The banner news lately is that:
>>>>>>Researchers at the Duke Comprehensive Cancer Center in Durham, N.C., found that ovarian cancer risk was cut by about 50 percent in all women taking contraceptive pills containing the hormones estrogen and progestin. <<<<<<<
According to the online news services:
>>>>>The study is based on a re-examination of the medical and oral contraceptive histories of more than 3,200 women who took part in a study project conducted from 1980 to 1982. The group included 390 women who developed ovarian cancer and 2,865 who did not. It compared the ovarian cancer outcome among women who did not take the pill and with women who took different formulations of the contraceptive pill. <<<<<<
If people bother to read further down in the article (at least the one on line at AZcentral), they begin to get inklings that something is not right in this report when they read the following:
>>>>>>Moorman said the contraceptive pills used by the women in the study 20 years ago are not now commonly available. She said that birth control pill formulations have changed over the years as research showed that pills with lower hormone levels were effective contraceptives. Pills with lower levels of hormone generally have fewer side effects. <<<<<<
Before I go to what the research results ACTUALLY were (quite different from what the papers stated!), I would like to point out that comparing what is probably not complete information on women in the early 1980's is flawed to begin with. And as they pointed out these women in the early 80's did not take the same type of birth control pills which are commonly prescribed now.
However, the biggest surprise awaited me when I visited the Duke Cancer center site (might as well go to the source!).
The study obviously was not as important to them as it was to the media who sees a way to sell the much maligned birth control pill. I had to do some digging to find the item. It was at:
http://www.dukemednews.duke.edu/news/medminute.php?id=2107
here is a quote:
>>>>>>Scientists have known for years that women who take
oral contraceptives are less likely to develop ovarian cancer. It's always
been assumed that the reason was because ovulation damaged the walls of the
ovaries, and since oral contraceptives stop ovulation, less ovulation means
less damage and therefore less chance of ovarian cancer. New research at Duke
University Medical Center shows this is not the case. It is actually a
substance in the pill called progestin that causes damaged cells in the ovary
to be killed -- ****cells that might eventually cause
cancer****. Its a
process called apoptosis<<<<<<
>>>>>Rodriguez says his study of the effects of one of the ingredients in birth control pills could lead to new treatment and prevention of ovarian cancer, the fourth-largest killer of women in the United States. <<<<<<
This is quite a different story from what the news reported and has some problems of its own. One problem is the statement "cells that might eventually cause cancer". Cells on their own DON'T cause cancer. They can be, a small percentage of the time, what scientists call a cancer initiator - they need a cancer activator to actually BECOME cancerous i.e. another agent separate from the cells themselves. Cancer activators can be all types of things but one we should take note of is synthetic estrogen which has just been put on the list as a cancer initiator AND a cancer activator. i.e. estrogen can encourage the growth of stray cells in the body and then it can activate them to become cancerous. Transfat is also a cancer activator - this is the fat to be found in fast foods, that which makes fast food taste so good.
To summarize:
1. If you take a cancer activator (like the estrogen in the pill), if there is progestin in the pill also, it might stop the estrogen from causing cancer in the ovarian dead cells which the body didn't remove. That would mean that if you don't take the pill, you might not have to even worry about a few stray cells of the ovaries, wouldn't it?
2. I saw nothing about the 50 percent less cancer in the Duke article (which was the media claim).
3. The Duke scientist is not advocating that people take the pill to protect against ovarian cancer but rather to use these research results to develop an anti ovarian cancer medication which would be derived from progestin.
4. The recent theory that the reason women are getting ovarian cancer is because they, having less kids, are ovulating too many times in a lifetime, this scientist feels is flawed. That is probably the most significant part of this study - I agree with the scientist that this theory might be flawed because women who never have any children like nuns do NOT have a high percentage of ovarian cancer despite the fact that they have never, thoughout their lifetimes "rested from ovulation" as one does during pregnancy and nursing. Likewise, all the fashion models and athletes whose bodyfat level is very low, do not have a lower incidence of ovarian cancer despite the fact they are not ovulating at all or ovulating only occasionally.
5. We should also point out that the premise of the study may be flawed to begin with. The pill has been generally available and given to millions of women since the mid 1960's. If the pill REALLY protects against ovarian cancer, why is it that the incidence of ovarian cancer was MUCH LOWER in the 1950's than it is now, despite the fact that women in the 1950's did not have this "protective" birth control pill available to them?
6. Finally we are reminded that even if the progestin in the pill protects the woman against the estrogen in the pill causing ovarian cancer, it does not do ANYTHING to protect the woman against the estrogen in the pill causing breast cancer which kills more than 80,000 women a year. The birth control pill also puts the women at a much higher risk for heart attack (40 percent), stroke (40 percent), thrombosis (blood clots) and many other disorders.
It appears that our media fueled by millions of dollars of corporate advertising bucks is trying to sell us, dangerous pharmaceutical chemicals using methods which previously were reserved for used cars. Today's buyers must be very very careful!
Sue Widemark