Posted on 01/05/2002 9:50:00 PM PST by Dr. Brian Kopp
Flushed hormones change sex of fish
Synthetic estrogen in water from sewage causes male fish to produce eggs: study
Tom Spears
The Ottawa Citizen
Saturday, January 05, 2002
Women who take birth control pills or hormone therapy are flushing enough hormones down the toilet to make male fish downstream produce eggs, a Canadian study shows.
Synthetic estrogen in the women's urine goes through sewage treatment plants without being completely broken down, and the fish absorb it, with bad effects following.
Male fish produce eggs in their testes. Female fish are stimulated by the extra hormones to produce eggs at the wrong times of year.
And there are questions, still unanswered, about whether these chemically altered fish are capable of reproducing at all.
Scientists have seen this "gender-bending" effect in fish downstream from sewage plants, but lacked proof that birth control pills are a cause.
So Karen Kidd of Fisheries and Oceans Canada started dribbling bits of the synthetic hormone from birth control pills into a 34-hectare lake in northwestern Ontario, west of Dryden, to find out. The lakes are so remote they don't even have names (this one is called Lake 260) and are perfectly suited to act as giant experiments because they are practically untouched by pollution.
Sure enough, the male lake trout, white suckers, fathead minnows and pearl dace turned up this fall with proteins that females use to manufacture egg cells, and in some cases with the eggs themselves.
"The question now is whether this feminization is affecting the population size or sustainability," she said. "Can males with eggs in their testes reproduce effectively? Can they contribute to the population?"
It will take another summer of adding chemicals, and a couple of years of counting fish afterwards, to know the full effects. But Ms. Kidd is finding an interested audience in Vancouver this weekend, where she will show her early results to a conference of fisheries scientists.
"People consume the birth control pills and it's lost from their bodies and goes into the sewage," said Peter Leavitt, a biology professor at the University of Regina. "So we get this huge population in sources like cities, dumping this very high concentration of hormones into the water bodies. And the question is: Is it having an influence?
"It seems to be mimicking some of the reproductive hormones that other organisms use, and it's basically messing up their reproductive strategies," he said. "I think it's really significant," because no one thought of human sewage as a source of this type of pollution before, he said.
"And what Karen is showing is that there are consequence of large numbers of people living in an area ... It's not so much that we're destroying their (the wildlife's) habitat. But we're actually changing the chemical environment in which they live and breathe."
Ms. Kidd says both natural and synthetic estrogen go into sewage in urine, but bacteria take longer to break down the synthetic version, which means more of it gets into the fish.
For 10 years scientists have studied chemicals that act like estrogen in fish, other wildlife, and even humans that eat tainted fish. Many of these come from pesticides or industrial waste and are never intended to be like hormones at all. But this study is unique in looking at real hormones flushed down the drain.
Ms. Kidd says both natural and synthetic estrogen go into the sewage system in urine, but bacteria take longer to break down the synthetic version, which means more of it gets into the fish.
The Lake 260 experiment uses the amount of hormone that would come from 6,000 women taking the pill, she said.
Sorry, its late.
I wonder if this could have anything to do with girls pubing at a much earlier age than they did 40 years ago?
Birth control pills might explain why there are transsexuals and babies born with deformed genitila.
--Dr. Kopp
Always a Bitter Pill, Now the Risk of Breast Cancer Makes Oral Contraceptives Even Harder to Swallow
Dr. Brian Kopp
Lay Witness Magazine
"It may not have rocked the ground like the 1945 detonation of the first atomic bomb . . . but Enovid did more than just provide a technological tour de force. It transformed the very fabric of modern society . . ."
So reported "The Pill At 40", an article in the July-August 2000 "FDA Consumer" magazine, singing the praises of the Pill and celebrating the 40th anniversary of its approval by the Food and Drug Administration. On June 23, 1960, Enovid became the first oral contraceptive approved for sale in the USA, following several years of development and trials on third world women.
The article failed to mention the bitter legacy of the Pill over that same 40 years. Minor side effects abound, such as nausea, irregular bleeding, depression, weight gain, breast tenderness, and diminished libido. Some, however, are life threatening. Blood clots, pulmonary embolism, heart attack, and stroke have claimed the lives of many women taking the Pill since its introduction in 1960. Decreasing the dosages of the hormones in the Pill have lessened but not eliminated these deadly risks.
"Postfertilization Effects of Oral Contraceptives and Their Relationship to Informed Consent" was the first medical journal article to explain the mechanism by which the Pill prevents implantation of a fertilized egg in the womb, its lining (or endometrium) improperly formed under the influence of the Pill's hormones. Published in the February 2000 Archives of Family Medicine, a journal of the American Medical Association, it proved for both the secular world and a divided pro-life movement that the Pill is not only a contraceptive but also a chemical abortifacient. The report concludes:
"The available evidence supports the hypothesis that when ovulation and fertilization occur in women taking OCs, postfertilization effects are operative on occasion to prevent clinically recognized pregnancy. Physicians should understand and respect the beliefs of patients who consider human life to be present and valuable from the moment of fertilization."
While litigation in the USA relative to the Pill has been limited to suits aimed at forcing insurance plans to cover the Pill, in Britain a class action lawsuit has begun addressing another aspect of informed consent. In January 2002, 122 women and/or their families will take three pharmaceutical companies before England's High Court, charging that the Pill has caused blood clots resulting in lifelong illnesses and even death, and that they were never informed of the severe risks. Ten percent of the 122 claims involve a fatality. Unfortunately, these side effects have been known for four decades, and the prospects of success for these victims are uncertain.
However, compelling data has emerged linking the Pill with the rapid increase of breast cancer in the US, with a potential of class action lawsuits that could eclipse even those of the tobacco industry. Evidence has been available for several decades linking oral contraceptives with breast cancer in certain lab animals. According to Chris Kahlenborn, MD, one of the nation's leading researchers on the breast cancer/ Pill connection, the evidence of a link in humans is incontrovertible. His book summarizing his research and findings, BREAST CANCER: Its Link to Abortion and the Birth Control Pill, was published recently by One More Soul (www.OMS.com.) Dr. Kahlenborn has testified before the FDA regarding the issues in his book, and the book's findings are now part of the federal record.
In the book he makes a compelling case for such a link. He began researching the issue after hearing a presentation in 1993 that described an increase in breast cancer risk due to abortion, apparently caused by hormonal changes in the woman's body. He began an exhaustive review of the research to ascertain whether contraceptive hormones in the Pill might have the same effect.
When asked, "What is the bottom-line, after 8 years of exhaustive research and study?" Dr. Kahlenborn replied, "There is a 45% increased risk of developing breast cancer if a woman takes an oral contraceptive prior to her first full term pregnancy. This number is statistically significant to the 99th percentile."
"Informed consent is MIA. Catholic OB/GYN's are doing a grave disservice in handing this out. Today's cigarette story [the tobacco class action lawsuits] could be tomorrow's Pill story. There is no informed consent. The breast cancer and the social effects cause such devastation to families!"
He compares the current state of denial among the American medical establishment to a similar episode that occurred several decades ago. "History is repeating itself. DES was taken in the 40's and 50's to prevent miscarriage. A 35% increased risk of breast cancer was found." At the time DES (diethylstilbestrol) was used, some were concerned of a potential risk of breast cancer, while the American medical establishment denied the possibility. Only after 25 years was it discovered that DES use carried a 35% increased breast cancer risk.
Currently, more than 192,000 U.S. women develop breast cancer and more than 40,000 die from it each year. One in eight women in the US will be diagnosed with breast cancer in their lifetime. Yet 50 years ago, breast cancer was less common. When asked what other factors might account for such a rapid increase in the rates of breast cancer, Dr. Kahlenborn was blunt. "I am not sure of all the factors but two other factors come into play: decreased family size and decreased breast-feeding. Pregnancy and breast-feeding have been known to protect against breast cancer for many years. But the Pill and abortion also are likely responsible for the rising rates of breast cancer in Western countries." Breast cancer is increasing more rapidly in western countries, countries with early Pill use, often in the teen years, usually before first full term pregnancy.
Medical research findings have been contradictory. In 1972 a series of animal research studies showed that an oral contraceptive appeared to cause metastatic breast cancer in rhesus monkeys, which rarely develop breast cancer. In 1989 Anderson et al published a paper that found that women who had never had children who took the Pill had a significantly higher rate of breast cell division than childless mothers who had never taken the Pill. In general, cells that divide more rapidly are more vulnerable to carcinogens and more likely to become cancerous. A study in 1981 found that women who took the Pill for 4 years prior to their first full-term pregnancy (FFTP) had a 125% increased risk of breast cancer before age 32. In 1993, the CASH study showed a 40% increased risk in women taking the Pill before FFTP. Later in England another large study revealed a 44% increased risk. The last large study in 1995 showed a 42% increased risk. A meta-analysis (a statistical analysis of many other research studies) in 1990 found that, overall, the studies up to that time confirmed an increased risk of breast cancer of 72% for women under age 45 who took oral contraceptive pills for 4 or more years before having a full-term pregnancy. Use of these contraceptives for longer periods appears to carry an even higher risk.
However, the Oxford study, the largest meta-analysis to date, concluded that:
"Women who are currently using [the Pill] or have used them in the past 10 years are at a slightly increased risk of having breast cancer diagnosed, although the additional cancers tend to be localized to the breast. There is no evidence of an increase in the risk of having breast cancer diagnosed 10 or more years after cessation of use..."
Dr. Kahlenborn sees severe weaknesses in the Oxford study. He states in his book:
"The main weakness was the failure to report any evidence of what the pooled risk of oral contraceptive use before a FFTP was in women under 45 years old . . . A woman's breast is especially sensitive to carcinogenic influence . . . before [FFTP] because the breast undergoes a maturing process throughout a woman's first pregnancy. By failing to measure the effect . . . before a . . . woman's [FFTP] the Oxford study failed to give data on the one group of women who are most likely to get breast cancer from oral contraceptives." Dr. Kahlenborn commented further, "In addition the Oxford meta-analysis used studies whose data came from as early as the 1960s. This is not precise enough since these studies would not have picked up the Pill's effects on the breast (ie, too short of a latent period).
Currently Dr. Kahlenborn is working on another meta-analysis that he hopes will be published within one year. This analysis attempts to analyze the data of all the studies available from the 1980's and 1990's, in an effort to obtain a more accurate statistical analysis specifically of women taking the Pill for several years prior to their first full-term pregnancy.
The Food and Drug Administration's FDA consumer magazine maintained that Enovid may not have rocked the ground like the 1945 detonation of the first atomic bomb. Dr. Kahlenborn would be inclined to disagree. "Hormonal chemical contraceptives are the equivalent to a nuclear bomb in their devastation to the family." Sickness, cancer and death lies in the wake of this bitter Pill. Can massive product liability suits be far behind?
There is a problem with the studies showing a decreased sperm count. There are too many variables to come up with an accurate study. How often, how long since the male last had sex and then a lack of good data from the past.
Agreed, it would have to be studied whether the rates of these were increasing. Could also be causing an increased tendency towards homosexuality.
I'm certainly not an expert, and do not claim to be. I could be wrong.
--Dr. Kopp
The environment is more fragile than we think.
I'll give you that...
Maybe Al Gore was right.
Uhhhh...no. Can't give you that.
Christine Jorgenson was THE first American transexual, who came out publicly. Her ( his ) birth was several decades PRIOR to the use of the pill. No one KNOWS how many there were before then. To complicate matters even MORE, it took several MORE decades, for other transexuals to even attempt the operation, and most didn't make it public. A true transexual ( rather than what some have taken to calling " transgendered " ) is hermaphroditic ; with sexually dominant characyeristics NOT showing up until puberty. THis means, for sake of argument, that a male will be born with a penis, but at puberty, will develope breasts, the testicles won't descend ( because there are none ) and ovaries will begin to function. There are RECORDED cases of hermaphrodites , that are more than 1 1/2 millenia old. THERE WERE NO BIRTH CONTROL PILLS BACK THEN.
If the male fish are just NOW showing sexual changes, then something else is contributing to this. The pill has been widely used for 40 years.
As to lowered sperm count, believe it or not, but jockey shorts has a LOT to do with that. Please, don't take my word for that ... look it up.
As for problems conceiving, this is a NEW phenomina ; mostly due, to people having many sexual partners PRIOR to marriage AND the delay of both marriage and starting families. Then , there is also recreational dope use. This was NOT common, but has become more so.
No female knowingly takes BC Pills when she is pregnant !
I can tell you all, from PERSONAL experienece, that as far back as 1965, doctors WERE telling women that a possible side effect, was an increased possibility of breast cancer. So, that is another inaccuracy, in this article. Also, women were NOT allowed, by their OB-GYNS to stay CONTINUOSLY in the pill , for four years. They were periodically taken off the pill, for 3-6 months, every two years.
I could continue exposing the eye popping flaws , in this article; however , some of you would rather believe the propaganda. My suggestion, is do some independant research on this matter. It is now far too easy, to find all manner of things , which is NOT , in fact, the truth ... a lot of it showing up on FR.
That is due the fat content of their diet. It is natures way. Well fed girls enter puberty younger so they can have more babies.
Real men want Testosterone injections! AAAARRRGGHHH!!!
This has been attributed to the hormone fed to beef on the hoof.
Real men do not need Testosterone injections. :-)
I can't say I've verified their research, or even that I agree with their claims, but this site thinks it's the milk.
Prior to the turn of the 20th century, the inset age of menses , was 16. By the 1920's it was down to 13 or 14. It is now around 12. It IS the diet !
Scare???
I'm trying to save women's lives by sharing this info. You can only sit in your armchair and criticize. Your points have no more nor less merit than mine.
The readers can decide...
I noticed that many women on estrogen complain about constipation and acid reflux, for which they have to take yet another chemical or two to control those two problems...Strange...gastro intestinal side effects are listed in the Teeny, tiny print on the package insert.
I doubt the hormones are removed by water treatment, or even detected by tests.
If these hormones are from BCP's, what about estrogen therapy for menopause, etc.?
What levels of hormone would be significant? Are effects cumulative or acute? More questions than answers so far.
Doubtful. The scientific method used in this study is quite solid:
Scientists have seen this "gender-bending" effect in fish downstream from sewage plants, but lacked proof that birth control pills are a cause.
So Karen Kidd of Fisheries and Oceans Canada started dribbling bits of the synthetic hormone from birth control pills into a 34-hectare lake in northwestern Ontario, west of Dryden, to find out. The lakes are so remote they don't even have names (this one is called Lake 260) and are perfectly suited to act as giant experiments because they are practically untouched by pollution.
Sure enough, the male lake trout, white suckers, fathead minnows and pearl dace turned up this fall with proteins that females use to manufacture egg cells, and in some cases with the eggs themselves.
So...
1)Scientists have seen this "gender-bending" effect in fish downstream from sewage plants
2)in a lake otherwise unpolluted by other chemical theorized to cause the changes, fish turned up this fall with proteins that females use to manufacture egg cells, and in some cases with the eggs themselves, after synthetic hormone from birth control pills were introduced. The Lake 260 experiment uses the amount of hormone that would come from 6,000 women taking the pill.
Good, hard science. Well thought out scientific investigation. Other variables controlled. Absolute irrefutable results obtained.
Not sure how you could continue exposing the eye popping flaws but you're welcome to pontificate further.
And some suspect the soy products they get, starting with their baby formula and continuing with additives to a large and increasing portion of processed foods.
Now its even touted as a health food. Good for the heart, but let's not talk about what it's doing to your hormones. Oh. well. That's no different from the subject here, is it? Push birth control, because it's good for a political agenda, but don't look into whether there are harmful side effects.
As far as your position, that the " facts " in this article are irrefutable goes, that is absolute codswallop. Any scientific study can , and often IS , " cooked ". Statistics can be, and ARE often fiddled with. A few years ago, a supposed " scientific " study was done on the " new " malformation of frogs, to prove that Global Warming and polution would soon kill ALL of us. The N.Y. Times devoted several Sunday Magazine articles to it, and splashed it all over the front page, of the paper. Well, all of THAT supposedly carefully researched," indisputable " garbage, turned out to be JUNK SCIENCE ! So have many, many, MANY other such " indisputable " studies , been proven to be absolutely wrong !
As a man, and I assume someone who is NOT a doctor, of any kind, nor a pharmicalogical scientist, you ONLY posted an article, which agrees with your position on birth control. It isn't helpful for FREEPERS, who don't know where YOU are coming from, to read and then swallow this as whole clothe. This article leaves out HISTORICAL facts, and YOU ommitted , either from guile, or lack of knowledge, important information. I supplied some of that. Now, YOU claim that it is my opinion. WRONG ! Facts , such as the FACT that hermaphroditism is millenia old , that doctors DID inform their patients that there is an increased possibility of risk of breast cancer, from taking the pill, etc., was ommitted, or LIED about. This is NOT an " opinion ", and if YOU can't see the difference between FACTS and " opinions ", then YOU are the one who has a BIG problem !
You are NOT " saving " any woman's life, by posting this stuff ! Your messianic delusions ; however , could harm women.
Actually, he is a doctor. That second article is was written by him
I am a physician. I have an undergrad degree in biological sciences. I have had doctorate level training in pharmacology, embryology, physiology, anatomy, etc, as part of my med school training. I researched and wrote the second article I posted, as I am also a published free lance author writing on issues regarding contraceptive technology. Finally, I am on the board of a research institute that studies these issues (I am on the board, I am not one of the researchers.)
As such, I probably have a little more foundation on these issues than some lay people. I admit there is much I do not know.
And you? What are your qualifications to criticize me so harshly?
--Dr. Brian Kopp
This Global Warming and polution boogeyman is a PC topic and one that we should all expect to see bad science attempt to prove. They have a political PC agenda that they are trying to advance.
On the other hand, it is quite politically incorrect to point the finger at reproductive technologies, and could well imperil a researchers' or university's or government agency's funding, because it goes against PC conventional wisdom.
Therefore one would expect dishonesty in trying to "prove" the PC Global Warming agenda.
However, these researchers from a government agency, Fisheries and Oceans Canada, are not likely trying to advance a "Catholic" agenda. The Canadian government in fact has become quite hostile to Judeo-Christian beliefs.
Therefore it is quite unlikely there is bias or fraud in this study, such as that which occurred with the frogs legs/Global warming studies.
Your own bias, however, is quite apparent. It is a shame you cannot discern the difference between bad science in the service of an agenda and good science in the service of...science.
Besides, all sceintists have their own agenda. It's to prove that their pet theory is correct, and to keep getting one project after aaother funded. If after 40 years of BC pill use, this hasn't been cited before, and much of YOUR spurious suppositions are easily refuted, don't expect the rest of us to swoon over one tiny , CANADIAN sceintific project; especially NOT a government sponsered one. LOL
Yes, dear, I do have an " agenda";it's to spread the TRUTH ( no, not as I see it, just factual , unbiased, truth ) all over FR.
It is a bold faced LIE , to claim that doctors did NOT warn women of the pill's possible side effects, when I know for a FACT that they did, and did so in 1965 ! It is also a LIE, to claim that low sperm counts have much , if anything to do with artificial hormones, released into the water supply. It is " TIGHTY WHITIES " , which cause most of that . Go do some more research; I'm tired of repeating myself, yo someone so convinced of his own propaganda, that his mind is nt merely closed, but cemented shut.
Oh, Global Warming is somethig that YOU don't believe in ( neither do I, FWIW ) so it's okay to call that " junk sceince ". What about those oh so irrifutable government studies, which claimed that bacon will kill you ; then it won't ... avlar on apples will kill your children ; then no it won't ... and on, and on, and on, and on, until most people decided that they'd eat what they wanted to, because the studies kept changing ?
Just because you are a Roman Catholic, and believe that birth control is BAD, except for the Rhythm Method ( or whatever it's being peddled as , now ) , doesn't give you the right to try to scare women, with this garbage sceince. Everyone here, isn't Catholic. And no, that isn't Catholic bashing; it's by way of explination, to those who haven't yet seen you post . You always post from your own agenda / bias ; but , condemn others for contridictiong you and say that they are the ones with the agenda. : - )
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.