- Home
- Politics
- Entertainment
- Sports
- Health
- Religion
- Society
- Tech
- Money
- People
- Science
- Galleries
Health
Did You Know the WHO Ranks Birth Control Pill as Carcinogen?
Perhaps the best-kept secret of modern medicine is the link between oral contraceptives and increased breast cancer risk.
While combined oral contraceptives, better known as The Pill, rank as Group I carcinogens according to a 2005 report released by the International Agency for Research on Cancer, an arm of the World Health Organization, doctors continue to routinely prescribe the pill for a variety of conditions, ranging from acne to birth control (American Cancer Society, 2008)....
Combined oral contraceptives are composed of estrogen and progesterone or progestin, a synthetic form of progesterone. Estrogen and progesterone are female sex hormones; estrogen thickens the lining of the uterus, and progesterone/progestin prepares the endometrium for implantation of the egg. (National Cancer Institute, 2006).
The reasoning behind a combination of estrogen and progesterone/progestin is that estrogen given on its own increases the risk of uterine cancer. Taking a combination of the 2 confers protection from uterine cancer but increases breast cancer risk.
In short, the science behind the increased breast cancer risk stems from 2 primary mechanisms. In both instances, progesterone/progestin becomes a double-edged sword, as it confers protection from increased uterine cancer risk but "gives permission" for estrogen to negatively affect breast DNA.
First, the combination of estrogen plus progesterone/progestin functions as a genotoxin, meaning it directly damages DNA in the breast. Several estrogen metabolites, or breakdown products, including 4-hydroxy-catechol-estrogen quinine, have been proven to function in this manner (Lanfranchi, 2007).
Second, estrogen functions as a mitogen, or cancer promoter, and estrogen promotes cancer in 2 ways. As seen in the graph, it stimulates an explosion of rapid proliferation of cells in breast lobules, causing a greater likelihood of mutations with the increased rate of division.
Additionally, estrogen promotes speedier development of any already-cancerous cells in the breast (Lanfranchi, 2007).
Why doesn't the American public know about the increased risk? Why is the teenage girl on the pill for acne unaware of the health risks involved? Women deserve better.
Comments
links
Interestingly from the first link Mrs. Stanek offers is the following under Type 1 Carcinogens.
“Estrogen-progestogen oral contraceptives (combined) (Note: There is also convincing evidence in humans that these agents confer a protective effect against cancer in the endometrium and ovary)”
The second link does states that in a 1996 analysis of studies there is an increased risk in breast cancer for those taking the pill, but it does not state what that increased rate is (stating only that it was “slightly elevated”). More interestingly it states that if a woman stops taking the pill for 10+ years their rate of breast cancer drops back into the regular population. The link also cites “The Woman’s Contraceptive and Reproductive Experiences study” which did not show a ‘significant increase’ in breast cancer. Further that same link also states that there is a decrease in ovarian cancer (10-12% at the one year mark, 50% at the 5 year mark).
“Why doesn't the American public know about the increased risk? Why is the teenage girl on the pill for acne unaware of the health risks involved? Women deserve better.”
The implication of Mrs. Staneck’s article seems to be that the use of ‘”The Pill” is linked to a high incidence of cancer in the female population, but that does not seem to be a conclusion supported by her sources. Rather it seems to state that a birth control regimen should only be undertaken with a doctors guidance (which is how it is now). Now I’m a guy… so I am not familiar with the discussion between a doctor and a woman regarding birth control, so perhaps one of the other women who frequent this board and who are/were on birth control can offer insight into the risks associated with the use of oral contraceptives.
I am also curious as to why she spent so much time explaining the already known mechanism by which estrogen can lead to breast cancer.
Regarding the increased risk
I just came across this article on this site while looking up information about the pill/ cancer link, and although I know it's over a year later that I am replying to Mr. Book's questions, I thought it was important to answer him.
The increased risk of cancer for those on the birth control pill, according to the study done by the International Agency for Research on Cancer (a technical arm of the World Health Organization), is 24 percent. For women who take the pill for four years or more before their first full-term pregnancy (which is common for many women now, it seems), the risk is 52 percent higher for cancer than those not on the pill. I think that is more than slightly elevated. Also, even if the risk drops after 10 years, that's still 10 years! Not a short amount of time when we're talking about the risk of something possibly fatal, really...
Also, regarding what Mr. Book wondered about the relationship between the patient and the doctor who prescribes birth control. As a woman, I'll let you know that most doctors will not blink at writing a prescription for birth control and won't tell you of any risks. My friends can attest to this, and so can I. I had one doctor basically try to force it on me because they thought I *might* have something that could benefit from being treated with birth control (which I didn't have and I don't know why she arrived at that conclusion without doing more testing). I really had to argue with her about not wanting to be on it, but it seemed to be implied that since I was a young woman anyways, apparently I needed to be protected from the evil of pregnancy... and that I was incapable of abstaining from sex. She didn't listen to me at all and wrote me a prescription for it anyways, which I threw away. This was at the public health center, so I imagine this is how they deal with everyone who comes to them.
If you want to hear a good talk on why birth control is not a good solution, listen to Dr. Janet Smith's talk "Contraception: Why Not?" There are more reasons than just the cancer link as to why the pill is not healthy for women. Fertility is a gift, and pregnancy is the completely natural result of sex. If you try to alter this fundamental aspect of our nature as humans, you're going to encounter some major issues, not just in the realm of physical health but also emotional, mental, and relational.
Catholic Church?
For a long time the Catholic Church has been pushing the supposed link between abortions and breast cancer . But not the more logical link between the pill and breast cancer. Why?
Not the Catholic Church, at first
No it was Dr Chris Kahlenborn in his scholarly book: "The Abortion Breast Cancer Link" who first 'pushed' the relationship. He is a Catholic and the Church does care about women's health , so they have helped him to speak the truth. Abortion and contraceptive pills kill more than just babies .
Mike, you are right, BOTH are carcinogenic. Cutting off pregnancy hormone progesterone abruptly in mid-pregnancy is just as damaging to developing undifferentiated breast tissue as constantly bombarding a woman's entire body with both estrogen and progesterone for years.
The American Cancer Society and the Susan Komen Foundation are political organizations or they would admit what the WHO admits.
Birth control
Considering the Catholic Churches stand on birth control I find it strange that they haven't publicized the WHO report. I also have thought that they could give stronger support for NFP.
caring
The Catholic Church cares very much about women... so much so that they refuse to let them into the leadership and even put forth the idea that a man with aids cannot use a condom if he wants to have sex with his wife.
not caring
The man with AIDS should not have sex with his wife period. Also condoms are not 100 percent effective. Why would he want to expose the woman he loves to AIDS. That's not caring.
should
That presumes that the man knows he has AIDS ...
Discouraging condom encourages unsafe sexual practices, which leads to the spread of AIDS.
So...
Husbands should wear condoms to prevent the spread of disease, when they can safely assume that they and their spouse don't have one?
So much for ever having kids.
I don't follow anyone, because those that appear to be on the same path usually end up just getting in my way.
if
If they do not wish to have children then yes. Without access to chemical contraceptives (like the pill) then using condoms is a good way to prevent accidental impregnation.
Note that I said that the man does not know if he, or his partner, does or does not have an STD. This could be because he has had unprotected sex with someone other then his wife, or because he does not know if she has an STD.
You would think...
That he would have used one for his mistress instead of his wife. Of course, if he doesn't care enough to remain faithful...
I don't follow anyone, because those that appear to be on the same path usually end up just getting in my way.
use
The idea is to encourage condom use among those who engage in risky practices (it is in the man's interest to use a condom to prevent himself from contracting AIDS ). That is the message.
I get that
It just thought it strange that you brought up a husband having sex with his wife. I don't consider that as a risky practice.
If you suspect your fiance may have AIDS , I would think that you would put the wedding on hold until you knew for certain. If you think your spouse has contracted AIDS, why are you still having sex with someone that doesn't give a crap about you?
I don't follow anyone, because those that appear to be on the same path usually end up just getting in my way.
if
The culture in North Africa is quite different from that in North America. Women are not as free to leave their husbands (or refuse to have sex with their husbands) as they are here in America.
yet...
somehow these kept women are going to be able to force their husbands to wear condoms?
I don't follow anyone, because those that appear to be on the same path usually end up just getting in my way.
rather
Actually the goal in that case would be to get the husband to use condoms.
Just the facts, sir. .
Why are you taking pot-shots at the Catholic Church instead attacking the real villans, Planned Parenthood and the American Cancer Society and Susan G Komen Foundation?!
They are the ones standing by ignoring medical research while million of women die by the carcinogenic pill.
factualy speaking
“Why are you taking pot-shots at the Catholic Church instead attacking the real villans, Planned Parenthood and the American Cancer Society and Susan G Komen Foundation?!
They are the ones standing by ignoring medical research while million of women die by the carcinogenic pill.”
I posted a longer critique of the article down below under the title “links”
Your “million of women die by the carcinogenic pill” is unsupported by the data presented in Mrs. Stanek’s links… which calls the risk ‘slightly elevated’.
Many things are carcinogenic… living in a brick house can expose an individual inside to radioactive gas that can have a carcinogenic effect; living in Denver can also lead to exposure to radiation as it is higher up in the atmosphere. Do you see people rushing to ban brick houses or Denver?
Women
It's not that the Catholic Church doesn't care about women but that theologically speaking they have painted themselves into a corner.