Dr. Philippe Vignal gives us a new point of view that will disconcert more than one: according to him, the rules would only serve to make children and have no other role. And to denounce the theory of purification of the body , often evoked by the oriental populations.

On the contrary , he asserts , based on various studies, that the multiplication of menstrual cycles would lead to an increase in breast cancer . To remedy this , he advises to "block" or prevent the onset of the rules including taking a pill purely progestogen (called PA pill, which contains no estrogen).

A treatment that goes against those issued in majority by the gynecologists and general practitioners, for the most part very favorable to the pills estroprogestatives (pills OP).

Less œ estrogen, fewer cycles, less risk?

To support his remarks, Dr. Philippe Vignal evokes various scientific works in his book to be published on September 12, L'enfer au féminin, published by La Martinière, here are the main ones:

- July 29, 2005, the International Agency for Research of Cancer, published a study in which researchers argued that oral contraceptives containing estrogen œ were highly likely to increase the risk of cervical cancer, breast cancer and cancer of the liver in women. On the other hand, (and many scientists agree on this point) a protective effect against endometrial cancer and ovarian cancer would have been confirmed.

- In 1986, an American anthropologist Beverly Strassman claimed after a two-year immersion in the Dogons, a tribe of Mali, that women living in an environment where there is no birth control, had no more than a hundred cycles in their life * (unlike our society where we count about 450). On the one hand, because there is nothing to trigger them - no pill taken - on the other because the duration of breastfeeding is much more important. However, when a woman breastfeeds many times in a day and for a long time (the Inuit go to three years), she has no more cycles, hence the risk of cancer ...

But then, why, if the progestative pill (on the market since 2000) has real benefits, is it not more prescribed to women?

To this question, Dr. Vignal refers first of all to an economic problem. For him, if the pharmaceutical industry put forward this product, it would have a lot to lose. There are many models of OP pill, the market of sanitary protection and that of painkillers would also be impacted. The shortfall would be huge. Other gynecologists advance them a cultural concern. For many women, having no period is synonymous with infertility or early menopause, fears that the appearance of monthly cycles reassure. Moreover, they consider that they are good indicators to know if they are pregnant or not. They therefore refuse to take an OP pill, preferring to adopt a well-honed and well-known system.

A book that should spark debate in the medical field but also among women about their questioning about their contraceptive method ...

* There women in periods of rules were considered impure, so a box was reserved for them. They had to stay there until the end of their periods. That's how Mr Straussman could count the number of times a woman had her period in a year.

And you, when do you think? Would you be willing to take a progestin pill? Is the absence of a rule a relief for you? Or on the contrary, would it scare you?

Discover the best comments of the debate:

Campaspe is the big winner of our week's debate. She commented on 16 September at 16h58:

"Progestin-only pills have a lower risk of breast cancer than conventional estrogen-containing pills, because they are the cause of the onset of this condition. In addition, since the progestin-only pill inhibits ovarian activity, it could even be a cause of the decrease in the occurrence of such cancers. For the same reason it could also reduce the risk of cardiovascular disease compared to conventional pills.

In France we can find at the moment two progestin-only pills, one reimbursed at 65%, the other not. The former may result in some women losing the rules. What seems to be an advantage may also have some disadvantages: if the effectiveness of this pill is important, it is however slightly lower than that of the traditional pill. It is therefore important to observe a great regularity (delay not exceeding three hours) in taking this pill. In addition, in the event of contraceptive failure, a pregnancy may be less well detected. Nevertheless this pill seems to me to represent an important progress compared to the traditional pills. "

For elodie1991, it's the dream of having no more menstruation! She commented on September 14, 01h47:

"I am rather surprised by the votes of the mini survey. How does not having your period can be considered "a violation of femininity" for most of you? I am not currently on a progestin pill, but it may be that I decide to change it. Even though breast cancer can still happen when you take this pill, just having no menstrual period makes me dream. Farewell pains and other premenstrual syndromes! No need to find a toilet when I need it! No more tampons to buy! What's wrong with that? So if in addition it reduces the risk of breast cancer, I run to my doctor! "

grandblanc is totally against, the rules are for her a law of nature. She commented on September 18 at 13:52:

"NO & NO we were born to have rules is the law of nature !!!! "