Comparing what ovulation does to the ovaries to what smoking does to the lungs!? :eek:

Ouch, that's so wrong on so many levels! What is he trying to do; tell women to distrust and fear their own bodies? :mad: There's enough of that already as it is! :( Or is he trying to again put the focus on the female body as wicked and creepy with a desperate need to "fix it", as men have been trying to do for centuries???

Ovulation is a natural process that was intended to happen in a woman's body. It's no more freaky than so many of our bodily functions. And has nothing to do with the foreign introduction of dangerous chemicals, like smoking does. It would have served Dr Oz well to keep it on the subject!

What could be true, however, is that women were designed to have more pregnancies than they have these days. Plus intended to breastfeed her babies on demand for years. One baby could easily make a woman go without ovulation for 1,5 to 3 years. Meaning you could debate whether our ovaries are running serious over-time these days. And whether reducing the amount of ovulations would bring it back to a more reasonable amount. Particularly since BCP makes the body basically think it's pregnant. Whether such a statement medically holds, I can't say.

Let's not forget that this is a matter of comparing risks and chances of benefits, which need to be carefully statistically scrutinized and individually applied. After all: bcp comes with a long list of side-effects and risks that include cancer and thrombosis. And every manufacturer accompanies bcp with a list of health-aspects that contra-indicate and another list of health-issues (incl past ones) that would require you to be extra careful, because using bcp exposes you to elevated risks. This includes the most simple and common issues in the western world, like light obesity and smoking. As a physician, Dr Oz must be aware of all this.

So apart from insulting the female body by his rude comparison, I'd say Dr Oz is walking on very thin ice when he's simply recommending "a woman" -which I read as short for "every"- to take bcp for at least 5 years.

When it comes to using bcp on the unset of menopause, I think the bcp is just a type of medication like any other and therefor sounds reasonable to me. When a woman is feeling awful because her hormones are getting kicked out of balance, the physician choses a medicine that takes care of that best, taking the medical history and health status of the patient into account and in consultation with the patient's wishes.

Come to think of it: you know what I'd love for Dr Oz to do? To promote breastfeeding!

Breastfeeding reduces risks of breast-, ovarian- and cervical cancer in the mother. And I could go on and on about the health benefits for the baby; short- and longterm. Breastfeeding boosts the immune system, promotes strong intestinal flora, intelligence, speech, etc. It provides protection against allergies, asthma, diabetes, obesity, rheumatism, (child-)cancer, inflammatory bowel deceases, etc. Not to even mention the act of breastfeeding encourages emotional bonding and calm in both mother and child. And by emotional benefits, I could just as easily say health benefits, since it's mostly driven by hormones that promote healing in our bodies (the famous oxytocin) and our emotional state influences our health on a daily basis. You could say the key to a healthy society lies right there in our bosoms :)

Now that would be empowering women with a female body friendly approach towards health!

OK. Let us take a deep breath and step back a bit to consider what is being said in a popular medium.

BCPs have long been associated with breast cancer, especially in smokers over thirty-five. Similarly, hormone replacement therapy has been a cited cause of increased breast cancer in older women. In both cases, the oestrogen component has been blamed. Within the last few years two new bits of information have created doubt in the medical community. 1. Long term follow up (5-7 years) of post-menopausal women, some of whom were in a discontinued study of hormone replacement therapy, has shown a lower incidence of breast cancer with the HRT. 2. The move to "fourth generation" birth control pills has been even more surprising. The same oestrogen component (estradiol) as almost all previous pills is used in smaller dose while the progestin (artificial progesterone) has been changed. Incidence of breast cancer has gone up slightly. We do not now know which is the culprit or if there is an intervening variable. Many doctors are sticking to the old guidelines but some are moving on to their own guidelines for use. Most of us are simply confused.

The reduction in ovarian, colorectal and some other cancers has long been known but is as yet unexplained. Breast cancer is also related to lack of breast feeding and/or never having been pregnant.

The explanation of scarring may be intuitively comfortable but is not appropriately related to smoking and the lungs. The leap from there to recommending women be on the pill (or other hormonal birth control) that inhibits ovulation is without scientific support.

It is not so much that I am in disagreement (which I am) as his making recommendations based on guess work that bothers me. There are researchers hard at work trying to sort out our recent surprises in hormone therapy. Dr Oz (whoever that is) is adding a bit of guesswork to science and a large dose of faith in making these recommendation in what I assume to be the mass media. Not dissimilar to pharmaceutical adverts in mass media - that god that is not allowed in most of Europe. Patients accept nonsense as gospel and demand their doctors act upon it.