posted
I normally take Seasonique Birth control regularly, but haven't been taking it at all since I took it on wednesday (I haven't had access to it until tonight). My boyfriend and I had sex on Saturday, and now I need to get the morning after pill as soon as I can. But should I start taking my regular birth control before I take the emergency contraceptive? (I will be taking the emergency contraceptive either tonight if I can get it, or tomorrow morning)
If anyone, especially someone who is a pharmacist or doctor has any help please say so, I don't want to become pregnant.
Thanks so much.
Posts: 7 | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think you should ask your pharmacist when you purchase the emergency contraceptive. I would think that would be a "yes" but I'm not sure. You could also call a nurse line at the local hospital if they have one, they might be able to find you an answer quickly.
Posts: 21182 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Thanks for the suggestion. I just tried calling my hospital and they don't have a nurse line. Some of the other hospitals nearby do, but require that I be a patient there or have previously seen one of their doctors. Thanks though, I just hope I can figure this out.
I'm still trying to find a 24 hour pharmacy in the area.
Posts: 7 | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
I also think it would be a "yes", as emergency contraception is usually just a super-shot of the same hormones found in regular birth control pills. But like kq says, talk to a real doctor or pharmacist, yadda yadda yadda.
Posts: 3275 | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote: If you are taking Plan B because you missed some birth control pills, and you missed:
* 1, 2 or 3 pills: Do not take any of the missed pills. Take the Plan B and then continue on your pack on the day after you take the second plan B. Use condoms for at least the next 7 days. * 4 or more birth control pills: Speak with a health professional for advice on restarting the birth control pills.
I think it might be a "no", perhaps due to over-medication. As others have said, try to verify your particular mix of medicines with a nurse/doctor though.
Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
Be aware too that even 24 hour pharmacies may not have an actual pharmacist there in the middle of the night, only techs (though I think they're required to have one on call if you have questions about the medication you're buying.)
Posts: 21182 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm not sure either. But I would suggest you get the ECP as soon as possible - the longer you wait, the more ineffective it will be.
Posts: 4393 | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I've done exactly what you describe - big oops moment there. I believe what my doctor had me do was to wait two days after taking the ECP, and then start up my BC as if there had been no pause. The main worry, as I recall, is that you overdose on the hormones contained in both the ECP and BC, which, besides messing up your mental state and period schedule, can also put you at higher risk for clots and the other more serious side effects of BC.
Posts: 2409 | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Disclaimer: I'm not on any kind of BC and I have never heard of Seasonique. I just read a forum that had lots of BC questions for a couple of years. So take this with a grain of salt:
Is Seasonique one of those pills that you can take 4 at a time to simulate EC. Check the instructions with Seasonesque, it should say if you can.
I thought EC gives you a period. Wouldn't you want to start a new BC pack? When people I know are off BC and want to start again, they have to wait for their next period before starting.
Posts: 1757 | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged |
Take it as soon as you remember Take the next pill at your regular time even if this means taking 2 pills on the same day You don’t need backup birth control If you miss 2 light blue-green pills:
Take 2 pills as soon as you remember Take 2 pills the next day Then take 1 pill every day until you finish your pack Use backup birth control for the next 7 days after you restart your pills If you miss 3 or more light blue-green pills in a row:
Do not take the pills you have missed As soon as you remember, resume taking 1 pill every day until you finish your pack You may experience bleeding during the week of missed pills Use backup birth control for the next 7 days after you restart your pills If you miss any yellow pills:
Throw away the missed pills Then take 1 pill every day until you finish your pack You don’t need backup birth control
Posts: 1757 | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
You will not be dispensed medication without access to someone who can answer questions about it. That is the best place to ask this specific question. Alternatively, you can ask at whichever place dispensed your birth control pills, if that site is open.
Best of luck and good wishes.
---
Edited to add: theamazeeaz, this is a more complicated situation than either just missed pills or using Seasonique as emergency contraception alone. The links you provide (as far as I can see) do not address the combined situation.
Given that these are quite biologically active hormones, I think it would be most unwise to merely merge the two recommendations as if the sum were not more than the sum of these parts.
I think you should be thanked for looking up the information, though, and if nobody else offers it, at least you have my appreciation. Posts: 14017 | Registered: May 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Jhai: I've done exactly what you describe - big oops moment there. I believe what my doctor had me do was to wait two days after taking the ECP, and then start up my BC as if there had been no pause. The main worry, as I recall, is that you overdose on the hormones contained in both the ECP and BC, which, besides messing up your mental state and period schedule, can also put you at higher risk for clots and the other more serious side effects of BC.
I hope that won't be the case here. I got the EC this morning and took my first pill at 7:30am- which is less than 48 hours after the unprotected sex happened. The pharmacist told me that I could start up my birth control as instructed again tonight after I took the second dose of EC at 7:30pm, so I'm going to go by that seeing as I'm away at school and don't know when I'd be able to see a doctor to get advice from them.
I appreciate the advice, CT and theamazeeaz. If I would've known about the EC through seasonique thing, I might have done that, but hopefully Plan B works even better.
Posts: 7 | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
On a related note, does anyone know when a pregnancy test will start being effective? A friend I know recommends first response as the best brand to get for that, but I have a feeling it would be at minimum a week before it gave me an accurate result. Would being on the EC and birth control mess with the results at all? Thanks again.
Posts: 7 | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by imogen: I'm not sure either. But I would suggest you get the ECP as soon as possible - the longer you wait, the more ineffective it will be.
Actually I don't know if this is the case- Plan B, I think (not a doctor) prevents ovulation, and does nothing else. So it's kind of binary, either you take it before ovulation, or you don't, but either way, it depends on when you ovulate, not how long you take it after sex... if that makes any sense. Thus it is effective at up to 5 days before ovulation, but could as easily be ineffective after only 24 hour or less- so yes you should take it right away, but effectiveness doesn't decrease- it just stops at ovulation. I think.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Looking for answers - the best early pregnancy tests say they are accurate 7 - 10 days after ovulation (ie 7 to 4 days before your period is due).
Of course, given you were on BC, you don't know when you would have ovulated (if, indeed you did), so it makes it a bit tricker.
The earliest one could be accurate would be a week from Sat, but it could be as long as two weeks, or two and a half (given semen can live for 3-5 days at the outside limit). Not fun, I know.
However, when you do go buy one, check the sensitivity. It does vary a lot between brands.
Posts: 4393 | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by imogen: I'm not sure either. But I would suggest you get the ECP as soon as possible - the longer you wait, the more ineffective it will be.
Actually I don't know if this is the case- Plan B, I think (not a doctor) prevents ovulation, and does nothing else.
I believe there is also some (controversial) evidence that it can reduce the likelihood of implantation. Also, ovulation is not binary. It is a process with stages -- the earlier you try to stop it, the more likely you will succeed.
Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yes, the earliest one generally considered accurate in my large family circles are the First Response Early Response tests. I've seen results as early as 8 days past ovulation, but generally it's better to wait until 11 days past ovulation. I would get a two pack and take one 8 days past the sex and one 7 days after that. If both are negative you're probably in the clear. Of course you could also go into a doctor and ask for a blood test, that should be accurate as early as a week past the sex (although I've had a negative blood test at that point so you might want to wait a few days.) BC won't screw up the tests; the hormone they look for is very specific and if it's present it means you're pregnant, period (or that you recently were.)
Posts: 21182 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
The urine pregnancy tests test for beta human chorionic gonadotropin, which is a hormone made by the placenta of a developing conceptus. [as ketchupqueen notes] Measuring the level of this hormone is unaffected by whatever the levels of estrogen and progesterone happen to be at that time.
You won't see b-HCG in the blood or urine until after implantation, because there can be no placenta (which is what makes that specific hormone) until induced by the implantation of the zygote. Implantation of the zygote usually occurs 8-12 days after fertilization of the egg, so testing earlier than that isn't likely to be helpful (and comes with a lot of false negatives).
I'm glad you are taking good care of yourself. As a reminder I'd give anyone, any time you are possibly pregnant, you have also possibly been exposed to organisms which cause sexually transmitted infections. It's just something to keep in mind.
posted
imogen is correct that Plan B has been shown to be more effective the sooner you take it after unprotected sex.
That is, yes: the sooner, the better.
The timing effect has been demonstrated in studies, but (as rivka notes) it is not entirely clear why this is so. In general, when taken within 72 hours of unprotected sex, Plan B is thought to work by one or more of the following methods:
1) Temporarily stops the release of eggs from either ovary 2) Prevents fertilization of a released egg 3) Prevents a fertilized egg from implanting in the uterus
Posts: 14017 | Registered: May 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:I believe there is also some (controversial) evidence that it can reduce the likelihood of implantation.
Here's something interesting about that, making the argument that there IS no evidence that it works that way.
Posts: 4287 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
If you think I'm following a link to Ornery, think again. Please feel free to link to anywhere the Ornery post links to.
Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
rivka, it doesn't look like the forum poster at that site gives any supporting links or citation, other than a summary of his/her understanding. He/she claims that there is "not a single shred of evidence to support" the possibility of a post-ovulatory mechanism.
This is frankly wrong. There were studies missed in this person's review of the literature that showed a difference in effect not explicable merely by preovulatory mechanism, going back at least as far as 1999.
... Although both methods sometimes stop ovulation, they may also act by reducing the probability of implantation, due to their adverse effect on the endometrium (a postfertilization effect). The available evidence for a postfertilization effect is moderately strong [emphasis added], whether hormonal EC is used in the preovulatory, ovulatory, or postovulatory phase of the menstrual cycle. CONCLUSIONS: Based on the present theoretical and empirical evidence [emphasis added], both the Yuzpe regimen and Plan B likely act at times by causing a postfertilization effect, regardless of when in the menstrual cycle they are used. These findings have potential implications in such areas as informed consent, emergency department protocols, and conscience clauses.
(scifibum, is this someone with a medical background? Just curious. I do not know anything about the posters there, other than those also posting here regularly.)
Some studies have shown that the effectiveness of emergency contraception is substantially higher when the intercourse occurred on or before the second day prior to ovulation, indicating that the primary (most effective) method of action is not post-ovulatory (i.e., not by interfering with implantation).*** But that is not the same thing there being no evidence for any post-ovulatory effectiveness -- merely that it is not the most effective of the mechanisms. There is still a both statistically and clinically significant difference in outcome between the treatment and control groups (at least, in some studies) regarding post-ovulatory effect.
As you and I noted, the issue is far from settled. There is "moderately strong" evidence that a post-ovulatory mechanism is at play, even if additional mechanisms of action are comparatively more effective.
posted
PS: scifibum, I don't want my above post to be taken by you (or anyone else) as an attack on you. I do not agree with that person's conclusions and can't figure out what led him/her to them, but I am fully aware that you were merely pointing us to someone making a different argument.
It was indeed an interesting read, and I'm glad you brought it up. I am not a member there and am not sure my input would be helpful in that circumstance. However, I am glad to address this it from my perspective here.
I've always appreciated your posts, scifibum, and I have always looked forward to reading what you have to say. (I never skip your stuff! )
Posts: 14017 | Registered: May 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
So it's been nearly 5 days since I've taken Plan B, and I'm having some side effects- at least that's what I think.
I'm having dizziness -- a lot of dizziness, as if my head is moving when I'm not... stomach flip-flopping -- not hurting, but feeling almost like it's full of moving little things. the sensation is strong enough to keep me awake. Lots of fatigue. Body aches. A ridiculous amount of peeing and wierd bleeding.
Has anyone who's taken EC experienced this before (Jhai?)? Or know if that's what's expected from it? The ticking in my stomach and excessive urination weren't listed as side effects on the Plan-B site.
I'm going to go with KQ's plan of testing myself this Sunday and then a week later.
Again, thanks for all the support guys.
Posts: 7 | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
I took it once, but not Plan B (the stuff I took was a big dose of a normal OCP). I had immediate nausea, and felt quite unwell, but it only lasted 24 hours.
The bleeding is certainly to be expected, but I have no idea about the other symptoms. I'd suggest a trip to your doctor to check?
Also, I meant to say earlier - make sure you use some other form of contraception now until you are re-caught up on your regular pills. From the information above, it looks like this will be at least 7 days.
Posts: 4393 | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Also - don't stress and worry that these symptoms could be pregnancy related. If (and it's a big if...) you were pregnant, you would not be having symptoms yet. So I'm sure it probably is Plan B side effects, but probably worth checking.
Posts: 4393 | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
There are several reasons you might report the symptoms you do at this time, ranging from a urinary tract infection, to new-onset diabetes, to dehydration in combination with something else, to non-medical reasons, to whatever. If your symptoms concern you, you should be seen by a medical professional. Nothing else can answer your questions appropriately.
Best of luck.
---
PS: Thanks for checking in.
Posts: 14017 | Registered: May 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I hate to contradict imogen, but with most of my pregnancies, I got symptoms pretty immediately after implantation, that is, a few days after ovulation. That included implantation bleeding, dizziness, nausea, excessive urination. However, I have also had similar effects from other hormonal conditions, including PMS (which I would bet plan B side effects are a lot like) and an ovarian cyst. So, in my opinion, any significant hormonal swing or change can cause all the symptoms you listed, and I would not worry about it right now. If the bleeding is excessive or any of it gets bad enough to impair you functioning at all, persists longer than 2 days, or worsens suddenly and significantly, I would call the doctor or go into a clinic (I don't know who your regular care provider is or what your insurance/financial means are like so I am basically saying, in that situation, get appropriate medical care and advice.)
Posts: 21182 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by rivka: If you think I'm following a link to Ornery, think again. Please feel free to link to anywhere the Ornery post links to.
quote:PS: scifibum, I don't want my above post to be taken by you (or anyone else) as an attack on you. I do not agree with that person's conclusions and can't figure out what led him/her to them, but I am fully aware that you were merely pointing us to someone making a different argument.
It was indeed an interesting read, and I'm glad you brought it up. I am not a member there and am not sure my input would be helpful in that circumstance. However, I am glad to address this it from my perspective here.
I've always appreciated your posts, scifibum, and I have always looked forward to reading what you have to say. (I never skip your stuff! [Smile] )
Aw shucks You were about as far from seeming to attack me as I imagine it's possible to get. For me it was a matter of passing interest, but I'm glad to have some additional information. But having you go out of your way to tell me that you like to read my posts.... Posts: 4287 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:I believe there is also some (controversial) evidence that it can reduce the likelihood of implantation.
Here's something interesting about that, making the argument that there IS no evidence that it works that way.
I'll go way out on a limb and say that I was under the impression that this supposed evidence has been seized upon by pro-life advocates as a negative for EC, when in fact the evidence was slim or misleading. I take that only from Dr. Drew live, plus many years of listening to Loveline- doesn't make me an expert, but I've definitely heard the "jury is still out" argument derided by experts who say the mechanism for EC is obviously not to do with implantation.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I've heard that too (I'm an occasional Loveline listener...but they've been spending seriously too much time on [i guess i better be careful] one particular sexual phenomenon lately), which is perhaps why I was predisposed to believe the "no evidence" argument...I think Dr. Drew seems like a pretty sharp guy. Of course he can't possibly keep up with everything in medicine AND do tv and radio like a full time job.
Posts: 4287 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Orincoro: I'll go way out on a limb and say that I was under the impression that this supposed evidence has been seized upon by pro-life advocates as a negative for EC, when in fact the evidence was slim or misleading. I take that only from Dr. Drew live, plus many years of listening to Loveline- doesn't make me an expert, but I've definitely heard the "jury is still out" argument derided by experts who say the mechanism for EC is obviously not to do with implantation.
It would not be in the best interest of the company who makes it, in that case, to put this forward clearly as a potential mechanism of action at the official website and in the package insert, but it is indeed clearly noted.
And the package insert is intended for medical professionals as well, so it reflects the literature.
The hormones in emergency contraception pills disrupt the normal patterns in a woman's menstrual cycle. Depending on where a woman is in her menstrual cycle and when the pills are given, these pills may:
- Prevent or delay ovulation - Block fertilization - Keep a fertilized egg from implanting in the uterus
So this is the position of the formal organization of medical professionals in this particular field. Note that:
quote:... but I've definitely heard the "jury is still out" argument derided by experts who say the mechanism for EC is obviously not to do with implantation. [emphasis added]
The bolded part may reflect an assumption that might be confusing things. The most effective and most common mechanism is likely to be preventing ovulation -- when EC works in any given case, odds are that this is the way it worked. But when you look at large groups of women who have used EC, that particular mechanism -- the most common one, and the most effective way for it to work -- doesn't seem to be the only mechanism that may come into play. There are still differences between the control and treatment groups over and above what can be explained by a single mechanism.
Thus it might be that people have heard it emphasized that the most common and most effective way EC works is by preventing ovulation -- that it is rare for other mechanisms to come into play -- but that isn't the same as saying that there is only one way it works, ever, and that there is not a shred of evidence otherwise.
Mind you, I haven't any problem with emergency contraception, however it works. I think it should be readily accessible. But I don't think the literature supports the claim that there is no other way it works. Depending on the details of the circumstance, in some cases one or more of those other ways appears to be the only way it can have worked, and that is documented in controlled clinical trials.
quote:Originally posted by ketchupqueen: I hate to contradict imogen, but with most of my pregnancies, I got symptoms pretty immediately after implantation, that is, a few days after ovulation. That included implantation bleeding, dizziness, nausea, excessive urination. However, I have also had similar effects from other hormonal conditions, including PMS (which I would bet plan B side effects are a lot like) and an ovarian cyst. So, in my opinion, any significant hormonal swing or change can cause all the symptoms you listed, and I would not worry about it right now. If the bleeding is excessive or any of it gets bad enough to impair you functioning at all, persists longer than 2 days, or worsens suddenly and significantly, I would call the doctor or go into a clinic (I don't know who your regular care provider is or what your insurance/financial means are like so I am basically saying, in that situation, get appropriate medical care and advice.)
Fair enough.
I'll modify my advice to say it seems highly unlikely you would be having pregnancy symptoms this early, as for this to happen you would first have to have symptoms early on (for the record, I certainly didn't), but secondly it would mean you ovulated pretty much as soon as you missed the first or second pill - which is also unlikely. (Possible, sure, but unlikely).
Either way, I echo all CT says. She is wise, and I think going to your doctor if you are able to is a great idea.
Posts: 4393 | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
But CT, do the studies show that the cases in which implantation did not occur were not simply caused by something else? I mean, don't women have fertilized eggs that don't implant for whatever reason all the time? It seems an extremely difficult field to effectively study, because it would be virtually impossible to have any kind of control- and since the biology is different for every person, how can this be studied at all?
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Orincoro: But CT, do the studies show that the cases in which implantation did not occur were not simply caused by something else? I mean, don't women have fertilized eggs that don't implant for whatever reason all the time? It seems an extremely difficult field to effectively study, because it would be virtually impossible to have any kind of control- and since the biology is different for every person, how can this be studied at all?
That's what the concept of a "control group" is all about. Any variances due to chance shouldn't be happening more frequently in the therapeutic group than in the control group, at least not in a statistically significant way. Especially not for matched, stratified controls, over a very large sample of people.
If the concept of a "control group" and how it works to rule out chance (usually with 95-99% certainty, depending on the design of the study) isn't clear, I can take one of these studies and go into detail.
posted
I just don't see how a study to do with the use of EC could be effectively controlled. Wouldn't each member of the control group have a unique sex life that could easily introduce a statistical anomaly, even over a large number of people? Or are most of the studies based on surveys, in which case, how big of a sample would be required to be sure that inaccurate reporting or selection bias didn't produce anomalies? And on top of that, you'd have to consider the variations between individual biologies. I'd like to hear how that could work- I've never done or designed a large study of any kind.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
1. First, what is your sense of what is meant by "controlling for?" That is, how do you think that process works?
(I am trying to get a sense of how to gear the explanation.)
-------------------
Added: I'll bold the 2 specific questions so they don't get lost in the muddle of explanation.
2. Secondly, do you have the same concerns about heart medications (and why or why not)?
That is to say, there are medications that lower blood pressure, but these were tested on people who had unique exercise demands and habits (including differing and variable sources of daily emotional stress) as they went through their days, and each had what you called "the variations between individual biologies." Does this cause you to doubt the studies about such medications, in the same way concerns are raised in your mind about studies of EC?
(Not a trap -- -- just trying to get a sense of where your head is at and what you believe/understand about clinical trials and medical recommendations.)
quote:Originally posted by rivka: If you think I'm following a link to Ornery, think again. Please feel free to link to anywhere the Ornery post links to.
???
IME, Ornery is a cesspool of nastiness, and I refuse to follow any links there. Ever.
Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Regarding Loveline and Dr. Drew Pinsky, from MedicineNet:
quote:Dr. Drew: ... I want people to know about emergency contraception, too. It's taking your pill in a slightly higher dose after a sexual encounter. You take two pills within 24 hours of an unprotected sexual encounter, and then two more in the next 12 hours and it helps to prevent pregnancy. It works by preventing ovulation just by the oral contraceptive pill. There is some information out there from various groups and I'm against abortion, so I wouldn't get behind this if I thought it prevented implantation, but there is some information that shows conclusively that this prevents ovulation ... it works the same way as the birth control pill.
I'd agree that EC primarily works by preventing ovulation. There is no doubt that when taken at the right time, it does [almost always] prevent ovulation -- and yes, that is conclusively proven, I'd say.
Those statements are still consistent with EC potentially working in other ways, albeit much more rarely.
quote: [He continues:] Is there a finite possibility that somewhere, some time it could prevent implantation? Yes. Just like there is with the oral contraceptive pill taken the way you usually take it. So, there are multiple medications out there that have the same probability and no one talks about having them taken off the shelves. ...
Again, more rarely but definitely within the realm of possibility, it may work by affecting implantation as well.
I take it that his main point is that emergency contraception works in the same general way as typical oral contraceptive pills, and that just as with typical oral contraceptive pills, EC works by preventing ovulation in most cases. But in some cases, just as with typical oral contraceptive pills, it might prevent implantation. That is just not what primarily happens, because it has been ("conclusively," as he says) shown that the main effect is that of preventing ovulation, and after that, the rest would be moot.
---
I'll look for other specific quotations online.
Edited to add: Note that all italics were added for emphasis.
quote:... It turns out that the morning after pill -- or emergency contraception -- works exactly the same way as the daily birth control pill. There is really no difference whatsoever. The morning after pill is basically a double dosage of contraception used within 72 hours of unprotected intercourse. The daily contraceptive pill that many women take suppresses an egg from being released by an ovary. Hence, there can never be fertilization. However, there is a small risk that an ovulation could occur, and if it does, there is also a small risk that the pill could impede implantation of that fertilized egg.
Again: main way is by preventing ovulation, but in some more rare cases, there can be an effect on implantation.
quote:For reasons I cannot understand, activists have chosen to attack the morning after pill form of contraception, believing [erroneously] that its primary mechanism is impairing implantation of a fertilized egg. This cannot be further from the truth.
Again, not the primary mechanism. However,
quote:If people wanted to attack emergency contraception based on its scientific mechanism of action, in order to be philosophically consistent they would also have to work to eliminate all forms of the pill and a couple of anti-inflammatory drugs -- Vioxx and Celebrex -- which also tend to have some effect on implantation.
And again, primary mechanism = preventing ovulation. Another more rare mechanism is probably by affecting implantation, but that is much much less frequent than the primary way, and it is an effect shared by other (non-controversial) medications.
posted
"IME, Ornery is a cesspool of nastiness, and I refuse to follow any links there. Ever."
I'll try to remember not to post links to Ornery if I'm responding to you, then, but please don't be offended if I forget. (In this case, as I think CT mentioned, there were no other outside links to pass along.)
"Cesspool of nastiness" is a bit less nice than how I experience it, though. It's less of a friendly place than Hatrack, but not at all devoid of a community feeling, and there is often some pretty good discussion. (I'm talking about the forums. The front page essays tend to make people mad.)
I'm not trying to convince you, rivka, but rather just post my (different) viewpoint in case other readers are interested. There's no need for anyone to hang out there if they don't like it, but I think the forum is a good place.
Posts: 4287 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
scifibum, what's the scoop on the person who posted that there was "not a single shred of evidence to suppport" the possibility of any other additional means of action for EC, other than by preventing ovulation? Is this a person with a medical background, do you know? And are Ornery forum regulars generally accepting of claims of fact without calling for supporting citations?
I don't know the environment there, and I'm curious.
---
Everything else I can find online from Dr. Drew Pinsky is consistent with the above. I don't think he and I disagree at all, actually. Which is good, because I think he does fabulous work.
Added: And I would certainly agree with him that focusing on a way EC might work in rare cases -- especially when that same effect is not considered a concern when it (rarely) happens with other medications -- is rather perplexing and unhelpful.
Posts: 14017 | Registered: May 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by scifibum: Aw shucks You were about as far from seeming to attack me as I imagine it's possible to get. For me it was a matter of passing interest, but I'm glad to have some additional information. But having you go out of your way to tell me that you like to read my posts....
(just saw this)
---
Edited to add: The irony! *facepalm Posts: 14017 | Registered: May 2000
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Blushing]](graemlins/blushing.gif)
![[Hat]](graemlins/hat.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
