Jump to content

Talk:Combined oral contraceptive pill

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 0dimensional (talk | contribs) at 15:48, 11 May 2009 (→Mechanisms of Action: new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.


Unnacurate sentences

On Placebo: "The presence of placebo pills is thought to be comforting, as menstruation is a physical confirmation of not being pregnant"

This sentence is confusing, as it induces the reader to expect an explanation to the use of placebo pills further to the reinforcement of the daily habbit, such as an anxiety relief effect.

It seems the statement refers not to the placebo pills but to the allowance of a monthly menstruation, which needs not "the presence of placebo pills" but only the cease to take active pills.

This could be rewritten as "The no-pill or placebo pill week" or "The 7 day cease of active pills" or any sintagm of similar meaning, followed by "is thought to be conforting...". Unless the original statement was due to have some other meaning I have not understood in which case I suggest it is more accurately explained.

On sexuality: "Many women taking the pill enjoy sex more because of reduced anxiety over pregnancy" This cannot be stated as a positive effect on sexuality caused by the pill, since it is exclusively psichologycal and is common to every contraceptive method with a low failure risk. I suggest it is removed or complemented with "as with any other contraceptive method", being the first preferrable since this information seems extremely obvious, common sensed and hence unnecessary.

--85.62.98.226 (talk) 12:04, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Percy Julian again

71.182.107.102:

and
70.16.52.193:

have repeatedly added a June 24, 2007 personal blog post by Usha Alexander (http://blog.shunya.net/shunyas_blog/2007/06/percy-julian-ch.html) to the external links section of this article.

This is an inappropriate external link. Please see WP:LINKSTOAVOID:

Except for a link to an official page of the article subject—and not prohibited by restrictions on linking—one should avoid:
11. Links to blogs and personal web pages

13. Sites that are only indirectly related to the article's subject

This has prompted Zodon to repeatedly substitute an inappropriate "See also" section with a link to the Percy Lavon Julian article:

A "See also" section for a link to the Percy Julian article is inappropriate—because Percy Julian did not play a role in the history of the Pill.
Please see:

Russell Marker
  • Marker invented the chemistry (the Marker degradation) in 1938 to synthesize progesterone and other steroids from sapogenins, including diosgenin from Dioscorea
  • Marker discovered in 1942 that the inedible Mexican wild yams cabeza de negro (Dioscorea mexicana) and the more remote barbasco (Dioscorea composita) were exceptionally rich sources of diosgenin and excellent raw materials from which to synthesize progesterone and other steroids
  • Marker synthesized 3 kg of progesterone from cabeza de negro in 1943, founded Syntex in 1944, founded Botanica-Mex (which became Hormonosynth then Diosynth) in 1945, and thereby founded the Mexican steroid industry
  • Syntex, using the Marker degradation and the raw material (Mexican barbasco) discovered by Marker, reduced the bulk price of progesterone almost 200-fold over 8 years -- from $80/g in 1943 to $0.48/g in 1951
  • Syntex supplied the progesterone used by Pincus and Chang when they began their contraceptive research in 1951 by repeating the 1937 experiments in rabbits of Makepeace et al.
  • Syntex supplied the progesterone used by Pincus and Rock in their clinical trials of progesterone in 1953
  • Djerassi et al. at Syntex in 1951 synthesized (from steroids using the Marker degradation and the raw material (Mexican barbasco) discovered by Marker) the first (norethisterone) of the three progestins used in Pincus and Rock's clinical trials of progestins beginning in 1954
  • Almost all of the oral contraceptives manufactured in the 1960s were produced from Mexican steroids using the Marker degradation and the raw material (Mexican barbasco) discovered by Marker
  • Most of the oral contraceptives manufactured in the 1960s were produced either by Syntex for Syntex or produced by Syntex for Ortho and Janssen (norethisterone) or under license from Schering for Schering and Parke-Davis (norethisterone acetate)
Percy Julian
  • Julian did not play a role in the history of the development of the Pill
  • The Glidden Company did not play a role in the history of the development of the Pill
  • Julian Laboratories, Inc. did not play a role in the history of the development of the Pill
  • Smith Kline and French did not play a role in the history of the development of the Pill (and never developed any contraceptives)


I also removed an inappropriate external link added on July 22, 2008 by 12.106.237.2:

an anonymously authored article on a personal commercial website (http://www.myproductalert.com) with an objectionable amount of advertising.

This is an inappropriate external link. Please see WP:LINKSTOAVOID:

Except for a link to an official page of the article subject—and not prohibited by restrictions on linking—one should avoid:
4. Links mainly intended to promote a website

5. Links to sites that primarily exist to sell products or services, or to sites with objectionable amounts of advertising.

Lynn4 (talk) 15:56, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See also Percy Julian

I agree that the external link regarding Percy Julian was inappropriate to this article. However the Wikipedia article on Percy Julian indicates in several places that he played a role in birth control pills, and therefore a see also link seems reasonable.

"His work would lay the foundation for the steroid drug industry's production of cortisone, other corticosteroids, and birth control pills. He later started his own company to synthesize steroid intermediates from the Mexican wild yam. His work helped reduce the cost of steroid intermediates to large multinational pharmaceutical companies."

"The result was the female hormone progesterone which was put on the American market in bulk for the first time."

He was also apparently involvement in breaking a monopoly on Mexican yams used in progesterone production.

He seems to have had significant roles in several companies producing progesterone etc. from various plant sources - e.g. soy beans, yams. Inovating, helping to reduce prices, etc.

The development of something (i.e. creating the first one) is not the only part of a products history. Manufacturing, product refinements, improvements in manufacturing processes, cost reductions, dealing with regulatory barriers, precursors, attempts that didn't work out are also part of history.

If the article on Percy Julian is incorrect, then it should of course be corrected. But as it stands, based on the contents of the Wikipedia article on Julian, a see also seems reasonable. If one is interested in the history of steroid chemistry, history of progesterone production, etc., he seems to have played a significant part. (At the moment there is a lot more history material on his page than on several of the other pages, such as Syntex.)

Is there a more appropriate intermediary article (e.g. on history of steroid chemistry, etc.) that would get one to information about this and be a more appropriate see also? Zodon (talk) 00:34, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Percy Julian Wikipedia article claims (inaccurately) in only one place that Julian played a role in the development of birth control pills:
In the February 6, 2007 NOVA television dramatization of Percy Julian's life, "Forgotten Genius", the narrator at one point says:
"The work of Julian and Marker would lay the foundation for a whole new class of medicines, including the birth control pill and a wonder drug that would soon take the world by storm."
This is the source for the third sentence of the Percy Julian Wikipedia article:
"His work would lay the foundation for the steroid drug industry's production of cortisone, other corticosteroids, and birth control pills."
This sentence is inaccurate with respect to birth control pills, but WP:V says: "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth," so it is not worth fighting for the removal of this inaccurate sentence from the Percy Julian Wikipedia article about Percy Julian that is based on a television dramatization of Percy Julian's life.
But this is the Combined oral contraceptive pill Wikipedia article about the Pill, which is based on many authoritative books and journal articles about the Pill.
  • WP:REDFLAG says "Exceptional claims in Wikipedia require high-quality sources; if such sources are not available, the material should not be included."
  • WP:RS says: "Reliable sources are credible published materials with a reliable publication process; their authors are generally regarded as trustworthy or authoritative in relation to the subject at hand. How reliable a source is depends on context."
In this article about the Pill, making the claim that Percy Julian played a role in the history of the Pill—when no book or journal article about the Pill even mentions Percy Julian (because Percy Julian did not play a role in the history of the Pill)—is an exceptional claim that requires high-quality sources.
  • One sentence by a narrator in a television dramatization of Percy Julian's life is not a "high-quality source" that can justify the inclusion of an exceptional (and inaccurate) claim.
  • The authors of a television dramatization of Percy Julian's life are not "generally regarded as trustworthy or authoritative in relation to the subject at hand"—the history of the development of the Pill.
The inaccurate and misleading Percy Julian Wikipedia article is not a WP:RS for this Wikipedia article.
  • WP:SPS says: "Articles and posts on Wikipedia, or other websites that mirror Wikipedia content, may not be used as sources."
A "See also" section in this article to provide a link to the Percy Julian article is absolutely inappropriate.
Lynn4 (talk) 05:30, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What affects Birth Control?

What medications/supplements can cause the birth control pill to be ineffective? 69.248.200.210 (talk) 01:58, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Anti-tuberculosis meds - Rifampicin and rifabutin
Systemic antifungal - Griseofulvin, theoretically might reduce OC efficacy.
Anticonvulsants - barbituates, carbamazepine, oxcarbazepine, phenobarbital, phenytoin, primidone, topiramate and felbamate
Anti-HIV protease inhibitors
Saint John’s Wort - not well studied, but some expertes some experts recommend increasing dose of EC by 50% in women using it.

[Source for all of the above - Contraceptive tech, 18th ed, page 436-7]

Others:
Tretinoids - Accutane, Soriatane
Ginseng, or black cohosh may also. Zodon (talk) 02:53, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Grapefruit and juice? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 118.90.57.238 (talk) 00:56, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dubious sentence

I found this in the subsection "Placebo Pills"

"The withdrawal bleeding that occurs during the break from active pills is thought to be comforting, as a physical confirmation of not being pregnant." This is rather POV and it seems, well, dubious. Can someone back this up with a survey result or something? When was it established that the bleeding is generally "comforting"? I feel like this is just one person's opinion and perhaps needs removal if it can't be established as fact. --Pstanton (talk) 22:18, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't say that bleeding in general is comforting, but that the confirmation that one is not pregnant may be comforting. Quick Google search finds a lot of places that say similar (not all copies of this article) - haven't found one I like as an RS yet. One might also look at some of the references in the article on extended cycle use (another place such issues likely to be discussed). Zodon (talk) 01:46, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Added a citation that supports the sentence (with the change of saying was).
The following items from Contraceptive Technology, 19th ed, pages 228-229. Also seem apropos.
  • The 27/7 cycle provides a "predictable, coordinated withdrawal bleed that women will interpret to be a normal (although lighter) menses. The pill's inventors touted this feature as a distinct benefit for women, which it was at the time."
  • "Unless the patient wants to use bleeding as a reassurance that she is not pregnant, monthly cycling is not necessary"
So seems probable that at least one of the persons who were of that opinion was John Rock, one of the co-developers of the pill.
Article still could use improvement in coverage of cycle length, but does that provide enough to remove the dubious tag? Thanks for bringing this up (it was fun reading up on this). Zodon (talk) 06:58, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Carl Djerassi, Der Standard, The Guardian, and CathNews.com

CathNews.com and Catholic News Agency.com are not WP:Reliable sources:

  1. Djerassi, Carl (December 13, 2008). Warum wir bald sehr alt ausschauen. Der Standard, Album A 3.
  2. Connolly, Kate; Hooper, John (January 7, 2009). Church grabs chance to attack birth control pill. The Guardian, p. 23, reprinted January 8, 2009 on p. 6 of the Taipei Times.
  3. . (January 8, 2009). Pill inventor slams ... pill. CathNews.com
  4. . (January 11, 2009). Birth control pill inventor laments demographic 'catastrophe'. Catholic News Agency.com
  5. . (January 24, 2009). Corrections and clarifications. The Guardian, p. 34.
  6. Butterworth, Siobhain (January 26, 2009). Open door: The readers' editor on ... pills, spills and the wrong kind of splash. The Guardian p. 33.
  7. Djerassi, Carl (January 27, 2009). Response: I never blamed the pill for the fall in family size. The Guardian, p. 33.

75.57.127.117 (talk) 15:54, 3 March 2009 (UTC) 75.57.127.117 (talk) 16:22, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the references 75.57.127.117
In response to Geremia's questions in edit summary about poorly sourced and undue weight. The above covers the former question (the edit in question just cited a brief item in CathNews).
Undue weight because recent reductions in fertility rate are driven by many factors - public health improvements, the reduction of childhood mortality, scarcity of resources, economic pressures, etc. Also, the pill is only one of the major techniques used to achieve lower fertility rates, and it does not account for the desire to do so. So while coverage of trends in fertility and role of the pill not unreasonable, coverage would need more balance in terms of what happened, why, and the roles of various contraceptives. Zodon (talk) 18:57, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Duplicate sections

The new "health benefits" section largely duplicates the information in the "noncontraceptive uses" section. I'd suggest that these two sections be merged. LyrlTalk C 13:23, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Agree. Zodon (talk) 21:28, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Price?

It would be nice to give an approximate price of a month's worth of the COCP, e.g in dollars or in euros.--Roentgenium111 (talk) 21:51, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

See Birth control pill - planned parenthood But it varies quite a bit by location - e.g. in the United States, medications are much more expensive than in many other countries.
Also there are the cost of side effects (estimated at $14/year for COC) and the cost of contraceptive failures (medical costs estimated at about $130/year). [By comparison, Copper-T IUD, failure costs $8/year, side effect costs $0/year; or No method $0 method cost, 0 side effect cost, failure cost $950/year (or $1900/year if assume don't want any more children)]
Estimates from James Trussell, Anjana Lalla, Quan Doan, Eileen Reyes, Lionel Pinto, Joseph Gricar (2009). "Cost effectiveness of contraceptives in the United States". Contraception. 79 (1): 5-14. PMID 19041435.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link) [Failure costs include just the medical cost of ectopic pregnancy, spontaneous abortion, induced abortion and birth, in proportions typical to the United States. Does not client costs, time, etc. Also, except for the last, failure costs assume that 60% of births are misstimed by 2 years, rather than being unwanted. Costs in 2007 US$.]
The comparison by Trussell, et al. is from point of view of health insurer, and only goes through a few months after birth, it does not include cost of medical care for the child. The cost of raising a child is much higher (typically a few hundred thousand dollars), so failure costs for the user are much higher. Zodon (talk) 06:29, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Happened across another bit in some other reading. In developing countries "Estimates of the cost (in 2001 dollars) for a woman’s first visit to obtain oral contraceptives average about $8.00: $1.00 for drugs and supplies, $0.50 for labor, $6.50 for overhead"

Source: Susheela Singh, Jacqueline E. Darroch, Michael Vlassoff, Jennifer Nadeau (2003). Adding it Up: The Benefits of Investing In Sexual and Reproductive Health Care (Report). The Alan Guttmacher Institute and UNFPA. ISBN 0-939253-62-3.{{cite report}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link) Page 13, which cites an UNFPA review. Zodon (talk) 08:14, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mechanisms of Action

In the Mechanisms of Action section there is a missing or broken citation.

The reference [62] (Crockett, Susan A.; Donna Harrison, Joe DeCook, and Camilla Hersh (April 1999). Hormone Contraceptives Controversies and Clarifications. American Association of Pro Life Obstetricians and Gynecologists. http://www.aaplog.org/decook.htm. Retrieved on 2008-02-26.) goes to a dead link. I searched for the paper on Pubmed and scholar.google and found nothing but citations of this paper, but no paper itself. I went to the publisher's page and found a pro-life advocacy group, not a medical journal. I don't believe this is a valid citation. Not only does it appear to be an un-peer-reviewed source, it is also apparently missing from the internet.

Furthermore, the citation is given in support of this statement: "Others make more complex arguments against the existence of [endometrial effects that prevent implantation of an embryo in the uterus]." I am not sure that a pro-life advocacy group would want to refute claims of endometrial effects, since they generally take the position that this is a form of chemical abortion. Therefore, even if this paper could be found, I wonder how likely it is to be a good supporting paper for the claim that there are "complex arguments against" these effects.

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Combined_oral_contraceptive_pill&oldid=289271017"