Guest guest Posted June 14, 2000 Report Share Posted June 14, 2000 In article <005d01bfd579$7aa11780$9b876fd4@oemcomputer>, juliecurran writes > " sorry but what's a period " Did anyone read the article about the inventor of the Pill in the Sunday Telegraph? The gist of it was, that, as a firm catholic, he designed the Pill to mimic women's' cycles including the bleeding, so that he could persuade the Pope that the Pill wasn't artificial, just used hormones to suppress ovulation over the whole month, rather than just for part of the month, and would therefore be an acceptable form of contraceptive for Catholics. By making sure that women had a monthly period, this, effectively meant that women were forced to experience monthly bleeds when they didn't have to. There is - apparently - no risk to taking it continuously (apart from not knowing if you're pregnant), and even has advantages. Research now shows that the monthly shedding of the endometrium is when cancerous changes are most likely to occur. In cultures where women have many children and breastfeed for extended periods, they have significantly lower bleeding periods over a lifetime than women in the west, and significantly lower rates of uterine and ovarian cancer. If the Pill had been designed to be taken continuously, therefore, cancer rates would have dropped. The same argument goes, apparently for breast cancer - which although higher for Pill takers, is only higher because it is cyclical, and the cyclical changes are what induces cancerous changes in the breast tissue. The article concluded, therefore, that the Pill should have been developed and marketed as an anti-cancer drug (that also accidentally was a contraceptive), and would then have been accepted by the Church, but by trying to appease the Church he made a big mistake. Interesting -- Debbie Slater A/N Teacher, Co-Chair, Aylesbury & District Branch NCT Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 14, 2000 Report Share Posted June 14, 2000 In article <005d01bfd579$7aa11780$9b876fd4@oemcomputer>, juliecurran writes > " sorry but what's a period " Did anyone read the article about the inventor of the Pill in the Sunday Telegraph? The gist of it was, that, as a firm catholic, he designed the Pill to mimic women's' cycles including the bleeding, so that he could persuade the Pope that the Pill wasn't artificial, just used hormones to suppress ovulation over the whole month, rather than just for part of the month, and would therefore be an acceptable form of contraceptive for Catholics. By making sure that women had a monthly period, this, effectively meant that women were forced to experience monthly bleeds when they didn't have to. There is - apparently - no risk to taking it continuously (apart from not knowing if you're pregnant), and even has advantages. Research now shows that the monthly shedding of the endometrium is when cancerous changes are most likely to occur. In cultures where women have many children and breastfeed for extended periods, they have significantly lower bleeding periods over a lifetime than women in the west, and significantly lower rates of uterine and ovarian cancer. If the Pill had been designed to be taken continuously, therefore, cancer rates would have dropped. The same argument goes, apparently for breast cancer - which although higher for Pill takers, is only higher because it is cyclical, and the cyclical changes are what induces cancerous changes in the breast tissue. The article concluded, therefore, that the Pill should have been developed and marketed as an anti-cancer drug (that also accidentally was a contraceptive), and would then have been accepted by the Church, but by trying to appease the Church he made a big mistake. Interesting -- Debbie Slater A/N Teacher, Co-Chair, Aylesbury & District Branch NCT Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 14, 2000 Report Share Posted June 14, 2000 In article <005d01bfd579$7aa11780$9b876fd4@oemcomputer>, juliecurran writes > " sorry but what's a period " Did anyone read the article about the inventor of the Pill in the Sunday Telegraph? The gist of it was, that, as a firm catholic, he designed the Pill to mimic women's' cycles including the bleeding, so that he could persuade the Pope that the Pill wasn't artificial, just used hormones to suppress ovulation over the whole month, rather than just for part of the month, and would therefore be an acceptable form of contraceptive for Catholics. By making sure that women had a monthly period, this, effectively meant that women were forced to experience monthly bleeds when they didn't have to. There is - apparently - no risk to taking it continuously (apart from not knowing if you're pregnant), and even has advantages. Research now shows that the monthly shedding of the endometrium is when cancerous changes are most likely to occur. In cultures where women have many children and breastfeed for extended periods, they have significantly lower bleeding periods over a lifetime than women in the west, and significantly lower rates of uterine and ovarian cancer. If the Pill had been designed to be taken continuously, therefore, cancer rates would have dropped. The same argument goes, apparently for breast cancer - which although higher for Pill takers, is only higher because it is cyclical, and the cyclical changes are what induces cancerous changes in the breast tissue. The article concluded, therefore, that the Pill should have been developed and marketed as an anti-cancer drug (that also accidentally was a contraceptive), and would then have been accepted by the Church, but by trying to appease the Church he made a big mistake. Interesting -- Debbie Slater A/N Teacher, Co-Chair, Aylesbury & District Branch NCT Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.