Sancto.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: brytlea

Brytlea, one of my friends told me she screamed her head off during her first delivery. She said they could hear her miles away. You were very fortunate.


44 posted on 12/07/2010 2:42:03 PM PST by Paved Paradise
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: brytlea; Carpe Cerevisi
Isn’t it funny. If we use our bodies as they were designed to be used they are healthier?

Few realize that up until 1930, all Protestant denominations agreed with the Catholic Church’s teaching condemning contraception as sinful. At its 1930 Lambeth Conference, the Anglican church, swayed by growing social pressure, announced that contraception would be allowed in some circumstances. Soon the Anglican church completely caved in, allowing contraception across the board. Since then, all other Protestant denominations have followed suit. Today, the Catholic Church alone proclaims the historic Christian position on contraception.

Evidence that contraception is in conflict with God’s laws comes from a variety of sources. read more.

45 posted on 12/07/2010 2:58:33 PM PST by NYer ("Be kind to every person you meet. For every person is fighting a great battle." St. Ephraim)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Paved Paradise

I’m sure she did. I didn’t say women don’t scream. I didn’t say there was no pain. I didn’t say there was no mortality. On the other hand, some of the *horror* of childbirth is self perpetuated and created. Watch a group of women telling their horror stories. They try to top each other (and worse, they love to tell young women who have never had babies how awful it was). It’s not something you would choose to do for fun, but I’d rather have a baby without medication (without complications!) than sit and listen to Obama give a speech (ok that is a joke!). Seriously, I’ve had other procedures done that were at least as painful without painkillers (the injections they gave me into my back for back pain were MUCH worse to me than childbirth).
I think it depends on the woman, but it also depends to a GREAT extent on what the person is primed for. Few woman now go into childbirth thinking they could possibly do it without painkillers. The medical profession pushes painkillers, their friends push them, etc. I don’t really care, but I find it interesting. Human females mostly survived childbirth for thousands of years with little help other than other women and probably some sort of herbs. Some died, but most didn’t (or we wouldn’t be here). That’s all I’m saying. It’s a personal issue. I’m not even going to discuss it with my daughter’s in law. It’s a personal choice. Just an interesting thing. I seem to be the only person alive who thinks childbirth is not nearly as big a deal as it’s made out to be. And btw, my last baby was about 9 1/2 lbs, so it’s not like I pushed out tiny little preemies.


46 posted on 12/07/2010 3:03:45 PM PST by brytlea (Jesus loves me, this I know.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: HairOfTheDog

I don’t feel smug, but I am glad I had kids and nursed. I didn’t do it to staved off health problems, I did it because, well, I just seemed to get pregnant for some strange reason... ;)


47 posted on 12/07/2010 3:10:30 PM PST by brytlea (Jesus loves me, this I know.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: combat_boots

They still are hiding the fact that abortions contribute to breast cancer. And of course many (not sure if all or not, I’m no expert) BC pills are abortifacients.


48 posted on 12/07/2010 3:11:28 PM PST by little jeremiah (Courage is not simply one of virtues, but the form of every virtue at the testing point.CSLewis)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: Paved Paradise

I stopped prescribing the pill to women who have not yet carried a pregnancy to term when the Mayo Clinic report came out. I can’t see the justification in prescribing a known class 1 carcinogen to prevent a physiologic event (pregnancy). Are there women for whom the pill is an appropriate medical treatment like any other serious drug? Yes. After weighing the risks and benefits and informing the patient that we are recommending (or they are requesting) a course of treatment that may result in breast cancer.

For those struggling with spasmodic dysmennorhea ( a catch-all term for the most common types of extremely painful periods) daily thiamine supplementation has been shown in a double blind trial (the best type of study) to be very effective.


49 posted on 12/07/2010 5:45:34 PM PST by freebirth (If ignorance is bliss that could explain why I'm depressed.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: hoyt-clagwell

Great.

She did a cost benefit abalysis. She chose to accept the health risk (cancer) posed by the therapy ( the pill) because the therapy alleviated a serious health problem (debilitating menstrual periods).

But a healthy reproductive system is never a health problem. And pregnancy is not a disease or a health risk. Yet doctors continue to shove pills at women without telling them about this serious health risk (does anyone not doubt the serious breast cancer epidemic? those pink ribbons are on everything for a reason). And women keep whoring around offering sex without consequences to men who demand it.


50 posted on 12/07/2010 5:57:43 PM PST by Notwithstanding
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-70 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson