User talk:BC07

talk page

COCP edits
I'm very impressed with your edits to the "Mechanism of action" section of Combined oral contraceptive pill. I've been hoping someone would improve that section for a long time - thank you!

I was non-plussed by your comment "COCP users have no increased risk (and may have a decreased risk) of clinical depression compared to women not using COCPs." It implies my experience was all in my head. I'm much more open to statements of small risk, unlikely effect, etc. I obviously have a preference for believing I was part of an unlucky 1% or 0.5% of women than that my experiences were all in my head.

Weight gain - I agree it appears to be a myth about the pill that it causes weight gain. But it is a very common myth, so I do not believe a section discussing the evidence against weight gain is undue weight. I agree the section needs to be updated with new references, but not deleted entirely.

I really appreciate all the time you have spent researching for this article. It looks like you've done some preparation for more editing and I look forward to the Wikipedia article being better because of it! LyrlTalk C 01:51, 17 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your thoughtful and considerate comments.


 * I did not mean to imply that your depression while taking Yasmin was not real.


 * The opening sentence of the subsection "Mood swings, depression" in the section "Managing side effects" in Hatcher & Nelson (2004) "Combined Hormonal Contraceptive Methods" in Hatcher et al. (eds.), Contraceptive Technology, 18th ed. ISBN 0966490258 is:
 * Multiple studies have demonstrated no increase in the risk of clinical depression in women using OCs.
 * The fourth and fifth sentences are:
 * Some women do report an increase in depressive symptoms, moodiness, and other emotional states while on OCs. This may represent an idiosyncratic response to hormones, which may warrant a decrease in hormone doses or pill cessation.


 * It would be reasonable for the COCP article to incorporate the first sentence and the fourth and fifth sentences, but wrong to alter the meaning of the first sentence by changing "no increase in the risk of" to "a small increase in the risk of".


 * The first paragraph of the "Managing side effects" section in Hatcher & Nelson (2004) says:


 * A double-blind trial showed no difference in the incidence of any of the traditionally "hormonally related" side effects during the 6-month comparison of OC users and placebo pills users. Similar percentages of women in each group developed headaches, nausea, vomiting, mastalgia, weight gain, etc. This finding differs from the impression given by the pill package labeling, because the side effect numbers in labeling come from clinical trials and reflect events that women had while they use pills that could possibly be related to pill use, not events that occur because of the pill. Similarly, when women with "pill side effects" such as nausea, headache, irritability, fatigue, weight gain, breast tenderness and breakthrough bleeding were treated in another study with either Vitamin B6 or sugar pill, both groups improved on all symptoms.


 * The "Mood and Depression" subsection of the "Metabolic Effects" subsection of the "Oral Steroid Contraceptives" section in Mishell (2004) "Contraception" in Strauss & Barbieri (eds.), Yen & Jaffe's Reproductive Endocrinology, 5th ed. ISBN 0721695469 says:
 * Analysis of the data from the Royal College of General Practitioners (RCGP) cohort study indicated that OC use was positively correlated with the incidence of depression, which in turn was directly related to the dose of estrogen in the formulation. In this study, an increased incidence of depression was not found to occur among users of OCs containing less than 50 µg of estrogen.
 * citing:
 * Kay CR (1984). The Royal College of General Practitioners' Oral Contraception Study: some recent observations. Clin Obstet Gynaecol. 11(3):759-86. :
 * Depression and Attempted Suicide
 * There is a marked contrast between the lack of scientific evidence that the Pill causes reactive or neurotic depression—the subject of the present communication—and the experience of most clinicians, who cannot fail to have been impressed by the common complaint of their patients that OCs have made them depressed. Frequently these women have recovered when they stopped the Pill, only to relapse when another course was begun. Of course, such a history could be consistent with a psychological rather than a pharmacological effect of OCs. Depression is extremely common, and it is easy for any concurrent circumstances (including OC use) to become the scapegoat to which the condition is attributed.
 * Conclusions
 * The literature on this subject is vast. An excellent review by Glick and Bennett (1981) cites 166 references, and they conclude, 'Whether OCs cause depression is unknown at this time, but our interpretation of the data in the literature does not support such an association.' I agree with this view, but our data provide some explanation for the conflicting evidence, since if the oestrogen dose response is correct (and it requires confirmation) the results will vary with the type of OC used by the women studied. On present-day brands containing oestrogen doses of 35 µg or less, we show no increased risk of depression. However, we cannot exclude the possibility that an over-reporting bias has concealed a true reduction of depression in these low-dose users.
 * Conclusions
 * The literature on this subject is vast. An excellent review by Glick and Bennett (1981) cites 166 references, and they conclude, 'Whether OCs cause depression is unknown at this time, but our interpretation of the data in the literature does not support such an association.' I agree with this view, but our data provide some explanation for the conflicting evidence, since if the oestrogen dose response is correct (and it requires confirmation) the results will vary with the type of OC used by the women studied. On present-day brands containing oestrogen doses of 35 µg or less, we show no increased risk of depression. However, we cannot exclude the possibility that an over-reporting bias has concealed a true reduction of depression in these low-dose users.
 * Conclusions
 * The literature on this subject is vast. An excellent review by Glick and Bennett (1981) cites 166 references, and they conclude, 'Whether OCs cause depression is unknown at this time, but our interpretation of the data in the literature does not support such an association.' I agree with this view, but our data provide some explanation for the conflicting evidence, since if the oestrogen dose response is correct (and it requires confirmation) the results will vary with the type of OC used by the women studied. On present-day brands containing oestrogen doses of 35 µg or less, we show no increased risk of depression. However, we cannot exclude the possibility that an over-reporting bias has concealed a true reduction of depression in these low-dose users.
 * The literature on this subject is vast. An excellent review by Glick and Bennett (1981) cites 166 references, and they conclude, 'Whether OCs cause depression is unknown at this time, but our interpretation of the data in the literature does not support such an association.' I agree with this view, but our data provide some explanation for the conflicting evidence, since if the oestrogen dose response is correct (and it requires confirmation) the results will vary with the type of OC used by the women studied. On present-day brands containing oestrogen doses of 35 µg or less, we show no increased risk of depression. However, we cannot exclude the possibility that an over-reporting bias has concealed a true reduction of depression in these low-dose users.


 * (The RCGP study was the first very large prospective study of the health effects of oral contraceptives. Low-estrogen-dose (30 or 35 µg) OC users had a relative risk of 1.00 of depression compared to non-users.)


 * BC07 07:14, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks
Thanks for your recent work on updating the references and content of some of our articles on contraception. Much appreciated. MastCell Talk 18:53, 21 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Thank you. The "Adverse effects" / "Side effects" sections of the hormonal contraceptive articles (Hormonal contraception, Combined oral contraceptive pill, NuvaRing, Contraceptive patch, Progestogen-only pill, Nexplanon, Depo-Provera) and  some of the progestin articles (Desogestrel, Etonogestrel, Gestodene, Drospirenone) also need revision to reflect the contents of current medical references on contraception and gynecology, as do the Risk factors / Lifestyle subsection of the Breast cancer article and the Hormones / Hormonal contraception section of the Risk factors for breast cancer article. BC07 (talk) 15:21, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Your edits on the IUD articles were really great as well. I'm updating and expanding the Nexplanon article today, but it looks like I'm working off the 19th edition of Contraceptive Technology and you have access to the 20th edition. If you want to go through after me and update anything that I missed, it would be much appreciated. Glad someone else out there noticed the outdated information on the contraception articles too. SarahRose12 34 (talk) 15:37, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Contragestion
There are two factors which I think make it clear that there ought to be a separate article:
 * It is a subject that has been written about both as a naturally occurring phenomenon and in the context of nonhuman reproduction (and therefore is outside the scope of birth control & RU486)
 * It meets notability requirements because it appears in verifiable sources including medical dictionaries, journal articles, and other academic sources

I would encourage you to discuss this on the contragestion talk page or on my talk page if you prefer. (I'm not clear about the protocol/etiquette involved.) Ock Raz   talk  06:38, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Birth control
You've been more willing to address this than I in the past. I don't want to be involved in a dispute when it comes up for GA review. Thank you. &mdash; Cup co  01:09, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

BRCA mutation
Please see Talk:BRCA_mutation. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:37, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Replied at Talk:BRCA_mutation. BC07 (talk) 05:58, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Would you mind
Elaborate on in text? As in, adding a sentence or two to the body explaining those statistics? I think some people may not be 100% clear on what "failure rate" means in this context. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 16:37, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc.
Hi, I noticed you reverted my edit on Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc.. I had removed that content for two reasons: I'd like to get your thoughts on the matter! Thanks, wia (talk) 01:37, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
 * 1) The paragraph is about the plaintiffs' opinion of contraception, the purpose of which is to present their beliefs. Adding a fact about doctors' beliefs in this particular paragraph strikes me as incongruous.
 * 2) "Many" is a weasel word.
 * Moved to Talk:Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc., with reply. BC07 (talk) 03:02, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:35, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Edit war warning
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war&#32; according to the reverts you have made on Mifepristone. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement. Please be particularly aware that Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states: If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. Jytdog (talk) 01:33, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
 * 1) Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made.
 * 2) Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

Share your experience and feedback as a Wikimedian in this global survey
Hello! The Wikimedia Foundation is asking for your feedback in a survey. We want to know how well we are supporting your work on and off wiki, and how we can change or improve things in the future. The opinions you share will directly affect the current and future work of the Wikimedia Foundation. You have been randomly selected to take this survey as we would like to hear from your Wikimedia community. To say thank you for your time, we are giving away 20 Wikimedia T-shirts to randomly selected people who take the survey. The survey is available in various languages and will take between 20 and 40 minutes.

Take the survey now!

You can find more information about this project. This survey is hosted by a third-party service and governed by this privacy statement. Please visit our frequently asked questions page to find more information about this survey. If you need additional help, or if you wish to opt-out of future communications about this survey, send an email to surveys@wikimedia.org.

Thank you! --EGalvez (WMF) (talk) 19:19, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

Your feedback matters: Final reminder to take the global Wikimedia survey
Hello! This is a final reminder that the Wikimedia Foundation survey will close on 28 February, 2017 (23:59 UTC). The survey is available in various languages and will take between 20 and 40 minutes. Take the survey now.

If you already took the survey - thank you! We won't bother you again.

About this survey: You can find more information about this project here or you can read the frequently asked questions. This survey is hosted by a third-party service and governed by this privacy statement. If you need additional help, or if you wish to opt-out of future communications about this survey, send an email through EmailUser function to User:EGalvez (WMF). About the Wikimedia Foundation: The Wikimedia Foundation supports you by working on the software and technology to keep the sites fast, secure, and accessible, as well as supports Wikimedia programs and initiatives to expand access and support free knowledge globally. Thank you! --EGalvez (WMF) (talk) 08:15, 23 February 2017 (UTC)