You must log in or register to comment.

thetransportedman t1_ivh2qrv wrote

This isn’t new. Each baby is a 9-mo pause on menstruation which is the growth and death of endometrial cells which is carcinogenic in nature


footcandlez t1_ivh5gkv wrote

What's new is right there in the article:

“While previous studies have shown multiple pregnancies and using the oral contraceptive pill can reduce the risk of endometrial cancer, this is the first study that used genetics to study multiple risk factors at once.”


DavinaCole t1_ivhf1s2 wrote

So stoping periods via birth control would in fact do the same thing?


thetransportedman t1_ivhi4wv wrote

Correct, similar association have been shown


Tony2Punch t1_ivhlz4f wrote

This study was targeted at genetically studying multiple risk factors.


thetransportedman t1_ivhpnny wrote

The genes mentioned are ones associated with increased child births a la fertility genes


glycophosphate t1_ivi2nbk wrote

I had my uterus removed. That got rid of the risk of both babies and endometrial cancer at the same time!


DarkHater t1_ivi6m7n wrote

Badda bing, badda boom! Like petting two dogs with one hand.


thereisafrx t1_ivic2ff wrote

Soon, procedures like this likely will be illegal to do electively, because the republican government wants to tell women what to do with their bodies (unless it's get a life-saving vaccine for the public good...).

It's the next logical step after they outlaw birth control pills (which is already being worked on).


Plane_Chance863 t1_ivktk4j wrote

Actually I've read about women complaining that their doctors refused such procedures because hey they might want to have kids one day!


Strazdas1 t1_ivj7c21 wrote

Thats only small part of the world, though. And can be changed through voting.


KeybladeMasterAqua t1_ivhkcyy wrote

And then there is a chance of dying in childbirth. You can’t get cancer if you died bleeding out during labor, right?


juspooped t1_ivhcd1l wrote

More specifically, estrogen causes endometrial hyperplasia which is increased number of cells growing. More estrogen exposure = more endometrial cell growth. In pregnancy, there’s a 9 month pause on that cyclic rise and fall of estrogen.


gambitz t1_ivi2rye wrote

I had an IUD for 10 years and no period during that time, wouldn’t that effectively do the same but better since I was no longer menstruating?


MunchieMom t1_ivi5rl2 wrote

Oh so I can just suppress my period with birth control and have it way easier?

Except for the part where I have endometriosis. That can't be good in light of this study.


Spiffy_Pumpkin t1_ivjhajn wrote

I'd imagine getting it removed via hysterectomy or endometrial ablation is just as if not more effective then, right?


LemonTheTurtle t1_iviyts0 wrote

It's more than 9mo actually. Women don't have menstruation few months after giving birth. It differs from woman to woman but it's definitely longer than 9mo. That's why many people think they can't get pregnant in the few months after giving birth but that's obviously wrong


floatyfungling t1_ivhd5hl wrote

I bet a hysterectomy does a much better job tho


agentfortyfour t1_ivholx3 wrote

My daughter has endometriosis and is quite knowledgeable. It’s entirely possible for endometriosis to re grow even after a hysterectomy. It’s not always an effective strategy. Finding an nook surgeon to excise the offending tissue is still the best treatment.


derycksan71 t1_ivhlyc1 wrote

Which introduced it's own set of risks and side effects. It's not something to be performed lightly.


OhtareEldarian t1_ivi7tdh wrote

Neither is being a baby factory.


derycksan71 t1_ivj9jil wrote

Nobody is forcing childbearing. However, I do highly encourage you do some research on hysterectomy before being nonchalant about the procedure. Early menopause and cardiovascular disease risks alone should be enough to realize, hysterectomies are a last resort option, not a default or preventative care.


Mercuryblade18 t1_ivms72q wrote

A hysterectomy can (and often is) performed without an oophorectomy (removing the ovaries) and therefore cardiac affects and menopause aren'ta factor.


derycksan71 t1_ivmwx9r wrote

Sure but we're talking about endometrial cancer prevention/treatment which the most effective treatment is a full hysterectomy. Even if an partial hysterectomy is performed it still does not prevent ovarian cancer which, while less common, is far more deadly.

The whole point of this study is the hormones introduced from pregnancy, particularly progesterone, are what have the benefit for cancer production. Hysterectomies are not typically performed for preventative care.


Mercuryblade18 t1_ivmyfw6 wrote

To prevent cancer? In a patient with abnormal endometrial tissue - a hysterectomy without oophorectomy is reasonable, oophorectomy is only recommended if you have actual cancer or atypical hyperplasia on biopsy (since the risk of an occult malignancy is high).

No need to take out the ovaries on a 40 year old with abnormal bleeding and risk factors but no actual cancer. Endometrial cancer is slow growing and acts locally until its advanced stages.


derycksan71 t1_ivn4l4e wrote

Prophylactic hysterectomy are typically only performed on women with high risk gene mutations. Three of the top mutations for endometrial cancer are also indicators for ovarian cancer, because of this, removal of ovaries and tubes are recommended when those genes are present.

We're getting into pretty individualized situations, not general prevention as this article is discussing.


Mercuryblade18 t1_ivn6xl5 wrote

Yes, in a genetic cancer like Lynch you would take out ovaries.

In a patient with an abnormal biopsy that doesn't want to take progesterone to see if it regresses a hysterectomy is a form of prophylaxis

Endometrial hyperplasia with or without atypia is fairly common especially in obese women.

As far as general prevention? No, we don't just cut out uteruses, and now we're in the weeds, but you didn't talk about hysterectomy with or without oophorectomy because I think it's clear you didn't know the actual difference or you would've specified in your original comment. It's okay to admit you were wrong rather than trying to Google answers that make you technically correct. What's your background in this?

If a patient asked one of the gynecologists at my hospital for a prophylactic hysterectomy 1) they wouldn't likely do it but also wouldn't take out the ovaries unless that had some other risk factors.

Most hysterectomies under the age of 50 are performed without an oophorectomy.

We don't use terms like "partial" or "complete" anymore, those are outdated and not uniform.


[deleted] t1_ivgnqlm wrote



KeybladeMasterAqua t1_ivhjze3 wrote

And it also increases risk of heart disease, diabetes, tumors on the ovaries, stress related disease, poverty-related illness, and others. You know what also reduces endometrial cancer? A hysterectomy. Same with getting your fallopian tubes being removed reduces ovarian cancer risk.

If the idea of having a lot of babies is only appealing due to not wanting cancer, get your reproductive organs removed if you’re so concerned. It’s safer and easier that way.


erehin t1_iviwq3d wrote

Yeah this article title gives me strong pro-lifers-are-going-to-start-pretending-endonetriel-cancer-is-the-leading-cause-of-womens-health-issues-and-death vibes


KeybladeMasterAqua t1_iviwzxz wrote

Yeah. That’s what I fear. It will give conservatives more ammo to take away contraceptives. I, myself, would die before the second trimester because of preexisting conditions. But apparently I “don’t exist” in the eyes of pro-lifers. So I must die if I get pregnant. Not allowed to have an abortion if something happens.


erehin t1_iviyelu wrote

My best friend too. Solidarity sister


Fit-Rest-973 t1_ivh8rwn wrote

More than two full term pregnancies affect a woman's health adversely


Ineedavodka2019 t1_ivha041 wrote

How. Any links? I have never heard this.


pink_turtle_23 t1_ivhfzaa wrote

Thats because people specifically don't tell women how damaging pregnancy is to a woman body in case they decide not to have children.


Fit-Rest-973 t1_ivhh31z wrote

Which is common sense. How many times can you overstretch a rubber band before it breaks?


Mercuryblade18 t1_ivh4rgr wrote

This has been known for awhile. Also, if you don't want to have kids and want to decrease your chances of endometrial cancer and progesterone secreting IUD is a great option.


glefe t1_ivh9fda wrote

Are there side effects to progesterone secreting IUDs?


Mercuryblade18 t1_ivhcyow wrote

1:1000 risk of uterine perforation, which isn't as exciting as it sounds.

If you get pregnant with an IUD you do have a higher rate of an ectopic pregnancy than other forms of contraception but your rate of ectopic is still lower than the general population.

You don't have the "first pass effect" you get with combined oral contraceptives. It has less side effects that other systemic exposure birth control.

Every obgyn I know has an IUD as their form of contraception.

EDIT: Unfortunately every single medication and treatment has side effects, you should discuss them with your doctor. If I didn't prescribe things because someone somewhere had a bad time with it... I would never prescribe anything or ever operate on anyone.


Potanko_Prime t1_ivhf811 wrote

Got one when I first started transitioning cause of doesn't affect testosterone like other birth control options, and it's fantastic


Mercuryblade18 t1_ivhwefr wrote

Yep, no drop on libido either from it.


stepfordexwife t1_ivjexwe wrote

Ehhh that’s not true. I definitely had a drop in libido but it was still worth it for the ease of use. Everyone’s miles will vary but side effects are usually mild if people experience them and go away over time.


sigzag1994 t1_ivhkh0i wrote

I’ve had one for 3 years and unfortunately for me it has destroyed my sex life. Sex is now very uncomfortable and I have low libido, still (I was told these issues would resolve over time). I have gotten checked to make sure it is positioned correctly, and it is. I also have super painful (though light flow) periods that last like 10 days. Barely any blood but lots of cramping.

Most people seem to like IUDs so maybe I’m just unlucky.


Mercuryblade18 t1_ivhx620 wrote

Sounds like aommething else is going on that may not be the IUD, I'd ask your doctor about pelvic floor physical therapy or evaluations for other causes of low libido and pelvic pain. You can also have it removed and try a different form of contraception to see if you have better results.

Very little hormone becomes systemic with the IUD hence why it has better side effects profiles that pills, rings, shots or the arm implant.


sigzag1994 t1_ividilo wrote

Was never an issue before the IUD


LowlyScrub t1_iviozcy wrote

You could have pissed some muscles off during the insertion. Have something shoved through your cervix is quite jarring. I was cramping terribly for 2 days.


sigzag1994 t1_ivircpa wrote

2 days sure, but multiple years?


LowlyScrub t1_ivirzva wrote

I don't know, muscles are wild down there. Not saying your suspicions aren't reasonable, just that you shouldn't discount your pelvic floor causing issues. I feel like I am constantly fighting the keep my hips, lower back, and lower abs loose.


Mercuryblade18 t1_ivilqgn wrote

Why do you still have your IUD? Remove it and see if your symptoms improve.


sigzag1994 t1_ivir96r wrote

Fair question. The insertion process was so horrifically painful that I was afraid of the removal process. Also I never had a good track record with BC pills, so once I had the IUD in I tried to stick it out


[deleted] t1_ivhl0mm wrote



Mercuryblade18 t1_ivhwtsu wrote

It can affect acne for some, but it did not cause weight gain. Every medication has potential side effects unfortunately. IUDs seem to have the lowest.

There's no such thing as a "better form" of progesterone, that's just marketing. Slynd contains the same progesterone as Yaz. Mileage will very, that's why it's important to experiment with what form works with you best.


[deleted] t1_ivjezvo wrote



Mercuryblade18 t1_ivjjy7e wrote

Yes I'm aware Slynd doesn't have estrogen. But everyone's body will respond to different forms of contraception. You shouldn't make your birth control choices based on other's anecdotes. You should talk to your doctor about potential side effects and what the quantitative risks actually are and see what's right for you.

Edit: I should add- Drospirenone is also likely the most thrombotic of the progesterones, probably a lower risk than estrogen containing pills but I wouldn't recommend using it if VTE is a huge concern- It's likely safer to take a different form. However, if it it's the one you tolerate the best it may be reasonable to assume the small but higher risk of a VTE, the data is still murky.


cheshire_kat7 t1_ivhp0o7 wrote

I tried a progesterone only pill for while. I ended up having bleeds every other week - it was like my menstrual cycle was just 2 weeks long.

I went back on the regular pill and it took a year before my uterus fully settled down. Technically, being on the pill is risky for me (age, weight and a family history of DVTs) but this point I'm afraid to try anything new in case it plays havoc with my cycle again.


TheSinningRobot t1_ivi0iod wrote

Just to clarify, is progesterone itself effective as a birth control? Or would you have to use it in conjunction with other contraceptives?


theoneandonly6558 t1_ivkncp3 wrote

Yes, but...

The "mini-pill" or progesterone-only daily birth control pill is slightly less effective than the traditional combination pill. The main issue is taking it at the same time every day, and if you miss that 3 hour window you have to use backup birth control. The traditional pill is less picky about when you take it/missed pills.


alsotheabyss t1_ivhikyc wrote

Having more babies or taking hormonal birth control that includes progesterone. This issue is exposure to oestrogen, and being pregnant and taking the Pill both reduce your exposure.

It’s very annoying that a lot of headlines and reporting on this has focused on the kid-having, not the reducing exposure to oestrogen.


Hydrate-N-Moisturize t1_ivhh0rh wrote

Thats cool, but the cost of babies makes you wish you'd just take the cancer.


_tiny-but-mighty_ t1_ivhpq1v wrote

Meh, I’ll take my chances

Edit: I can’t believe this comment got me reported as suicidal.


[deleted] t1_ivgqg5h wrote



Outrageous_Cry_5945 t1_ivgrii1 wrote

The main mechanism is less exposure to estrogen. The title is a bit misleading & makes it sound like the writer(s)/scientist(s) have an agenda to spur population growth, but one can achieve similar results without being pregnant (reducing levels of estrogen through other means, e.g., small molecule therapeutics, aromatase inhibitors like letrozole, anastrazole, et cetera).


Scarlet109 t1_ivhoild wrote

Still not going to be having any babies


L1mepanda t1_ivhbs0q wrote

"Please, have more babies"


pdxgti8v t1_ivh5yxw wrote

and also increases the likelihood of no money and no life....


texasspacejoey t1_ivha2x7 wrote

Ya but it's probably cheaper to cure the cancer


jamkoch t1_ivhd98m wrote

This may be skewed since women who have more babies are also more likely to die in childbirth or carrying the child.


Set-Secret t1_ivh7rhh wrote

This was already well established. Its literally in medical textbooks.


Fit-Rest-973 t1_ivhcv7p wrote

OB/GYN had told me, when we worked together. Makes sense. Stretching the body would predispose one to bladder and uterine prolapse, to begin with


[deleted] t1_ivie00a wrote

I live in a nation with free healthcare. I’ll take my chances with the cancer.


AceTygraQueen t1_ivjcrb6 wrote

Who funded this research? The Duggars?


ajon6956 t1_ivigxj0 wrote

Yeah this is a tough one. This method is more expensive and will come with a lot of other issues. $1,000 and up per child for daycare in my area.


MelanieSeraphim t1_ivjamg9 wrote

Too bad you can't have a hysterectomy when you're done having kids. My insurance denied it after I became severely anemic from blood loss secondary to fibroids and polyps everywhere. They keep performing painful D and C's, but they just come back.

I hate my diseased uterus. Looking into traveling to Canada to have it yanked out.


chainedflower t1_ivhkg0l wrote

they are basically explaining that if you have more kids the odds are smaller for you. just like gambling.


Zeno_the_Friend t1_ivj6d1e wrote

So does a hysterectomy.

Works both ways. Use it or lose it.


AutoModerator t1_ivglvd1 wrote

Welcome to r/science! This is a heavily moderated subreddit in order to keep the discussion on science. However, we recognize that many people want to discuss how they feel the research relates to their own personal lives, so to give people a space to do that, personal anecdotes are now allowed as responses to this comment. Any anecdotal comments elsewhere in the discussion will continue to be removed and our normal comment rules still apply to other comments.

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.


geekgurl81 t1_ivifoib wrote

Interesting it doesn’t mention breastfeeding at all, which also suppresses estrogen, at least somewhat. I wonder if lactating makes any difference.


AdPretend1573 t1_ivj37ax wrote

Funny how they didn't mentioned endometriosis can cause infertility as well.


crazyhadron t1_ivjbfq8 wrote

Men get a similar benefit from either being sexually active, or just snipping off their balls.

It has been observed throughout history that eunuchs, while they tend to become fat, live longer than their whole counterparts.

I'd rather jerk off everyday, though.


queefybean t1_ivjha3u wrote

I’ll risk the cancer ta


Maile2000 t1_ivkrnec wrote

And where those researchers funded by republicans?


DarthRevan1138 t1_ivkt6q7 wrote

Rather die of cancer if I were a woman if I'm being honest.


GenuisInDisguise t1_ivky8ll wrote

It works for dogs why not for humans?

Had two dogs pass away from endometrial cancer because they never gave birth and is a common thing among large breed dogs


Ricksterdinium t1_ivj9bsk wrote

So ladies come and get your medicine. It's free on the house.


Brainiac_Side-Goof t1_ivi0m7c wrote

No… that is not how you start a conversation and it sounds like you’re smoking your own fumes. It’s my death but I dig this grave and present it to the crowd. Look at the fax, this is where I go to die and that is where science goes to die. Do I see a difference? No! Did you ask? No, so then send me off to God and all is good. All in a day’s work. This post will be removed. Question what is an anecdote? Is free speech even partially allowed? Is this subreddit rigged? One thing I do know is that mods can often be the most hated form of existence according to memes if this has any relevance. I’m trying not to break rules that already seem broken in the first place.


Melti718 t1_iviwuj4 wrote

Im sorry, this reads like your having an episode. I hope youre better soon


Brainiac_Side-Goof t1_ivj1l42 wrote

No, I hope you are doing better soon. You see, my suffering is my gain. I always suffer so I always have room to learn how to win in life. Think for once! PETER PARKER JUST GET IT INTO YOUR HEAD …Candice… you see I have the memes. You can’t win against these memes.