June 25th, 2007 by Dr. Val Jones in Expert Interviews, News
No Comments »
This is the weird correlation of the week: women who suffer with symptoms of morning sickness during their pregnancies may be less likely to develop breast cancer later on in life. A group of epidemiologists in Buffalo recently reported this finding at a scientific meeting (Society for Epidemiologic Research). No one is sure what this means, and I dare not speculate… but perhaps there’s some kind of link between a woman’s hormone levels produced during pregnancy, the nausea they cause, and the hormonal milieu that is the background for breast cancer? Or maybe this study has turned up a false association. Only time – and a lot more research – will tell. Of course, if anyone should speculate on this, it’s the breast cancer oncologists like Dr. Gluck. So I dropped him an email to ask him what he thinks.
Dr. Gluck said that first of all, the association between morning sickness and decreased breast cancer risk is relatively weak. So here’s what the numbers mean: For the average 50 year old woman, the standard risk for developing breast cancer is about 2% (one in
50). According to this study, that same woman (if she had severe morning sickness at some point during pregnancy), is about 1.4% (~30%
less).
Dr. Gluck speculates (and this is quite fascinating) that women with morning sickness are subjected to a hormonal milieu that may result in permanent alterations in their breast tissue. The breast tissue (having been exposed to surges of hormones, insulin, and changing blood pressure and blood sugar levels) might be less vulnerable to the genetic mutations that cause cancer.
We’ve known for a long time that women who have children are at lower risk for breast cancer than women who don’t… now it seems that there might be something about women who are really sick when they’re pregnant and decreased risk of breast cancer as well.This post originally appeared on Dr. Val’s blog at RevolutionHealth.com.
February 17th, 2007 by Dr. Val Jones in News
1 Comment »
A new initiative funded by the health department resulted in the distribution of 150,000 free condoms to unsuspecting subway riders in NYC. The condoms were colorfully labeled with a subway themed wrapper, and handed out by city workers and volunteers in all 5 boroughs.
Condoms are critical for the prevention of sexually transmitted diseases, but I wonder if the candy wrapper marketing and non-selective distribution methods are contributing to an over-sexualization of society?
Now, I know a lot of you will think I’m being prudish, but I worry about children being over-exposed to sexual content all the time. What does it say to them that subway staff are handing them condoms? Is it just me, or does anyone else think this is a bit much?
Go ahead, let me know!This post originally appeared on Dr. Val’s blog at RevolutionHealth.com.
February 7th, 2007 by Dr. Val Jones in Opinion
4 Comments »
As I read the opinion piece in the New York Times about fertility clinics that permit parents to choose the sex of their baby before pregnancy, I was suddenly aware that I had strong feelings about this. As I tried to analyze my indignation, I realized that my emotions came from a place beyond mere reason.
Although technically, this issue could be reduced to a matter of sperm sorting – we all know it’s much more than that. Choosing the sex of your unborn child wanders into an unexplainably uncomfortable territory – swirling unconscious feelings about the value of human life, sexual equality, and the pain of sexism that many have experienced. We have heard the horrible stories about female babies being selectively aborted, or left to die in the elements in India and China, and we wonder if choosing the sex of a baby is somehow part of the same phenomenon.
Why should it matter which sex the baby is? Why is “family balance” cited as a reason to sex select? Perhaps the balance comes from the makeup of the individual personalities in a family, or maybe from parents who plan for the right number of children, not the gender of them.
Personally, I cannot support the practice of sex selection for anything other than sex-linked genetic disease prevention (and even this makes me feel a little uncomfortable, frankly).
I’m curious to know if men and women are equally disturbed by the practice of sex selection… What do you think?
This post originally appeared on Dr. Val’s blog at RevolutionHealth.com.
January 22nd, 2007 by Dr. Val Jones in News
2 Comments »
I’d never really thought about this issue until I read a study from the American Family Physician where some hardy souls sifted through the world literature for the answer to this very question. Their conclusion was that one out of every 220 women experiencing post coital bleeding has invasive cervical cancer.
The general prevalence of cervical cancer (in the US) is about 10 in 100,000.
So, if you’re experiencing bleeding after sexual intercourse, you should follow up with your Ob/Gyn to determine the cause. Also, regular pap smears are important in sexually active women as most cases of cervical cancer have no symptoms at all.
(How common is post-coital bleeding? About 1% of women report this problem.)
This post originally appeared on Dr. Val’s blog at RevolutionHealth.com.
