oral contraceptives - Page 2

Blood Clots while on Hormonal Contraceptives: Fact or Fear Mongering?

Published on
10.3K views
Julia & Mom

A few weeks ago, someone posted a news article on Facebook about another young woman who almost died from her hormonal birth control. One Facebook commenter made a remark that she hated the fear mongering that goes on about hormonal birth control in the news. I, on the other hand, truthfully wish more women knew what to fear. My 29-year-old daughter Julia died in 2013 from massive bi-lateral pulmonary embolisms while using NuvaRing as her birth control. We had just celebrated her marriage to a wonderful young man. Julia had been married exactly five weeks on the day she died. I cannot even begin to describe the grief we feel about her death to this day.

That Facebook comment made me think about what I now see as the fear mongering that the medical community engages in when they insist that the risk of blood clots during pregnancy and postpartum (after delivery) must always be mentioned to put the risk of blood clots “in perspective.” I began to wonder if we really know enough about the risks of blood clots with hormonal contraceptives.

Beyond Fearmongering: Learning from the Families who Lost Loved Ones to Hormonal Contraceptives

My daughter’s death led me to meet Joe Malone whose 23-year-old daughter Brittany died in 2012, also while using NuvaRing. Our daughters’ deaths have taken us on a long and frustrating journey to learn more about combination hormonal contraception (CHCs) and why our daughters died.

Joe and I understand why the medical community wants to make sure that women use some form of birth control. Maternal mortality is very high, especially in third-world countries. There are many health complications and dangers for women during pregnancy and in the weeks after delivery from a variety of causes. The risk of a blood clot is high. However, we now see how the information given about the risks for blood clots during pregnancy and postpartum is presented in such a way that seems intent on scaring women into taking hormonal contraceptives. There is little discussion about safety between the various types of hormonal birth control (pill, patch, ring, IUD or shot), or other options, such as a copper IUD or other non-hormonal methods. Every hormonal contraceptive and every formulation is pronounced safe and the risk of a serious event is declared rare.

Women are told to talk with their healthcare provider about these risks to learn more. We have found that this suggestion is insufficient because many of these providers themselves, do not understand the different risks associated with each contraceptive formulation/brand.

Inevitably, accompanying any mention of risk from a hormonal contraceptive is the stark warning that the danger of a venous thromboembolism (VTE) – a blood clot in leg or lung) is higher while pregnant or postpartum. We have learned the hard way that the risk of a blood clot may be higher, but the possibility of death from a PE while using combined hormonal contraception is even greater.

Risk for Blood Clots with Hormonal Contraceptives versus Pregnancy or Postpartum

After careful review of data from various governmental and independent agencies (see below for discussion), we now believe that the overemphasis on the risk of VTE in pregnancy creates a false sense of security regarding the safety of combined hormonal contraceptives compared to pregnancy. It minimizes the reality that something very dangerous can happen to a small, but recognizable, percentage of women who use hormonal contraceptives. Women are led to believe that hormonal contraceptives are much safer than being pregnant due to the VTE risk in pregnancy. Women are not instructed on how to recognize the early warning signs of a dangerous and potentially deadly blood clot, and sadly, we also discovered that neither are their doctors. According to data from the CDC,

more U.S. women died from pulmonary embolisms while using a combination hormonal birth control than from pulmonary embolisms while pregnant or postpartum in 2011.

There were approximately 69 deaths in the U.S. from pulmonary embolisms during pregnancy and post-partum in 2011 (the latest date for which these numbers are available), compared with approximately 307 deaths due to pulmonary embolisms for women who used a combined hormonal contraceptive pill, patch or ring in 2013 in a recent analysis Joe and I completed. A full analysis is posted on BirthControlSafety.org.

We believe the reason there are fewer deaths from a pulmonary embolism during pregnancy is that most women who are pregnant or have recently given birth are monitored much more carefully than women who use hormonal contraceptives. A woman who utilizes birth control pills, patches or a ring is seen only annually by her physician and very rarely advised of the signs and symptoms of blood clots.

When signs of potential blood clots emerge, such as chest pain, difficulty breathing or leg pain, women are told that they have bronchitis, pneumonia, asthma or a pulled muscle. You can read first-hand accounts from both men and women on a site called stoptheclot.org. When you read these stories, you hear how the medical community has a very difficult time diagnosing deep vein thrombosis or pulmonary emboli. People who go to their doctor with the symptoms of a blood clot in their lungs or leg, are more likely than not, told to take an antibiotic, a pain reliever or muscle relaxant and come back later. For many, later is often too late.

Women Who Die from Contraceptive Induced Blood Clots

Our review of the data suggest more U.S. women die from VTEs while using a combined hormonal contraceptive than during pregnancy or postpartum. This is in contrast to what is commonly reported.

Tragically, a significant number of women do die during pregnancy and the postpartum period, but they die from a variety of reasons that have nothing to do with a pulmonary embolism. You can read the list of other reasons that women die while pregnant or postpartum in the list from the CDC website. Some of the reasons for these deaths are preeclampsia, hemorrhage, and complications of caesarean section: many conditions that only occur during pregnancy or postpartum.

A 2015 study by Vinogradova, Coupland, and Hippisley-Cox published in the British Medical Journal on the use of combined oral contraceptives and risk of venous thromboembolism [8] put the risk at an even higher rate than the rates we used from the European Medicines Agency (EMA). So it is likely that we underestimated death rates associated with contraceptive induced blood clots.

Next time you read the disclaimer that “Pregnancy and the postpartum period puts a woman at higher risk for a VTE” maybe you’ll remember that this claim may not be entirely true. From what we can tell, more women die of a pulmonary embolism while using combination hormonal birth control than while pregnant or in the postpartum. Hopefully, women will become better educated to take care of their health issues before, during, and after pregnancy. In the meantime we need to educate every woman about what combined hormonal contraceptives do to a woman’s body.

Calculating the Risk for Death by Venous Thromboembolism

The CDC monitors Maternal Mortality and publishes figures on their website. For all deaths reported in 2011, “702 were found to be pregnancy-related.” This total includes deaths that occurred for a full year after childbirth [1] they also report that 9.8% of maternal deaths during pregnancy and postpartum are attributed to thrombotic pulmonary embolism. We calculated that a 9.8% rate equaled 69 deaths in 2011. At present, there are no published mortality figures from the CDC for 2013.

It is difficult to find the number of women who die from a blood clot in their lungs while using a hormonal contraceptive. The FDA’s Adverse Event database is voluntary, inconsistent and difficult to interpret. Some columns, such as the Outcome column are left blank. Even the FDA has acknowledged in the past that only 10 to 15% of adverse events are reported [2]. The FDA requires that pharmaceutical companies report adverse events, but no one else is required to report to the FDA or even to the pharmaceutical companies. Many healthcare professionals do not bother to report to the FDA, and it is unknown if they report anything to the pharmaceutical companies.

To try to understand the number of deaths caused by blood clots in the lungs, we relied on the VTE rates that the European Medicines Agency (EMA) publishes. In 2014, the EMA circulated a table of VTE rates [3].  This table gives a range for each type of progestin hormone involved in each of the combined hormonal contraceptives.

In the U.S., the FDA allows companies to put a chart on the package inserts listing estimates of venous thromboembolism which are currently estimated at 3-12 events per 10,000 women, but that number is lumped together for all formulations of hormonal contraceptives. By combining the rate of blood clot for each of the different types of hormonal contraceptive, it is impossible to look more deeply at the figures, especially at which hormones might be causing more blood clots. The EMA information allows this type of review.

We also purchased the prescription data from IMS Health and used information from the CDC to determine the number of women in 2013 that used different combination hormonal birth control products. IMS Health is a leading global information and technology services company, providing prescription drug data to a variety of corporations, and groups, including the FDA. The EMA gives a range of VTE rates based on the type of progestin hormone used, illustrated in Table 1.

Table 1: EMA Risk of Developing a Blood Clot.

Table 1- EMA Risk of developing a blood clot (VTE) in a yearBecause the number of deaths while using a combined hormonal contraceptive is unknown, we decided to calculate how many women might die. We used information from the reference book Contraception Technology [3], which says that 66% of women with a VTE will have a deep vein thrombosis and 33% with a VTE will have a pulmonary embolism. They cited a death rate of 6% for women with a DVT, and a death rate of 12% for women with a pulmonary embolism.

Using the data for contraceptive methods published in 2013, which is very similar to the CDC’s 2011 data, we calculated that there were approximately 11,000,000 women using a hormonal contraceptive that contained an estrogen and a progestin. The basic information is shown in Table 2.

Table 2: Comparing VTE Impact (estimated) across 2nd – 4th Generation Combination Hormonal Contraceptives for U.S. Women in 2013.

Table 2 Data Points

Next we calculated the estimated number of women potentially affected with a VTE, DVT, or PE using both the low and high EMA rates. We then calculated an average of these numbers. The estimated average number of deaths in 2013 from a pulmonary embolism is 307 deaths. This does not include deaths from a deep vein thrombosis, stroke, cerebrovascular accident, or hemorrhage or any other cause triggered by a combined hormonal contraceptive. Table 1 looks at the estimated rate of VTEs for different generations of contraceptives while Table 3, shows our calculations for VTEs, DVTs or PEs events [5].

Table 3: Calculations for VTEs based on type of progestin.

Table 3- Comparing Annual VTE rate

Joe Malone recently calculated the number of deaths in another way. He took the number of U.S. births in 2013, published by the National Center for Health Statistics[6], and numbers from a study by A.H. James [7] who stated that “VTE accounts for 1.1 deaths per 100,000 deliveries, or 10% of all maternal deaths.”

Using information from James’ study, Joe calculated that approximately 43 women died because of a VTE in 2013. (See Table 4). This number is far lower than the 307 women we calculated to have died in our analysis of women on combined hormonal contraceptives. The lower number of deaths in James’ study may be due to several factors. For example, James’ study was of deliveries, not pregnancies. The number of deliveries likely is lower than the number of women who become pregnant. Another factor might be that the number of deaths reported on the CDC website of pregnant women includes women who died up to one full year after giving birth, which would result in higher totals.

Table 4: Comparison of VTE Related Deaths – Pregnancy & CHC Use

Table 4 Pregnancy & CHC deathsBy whatever numbers we used, however, the death rate attributed to blood clots was higher in women using hormonal contraceptives than in pregnancy or postpartum. Moreover, the death rate was significantly higher. By continuing to suggest that the risk for blood clots, and indeed, death as a result of those blood clots, is higher in pregnant and postpartum women than in women using hormonal contraceptives, we place the health and well-being of millions of women in danger; and for some, this risk is deadly.

When I think about the fear mongering comment made in regards to an article about hormonal contraceptive safety, I cannot help but wonder if more information were made available, fewer families would experience the loss of a daughter, wife or mother. Understanding the real risks associated with a medication shouldn’t be considered fearmongering, just the opposite. In fact, to elevate the risk of death due to blood clots in pregnancy or postpartum above those of the medication, is not only fear mongering but dangerous.

Real Risk Study: Birth Control and Blood Clots

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

References and Resources

  1. Pregnancy Mortality Surveillance System, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Division of Reproductive Health, National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion. Updated December 23, 2014. http://www.cdc.gov/reproductivehealth/MaternalInfantHealth/PMSS.html/.
  2. Hazell, L. & Shakir, S. A. W. Under-Reporting of Adverse Drug Reactions A Systematic Review. Drug Safety 2006; 29 (5): (pp. 385-396). Retrieved from https://www.eecs.berkeley.edu/~daw/teaching/c79- s13/readings/AdverseDrugReactions.pdf
  3. European Medicines Agency. (2013). Benefits of combined hormonal contraceptives (CHCs) continue to outweigh risks – CHMP endorses PRAC recommendation,. Press Release dated 11/22/2013. Retrieved from: http://www.ema.europa.eu/ema/index.jsp?curl=pages/news_and_events/news/20 13/11/ news_detail_001969.jsp&mid=WC0b01ac058004d5c1
  4. A. L. Nelson, M.D. & C. Cwiak, M.D., MPH, (2011). Combined Oral Contraceptives (COCs). In Hatcher, R. D., MD, Trussell, J., PhD., Nelson, A. L., M.D., Cates Jr., W., M.D., MPH, Kowal D., M.A., P.A., Policar, & M. S., MD, MPH. Contraception Technology (20th Edition). Chapter 11, (pp.249-275). Bridging the Gap Communications.
  5. Malone, J., West, D. & West, J. (2015) Retrieved from www.birthcontrolsafety.org, http://www.birthcontrolsafety.org/data–references.html and www.Nuvaringtruth.com, http://nuvaringtruth.com/women-injured-or-died-from-combination-hormonal-birth-control-in-2013/
  6. NCH Data Briefs, Number 175, December 2014. Births in the United States, 2013. Retrieved from http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/databriefs/db175.pdf
  7. James, A. H. (2009). Venous thromboembolism in pregnancy. Arteriosclerosis, thrombosis,and vascular biology, 29(3), 326-331. Retrieved from http://atvb.ahajournals.org/content/29/3/326.full
  8. Vinogradova Yana, Coupland Carol, Hippisley-Cox Julia. Use of combined oral contraceptives and risk of venous thromboembolism: nested case-control studies using the QResearch and CPRD databases BMJ 2015; 350: h2135. Retrieved from http://www.bmj.com/content/350/bmj.h2135

Related posts:

No knowingHormonal Contraceptives: Do We Really Know What We Think We Know? birth control, blood clots and female athletesBlood Clots, Birth Control and Female Athletes: Are We Missing Important Risk Factors? diabetes hormonal birth controlDiabetes: Another Problem With Hormonal Birth Control

You might be interested in

Why I am Backing Sweetening the Pill, the Documentary

Published on
6.7K views
Laura Wershler

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sweetening the Pill, the Documentary

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

Participate in Research about Oral Contraceptives

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

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

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

Real Risk Study: Birth Control and Blood Clots

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

Related posts:

hormoneously alone - birth control documentaryWhy I Made a Documentary About the Birth Control Pill hormoneously alone - birth control documentaryHormoneously Alone: A Birth Control Documentary side effects of the pillI Wish I Knew Then What I Know Now About the Pill Menstrual hormonesHow Hormones Rise and Fall Throughout the Menstrual Cycle

You might be interested in

Pill Bleeds Are Not Periods

Published on
21.3K views
Lara Briden ND

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

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

Real Hormones versus Synthetic Hormones

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

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

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

Why Bleed?

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

Normalizing our Periods: A Myth

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

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

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

There Is Another Way

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

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

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

Real Risk Study: Birth Control and Blood Clots

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

References

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

Related posts:

hormoneously alone - birth control documentaryWhy I Made a Documentary About the Birth Control Pill side effects of the pillI Wish I Knew Then What I Know Now About the Pill vaccines, heavy periods, thiamineThiamine, Vaccines, and Heavy Periods bleeding disordersBleeding Disorders Overlooked in Women With Heavy Periods

You might be interested in

yaz

Why Does Yaz Get a Pass?

In the early days of hormonal birth control, many physicians and politicians seemed extraordinarily indifferent to the side effects linked

Antibiotics during Pregnancy: Finally Pharmacokinetic Research

Published on
5.3K views

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

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

Azithromycin: the Most Common Antibiotic Prescribed During Pregnancy

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

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

Pharmacokinetics: The Basics of Drug Disposition

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

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

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

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

This article was posted previously in September 2012.

Related posts:

Thiamine pregnancyNotes On Thiamine Status During Pregnancy PCOS, Pregnancy and LactationPCOS, Pregnancy, and Lactation: Why Ovulation in Your Teens Matters carnitine nausea vomiting pregnancyCarnitine Deficiency During Pregnancy With Vomiting and Nausea thyroid antibodiesFluoroquinolone Antibiotics and Thyroid Problems: Is There a Connection?

You might be interested in

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

Published on
6.8K views
Laura Wershler

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

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

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

The Birth Control Dichotomy

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Participate in Research

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

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

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

Related posts:

hormoneously alone - birth control documentaryWhy I Made a Documentary About the Birth Control Pill diabetes hormonal birth controlDiabetes: Another Problem With Hormonal Birth Control hormoneously alone - birth control documentaryHormoneously Alone: A Birth Control Documentary

You might be interested in

Adventures in Natural Family Planning

Published on
6.3K views
Samantha Wiessing

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

Natural Family Planning and Physicians

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

Do-it-yourself Natural Family Planning

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

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

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

Natural Family Planning With Irregular Cycles

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

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

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

A New Approach: Fertility Awareness

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

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

Related posts:

Modern thiamine deficiency - foot dropGenetic Thiamine Deficiency Ravaged My Family cold flu remediesLiving Without Antibiotics: Natural Remedies for Common Illnesses Natural killer cells and immunomodulationNatural Killer Cells – Nutritional and Physical Biomodulation

You might be interested in

The Yasmin Chronicles: Bad Medicine, Big Money and Bayer

Published on
14.8K views
Chander Marrs

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

What Makes the Yasmin Line so Dangerous?

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

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

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

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

Yasmin Lawsuits

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

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

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

Why is Yasmin Still on the Market?

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

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

What about the FDA?

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

What Should You Do?

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

Participate in Oral Contraceptive Research – Take a Survey

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

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

Related posts:

fast foodFast Food, Money, and Metabolic Disease: An American Trifecta crisis of responsibility in modern medicineA Crisis of Responsibility in Modern Medicine Lupron - follow the moneyThe Lupron Money Trail

You might be interested in

Is Biology Destiny? Being Female and Hormonal Birth Control

Published on
6.1K views

What does it feel like to be female?

Why is discussion of female biology so controversial?

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

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

Female Biology is Important

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

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

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

Marketing the Pill – Beyond Femaleness

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

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

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

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

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

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

Plastic Surgery versus the Pill

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

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

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

Environmental Estrogens

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

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

Legitimate Concerns For Oral Contraceptives

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

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

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

Female Sexuality

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

The Blame Game – On Being Hormonal

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

Medical Marketing and Birth Control

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

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

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

 

Participate in Research

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

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

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

Related posts:

diabetes hormonal birth controlDiabetes: Another Problem With Hormonal Birth Control libido hormonal contraceptionLet’s Talk About Sex, Baby: Hormonal Contraception & Libido hormonal birth control and multiple sclerosisMultiple Sclerosis and Hormonal Birth Control

You might be interested in

1 2 3 4