Birth Control (BC) Pills Increase Suicide Risk By More Than 300%

[Soren]

Its funny I had a friend the other day tell me she was feeling really down and depressed lately and then later in the conversation she told me she had just gone on the pill for the first time in a long time. I told her to stay away from it and try to find an alternative. This certainly explains things a bit. Are there any "safe" alternatives to the pill other than condoms?

 

[haidut]

If birth control made you uglier or fatter

It does both actually. Estrogen deforms the face, and makes it long and thin. Rapid weight gain is officially listed as a common side effect of BC pills.
Facial Deformity May Be An Indication Of Early Life Stress

 

[Soren]

It does both actually. Estrogen deforms the face, and makes it long and thin. Rapid weight gain is officially listed as a common side effect of BC pills.
Facial Deformity May Be An Indication Of Early Life Stress

Yep, but if you dare state that you'll be labelled as a knuckle dragging misogynist by the establishment. The irony being you are genuinely concerned with the negative health effects it has on women

 

[haidut]

This is fascinating concept, trying to recall what truths you had as a child, thank you for bringing it up.

Were you really thinking about whether elementary particles existed, when you were a child? Also, do you include things such as Santa Claus in your list? I certainly believed that at one time.

When I was in 1st and 2nd grade we had "introduction to natural laws" where they told us about atoms, molecules, and basic chemistry and astronomy. I asked the teachers where are all these small balls (atoms) suspended from and they said from nowhere, they are just floating in empty space. I asked how could that be, how can something stay suspended in nothing. There was no answer. Then I asked if there is some kind of invisible ocean/sea where these things float in and was told that was an old Greek idea that had been discarded. I asked who discarded it and again no answer. One of the girls that was playing with the boys in 1st grade had a father who a nuclear physicists and everybody thought he was absolutely crazy. One day he brought her to school and the naturology teacher pointed to him and said "this guy can answer your question on the floating balls". Next time I saw him I asked him if he believed small balls that make up the entire Universe float in empty space. He just rolled his eyes and said "of course not, this is nonsense". So I said "ok then what are they suspended in". He said "there are no small balls and thus no need to be suspended in anything. Everything you see and experience around you, including you, as well as the entire Universe is made of a special fluid. Everything you experience as individual objects are just vortices and currents in that fluid. If the vortex spins fast enough, the fluid begins to glow. If you look up in the sky at night, you will see billions of those vortices. We call them galaxies". Anyways, that was in 1984. I asked him a few other things and he gave me even "crazier" answers, so let's see if those turn out to be true

 

[haidut]

Its funny I had a friend the other day tell me she was feeling really down and depressed lately and then later in the conversation she told me she had just gone on the pill for the first time in a long time. I told her to stay away from it and try to find an alternative. This certainly explains things a bit. Are there any "safe" alternatives to the pill other than condoms?

Bioidentical progesterone in higher doses can be used as a contraceptive. There are threads on this somewhere on the forum. A few women asked Peat about it and he mentioned specific doses I think.

 

[haidut]

Yep, but if you dare state that you'll be labelled as a knuckle dragging misogynist by the establishment. The irony being you are genuinely concerned with the negative health effects it has on women

Estrogen has the same bad effects on men's faces and weight. There is nothing feminine about it, and thus no mysoginism. The old name of estrogen was "adipin" (i.e. the fat hormone). The sooner the medical industry stops calling it the "female hormone" the better both sexes' health will be.

 

[Soren]

Estrogen has the same bad effects on men's faces and weight. There is nothing feminine about it, and thus no mysoginism. The old name of estrogen was "adipin" (i.e. the fat hormone). The sooner the medical industry stops calling it the "female hormone" the better both sexes' health will be.

Agreed, been telling everyone I can for ages that estrogen is not the "female hormone" I've just been searching to see if there are any studies using progesterone as birth control instead of progestin, found a few people here on the forums that were giving it a try but no studies. I wonder if supplementing with real progesterone whilst taking the traditional pill would act as a sufficient counter to the negative effects. My instinct is it would lessen but not eliminate them.

 

[haidut]

Agreed, been telling everyone I can for ages that estrogen is not the "female hormone" I've just been searching to see if there are any studies using progesterone as birth control instead of progestin, found a few people here on the forums that were giving it a try but no studies. I wonder if supplementing with real progesterone whilst taking the traditional pill would act as a sufficient counter to the negative effects. My instinct is it would lessen but not eliminate them.

Well, then I would just stick to saying in social settings that estrogen is bad for men as well. No need to argue about it not being a "female hormone" because some people may take this personally and think you are trying to de-feminize them with this argument. Estrogen is a well-known cause/result of the "beer gut" in men. Most doctors would have no problem confirming/agreeing with that statement even in a social setting.
Even a physiological dose of progesterone (10mg - 15mg) should greatly mitigate the negative effects of a BC pill regardless of whether it has only estrogen or an estrogen/progestin combo in it.

 

[dookie]

It does both actually. Estrogen deforms the face, and makes it long and thin. Rapid weight gain is officially listed as a common side effect of BC pills.
Facial Deformity May Be An Indication Of Early Life Stress

@haidut, have you found a supplement which causes the face to become stronger, more tight, less "elonganted"?

I'm surprised you know so accurately the effects of estrogen on physique. I have noticed these things as well, but didn't know others had noticed them too. And it sounds so extreme to say these things in social settings. I'm really curious: are there studies you have seen which say these specific things about estrogen elongating the face, or is it something you have noticed yourself?

 

[haidut]

@haidut, have you found a supplement which causes the face to become stronger, more tight, less "elonganted"?

I'm surprised you know so accurately the effects of estrogen on physique. I have noticed these things as well, but didn't know others had noticed them too. And it sounds so extreme to say these things in social settings. I'm really curious: are there studies you have seen which say these specific things about estrogen elongating the face, or is it something you have noticed yourself?

It is both - studies and experience, but the experience came first. There is a philosophical field called Phenomenology (Phenomenology (philosophy) - Wikipedia), which teaches that you can learn a lot about the world simply by observing people and putting thing together. So, little by little I found out that all most people with facial deformities have an estrogen-drive condition of some sort - either autoimmune like MS/Lupus/RA, cancer (breast in women and prostate in men), or dementias (AD). Then I dug for studies to confirm my "anecdotal evidence".
DHT for males, progesterone for females, DHEA and vitamin K/D for both sexes all tend to correct facial deformities. There are studies showing vitamin D (which is really a steroid) synergizes with steroids to optimize bone growth and shape and protects from steroid side effects. Vitamin K does not need any introduction given how many people here experienced first hand its facial-changing properties.

 

[lollipop]

The old name of estrogen was "adipin" (i.e. the fat hormone).

Fascinating and telling.

 

[raypeatclips]

When I was in 1st and 2nd grade we had "introduction to natural laws" where they told us about atoms, molecules, and basic chemistry and astronomy. I asked the teachers where are all these small balls (atoms) suspended from and they said from nowhere, they are just floating in empty space. I asked how could that be, how can something stay suspended in nothing. There was no answer. Then I asked if there is some kind of invisible ocean/sea where these things float in and was told that was an old Greek idea that had been discarded. I asked who discarded it and again no answer. One of the girls that was playing with the boys in 1st grade had a father who a nuclear physicists and everybody thought he was absolutely crazy. One day he brought her to school and the naturology teacher pointed to him and said "this guy can answer your question on the floating balls". Next time I saw him I asked him if he believed small balls that make up the entire Universe float in empty space. He just rolled his eyes and said "of course not, this is nonsense". So I said "ok then what are they suspended in". He said "there are no small balls and thus no need to be suspended in anything. Everything you see and experience around you, including you, as well as the entire Universe is made of a special fluid. Everything you experience as individual objects are just vortices and currents in that fluid. If the vortex spins fast enough, the fluid begins to glow. If you look up in the sky at night, you will see billions of those vortices. We call them galaxies". Anyways, that was in 1984. I asked him a few other things and he gave me even "crazier" answers, so let's see if those turn out to be true

Very interesting. Would you mind sharing the other things that he spoke to you about?


I'm going to make a forum based on the things that guy said so people can discuss his work and theories. I'll call it thatguyhaidutspoketoforum

 

[Tarmander]

It is both - studies and experience, but the experience came first. There is a philosophical field called Phenomenology (Phenomenology (philosophy) - Wikipedia), which teaches that you can learn a lot about the world simply by observing people and putting thing together. So, little by little I found out that all most people with facial deformities have an estrogen-drive condition of some sort - either autoimmune like MS/Lupus/RA, cancer (breast in women and prostate in men), or dementias (AD). Then I dug for studies to confirm my "anecdotal evidence".
DHT for males, progesterone for females, DHEA and vitamin K/D for both sexes all tend to correct facial deformities. There are studies showing vitamin D (which is really a steroid) synergizes with steroids to optimize bone growth and shape and protects from steroid side effects. Vitamin K does not need any introduction given how many people here experienced first hand its facial-changing properties.

I have noticed that people who spend a lot of time in front of computer screens tend to have one eye higher then the other. I am not sure why, and it seems to take years to form, but old gamers and coders seem to have this higher side and droopy side of the face.

 

[pimpnamedraypeat]

It does both actually. Estrogen deforms the face, and makes it long and thin. Rapid weight gain is officially listed as a common side effect of BC pills.
Facial Deformity May Be An Indication Of Early Life Stress

How interesting. I noticed male to female trannies tend to have long and thin faces, even when their prior male selves looked normal.

10 months HRT

When I was in 1st and 2nd grade we had "introduction to natural laws" where they told us about atoms, molecules, and basic chemistry and astronomy. I asked the teachers where are all these small balls (atoms) suspended from and they said from nowhere, they are just floating in empty space. I asked how could that be, how can something stay suspended in nothing. There was no answer. Then I asked if there is some kind of invisible ocean/sea where these things float in and was told that was an old Greek idea that had been discarded. I asked who discarded it and again no answer. One of the girls that was playing with the boys in 1st grade had a father who a nuclear physicists and everybody thought he was absolutely crazy. One day he brought her to school and the naturology teacher pointed to him and said "this guy can answer your question on the floating balls". Next time I saw him I asked him if he believed small balls that make up the entire Universe float in empty space. He just rolled his eyes and said "of course not, this is nonsense". So I said "ok then what are they suspended in". He said "there are no small balls and thus no need to be suspended in anything. Everything you see and experience around you, including you, as well as the entire Universe is made of a special fluid. Everything you experience as individual objects are just vortices and currents in that fluid. If the vortex spins fast enough, the fluid begins to glow. If you look up in the sky at night, you will see billions of those vortices. We call them galaxies". Anyways, that was in 1984. I asked him a few other things and he gave me even "crazier" answers, so let's see if those turn out to be true

Sounds like the living water guy. How does he explain particle physics. What strange properites this fluid must have to create vortices that can bounce off each other and interact like solid objects. And they way they clump up into 'atoms' with unique properties depending on the number of protons in the nucleus..how do vortices explain the quantum nature of atoms and the particulte nature of subatomic particles. Also what is this fluid made up of? Is it infinitely indivisible

 

[haidut]

Is it infinitely indivisible

Yes, at least according to him. The underlying nature of reality is continuous and irreducible. David Bohm spoke of the same thing in his studies and books. I was a child at that time so he couldn't explain things in great detail. I still run into him about once a year when I go back to Europe so I will ask him what he meant. He said what we call atoms are points in space with peculiar properties that make the fluid change its direction and flow "outward". So, in his view "particles" radiate energy (fluid) all the time. Similar to what Peat said about Kozyrev in his recent quote about unidirectional timeflow providing negentropy, which "particles" convert to energy and radiate out. My physics guy said to talk about "particles" as separate physical objects is akin to calling a corner between two walls a separate physical object. It is a temporary result of an interaction, not an independent physical object. And if matter/reality is infinitely divisible then there are no independent physical objects at any level. All that exists is an interaction of forces creating a momentary structure in the ether. Again, same thing as Bohm said and most quantum mechanics people currently believe. Heraclitus spoke of the same - things are simply the continued interaction of two opposites. Not sure what those opposite forces would be in the electrical world. I suppose it could be explained with the analogy Peat gave about life - a phenomenon akin to a lightbulb between the poles of a battery with electrons providing the energy for the light. I think this can be extended to all matter - i.e. a temporary structure created by flow of electrical energy (electrons). The electrons are a quanta of ether, as Tesla said, but their nature is still not quite well known. Their flow literally creates new matter as the recent post about thunderstorms shows and Peat talked about - i.e. cosmic rays are newly created "atoms". I think the constant flow of electrons is what we call time. Peat talks about some of these concepts in this interview.
Biochemical Health Reduction And Oxidation, Politics And Science, 2015
"...RP: Since you can't explain many events in terms of particles, it becomes sort of mathematical magic to try to make up theories to explain results like Polanyi 's or Schwarz's. And Albert Szent-Györgyi used conventional quantum thinking about electrons, and went a long way towards explaining some of the biological phenomena that the people hadn't been able to even perceive. But that doesn't mean that it necessarily validates the particulate electron, just because you can explain some important phenomena. I think it should mean that the whole idea of what matter is, how an electron works, whether it might be that there is an electrical ether-like material which breaks up in different ways into apparently discrete electrons. But that rather than being an internally discrete particle (like a proton is supposed to be), the electron might be sort of an ad-hoc division, which the wave interpretation is approaching that idea. And some of the sub-atomic thinkers are saying that maybe this great variety of sub-atomic particles being seen with high energy research, maybe these are just sort of an ad-hoc response of matter to a particular context, or environment, or stimulation.
JB: So it might just be an aspect you are seeing depending on the medium you are using to see it with.
RP: Yah, exactly. And that would say that in a different solar system or different galaxy the atoms aren't necessarily going to be the same, exact, [or] have the same functionality. And that is an implication of Halton Arp’s comments on his galaxy photographs.
JB: It sounds like there are several things that affect how quickly a chemical change happens in the body or elsewhere. One of them is the environment, so the pH surrounding the substance where the change might happen is key, and then the other part is the materials that are attached to that substance. So if you tie a protein, and then the protein might have other molecules attached to it, that actually enhance or deter the change happening.
RP: Yah. And that's one of the complexities of the living state: If you kill it, it doesn't work the same. So you have to think of it always in a certain environment. You have to really think of it as a flow from the environment, in and out; and the rate of flow, and intensity of flow, and so on."


Anyways, some of this may not make much sense as I can only grasp it intuitively and we probably still don't have the language framework to describe all elements in writing. But I think it is a consistent and so far unfalsified view of the world. I doubt so many scientists, including Peat, came up with similar views through intuitive grasping of the world that would be wrong. Intuitive knowledge precedes all science, and is just another name for unbiased acceptance of conscious experience.

 

[alywest]

Very interesting. Would you mind sharing the other things that he spoke to you about?


I'm going to make a forum based on the things that guy said so people can discuss his work and theories. I'll call it thatguyhaidutspoketoforum

Read "The holographic universe" by Michael Talbot, may have been written by thatguy

 

[Regina]

If most of the female portion of the nation is on it, then there are not much different females left to compare to. Most women assume this is normal reaction and behavior since most women they work and/or live with act the same. In fact, I also know of a few women who were best friends while on the pill and then the friendship degraded into vicious fights once one of them got off the pill. One of the female-pairs both ended up stopping the pill and they made peace again. Not sure if it is due to both ditching the pill but just the fact that they would like each other when both on/off the pill but hate each other when one was on the pill is too much of a coincidence to ignore.

Okay. I can see this being the case.

Yes, at least according to him. The underlying nature of reality is continuous and irreducible. David Bohm spoke of the same thing in his studies and books. I was a child at that time so he couldn't explain things in great detail. I still run into him about once a year when I go back to Europe so I will ask him what he meant. He said what we call atoms are points in space with peculiar properties that make the fluid change its direction and flow "outward". So, in his view "particles" radiate energy (fluid) all the time. Similar to what Peat said about Kozyrev in his recent quote about unidirectional timeflow providing negentropy, which "particles" convert to energy and radiate out. But he said to talk about "particles" as separate physical objects is akin to calling a corner between two walls a separate physical object. It is a temporary result of an interaction, not an independent physical object. And if matter/reality is infinitely divisible then there are no independent physical objects at any level. All there is an interaction of forces creating a momentary structure in the ether. Again, same thing as Bohm said and most quantum mechanics people currently believe. Heraclitus spoke of the same - things are simply the continued interaction of two opposites. Not sure what those opposite forces would be in the electrical world. I suppose it could be explained with the analogy Peat gave about life - a phenomenon akin to a lightbulb between the poles of a battery with electrons providing the energy for the light. I think this can be extended to all matter - i.e. a temporary structure created by flow of electrical energy (electrons). The electrons are a quanta of ether, as Tesla said, but their nature is still not quite well known. Their flow literally creates new matter as the recent post about thunderstorms shows and Peat talked about - i.e. cosmic rays are newly created atoms. I think the constant flow of electrons from the ether is what we call time.
Anyways, some of this may not make much sense as I can only grasp it intuitively and we probably still don't have the language framework to describe all elements in writing. But I think it is a consistent and so far unfalsified view of the world.

Agreed! (intuitively )

 

[dand]

Well, then I would just stick to saying in social settings that estrogen is bad for men as well. No need to argue about it not being a "female hormone" because some people may take this personally and think you are trying to de-feminize them with this argument. Estrogen is a well-known cause/result of the "beer gut" in men. Most doctors would have no problem confirming/agreeing with that statement even in a social setting.
Even a physiological dose of progesterone (10mg - 15mg) should greatly mitigate the negative effects of a BC pill regardless of whether it has only estrogen or an estrogen/progestin combo in it.

Curious. Do you think the BC would still prevent contraception if progesterone is also taken in physiological doses? Good thread!

 

[DaveFoster]

Women (and today's society in general) seem perfectly comfortable shrugging off serious health risks that they would not tolerate in other circumstances if it means they get to f*%# raw without getting pregnant. "The science is settled" on hormonal BC imo, it's the sociology that is interesting now.

Think about it, there's women paying tons of money for organic food and taking expensive supplements and all kinds of other stuff for the chance of slight health benefits, simultaneously avoiding lots of things that they think might have negative health effects. What would the negative effects of the pill have to be to get women to think about giving it up? Acne? Lol, sad state of affairs, amazing really, that women will make an immediate appointment with the doctor if they get acne or gain weight from their pill, but will hear about mental health problems and cancer risk and...keep taking the pill without further consideration.

Funny anecdote: A woman I worked with in my first post-college job as a water quality microbiologist went off the pill and was trying to f%#^ me like you wouldn't believe. She was married and everything. She was kind of my boss too, if the genders were reversed it would be a scandal. Kissed me at work, tried to lock us in my bedroom after a group of friends came back to my place from a bar on my 25th birthday, used to whisper all kinds of stuff in my ear walking by during work. Then she went back on the pill...and she went back to feeling nothing, no libido. Actually that's not really a funny story, pretty sad really.

Have you heard of "Semengate"? There is physiological reason females may prefer natural sex.
Lazar Greenfield's 'Semengate' Stuns Scientific Community | HuffPost

"...Dr. Greenfield noted the therapeutic effects of semen, citing research from the Archives of Sexual Behavior which found that female college students practicing unprotected sex were less likely to suffer from depression than those whose partners used condoms (as well as those who remained abstinent). Presumably it was the closing line that caused the controversy: “So there’s a deeper bond between men and women than St. Valentine would have suspected, and now we know there’s a better gift for that day than chocolates.” The attempt at Jackie Mason-humor apparently didn’t sit well in certain quarters. Dr. Greenfield resigned as editor of the Surgery News and gave up his stewardship of ACS after learning that his article had spurred threats of protests from outside women’s groups."

I remember reading that women who swallow have higher testosterone, but it could be correlative.

The disdain for children would be more important than the desire for natural sex, although I've mentioned elsewhere that the lack of children for those without desire for them could be a blessing in disguise.

There's quite a few subtleties. "Protected sex," for example, as if we should be protected from sex, which implies harm in the act. It preys upon the "harm-avoidant" orientation of a stressed organism.

 

[theLaw]

The Masculinizing Effects Of The Birth Control Pill

The Masculinizing Effects Of The Birth Control Pill

Taken with a huge grain of salt, but interesting food for thought:

CH is on record noting the disturbing trend toward physical and behavioralmasculinization of American women. Maybe the Pill is the primary culprit? From the BBC (Big Blubbering Cucks):

With an affordable source of progesterone found [Mexican yams], researchers turned to its uses as a contraceptive. The birth control pill hit the market less than a decade later. Marker, on the other hand, mysteriously disappeared from public life and became obsessed with collecting silver.

Maybe he couldn’t handle the knowledge that he had unleashed one of the Six Sirens of the Sexual Apocalypse?

The economic and social side effects of the pill were as profound as they are well-documented. Sex could be enjoyed without fear of pregnancy. Suddenly women could devote their 20s and 30s to furthering their education and careers, rather than housework and nappies.

Shareholders rejoiced.

But right from the beginning, the pill has had a secret.

In recent years, scientists have started to realise that the brains of women on the pill look fundamentally different. Compared to women who aren’t taking hormones, some regions of their brains seem to be more typically ‘male’.

Whoo boy, buckle up, this ride’s gonna unsettle more than a few feminist snowflakes.

There are behavioural changes, too. Women on certain types of pill aren’t as good at coming up with words – something our gender are usually highly skilled at. On the other hand, they’re better at mentally rotating objects, as is often the case in men. […]

Every brand of combined pill on the market contains the same type of synthetic oestrogen, ethinyl estradiol, and one of eight synthetic progesterones, called progestins. Ethinyl estradiol prevents the body from releasing an egg every month, while progestins thicken the mucus at the entrance to the cervix and conspire to make the womb inhospitable. Even if an egg slips out and becomes fertilised, it won’t be able to settle down and start growing.

So far, so good. But though the hormones are effective at preventing pregnancy, they aren’t perfect matches for our natural hormones. The end result is that these synthetic versions also have effects that you would never get from raw progesterone. […]

The women were sweatier, hairier and spottier. Some noticed that their voices had deepened. Nearly one in five baby girlsborn to mothers taking it had masculinised genitals. Some of these unlucky children required surgery.

Is the Pill the genesis of Clown World trannyism?

Generally speaking, the older, cheaper brands of pill tend to contain androgenic hormones, while newer, more expensive ones tend to contain anti-androgens. This may be one reason that just 17% of women on the combined pill in the US take the anti-androgenic versions.

Is there a class distinction developing between feminine and masculine women?

The scans revealed that several brain areas were larger in the women on the pill, compared to those of women who weren’t. These areas just so happened to be larger in men than women, too.

But gender is a social construction blah blah Hi, My Name Is Feminist!

The study involved a relatively small sample and didn’t separate androgenic and anti-androgenic contraception, so Pletzer cautions against reading too much into the results. But other research has hinted that both types of hormones actually may be changing our behaviour.

Modren society is a crash course in how many endocrine disruptors can be squeezed into the environment (and up SJW buttholes).

Other studies have found that women on oral contraception remember emotional stories more like men – recalling the gist more than the details.

Lol “you never listen” (said by soyhubby to manjawwife)

They’re also not as good at recognising emotions in others, such as anger, sadness, or disgust – just like men. It looks suspiciously like certain types of pill are “masculinising” women’s brains.

Perhaps the most striking evidence, however, comes from a paper published in 2015. This time, Pletzer compared the brains of women on the two types of pill with women who were not. Several brain areas were larger in the women whose pills contained the newer, anti-androgenic progestins.

Crucially, these changes seemed to be affecting their behaviour.

Two brain areas were particularly engorged: the fusiform face area, a region about the size of a pea that processes facial information (from photographs of friends to cartoons), and the parahippocampal place area, which important for recognising places (such as cityscapes). These women were also better at recognising faces.

Hey, let’s mess with the primal forces of human reproduction. What could go wrong?

To complicate matters further, all combined pills contain synthetic oestrogen, which is feminising. This means that the same women may be experiencing both ‘feminising’ and ‘masculinising’ effects on their brains at the same time.

jfc worst of both worlds. You get a passive-aggressive battlecunt. “honey, did you remember our second date anniversary? No? GET THE **** OUT NOW BEFORE I DROP A #METOO ON YOUR SORRY BETA ****”

No one could have predicted that an ugly yam would give rise to a feminist revolution.

Mexico hasn’t been sending its best for a long time.

The pill has repeatedly been called the greatest invention of the 20th Century and is said to be responsible for a third of the increase in women’s wages since the 1960s.

Coincidentally, it’s also been responsible for a third of the decrease in women’s lifetime fertility and lovability.

But contraceptive pills may have a darker side. As Pletzer wrote in 2014, when athletes take steroids we call it ‘doping’ – it’s considered abuse and strongly condemned by society. But we’re happy for millions of women to take these hormones every day, sometimes right through from puberty to menopause.

When you **** with the laws of Nature, don’t be surprised when Nature ***** you back. The God of Biomechanics will not be denied for long.