Posted on 02/12/2011 5:33:19 PM PST by topher
 |
First, the Potomac Conservancy made headlines about the contamination of rivers and drinking water in major metropolitan areas, including Washington DC. Contaminants include not only bacteria, industrial chemicals and agricultural pesticides but also potentially endocrine-active pharmaceuticals, such anti-depressants, contraceptive sex hormones, antibiotics and personal care products.
Next came the report of US Preventive Services Task Force, an independent body which studies mortality from common diseases, issuing new guidelines for mammographic screening for early detection of breast cancer. Breast Cancer remains the second highest cause of mortality of American women since it began to rise in the 1970s.
Finally, the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) reported the annual statistics for sexually transmitted diseases. In 2008 there was a record number of new cases of Chlamydia – a whopping 1.2 million new cases, a rise in the number of new cases of syphilis and an all-time record of 19 million total cases of all forms of STDs.
To connect the dots between these stories one has to ask: Could steroid-based sex hormone contraceptives be a common thread?
Hard to believe until you consider the evidence.
A pill is born
The first sex hormone-containing pill, a synthetic steroid called Norethindrone, was developed by organic chemist Carl Djerassi in Syntex Laboratories in Mexico City. Djerassi was developing a synthetic progestin for menstrual irregularities. His product turned out to be a powerful inhibitor of ovulation, but he had not anticipated that the estrogen-with-progestin combination oral birth control pill (COCP) would have other effects upon women. Only after many years was this combination suspected as the culprit in many unexpected side-effects, including blood clots, diabetes, depression or anxious emotional states experienced by women.
That some of these side-effects can be serious is confirmed by a new report in the January 2010 edition of Obstetrics and Gynecology of conclusive evidence for significant loss of bone mineral density when a woman uses Depo-Provera (a long acting injectable form of progestin-only contraceptive) for more than two years.
An evaluation by the International Agency for Research on Cancer ( IARC) released in 1999 classified oral contraceptives as a Group 1 carcinogen: "There is sufficient evidence in humans for the carcinogenicity of combined oral estrogen-progestogen contraceptives." The weight of evidence indicated an increased risk of breast cancer which was greater for women who were under age 35 at the time of diagnosis and who had begun using contraceptives before their 20th birthday. In a follow up 2005 report, IARC estimated that worldwide more than 100 million women were using some form of COCP. IARC re-iterated its classification of oral contraceptives as Group I carcinogens.
The Mayo Clinic Proceedings in 2006 published a meta-analysis of 23 studies done in several countries about breast cancer risk and usage of oral contraceptives. Dr Chris Kahlenborn, one of the principal authors, stated that "if a woman takes combined oral contraceptive pills before her first full term pregnancy, she risks a 44 percent increased chance of developing pre-menopause breast cancer when compared to women who have never taken an OCP". Kahlenborn also found that "if a woman takes OCPs for 4 years or more prior to her first full term pregnancy, she suffers a 52 percent increased risk".
Drinking water contamination
 Yet, what was most surprising to Dr. Meg Meeker, pediatrician and adolescent medicine specialist, was her observation that many of her adolescent girl patients who had begun to engage in sexual encounters were showing signs of clinical depression. |
The U.S. Geological Survey in 2002 found one or more pharmaceuticals in 80 percent of the streams it had tested. In 2006 the Los Angeles Times reported that sewage contains traces of medications like antibiotics, anti-depressants, birth-control hormones, Viagra, Valium and heart drugs.
Shane Snyder, lead toxicologist at the Southern Nevada Water Authority, said: "There is no place on Earth exempted from having pharmaceuticals and steroids in its wastewater. This is clearly an issue that is global, and we are going to see more and more of these chemicals in the environment, no doubt about it."
The Potomac Conservancy found similar water conditions in the Washington, D.C. area. Mirroring other regions of the country where biologists have found frogs contaminated with Prozac, insects on anti-seizure drugs and algae killed by antibiotics, the waterways draining the Shenandoah Mountains and tributaries flowing into the Potomac River have witnessed fish kills since 2002. The unexpected observation was that most of the dead male fish had inter-sex characteristics and that there was a disproportionate number of female fish. Further examination by the US Geological Survey of the Potomac tributaries revealed that 80 percent of the male fish had the inter-sex condition.
While the concentrations of some of the pharmaceuticals found in drinking water sources, including estrogens and fertility drugs, are in the parts per billion, comparable to putting a few drops in an Olympic-sized pool, the effects these may have on humans remains unknown. What is known is that on the level of endocrine systems, fish and humans function in very similar ways. What happens to fish may be signaling future disorders for humans.
This was highlighted in the Proceedings of the National Academies of Science (2008) in a report of an experiment demonstrating that young male trout develop abnormal numbers of chromosomes in sperm when the young fish were exposed over 50 days to concentrations of the contraceptive estrogen ethinyl estradiol (EE2), comparable to concerntrations of EE2 discovered in waterways in various regions of the U.S. Exposure to this very low concentration of EE2 resulted in a 25 times greater number of abnormal sperm. When the sperm from exposed male trout fertilizes the eggs of female trout not similarly exposed to EE2, the fish embryos that develop demonstrated a 58% increase in the number of abnormal embryos, some with too many chromosomes, some with too few.
What this means for humans is unknown. What is known is the observation that human embryos, when analyzed after miscarriage, frequently demonstrate similar abnormal number of chromosomes.
Contraceptives: a form of endocrine-disrupting chemicals
In 2009 the professional association for endocrinologists, the Endocrine Society, issued a strong statement on endocrine-disrupting chemicals. The evidence suggests that exposure to multiple endocrine disrupting chemicals at developmental stages has the potential to affect any hormone-sensitive body system, including the breast and the hypothalamic-pituitary-ovarian system in women, and the testes and prostate gland in men.
The Endocrine Society appealed to the precautionary principle, stating: "This principle is key to enhancing endocrine and reproductive health, and should be consulted to inform decisions about exposure to and risk from any potential endocrine disruptor."
And: "The public may be placed at risk because critical information about potential health effects of endocrine disrupting chemicals to which Americans are exposed is being overlooked in the development of federal guidelines and regulations."
The pill's link to STDs
Yet, what was most surprising to Dr. Meg Meeker, pediatrician and adolescent medicine specialist, was her observation that many of her adolescent girl patients who had begun to engage in sexual encounters were showing signs of clinical depression. |
Are there any strong associations between use of steroid-based OCPs and sexually transmitted diseases? The CDC's answer is yes.
A review of 83 studies published in the Journal Contraception in 2006 found that combined oral contraceptives and Depo-Provera use generally had a positive association with cervical chlamydial infection. Chlamydia infection and other inflammatory STDs such as Syphilis or genital Herpes are reported by the CDC to increase the risk of transmission of Human Immunodeficiency Virus infection. Chlamydia is well known as the leading preventable infection that can cause a severe condition called Pelvic Inflammatory Disease, which, if not treated, can result in female infertility.
The recent STD report for 2008 from the CDC states that adolescent girls between the ages of 15-19 account for 27 per cent of the total new cases of chlamydia and gonorrhea. While acknowledging that adolescent boys have a similar prevalence of STDs, the CDC insisted that because of "biological differences" young women have a greater potential to suffer consequences to their health than young males.
Depressing sex
Yet, what was most surprising to Dr. Meg Meeker, pediatrician and adolescent medicine specialist, was her observation that many of her adolescent girl patients who had begun to engage in sexual encounters were showing signs of clinical depression.
In her book, Strong Fathers, Strong Daughters (2007), she says: "Kids get depressed when they experience a loss for which they cannot express a healthy emotion. This is very common with sexual activity. When a girl has sex, she loses her virginity and very often loses her self-respect with it".
That clinical observation of one pediatrician is supported by findings of researchers interested in any association between teenage sexual experimentation, drug use and depression. Denise Hallfors et al write in the American Journal of Preventive Medicine (October 2005) that for girls even a modest involvement in sexual experimentation or substance use elevated depression risk. In contrast, boys exhibited little added risk of depression with sexual experimental behavior, although binge drinking and frequent use of marijuana contribute substantial risk.
Thanatos syndrome revisited
In Walker Percy's 1987 novel, The Thanatos Syndrome, Dr. Tom More returns to his home town and family to restart what remains of his practice of psychiatry after serving a felony conviction for selling prescriptions for narcotics. After a few weeks of re-establishing contact with some of his former patients, he notices a profound change in his patients, with unusual mood changes, increased ability to recall the location of obscure names of places and the ability to make complex numeric calculations. In addition his patients all seem to have become hyper-eroticized, exhibiting outlandish sexual advances that persons with intact higher-order self-control would recognize as outside the range of socially acceptable behavior.
The contraceptive pill was sold as the scientific panacea for ultimate sexual liberation. Its real-time effect has been a form of "lobotomy" of reason and good judgement, both of users and prescribers. |
He postulates something has changed his patients. With the help of an epidemiologist, More learns that toxic, radioactive sodium has been released from a nearby nuclear power plant and that the water with the heavy sodium is being deliberately channeled through an unauthorized and hidden pipe into the drinking water supply. Behind this scheme are some of More's medical colleagues, who discovered, that dosing the water supply with low concentrations of heavy sodium had the effect of suppressing the cognitive functioning of antisocial types like alcoholics, drug addicts, prostitutes or those confined to the local jail. The docs feel justified in what they are doing. They want Dr. Tom to join them when they discover he knows what they are up to. Dr. Tom knows better.
It appears that for the last 50 years, something similar has been happening to America. The contraceptive pill was sold as the scientific panacea for ultimate sexual liberation. Its real-time effect has been a form of "lobotomy" of reason and good judgement, both of users and prescribers. It is time the medical establishment recognized its complicity and returned to that simple principle for which it gained the enviable respect and autonomy of action it merited as the premier profession that advocated for the unprotected and unknowing: "Above all, do no harm."
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
Robert Conkling, M.D. "The Pill Turns 50: Medicine that makes you sick." Mercatornet (January 15, 2010).
This article byRobert Conkling, M.D. was originally published on MercatorNet.com under a Creative Commons Licence.
If you enjoyed this article, visit MercatorNet.com for more. Reprinted with permission of MercatorNet.com. Find the original article here.
MercatorNet is an innovative internet magazine analysing current affairs and key international news and trends which touch its readers' daily lives.
THE AUTHOR
Robert F. Conkling MD practices family medicine in Virginia and is co-founder of FertilityCare™ of the Capitol Region.
Copyright © 2010 MercatorNet
“Congratulations. What a profoundly selfish way of thinking.”
Why? I was married for 10 years and didn’t want kids. I can’t have unprotected sex with my wife?
I thank God for the women in my life that have been on the pill.
WOMEN would imply more than one.
I didn’t say I made them take it. Their mothers probably did.
I am not having a battle of wits with someone so unarmed. Clearly, you think this was convenient by your comment that you are thankful for the women in your life who have been on the pill. That mentality is part of the problem with this country. If you can’t see that, too bad for you.
Go sit in a welfare office sometime and you’d wish more people were on the pill. The behavior remains a constant whether the pill is taken or not. Meanwhile, I work hard and have to pay the IRS while people get $4000 back for not working and making babies. And don’t challenge my intelligence.
Oh, I have to say I DO NOT equate the pill with abortion.
1. don’t lecture me about sitting in a welfare office. My mother is a welfare case worker & I work in a large pediatric hospital where I see neglect and abuse everyday. I also see almost 46% of my salary sucked off in federal, state, and local taxes before it even hits my bank account. Despite all that, I am still NOT going to advocate a Pill that allows one to engage in irresponsible behavior, has major side effects, drives up the cost of healthcare, correlates with an increase in STDs, breast cancer, and abortion, contaminates our environment, and is just all around immoral. If you are so intellectually dishonest & self-serving that you want to give an “ok” to it because it has allowed you to have fun, then that’s your problem not mine. Makes me suspect that you are a liberal
2. If you don’t equate the Pill with abortion, then perhaps you should educate yourself on how it works. So yes, smartass, I will question your intelligence.
allows one to engage in irresponsible behavior(removing condoms off the shelf doesn’t stop homosexuality), has major side effects(the patient and doctor can evaluate and make this decision), drives up the cost of healthcare(not sure the correlation here), correlates with an increase in STDs(I can go for that), breast cancer(I understand the risk), and abortion(the pill prevents pregnancy), contaminates our environment(not unless you dump them down the toilet).
And as far as your moral arguement, that’s your opinion. I am a welfare caseworker in Florida and I’m working on my MBA in Healthcare Administration. Don’t hurl your insults my way by insinuating I’m a liberal. Women have a choice in the medications they take. I am not morally superior to pass judgement on women that use these drugs perhaps to regulate their period or protect themselves from unwanted pregnancy.
I personally don’t want kids at this point in my life(I’m 40). If a woman is not on the pill I will use other methods of safety against pregnancy.
Placemark.
Your problem here is that you assume you know more than you do about this topic. So I will take it point by point.
Allowing one to engage in irresponsible behaviors - I never mentioned homosexuality here so let’s stick to the topic at hand. Taking the Pill gives a woman a false sense of security & encourages irresponsible sex. The Pill package inserts claim an effectiveness of 99% when the real failure rate is more like 17%. These women pursue “sex without consequences” which is a falsehood that does not exist.
Side effects- the AMA & other physician groups are on record soft-balling the side effects of the pill. If you think places like Planned Parenthood are counseling women to the real risks of the Pill think again. My own GYN tried pushing this shit off on me after my daughter was born, telling me that serious effects are “rare”. Meanwhile, I had just witnessed the death of 4 patients at work in a short span of time from strokes and/or pulmonary embolism from the Pill. A close friend of mine just got out of the hospital last week from a PE that her physicians blamed on the Pill. If you think drs & patients are discussing this, think again. This is a multi-million dollar industry.
Driving up healthcare costs - who do you think is paying for the Pill that is given out for “free” at various clinics? And who do you think pays for hospitalizations & care related to side effects? That’s not rocket science, dude.
Abortion - if a woman conceives while on the Pill, the Pill prevents the implantation of the embryo & it is passed. It is an abortifacient. Every woman taking the Pill (and man who condones it) is guilty of this.
Contaminates our environment - you say this dosen’t happen unless you dump it down the toilet. Are you seriously that simple? WTF do you think happens when a woman pees? All the exogenous hormones she’s been taking are dumped into the sewer system. And out water treatment facilities are not sophisticated enough to remove these hormones from the drinking water. Why do you think there are 6 year old girls growing boobs & getting their periods? How about men who are developing feminizing characteristics, like man-boobs?
I’m appalled that you fail to see these arguments, as well as your own relativism. As far as women having a choice as far as which meds they take, can you say with honesty that they are being given full disclosure, making a truly informed choice? I can tell you - hell no. And it’s men like you who encourage it for their own convenience who are part of the problem. If you don’t like my “opinion”, too bad. The truth hurts & I have the facts on my side.
Why not that IS the way it works.It keeps the lining of the uterus thin so that a fertilized egg can not attach.
Listen to the Pope when he spoke to UN he lays out the whole realm of Natural Order... it was a very educational speech!
Yawn... I’m not telling or encouraging women to take these pills. Go take your platform to the parking lots of Planned Parenthood. Ill drive you there. I’m tired of the bantering. Its tiresome. Good evening...
Because of this type of thinking, the Protestants of Northern Ireland wanted nothing to do with the Republic of Ireland. The Catholic Church is not the end all be all of morality. Follow your teachings, fine. But please,since most Protestants have no problem with non-abortion birth control, do not insult others who do not agree with your views on birth control. Have a little tolerance for the people your ancestors came to live among.
I just saw an ad for a new “birth control” pill on TV today. The thought came to me, that those of us who are pro-life—really should name “the pill” what it is, “the STERILITY PILL.”
If we routinely called it that, which is a strictly accurate description.... people may become less enamored with it.
I’m a happy Protestant, and hold no candle for the Church of Rome (ask narses and other Romanists I’ve debated on FR).
However, on the Pill, Roman Catholics are medically correct in calling it a (partial) abortificant. Yes, the primary way it works is to shut down the ovaries. A 2ndary way it works though is also by shutting down the uterus—which means in a certain, small percentage of cases, it will and does cause a spontaneous abortion of a fertilized egg...that is, a human baby.
A person who is conscientiously pro-life—believing that human life is sacred, and that it begins at conception—cannot in good conscience endorse the pill, period.
I know this from the Bible, which calls pre-born babies human... and it takes no pope or Church, or natural law-reasoning to bring me that common-sense conclusion.
Overall, not a bad idea. Think of it this way. The way a phrase is couched often tilts those who are undecided one way or another. Think of the evil euphemism: “pro-choice,” which we know equals nothing less than pro-abortion. The pill is often couched in language that emphasizes free love, uncomplicated entanglements, et cetera. It doesn’t, however, bring up the deleterious results on those individuals who would be here, but for the effects of birth control. I realize I’m rattling on, but hopefully you get my drift. A better reference term for the pill and it’s equivalents is needed. One that is succinct, and gets the point across. Do we have any good marketing folks out there into coining phrases?
Excuse the typos. I’m on a blackberry and am fumble fingered...
Yes, the pill has problems.
But if you ask the average woman: Which do you prefer, a 12 percent risk of breast cancer and two kids, or a 9 percent chance of breast cancer and ten kids? I wonder what she’d answer.
Especially if she knew that 90 percent of breast cancer can be cured...
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.