Birth control pills reduce ovaries size by 50%

[haidut]

What a sad state of affairs of medicine when a study with such findings conclude that this phenomenon is "not dangerous". More importantly, the study confirms a very central theme of Peat's ideas that estrogen makes tissues "look older" than its true age, which is also a feature of cancer, chronic stress, diabetes, etc. Another confirmation that age is a metabolic feature and estrogen is a major factor in aging / metabolism.

http://sciencenordic.com/birth-control- ... 9s-ovaries

"...The new study included 833 women who visited a fertility advisory clinic at Rigshospitalet. The scientists' inspiration for the study arose because they were surprised that a number of young women visiting the clinic 'looked old' as far as fertility was concerned.
"Young women typically have well-developed and well-functioning ovaries, while women approaching their menopause have smaller ovaries with reduced egg production," says Petersen.
"We noticed that a number of young women who took birth control pills had ovaries that looked like they were approaching the menopause," she says."

 

[SQu]

Four times they say there's nothing to worry about. Women 'shouldn't be freaking out'.
Is it just me or does this make anyone else angry? Or maybe I'm just 'freaking out' in that hysterical overreacting way us women have. Would men be told not to freak out if their testes shrunk by 50%? Of course they (wisely) refuse to take hormonal birth control so it wouldn't happen. But if it did I don't think we'd hear that they were 'freaking out'. I think we'd hear that they were 'launching massive class action suits '.

 

[haidut]

Four times they say there's nothing to worry about. Women 'shouldn't be freaking out'.
Is it just me or does this make anyone else angry? Or maybe I'm just 'freaking out' in that hysterical overreacting way us women have. Would men be told not to freak out if their testes shrunk by 50%? Of course they (wisely) refuse to take hormonal birth control so it wouldn't happen. But if it did I don't think we'd hear that they were 'freaking out'. I think we'd hear that they were 'launching massive class action suits '.

Most of modern Western society is based on the idea that young male "impulsiveness" and young women "hysteria" needs to be controlled, often with drugs. I remember reading a transcribed interview by Peat who said that the original purpose of the birth control pill was to control "lust" and "neurosis" in women, so the repeated advice to women not to "freak out" seems to be a remnant of that original purposes. The pharma industry has finally realized that pure estrogen pills are NOT good and you may have seen the many ads on TV about invitations to join class action lawsuits for the pills "Yaz" and the like. So now pharma is pushing synthetic progestins that, even though they have some progesterone-like action, are carcinogenic in the long run. The industry figures that it is easier to defend a lawsuit against a pill that causes a disease decades in the making (cancer) and has many confounding factors, compared to a lawsuit against a pill like Yaz, which causes stroke and heart attacks within months of taking it.
Remember, in any industry the only thing that happens in an executive boardroom is a "risk analysis". How much a product would generate in revenue vs. how much it would cost the company in lawsuits. Back in the day when a product's profitability depended on its benefit to the public, that risk analysis may have had some justification, at least in industries like medicine where there is always some risk of harm. At least that is my experience, but Ray also seems to hold a similar view:

http://www.visionandacceptance.com/orga ... -ray-peat/

"...There are occasional simply stupid medical accidents, but the everyday medical horrors are obviously done with massive organization and deliberation. They calculate the billions in profits against the probable cost in legal settlements, and time the drug withdrawal accordingly, when the costs are expected to cancel profits. But when it’s done at the top, with capital, it isn’t conspiracy."

However, nowadays a product's profitability is determined primarily through the success of "engineering demand", which is a function mostly of marketing effectiveness and has little to do with the quality/benefit of the product. My rule of thumb these days is "if I see it on TV it is dangerous to buy / consume / supplement with". I have also started to notice that on the days that I do not watch TV at all, and abstain from online "news" as much as possible my mood is dramatically better. I now understand Peat's self-imposed occasional hermitism where he does nothing but draw paintings all day, abstaining from verbal communication with everybody else.
There is a great saying by George Carlin: "By and large, language is a tool for concealing the truth". So, I think we all need a break from it every once in a while.
Sorry about the big rant, I should have heeded Carlin's warning

 

[Vinero]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h67k9eEw9AY

 

[SQu]

I agree, haidut. The value is in inverse proportion to how hard they're selling. The truth is free - or discounted - to those who put in the time to search for it. Adverts are my blacklist too.

 

[Blossom]

Conveniently there is the statute of limitations that prohibits doctors from being sued after a certain period of time. My husband's grandfather had open heart surgery years ago and the surgeon accidentally clipped his phrenic nerve which resulted in partial paralysis of his diaphragm. He died a slow and painful death as a result of this error. One day after the statute of limitations passed his widow received a phone call from the physician who disclosed what had actually happened. I'm mentioning this here though it is a bit off topic to illustrate how there is a lot of underhanded practices that go on in medicine and the more time that passes the less recourse we have. As long as the treatment doesn't kill us in a way that can be easily identified within 7 years the medical profession is safe.