Mirena IUD?

Helle

Jedi Master
I have a Mirena IUD. It's a contraception which contains 52 mg of levonorgestrel. Initially, levonorgestrel is released at a rate of approximately 20 mcg/day.

I had it before I had my daughter, and I had a new one after she was born.
I don't have my regular period while using the Mirena, but I still seem to ovulate, at least I get frequent sore breasts, and pain in my lower abdomen, as if I AM ovulating. But without the menstrual bleeding.

My question is, is it unhealthy for me, to not have that natural monthly bleeding? Does it affect my creative energy? I can't even remember how I was, before Mirena. I remember bleeding heavily, that's why my doctor told me about Mirena in the first place, and not having to bleed at all, is actually very convenient. Also I want to make 100% sure, that I don't ever get pregnant again, 3 children is enough.

When I google it, there's sites Pro and Con- mirena, I just don't know who to trust.

Growing up eating my bread, drinking my milk because I was told it was good for me, has left me not-so-trusty these days..
 
Hi Helle,

FWIW, I found this website where women who have used this device, discuss their experiences with it. Perhaps you might get some useful information from it. From what I read at the website, it seems that there are more negative comments than positive ones.
 
Helle said:
My question is, is it unhealthy for me, to not have that natural monthly bleeding? Does it affect my creative energy? I can't even remember how I was, before Mirena. I remember bleeding heavily, that's why my doctor told me about Mirena in the first place, and not having to bleed at all, is actually very convenient. Also I want to make 100% sure, that I don't ever get pregnant again, 3 children is enough.

I'm right there with you on questioning the healthiness of these hormonal contraceptives. However, I am less focused on the "bleeding" part as I am the affect of the long-term use of hormonal contraceptives in general. I use NuvaRing myself right now. I was on the bill before that - in total about 2 years of using this kind of contraceptive. I barely have what you would call a period with either the pill or NuvaRing.

I will try to do some research myself and see what I can find. But I would be more concerned about the additional hormones than the bleeding itself, personally.
 
Here's something I found already.

http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/35663.php

Birth Control Pill Could Cause Long-Term Problems With Testosterone, New Research Indicates
In the January issue of The Journal of Sexual Medicine, researchers have published a new investigation measuring sex hormone binding globulin (SHBG) before and after discontinuation of the oral contraceptive pill. The research concluded that women who used the oral contraceptive pill may be exposed to long-term problems from low values of "unbound" testosterone potentially leading to continuing sexual, metabolic, and mental health consequences.

Sex hormone binding globulin (SHBG) is the protein that binds testosterone, rendering it unavailable for a woman's physiologic needs. The study showed that in women with sexual dysfunction, elevated SHBG in "Oral Contraceptive Discontinued-Users" did not decrease to values consistent with those of "Never-Users of Oral Contraceptive". Thus, as a consequence of the chronic elevation in sex hormone binding globulin levels, pill users may be at risk for long-standing health problems, including sexual dysfunction.

Oral contraceptives have been the preferred method of birth control because of their ease of use and high rate of effectiveness. However, in some women oral contraceptives have ironically been associated with women's sexual health problems and testosterone hormonal problems. Now there are data that oral contraceptive pills may have lasting adverse effects on the hormone testosterone.

The research, in an article entitled: "Impact of Oral Contraceptives on Sex Hormone Binding Globulin and Androgen Levels: A Retrospective Study in Women with Sexual Dysfunction" published in The Journal of Sexual Medicine, involved 124 premenopausal women with sexual health complaints for more than 6 months. Three groups of women were defined: i) 62 "Oral Contraceptive Continued-Users" had been on oral contraceptives for more than 6 months and continued taking them, ii) 39 "Oral Contraceptive Discontinued-Users" had been on oral contraceptives for more than 6 months and discontinued them, and iii) 23 "Never-Users of Oral Contraceptives" had never taken oral contraceptives. SHBG values were compared at baseline (groups i, ii and iii), while on the oral contraceptive (groups i and ii), and well beyond the 7 day half-life of sex hormone binding globulin at 49-120 (mean 80) days and more than 120 (mean 196) days after discontinuation of oral contraceptives (group ii).

The researchers concluded that SHBG values in the "Oral Contraceptive Continued-Users" were 4 times higher than those in the "Never-Users of Oral Contraceptives". Despite a decrease in SHBG values after discontinuation of oral contraceptive pill use, SHBG levels in "Oral Contraceptive Discontinued-Users" remained elevated when compared to "Never-Users of Oral Contraceptives". This led to the question of whether prolonged exposure to the synthetic estrogens of oral contraceptives induces gene imprinting and increased gene expression of SHBG in the liver in some women who have used the oral contraceptives.

Dr. Claudia Panzer, an endocrinologist in Denver, CO and lead author of the study, noted that "it is important for physicians prescribing oral contraceptives to point out to their patients potential sexual side effects, such as decreased desire, arousal, decreased lubrication and increased sexual pain. Also if women present with these complaints, it is crucial to recognize the link between sexual dysfunction and the oral contraceptive and not to attribute these complaints solely to psychological causes."

"An interesting observation was that the use of oral contraceptives led to changes in the synthesis of SHBG which were not completely reversible in our time frame of observation. This can lead to lower levels of 'unbound' testosterone, which is thought to play a major role in female sexual health. It would be important to conduct long-term studies to see if these increased SHBG changes are permanent," added Dr. Panzer.

Dr. Andre Guay, study co-author and Director of the Center for Sexual Function/Endocrinology in Peabody, MA affirmed that this study is a revelation and that the results have been remarkable. "For years we have known that a subset of women using oral contraceptive agents suffer from decreased sex drive," states Dr. Guay. "We know that the birth control pill suppresses both ovulation and also the male hormones that the ovaries make in larger amounts during the middle third of the menstrual cycle. SHBG binds the testosterone, therefore, these pills decrease a woman's male hormone availability by two separate mechanisms. No wonder so many women have had symptoms."

"This work is the culmination of 7 years of observational research in which we noted in our practice many women with sexual dysfunction who had used the oral contraceptive but whose sexual and hormonal problems persisted despite stopping the birth control pill," said Dr. Irwin Goldstein, a urologist and senior author of the research. "There are approximately 100 million women worldwide who currently use oral contraceptives, so it is obvious that more extensive research investigations are needed. The oral contraceptive has been around for over 40 years, but no one had previously looked at the long-term effects of SHBG in these women. The larger problem is that there have been limited research efforts in women's sexual health problems in contrast to investigatory efforts in other areas of women's health or even in male sexual dysfunction."

To better appreciate the scope of the problem, oral contraceptives were introduced in the USA in 1960 and are currently used for reversible pharmacologic birth control by over 10 million women in the US, including 80% of all American women born since 1945 and, more specifically, 27% of women ages 15-44 and 53% of women age 20-24 years. By providing a potent synthetic estrogen (ethinyl estradiol) and a potent synthetic progesterone (for example - norethindrone), highly effective contraception is achieved by diminishing the levels of FSH and LH, thereby reducing metabolic activity of the ovary including the suppression of ovulation.

Several studies over the last 30 years reported negative effects of oral contraceptives on sexual function, including diminished sexual interest and arousal, suppression of female initiated sexual activity, decreased frequency of sexual intercourse and sexual enjoyment. Androgens such as testosterone are important modulators of sexual function. Oral contraceptives decrease circulating levels of androgens by direct inhibition of androgen production in the ovaries and by a marked increase in the hepatic synthesis of sex-hormone binding globulin, the major binding protein for gonadal steroids in the circulation. The combination of these two mechanisms leads to low circulating levels of "unbound" or "free" testosterone.

Going to keep looking around. Been meaning to look into this for a while.
 
Do orally taken contraceptives offer better protection than condoms? If not, and considering all the potential short and long-term health effects of them, it seems kinda inconsiderate for the husbands/boyfriends to put their wives/girlfriends through unknown risks just because condoms are not as "pleasurable" for the man, assuming that is the reason of course. Anyway just throwing that out there... would it be an issue to tell your husbands/boyfriends that you'd prefer to use something with no health repercussions? If it becomes a real "issue", and again it's none of my business or anything but I'm still just throwing that out there, maybe they could be more considerate if they love you...
 
SAO said:
Do orally taken contraceptives offer better protection than condoms? If not, and considering all the potential short and long-term health effects of them, it seems kinda inconsiderate for the husbands/boyfriends to put their wives/girlfriends through unknown risks just because condoms are not as "pleasurable" for the man, assuming that is the reason of course. Anyway just throwing that out there... would it be an issue to tell your husbands/boyfriends that you'd prefer to use something with no health repercussions? If it becomes a real "issue", and again it's none of my business or anything but I'm still just throwing that out there, maybe they could be more considerate if they love you...

Actually, for me, a lot of it was because of my extremely heavy, painful periods. They have made my life so much better in that respect. However, many of my symptoms in that regard could have been related to me being obese, as obese women are at higher risk for dysmenorrhea - prolonged, painful periods. Mine would last as long as 9 days and keep me up at night some months. I have lost a significant amount weight in the last two years, so if the risks look higher than I am willing to take, I may try life without it again.

I've mentioned the possible health risks of oral contraceptives to my boyfriend and told him I was going to do some research. He has already told me he is completely fine with switching to condoms if I decide to stop using mine as oral contraceptive and condom use are about on par with each other with "proper use".
 
SAO said:
Do orally taken contraceptives offer better protection than condoms? If not, and considering all the potential short and long-term health effects of them [..] would it be an issue to tell your husbands/boyfriends that you'd prefer to use something with no health repercussions?

This is sort of what I was thinking. When the woman takes not only all the risks, but also full responsibility for and economic burden of contraception, that is an unspoken statement of dynamic between men and women on issues of sex and reproduction.

There are so many more contraception methods for women than there are for men. Stats have it that men participate in using contraception only about one third of a time, while women alone take care of almost 70% and participate in almost 90% percent of contraception usage. This reflects some of our society's assumptions of female sexuality as being more subdued, less autonomous, and the woman's cost and responsibility for the pregnancy, should one result, greater than that of the man.

So it might be wise to consider whether commonly held assumptions affect our decisions, and discuss it with our partners.

for me, a lot of it was because of my extremely heavy, painful periods. They have made my life so much better in that respect. [..] I have lost a significant amount weight in the last two years, so if the risks look higher than I am willing to take, I may try life without it again.

Brenda, did any health professional bring up possibility of fibroids or endometriosis? Both of those could cause the symptoms you are describing. It can depend on weight but also on hormonal imbalance. Besides losing weight, a detox and a diet do wonders. I like the book called "Women's bodies, women's wisdom" by Christiane Northrup, MD; she goes in detail not only into physical, but also emotional basis for the symptoms. (here's her site: \\\http://www.drnorthrup.com/index.php). Good luck to you!
 
SAO said:
Do orally taken contraceptives offer better protection than condoms? If not, and considering all the potential short and long-term health effects of them, it seems kinda inconsiderate for the husbands/boyfriends to put their wives/girlfriends through unknown risks just because condoms are not as "pleasurable" for the man, assuming that is the reason of course. Anyway just throwing that out there... would it be an issue to tell your husbands/boyfriends that you'd prefer to use something with no health repercussions? If it becomes a real "issue", and again it's none of my business or anything but I'm still just throwing that out there, maybe they could be more considerate if they love you...

Well, I understand the idea that couples should share the contraceptive responsibility and I agree with it. However my first daughter came about through a burst condom, so I guess from my experience oral contraceptives do offer better protection. It is a tough one.
 
SAO said:
Do orally taken contraceptives offer better protection than condoms? If not, and considering all the potential short and long-term health effects of them, it seems kinda inconsiderate for the husbands/boyfriends to put their wives/girlfriends through unknown risks just because condoms are not as "pleasurable" for the man, assuming that is the reason of course.

I agree with this. I can attest to the fact that oral contraceptives have their limitations. My first child was conceived while my wife at the time was taking oral contraceptives. It completely shocked us. However, she did tend to have an irregular period and my understanding is that these pills have to be taken at certain points in a woman's cycle to be effective. I could be totally off here though not being a woman and not having put the research into this, FWIW. A condom seems a much safer and healthier approach though. If one wanted to increase protection beyond this, I would think a properly fitted diaphragm and using the rhythm method might be other options to increase the effectiveness of condoms.
 
SAO said:
Do orally taken contraceptives offer better protection than condoms? If not, and considering all the potential short and long-term health effects of them, it seems kinda inconsiderate for the husbands/boyfriends to put their wives/girlfriends through unknown risks just because condoms are not as "pleasurable" for the man, assuming that is the reason of course. Anyway just throwing that out there... would it be an issue to tell your husbands/boyfriends that you'd prefer to use something with no health repercussions? If it becomes a real "issue", and again it's none of my business or anything but I'm still just throwing that out there, maybe they could be more considerate if they love you...
I've had incidents, where the condom breaks, and I get pregnant just thinking about it, so I can't take that risk. I agree with you on that though, it IS inconsiderate if a man won't use a condom, if that's what the woman wants too.

About the Mirena I use, as far as I can read, the hormone in it, is very local. It contains a tiny storage system of a hormone called Levonorgestrel. This hormone is also used in contraceptive pills such as Eugynon, Logynon, Microgynon, Ovran 30, Ovranette and Trinordial. In the Mirena, however, a much lower dose is released than when you take the Pill (about 1/7th strength), and it goes directly to the lining of the womb, rather than through the blood stream where it may lead to the common progesterone-type side effects. So Mirena seems alot 'safer' than the normal pill.

It seems all good to me. but can it really be true?
The sites discussing the sideeffects are very scary. I guess I shouldn't read those sites, as I'm well over the side effects I naturally had the frist 6 months after insertion.
I wish I really really knew what it does to my body :huh:
 
Helle said:
The sites discussing the sideeffects are very scary. I guess I shouldn't read those sites, as I'm well over the side effects I naturally had the frist 6 months after insertion.
I wish I really really knew what it does to my body :huh:

Knowledge protects, ignorance endangers.
 
Psyche said:
Helle said:
The sites discussing the sideeffects are very scary. I guess I shouldn't read those sites, as I'm well over the side effects I naturally had the frist 6 months after insertion.
I wish I really really knew what it does to my body :huh:

Knowledge protects, ignorance endangers.
Indeed :) I'll look into gathering some more knowledge on this topic, and then see if I can conclude anything from that.
So far I'm not much wiser, but alot more confused.
 
I saw how those oral contraceptives messed with my wife's physiology. She had indications that those things are flat out bad for her physical well being. We already had three boys and decided we just ain't gonna have no more. We both decided she ain't taking those nasty pills either. Are hysterectomies still an invasive procedure? Cut ya open & leave a scar? Nope, I wouldn't wanna do that. But snip, snip, and I'll shoot blanks the rest of my life. That was easier than having her go through an invasive procedure requiring time to heal. Heck, snip, snip and I walked outta the doctors office and drove myself home. Just wanted to post another option that seems to me not talked about often...

[edit] Strange thing is, there was selfishness involved that if by chance my wife and I did part, I still don't want anymore children.
 
Al Today said:
I saw how those oral contraceptives messed with my wife's physiology. She had indications that those things are flat out bad for her physical well being.

That's definitely another factor to consider. Oral contraceptives like morning after pills/birth control and monthly shots, from what I've been told, definitely have an effect on a woman's physiology and psychology. With that in consideration, it would seem that other, healthier safe sex alternatives would be prudent and considerate of the female. Yes, condoms are not 100%. But neither is the pill. But at least with barrier contraceptions like male and female condoms, cervical caps, or sponges their is no chance of a woman's health being affected from using it.
 
The way I consider it is the following: having a period is a natural process, so why do some contraceptives try and erase that fact? For 'convenience'? But if it's a natural process, it must serve some purpose. A woman's body gets rid of a lot of stuff (notably toxins) during menstruation. So I don't think it's a good solution to completely suppress it.

Isn't it also suggesting that there is something wrong with the woman's body?

Here is an interesting article I found:

Natural News said:
Originally published May 24 2007
FDA approves pill that stops periods; is womanhood a disease? (opinion)
by Mike Adams

Conventional medicine has, for decades, preyed upon the "symptoms of womanhood" and attempted to transform every female activity from childbirth to menstruation into a disease requiring chemical treatment. Today, the FDA approved Lybrel, a daily pill for women that stops periods... forever.

The concept behind such a pill is based on the false idea that menstruation is a disease requiring a medical fix. Most sane people would agree that menstruation is, in fact, a natural biological function and not a disease. So why take a pill to stop it?

If you ask the women taking this pill, it's because their periods are extremely painful or inconvenient. Taking Lybrel to stop the period is a typical Western-mindset approach to all ailments: Mask the symptoms and ignore the cause. Painful periods have a cause, mostly related to hormone imbalances caused by poor nutritional habits, lack of exercise and exposure to toxic chemicals in foods, medicines and personal care products (which contain hundreds of hormone-disrupting chemicals). Rather than addressing these underlying causes of poor health, many consumers wish to simply mask the symptoms and make them disappear at any cost, including ingesting potentially toxic prescription drugs whose long-term safety record is entirely unknown.

This desire to eliminate the symptoms of disease rather than addressing the underlying cause of poor health is a uniquely Western approach to health treatment. Americans mask joint pain with deadly COX-2 inhibitor drugs, they mask nutritional deficiencies with antidepressant drugs, and they mask poor cardiovascular health with statin drugs and blood thinners (which are made from rat poison chemicals, by the way, and that's not an exaggeration). It's like taking your car to a mechanic and instead of the guy fixing your engine, he just takes a can of spray paint and sprays over the engine warning lights on your dashboard. Problem solved! No more engine warning lights!

Women who take Lybrel to stop their periods are, in my opinion, doing the same thing with their health. And they're potentially taking a huge risk since no one knows the long-term consequences of such blatant disruption of normal hormone cycles. You can bet, however, that the results won't be positive. Although this is just a guess, I believe that long-term use of such synthetic chemicals may greatly increase the risk of hormone-related cancers such as Breast Cancer and cervical cancer. They may also cause blood stasis in the abdomen and could very easily, in my view, result in increased endometriosis and severe reproductive problems.

Both the manufacturer of this drug and the FDA, of course, say this chemical is perfectly safe. Then again, FDA-approved pharmaceuticals are right now killing 100,000 Americans each year, even when used as directed. Just one drug, Vioxx, reportedly killed well over 50,000 Americans according to the FDA's own senior drug safety whistleblower, and yet the FDA voted to put that drug right back on the market!

This is a critical point to understand here: The FDA believes that a drug that kills 50,000 people is not dangerous enough to pull off the market. Once you understand that point, some questions come to mind about Lybrel. How many women might die from the side effects of this drug? No one knows. It could be zero or a hundred thousand. If no more than 50,000 women are ultimately killed by it, the FDA likely claim that's still within a safety margin and that "the drug benefits outweigh its risks!"

What, exactly, is the level of fatalities required for the FDA to consider a drug "too dangerous?" Because apparently a drug that kills 50,000 people is not dangerous enough for the FDA to restrict its use. In fact, the FDA has never announced what level of fatalities it considers high enough to trigger a drug recall. It may be that a drug killing 100,000 people would also be considered "safe" by the FDA. Or perhaps even 250,000 people. Technically, there is no level of death that cannot be declared "acceptably safe" by the FDA. (An herb, on the other hand, is pronounced as "dangerous at any dose" if it causes even a single fatality. This extreme double standard is standard operating procedure at the FDA, where all herbs are considered dangerous until proven safe, and all drugs are considered safe until proven dangerous.)

The hysteria of modern medicine

In my opinion, any woman taking Lybrel is embarking on a foolish experiment with her own health. It is not merely a dangerous course of action to pursue, it is the ultimate surrender of personal responsibility for one's own health. It also admits to a male-dominated medical system that womanhood is, indeed, some sort of terrible disease that requires treatment.

Note that the words hysteria and hysterectomy (the surgical removal of the uterus) have the same word roots. That's because a hysterectomy was a procedure originally developed by men and used as a surgical weapon to make women "less hysterical." It was long believed that the uterus was an organ that caused insanity! In reality, the organ that no doubt causes the most insanity is the penis, but that's another story... notice that you don't see male doctors recommending penisectomies as a cure for male insanity. Although, indeed, we would all be much safer if the arrogant men pushing these nonsense pharmaceuticals weren't so cocky to begin with. Only women are advised to have their organs removed for emotional reasons. You ever notice that when it comes to cancer treatments for such organs, there's a cry to "Save the testicle!" but "Remove the breast!" ?

(The word menstruate, by the way, has its roots in Latin, where the word mensis means "month." It has no relational meaning to the modern English word "men.")

Men have always dominated Western medicine, and they have always used chemicals and surgeries to control or dominate women. Even today, the male-dominated breast cancer industry is a for-profit system that preys upon women through harmful mammograms that actually cause cancer and produce shockingly high rates of false positives. As I've stated in previous articles here on NewsTarget, mammography harms 10 women for every 1 that it helps. Conventional breast cancer treatment is largely a medical hoax where men use fear to control women by corralling them into treatments where they can poison them with chemotherapy or slice off their breasts. (Sound insane? It is.)

My advice to women is to learn from your painful periods rather than trying to dissociate yourself from them. A painful period is a messenger that's trying to tell you something. Perhaps you need to take a new look at your diet, your lifestyle and your use of toxic cosmetics and skin care products that disrupt normal hormone cycles. Painful periods can be transformed into painless periods through natural medicine. Chinese medicine is especially good at supporting this transformation. Diet plays a huge role, too.



Take responsibility for your health rather than abandoning it

Solving the health problem rather than simply masking it is the responsible thing to do with your body. It's not an overnight solution like the seductively easy Lybrel pill, but it is a far wiser and more wholesome solution that honors your body rather than hijacking its natural functions. Chemical are not the answer to your health problems. They are merely seductive, harmful synthetic substances that will inevitably produce harmful side effects.

If you think your periods are painful today, just imagine the emotional pain of being diagnosed with breast cancer, undergoing chemotherapy that nearly kills you and having a mastectomy. Once you start down the path of chemical suppression of symptoms of pain, you begin a journey into the world of harmful medicine that will only leave you diseased and bankrupt, addicted to a dozen pharmaceuticals and suffering from liver failure, kidney disease, brain fog and chronic pain. Think carefully about what you're doing to your body. It's the only one you've got, and nature intends for a woman to have periods. Menstruation is not a disease. And womanhood is not a medical condition. Don't fall for the male-dominated quackery that passes for medicine today, and don't play pharmaceutical roulette with your body by taking Lybrel.
Add To Favorites!

FWIW
 
Back
Top Bottom