FINALLY, it's almost here, the Pill that stops your period altogether...

It's about TIME!!!!

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=411992&in_page_id=1770

Here for 2007 - the Pill that ends PMT
By FIONA MACAE

Last updated at 00:07am on 23rd October 2006

The world's first contraceptive Pill which eliminates periods and eases the misery of pre-menstrual tension will be available early next year. Unlike other oral contraceptives, it is taken continuously. It promises to revolutionise the lives of millions of women by stopping their periods for years at a time. Experts say the Anya tablets are likely to appeal to ambitious young women keen to banish the inconvenience of menstruation from their hectic working lives. It is also likely to find favour with the millions whose lives are blighted with mood-swings, bloating and tiredness in the run-up to their period, as tests show it prevents the monthly hormonal fluctuations behind PMT.

The manufacturer, U.S. pharmaceutical giant Wyeth, hopes Anya will be licensed by the end of this year, raising the prospect of it being prescribed to British women early in 2007. The 3.5 million British women using the current form of the Pill take one a day for 21 days. They then either stop taking it for a week or take a week's supply of dummy tablets. During this time, they have an artificial period. There is no medical reason why women cannot take the existing Pill without a break. However, when oral contraception was launched in the 1960s, it was thought that retaining an element of the monthly cycle would make it more acceptable to women. Now, changing attitudes have prompted Wyeth to create the first Pill designed to be taken continuously.

Like the majority of oral contraceptives used in the UK, it is a combined Pill, containing both oestrogen and progestogen. However the doses of hormone have been lowered to allow for it being taken without a break. Wyeth's studies show that Anya, which is also known as Lybrel, completely stops bleeding in more than 70 per cent of those who take it for seven months, and women used to experiencing PMT found their symptoms were eased.

I get really bad curled-in-a-fetal-position cramps and I would never take that. I'd rather deal with a couple days of pain, than potential long-term health effects.

Look downthread :rofl:

Yeah, it isn't healthy. The hormones are linked to breast cancer in women who have been on the pill for more than a year.

That, and there's a reason we bleed. It may suck, but it's there for a reason.

Personally, I can't fathom voluntarily taking hormones when my body does not have a medical condition that requires taking them.

Right now, I can't afford the IUD. The pill has made me gain 10 # and an entire cup size (which Kyle doesn't mind of course, he loves it, but my nice dress shirts don't fit now) :(
And I've been on it for 4 years. I really need to get off it.

Trust me, it kinda sucks having bad mood swings because of the hormones x(

That thing is really cool; lowest dose of hormones available; wear it 3 weeks take it out 1 (period week); can't even feel it.
I Luuuuuuuuuuuve mine! As far as I can tell I have not had major weight gain or anything of the sort. Of course, YMMV; but since it's a low dose, it might be worth a try.

I'm waiting for an IUD. Or getting SO's to go under the knife :rofl:

and i think it should come in different sizes or something, i can feel it there most of the time.

The long term effects (20 years or more) of this have been confirmed in hundreds of clinical studies?

This sounds like another "Don't worry your pretty little heads about this. We know what we're doing."

Yeah right.

All they're doin' is removing the placebo from the normal bc pills. I started with the heaviest hormones as a young teen and all it's done is give me more eggs in my middle age.

You've got nothing to lose but discomfort and gain 30% more life to enoy. As long as you're not prone to unnatural blood clots, the research says its safe long term.

Ugh.

:popcorn:

As someone who knows how much damage has been done to women's health through the misogynist lie that the use, let alone continual use, of hormonal contraceptives is "healthy," I was prepared to hate this thread and everything in it. Sigh. It's nice to know that many posters here are so informed.

Probably one of the greatest inventions of the 20th century - a med that lets a woman control when she gets pregnant, rather than leaving it to fate or worse, the guy?

Would you be willing to take a drug that suppressed your sperm production for years just for convenience's sake? Would you be willing to take the possible risk to your reproductive health, maybe general health, and possibly your children's just for convenience's sake? And your reproductive system is not nearly as complex and sensitive as a woman's.

I can't speak for others, but having had my system messed up by an improperly tested drug that my mother took sixty four years ago to prevent a miscarriage (nothing convenient about those), I have a thing about popping pills, especially those that deal with reproduction, just for convenience's sake.

Although I do agree with you that the FDA has been extremely lax in passing drugs as "safe", the pill as we know it has been field tested a while

but not all women. I can attest to that first hand. Again, why are we screwing around with our hormonal systems? I just have this instinctual feeling that we will pay for it in the long run.

I had a co-worker, rabid fundie, who wouldn't take birth control pills (she was married and didn't want any more kids) not because it was a sin, but because her prayer circle mother told her how dangerous the pill was, and how we shojuldn't mess with nature.

I'm telling you from personal experience that the pill caused me health problems. Why are you trying to equate my concerns about the pill to the objections by fundies? Taking hormones is unnatural. Having a period is normal. Having mood swings caused by a woman's menstrual cycle is normal. Denying that fact is weird.

tell that to the women who's mother's took hormones to stop morning sickness.

I cannot imagine how this non sequitor in any way relates to what I posted. :shrug:

I had the whole thing in my mind and didn't make myself very clear.

You took issue with my "instinctual feeling" that there may be long term effects from the pill that we have no clue about. I base that feeling on the fact that there were meds given to women over the years to prevent miscarriages or morning sickness. THe results of these meds may not have impacted the women who took them directly, but they sure as hell affected their children. There problems were not expected or even forseen. Do we really know the full impact that pill will have on our children and their fertility rates? Do we know what impact the pill will have on the viability of sperm in our sons or the development of eggs in our daughters? I dont' think we have the data on that.

But really, that's an argument against oral contraceptives in general, not an argument against this new Pill. Any new medication may cause unforseen complications in generations to come, but that's why medications are tested and approved before being released. Of course there are instances where they proved harmful later on (Thorazine comes to mind). But the majority of medications prove to be safe later. There's an argument to be made that one should try to avoid putting any artificial substances into one's body, but in the context of a woman who is already taking the Pill, there is no evidence to suggest that this new development will be harmful.

imo, this "new" pill is just an extension of the existing pill...and I think the long term effects all of the pills need to be studied fully. I am not advocating that they be removed from the market at all because they have been a boon for women's independence, but I wish our society wasn't so quick to jump to the easy solution when we really don't know the full consequences of what we are doing. That's all. It's the same kind of concerns that I have about the meds they prescribe for ADD kids.

that stopped my period, it would be heaven.

And wouldn't it be great if there was a pill that stopped men from making productive sperm for the duration?

Makes sense to me.

menstruation is a totally different ball game. Putting 10-0-6 on a zit isn't going to damage your health, but I'll admit I'm skeptical of birth control pills (and yes, had been on them for many years). I'm concerned about the health ramifications down the road.

I started using natural remedies like Dang Gui and Evening Primrose Oil once I finished up with the bc, (and stopping refined sugars and carbs) and it helped much, much more than any bc pill ever did.

My blood sugar gets unstable around my period, and my boobs hurt, so I guess that's the dreaded "PMS." Take hormones? No thanks, I finally got my migraines under control. I was MUCH happier just burning out the inside of my uterus, and even though it has 'failed' my periods are no longer the two-weeks bleeding-to-anemia-fests they used to be.

That's just fucking dumb. There's a basic biological reason for why we bleed all the fucking time. Trying to stop it can't be healthy.

Besides, then how would we be moody bastards around men? :P

"...to banish the inconvenience of menstruation from their hectic working lives."

Let's see, over the centuries women have crossed frontiers and oceans by every available method of the time, sailed ships, been warriors, ruled nations, ran schools and hospitals, forged steel, wrote great literature, painted great pictures, danced like deer on the moon (thank you Kurt), sang like angels, mapped the stars, farmed, piloted space ships and raised their fair share of hell. In fact they pretty much did it all except play pro football and contribute to sperm banks.

The 'inconvenience' didn't seem to slow them down much - if at all.

having to deal with PMS and Menstrual partners. *ducking* JUST KIDDING! We husbands love your mood swings!

they are nuts, but IMO there is something intrinsically wrong with trying to change the basic rhythmns of a woman's hormonal system. The female hormone system is so interconnected to the endocrine system, that I believe the disruption of any one system or the deliberate "imbalancing" of any one system will have major health repercussions for women.
Why is it that the medical community continues to portray the symptoms of the female hormonal system (PMS, menstuation, menopause) as if it's some kind of disease, or that something is wrong with us? Why are they always trying to "fix us" with hormones?
I have no problem with a woman who wants to take the pill. I took it myself, but it caused problems for me that ended up requiring surgery. However, I think sometimes, science/medicine goes too far in pushing hormonal "remedies" to women.
As far as the whole "inconvenience" crap, having a period is not inconvenient if your partner doesn't feel inconvienced by it. There is nothing that a woman cannot do during her period if she doesn't have severe symptoms. We all know what that coded message of "inconvenience" is all about...and it has nothing to do with the woman being personally "inconvenienced". I guess it will take more than a few decades of women's independence to change the thousands of years of cultural stigmatization of women being "unclean" during their periods. Obviously as a species, we are still not that enlightened.

I don't buy that argument. If this means less unwanted pregnancies, less single parents, less forced marriages that end in violence...then SO BE IT

Now I do have worries that the FDA might fast track this for approval - without proper testing and evalutaion.

But if it's safe, then I hope every teen in America takes this.

If we were a civilized country, birth control would be available in our high schools.

taking artificial hormones to change your body's natural hormonal rhythms is not natural. There is no way around that. However, as I said, for those women who make and informed decision to take the pill, where they have no health issues, it's their choice. I would prefer that women use more natural forms of birth control, from barrier methods to different sexual activites, but I'm also a realist. I would rather women take the pill to prevent unwanted pregnancies than for them to have abortions. I just wish there was something better than the pill, something that didn't mess up a woman's hormonal systems.

its an IUD, a ten year IUD doesn't have hormones and you can take it out and get pregnant right away, but it's only recommended for women in monogomous relationships...

being on The Pill as a means of birth control and taking a version of The Pill that doesn't allow a woman's body to go through its natural cycle.

I'm not against The Pill, but having no period cannot be good for a woman's body. It simply can't. It is unnatural and it's probably dangerous.

natural cycle. Wow, the people on this thread are incredibly uninformed.

The Pill (ANY Pill) allows to basically have an artificial period, which is actually breakthrough bleeding, that was originally designed so women felt "comfortable" taking it, back in the 60's. It in no way resembles a "natural" menstrual cycle, whatever that means.

And that "natural" cycle can be easily debated, since women are no longer pregnant or nursing for the majority of their childbearing years. We really have no good concept of what a "natural" menstrual cycle is.

"Having no period cannot be good for a woman's body". I mean, how do you KNOW that? It is a totally baseless statement.

Have there been lots of 20-year studies on this new pill so that you can safely say that it's perfectly ok to stop a woman's period?

What about the studies that link the hormones used in The Pill to breast cancer?

Re: your first point. This is what I said above:

in the context of a woman who is already taking the Pill, there is no evidence to suggest that this new development will be harmful.

I never said it was guarenteed not to be harmful. All new medications have the potential to be harmful. But I don't see this kind of furor (and totally baseless, unscientific furor) when, say, a new blood pressure medication is released on the market. So why are people so convinced that this new Pill is going to be bad? Judging by the responses on this thread, it's because people think it "must just not be good" or "it seems like it would be harmful". I would argue that most people probably thought it seemed very wrong to indulge in most modern medicine, the first time it was done.

Re: your second point. The argument of this thread is not for or against oral contraceptives. There is no question the Pill in general can be harmful to some. We are talking about a new Pill for the use of women who are most likely already taking an oral contraceptive. What is being debated is whether it is harmful for a woman to not get their period. I say that there is no evidence to suggest that it is harmful.

First of all, if we were debating a new blood pressure medicines, I'd be making the same points. We should never accept that just because the FDA says it's ok that it's perfectly fine to take it. Especially when, as in this case, it's an issue of convenience. I mean, look at how it's being marketed. It's not about birth control at all...women can take the regular pill for that. It's about being "free" of your period. The cost-benefit analysis on risk factors changes greatly (for me anyway) when we're talking about a pill that would be taken for convenience vs. one that would be taken to save my life or to keep me from getting pregnant.

As for the risk factors, there are studies that suggest that the hormones in the pill increase a woman's risk for (possibly) breast cancer, and also cervical cancer. It's about the hormones, so why doesn't it make sense to think that if a woman is taking those hormones for an additional week every month, thereby taking more hormones overall, that the risk of complications from the use of hormones would be similarly increased? Seems pretty logical to me.

The "cycle" that the Pill "allows" is not even vaguely natural.

You want natural? Then start popping out kids at about 13, breastfeed for 2-3 years, repeat until you die in childbirth, or until menopause if you're incredibly lucky. Seriously. The only women with natural periods were nuns and spinsters.

I love DU, and love the lounge, but don't always expect scientific reasoning on a website that boasts such a popular alternative/spiritual healing forum. Not that there's anything wrong with that, but there's a strong anti-medical bias here.

not just one.
I always favor the medical decison first, but I believe that mother nature isn't stupid either.
You don't have to be against one to be for the other. Most of us just wish they could work in conjunction.

Periods are about as "unnatural" as a female can be.

Like others have said, it's just breakthrough bleeding. Both versions of the pill do the same exact thing. Stop ovulation, which isn't exactly natural. The only difference is the newer version eliminates the breakthrough bleeding, which is something you can also do with the old pill by changing the dosage schedule to eliminate the week off that allows for the breakthrough bleeding. Many women have been skipping that free week to alter when they have their periods anyway. It's nothing new, and no one has ever suffered because of it.

actually, if you read all of the replies to this thread, there ARE women who have had complications from it.

Plus, there are many studies linking the hormones in the Pill to breast cancer.

So your statement is, well...wrong.

Or complications from taking the pill? I meant the former. I never stated that the pill has never caused ill side effects. And as far as the studies linking the pill to breast cancer, I could be wrong, but I thought that was ultimately found to not be the case. Unless there's new research I'm not aware of.

some of which are contradictory.

Some say there is an increased risk of breast cancer, some say no...but the point is, we're not really sure. Meanwhile, I believe there is actually a link to cervical cancer.

As far as complications from not having a period, how could we know? This version of the pill isn't even out yet...and as far as I can see there aren't any studies that show how this pill affects women 20 years down the road. What we do know is that there are, in the very least, questions about the effect of hormones on cancer probabilities in women. So why wouldn't it make sense to conclude that increasing the amount of hormones the woman is taking (since she'd be taking hormones for a week out of the month when normally they would be dummy pills) would also potentially increase the risk factor from taking the hormones?

Some information: http://www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/factsheet/Risk/oral-contraceptives

that a woman has to expel blood from her uterus in order to remain healthy. You keep going back to the hormones, and I'm not arguing that birth control pills are 100% safe, or that the hormones aren't a consideration. No one is. I still contend that the breast cancer connection was found to be a non-issue, but people will make up their own mind on that, I guess. Few medicines, hormonal or otherwise, are 100% safe, and most people have to weigh the risks with the benefits.

My whole argument is against "It just can't be healthy to not have a period once a month". If a woman prefers to mimic the cycle that the pill is effectively stopping and doesn't mind bleeding every month, then more power to her. But, if a woman goes to her doctor, and the doctor finds she's in the low-risk category for taking the pill (or was already on it to begin with), and prescribes this new pill to her, then I see no reason why she shouldn't take it. Who cares if she doesn't get a "period" anymore? She's not ovulating anymore. She wasn't on the old pill, either. It's not any more unnatural and unhealthy than being on the pill already was to begin with. A period is only a portion of the ovulation cycle.

If a woman has already decided that the BC pill isn't for her, then she's probably not going to be enthusiastic about the new one, either. But, those of us who do like the pill have no reason to reject what is essentially the same thing because of the myth that periods are necessary.

As far as the level of hormones changing, from what I've read this pill will have less hormone in each pill to account for the non-stop dosage. But this pill isn't anything drastic or new, and it's only getting the attention it is because the idea of no periods is so radical. But, it's the same birth control pill that's been around. They've just cut out the fake period. So, if a woman has already made up her mind that the benefits of the pill outweigh the risks, then there's no reason not to switch to this new pill if she wants to stop the monthly bleeding. If she values that monthly bleeding, that's fine. Stick with the old way of taking the pill. But, not all of us view periods that way. There's nothing wrong with hating monthly bleeding and being rid of it.

In fact, much of modern medicine isn't natural. If we all reverted back to nature, our average lifespans would shrink back to 35. Women would die much more often of childbirth. The women who survive would often have 10-15 babies throughout their life, many of whom would also die before the age of 5. There is nothing natural about almost any form of birth control other than the notoriously unreliable charting of cycles, and pulling out. If you don't want to avail yourself of modern medicine that makes our lives longer and healthier, then that's fine. But I take strong exception to your contention that this pill should be stopped, and all because you yourself have judged it "unnatural". Do you know anyone with diabetes? Do you think the artificial insulin they may inject themselves with, or the medicines they take to help regulate their blood sugar is natural? Do you think the stemcell research that may one day make their lives much better is natural?

You don't have to take the pill. But those of us who also do our own research and don't go into things blindly should also have that choice. Particularly since this pill is the same pill that has been on the market for years and has been crucial in making the lives of women better, and has been essential in the ability to take control of our own bodies and reproductive freedom. Screw nature. Screw superstition, and unfounded paranoia that the far right would love to have us live under; I will not side with them. Look what kind of lives women had for thousands of years under the rule of nature, and the rule of right wing conservative values. No thanks.

you need to read more carefully. I said I would PREFER more natural means, but that I am a realist. I do understand the need for modern medicines, but I think we are too quick to grab onto a quick solution without really giving thought to long term consequences. There are too many women today who are still suffering the effects of medications their mothers took to control morning sickness.
All I am trying to say is that the hormonal system of the human body, particularly women's, is extremely complicated. Imbalances can cause all kinds of negative problems, from diabetes to thyroid problems. We really don't know if the pill causes fertility problems in our children.
I'm glad that you do your own research. Every woman should and make their own decision. I just would like medical science to come up with something that is not so invasive. Why is wanting that so awful? Why are you assuming that wanting that means I want all women to suffer and be barefoot and pregnant in the kitchen?
The male hormonal system is far less complex, yet very little research is being done to stop the production of sperm in males. Why is that? Is it because research is mostly male dominated and males equate masculinity with their sperm count?
I am far from a conservative in this. I just think that this whole hormone deal has been sold to women under the guise of our periods being something wrong or dirty...just as menopause has been sold as something to be "fixed."
Again, I am not saying to stop the pill...I'm just saying that there's got to be something better.

as support for stopping it. I apologize for misunderstanding.

Why is the birth control pill so much more invasive than most of the rest of modern medicine? I absolutely agree that more research should be done for an equivalent for males. I certainly wouldn't be opposed to that, either, as long as it's safe and effective. I'm also not opposed to other methods of birth control. But the topic is a birth control pill that stops periods, which is something that many women would be interested in all by itself, birth control benefit aside. Right now, the least invasive method of stopping periods altogether is the pill. Other alternatives are things like hysterectomy and cauterizing the inside of your uterus. If my periods ever become so painful and heavy that I need to stop them completely, I know which method I would pick as the least invasive. The Pill. It's no different than taking medication for things like blood pressure, or diabetes.

I don't view periods as dirty or something to be ashamed of. Never have. But I also don't see them as a necessary ingredient for womanhood. I also don't ignore the fact that periods can be much less than a blessed miracle, and in fact a medical problem for many women. They aren't magical or mystical, and unless you're planning to have children or want to practice natural family planning, they aren't necessary. If, for whatever reason, a woman no longer desires having them, then it certainly doesn't make her unnatural, or less of a woman, or self loathing.

As has been mentioned before, medically speaking, you're not even having a period on the pill, even if you take the week off and bleed. The reaction against this pill as being unnatural because women need to have a period is baseless in fact.

may need surgery WITHOUT the pill.

I"m taking something almost like this. My doctor has got me on a high dose pill, and I go three months at a time without placebos.

I had horrific endometriosis, and didn't even know it until last year, I had a cyst burst and bleed out. I had to have emergency surgery to remove the ovary and repair the damage. Doc had to put me on the pill to completely shut down the other ovary so I don't have the same problem.

As it is, I still from time to time have crippling abdominal pains from the endo. I'd far rather deal with issues from the hormones than almost die from something else like last year.

I took birth control pills from the time I was 18 until the time I was 30 and then started again when I was 39. I am currently on a different version of the Pill than I was in that earlier time. I have suffered no ill effects from them (and hope that still holds true later on). The version I am taking now helps treat a health issue that I have, and it has worked wonders for me. I do, however, use them the way they were intended, and I have a period every fourth week.

Many women (my sister included) cannot or should not use oral contraceptives, but it works well for others. It works well for me, and I don't intend to stop using it unless my doctor says I should. I monitor my health all the time, and I would know if I were haviing problems.

A pill that stops your period for years at a time is not a good idea IMO. Although the periods women get with oral contraceptives are breakthrough bleeding and not true periods, it still helps mimic the body's natural rhythms. Stopping this altogether is dangerous, at least in my point of view.

After reading yours that could explain why my wife's doctors took her off after those many years. I think that you're not supposed to use the shot for more than three years if my memory is correct. MrsDTW knows all about it but she's at work right now.

That's probably what your wife took. They caused weight gain and other problems for my friend, and her doctor took her off them after a year. It took four years for her to straighten out her system, and she is now campaigning against Depo-Provera. The shots can be a lot trickier than oral contraceptives, and so can methods like the Ortho Evra patch.

Which lasted 3 or 6 months (can't remember) and those stopped her menstrual cycles for a few years until she stopped.

it just doesn't seem very healthy. :(

Makes for a good fantasy, though.

It's normal to be pregnant or nursing as long as the woman is fertile. Why do you think birth control had to be invented? Although I am dubious about adding hormones to a woman's body, this pill may actually be closer to replicating a natural state than our norm of uninterrupted periods with few or no pregnancies.

days... it used to be that women would only get their periods occasionally, considering childbirth, poor health, nursing, and the short life spans.

In many primitive cultures such as deep jungle tribes, the menses are very rare, usually a couple times a year.

There is no health benefit to having one's period, and no harm to halting it. And if you're intent on not having more kids and don't want to have your uterus' lining burned off, then the pill may be the way to go.

When one is pregnant or nursing periods are stopped (mostly).

after having been on Ortho Cyclen, Ortho Novum, the minipill, and Depo Provera, I feel more "myself," now that I'm entirely off of synthetic hormones. The idea of having almost no menstruation makes me a bit nervous, as well.

It's proof positive that there isn't another Midlo on the way.

:hi:

There IS that! I don't have much cause to worry, but as much as I love surprises, I've had enough ulcer-inducing ones to appreciate the non-drama.

How's Mike? Is he home and resting, yet?

A little sore at the site of the incision, but other than that, doing fine.

Thanks for asking.

:loveya:

and go right to the next month's pills--period is eliminated. I did it for a few years and it was great--no PMS, no mood swings, no side effects.

Imagine a life free of PMS and periods! "What?? NO SUFFERING????"

Wearing white jeans any damn time you want and NO BLOATING and swollen tits!

What a relief to be free of all that.

and all the other symptoms of a cycle gone berserk. It's not physicially necessary to have a period every month.

It was my understanding that menstruation is a sign that the aging process is in check (and no, not wrinkles and the like, but of organs, bones, etc).

All the "anti" answers are something along the lines of "Well, that can't be healthy" or "It doesn't seem right" or "You're supposed to get your period". Not very scientific answers! Where's your proof or even reasoning? When this Pill comes out, you can bet your ass I'm taking it.

I have a history of blood pressure issues and these pill typically are not meant for women who are in higher risk categories.

I also don't have to worry about birth control anymore...no need to take a pill when I don't have fertility worries. Hell it is hard enough to remember to take my vitamins.

nt

hormones for extended periods of time, but I don't believe it is medically necessary to have a period every month. Periods occur when the uterine lining is shed because there is no fertilized egg to be implanted there. That's all a period is. If ovulation is suppressed due to the pill, there is no uterine lining that must be shed, right? So what's the big deal? Why must we shed blood in order to be healthy?

Personally, I begged and pleaded for three years to be permanently rid of my periods. They were so awful and the bleeding lasted for 3 weeks or more each month (that is not an exaggeration, I have the documentation). The day I got my hysterectomy was one of the happiest days of my life! I still have my ovaries so menopause is still a gradual process for me - maybe that is healthier than the abrupt menopause brought on by complete hysterectomies.

The Pill has been a godsend for me. My quality of life was severely affected by my super-heavy, almost-constant periods. Thank goodness they have low-dose hormones available these days and we don't have to take the super-high levels of estrogen that our mothers did!

phase, I could not convince my (male) OB-GYN of this. He seemed to think it was something I should just "learn to live with". Asshole. I was 40 years old at the time, and my mother had abnormally prolonged bleeding until she was nearly 55 - I'd be damned if I was going to "learn to live with" that crap for 15 more years! Easy for HIM to say - I'd like to see him bleed heavily out of his ass for 24 days/month and then talk to me about learning to live with it. :grr:

for, say, back pain sufferers, to deal with it because pain is natural, and is just your body's way of telling you something is wrong. Embrace your back pain. Be as one with your spinal column. Pain meds aren't natural, that can't be good for you. Back pain is just an inconvenience. Buck up and get on with your life.

:eyes:

:thumbsup:

There's no evidence to back any of it up. I guess it's all how you look at things. I don't see periods as some mystical mother goddess gift. I've never been afraid of modern medicine - including obstetrics and gynecology, which seems to particularly instill fear and paranoia in some people. I hate periods and PMS. If there's a safe, effective way to banish it, I say bring it on.

skipping the week, essentially.

It's really already here, we just haven't been 'given approval by the males' to do it yet. We have to wait for them to signal their assent, lol!

I like the way your mind works.

I would have to find a doctor willing enough to refill my pills at a higher rate, and I'd have to pay for my pills out of pocket because my insurance company controls when I can get a refill. This whole "Women need to have their periods" is outdated and not based on any scientific or medical fact, and it's ridiculous that that notion is what sets up these barriers, set up by people who should know better.

yikes.

The first generation of pills had unhealthy amounts of hormones that caused breast cancer and other endirocrine disorders-- the lower the dose, the better. But no one bothered to check that. There are legitamit health concerns with any hormone based medication, and knowing the track record of women's reproductive care in this country, there is damn good reason to be entirely suspicious of this type of thing. That isn't to say this medication should be banned, because that's entirely asinine and I LOVE the pill, it's just that there needs to be more information availible so that informed choices, like any medical choice, can be made.
The pill is amazing and I am not going off it anytime soon (til I can afford an IUD or get my SO to go snip snip), but to not pretend there are some very serious potential side effects is just as stupid as wanting to "ban" the pill.

that the pill is not without its drawbacks, and there are definitely risks involved. The pill certainly isn't for everyone. I don't think anyone really is arguing otherwise, but more focusing on the objection that not having a period is unnatural. This new pill oppresses ovulation in the same way the old fashioned one does. It is basically the same pill, just dosed differently. It appears the dosage is even less than many of the traditional ones. If one has no objections to the traditional pill, and understands and accepts the risk of the pill, and desires to be rid of monthly periods and bleeding, then there's no reason for that person to eschew this new pill, because there's nothing in evidence to suggest that women medically need to have a period or breakthrough bleeding.

I do understand being suspicious because not having a period doesn't seem natural. My first reaction years when my doctor suggested skipping a placebo week so I wouldn't have my period on my wedding was "That can't be good!" I didn't realize that not having a period or breakthrough bleeding is harmless. But, this new pill could absolutely be a blessing, particularly for women who can tolerate the pill and have problematic periods. There's really no reason for them to think that they have to put up with painful periods and the symptoms associated with them because they're a woman and have to have periods to be healthy.

I hate the monthly ordeal, and I honestly envy those who are past the age of having to deal with it. If I could *safely* and permanently eliminate the cycle, I'd do so in a heartbeat. Screwing up my body chemistry by taking artificial hormones, however, sounds anything but safe to me. I won't even take the pill for contraception - there are safer ways of achieving that goal. Yeah, it requires the cooperation of the man, but if he objecs, I don't want him anyway.

I remember being about 17 and trying to convince my doctor to remove my uterus - knowing that I would never use it for its evolution-given purpose anyway, and imagining myself free of the monthly pain and hassle. Needless to say, I wasn't very successful. In retrospect, that's probably a good thing, because there are health problems associated with having a uterus removed young, too. So I guess we're stuck with the inconvenience until nature takes its course. :/

I wanna have kids, so I don't mind having it every month...Plus, the pill gave me Fibrocystic Breast syndrome, so I am all set with that crap...

I think a healthy middle ground exists between the perspectives expressed on this board.

Some women's periods are so heavy that they suffer from chronic iron anemia. Heavy, regular blood loss is not good for the body.

I currently don't menstruate - I have the Mirena IUD. I have noticed some minor mood swings, but nothing compared to the cyclic psychosis I experienced with PMS and BC pills.

So a BC might help "tone it down" some bit.

I was on birth control pills as a teenager, and I found it to be a miserable experience. I gained weight, moodiness, just and overall feeling of "blah".

Periods greatly reduce risk of heart attack.

http://www.americanheart.org/presenter.jhtml?identifier=4604

It's all about the iron.

Considering many women are anemic or at least iron-deficient, I see absolutely no correlation. :shrug:

The amount of iron in a women system goes up with loss of period.

http://www.hearthealthywomen.org/patients/risk_factors__prevention/iron_level.html
http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1000/is_n365/ai_13253361

It's not 100%, but then again, that's why this drug will have a disclaimer that says "This drug may increase the risk of heart attack".

I'm not saying this drug is bad, but I'm not going to say it's all roses either.
:shrug:

Your first post said "Say hello to increased heart attacks - periods greatly reduce the chance of heart attacks".

And this is what the link you posted says:

Summary

According to the “iron hypothesis,” women have a lower risk of heart disease than men because they have lower iron levels due to the regular blood loss during their monthly period
On the other hand, if your iron levels are too low, your risk for heart disease increases
Currently, there is not enough information to prove or disprove the iron hypothesis
Women have lower iron levels than men until menopause, after which levels gradually rise to approach those of men
The amount of iron stored in your body is affected by your diet, age, menopausal status, pregnancy, weight, physical activity, and whether or not you take aspirin
Iron deficiency is most common in women of childbearing age, and affects about 10% to 15% of women this age
Black and Mexican-American women have a higher risk of iron deficiency than white women
Too much iron may cause inflammation in your blood vessels, eventually leading to fatty plaque buildup in your arteries
Severe iron deficiency (too little iron) can lead to anemia, which may worsen underlying heart disease
The best way to prevent iron deficiency anemia is to make sure you get enough iron in your diet
Pregnant women should take iron supplements to maintain healthy iron levels
It is unclear whether donating blood can help reduce a woman’s risk of heart disease, but some studies suggest it may reduce the risk in men
All men and women are encouraged to eat a healthy, balanced diet to get enough iron and to avoid getting too much of it
If your healthcare provider has prescribed iron supplements, you should continue taking them

So, even if I'm being kind, I would have to say that the vague, virtually unrelated link you posted in no way backs up your somewhat hysterical assertion in your first post that women who don't menstruate are going to be at "greatly increased risk" for heart attack.

And today, I feel kind.

Also, nice selective use of highlighting. Low iron is bad for you, yes, but that actually in no way means anything when it comes to high levels of iron. I did not think that I would need to do a scientific analysis here in the lounge, but here goes:

Iron may play a role heart disease. I've already provided one link for that, but here's another and another and another and here.

Periods are a source of iron loss. I'm not going to back that up, as it's true virtually by definition of what a period is.

Menopause in women increases the risk of heart disease. This is thought to be linked mainly to two things: estrogen drop and iron increase. link link link

I don't think it's 'hysterical' to say that is will increase heart attack risk. I would say it's only reasonable, given the evidence. How much will it increase? Well that depends on the person I'm sure. How much will it increase? Who knows. But will it increase? Probably. If it's a risk people are willing to take, then fine.

BTW at no point was I hysterical. You, however were rude.

I will certainly switch to it when it hits the US market, without hesitation. :woohoo:

I'm not on the pill but getting back on soon. My periods last 7 to 10 days when I not the pill, and about 5 days when I'm on the pill. My flow is heavy all of those days. I'm also on like a 19 day cycle. All of this drops my iron levels.

This pill may not be right for everyone, but for some it might make their lives better.

When I was in college I had a sorority sister with such severe endometriosis that she used to pass out from pain. Her doctor put her on the Pill all the time (with no "break" for a period) so she wouldn't menstruate.

An acquaintance of mine who works at the University of Washington has been working on this for years and yes, every time she talks about this to a group of women at a party, the conversation pretty much goes like this. :D

the principal as unnatural and also embracing it as a solution for others.

Good dialogue though!

While the pill isn't for every woman, if this process can help some women out, by all means, yay! I hadn't even thought about it alleviating the problems of anemia, which is something I've only recently had trouble with. My problem is that I don't tolerate the pill at all... so sadly, I just sit back and wait for menopause!

Has been great for me...just wondering if it was an option for you.

that I don't react well with... which is why I say that I wouldn't tolerate the new pill either.

I highly recommend the IUD for everyone who doesn't handle the pill well. No fuss, no muss, just yee hah and see ya later.

I have a wedding to go to in December-- I'll probably be doing that trick :D

:sarcasm:

It's eay to say that when you're in your twenties---after all,
you still feel some sort of immortality at that age.

It really sucks to have a heart condition when you're in your forties---
The forties might seem old and far away to someone 25 years old, but it happens quickly enough,
and believe me, you DO NOT want to deal with a heart condition for
the next half of your life.

:(

that's a polite way to put it. Blighted or not, I think I'll stick with the pain for now. I hate medications of any kind unless I absolutely have to use them. So I'll just take a wait see how healthy this new pill turns out in the long run. Yup, I'm chicken-little with pills.

n/t

Like others, I'm wary of something that causes a change that drastic.

Heck, by that time I won't need it anymore, anyway. :P

Here we have yet another example of Big Pharma cashing in on the easy money-making opportunities they have by simply revamping existing drugs, re-issuing them with all the relevant patents that will make it impossible for their competitors to cash in on them, and making a huge amount of money off people who will flock to their doctor for this "revolutionary" new medication which is not revolutionary at all, since as some others have noted, it's been possible to stop your period with conventional birth control by simply taking it continuously.

Rather than putting their resources into finding drugs that actually cure disease, Big Pharma spends billions on producing copycats of drugs already on the market and already perfectly viable for the conditions being treated. For example, look at all the cholesterol lowering drugs out there, or the anti-gas drugs. Look at Viagra - hell, they're even making up the conditions to fit the drugs!

More money is spent on advertising than is spent on research and development and most research and development is geared toward copying already successful drugs with just enough difference to warrant a new patent.

I guarantee they'll make a mint off this one and people on this thread are acting like this is some sort of public service?

Most insurances I've had allow one refill per month, and if you skip the placebo, you'll have to go back for the refill before the month is up. But, I agree with your point about the revamping of medicines. It would be easy for insurance companies to allow women to refill a current low dose pill already out on the market more often.

Instead of getting into the pros/cons, or whether it's a natural/un-natural medication and that makes it good/bad... I was going to take the tack that the only REAL winner in this deal is Big Pharma. The FDA is such a joke anymore (and never was all that on top of the game) when it comes to the greased skids of the testing and approval process, that the only really healthy reaction to this New Wonder Drug is skepticism.

Take the drug, don't take it - it's none of my business. Maybe it works great, free of complications. For others, maybe not so much. It certainly comes down to differing body chemistries and reactions, and a person is a better judge of their own than I am. But regardless of how wary or welcoming you are of this drug, look at who's marketing it, and who stands to profit the most.

Does this make me anti-medicine? Not even close. I am grateful for the discovery of antibiotics and their applications. I worship the Green Altar of NyQuil. I need my combination of aspirin and acetaminophen for my migraines. I embrace medical advances. I couldn't have survived childhood without the surgeries and medicines needed to conquer my severe ear and throat maladies.

But I am also keen on weighing the costs and benefits of everything I ingest, whether OTC or Rx. I don't pop a vitamin without doing my homework. Vigilance and skepticism are valuable tools when researching each drug on the market. You're only as good as your information.

It's simply not worth it to take drugs to alter how our bodies are made to work.


God forbid their 'hectic lifestyles' be affected by having to change a tampon and/or pad for a few days :eyes:

provera for 2 years. I get a shot every 12 weeks. I usually don't get a period, though at times I felt maybe I had a little mini one. Of course, there are side effects. And break through bleeding. I have not looked into this new drug yet. I'm sure there's a trade off, in side effects. I take my shot for birth control and to control endometriosis.

Is she not to remember that she is a companionmaide to her kingly husband by bearing g-ds monthly displeasure?

when we get our periods? I guess that would interrupt poker night!