Seasonale Proves the Earth Is Flat--Part III

Looking at the second part of the factually-challenged article Seasonale: A Eugenicist's Dream I realized something: not only isn't the connection between Seasonale and eugenics revealed (since no logical case for such a connection can be made), but the medical misinformation contained in this section is appalling. This is simply unacceptable.

It's one thing to pretend logic doesn't exists--a poorly constructed argument doesn't kill. If it did, most of our politicians would be in need of serious medical care (sorry, but I couldn't resist the gratuitous dig). It's an entirely different thing to ignore or distort (knowingly or out of ignorance) medical facts--this has real-life, dangerous consequences. So, in order to correct the many factual mistakes in the article, I will devote a separate entry/s to that task. For now, let's just have fun with logic (or, rather, the lack of it).

The good news is that the second section of the article starts of with a statement of fact (finally, some facts):

"Yes, periods and all that go with them can be annoying and inconvenient."

The bad news is that the facts don't last...:

But so are many other natural bodily functions. I doubt there are many among the average population who would assert that the body's process of waste elimination is a convenient or somehow pleasant bodily function. Yet, it is completely normal, natural and necessary.

Right from the start, we have a red herring--of the fallacy, not fish variety. If you're trying to establish what's natural when it comes to the menstrual period, it is completely irrelevant what other body functions are, or are not. Oh, and in the interest of scientific accuracy: waste elimination is necessary; the period isn't. If your kidneys fail, you die. If you don't have a period, not only do you not die, but you're also not necessarily infertile--you can still become pregnant.

As the piece continues, again a statement of fact--certain women experience more extreme symptoms and are more than a little inconvenienced by the monthly period--is followed by misinformation:

But are women really healthier on the pill? If side effects are the main indicator of health, I think the answer is a hands-down NO. Here's what the "cure all" pill can cause:...

First of all, side effects are never an indicator of health, but rather of risk. The end-result of the balance between benefit and risk is the health indicator. For example, if you decide the benefits of having a baby outweigh the risks, and if, after delivery (post-partum) you're fine, you're in good health. Same with taking drugs--if the benefits of using a drug are greater than the risks, the end result is a healthier you.

Second of all, women are, in fact, healthier on the pill as we've already discussed. And last, but not least (run, run for the hills as fast as you can--the scare quotes are a-comin') the claim that the birth control pill is a "cure all" has never been made by any competent medical professional, any pill manufacturer, or any legitimate scientific publication at any time, anywhere. Quotation marks do not magically transform fantasy into reality.

And while we're on the subject, I am officially unveiling a new Public Service Announcement campaign:

Just Say No to Scare Quotes!

All kidding aside, this next section contains dangerous medical misinformation:

...nausea, bloating, moodiness, breast tenderness, breakthrough bleeding, weight gain, headaches/migraines, depression, decreased libido, vaginitis, urinary tract infections, skin problems, gum inflammation, aggravated asthma, increased incidence of contracting viral illnesses. More dangerous side effects include: severe pain or swelling in the legs, dizziness, weakness, numbness, blurred vision (or loss of sight), speech problems, chest pain or shortness of breath, abdominal pain, high blood pressure, blood clots, stroke, and whether they want to admit it or not, studies DO show that there is an increased risk of breast cancer. Oh yeah, iron-poor blood is WAY worse than all that.

I'll address the specific medical issues in a separate post, but allow me to vent for a moment. As I mentioned before, this lack of professionalism is unacceptable. After all, it's not like this piece appeared in a blog, where, as we all know, [sarcasm] everything goes since there are no editors [/sarcasm]. There is no excuse--basic information about the pill is easily available just by doing a simple search, or talking to a medical professional. Again, just because one has an opinion doesn't mean the facts can be ignored. If I have an opinion about, say, mine safety work procedures, doesn't mean I can just write about it off the top of my head, seeing how I've never even been close to a mine entrance. Either I do my due diligence, research the subject, and come up with an informed opinion, or I clearly state, at the start of the piece, that I don't actually know the facts about working in a mine and I'll be making them up as I go along, in support of my opinion.

Moving on, we stumble upon a few more fallacies (you know, if the word fallacy didn't signal a break in logic, one could enjoy encountering it--I could certainly make a case that this word just sounds vaguely naughty):

All the medical rhetoric aside, the propagation of the myth that the natural functions of women's bodies are abnormal and must be "fixed" comes from an old nemesis:...

This is a typical begging the question fallacy: just because you state that there's a myth, which is being propagated, is not enough to establish that, indeed, such a myth exists, or that it's being spread around. If you state something as fact you need to provide some supporting evidence (any evidence, an iota, a teensy-weensy bit, or maybe even...gasp...a link). And, if all the medical rhetoric is set aside, the word nemesis is used because...? Let me venture an answer: because some people are under the mistaken impression that fancy, out-of-context words can substitute for a lack of facts.

Well, even if the article doesn't make it clear why the word nemesis is used, at least it does tell us who the nemesis is: ...the population control movement (which by default includes the feminists, eugenicists and the like).

I am going to completely ignoring the lack of logic in this statement, just because I am trembling with anticipation. Finally, it looks like the reason for linking Seasonale and eugenics is going to be revealed:

These are the people who are obsessed with reducing the world's population just to ease their own irrational fears or to achieve their own insidious agendas. Not surprisingly, these operations have their fingers buried deeply in the contraceptive cookie jar. For example, Barr Laboratories and Eastern Virginia Medical School aren't the original public advocates of Seasonale. As mentioned earlier, there exists another conspirator: the Population Council.

Wait a minute! What just happened here? There isn't even a perfunctory attempt to offer an explanation. We go directly from illogical statements to conspiracy theory. I must confess, this is a let down. I was looking forward to seeing how the article would explain the connection between menstrual management, something which doesn't involve sexual intercourse and which has to do with controlling the menstrual period, and eugenics, something which, by definition, must involve sexual intercourse and which has to do with genetic traits control.

The best (and I use the term "best" loosely) the article can do in its attempt to establish a link between Seasonale and eugenics is this:

--it asserts that there is a myth that the natural functions of women's bodies are abnormal and must be "fixed" (What evidence is there that such a myth actually exists?)

--it also asserts that there is a propagation of the myth (What evidence is there that this alleged myth is being propagated? What is the meaning of "propagated" in this particular context?)

--that this alleged propagation is done by an old nemesis (What is the evidence that, if the myth is true and if it is being propagated, the "old nemesis" is doing the propagation?)

--that the "old nemesis" is the population control movement (What is the evidence which establishes that the "old nemesis" is made up of the population control movement?)

--and, finally, that the population control movement by default includes the feminists, eugenicists and the like (What is the evidence for this inclusion?)

To sum up: myth that the natural functions of women's bodies are abnormal and must be "fixed"-->propagated-->old nemesis (population control movement)-->eugenicists

You still don't get the connection between Seasonale and eugenics? Not to worry, especially since there isn't one.

Seasonale/menstrual management is based on the fact that the natural functions of women's bodies are, in fact, normal. The natural (as seen in nature) pattern for the menstrual period (a woman's body function) is one period every few years, for a lifetime total of 100 to 150 periods. Since women today have a period every month, for a lifetime total of 400 to 450, Seasonale/menstrual management offers women the option to have a natural, normal period pattern. Thus, even assuming that all the unproven assertions in the article (myth, propagation, eugenicists connection) are true, since Seasonale has nothing to do with the myth, any connection between the myth and eugenics is irrelevant.

Returning to the article, we get a bit more "information" (read unsubstantiated assertions) about the "old nemesis", aka the population control movement:

These are the people who are obsessed with reducing the world's population just to ease their own irrational fears or to achieve their own insidious agendas. Not surprisingly, these operations have their fingers buried deeply in the contraceptive cookie jar. For example, Barr Laboratories and Eastern Virginia Medical School aren't the original public advocates of Seasonale. As mentioned earlier, there exists another conspirator: the Population Council.

Oh, where, oh where to begin? Again, just because words like "obsessed", "irrational fears", "insidious agendas", and "conspirator" are used, the need for facts/evidence doesn't magically disappear.

True, it's easier to assume your audience is a bunch of idiots, and to throw some nonsensical words at them. But, really, in this age of Google how hard is it to show a minimum of respect for your readership by giving them the facts and allowing them to reach their own conclusions? For example, why is someone who believes in reducing the world's population "obsessed"? What are their fears and in what way are they "irrational"? What are these people's agendas and why are they "insidious"? What is the meaning of the term "conspirator" in this context? Are all the many public advocates of women's health issues--numerous churches and charities, the government, the medical community--"conspirators" because they care about women's health? Or do the public advocates become "conspirators" only when they inform women about Seasonale? And if yes, why? I could go on, and on.

Speaking of going on, and on, the last 4 paragraphs of the article contain so much misinformation that I simply must end this post here, and dedicate a whole new one just to those last paragraphs. And, mind you, I haven't even gotten around to addressing the medical mistakes! I wonder, are there many articles like this one out there, purely devoid of facts, or did I just stumble on the one exception to the rule?

Erectile Dysfunction Cure

The Onion has the scoop on the cure for erectile dysfunction and Random Occasional Nonspecific Pain and Discomfort Disorder:

"For years, scientists have been aware of the effectiveness of placebo in treating a surprisingly wide range of conditions," said Dr. Jonathan Bergen of the FDA's Center for Drug Evaluation and Research. "Placebo has been successful in the treatment of everything from lower-back pain to erectile dysfunction to nausea," Bergen said. "That's the beauty, and the mystery, of placebo. It's all-purpose. Think of it like aspirin, but without any of the analgesic properties."

And, in related news, trial lawyers are meeting (behind close doors, of course) to map a class action suit strategy.

(via GruntDoc)

Sometimes, Even The French Get It

"A mindf**k we've yet to fully apprehend"--an accurate, albeit crude description of the explosive growth of the Internet, is but one of the interesting ideas exlpored in this Village Voice article.

And here's another one--sometimes, even the French get what's wrong with them (with a little editing help from me)--as evidenced by this quote: "...French independent cinema society... has trouble understanding other cultures; it has trouble even looking at the world."

(via mediabistro.com)

Carnival of the Vanities

Happy Anniversary!

The Carnival of the Vanities is one year old and its creator, Bigwig, is hosting it. Please go and have a look--everything from naughty puppies, to predictions about the Democratic presidential debate, to female genitalia composed solely of peanut butter and streetlight, and much, much more.

Stem Cells Sperm

I've just realized that maybe, just maybe, the menstrual period and issues related to it might not be so fascinating (or, even mildly interesting) to male readers. So, in the interest of sexual (or is the current PC term "gender"?) fairness, I give the boys: sperm made from stem cells.

Combine this sperm with eggs grown from stem cells and what do you have boys and girls? The distinct possibility that in the near future, sexual intercourse (at least, for procreative purposes) will become obsolete. So, what will happen to the eugenicists' dreams? Inquiring minds would, indeed, like to know.

Oh, and just so you know: I use "girls" and "boys" as terms of endearment , and not some sort of statement.

Seasonale Proves the Earth Is Flat--Part II

As promised, let's take a closer look today at Seasonale: A Eugenicist's Dream, an opinion piece, dated August 8, 2003, from The Washington Dispatch site. I'm not at all familiar with this site, however I did note their prominently displayed motto: "Your Source for Reliable News and Unbridled Opinion".

First, just so we're all clear on what the meaning of "is", is:

Eugenics = The study of hereditary improvement of the human race by controlled selective breeding./ n: the study of methods of improving genetic qualities by selective breeding (especially as applied to human mating).

So, presumably, when eugenicists dream, visions of DNA and selective breeding dance through their heads. This doesn't, however, explain the linkage in the title between Seasonale and eugenics. What's the connection? Seasonale = Eugenics? Seasonale is the main feature in an eugenicist's dream? What?

Seasonale, is a drug intended for period control (menstrual management), not pregnancy control--selective, or otherwise. Period control allows a woman to choose when to have a period and how many periods to have, regardless if she is, or isn't sexually active. Since you can't have eugenics without sex, the question remains: what's the connection between menstrual management and eugenics? Well, maybe if we're patient, somewhere in the article the connection will be revealed to us. So, let's look at the first half of the article today.

The article opens with a straw man set-up:

-- menstrual management is the "latest bit of medical scientific 'progress'"

Actually, menstrual management has been used for over 40 years and is considered the standard of care by the medical community.

-- menstrual management is based on the fact that "It's NOT normal to have a regularly functioning menstrual cycle."

There isn't a single article in any peer reviewed medical journal, nor any record of a competent physician stating that it's not normal to have a regularly functioning menstrual cycle. Even the makers of Seasonale clearly state on their site that:

...monthly periods are normal...

-- and, finally, the way menstrual management works is you "pop a new contraceptive pill called Seasonale, and eliminate menstruation almost entirely."

In reality, menstrual management can be used to skip only one period, like, for example, when you're going on your honeymoon (a once-in-a-lifetime event, hopefully), or it can be used to decrease the number of periods from 13 (one every month) to 4 (one every 3 months), like when you're using Seasonale for an entire year.

Next, medical fact and the article start to diverge:

"Medical 'progress' has already technically abolished menstruation in women who are on the pill...But it appears that the manipulation of women's bodies won't end there."

Medical progress hasn't, technically or otherwise, abolished anything. Women who are on the pill do not have menstrual periods because of the pill's mechanism of action. Also, menstrual management involves manipulation of the pill's hormone regimen, not of the woman's body. And, no, the two are not the same since, in a woman who isn't using the pill, the hormone levels produced by the body are also manipulated (they fluctuate periodically), by the body itself.

The article continues, and so does the break from reality:

"The researchers hired by those who stand to make a good deal of money from Seasonale are already force feeding women the notion that having a monthly period is an unnatural, unhealthy medical disorder that they need relief from."

The manufacturer of a product (Barr Labs, the maker of Seasonale) spends years and millions of dollars, employing hundreds of people and paying millions in taxes in the process, to develop a product and bring it to market. Once the product, the result of its labor, investment, and risk, finally reaches the market, it stands to make money. This is logical and reasonable (unless, of course, you think it's OK to walk into the corner bagel store, grab some bagels, and walk out without paying, or if you think Barr Labs' business model should be to sell their products for less than the cost of production, to insure that they do, in fact, lose money). At the same time, all this is also completely irrelevant when it comes to evaluating the quality of information women get from researchers. The researchers' information is either valid, or not, based on scientific facts, not based on their employment history.

As to the researchers "...force feeding women..."--I have yet to see any reports on the hoards of menacing, lab-coated researchers accosting women in the streets, or breaking into their homes and subjecting them to PowerPoint presentations. Not to mention the fact that no researcher involved with Seasonale has stated that having a monthly period is an "unhealthy medical disorder". And the "unnatural" trick is just that, a trick. In medicine, unnatural simply means not seen in nature (it's unnatural for humans to fly unaided--you know, seeing how we have no wings and all). The term doesn't have a negative, or positive, connotation: it's neither unhealthy that humans don't have wings, nor is it healthy.

Moving on, this is just plain silly:

"The medical 'evidence' they base this opinion on?"

OK, repeat after me: using scare quotes for the word evidence is nonsensical. Evidence, especially medical evidence, is either valid, or invalid. If you think the evidence is caca, great. Use facts to refute it or have a hissy fit--whatever. Just don't use quotation marks--they are meaningless in this context.

And the silliness continues:

"That cavewomen and members of primitive tribal cultures did not menstruate as often as we American women. This somehow makes us abnormal. I can't help but wonder at what point we began basing our modern health norms on what was normal for cavewomen. And I wasn't aware that cavewomen kept detailed records of their menstrual cycles."

The reason we have to look at cavewomen and women of primitive tribes is because humans are social animals. This means a lot of our traits (how often we have a period, our weight, our intellect, etc.) are influenced partly by nature and partly by nurture (societal/cultural factors). In order to determine what's normal in nature (what nature intended), we have to separate nature from nurture. The only way to eliminate nurture's influence is to look at women living in the wild, so to speak--hence cavewomen and primitive tribes. This is called the scientific method of study, and it's the reason we study cavewomen. No strange desire to start a retro-cave trend is involved (as if any sane person would yearn for the good old...cave dwelling).

Oh, and one more thing. The fact that we menstruate more than the famed cavewomen means our menstrual pattern is not what nature intended. In other words, the cavewoman's period frequency is determined only by nature, which makes it the natural pattern. In contrast, our period's frequency is influenced by both nature and nurture (time at first period, life expectancy, infant mortality, breastfeeding, and the ability to choose infertility). This dual influence doesn't mean us, modern women are "abnormal". All it means is that we have a period pattern which isn't seen in nature.

Here we go again:

"Medical authorities are using this overwhelming scientific 'discovery' to convince women that they will be healthier if they take the pill. They are enamored with reminding women that with menstruation comes a plethora of dangerous side effects: headaches, bloating, moodiness, cramps, and the worse culprit of all, inconvenience."

One more time: using scare quotes, for the word discovery this time, is nonsensical. Something either is, or isn't a scientific discovery. If you don't think it's a discovery, use facts to refute the evidence or throw a temper tantrum. Either way, stay away from, you know...quotation marks. Also, using at least one actual fact sure would help a lot. No authorities, medical or otherwise, are using the fact that cavewomen had less periods to convince women of anything. The reason women are healthier if they take the pill is because the pill is a medication which:

1. treats a variety of medical problems (migraine headaches, heavy bleeding, ovarian or breast cysts, etc.), in women who suffer from period-related health problems

and

2. considerably lowers the risk of cancer (ovarian, uterine), protects against Pelvic Inflammatory Disease, or PID (an infection of the upper part of a woman's reproductive tract), etc., in women who don't experience any period-related problems

And how exactly does the fact that medical authorities are doing their duty, by educating women about the side effects of the menstrual period, demonstrate that said authorities are "enamored" (of what exactly, it's not entirely clear)? It is one of the basic principles of the Hippocratic Oath that a physician: first has to watch (to learn), second has to do (to practice), and third has to teach (to educate). Should we perhaps ask medical authorities to stop reminding us about the side effects of pregnancy, or AIDS, or heart diseases, least they appear "enamored"?

Also, what medical authority, ever, anywhere has stated that the worst side effect associated with the menstrual period is "inconvenience"? If this matter wasn't so serious--period-related health problems can, and do kill women--the fabrications in this article would be mildly amusing. Let's look at this "inconvenience" issue for a moment. Clearly, this aspect of the period can be highly subjective: your slightly annoying period cramps and week and a half of bleeding can be your best friend's week and a half spent in the middle of the desert in Iraq, fighting the enemy while cramping and worrying about where to get a tampon. So, just because the period is less inconvenient for some women, is no justification to be patronizing and dismissive of the women who do find the period inconvenient.

Finally, remember how I said the fantasies which pass as facts in this article would be mildly amusing, were it not for the serious matter of period-related health problems? Here's the last example for today:

"One article I read even stated that the rare side effect of anemia (iron-poor blood) is one of the world's worst medical maladies. I would have voted for something like cancer or heart disease."

Let's go to...reality, and check the facts:

-- The World Health Organization considers iron deficiency the number one nutritional disorder in the world . It affects more than 30% of the world's population.

-- Just in the U.S. alone 7.8 million teenage girls and women suffer from iron deficiency, of which 3.3 million have a more severe form called iron deficiency anemia.

Source: The Journal of the American Medical Association, 1997;277(12):973-976. (sorry, couldn’t find a link to this article)

-- Iron deficiency anaemia affects over 2 billion people, particularly women of reproductive age and pre-school children.

-- Iron deficiency is the most prevalent single deficiency state on a worldwide basis. It is important economically because it diminishes the capability of individuals who are affected to perform physical labor, and it diminishes both growth and learning in children.

-- There are several kinds of anemia produced by a variety of underlying causes, but the most common and most severe type of anemia, iron-deficiency anemia (IDA). Just as the name implies, this form of anemia is due to insufficient iron. In the United States, 20% of all women of childbearing age have iron-deficiency anemia, compared with only 2% of adult men. The principal cause of iron-deficiency anemia in premenopausal women is blood lost during menses.

Before I go, a final note. Perhaps I went a bit overboard with the number of examples, but this can not be emphasized strongly enough: just because one writes an opinion piece, doesn't mean that reality and facts can be ignored. For example, if you think the millions and millions of women who suffer from iron deficiency anemia are insignificant and deserve to be mocked, just grand! This is a free country and you are entitle to your opinion. But what you're not entitled to is pretending reality doesn't exists, and/or distorting said reality.

Seasonale Proves the Earth Is Flat--Part I

By now I expect you've all heard the news. No, I'm not talking about the President's speech on Sunday, or about the 7 consecutive days in Iraq without any U.S. combat deaths. I am talking, of course, about the really important news: the FDA has approved Seasonale! And, please, no e-mail about how dare I mention the war in Iraq and Seasonale in the same paragraph--keep on reading, and you'll see that there is, indeed, a connection.

Seasonale, manufactured by Barr Laboratories, is the first drug on the market specifically packaged for use in menstrual management. In really (really) general terms: women can use Seasonale to cut down the number of yearly menstrual periods from 13 (once a month), to 4 (once every three months). Taking control of your period and deciding when to have a period, and how many periods to have = menstrual management.

But, just because this drug was approved, I didn't have to: 1) start a blog, 2) name it The Well-Timed Period, and 3) dedicate it to discussing menstrual management. No, what actually motivated me to do all this was stumbling upon an article, titled Seasonale: A Eugenicist's Dream while Googling, you guessed it, Seasonale. This article is number 4, out of about 7,580 results. For shame!

Most women, the media, and, unfortunately, quite a number of medical professionals, don't have accurate information about menstrual management as it is. For example, the September 5, 2003 AP news wire (picked up by most media outlets) announcing the approval of Seasonale, contains the following telling phrase:

"The big safety question is whether four periods a year are enough to allow the uterus to shed any tissue that builds up."

This is wrong--there is no tissue build up in the uterus while a woman uses hormonal birth control. The mistake stems from confusing the actual period with the fake one (medical term = withdrawal bleeding). A common mistake, but a mistake nonetheless. Add to this baseline confusion the medical fiction in an article like the eugenics one and you have a recipe for disaster.

Yes, I said disaster. Because, contrary to the patronizing and dismissive tone of the eugenics article, period-related problems are serious and can even kill. Since this is my first post ever, I won't go into the really depressing statistics. I'll just touch upon a few of the "minor" ones.

Just in the U.S.:

-- Period-related disorders "are the most common gynecological complaint, affecting nearly 2.5 million women aged 18 to 50. Two-thirds of these women contact a doctor regarding menstrual problems each year, and 31% report spending a mean of 9.6 days in bed annually."

-- Among women under the age of 25 painful periods (medical term for painful period = dysmenorrhea) are the most common cause of time lost from work or school.

-- The costs of period-related disorders to US industry have been estimated to be 8% of the total wage bill.

-- The impact is particularly acute in industries that employ predominantly women. For example, Texas Instruments noted a 25% decrease in productivity among female workers around the time of menses.

And if you think it's not so easy to be a soldier, on active duty, in the middle of the desert, in 130 degrees heat, think how "easy" it is to be a soldier, on active duty, in the middle of the desert, in 130 degrees heat, while having your period. [See, I told you there was a link between the war in Iraq and Seasonale.]

So, all this introduction (sorry, but I haven't yet achieved the Professor's succinctness), just to say that:

-- I found an article full of medical fiction

-- medical misinformation is dangerous

-- I started a blog to set the record straight and inform the public [Well, doesn't that sound official!]

Actually, I really wanted to use "administer a medical fisking" somewhere in the mission statement, but it just sounded too much like a, slightly unpleasant, minor outpatient medical procedure.

In any case, since I also can't claim anything resembling Mr. Den Beste's craftiness with long, but brilliantly informative posts, I'll end this entry here and dedicate my next post to the promised debunking of the eugenics article. Oh, and the fact that it took me over 4 hours to create this site and publish this entry has nothing, nothing I tell you, to do with my ending this post here.