What Is This?

[FutureCarmeliteClaire]

That is sick. Firstly, that post is contradicting Catholic teaching. Secondly, "prevent cancer", um, no. The pill causes cancer, at Totus Tuus said. I'm going to stop myself before I go into a rant.

[FutureCarmeliteClaire]

Oh, and another medical issue that has not been brought up yet was secondary amenorrhea. One of the treatments is the pill so that it induces menstruation. I would never, ever take it for secondary amenorrhea. Ever. Not only because the idea gives me the heeby-jeebies, but the side-effects and risks are just too great. Even though I would not be taking it for contraception, I would never take it for a medical reason. Period.

[missionseeker]

Well, I'm not arguing for it. Although, I do not necessarily see the problem with a nun on BC for something like endometriosis. I wasn't saying that it was good argument for all nuns to be on bc at all. All I was saying is that women with pre-existing problems (and a reason they would be on birth control) are already more likely to get certain types of cancer, BECAUSE of the hormonal imbalances. (In certain studies (I will look them up later, but have been awake since 10am yesterday and do not have the energy to find them now) endometriosis has been linked to an increased risk of ovarian (and I believe uterine) cancer. Therfore, it would seem pretty obvious to me that if a woman is on a hormone therapy (and bc is often used for that) to help with other gynecological problems, BC would seem to "prevent" cancer in studies. Because you ARE correcting a problem (to an extent). But it's not *really* preventing cancer. It's just helping treat what actually causes the cancer.


I would bet that most of the women in their study were on BC for some other reason than simply "preventing" cancer, but rather for something that already puts them at risk for cancer.

Edited December 8, 2011 by missionseeker

[missionseeker]

ok, here is one.

[url="http://www.springerlink.com/content/p0n4k7872q58708k/"]http://www.springerlink.com/content/p0n4k7872q58708k/[/url]

SO... What I am saying is that this data could be (intentionally?) misleading.

[BigJon16]

Again, its an article on a website on the internet. I once read an article on the internet that said "God does not exist". That was all it said.



I didnt let it get to me.

[Papist]

CNN

'nuf said

[i<3franciscans]

It is ridiculous. People's minds are twisted.

[InPersonaChriste]

I cannot say I am surprised that something like this would come out.

[Totus Tuus]

[quote name='missionseeker' timestamp='1323345964' post='2347251']
Also, the women who ARE in that study and on the pill, weren't they on the pill for other reasons than preventing cancer specifically. Because I would think that if breast, uterine, cervical, etc. cancers are partly caused/aided/whatever by an imbalance/incorrect hormone levels, that correcting the hormones (through the BC) would also correct whatever would have caused the cancer? I could be all wrong here, and I REALLY don't know medical terms, but if that is the case, it would make sense why they would say that bc "prevents" cancer.
[/quote]
Those cancers (at least breast and cervical, I believe) are caused by too-high levels of estrogen. The pill is estrogen -- it raises your estrogen levels while you're on it to trick your body into thinking it's pregnant. But your body isn't supposed to have those raised levels of estrogen for extended periods of time without the actual follow-through of a pregnancy (i.e., the breast changes that go along with pregnancy are very healthy for women, but raised estrogen without those changes is very unhealthy).

[Totus Tuus]

[quote name='BigJon16' timestamp='1323349282' post='2347265']
Again, its an article on a website on the internet. I once read an article on the internet that said "God does not exist". That was all it said.



I didnt let it get to me.
[/quote]
I think most of us are upset not because it "gets to us," but because we know that these kinds of articles actually influence the opinions and education of our fellow man who may be in a more vulnerable situation than we are and actually believe what is being said. I mean, can you blame someone who doesn't know that anti-life propaganda actually tells lies to the American public for believing it? That is what we're lamenting, I think. At least, that is what upsets me. The article does not bother me as an individual because I know the truth; it bothers me because I know other people are reading it and taking it as truth.