Oral contraceptives (OC) have been used world wide since 1960. Many women could avoid the unintended pregnancy, but some women experienced severe adverse events ; for example, breast cancer, venous thromboembolism (VTE), myocardial infarction (MI) and so on. In this regard, many scientists analyzed the medical reports and reviewed. However, some reviews were not always objective. Some scientists warned the third generation OC, while other people defended them. Media sometimes pointed out contentions appropriately, but they often misjudged the nature of contentions. Scientists as well as people often are swayed by articles regardless of the quality of news.We always have to judge carefully what is evident, and what is not evident. For the evidence of adverse events of OC, all are not conclusive. Recently, Public Citizen required that FDA should immediately ban the third generation OC for the risk of blood clots. Their base is not always new. They accept the relative risk (RR) of two-folds, and reject RR of three-folds. What is the difference between two and three? Is their base really scientific evidence?This is just the theme of this discussion. Most of medical papers I mentioned provide the base to Public Citizen. The risk of the third generation OC for VTE is still controversial. They should analyze the quality, social meaning and economical position of medical papers. Actually, social usability of the third generation is unclear. However, the discussion of risk should be conducted scientifically. I provide some points for the adverse events of OC.
展开▼
