What happened to to Periods

[Irresistible Isabelle]

My 2nd last post before I take a break from perb!

Links have been sent to me by someone else.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/..._uids=17259055&query_hl=1&itool=pubmed_docsum

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/..._uids=16529087&query_hl=1&itool=pubmed_docsum

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/..._uids=16489210&query_hl=1&itool=pubmed_docsum

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/..._uids=16465919&query_hl=1&itool=pubmed_docsum

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/..._uids=16371293&query_hl=1&itool=pubmed_docsum

 

[OTBn]

Links have been sent to me by someone else.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/..._uids=17259055&query_hl=1&itool=pubmed_docsum

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/..._uids=16529087&query_hl=1&itool=pubmed_docsum

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/..._uids=16489210&query_hl=1&itool=pubmed_docsum

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/..._uids=16465919&query_hl=1&itool=pubmed_docsum

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/..._uids=16371293&query_hl=1&itool=pubmed_docsum

Hmmm… Pubmed links

The source I’ve previously offered, is a local Vancouver centre, named CeMCOR - the Centre for Menstrual Cycle and Ovulation Research. The web-site link/article I previously offered is: Manipulating Menstruation with Hormonal Contraception — what does the Science say? --- http://www.cemcor.ubc.ca/articles/misc/manipulating_menstruation.shtml

And as I previously stated: “Perhaps the CeMCOR article’s summary statement (available from the preceding website link) says it best;” “In summary, we think that long-cycle and continuous CHC use is effective for contraception. However, we know that it is likely to cause more unexpected bleeding than usual and less expected flow. We have many unanswered questions about safety that the current studies compared with standard CHC schedules are not addressing. We are looking for a randomized, blinded, placebo-controlled comparison of continuous OC and untreated menstrual cycles.”

But about those Pubmed links – 2 are just physician surveys, 2 don’t offer conclusions to make your argument… while it does appear that the 2nd link (which itself hyperlinks out of Pubmed to a separate article) is a study that addresses both safety & effectiveness.

To me the two threads on this topic have been interesting – and of course the premise of your original thread and its poll had value. It’s called discussion - give and take (with respect) - state a position and be prepared to take questions/challenges to that position. It’s easy to talk a good game about being open to debate or conversation…