hormonal birth control - Page 3

Blinded By Side Effects: Vision and Hormonal Birth Control

Published on
14512 views
birth control and vision

I don’t know about you but my vision is pretty important to me. I’m using it right now to type this article. I use it all the time, every waking hour of the day (except maybe when I’m meditating). So when I read the Nelson Pill Hearings and I came across the testimony of Dr. Guttmacher, I was shocked.

“Now, in addition to the danger from thromboembolism which has been described to this committee on several occasions by several witnesses, I think that there are other dangers for the pill… such as high blood pressure, headache, depression, interference with vision, and so on.” (page 6566)

Wait… the birth control pill affects your vision??? How can that be? And how could he just say that in passing? Why did no one on the Senate committee stop him and make him explain that that statement? It turns out, just like diabetes, yeast infections and UTIs, depression, weight gain, and so many other side effects, no one had told me that my vision could be affected by using hormonal birth control.

How Hormonal Birth Control Affects Vision

Hormones affect every system of the body so perhaps it should come as no surprise that they can greatly impact your vision. In fact, it is the fluctuation in hormones that is the primary reason for worsening eyesight with age. So of course, manipulating the body’s natural chemistry by using hormonal birth control can cause a variety of vision problems.

Dry Eye

According to the National Eye Institute (NEI), “Dry eye occurs when the eye does not produce tears properly, or when the tears are not of the correct consistency and evaporate too quickly.” While usually more uncomfortable than dangerous, if dry eye is left untreated it can cause pain, ulcers, scars on the cornea, and in rare cases, some loss of vision.

The NEI also states that it can be temporary or chronic and that one of the causes of dry eye is medications such as birth control. Unfortunately, that means dry eye is often overlooked in young women and teen girls using the pill. As Dr. Reiser of the Cornea Institute at the Children’s Hospital of Los Angeles points out, doctors “may not even think of it, but these drugs are frequently prescribed to treat skin problems and dysmenorrhea. Some [ocular] symptoms can mimic what you see in menopausal women.”

We also see dry eyes as a side effect of women who’ve had hysterectomies. Robin Karr details her experience with it here. It’s obvious that eye health is linked to hormones but the vision problems associated with hormonal birth control don’t stop there. Dry eyes may be the least of our worries.

Glaucoma

Dry eye may be uncomfortable and inconvenient but glaucoma, another eye condition linked to hormonal birth control, can be much more dangerous. Glaucoma causes damage to the optic nerve and can lead to permanent loss of vision. Perhaps the scariest thing about glaucoma is that most patients have no symptoms and are only diagnosed when having an eye exam. A researcher and ophthalmologist from the University of San Francisco found that use of birth control pills for three years or longer doubles the risk of glaucoma.

The fact that glaucoma is the second leading cause of blindness and that there is no cure  is very disturbing. The American Optometric Association downplays the findings of this study and calls for more research. Yet, that seems to be the response to all of the research about the dangerous side effects of hormonal contraception. How much more research do we need to show that these medications are dangerous and dangerously over-prescribed? A woman could literally go blind from a medication she’s been prescribed to treat acne.

Retinal Occlusion

As someone who had a stroke while using hormonal birth control, this risk probably shouldn’t have come as a surprise to me. Retinal occlusion is a stroke of the eye caused by a blockage in the blood vessels of your retina. These blockages can be caused by blood clots, a well-researched and documented side effect of hormonal contraception. Like with a stroke of the brain, recovery isn’t guaranteed. Some people who suffer these retinal occlusions will never see again.

In fact, the risk with oral contraceptive use is so substantiated that you can find it in the “Practicing Ophthalmologists Curriculum Core Ophthalmic Knowledge” on the American Academy of Ophthalmologists website.

It should also be said that many of our Real Risk: Birth Control and Blood Clots study participants experienced vision changes before and during their blood clots. This was the case not just in the women who had had strokes but surprisingly also in the women who suffered pulmonary embolisms.

Seeing Clearly

I used birth control pills for 10 years and I never once had a healthcare professional- not my gynecologist, not my general practitioner, not my ophthalmologist- tell me that vision problems were a side effect. That Dr. Guttmacher mentioned it in passing at Nelson Pill Hearings seemed to indicate that the risk was well-known, even back in 1970. Current research supports that hormonal contraceptives adversely affect vision. Where does that leave us? What would you be willing to give up for a medication? Your physical health? Your mental health? Your libido? Your vision? Your life?

What else do we need in order to see that hormonal contraception is not worth it?

Real Risk Study: Birth Control and Blood Clots

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

Related posts:

birth control side effectsWe Cannot Ignore Birth Control Side Effects testing for clotting disordersWhy Aren’t Women Tested for Factor V Leiden and Other Clotting Disorders?

You might be interested in

Deconstructing Contraceptives: What Do We Really Know?

Published on
3605 views
contraceptives: tug of war

Over the last several weeks, I have been preparing a report regarding our research on birth control and blood clots. In doing so, I have been reviewing past work and stumbled upon my notes for the presentation that landed the grant allowing this research to begin. The talk was filmed, but the video is behind a paywall. So, I decided to post the notes and the presentation. Enjoy.

Birth Control, Big Money and Bad Medicine: A Deadly Trifecta in Women’s Health

As I considered how to put this presentation together, I struggled with where to begin, what to leave in, what to leave out. There is so much that needs to be understood about contraceptives that we could fill a week of lectures and discussions. What I kept coming back to, however, is the notion that if I can teach you how to think about contraceptives, or for that matter, any medical treatment, if I can teach you how to question and evaluate the research, how to find the answers that you need; if I can give you a foundation and a framework for understanding the science, the economics and the politics of this medication, then each of you can find your own answers, and perhaps, if you are so inclined, contribute back to the knowledge base, so that we all have a better understanding of these issues. And so it is from that perspective that I have decided to approach this discussion. I want to give you a foundation and a framework from which to build your own house of knowledge. Sounds a little corny, doesn’t it, but bear with me, learning how to think critically about medical science might just save your life or the life of a loved one.

The Framework of Knowledge

I have a background and a natural inclination towards philosophy. In other words, I tend to think about things a bit more deeply than perhaps I should. This gets me into trouble sometimes.

One of the questions that plague my thinking is ‘how we know what we think we know’. I find that more often not, pondering from where and from whom the knowledge, the science, the politics, even the historical interpretations come from, tells us a lot about what it is we know exactly and what we really have no business claiming knowledge of.

With hormonal contraceptives, and indeed, the entirety of women’s health, when we deconstruct what is known and detach it from how we know it, or at least how we think we know it, it becomes very clear, very quickly, that our knowledge is severely limited.

For example, did you know that most of the science on contraceptives was developed over 50 years ago before the thalidomide tragedies changed FDA regulations regarding women’s health? Did you know that after thalidomide, research involving women of childbearing potential was all but prohibited until the late 1990s?

The post-thalidomide regulations, when combined with the political quagmire that is female reproduction, all but eliminated research and development on hormonal contraceptives, with the large pharmaceutical industries preferring to make only slight changes to dosage or delivery method and focus almost entirely market saturation over all else.

Probably not, unless you study this stuff. But knowing this, understanding how we know what we know about hormonal contraceptives can tell us a lot about these products, even if you don’t know the science.

So, hormonal contraceptives didn’t get the safety research they deserved. Indeed, they did not and continue not to because of the perceived economic and political costs associated with contraceptive science is greater than the perceived benefits.

Why fund new science, when the old science is already approved and the market is mature, in the sense that women and physicians alike consider hormonal contraceptives safe, but more importantly, a necessary component of reproductive health?

The Objectivity Bias

Back to the topic of how we know what we know, not only do we have to consider the science behind these drugs, but we also must consider in what context the science emerged and whether and how that context introduces a bias that impedes our understanding.

I would argue that bias is inevitable, even fundamental to the scientific endeavor, even though we claim objectivity. Consider, for example, the process of research design. What questions are asked and not asked are dependent entirely on the researcher’s individual constructs about what the problem is. Defining the problem, or even whether there is a problem to be investigated, is informed by education, culture, society, advertising, marketing, and in more modern times, by research funding availability. In many ways, bias permeates every aspect of the scientific endeavor. And yet, we hold tightly to this notion that delineating science from every other pursuit of knowledge, is its objectivity, its lack of bias.

In science, in particular, we have exalted the notion of objectivity above all else. The experiments we do are meant to eliminate subjectivity, to eliminate chance and the variables that might confound our data so that we can say with some confidence that this or that treatment is safe and effective.

While these are laudable goals that have contributed largely to the great advancements we have in all fields of science and technology, I think, in some ways, we have taken this reliance on objectivity too far, so much so that we have lost the humanity, and indeed, the humility in our scientific endeavors. This fealty to what I would argue is a contrived reliance of objectivity, to controlled but abstracted data calculations, not only severely limits the scope of our understanding but also poses real risks to human and organismal health. We see evidence of this every day, when human illness mediated by a particular drug or environmental toxicant is viewed only in terms of averages. That is, when a drug evokes a reaction in only small fraction of those who use the medication, but appears not evoke that reaction in others (though I would argue that it evokes other reactions that we are simply not recognizing), then those reactions, those costs, are viewed as inconsequential. They are not statistically significant and because we forget that statistical significance is different that clinical significance, because supplant statistical significance, a mathematical abstraction for clinical and human significance, we fail to recognize the dangers of a particular medication.

And so when I approach medical science, or really anything, it is always with those two things in mind – how we know what we think we know, and how biases, mine and others, influence that knowledge. It is from that perspective, we’ll take our foray into the contraceptive conundrum.

My Biases

Because I believe biases are so important – let’s begin with my biases. We’ll then look at the biases in modern medicine and statistics and how those biases have informed how we know what we know about hormonal contraceptives. Finally, we’ll tackle what is known and what is not known about what hormonal contraceptives do and do not do to the body.

You already know a little about me from the bio I submitted and from the brief introduction. But let me insert myself into the research, give you some idea of the lens through which I understand medical research in general, and hormonal contraceptives, in particular. I stand here today as a woman who has used oral contraceptives and experienced side effects from them (but at the time had no clue about the connections between my health issues and the contraceptives, nor did any of the physicians I sought help from).

I am mom of 21 year old twins, a wife of 26 years and a lifelong jock (even at the ripe old age).

I am as a research scientist. I love figuring out how things work, and to me, figuring out how things work means not only going to down to the smallest possible unit of function – the molecule, the chemical pathways, but mapping the systems involved, not just of the target organ but across the entire body. I think I was an engineer in a former life.

I am writer, as I mentioned, with philosophical tendencies.

I am business owner, whose business involves understanding women’s health and healthcare.

Finally, I am fierce women’s health advocate. For too long, questions about women’s health have been ignored. I want to change that.

I should also mention, as someone who is involved in medication adverse events research, listening to patient stories, seeing the devastation that some of these medications can evoke, and then investigating the mechanisms by which these reactions can occur, I have become increasingly wary of pharmaceutical promises. Admittedly, in that regard, I am probably more biased than others. It is difficult not to be.

So it is this totality of experiences that color, not only my interpretation of data, but I think more importantly, the questions I ask about any given medication. When I look at the safety and efficacy of a drug, I want to know in real terms what the benefits versus the risks are to an individual.

Unfortunately, we don’t have that information for majority of medications on the market, especially for women, and most especially for hormonal contraceptives.

With that long introduction, let’s dig into the topic at hand.

Birth Control, Big Money and Bad Medicine: A Deadly Trifecta in Women’s Health from Hormones Matter

Add Your Experience to the Conversation

As a result of this presentation, we were awarded a grant to investigate the health risks associated with hormonal contraceptives. Some of the early results of the pilot study can be found here and here. You can help us delineate those risks further by adding your experiences to our growing database by taking part in the Real Risk Study and, if you are so inclined, sharing your health story on Hormones Matter.

Real Risk Study: Birth Control and Blood Clots

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

Related posts:

testing for clotting disordersWhy Aren’t Women Tested for Factor V Leiden and Other Clotting Disorders? No knowingHormonal Contraceptives: Do We Really Know What We Think We Know? women deserve betterDeconstructing Modern Illness: Idiopathic or Iatrogenic?

You might be interested in

The Real Risk Birth Control Study: Take Charge, Find Answers

Published on
4592 views
Birth Control Blood Clot Study

I recently read an article about how fewer women are taking birth control pills now. The article claimed:

“The reasons behind the shift are hard to pin down. Study after study has shown the pill is generally safe for most women, and is 99 per cent effective with perfect use. The pill’s safety has only improved since it was introduced in 1960. It is perceptions that are changing.”

This is completely untrue. It wasn’t safe in 1960 and it certainly isn’t any safer now. It’s also not true that study after study has shown it to be safe. At the Nelson Pill Hearings, the 1970 congressional hearings on the safety of the birth control pill, every doctor that testified agreed that more research was necessary. Yet, every modern study I have found (from research on depression, weight gain, diabetes and more) has said that even more research is necessary to make any conclusions. So in the 46 years since, we still don’t adequately understand the risks with hormonal contraceptives. Dr. Paul Meier, who testified at the hearings, spoke about the challenges of conducting said research:

“Of far greater concern to me is the failure of our governmental agencies to exercise their responsibilities in seeing to it that appropriate studies were carried out… Frankly, the required research, although important, is not especially appealing to scientists. It is not fundamental and it is not exciting. It is difficult, it is expensive, and it is fraught with the risk of attack from all sides.

Evidently, for whatever reasons, there is no sound body of scientific studies concerning these possible effects available today, a situation which I regard as scandalous.

If we proceed in the future as we have in the past, we will continue to stumble from one tentative and inadequately supported conclusion to another, always relying on data which come to hand, and which were not designed for the purpose.”

We can see that what Dr. Meier warned against is exactly what has happened. Experts testified in 1970 that the pill was linked to depression and possibly suicide. They warned that the pill should not be given to women with a history of depression. Yet, in 2004 when I was depressed after switching my brand of pill, my doctor told me that wasn’t a side effect. It wasn’t until last month that a European study on hormonal contraception said what no American study has dared. The pill is irrefutably linked to depression.

Unfortunately, depression is only ONE of the side effects of hormonal birth control. Obviously, blood clots are one of the most dangerous and why we are looking at them with this research study. Other side effects that were warned about at the Nelson Pill Hearings but for which the current research claims even more research is necessary include: diabetes, weight gain, cancer, loss of libido, urinary tract and yeast infections, lupus, infertility, hypertension. So no, studies do not actually show that “the pill is generally safe.” What studies show is that there STILL needs to be more research. Well, if they haven’t done it in the past 46 years, when are they going to do it?

As for the pill’s safety improving, just look the increased risk with newer formulations. Third and fourth generation pills have significantly higher risk for deadly blood clots.

“The problems with Yaz and its sister pills stem from drospirenone, a fourth-generation progestin.

After years of blood clot reports, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA), reviewed studies on oral contraceptives and found that an estimated 10 in 10,000 women on newer pills will experience a blood clot versus 6 in 10,000 with older pills.

Another study conducted by the French National Agency for the Safety of Drugs and Health Products (ANSM) found that birth control pills were linked to more than 2,500 cases of blood clots annually between 2000 and 2011. But third- and fourth-generation pills were responsible for twice as many deaths as earlier pills.

Two studies appeared in the British Medical Journal in 2011 and indicated newer pills were two to three times more likely to cause blood clots.”

Why would the pharmaceutical industry make newer birth control pills that are less safe? Maybe because once the patent runs out on medication they don’t make as much profit. So they change the formula and market it as a new and better pill. As history has shown though, there never seems to be enough research done before these products are approved. And women are paying the price. Dr. Ball warned of this at the Nelson Pill Hearings when he said (page 6500):

“Each time we change the dose or the chemical, you have a whole new ball game statistically, and then a long period of time has to go by for evaluation. Again, is it going to be just this unscientific, hand-out-the-pills-and-see-who-gets-sick business, which I say is wrong and which has been done. Each time there is a new pill, there is a new problem.”

Alas, that’s exactly the business that’s been taking place. Throw in the fact that doctors often dismiss the complaints from women as psychosomatic and you have a recipe for a completely misrepresented medication.

I don’t know about you but I’m tired of being a rube for the pharmaceutical industry. If we want to know what’s really going on with hormonal contraception, we’re going to have to start looking at it ourselves. We can’t wait for the government or the pharmaceutical industry to provide us with perfectly funded, unbiased research. They haven’t done that in the near 50 years since the Nelson Pill Hearings and there’s little indication they are going to start now. That’s why we’re conducting this research ourselves. We need information to help women assess what their REAL RISK is for taking a medication. Not what their doctors are telling them based on studies conducted by the pharmaceutical industry. The aim of this study is not to take away contraceptive options but to provide more accurate information about which women may have more risk for serious side effects like blood clots and which forms of hormonal contraception may be more dangerous than others.

It’s time to take charge of our health and find our own answers. That’s exactly what this research hopes to do but we need your help to do it. Please participate. And please share our study with those you know who might be willing to help. Thank you.

Take Charge: Participate in the Birth Control and Blood Clots Study

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

Related posts:

testing for clotting disordersWhy Aren’t Women Tested for Factor V Leiden and Other Clotting Disorders? birth control, blood clots and female athletesBlood Clots, Birth Control and Female Athletes: Are We Missing Important Risk Factors?

You might be interested in

Heart Attack and Death While Using Yaz Birth Control Pills

Published on
7683 views
Anne-Ammons-Life-1974-2009

Our daughter Anne L. Ammons died suddenly in her sleep Nov. 7, 2009.  Her family, friends, and acquaintances were shocked. Annie was a new lawyer who had recently been admitted to the Maryland Bar, but she was known for her athleticism. While in law school she was a physical trainer, and 8 minute, 5 mile runs were the norm for her until several months before her death.

Annie’s death remained a mystery for quite a while, since it took the Maryland state medical examiner 4 months to attribute her death to a microscopic heart attack.  It took her family–her parents, sister, brother, and brother-in-law only a week to discover Annie’s silent killer—the birth control pill Yaz.  All of the physical symptoms that Annie had been suffering since March, 2009, including the final one (sudden death) were and are a strong match for side effects listed in the FDA Yaz label.

Starting on Yaz

In March, 2009, after Anne regained health insurance through her employer, the nurse practitioner at her OB/GYN office prescribed Yaz off label when Anne complained of menstrual cramps and irregular periods. Anne had taken Yaz two years before, for about a year, until she lost medical coverage.

In May, Annie tore a muscle in her back and was prescribed extra strength ibuprofen. The Yaz product monograph warns in bold letters that women taking medications, such as ibuprofen, that may increase serum potassium should have their potassium levels checked while taking Yaz, but neither the doctor nor the pharmacy noticed this. About that time Annie also began complaining of hair loss and weight gain.

That summer Annie again saw the OB/GYN nurse practitioner for break through bleeding and a vaginal infection, both of which could be Yaz side effects. Anne was prescribed Diflucan, which is another medication that may increase potassium levels in those taking Yaz. The Yaz product monograph contains a warning about this as well, but again, neither her doctor nor her pharmacist noticed.

Dealing with Yaz Side Effects

As the summer progressed, Annie continued to gain weight. I, her mother, thought that it might be related to lunches out with her boss and wasn’t too worried. Her co-workers asked if she was pregnant; in retrospect, I think that she did look pregnant. Additionally, in August, Annie began complaining of insomnia and extreme fatigue; she saw a physician assistant at her newly acquired general practitioner’s office. She was prescribed Lunesta which she continued until the night of her death. This medication can affect heart rhythm so it may have also been a contributing factor in her death.

In September, a lab test showed elevated liver enzymes which can also be a Yaz side effect, and a condition that means that Yaz should be stopped.  When she revisited her GP, she was sent to an endocrinologist, who after hearing Annie’s symptoms and without ordering any tests stated that Annie’s weight gain was caused by fatty liver and prescribed metformin.  Also without any testing, basing her diagnosis on only Annie’s symptoms reporting and an inexplicable assessment of hirsutism, the endocrinologist wrote in her notes that Annie should stay on Yaz for PCOS (an off-label and unproven use). Later, several years after Annie’s death, the Maryland Board of Physicians would exonerate this endocrinologist of any wrong doing.

About this time Annie and I discussed her illness.  She thought that she might have adrenal fatigue (a condition not recognized by mainstream doctors) or that she too might have Lyme Disease.  Her sister, after ten years of suffering, had recently been diagnosed.  Annie and her sister had done a lot of hiking together; some of Anne’s symptoms did match her sister’s. As summer turned to fall, the weight gain continued and Annie seemed depressed. Thinking of seasonal affective disease. I suggested that she change bedrooms to one with increased daylight. I also wondered if changes in our living situation were at play; she and I had been roommates for about a year while her dad was away at school.  In addition, I wondered whether anxiety about finding a job as a lawyer (she was working at TESST college as a librarian) was also affecting her. But, I felt assurance that Annie’s problems would be figured out, since Annie was seeking help from medical doctors.

High Potassium Levels Due to Yaz

By the middle of October Annie was interviewing for lawyer positions and working hard at TESST to make the library nice since their state accreditation was looming.  Her spirits seemed improved, but still the weight gain was continuing. One afternoon she showed me a lab chit that reported high levels of potassium.  After her death, we learned that drospirenone (the progestin part of Yaz) can cause potassium levels to rise so dangerously high that the heart stops.  This can be the causality for “sudden death” as mentioned in the label, and we think that it was a factor in our daughter’s death.

However, after death, the mineral composition of the blood changes rapidly; therefore, it is impossible to prove that high potassium levels were involved. At any rate, Annie and I were ignorant at the time of the high potassium level and thought that high potassium might even be good since we were all taught that eating bananas is good for you.  On another occasion during late October, Annie asked me if I thought that her eyes were jaundiced. Although I didn’t see it, this may have been the case, especially since her liver enzymes were elevated. Jaundice is another serious Yaz side effect listed in the product monograph. Another time, Annie complained that her heart had been racing and asked me if I had ever experienced such a symptom.

The Week Leading up to Annie’s Death

Then came the week before Annie’s death.  My husband Rick stayed home from work one morning with intestinal flu-like symptoms (he never stays home sick); the next day Annie reported having thrown up.  She said that she had a strange pain in her stomach; it just didn’t feel right.  We both deduced that it must be a flu since her dad had also been ill.  That night she complained of numbness in her left arm.  Annie and I both thought of her torn back muscle in May and of her neck surgery a couple of years prior and thought that the pain could be related to one of those conditions. I wanted to take her to the emergency room, but she strongly declined.  If only I had insisted; that numbness was most probably a sign of her tiny heart attack.  Months later the medical examiner would explain to me that her heart had showed signs of healing; she must have had a heart attack several days before she died.

The day before Annie died she asked for my input about whether she should attend a special friend’s birthday party the next night or if she should go to a OB/GYN doctor’s appointment.  We both decided on the birthday party.  Again, if only at the time we had known. However, given that her doctors had ignored some of the serious side effects of Yaz that she was already experiencing, it may be that nothing would have been different even if she had gone to the appointment.

She returned from the party late that Friday evening; I got up and we both had the best time watching a particularly funny episode of Jay Leno.  I awoke around 4 am and found her still asleep in the family room recliner. When we awoke around 8:00 am, she had gone to her room and we went out to perform Saturday morning errands.  When we returned, I could not rouse her; her father frantically tried CPR, but it was too late.

Tragedies Caused by Hormonal Birth Control

I have had a horrible time since my baby’s death especially since we have discovered that no one in a position of authority cares enough to stop the production of these dangerous hormonal birth control pills.  And it’s not only Yaz and its sister drospirenone pills that kill and maim (strokes, pulmonary embolisms, and heart attacks occur) but also other hormonal pills and devices put on the market since the early 2000’s cause similar tragedies.  A friend of ours whose daughter died due to Nuvaring-induced pulmonary embolisms, took MEDWATCH reports and worked with a statistician to discover that between 600 and 800 American women die each year as a result of hormonal birth control in the United States.  As we continue to tell our story and to advocate for change, I pray that one day our voices will be heard so that so many lives will not be taken or ruined.

Real Risk Study: Birth Control and Blood Clots

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

Related posts:

birth control side effectsWe Cannot Ignore Birth Control Side Effects testing for clotting disordersWhy Aren’t Women Tested for Factor V Leiden and Other Clotting Disorders?

You might be interested in

Birth Control and Breast Cancer: A Classic Cover-up

Published on
7821 views
Breast Cancer Cover-up

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

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

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

Hormonal Birth Control: Fertilizer for Breast Cancer

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Message Control

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Cures Not Causes

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

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

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

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

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

Jim Hightower continues:

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

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

[atkp_product id=’48881′ template=’bestseller’][/atkp_product]

We Need Your Help

More people than ever are reading Hormones Matter, a testament to the need for independent voices in health and medicine. We are not funded and accept limited advertising. Unlike many health sites, we don’t force you to purchase a subscription. We believe health information should be open to all. If you read Hormones Matter, like it, please help support it. Contribute now.

Yes, I would like to support Hormones Matter.

Photo by Kristina Flour on Unsplash.

Related posts:

Gastrointestinal tract and thiamineGastrointestinal Disease and Thiamine Spin doctor birth controlThe Spin Doctor’s Prescription for Birth Control Secondary Hyperoxaluria -oxalate accumulationSecondary Hyperoxaluria: When Dietary Oxalate Accumulates testing for clotting disordersWhy Aren’t Women Tested for Factor V Leiden and Other Clotting Disorders?

You might be interested in

Medical Dismissal: Pulmonary Embolism on the Birth Control Pill

Published on
3599 views

My name is Leslie, and I’m now 35 years old and living in Chicago with my partner and 19-month-old daughter. More than a decade ago, in 2003 when I was just 23, I was living in Washington DC and working my first job after college. I had just joined a small firm that did research, and I was traveling by car to rural areas in the Midwest and South to conduct surveys and focus groups. My partner was living in Ohio, so I also made frequent car trips to visit him. I had never had any serious health problems. I was always in good health, and although I was 5 pounds above a healthy BMI thanks to the unhealthy habits of grad school, I was exercising regularly (three workouts a week at Curves, plus walking as part of my commute each day) and eating well. I was also taking birth control pills, a brand called Mircette that I would later learn is classified as a “3rd generation pill,” which was associated with higher rates of blood clots such as deep vein thrombosis and pulmonary embolism.

The Start of Symptoms

Just six weeks into my job, following a trip that included some 15 hours driving over the course of a few days, I began to feel a soreness across my chest. It was an ache, not unlike the soreness you might feel from doing push-ups, but without the tenderness-to-touch, and I hadn’t been doing chest exercises. I also started to notice I felt out of breath from little exertion, like walking the 50 feet from my desk to the front office. It seemed odd, but it was only when I got a terrible headache a week later that I started to think maybe I should see a doctor.

Dismissed and Misdiagnosed Twice by Medical Professionals

It was a Friday afternoon, and, new to the area, I hadn’t yet established a primary care doctor, so I went to the urgent care clinic at my HMO.  The doctor took an x-ray that came back negative and an EKG that was normal. She said I might be coming down with a cold, which can cause chest soreness and the headache, so to go home and rest and see my doctor if it had not cleared up in a few days or if my symptoms changed. I felt satisfied with that and went home for the weekend.

But the pain got worse.  It transformed into a sharp pain in my side and the back of my shoulder, near my neck.  Still, I didn’t want to go back to the urgent care because I didn’t want to appear silly.  But on Monday morning as I was waiting for the bus to go to work, I coughed a phlegmy cough into a tissue. I was shocked to look at the tissue and see bright red.  I knew something must be wrong, but I had no idea what. When I got to work, I called the HMO and made an appointment with a nurse practitioner, who had an opening the next morning.  It was now a week and a half since the onset of symptoms.

At the appointment, I gave my short description to the intake nurse: earlier chest wall pain that was now pain in my side and upper back, shortness of breath, and a few bloody coughs.  Yet when the nurse practitioner came in, the first thing she said to me was,

“Well, they didn’t find anything wrong with you on Friday, and I’m not going to find anything today, but I’ll examine you anyway.”

With an attitude like that, is it any wonder she completely misdiagnosed me? I was in tears from the pain when she asked me to take deep breaths while she listened to my chest. I was freezing cold under the a/c vent in the flimsy hospital gown they gave me. Yet, she lectured me on my huddled posture, told me my exercise regimen was inadequate, and said I had strained a muscle reaching for the telephone at work—that’s how she explained the chest pain; they were merely weakened muscles strained by reaching for the phone. The bloody cough? She couldn’t see a laceration in my throat, so it must be postnasal drip. Her strict instructions were to go home, apply moist heat, take over-the-counter pain killers, and not to return to the doctor for two weeks.

Diagnosis of Pulmonary Embolism

I went home distraught. I knew something was wrong. Google searches for chest pain and bloody cough consistently came back with pulmonary embolism, but I found that so hard to believe.  I called my close friend who was in medical school. “Go to the emergency room now!” she told me.  But I still hesitated—the nurse practitioner was so insistent that nothing was wrong and made me feel like a hypochondriac. I compromised by calling area doctors’ offices until I found a doctor who would see me that day. Thankfully, I had great health insurance so the cost wasn’t a barrier (I was, after all, bearing college debt and had just financed an interstate move).

The doctor was a kind, fatherly man who heard a decreased amount of air in my right lung when he listened to me breathe. “Probably just a collapsed lung—don’t worry, that’s not as bad as it sounds.” He scheduled an x-ray the next afternoon. This time, the x-ray showed a spot on my lung. The doctor called to tell me and said it could be pneumonia and ordered a CT scan for the following day.

I went to the outpatient wing of the hospital and was the last patient to be scanned that day. It was two weeks after the onset of symptoms. After a couple hours of waiting for the CT results (there was a malfunction with the equipment that sent the scan to a doctor in another wing to read), the doctor walked over to our wing to read the scan. While I waited, I walked over to the door where he and the technicians sat looking at my results. I’ll never forget the shocked look on his face.  The technician quickly whisked me to a chair out of view. After a couple minutes she brought me back and the doctor calmly explained I had a bilateral pulmonary embolism blocking most of my right lung and part of my left, showing me an image on the monitor of grayish masses covering my lungs.

One of the techs wheeled over a wheelchair to take me to the emergency room immediately. “Oh, I can walk,” I told him. No, they insisted I be wheeled. I knew it was serious when he wheeled me through a packed emergency room, straight past the nurses’ station, and to an empty bed waiting for me. No one gets a bed in a packed ER unless she is really sick.

Still, when I called my parents to tell them what was going on, I insisted they not make the 8-hour drive until the next morning. I told my partner, busy with his graduate classes, that I was fine and not to come. The gravity of what happened didn’t sink in for several days.

Five days later I was released from the hospital.  I was diagnosed with a bilateral PE and was found to have Factor V Leiden, homozygous, an inherited condition predisposing me to clotting, that I got from both parents. This disorder had been discovered 7 years before my clot and gave me a roughly 80-fold increased risk of clotting. They also diagnosed me with Vitamin K deficiency, although that was later found to be incorrect; the blood-thinning drugs they put me on caused a false positive.

Recovery and Ongoing Risks

My treatment was to take Coumadin, an anticoagulant, and have regular blood checks. My chest continued to hurt for months. Hiccups made me fall to the floor in pain (literally) for the first couple weeks. There was no evidence of a deep vein thrombosis that could have caused a clot to travel to my lung, and I never noticed symptoms of one, but they could say one must have existed in order for the clots to travel to my lungs from elsewhere in my body.

After two years, I went to see a specialist who agreed I could discontinue the Coumadin as long as I practiced excellent prophylaxis, including taking a blood thinning shot whenever I take long car or plane trips. I wanted to get off the Coumadin because, ironically, my father had developed his first DVT while driving the 8 hours to see me in the hospital; his second clot came a year and a half later, and the Coumadin therapy that followed led to a fatal brain hemorrhage. I did not want to be on Coumadin if I could avoid it, and the specialist judged that I had a slightly higher risk of a dangerous bleed on Coumadin than I had of a clot off of it.

12 years later, I’m living a normal life, but I can never go on hormonal drugs again. It was several years before I learned not to panic every time I felt a twinge in my lungs.

When I was prescribed hormonal contraception, there was no family history to tell me I had a hereditary clotting condition, and it wasn’t even a thought to avoid traveling for work for health reasons (what healthy person would think of that?). Going onto hormonal birth control made my body a ticking time bomb, but no one knew that until the bomb went off.  I’m lucky to be alive.

Real Risk Study: Birth Control and Blood Clots

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

Related posts:

Birth control induced pulmonary emboliBirth Control Induced Pulmonary Emboli: Sudden and Slow birth control side effectsWe Cannot Ignore Birth Control Side Effects

You might be interested in

Blood Clots: What Women Know Versus What We Should Know

Published on
5233 views

I was on the birth control pill for ten years. I knew that it could cause blood clots in women over 35 who smoked. I wasn’t over 35 and I didn’t smoke. That was all I thought I needed to know. Then I had a stroke. It was caused by the pill and a genetic clotting disorder I never knew I had. In fact, I didn’t know there was such a thing as clotting disorders or that I could have one or that in combination with hormonal birth control, it could kill me. And I certainly had no idea what the symptoms of a blood clot were.

What Do We Know? Not Too Much, It Appears

When I began to do research for my thesis, I wanted to know if it was just me or if other women who took the pill were also unaware of clotting disorders and of the symptoms of a blood clot. Spoiler: I wasn’t alone in my ignorance.

I surveyed over 300 women who had taken birth control pills. Among other things, I wanted to know:

  • What did women know about the risks associated with the pill?
  • Were they aware of clotting disorders?
  • Did they know the symptoms of a blood clot?

Survey Results

Neither Women Nor Their Doctors Understand Risks for Blood Clots

The results of the survey showed that women do not clearly understand the risks involved with taking birth control pills. Many of them believe that certain risks are only associated with being over 35 years of age and/or smoking. This is not surprising given that only a little over half said their doctor discussed the risks with them before giving them a prescription. And for a majority of the women, their doctor never discussed other birth control options with them.

Most of the women were asked about their family history before being given a prescription, but fewer than half of their doctors actually discussed it with them, and fewer than a third of the women actually read the risk information that accompanies their prescriptions. That’s not surprising given how dense and misleading the pharmaceutical companies have made risk communication.

When asked whether they were familiar with the symptoms of a blood clot, most women (60.5%) admitted that they were not. Eight women responded that they had learned the symptoms because a family member or friend had a blood clot, and two participants said they had actually had blood clots. One stated, “When I experienced chest pain and did research online. It turned out that I had pulmonary embolisms (while on BCP- birth control pills).” Only 6 out of 311 women reported learning about the symptoms of blood clots from their doctor. Ironically, more women knew someone who had a clot.

At the end of the survey, the participants were invited to share anything further about their experience on the pill. Here are some of their answers:

My experience on birth control pills, the Nuvaring, or Depo-Provera all proved to be horrendous… I think birth control pills came straight from hell and I hate, hate, hate it. I would rather undergo Chinese water torture daily thank take birth control, and that is the God’s honest truth… My fertility has been affected forever by my under informed choice to go on birth control, and by the irresponsible doctors who encouraged me to switch methods rapidly “until I found what worked for me.”

 

I’ve had two different GYNs give me completely contradictory information about the side effects and dangers of BCPs… Overall, I’m surprised at how little doctors seem to know about female BCP- I haven’t experienced this amount of ambiguity with any other medical specialty or problem.

 

I was shocked- and grateful- when I finally found a doctor who discussed alternatives with me, suggested a wide variety of reading, and let me do my own research and make my own decision before wiring[sic] a prescription. After doing the reading, there is no way I will ever take another birth control pill in my life. Every other doctor I had acted like it was giving out Altoids…

 

I think they’re too often the first option doctors prescribe for reasons other than birth control. That’s frustrating. They’re not a magic pill and some doctors seem to think they are.

The bottom line is that most women do not fully understand the risks involved with taking birth control pills and they are not familiar with the symptoms of a blood clot.

At my thesis defense, when I mentioned that most women (over 60%) did not know the symptoms of a blood clot, my advisor asked, “Well, I don’t think that’s so unusual. Do you think most people know what the symptoms of a blood clot are?”

“No, but I think people who have been prescribed a medication that greatly increases their risk of blood clots should be informed of the symptoms,” I responded.

Who Is Responsible?

This is a simple question with a complicated answer. Who is responsible for making sure women who use hormonal contraceptives, especially women who are at a much higher risk for blood clots, understand the symptoms and when to get help? Is it the responsibility of the doctor who prescribed the medication? Or is it the responsibility of the pharmaceutical company to provide clearer information? Or is it the responsibility of the patient?

From my personal experience, I now know that I cannot trust my doctor to always make the right diagnosis and provide the right treatment. Most of their information comes from the pharmaceutical industry who have clearly demonstrated that they put profit first. And our research is showing that their information is not correct. Therefore, I cannot rely on the drug companies to make sure they provide me with accurate and straightforward information about their medications.

So that leaves me. And you. Until we demand a system that puts patients first, a system of health and transparency, we have to put ourselves firsts. How? We do that by listening to our bodies, doing the research, and learning to trust our intuition. That may mean we have to disagree with our doctors. That may mean we have to ask for a second opinion. That may mean we have to insist on being heard. We can’t be afraid of offending someone or “rocking the boat.” We can’t be afraid of being considered hysterical or melodramatic. We can no longer sit back and hope others are making the best decisions for us. We have to educate ourselves. We must be our own advocates. Our lives depend on it.

And we can start by learning the symptoms of a blood clot.

What Are the Symptoms of Blood Clots?

 Blood clot in leg:

  • swelling
  • pain
  • tenderness
  • an unusually warm sensation in the affected area
  • an unusually cold sensation in the affected area (this is per our research, more details to follow)
  • pain in your calf when you stretch your toes upward
  • a pale or bluish discoloration

Blood clot in chest:

  • sudden shortness of breath that can’t be explained by exercise
  • chest pain, may feel like extreme heart burn
  • palpitations, or rapid heart rate
  • breathing problems
  • coughing up blood
  • dizziness (per our research)
  • uncharacteristic fatigue (per our research)

Blood clot in the brain:

  • severe headache
  • loss of speech
  • numbness or tingling of limbs
  • difficulty seeing or changes in vision
  • difficulty speaking or finding words

For more information about blood clots, especially in conjunction with hormonal contraceptive use, click here.

Related posts:

testing for clotting disordersWhy Aren’t Women Tested for Factor V Leiden and Other Clotting Disorders? birth control, blood clots and female athletesBlood Clots, Birth Control and Female Athletes: Are We Missing Important Risk Factors? Birth control induced pulmonary emboliBirth Control Induced Pulmonary Emboli: Sudden and Slow

You might be interested in

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

Published on
6613 views
Nelson Pill Hearings - the pill

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

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

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

The Antiheroes of Birth Control

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

Barbara Seaman: The Feminist

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

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

“Never before in history have so many millions of people taken such a powerful and unnecessary drug.”

“You cannot long knock any natural system out of balance without doing some harm, – whether it shows up immediately or years later. Furthermore, many of these pill-caused metabolic disturbances are progressive. The longer a woman stays on the pill the more her laboratory tests are altered.”

“I believe that many of the women using the pill would switch to alternative methods if they knew the extent of the already-documented body pollution the pill is causing.”

Why has the suggestive evidence about the two most frightening possibilities – cancer and genetic damage, been generally withheld from the public, including physicians?

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

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

Morton Mintz: The Reporter

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Ben Gordon: Lead Staffer for Senator Nelson

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

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

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

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

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

Taking Up the Torch

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

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

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

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

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

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

The truth behind Dr. Corfman’s statement remains,

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

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

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

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

[atkp_product id=’48881′ template=’bestseller’][/atkp_product]

We Need Your Help

More people than ever are reading Hormones Matter, a testament to the need for independent voices in health and medicine. We are not funded and accept limited advertising. Unlike many health sites, we don’t force you to purchase a subscription. We believe health information should be open to all. If you read Hormones Matter, like it, please help support it. Contribute now.

Yes, I would like to support Hormones Matter. 

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

Related posts:

thiamine dependencyThiamine Deficiency and Dependency Syndromes: Case Reports Spin doctor birth controlThe Spin Doctor’s Prescription for Birth Control side effects of the pillI Wish I Knew Then What I Know Now About the Pill birth control side effectsWe Cannot Ignore Birth Control Side Effects

You might be interested in

1 2 3 4 5 6