Does having a period raise a woman's chances of all sorts of
disease and cancer?
In chemistry, we learn that the addition of one molecule can
make a totally different substance. In organic chemistry, taking the same
molecules and rearranging them can make a totally different
substance.
So often in the media's reporting of information, one small
fact gets omitted and the story becomes totally changed.
This is certainly the case in an article entitled "Can
your period cause cancer?" in "Glamour Magazine" as reported by
American Life League. I read the following in A.L.L.'s Communique:
"reproductive health
GLAMOUR MAGAZINE: Liz Brody writes that a "new line of thinking
percolating among heavy hitters in the reproductive health community" is "that
monthly periods are not natural, and having them may even raise your risk for
diseases like endometriosis, anemia and possibly certain kinds of cancer."
Brody also argues that the Pill is the cure-all.
This is likely referring to the newest theory about menopausal
difficulties which is really a pro-life theory in its original form. The
theory goes as follows:
"In days of yore,
women had 10-12 kids (about 12 pregnancies) and they nursed each kid for 9
months to a year. Thus, they had far less ovulatory cycles i.e. their
ovaries got a chance to rest while they were pregnant and nursing. This
rest might be needed because the ovulatory cycle is hard on the ovaries (the
follicle containing the ovum, bursts open "with some amount of blood and
clots" - according to anatomy books - and requires a certain amount of repair
to the ovaries each month). Thus, the theory continues, women were only
intended to have 150 or so cycles in a lifetime but because many women either
do not have children or only have a couple, they are cycling 350 times or
more. This may explain the slightly lower incidence of ovarian cancer in
those women who have taken the birth control pill since the pill discourages
ovulation about 3/4 of the time."
I first read this in "Could it be ... Perimenopause" by Dr Steven
Goldstein. But even the fact that Dr Goldstein was involved in some of the
HRT research using synthetic estrogen and progestin and the fact that he was pro
choice, did not cause him to advocate taking the birth control pill for the sole
purpose of protecting against ovarian cancer (the pill causes a HIGHER risk
of endodemetrial and other cancers). This is, of course, because
the pill has many other dangers including raising the risk of breast cancer,
heart attack and stroke.
I am not sure where Brody got her information about the higher risk
of other diseases by having a cycle but Dr Lee (WHAT YOUR DOCTOR MAY NOT TELL
YOU ABOUT MENOPAUSE) makes a rather good case for the point that taking
the pill to suppress ovulation is not the answer as this causes
greater problems. The cells which build up bone have progesterone
receptors and women who do not ovulate may have a good healthy case of
osteoporosis going by the age of 35, since only in ovulation or pregnancy
is progesterone released. And merely stopping ovulation without a
pregnancy could be partially responsible for the hormonal unbalance
many women in our country seem to experience after the age of
35. Goldstein reports that the women on the pill don't
have periods but monthly dysfunctional uterine bleeds probably from
estrogen dominance. As
Dr Lee points out, the synthetic progestin in the birth
control pill and HRT is not progesterone i.e. synthetic progestin
affects the body differently from the way in which natural progesterone affects
the body.
Both Drs Lee and Goldstein comment that the hormonal imbalance
and estrogen dominance experienced by women in our country is often the cause of
women having hysterectomies.
Lee adds that, so far, research has not observed women
receiving the birth control pill, to be renewing bone mass like they do when
progesterone is being manufactured through ovulation, and during a pregnancy,
since the progesterone and estrogen levels are very high, women tend to increase
bone mass and experience other signs of strong
health.
By the way, Dr Lee does not agree with the theory previously
stated that too many cycles cause problems. His point: the body can handle
variations in the number of cycles and also, that there is no hard evidence to
the truth of this theory. I have to agree with Dr Lee
here.
Whether the theory bears out or not, it's interesting that the
original theory emphasizes how healthy it is to have many children as we were
probably meant to do that - this is a pro life bottom line. However, the
magazine distorts this into an ad for the birth control pill - a false
conclusion for sure, but very misleading.
That being said, we must realize that the magazine's bottom line is
neither women's health or life issues but rather pleasing the large
pharmaceutical companies who often have four page color ads in such
publications. And I'm sure in this case, Liz Brody did a good job of
adhering to the magazine's bottom line!
article by Sue
Widemark
Return to: The Reading
Place
References:
Goldstein, Steven, MD: Could it
be...Perimenopause? (NY, 1996)
Lee, John R, MD: What your Doctor may not tell you
About Menopause (NY, 1996)
Stevens et al: Anatomy and Physiology (Mosby -
Missouri, 1989)