RE: a question on the pill and ovarian and endometrial Ca, from Fr.

February 24, 2012

1.The ovarian cancer reduction reported in various papers with the pill is partly artifactual, because the studies showing this have tended to be retrospective observational studies rather than prospective or randomized kinds, and so some experts feel that (see Dr. Ellen Grant's most excellent commentary on this phenomenon in The Bitter Pill, or in Sexual Chemistry) those with the highest tendency to develop certain cancers (because they already have certain symptoms or pathologies in the organs in question -- here the ovaries or reproductive tract) tend to drop out early leaving an artificially decreased cancer risk in those remaining unit the study's conclusions. And this tends to be the case whether the study is very small, or whether it has 45,000 women in it. The size just tends to magnify the effects, but they still apply.

2. But the reported reduction is also partly real, though not in a healthy way. Apart from the artifactual reduced risk mentioned above, there can be a real risk reduction that while real, nevertheless does not represent a health benefit to the woman and ought not to be lauded, because it is a small positive outcome much more than offset by the dominantly negative effects, or to put it differently it is the small positive accidental side-effect of someone harming one's health, like smoking to relieve anxiety or anger. It may work once in a while, and the effect may even be consistently measurable, but it hardly constitutes good health. When because of oral contraceptives the cells of the ovary cannot divide and turn over normally (unlike what would happen if ovulation were allowed to proceed without interference), then ovarian and total health is profoundly adversely affected, leading to all kind of hormonal dyscrasias, menopausal syndromes, higher rates of heart and bone disease, breast cancers, etc., etc., without trying to be exhaustive, as we have seen in Western societies with high pill use-prevalence rates. Now there will also be a lower rate of cancers of these cells, not because then women is now healthier and can better fend off cancer cells, but precisely because cells incapable of dividing normally also are less able to proliferate cancerously, but this is hardly a health benefit, because actual health depends on their normal division and turn-over. If it were, we would advocate taking both kidneys out on every normal person and putting them on lifelong dialysis because we'd be certain we could demonstrate a 100% reduction in the most common type of kidney cancer, renal cell carcinoma. Or imagine telling patients we could guarantee they would never get thyroid cancer if we'd just take out the gland and use artificial thyroid hormone in its place, or we thought inducing excessive thyroid function (hyperthyroidism) were a good way of "preventing" the state of inadequate thyroid function (hypothyroidism).

None of these examples make any sense of course, for rational people, but all of them would seem to make just as much sense as trumpeting OCPs as a good way of "preventing" ovarian cancer. Often in service unfortunately of the powerful cabal of the contraceptive industry and the medical-pharmaceutical complex behind it, epidemiology has been way of justifying lies, more lies, and damned lies! One of the biggest of these is the myth of the "non-contraceptive benefits of the pill", for which "decreases in the risk of ovarian cancer" is just one of the sordid examples. But there are others...Now that I think about it, why don't we hold a conference one day on this, or publish a paper on the myth itself?

But besides all this, is there I wonder, something of the perverse "instein-ian" nature and social re-engineering at work here, like the kind that seems to be at work when we read and hear that women would be better off without menstrual periods? Or that the pill state is an inherently less-risk (read: "healthier") state than the pregnant state. I wonder....

Sincerely yours,

Dominic M. Pedulla MD, FACC, CNFPMC, ABVM, ACPh

Interventional Cardiologist, Endovascular Diplomate, Varicose Vein Specialist, Noncontraceptive Family Planning Consultant, Family Planning Researcher

Medical Director, The Oklahoma Vein and Endovascular Center (www.noveinok.com, veininfo@...)

Executive Director, The Edith Stein Foundation (www.theedithsteinfoundation.com)

(office)

(cell)

(FAX)

pedullad@...

a question on the pill and ovarian and endometrial Ca, from Fr.

Friends,

Hanna sent me a piece advocating the pill and claiming that it was supported at a conference at the Univ. of the Holy Cross in Rome.

I just asked a priest at the Holy Cross. He replied as follows:

"Thanks, ! Yes, this article's reference to Holy Cross seems totally unfounded. No news of such a presentation ever given here!

Regarding the claim that regular use of the pill can reduce cervical and/or uterine cancer, do you know if the scientific evidence is substantiated?"

Would you please comment to the conclusions of the following article from the NIH website. Obviously any benefit would not justify the use of the pill.

How do oral contraceptives affect ovarian and endometrial cancer risk?

Studies have consistently shown that using OCs reduces the risk of ovarian cancer. In a 1992 analysis of 20 studies of OC use and ovarian cancer, researchers from Harvard Medical School found that the risk of ovarian cancer decreased with increasing duration of OC use. Results showed a 10 to 12 percent decrease in risk after 1 year of use, and approximately a 50 percent decrease after 5 years of use (5).

Researchers have studied how the amount or type of hormones in OCs affects ovarian cancer risk reduction. One of the studies used in the Harvard analysis, the Cancer and Steroid Hormone Study (CASH), found that the reduction in ovarian cancer risk was the same regardless of the type or amount of estrogen or progestin in the pill (6). A more recent analysis of data from the CASH study, however, indicated that OC formulations with high levels of progestin reduced ovarian cancer risk more than preparations with low progestin levels (7). In another recent study, the Steroid Hormones and Reproductions (SHARE) study, researchers investigated new, lower-dose progestins that have varying androgenic properties (testosterone-like effects). They found no difference in ovarian cancer risk between androgenic and nonandrogenic pills (8).

OC use in women at increased risk of ovarian cancer due to BRCA1 and BRCA2 genetic mutations has been studied. One study showed a reduction in risk, but a more recent study showed no effect (9, 10).

The use of OCs has been shown to significantly reduce the risk of endometrial cancer. This protective effect increases with the length of time OCs are used, and continues for many years after a woman stops using OCs (11).

Thank you,

Fr.

http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-oe-potts-the-pill-revisited-20120220,0,4953131.story

Sr. Hanna Klaus, M.D.

Natural Family Planning Center of Washington, D.C. and Teen STAR Program

4400 East West Highway # 911

Bethesda, MD 20814-4510

hannaklaus@...

http://www.teenstarprogram.org

--

Fr. R. VÃ©lez

765 14th Ave, Apt 1

San Francisco, CA 94118

Website: www.newmanbiography.com

February 24, 2012

Thanks for checking the reference to the statement Potts attributed to a conference at the Univ. of the Holy cross. So much for that. Without reading l the articles cited Fr , the rationale given for the reduction in endometrial and ovarian cancers is that the contraceptive steroids block FSH and LH thereby “resting” the ovary and endometrium”. When there is no mitosis the cells are not as like to have atypical development, which is the first stage of endometrial carcinoma, and also if the ovary is at rest, no cells are stimulated. So it is not the positive action of the steroids, but rather the fact that they prevent normal cell division. There are other ways of preventing the FSH/LH cycle in the pituitary, for instance with danazol, or one of several Gonadotropin agonists or antagonists. Hanna Klaus From: nfpprofessionals [mailto:nfpprofessionals ] On Behalf Of VelezSent: Friday, February 24, 2012 1:23 PMTo: hannaklaus@...; nfpprofessionals Subject: a question on the pill and ovarian and endometrial Ca, from Fr. Friends, Hanna sent me a piece advocating the pill and claiming that it was supported at a conference at the Univ. of the Holy Cross in Rome. I just asked a priest at the Holy Cross. He replied as follows: " Thanks, ! Yes, this article's reference to Holy Cross seems totally unfounded. No news of such a presentation ever given here! Regarding the claim that regular use of the pill can reduce cervical and/or uterine cancer, do you know if the scientific evidence is substantiated? " Would you please comment to the conclusions of the following article from the NIH website. Obviously any benefit would not justify the use of the pill. 1. How do oral contraceptives affect ovarian and endometrial cancer risk?Studies have consistently shown that using OCs reduces the risk of ovarian cancer. In a 1992 analysis of 20 studies of OC use and ovarian cancer, researchers from Harvard Medical School found that the risk of ovarian cancer decreased with increasing duration of OC use. Results showed a 10 to 12 percent decrease in risk after 1 year of use, and approximately a 50 percent decrease after 5 years of use (5).Researchers have studied how the amount or type of hormones in OCs affects ovarian cancer risk reduction. One of the studies used in the Harvard analysis, the Cancer and Steroid Hormone Study (CASH), found that the reduction in ovarian cancer risk was the same regardless of the type or amount of estrogen or progestin in the pill (6). A more recent analysis of data from the CASH study, however, indicated that OC formulations with high levels of progestin reduced ovarian cancer risk more than preparations with low progestin levels (7). In another recent study, the Steroid Hormones and Reproductions (SHARE) study, researchers investigated new, lower-dose progestins that have varying androgenic properties (testosterone-like effects). They found no difference in ovarian cancer risk between androgenic and nonandrogenic pills (8).OC use in women at increased risk of ovarian cancer due to BRCA1 and BRCA2 genetic mutations has been studied. One study showed a reduction in risk, but a more recent study showed no effect (9, 10).The use of OCs has been shown to significantly reduce the risk of endometrial cancer. This protective effect increases with the length of time OCs are used, and continues for many years after a woman stops using OCs (11). Thank you, Fr. http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-oe-potts-the-pill-revisited-20120220,0,4953131.story Sr. Hanna Klaus, M.D.Natural Family Planning Center of Washington, D.C. and Teen STAR Program4400 East West Highway # 911Bethesda, MD 20814-4510 hannaklaus@...http://www.teenstarprogram.org -- Fr. R. Vélez765 14th Ave, Apt 1San Francisco, CA 94118Website: www.newmanbiography.com

February 24, 2012

Sounds like Dr Dom has a head-start on an article to follow Dr Peck's Lancet Quarterly, Feb 2012, article!?!?

To: nfpprofessionals From: pedullad@...Date: Fri, 24 Feb 2012 14:08:17 -0500Subject: Re: a question on the pill and ovarian and endometrial Ca, from Fr.

1.The ovarian cancer reduction reported in various papers with the pill is partly artifactual, because the studies showing this have tended to be retrospective observational studies rather than prospective or randomized kinds, and so some experts feel that (see Dr. Ellen Grant's most excellent commentary on this phenomenon in The Bitter Pill, or in Sexual Chemistry) those with the highest tendency to develop certain cancers (because they already have certain symptoms or pathologies in the organs in question -- here the ovaries or reproductive tract) tend to drop out early leaving an artificially decreased cancer risk in those remaining unit the study's conclusions. And this tends to be the case whether the study is very small, or whether it has 45,000 women in it. The size just tends to magnify the effects, but they still apply.

2. But the reported reduction is also partly real, though not in a healthy way. Apart from the artifactual reduced risk mentioned above, there can be a real risk reduction that while real, nevertheless does not represent a health benefit to the woman and ought not to be lauded, because it is a small positive outcome much more than offset by the dominantly negative effects, or to put it differently it is the small positive accidental side-effect of someone harming one's health, like smoking to relieve anxiety or anger. It may work once in a while, and the effect may even be consistently measurable, but it hardly constitutes good health. When because of oral contraceptives the cells of the ovary cannot divide and turn over normally (unlike what would happen if ovulation were allowed to proceed without interference), then ovarian and total health is profoundly adversely affected, leading to all kind of hormonal dyscrasias, menopausal syndromes, higher rates of heart and bone disease, breast cancers, etc., etc., without trying to be exhaustive, as we have seen in Western societies with high pill use-prevalence rates. Now there will also be a lower rate of cancers of these cells, not because then women is now healthier and can better fend off cancer cells, but precisely because cells incapable of dividing normally also are less able to proliferate cancerously, but this is hardly a health benefit, because actual health depends on their normal division and turn-over. If it were, we would advocate taking both kidneys out on every normal person and putting them on lifelong dialysis because we'd be certain we could demonstrate a 100% reduction in the most common type of kidney cancer, renal cell carcinoma. Or imagine telling patients we could guarantee they would never get thyroid cancer if we'd just take out the gland and use artificial thyroid hormone in its place, or we thought inducing excessive thyroid function (hyperthyroidism) were a good way of "preventing" the state of inadequate thyroid function (hypothyroidism).

None of these examples make any sense of course, for rational people, but all of them would seem to make just as much sense as trumpeting OCPs as a good way of "preventing" ovarian cancer. Often in service unfortunately of the powerful cabal of the contraceptive industry and the medical-pharmaceutical complex behind it, epidemiology has been way of justifying lies, more lies, and damned lies! One of the biggest of these is the myth of the "non-contraceptive benefits of the pill", for which "decreases in the risk of ovarian cancer" is just one of the sordid examples. But there are others...Now that I think about it, why don't we hold a conference one day on this, or publish a paper on the myth itself?

But besides all this, is there I wonder, something of the perverse "instein-ian" nature and social re-engineering at work here, like the kind that seems to be at work when we read and hear that women would be better off without menstrual periods? Or that the pill state is an inherently less-risk (read: "healthier") state than the pregnant state. I wonder....

Sincerely yours, Dominic M. Pedulla MD, FACC, CNFPMC, ABVM, ACPhInterventional Cardiologist, Endovascular Diplomate, Varicose Vein Specialist, Noncontraceptive Family Planning Consultant, Family Planning ResearcherMedical Director, The Oklahoma Vein and Endovascular Center (www.noveinok.com, veininfo@...)Executive Director, The Edith Stein Foundation (www.theedithsteinfoundation.com) (office) (cell)

(FAX)pedullad@...

a question on the pill and ovarian and endometrial Ca, from Fr.

Friends,

Hanna sent me a piece advocating the pill and claiming that it was supported at a conference at the Univ. of the Holy Cross in Rome.

I just asked a priest at the Holy Cross. He replied as follows:

"Thanks, ! Yes, this article's reference to Holy Cross seems totally unfounded. No news of such a presentation ever given here! Regarding the claim that regular use of the pill can reduce cervical and/or uterine cancer, do you know if the scientific evidence is substantiated?"

Would you please comment to the conclusions of the following article from the NIH website. Obviously any benefit would not justify the use of the pill.

How do oral contraceptives affect ovarian and endometrial cancer risk?

Studies have consistently shown that using OCs reduces the risk of ovarian cancer. In a 1992 analysis of 20 studies of OC use and ovarian cancer, researchers from Harvard Medical School found that the risk of ovarian cancer decreased with increasing duration of OC use. Results showed a 10 to 12 percent decrease in risk after 1 year of use, and approximately a 50 percent decrease after 5 years of use (5).

Researchers have studied how the amount or type of hormones in OCs affects ovarian cancer risk reduction. One of the studies used in the Harvard analysis, the Cancer and Steroid Hormone Study (CASH), found that the reduction in ovarian cancer risk was the same regardless of the type or amount of estrogen or progestin in the pill (6). A more recent analysis of data from the CASH study, however, indicated that OC formulations with high levels of progestin reduced ovarian cancer risk more than preparations with low progestin levels (7). In another recent study, the Steroid Hormones and Reproductions (SHARE) study, researchers investigated new, lower-dose progestins that have varying androgenic properties (testosterone-like effects). They found no difference in ovarian cancer risk between androgenic and nonandrogenic pills (8).

OC use in women at increased risk of ovarian cancer due to BRCA1 and BRCA2 genetic mutations has been studied. One study showed a reduction in risk, but a more recent study showed no effect (9, 10).

The use of OCs has been shown to significantly reduce the risk of endometrial cancer. This protective effect increases with the length of time OCs are used, and continues for many years after a woman stops using OCs (11).

Thank you,

Fr.

http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-oe-potts-the-pill-revisited-20120220,0,4953131.story

Sr. Hanna Klaus, M.D.

Natural Family Planning Center of Washington, D.C. and Teen STAR Program

4400 East West Highway # 911

Bethesda, MD 20814-4510

hannaklaus@...

http://www.teenstarprogram.org

-- Fr. R. Vélez765 14th Ave, Apt 1San Francisco, CA 94118Website: www.newmanbiography.com

February 25, 2012

Dr. Dominic, May I use this reply you sent in my NFP/FA support group page on Facebook? Thank you for the work you do!Blessings from my family to yours,- O'Connor, RN

A Gift: NFP/FA ServicesMarquette Method NFP

1.The ovarian cancer reduction reported in various papers with the pill is partly artifactual, because the studies showing this have tended to be retrospective observational studies rather than prospective or randomized kinds, and so some experts feel that (see Dr. Ellen Grant's most excellent commentary on this phenomenon in The Bitter Pill, or in Sexual Chemistry) those with the highest tendency to develop certain cancers (because they already have certain symptoms or pathologies in the organs in question -- here the ovaries or reproductive tract) tend to drop out early leaving an artificially decreased cancer risk in those remaining unit the study's conclusions. And this tends to be the case whether the study is very small, or whether it has 45,000 women in it. The size just tends to magnify the effects, but they still apply.

2. But the reported reduction is also partly real, though not in a healthy way. Apart from the artifactual reduced risk mentioned above, there can be a real risk reduction that while real, nevertheless does not represent a health benefit to the woman and ought not to be lauded, because it is a small positive outcome much more than offset by the dominantly negative effects, or to put it differently it is the small positive accidental side-effect of someone harming one's health, like smoking to relieve anxiety or anger. It may work once in a while, and the effect may even be consistently measurable, but it hardly constitutes good health. When because of oral contraceptives the cells of the ovary cannot divide and turn over normally (unlike what would happen if ovulation were allowed to proceed without interference), then ovarian and total health is profoundly adversely affected, leading to all kind of hormonal dyscrasias, menopausal syndromes, higher rates of heart and bone disease, breast cancers, etc., etc., without trying to be exhaustive, as we have seen in Western societies with high pill use-prevalence rates. Now there will also be a lower rate of cancers of these cells, not because then women is now healthier and can better fend off cancer cells, but precisely because cells incapable of dividing normally also are less able to proliferate cancerously, but this is hardly a health benefit, because actual health depends on their normal division and turn-over. If it were, we would advocate taking both kidneys out on every normal person and putting them on lifelong dialysis because we'd be certain we could demonstrate a 100% reduction in the most common type of kidney cancer, renal cell carcinoma. Or imagine telling patients we could guarantee they would never get thyroid cancer if we'd just take out the gland and use artificial thyroid hormone in its place, or we thought inducing excessive thyroid function (hyperthyroidism) were a good way of " preventing " the state of inadequate thyroid function (hypothyroidism).

None of these examples make any sense of course, for rational people, but all of them would seem to make just as much sense as trumpeting OCPs as a good way of " preventing " ovarian cancer. Often in service unfortunately of the powerful cabal of the contraceptive industry and the medical-pharmaceutical complex behind it, epidemiology has been way of justifying lies, more lies, and damned lies! One of the biggest of these is the myth of the " non-contraceptive benefits of the pill " , for which " decreases in the risk of ovarian cancer " is just one of the sordid examples. But there are others...Now that I think about it, why don't we hold a conference one day on this, or publish a paper on the myth itself?

But besides all this, is there I wonder, something of the perverse " instein-ian " nature and social re-engineering at work here, like the kind that seems to be at work when we read and hear that women would be better off without menstrual periods? Or that the pill state is an inherently less-risk (read: " healthier " ) state than the pregnant state. I wonder....

Sincerely yours,

Dominic M. Pedulla MD, FACC, CNFPMC, ABVM, ACPh

Interventional Cardiologist, Endovascular Diplomate, Varicose Vein Specialist, Noncontraceptive Family Planning Consultant, Family Planning Researcher

Medical Director, The Oklahoma Vein and Endovascular Center (www.noveinok.com, veininfo@...)

Executive Director, The Edith Stein Foundation (www.theedithsteinfoundation.com)

(office)

(cell)

(FAX)

pedullad@...

a question on the pill and ovarian and endometrial Ca, from Fr.

Friends,

Hanna sent me a piece advocating the pill and claiming that it was supported at a conference at the Univ. of the Holy Cross in Rome.

I just asked a priest at the Holy Cross. He replied as follows:

" Thanks, ! Yes, this article's reference to Holy Cross seems totally unfounded. No news of such a presentation ever given here!

Regarding the claim that regular use of the pill can reduce cervical and/or uterine cancer, do you know if the scientific evidence is substantiated? "

Would you please comment to the conclusions of the following article from the NIH website. Obviously any benefit would not justify the use of the pill.

How do oral contraceptives affect ovarian and endometrial cancer risk?

Studies have consistently shown that using OCs reduces the risk of ovarian cancer. In a 1992 analysis of 20 studies of OC use and ovarian cancer, researchers from Harvard Medical School found that the risk of ovarian cancer decreased with increasing duration of OC use. Results showed a 10 to 12 percent decrease in risk after 1 year of use, and approximately a 50 percent decrease after 5 years of use (5).

Researchers have studied how the amount or type of hormones in OCs affects ovarian cancer risk reduction. One of the studies used in the Harvard analysis, the Cancer and Steroid Hormone Study (CASH), found that the reduction in ovarian cancer risk was the same regardless of the type or amount of estrogen or progestin in the pill (6). A more recent analysis of data from the CASH study, however, indicated that OC formulations with high levels of progestin reduced ovarian cancer risk more than preparations with low progestin levels (7). In another recent study, the Steroid Hormones and Reproductions (SHARE) study, researchers investigated new, lower-dose progestins that have varying androgenic properties (testosterone-like effects). They found no difference in ovarian cancer risk between androgenic and nonandrogenic pills (8).

OC use in women at increased risk of ovarian cancer due to BRCA1 and BRCA2 genetic mutations has been studied. One study showed a reduction in risk, but a more recent study showed no effect (9, 10).

The use of OCs has been shown to significantly reduce the risk of endometrial cancer. This protective effect increases with the length of time OCs are used, and continues for many years after a woman stops using OCs (11).

Thank you,

Fr.

http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-oe-potts-the-pill-revisited-20120220,0,4953131.story

Sr. Hanna Klaus, M.D.

Natural Family Planning Center of Washington, D.C. and Teen STAR Program

4400 East West Highway # 911

Bethesda, MD 20814-4510

hannaklaus@...

http://www.teenstarprogram.org

--

Fr. R. Vélez

765 14th Ave, Apt 1

San Francisco, CA 94118

Website: www.newmanbiography.com

February 25, 2012

Yes of course. And that goes for anyone on this list, if it will help. Note that similar arguments and discussions are not lacking to us on the whole host of false propositions made by the promoters of contraception, whether it be on the alleged "non contraceptive benefits of contraception", the "pill is safer than pregnancy and childbirth" arguments, the "pregnant as a high-risk condition" argument, etc., etc. This is precisely the moment when we all ought to take heart. I wish there were a way to get this info in the hands of those politicians courageous enough to publicly oppose contraception/abortion, so that when besieged by disingenuous women's groups and even by some honest but misinformed ones, they'd have answers at the ready.

ANd thanks for the kind words. where do you work?