|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 Posted: Sat Apr 28, 2007 9:59 pm
Ok, you need to stop being insulting, like the teenager you claim to not be.
It's not implied...not everyone knows about fat% and the effects you will have if you drop below a certain level.
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Apr 29, 2007 8:37 am
Emily`s_Gone_Mad Yes it is a birthcontrol method.
3nodding
There is already a birthcontrol method out callled sesanoal or something like that that reduces your periods to 4 times a year... I don't see a problem with getting rid of your cycle all together, especially if you aren't planning motherhood anytime soon. Getting your tubes tied is permanant thing, reversing the process can be dangerous- and is not recomended by many doctors. I think a birthcontrol that can rid of your cycle is wonderful. I'd save on Tampax and Always and help the eviroment by not using them. XP
xp I agree. I have several friends who're on the birthcontrol pill. Actually 90% of my friends are on it be it for medical reasons or for avoiding kids altogether. Then I know some women who are on Seasonal. It's a miracle pill honestly. It would be wonderful to menstruate just 4 times a year and not every month which is as normal as the moon going through its phases. You make a great point on saving on tampons and sanitary napkins! I'm not sure if i'll ever get oon any pills. As someone else stated, every form of cancer runs in my family. I have the genes that predispose me to get it and to top it off, I was stupidly naive enough to follow the lead of other people and not use gloves while handling chloroform and other organic solvents.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Apr 29, 2007 10:09 am
I have to wonder how safe this is. On the regular pill you still build up the endometrium lining. How will this one prevent that from happening?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Apr 29, 2007 10:54 am
I think that the monthly birth control shots also eliminate or decrease menstral periods? Hasn't this been out for some time... It's always good to have choices - you should always be aware of the risks too and then make an informed decision.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu May 03, 2007 8:13 am
I'm better off with a hysterectomy than taking my chances on a pill with a good chance of negitive side effects.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu May 03, 2007 8:36 am
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat May 26, 2007 6:35 am
I really think birth control isn't a good thing for people... Well I mean if others think it's good I can' tell them otherwise... But I just don't like taking it... You always need to take it at the same time every morning and I can't do that at all too hard and plus... Well that's it I'll stop mumbling now heh..
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat May 26, 2007 6:00 pm
Akira Seki I have to wonder how safe this is. On the regular pill you still build up the endometrium lining. How will this one prevent that from happening?
HOw serious is the build up to one's health?
I haven't heard of it, but then I haven't researched much on birthcontrol.
sweatdrop
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat May 26, 2007 6:03 pm
Regular birth control pills do not prevent the lining from building up, and when you take the white dummy pills it sheds during that time. These new pills would need to prevent the lining from building up at all. The only way I can think to do that is to put you through a chemical menopause.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat May 26, 2007 6:10 pm
I see, but I still don't understand what lining buildup is?
Or why it's important?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat May 26, 2007 9:28 pm
Emily`s_Gone_Mad I see, but I still don't understand what lining buildup is?
Or why it's important? The lining is the stuff that the fertilized egg implants itself in. It supplies nutrients to the fetus. If during that cycle you do not become pregnant then the lining is shed. Endometrium LiningSince traditional birth control pills do not stop this lining from building up, it needs to be shed. That's why the dummy pills are there. It would probably keep growing if you didn't get rid of it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat May 26, 2007 9:31 pm
Ooooh, I see, well I'll look into it more.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed May 30, 2007 9:35 pm
MustangDragon Soldier Scientist Drop 30% of your body mass in less then a couple of months and you'll stop. Happens to female olympians in training all the time. This happens when the fat in a woman's body goes below a certain percentage, and it is not healthy over long periods of time. I could see this pill being used for women who have severe and intractable menstrual pain, but I certainly wouldn't use it for convenience or minor menstrual pain. Anything that disrupts the normal hormonal balance in one's body can over time produce unknown results. I'm sure this pill has not been tested with a large enough base over a long enough time period. I am not a guinea pig. If you are not menstruating you are not producing eggs, so I assume this would be a birth control method as well (sorry didn't check the links). The surest method of birth control is tying the tubes. This is surer than a man's vascectomy because a woman may not be faithful. Or, a man can lie. A woman can use the regular pill, the diaphram (yeah, messy), ask her man to use a condom, and a couple other methods to prevent childbirth. And I don't even like the pill... breast cancer runs in my female line, and I have been told never to use it. So here's another thing I would never use. I'd have to agree that only women who have severe clinical problems with menstruation should be perscribed this pill. Messing with chemical balances have always shown huge effects on the risk of cancer, heart disease, tumors, and more. If current methods are working well (and they too increase cancer) why make something stronger that is already strong. It's like a 6 Y.O trying to break through a steel wall and then the guy behind the steel wall reinforces it with ten feet of concrete (pointless). I know it's senseless to ask them to keep testing for long term effects, because that means we'd test it for as long as 80 years in most cases. But I still wouldn't rush to get this pill. Then again I'm a guy. What do I know lol... I get yelled at by my female counter parts all the time for this stuff lol.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu May 31, 2007 3:34 pm
bandnerd4ever06 I'd have to agree that only women who have severe clinical problems with menstruation should be perscribed this pill. Messing with chemical balances have always shown huge effects on the risk of cancer, heart disease, tumors, and more. If current methods are working well (and they too increase cancer) why make something stronger that is already strong. It's like a 6 Y.O trying to break through a steel wall and then the guy behind the steel wall reinforces it with ten feet of concrete (pointless). I know it's senseless to ask them to keep testing for long term effects, because that means we'd test it for as long as 80 years in most cases. But I still wouldn't rush to get this pill. Then again I'm a guy. What do I know lol... I get yelled at by my female counter parts all the time for this stuff lol. Here's another interesting tidbit: In the past women did not have as many periods because they were either pregnant or nursing. Today a woman can endure about 450 periods. Since going back to the old days is not much of an option, this gives many women an out.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Jun 20, 2007 6:04 pm
mrgreen its very good mrgreen
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reply
