Re: No birth control pills while nursing

[Guest guest]

Anjin:

I could not agree more with your comment about not simply following what

someone tells you without question. Everything should be questioned and

investigated.

This is why I am puzzled with your previous post about birth control pills

(Micronor) while breastfeeding. I did some investigating myself and found

information which totally contradicts what you say.

The Physician's Desk Reference (PDR) states that not only is this drug not

intended for lactating women, as you said, but that it is excreted in

breastmilk and therefore should not be used!!!!!! It is the PDR and the

manufacturer who state this, not me.

Also, you state that it is OK to take because it has very little estrogen.

In fact it has absolutely no estrogen whatsoever. It only contains a

Progestin (synthetic) which is not intended for consumption by infants.

Even large doses of natural progesterone, which this is not, may not be

completely safe, since this too would likely be passed through the

breastmilk. Infants bodies are probably not designed to digest large

quantities of Progesterone, which can converted in the body into other

steroid hormones such as testosterone.

The best safe (and reliable) birth control method while nursing is Natural

Family Planning, including monthly charts tracking daily temperature readings

and mucus descriptions. If you really want to get fancy you can use one of

those home ovulation test kits.

By the way, next time you go to pick up your prescription of Micronor, make

sure that you ask the pharmacist for the manufacturer's insert and read the

entire thing. Then you should feel free to correct any errors I have made,

if any.

Cory

In a message dated 12/2/99 5:00:04 AM Eastern Standard Time, Anjin327@...

writes:

> From: Anjin327@...

>

> In a message dated 99-12-01 22:24:56 EST, you write:

>

> <<

> What about the fact that you not even supposed to have sex for at least 6

> weeks after giving birth?

>

> Cory >>

> Well.....some people do not follow these recocmendations! I didn't for

one!

> My husband left for Japan for three months when my baby was less than 6

> weeks

> old. I had a very easy birth and my bleeding had stopped...my midwife had

> checked me and gave me the ok...so I was doing the " wild thing " long

before

> six weeks was done. ..otherwise I was going to have a loooong wait

> *grin*...if I had gotten pregnant I would have children 10 months apart.

> Just

> like vaccinations... " reccomendations " don't always fit with " real

life " ...I

> am forty years old...lost weight in my pregnancy(I never lost the fifty

> pounds my 18 year old gave me) and ate TONS of good food but still had a 8

> lb

> 4 oz healthy baby. I had a four hour labor with NO damage...I worked the

day

>

> before I gave birth and three days after the birth (with my baby right

> beside

> me)...I could have worked the DAY I gave birth...I felt that good.

> Reccomendations say vaccinate your baby...I don't ...my husband nearly

died

> from vaccines and my oldest had reactions...I don't follow the

> reccomendations...I follow what my " gut " and research and common sense

tell

> me to do.

> Anjin

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 12/3/99 23:32:58, Cmermer@... writes:

<<

The Physician's Desk Reference (PDR) states that not only is this drug not

intended for lactating women, as you said, but that it is excreted in

breastmilk and therefore should not be used!!!!!! It is the PDR and the

manufacturer who state this, not me. >>

The PDR, with all due respect really isn't where one should look for info on

lactation and breastfeeding as the drug manufacturer has done very little

research on these drugs and thus are simply protecting themselves. Tom

Hale's Medications and Mother's Milk is considered the standard reference in

the lactation field. He even has a website which can be consulted. The PDR

really is the last place you'd want to consult. They are cautious even with

drugs like Tylenol and amoxicillin when it comes to lactation. If you ever

have an opportunity to hear Tom Hale speak-don't pass it up. He is a very

knowledgeable researcher and writer. Kimme

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 12/3/99 23:32:58, Cmermer@... writes:

<< Even large doses of natural progesterone, which this is not, may not be

completely safe, since this too would likely be passed through the

breastmilk. Infants bodies are probably not designed to digest large

quantities of Progesterone, which can converted in the body into other

steroid hormones such as testosterone.

>>

This is also a dilemma, because even if we know how much is found in human

milk (usually less than 1% of the maternal dose) We don't know how much the

baby is getting i.e. some drugs are digested. Some drugs have a very high

molecular weight and don't pass through into human milk. The mammary glands

are much more protective than the placenta is. A useful quote from Hale's

book is " If you are provided a choice, choose drugs that have higher protein

binding, because they are more often sequestered in the maternal circulation

and do not transfer as readily to the milk or the infant. Without a doubt,

the most important parameter that determines drug penetration into milk is

protein binding. Choose drugs with high protein binding. " Incidentally the

protein binding capacity of Micronor is 98%. This is the information that is

needed to decide whether a drug is compatible with breastfeeding. Several

other parameters are also important such as molecular weight. The higher the

MW, the less drug transfers into the milk. For example, both heparin and

insulin have such high molecular weights that they aren't found in human milk

at all. Sorry this is so long, but I think there are enough reasons that

women find not to breastfeed and this (using OC) is just one more. I

personally don't use and wouldn't encourage using Micronor or any other drug

while breastfeeding, but it isn't going to contraindicate breastfeeding in

most cases. Kimme

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 12/3/99 11:48:01 PM Eastern Standard Time,

Squeaksoup@... writes:

> The PDR, with all due respect really isn't where one should look for info

on

>

> lactation and breastfeeding as the drug manufacturer has done very little

> research on these drugs and thus are simply protecting themselves. Tom

> Hale's Medications and Mother's Milk is considered the standard reference

in

>

> the lactation field. He even has a website which can be consulted. The

PDR

>

> really is the last place you'd want to consult. They are cautious even

with

>

> drugs like Tylenol and amoxicillin when it comes to lactation. If you

ever

> have an opportunity to hear Tom Hale speak-don't pass it up. He is a very

> knowledgeable researcher and writer. Kimme

>

I know the information in the PDR is all provided by the manufacturer's, but

that doesn't mean the information is any less valuable. If a drug

manufacturer says that a drug is excreted in breastmilk, it most certainly

is. If they had any basis for saying it is not, they would eagerly do so,

therby increasing their potential base for customers. By the way, they

should be cautious with drugs like tylenol and amoxicillin. Neitjer is

proven safe during nursing or been shown to not pass into the breastmilk..

Acetomenaphen (tylenol) is very hard on the liver, which in an infant is not

fully mature.

Cory

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 12/4/99 12:02:26 AM Eastern Standard Time,

Squeaksoup@... writes:

> From: Squeaksoup@...

>

>

> In a message dated 12/3/99 23:32:58, Cmermer@... writes:

>

> << Even large doses of natural progesterone, which this is not, may not be

> completely safe, since this too would likely be passed through the

> breastmilk. Infants bodies are probably not designed to digest large

> quantities of Progesterone, which can converted in the body into other

> steroid hormones such as testosterone.

> >>

>

> This is also a dilemma, because even if we know how much is found in human

> milk (usually less than 1% of the maternal dose) We don't know how much

the

> baby is getting i.e. some drugs are digested. Some drugs have a very high

> molecular weight and don't pass through into human milk. The mammary

glands

>

> are much more protective than the placenta is. A useful quote from Hale's

> book is " If you are provided a choice, choose drugs that have higher

protein

>

> binding, because they are more often sequestered in the maternal

circulation

>

> and do not transfer as readily to the milk or the infant. Without a

doubt,

> the most important parameter that determines drug penetration into milk is

> protein binding. Choose drugs with high protein binding. " Incidentally

the

>

> protein binding capacity of Micronor is 98%. This is the information that

> is

> needed to decide whether a drug is compatible with breastfeeding. Several

> other parameters are also important such as molecular weight. The higher

> the

> MW, the less drug transfers into the milk. For example, both heparin and

> insulin have such high molecular weights that they aren't found in human

> milk

> at all. Sorry this is so long, but I think there are enough reasons that

> women find not to breastfeed and this (using OC) is just one more. I

> personally don't use and wouldn't encourage using Micronor or any other

drug

>

> while breastfeeding, but it isn't going to contraindicate breastfeeding in

> most cases. Kimme

>

You state " if you have a choice, choose the drug with the higher protein

content and molecular weight " . I agree. If there is a serious medical

condition, then choose the safest drug possible. Birth control just doesn't

fall into that category in my book. The choice in that case is simple: Find

another way!

By the way, just because a substance like insulin does pass into breast milk,

this doesn't mean that it doesn't effect it's composition.

Cory

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 12/4/99 00:31:04, Cmermer@... writes:

<< Birth control just doesn't

fall into that category in my book. The choice in that case is simple: Find

another way! >>

I agree completely! Some women need other choices to breastfeed. We have

been using NFP throughout our married lives and I wish more be people were

aware of it's safety and effectiveness. Kimme

[Guest guest]

Kimmee -

What is NFP?

Teri

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 99-12-03 23:33:09 EST, you write:

<< Anjin:

I could not agree more with your comment about not simply following what

someone tells you without question. Everything should be questioned and

investigated.

This is why I am puzzled with your previous post about birth control pills

(Micronor) while breastfeeding. I did some investigating myself and found

information which totally contradicts what you say.

The Physician's Desk Reference (PDR) states that not only is this drug not

intended for lactating women, as you said, but that it is excreted in

breastmilk and therefore should not be used!!!!!! It is the PDR and the

manufacturer who state this, not me.

Also, you state that it is OK to take because it has very little estrogen.

In fact it has absolutely no estrogen whatsoever. It only contains a

Progestin (synthetic) which is not intended for consumption by infants.

Even large doses of natural progesterone, which this is not, may not be

completely safe, since this too would likely be passed through the

breastmilk. Infants bodies are probably not designed to digest large

quantities of Progesterone, which can converted in the body into other

steroid hormones such as testosterone.

The best safe (and reliable) birth control method while nursing is Natural

Family Planning, including monthly charts tracking daily temperature

readings

and mucus descriptions. If you really want to get fancy you can use one of

those home ovulation test kits.

By the way, next time you go to pick up your prescription of Micronor, make

sure that you ask the pharmacist for the manufacturer's insert and read the

entire thing. Then you should feel free to correct any errors I have made,

if any.

Cory

>>

You know Cory you sound very superior in this last paragraph...you probably

don't realize that it makes me feel stupid...and I am sure that wasn't your

intent...just the result. I have admitted in previous posts that I have made

some mistakes (especially ie the estogen comment)...and I have stated that

various people have got me thinking about my decision...ie to give up BC

pills. You must also realize that I in all consciousness WILL NOT just rely

on Natural Family Planning. I am forty years old and my husband is a 47

yr.old Buddhist monk who makes no money...I am the sole support for four

people. My husband takes care of our baby but I believe in Breast feeding and

he can't do that and I also believe in our baby bonding strongly to me and he

can't do that so I work at home so that I can be there for my baby when she

needs " Mommy " . I do NOT want to become pregnant again...this baby was very

unexpected...though I love her dearly...I make very little money and I make

less now that I have a new baby and it would not be responsible nor kind to

our children to bring another one into the world. My mom started to go

through menopause at 57 so I have quite a few reproductive years left.

And guess what? Birth control does fail (even your wonderful natural family

planning) because this baby is the result of birth control failing ONCE...ie

I used a cervical cap for 17 years ...and ONCE it came out...and bingo we had

a new baby. I can not trust to one method ...we use three right now. I plan

to have my tubes tied as soon as possible...even so I met a woman with a

fifth child on the way who said that she had her tubes tied BEFORE she got

pregnant with this child...so even that isn't fool proof.

And guess what? Cory I have read the inserts...the whole thing...and no I

wouldn't pesume to tell you that you might be wrong on anything...you seem to

have your knowledge firmly set in your head...but you did presume to think I

had not read it.

Cory I may sound mad in this post...because I am...Yet, I am very glad you

are concerned with my baby and other peoples baby's welfare...it is kind of

you to point out my errors for the benefit of all on this list. Just don't

try to shove your beliefs down my throat and insist that your way is the ONLY

way.

Anjin

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 12/4/99 1:52:06 AM Eastern Standard Time,

Knight525@... writes:

> From: Knight525@...

>

> Kimmee -

>

> What is NFP?

>

> Teri

>

Natural Family Planning

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 12/4/99 8:42:29 AM Eastern Standard Time, Anjin327@...

writes:

> >>

> You know Cory you sound very superior in this last paragraph...you

probably

> don't realize that it makes me feel stupid...and I am sure that wasn't

your

> intent...just the result. I have admitted in previous posts that I have

made

>

> some mistakes (especially ie the estogen comment)...and I have stated that

> various people have got me thinking about my decision...ie to give up BC

> pills. You must also realize that I in all consciousness WILL NOT just

rely

> on Natural Family Planning. I am forty years old and my husband is a 47

> yr.old Buddhist monk who makes no money...I am the sole support for four

> people. My husband takes care of our baby but I believe in Breast feeding

> and

> he can't do that and I also believe in our baby bonding strongly to me and

> he

> can't do that so I work at home so that I can be there for my baby when

she

> needs " Mommy " . I do NOT want to become pregnant again...this baby was very

> unexpected...though I love her dearly...I make very little money and I

make

> less now that I have a new baby and it would not be responsible nor kind

to

> our children to bring another one into the world. My mom started to go

> through menopause at 57 so I have quite a few reproductive years left.

> And guess what? Birth control does fail (even your wonderful natural

family

> planning) because this baby is the result of birth control failing

ONCE...ie

>

> I used a cervical cap for 17 years ...and ONCE it came out...and bingo we

> had

> a new baby. I can not trust to one method ...we use three right now. I

plan

> to have my tubes tied as soon as possible...even so I met a woman with a

> fifth child on the way who said that she had her tubes tied BEFORE she got

> pregnant with this child...so even that isn't fool proof.

> And guess what? Cory I have read the inserts...the whole thing...and no I

> wouldn't pesume to tell you that you might be wrong on anything...you seem

> to

> have your knowledge firmly set in your head...but you did presume to think

I

>

> had not read it.

> Cory I may sound mad in this post...because I am...Yet, I am very glad you

> are concerned with my baby and other peoples baby's welfare...it is kind

of

> you to point out my errors for the benefit of all on this list. Just don't

> try to shove your beliefs down my throat and insist that your way is the

> ONLY

> way.

> Anjin

>

I'mm sorry to upset you and I can understand your position. Didn't mean to

come of sounding superior. I typed my post very late at night and was kind

of in a hurry to get offline and go to sleep. I don't think I read all of

your previous posts.

As far as other Birth control, besides NFP, condoms are almost 100%

effective, although they do have drawbacks in terms of conveineince. If you

follow your cyle rigidly with a daily chart and use another method like the

cap, diaphram, or condoms, you should achieve as close to 100% effectiveness.

The " withdrawl " method also adds some protection, as well.

Again I am sorry. Sometimes posts on this list come off sounding a little

arrogant or condescending because everyone on this list is so strong-minded.

You need to be to question vaccines in the first place. By the way, not to

complain, but if you look at you reply to me concerning the waiting 6 weeks

to have sex, you may also see a condescending tone. I know I did. You made

it sound as if anyone who waits 6 weeks after giving birth to have sex is

foolish. Just a brief observation.

Take care.

Cory

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 99-12-04 10:48:13 EST, you write:

<< >

I'mm sorry to upset you and I can understand your position. Didn't mean to

come of sounding superior. I typed my post very late at night and was kind

of in a hurry to get offline and go to sleep. I don't think I read all of

your previous posts.

As far as other Birth control, besides NFP, condoms are almost 100%

effective, although they do have drawbacks in terms of conveineince. If you

follow your cyle rigidly with a daily chart and use another method like the

cap, diaphram, or condoms, you should achieve as close to 100%

effectiveness.

The " withdrawl " method also adds some protection, as well.

Again I am sorry. Sometimes posts on this list come off sounding a little

arrogant or condescending because everyone on this list is so strong-minded.

You need to be to question vaccines in the first place. By the way, not to

complain, but if you look at you reply to me concerning the waiting 6 weeks

to have sex, you may also see a condescending tone. I know I did. You made

it sound as if anyone who waits 6 weeks after giving birth to have sex is

foolish. Just a brief observation.

Take care.

Cory >>

Thank you for your opinions and ideas...I will look into your suggestions on

BC.

Anjin

[Guest guest]

Natural Family Planning-Sorry about that! Kimme

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 12/4/99 10:48:25, Cmermer@... writes:

<< The " withdrawl " method also adds some protection, as well.

>>

The withdrawal method is no more effective than no method at all!! The only

method with a 100% effectiveness rate is abstinence. Many people become

pregnant on the pill and some even following surgical sterilization. Kimme

[Guest guest]

Anjin -

You are so right about the ability to get pregant after tubes tied. The only

100% effective way to not get pregnant is abstinence. I know one woman who

had 2 children while on the pill, and 2 children AFTER a tubal. I also know

another woman who got pregnant on the pill once, with a diaghram once, and,

believe it or not, affter her husband got a vasectomy. His 'tubes' grew

back, and SURPRISE! So whether someone does the pill, NFP, patches, or

whatever, the risk is still there. Nothing out there is 100% effective.

Teri

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 12/4/99 10:04:23 AM Pacific Standard Time,

helminger@... writes:

<< From: Shelby <helminger@...>

Really? It worked for me for over 8 years :-)

>>

You're very lucky then, and probably not highly fertile (I don't mean that

bad...some people are just more fertile than others)!! I have a friend whose

familiy is Catholic, and they always used the 'rythm' method...they now have

6 grown children, all conceived while practicing the 'rythm' method and NFP.

Some children are just meant to be!!

Teri

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 12/4/99 1:04:33 PM Eastern Standard Time,

helminger@... writes:

> From: Shelby <helminger@...>

>

> Really? It worked for me for over 8 years :-)

>

>

> Squeaksoup@... wrote:

>

> > From: Squeaksoup@...

> >

> > In a message dated 12/4/99 10:48:25, Cmermer@... writes:

> >

> > << The " withdrawl " method also adds some protection, as well.

> > >>

> >

> > The withdrawal method is no more effective than no method at all!! The

> only

> > method with a 100% effectiveness rate is abstinence. Many people become

> > pregnant on the pill and some even following surgical sterilization.

> Kimme

> >

> >

>

It worked for me for many years too, although if it were very very important

to avoid pregnancy, I wouldn't use it as the only method.

Cory

[Guest guest]

Really? It worked for me for over 8 years :-)

Squeaksoup@... wrote:

> From: Squeaksoup@...

>

> In a message dated 12/4/99 10:48:25, Cmermer@... writes:

>

> << The " withdrawl " method also adds some protection, as well.

> >>

>

> The withdrawal method is no more effective than no method at all!! The only

> method with a 100% effectiveness rate is abstinence. Many people become

> pregnant on the pill and some even following surgical sterilization. Kimme

>

>

[Guest guest]

>>

From: Shelby <helminger@...>

Not taken badly, but I think you are incorrect. We conceived the moment we

started thinking it might be a good idea (son now 15mos old) and are pregnant

again.

shelby

Wow, you're lucky!! I've just known too many people who it didn't work for

for me to trust it as an effective method for myself. It seemed to work

pretty well for my DH and I as well. I went off bc in early May 98, and per

instructions were told to wait 3 months to try to conceive. My DH can't use

condoms (breaks them), so we just used the withdrawal method for 3 months (we

had spermicide implants (whatever they're called), but were always too

spontaneous to use them.) At month 4, we stopped the withdrawal and we got

pg that month!! So, it did work for us, but with the people I know who had a

bad track record with it, it's just too risky for me as a choice for us. I

think it's GREAT that it works so well for you!

I do have another question for everyone though. I have been on the pill

since before I became sexually active, in order to regulate my cycle and get

rid of horrible cramps. I thought the pill was the greatest thing since

sliced bread! It even made my breasts a little larger (need all the help I

can get!) Anyway, I have been on Micronor since 6 weeks pp. For those of

you who don't recommend Micronor or a pill, how do you (or do you not have

the problems) regulate cycles and take care of cramps? BTW, my son is 6

months today, i am still bf (not exclusively...he gets 1-2 bottles of formula

during the day because I can't pump anything (nothing comes out anymore) and

I have not had a period yet.

Thanks for the input!

Teri

[Guest guest]

Not taken badly, but I think you are incorrect. We conceived the moment we

started thinking it might be a good idea (son now 15mos old) and are pregnant

again.

shelby

Knight525@... wrote:

> From: Knight525@...

>

> In a message dated 12/4/99 10:04:23 AM Pacific Standard Time,

> helminger@... writes:

>

> << From: Shelby <helminger@...>

>

> Really? It worked for me for over 8 years :-)

> >>

>

> You're very lucky then, and probably not highly fertile (I don't mean that

> bad...some people are just more fertile than others)!! I have a friend whose

> familiy is Catholic, and they always used the 'rythm' method...they now have

> 6 grown children, all conceived while practicing the 'rythm' method and NFP.

> Some children are just meant to be!!

>

> Teri

>

>

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 12/4/1999 1:39:17 PM Central Standard Time,

Knight525@... writes:

<< You're very lucky then, and probably not highly fertile (I don't mean that

bad...some people are just more fertile than others)!! I have a friend

whose

familiy is Catholic, and they always used the 'rythm' method...they now have

6 grown children, all conceived while practicing the 'rythm' method and NFP.

Some children are just meant to be!!

>>

But, according to my mom (6 kids), the rhythm method is sorely lacking in

anything except *rhythm*. They don't teach or use methods that show women

how to read their own bodies. IT basically just goes by dates, and for most

women that isn't near enough. I'm lucky I had a standard 28 day cycle up to

my son, then a 25 day cycle, now I'm at 20 days. I have a calendar that I

write on religiously, and I keep track of my mucous like clockwork.

Additionally, 2 days before I ovulate I get a major headache, kin to an

allergic reaction - and PMS like nobody's business. If I've forgotten what

day it is, this reminds me that I have 5 days of abstinence -- 2 full days

after I have ovulated. It took me 25 years to get here -- I used the cap for

15, and that was okay, but inconvenient in some cases. The pill for 2 which

caused side effects. This is what I feel comfortable with only, and finally.

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 12/5/99 9:04:07 AM Pacific Standard Time,

C8743@... writes:

<< Additionally, 2 days before I ovulate I get a major headache, kin to an

allergic reaction - and PMS like nobody's business. >>

I never have ANY clue as to when I ovulate, though. And only occassionally

do I even feel my period coming on. Before I got preg., I varied from 25 to

40 days between cycles, so I'm just too uncomfortable using a method like

that. How do you do it when you have no symptoms when you're ovulating? And

what about women with irregular cycles like me? That's why I originally got

on the pill...not for bc, but to regulate, get rid of severe cramps and stop

an increasingly heavy flow. I haven't had any side effects from the pill, so

I have loved it. I do sometimes get worried about the unnatural drugs in my

body on a daily basis.

Teri

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 12/5/99 4:14:29 PM Eastern Standard Time,

Knight525@... writes:

>

> I never have ANY clue as to when I ovulate, though. And only

occassionally

> do I even feel my period coming on. Before I got preg., I varied from 25

to

>

> 40 days between cycles, so I'm just too uncomfortable using a method like

> that. How do you do it when you have no symptoms when you're ovulating?

> And

> what about women with irregular cycles like me? That's why I originally

got

>

> on the pill...not for bc, but to regulate, get rid of severe cramps and

stop

>

> an increasingly heavy flow. I haven't had any side effects from the pill,

> so

> I have loved it. I do sometimes get worried about the unnatural drugs in

my

>

> body on a daily basis.

>

> Teri

>

You can tell when you are ovulating from checking your tempurature evry

morning.

For the hormonal problems, did you ever try natural progesterone?

Cory

[Guest guest]

You can tell when you are ovulating by three things: position of your

cervix, cervical fluid, and your temperature.

A really good book that decribes fertility awareness is Taking Charge of

Your Fertility : The Definitive Guide to Natural Birth Control and Pregnancy

Achievement by Toni Weschler. It explains fertility awareness method (FAM),

a natural, scientifically proven but little-known form of birth control

(which is not to be confused with the woefully ineffective " rhythm " method).