Birth Control Pill Risks - Revision history

Barb: /* Condom Risks */

2010-10-19T21:41:57Z

Condom Risks

← Older revision		Revision as of 16:41, 19 October 2010
Line 50:		Line 50:
	[http://www.mjms.ukim.edu.mk/Online/MJMS_2010_3_2/0104.htm Reproductive Health of Women: An Attempt to Define Prevention of Breast Cancer] Arne N. Gjorgov, MD, PhD		[http://www.mjms.ukim.edu.mk/Online/MJMS_2010_3_2/0104.htm Reproductive Health of Women: An Attempt to Define Prevention of Breast Cancer] Arne N. Gjorgov, MD, PhD


			== Risks of Death Associated With Non-Marital Sex ==

			''Sexual behaviour: related adverse health burden in the United States.'' Ebrahim SH, McKenna MT, Marks JS. Sex Transm Infect 2005;81:38-40.

			:This CDC study shows that sexual behaviour accounted for around '''20 million adverse health consequences''' - equivalent to over 7,500 per 100,000 people - in 1998. These included infections, infertility, and abortions. And it accounted for almost '''30,000 deaths - just over 1% of the total for that year'''. They compiled data from the U.S. Burden of Disease Study for 1996 to estimate mortality and disability adjusted life years (DALYs) due to sexual behavior. The authors calculated that over 2 million DALYs were attributable to sexual behaviour. This equals over 6% of the national total and adds up to three times the levels of other wealthy nations. Almost two thirds (62%) of the adverse health consequences were borne by women, who were also most affected by disability (57%). Proportionately more men than women died (66%), but the authors point out that if HIV/AIDS is taken out of the equation, then 80% of the deaths attributed to sexual behaviour would have been among women. Cervical cancer and HIV infection were the leading causes of death among women; HIV was the single most important cause of death among men.
	[[Category:Research]]		[[Category:Research]]

Barb at 21:55, 8 September 2010

2010-09-08T21:55:42Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 16:55, 8 September 2010
Line 13:		Line 13:

	[http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/news/evangelical-group-releases-documentary-charging-that-the-pill-is-an-abortifacient/] More information can be found at: www.28daysonthepill.com		[http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/news/evangelical-group-releases-documentary-charging-that-the-pill-is-an-abortifacient/] More information can be found at: www.28daysonthepill.com

			==OTHER RISKS==
			FDA panel proposes spermicide warning because it may cause vaginal irritations and increase a woman's chances of contracting AIDS virus ("Spermicide Controversy," Associated PRess newswire, 11/22/96)

			Birth control pill may increase vaginal transmission of AIDS ("Hormone May Raise HIV Risk in Women," Wash. Times 10/1/96, pA9)
			Pill increases breast cancer risk for up to 10 years after discontinued, (The Lancet, vol. 347:1713-1727, 6/22/96)
			Pill increases risk of death from vascular complications 1.9 times and risk of cervical cancerup 2.5 times. British Medical Journal, January 5, 1999.

			Birth control pill may lead to a permanent reduction in libido. BOSTON, May 26, 2005 (LifeSiteNews.com)The researchers studied the use of the pill on 124 women at a sexual dysfunction clinic. Those who continued taking the Pill had four times the normal SHBG levels of women who had never taken it. Those women in the study who stopped taking the pill at the beginning of the study still had twice the normal level of SHBG after a year. The team's research leader, Dr Claudia Panzer, an endocrinologist at the Boston University Medical Center, said the study indicated that the loss of libido might not be reversible.

			In a 1996 survey of 486 abortion patients at an urban clinice, 40% reported a history of physical or sexual abuse, Family Planning Perspectives Sept/Oct 1998.

			See www.bcpinstitute.org brochure: "If it's not OK for him to take sterioids...why is it OK for her?"

			==birth control pill==
			ESTROGEN LINKED TO CANCER: The National Toxicology Program advisory committee voted 8-1 that steroidal estrogen -- a type used in post-menopausal treatments and birth control pills -- should be placed
			on the nation's list of cancer-causing substances. The committee found an association with endometrial cancer, and to a lesser extent, breast cancer. (Reading: "Panel Puts Estrogen on Cancer List," New York Times,12/15/00)

			Environmental risks of PIll
			Endocrine disruption research from the fish physiology research group at Brunel University: full of solid information. http://www.brunel.ac.uk/research/FPRG/endocrine_disruption_1.htm

			Alan Watson writes to a newsgroup that the writing is on the wall for hormone chemicals; these are not just real or synthetic human hormones such as oestrogen and oestradiol, and are not just from the contraceptive pill, but are a wide range of substances from a large number of industrial sources. http://lists.essential.org/1998/dioxin-l/msg00083.html

			Thomas Hutchinson from Astra-Zeneca talks about European research on endocrine disruptors in the aquatic environment: most UK rivers have a staggeringly high percentage of intersexed male fish. The highest percentages of intersexed fish are found in rivers which drain water from heavily inhabited or industrial areas. A wide-ranging talk. http://www.cheec.uiowa.edu/conferences/edc_2000/hutchinson.html


			==Condom Risks==

			Gjorgov AN .Stop the natural experimental trial in breast cancer because of rising incidence: summarizing the evidence. Eur J Cancer Prev. 1995 Feb;4(1):97-103.
			:Abstract
			:A survey has been conducted during the past decade (starting in 1980) of reported new cases of women with breast cancer, in order to assess the interim evidence of the natural experiment of the effect of increased use of condoms on the risk of breast cancer in the US. Age-adjusted incidence rates of breast cancer (to the world standard population) per 100,000 population, and trends of changes, in percentages, were used. Prior to the 1980s, breast cancer incidence was in decline in seven out of 13 centres in the country. Following the recommendations to use condoms in 'safer sex' campaigns, increases of breast cancer incidence were recorded during the 1980s, as a reflection of a global phenomenon. Between the 5 year periods of 1978-82 and 1983-87, the population of the nine Surveillance, Epidemiology and End Results programme (SEER) centres (about 10% of the American population), increased by 2.9%, the number of breast cancer cases increased by 25.0%; the average annual breast cancer crude incidence rose by 21.5% (from 100.8 to 122.5 per 100,000). The increase in the average annual number of breast cancer cases during the period 1983-87 (the period of increased condom usage) was 4.5 times greater than that during the preceding period, 1978-82. During the 1980s, breast cancer trends rose significantly in the US among White women (P < 0.00001) and other ethnic groups (P < 0.005). The difference between the expected, 21%, and observed, 79%, probability of adverse effects occurring in the natural experimental trial was statistically significant (P = 0.0001).(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 250 WORDS)


			[http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1294788/?page=1 History of the condom: the overlooked adverse effects.] A Gjorgov

			[http://www.mjms.ukim.edu.mk/Online/MJMS_2010_3_2/0104.htm Reproductive Health of Women: An Attempt to Define Prevention of Breast Cancer] Arne N. Gjorgov, MD, PhD

	[[Category:Research]]		[[Category:Research]]

Barb at 02:43, 16 July 2010

2010-07-16T02:43:41Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 21:43, 15 July 2010
Line 9:		Line 9:
	CONCLUSION: Our results indicate the use of oral contraceptives near the time of conception may be associated with an increased risk of low birth weight and preterm birth.		CONCLUSION: Our results indicate the use of oral contraceptives near the time of conception may be associated with an increased risk of low birth weight and preterm birth.

			==Documentary==
			Evangelical group releases documentary on the pill as an abortifacient

			[http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/news/evangelical-group-releases-documentary-charging-that-the-pill-is-an-abortifacient/] More information can be found at: www.28daysonthepill.com
	[[Category:Research]]		[[Category:Research]]

WikiSysop at 14:53, 9 June 2010

2010-06-09T14:53:15Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 09:53, 9 June 2010
Line 1:		Line 1:
	Recent oral contraceptive use and adverse birth outcomes.		[http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19233538 Recent oral contraceptive use and adverse birth outcomes]. Chen XK, Wen SW, Sun LM, Yang Q, Walker MC, Krewski D. ''Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol.'' 2009 May;144(1):40-3. Epub 2009 Feb 23.
	Chen XK, Wen SW, Sun LM, Yang Q, Walker MC, Krewski D.

			<br> OBJECTIVE: To examine the possible association between oral contraceptive use and adverse birth outcomes.

	~~OBJECTIVE~~: ~~To examine~~ the ~~possible association~~ between oral ~~contraceptive use~~ and ~~adverse birth outcomes~~.		STUDY DESIGN: We conducted a population-based cohort study of pregnant women who used oral contraceptives within 3 months before their last menstrual period. Subjects were divided into three groups, according to the interval (0-30, 31-60, and 61-90 days) between the dispensing date and their last menstrual period. For each exposed subject, 4 subjects without exposure to oral contraceptives were individually matched by infant's year of birth and plurality and by mother's age and parity.

	~~STUDY DESIGN~~: ~~We conducted a population-based cohort study of pregnant women who used oral contraceptives~~ within ~~3 months before their~~ last menstrual period. ~~Subjects were divided into three groups~~, ~~according to the interval~~ (~~0-30~~, ~~31-60~~, and 61-90 days~~) between~~ the ~~dispensing date and their~~ last menstrual period~~. For each exposed subject, 4 subjects without exposure to oral contraceptives were individually matched by infant's year~~ of birth ~~and plurality and by mother's age and parity~~.		RESULTS: Oral contraceptive use within 30 days prior to the last menstrual period was associated with increased risks of very low birth weight (OR: 3.24, 95% CI: 1.18, 8.92), low birth weight (OR: 1.93, 95% CI: 1.17, 3.20), and preterm birth (OR: 1.61, 95% CI: 1.01, 2.55); however, oral contraceptive use 31-90 days prior to the last menstrual period did not increase the risk of low birth weight or preterm birth.

	~~RESULTS~~: ~~Oral contraceptive~~ use ~~within 30 days prior to~~ the ~~last menstrual period was~~ associated with increased ~~risks~~ of ~~very low birth weight (OR: 3.24, 95% CI: 1.18, 8.92),~~ low birth weight ~~(OR: 1.93, 95% CI: 1.17, 3.20),~~ and ~~preterm birth (OR: 1.61, 95% CI: 1.01, 2.55); however, oral contraceptive use 31-90 days prior to the last menstrual period did not increase the risk of low birth weight or~~ preterm birth.		CONCLUSION: Our results indicate the use of oral contraceptives near the time of conception may be associated with an increased risk of low birth weight and preterm birth.

	~~CONCLUSION~~: ~~Our results indicate the use of oral contraceptives near the time of conception may be associated with an increased risk of low birth weight and preterm birth.~~		[[Category:Research]]

WikiSysop: New page: Recent oral contraceptive use and adverse birth outcomes. Chen XK, Wen SW, Sun LM, Yang Q, Walker MC, Krewski D. OBJECTIVE: To examine the possible association between oral contraceptive...

2009-04-14T19:35:40Z

New page: Recent oral contraceptive use and adverse birth outcomes. Chen XK, Wen SW, Sun LM, Yang Q, Walker MC, Krewski D. OBJECTIVE: To examine the possible association between oral contraceptive...

New page

Recent oral contraceptive use and adverse birth outcomes.
Chen XK, Wen SW, Sun LM, Yang Q, Walker MC, Krewski D.

OBJECTIVE: To examine the possible association between oral contraceptive use and adverse birth outcomes.

STUDY DESIGN: We conducted a population-based cohort study of pregnant women who used oral contraceptives within 3 months before their last menstrual period. Subjects were divided into three groups, according to the interval (0-30, 31-60, and 61-90 days) between the dispensing date and their last menstrual period. For each exposed subject, 4 subjects without exposure to oral contraceptives were individually matched by infant's year of birth and plurality and by mother's age and parity.

RESULTS: Oral contraceptive use within 30 days prior to the last menstrual period was associated with increased risks of very low birth weight (OR: 3.24, 95% CI: 1.18, 8.92), low birth weight (OR: 1.93, 95% CI: 1.17, 3.20), and preterm birth (OR: 1.61, 95% CI: 1.01, 2.55); however, oral contraceptive use 31-90 days prior to the last menstrual period did not increase the risk of low birth weight or preterm birth.

CONCLUSION: Our results indicate the use of oral contraceptives near the time of conception may be associated with an increased risk of low birth weight and preterm birth.