Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I care about the environment and you should to.

Overpopulation is worse for the environment than birth control pills.

Ms Sanger wanted to reduce the propagation of the “feeble-minded”.

Has she succeeded?

Obviously not - we have 62 million data points of feeble mindedness .

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Regarding BCAs and breast cancer.....they also have a significant impact in reducing the likelihood of ovarian cancer if taken for five years — and the benefit may last for 25 years.

https://www.mdanderson.org/publications/focused-on-health/birth-control-pill-and-cancer-risk.h28Z1590624.html

Having had breast cancer, I’ve had the conversation with several oncologists, GYNs, and GYN ONCs. In general breast cancers is more treatable than ovarian cancer.

Not treatable for the thousands and thousands of young women who now have stage 4 BC.

Exactly. The relationship between the pill and increased incidence of breast cancer is covered up in MSM.

What BS.

Guess there are no medical journals, eh?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I care about the environment and you should to.

Overpopulation is worse for the environment than birth control pills.

Ms Sanger wanted to reduce the propagation of the “feeble-minded”.

Has she succeeded?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Regarding BCAs and breast cancer.....they also have a significant impact in reducing the likelihood of ovarian cancer if taken for five years — and the benefit may last for 25 years.

https://www.mdanderson.org/publications/focused-on-health/birth-control-pill-and-cancer-risk.h28Z1590624.html

Having had breast cancer, I’ve had the conversation with several oncologists, GYNs, and GYN ONCs. In general breast cancers is more treatable than ovarian cancer.

Not treatable for the thousands and thousands of young women who now have stage 4 BC.

Exactly. The relationship between the pill and increased incidence of breast cancer is covered up in MSM.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Breast cancer
My oncologist feels there is a direct correlation with the increased number of aggressive breast cancer in younger women.

B-I-N-G-O.

no proof of that, is there now? An oncologist "feels".... how scientific!

Well this was when we were discussing which chemo to use for my breast cancer. Aggressive BC with no family history. Have been to support groups with other young BC patients and BCP are the common thread.

That is because most women use birth control pills! Correlation is not causation

Exactly. As women increased BCP use so did the rates of BC skyrocket especially in younger women.

An increased risk of BC for some is still not as bad as unreliable contraceptives for all. If you look at the numbers, BC is still a benefit overall.

Anonymous wrote:Regarding BCAs and breast cancer.....they also have a significant impact in reducing the likelihood of ovarian cancer if taken for five years — and the benefit may last for 25 years.

https://www.mdanderson.org/publications/focused-on-health/birth-control-pill-and-cancer-risk.h28Z1590624.html

Having had breast cancer, I’ve had the conversation with several oncologists, GYNs, and GYN ONCs. In general breast cancers is more treatable than ovarian cancer.

Not treatable for the thousands and thousands of young women who now have stage 4 BC.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Breast cancer
My oncologist feels there is a direct correlation with the increased number of aggressive breast cancer in younger women.

B-I-N-G-O.

no proof of that, is there now? An oncologist "feels".... how scientific!

Well this was when we were discussing which chemo to use for my breast cancer. Aggressive BC with no family history. Have been to support groups with other young BC patients and BCP are the common thread.

That is because most women use birth control pills! Correlation is not causation

Exactly. As women increased BCP use so did the rates of BC skyrocket especially in younger women.

Anonymous wrote:I care about the environment and you should to.

Overpopulation is worse for the environment than birth control pills.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There are pros/cons to everything.

In this case, the pros FAR outweigh the cons.

YES!

Well, not for me. Ended up with DVT and embolism that traveled to my brain. Stopped the pill as a result in my 20s and didn't have a single unwanted pregnancy. Also got pregnant easily when I wanted in my late 30s...

Anonymous wrote:There are pros/cons to everything.

In this case, the pros FAR outweigh the cons.

YES!

There are pros/cons to everything.

In this case, the pros FAR outweigh the cons.

I was sort of meh about the pill but it was the best option for me. I felt like it caused some moodiness but was willing to deal with it.

When I went off it to have my first child, after 6 months I still hadn’t ovulated, so I took clomid to trigger ovulation. After first was born I used condoms for a few months until we were in a window of “if it happens, fine but ideally not yet” and used timing primarily. After a few months of that we activity wanted to conceive and it still wasn’t happening (but by then cycles were all normal). Finally conceived after 14 months of actively trying.

I was so nice to have had a break from the pill I never went back. I’ve always had very predicable cycles with only moderate cramping so I didn’t need those benefits. The drawback is we stuck with condoms which I kind of hate too. Yesterday my DH went in for a vasectomy, which he kept forgetting to schedule, and the doctor’s office had made a mistake in scheduling, so now we have to wait another month for that and however many months for him to be given the all clear. I’m looking forward to birth control and condom free sex when I’m also not worrying about hoping to get pregnant. Talk about freeing!

Anonymous wrote:
They're the only thing between me and surgery for my ovarian cysts so -

YES!

Who are the stupid idiots who think birth control pills are only for birth control? Gather round and let me tell you about my endometriosis...

You can open the beer bottle cap with a knife but we are not calling all the knives bottle openers.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I care about the environment and you should to.

Again, they aren't bad for the environment.

Evidence? Zero.
Of course they’re harming our environment.

https://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/how-bad-science-headlines-echo-across-internet-180964259/


How One Bad Science Headline Can Echo Across the Internet
Recent articles claiming birth control causes “transgender” fish show how science communication can mislead—even when it relies on facts

Removing the Pill “from the market will have a negligible effect on the environment, aquatic life and human health,” Wise and her co-authors concluded in 2011. However, it “would be detrimental to women’s health and their ability to decide the timing and spacing of their children and would have societal and global implications.”posted above.

We should do more testing. We could get different results.

Regarding BCAs and breast cancer.....they also have a significant impact in reducing the likelihood of ovarian cancer if taken for five years — and the benefit may last for 25 years.

https://www.mdanderson.org/publications/focused-on-health/birth-control-pill-and-cancer-risk.h28Z1590624.html

Having had breast cancer, I’ve had the conversation with several oncologists, GYNs, and GYN ONCs. In general breast cancers is more treatable than ovarian cancer.