I've just stopped taking it after 4 different ones over 9 months. Thank goodness too - I've not felt this good since the start of the year. Never again.

(Why does this headline say it cuts the risk of cancer, when in fact it says it raises it by 22% in long-term use?)

Laura M, Brighton,

Not reassuring for women like me. I started taking the Pill when I was 18, almost 19, and stopped taking it at 29. I started taking it to regulate periods (due to an eating disorder), and took it that long because my skin went crazy when I tried to stop taking it. So this means my risk of cancer increases 22%?! Perhaps I would've been better off becoming a young mother instead. Great. I'm dealing with acne now, and have increased risk of cancer to look forward to. And there's a lot of women my age in the same situation.

Shelley, Boston, USA

Has anyone studied bio-equivalent hormones, as opposed to the equine derived estradiol and synthetic progestin? Does estriol have any effect on the outcome? How about progesterone?

Christine Smith, San Diego, CA, USA

i think either way taking the pill in its self is wrong because its stopping God's plans for people to have children

elena, carlow, ireland

Might want to check out http://www.canceractive.com/page.php?n=219

Also be sure to check out the rest of their website :)

Will Fealey, Buckingham,

Like all conclusions, there are exceptions. My mother had 5 children before the age of 30, went on the pill (in the 60's) for 2 years and got ovarian cancer anyway by the time she was 40. To this day, (praise be to God she survived) she maintains the pill caused the cancer. It was after she started taking the pill she developed all sorts of female problems. By the way, she refused chemo and radiation....probably why she survived.

Krista, Washington, USA

This is NOT good news. Nearly all of my female friends (esp. those that are college educated) began taking the Pill before the age of 20 and will not be having children for a few more years. I'm 27, and have been on the Pill for 8 years now. We were all told by doctors that the Pill was completely safe and were encouraged to take the Pill without being advised of the possible side effects. One friend has dark discolorations on her face that would normally only occur during pregnancy and most have sexual side effects at an age when we should be "raring to go." Now a 22% increased risk of cancer? The Pill is NOT the wonder drug with no consequences we were assured it was in our impressionable teens.

Nina, Austin, TX

I notice that Professor Hannaford neglects to mention how many of these women suffered disability or even died from blood clots whilst taking the Pill. I suffered a stroke a couple of years ago as a 24 year old healthy non smoker with no family history, thanks to the pill. If I'd had cancer I would have had the chance to have treatment but as it is I was left disabled and I could have died. I hope women don't read this research and think that the pill will protect them from cancer without realising the potentially life threatening consequences.

Nicola, North Yorkshire, England

It's interesting that only men have so far commented on this story - and negative comments at that.

The pill is used for many reasons, not just contraception and should rather be called a 'hormone tablet'. As an endometriosis sufferer, I've been on the pill for 13 years (I'm now 27). Every medecine has its risks, so I'm happy to make an informed choice and would rather not suffer the excruiating pain that goes with this common but overlooked condition than have a small increase in my cancer risk. Surely childbirth or lack of it and how many periods a women has in her life are more important than the pill?

Perhaps this study will have the benefit though of convincing men in long-term relationships that their partner's contraception is not risk-free and they could try condoms once in a while!

Julie, Belfast,

Most sex educators presume young girls will be sexually active at 16 - and should be taking the pill (which is a steady dose of artificial hormones -- but don't drink unhealthy hormone-treated cow's milk or eat unhealthy hormone-treated beef ) by then. This would mean that these girls would have to stop taking the pill 8 years later at aqe 24 to avoid the increased cancer risk. But the trend is that women don't even get married until their late twenties, and then they are encouarged to avoid having children for ten more years (by continuing to take the artificial hormone pills). This means that most women will experience an increase in cancer because most women will be advised to use the pill for more than 8 years.

Name Withheld, West Point, NY

Amazing, who would take poison pills to avoid a cute baby, or to be someone's play THING?

Pete Gabriel, Mercer Island, USA

I wonder. Taking something to chemically alter your body into thinking it is pregnant is not a great thing. Your body was designed to work a certain way. Maybe we should let it. Even if it does reduce the risk of cance

Mjones, Arlington, USA

"the news was less good: for them, the risk of cancer increased by 22 per cent. "

The increase in cancer from longtime use of the pill seems to me to far outweigh the good ! Can you say spin fast enough. Many women today have used that pill since puberty right on until their 30's when getting ready for having children. That is way more then the 8 year study allots for cancer reduction. More study ,please!

Mauren, Kings Park, NY,USA

I've always believed in listening to my body, and strangely enough that body told me to stop taking the pill last year after about 8 1/2 years...

Strange isn't it?

Perhaps I have a guardian angel who knew about this study and persuaded me to stop filling myself with chemicals. But that's another debate altogether.

Emma, Hastings, UK

This flies in the face of a recent study by the prestigious Mayo Clinic in Minnesota (October 2006) that found that "OCs [Oral Contraceptives] are associated with an increase in premenopausal breast cancer risk."

See http://www.mayoclinicproceedings.com/pdf/8110/8110a1.pdf

Also see http://www.polycarp.org

Jon Tullis, Naples, Florida US

Just a word of caution though - I am only 28 and was this weekend hospitalised with a blood clot on my lung, which I am told probably arose from having taken the pill for 13 years. Seems no medicines are 100% trustworthy!

Kate, London,

I can't believe how misleading that headline was, and how this propaganda still proliferates - the way I see it this is a blatant attack on women. Why is it so hard to find information about the pill that clearly states how carcinogenic and bad it is?!

I stopped taking it a month ago after taking it for a year and have never felt better... that thing was hell, it left me overwraught, hormonal, emotional and ill. I tried 3 and will never again.

Isobel, Chichester, UK

This is clearly not good news! I have been on the pill for 4 years for contraception purposes and do not intend having kids any time soon. However, even if I do have kids at some point I imagine I will go back on the pill once I have finished with breastfeeding. Assuming I have 2 kids and don't take the pill for a total of 4 years I'm still a long way from the menopause so my pill usage will be way more than 8 years! I'm sure I'm not alone...

Alexa Brown, Edinburgh, UK

It's great to see that I'm not the only person who found the headlines, all touting the decreased risk, misleading. I'm one of those who falls into the "over eight years" category, so I've got so many questions and no answers now. I wonder why "eight years"...why not "seven years", or "nine years". Also, did they find that the risk increased the longer you're on them after eight years, or now that I'm past that mark, does it even matter if I stop now?

Lara , New Iberia, LA

"One less cancer in 2200 women or one less in 10,000 women is not statistically significant. Eventually, it will be realized that the excess levels of estrogen introduced into the bodies of women from taking birth control pills are causing a spike in breast cancer.

So a 12% maximum decreased risk of cancer amounting to one less cancer in 2200 women is not statistically significant.

But a 22% maximum increased risk of cancer amounting to less than 2 additional cancers per 2200 women is significant?

As time has gone by, birth control pills have downregulated the amount of estrogen "boost" they provide and upregulated progesterone. These pills create a different long-term hormone profile than pills in the past. (Some only contain progesterone.)

And if you claim, by the way, that 12% is insignificant, you're going to have a hard time finding studies that support your "spike in breast cancer" claim, at least that meet your criteria.

Michael, Oklahoma City, United States

"Girls starting "the pill" at 15 will have a 22% higher risk of cancer by the age of 23."

They're saying it's "good news" for women who took the pill decades ago because those women took what amounts to a very different kind of pill - one that maintained much higher estrogen levels and did little or nothing to balance other levels.

Michael, Oklahoma City, United States

1) The researchers do not take into account that the pattern of pill use in the 1960's and 1970's changed in the 1980's and 1990's-to starting the pill younger and taking it longer.

2) Women who take the pill are a self selected group, who choose to take it, and who can tolerate it. This is a real problem with bias in the study.

3) The women who started to the pill in the 80's are just now reaching an age where the latent period for cancer would become evident.

4) The pill causes increased cell proliferation of breast tissue, it causes a zinc deficiency--which impairs the body's ability to repair the cells that have mutations, It primes the cervix for infection with HPV and it increases the virus's replication once the woman is infected.

5) The WHO has declared the pill a type I carcinogen.

4) Cancer is not the only risk--a new study just came out that has shown the pill causes an increased long term risk of atherosclerosis. I would elaborate but I am out....

Lori MD, overland park ,

I agree with John Griffin about this hardly being good news. I don't know how things worked in the 1960's or 1970's in the UK, the time and place this study may be relevant, but I would guess with confidence that many if not most women in my age cohort (late 20's) and younger in the US who take the pill do so for longer than eight years.

As such, this headline is extremely irresponsible. A 23 year old who started taking the pill at 16, not necessarily for birth control purposes, but to control irregular menstration, is now coming up on the eight year mark, after which her risk of certain cancers will increase 22%. Surely sending the message that "Taking the Pill cuts the risk of cancer" isn't a wise approach.

Rachel Scott, New York, USA

Bravo! These intrepid researchers have discovered natural selection! Their study subjects use a carcinogen over years and years and, curiously enough, the ones who actually survived prove to be naturally more resistant to the development of cancer. Idiocy or disengenuousness -- you be the judge.

David Donaldson, Marietta, GA

A friend of mine is a doctor of internal medicine. Several years ago he conducted a study that showed breast tissue cells divided at an alarming rate in women who were on the pill. He was so surprised, he had his wife stop taking it right away. Un-natural cell division leads to cancer. The major pharmaceutical companies blocked his study from being published. Women's health is being put at risk once again for the almighty dollar. It's as bad as big tobacco.

Sara, Colorado Springs, Colorado

Good news for women who were only on the pill for a short period but bad news for women like myself who was on the pill for about ten years. My doctor prescribed the pill for me in the mid-1970s initially because of painful periods so I continued to use it for for the next decade for that reason as well as for contraception. Shame there wasn't more research into the cumulative effects of the pill beforehand. Now myself, and a quarter of other pill users,have to live with the worrrying prospect of having a "22% significant increase of cancer".

Gill Augood, Forest Gate, London

I have to concure with Jacobi. This is the most misleading headline I've seen in a long time. And then they say the news is "less good" for those who have an increased overall cancer risk of 22%! Less good? Would you be meaning the news for those women was "dismal" rather than "less good," by any chance?

Judith M., Brainerd, USA

Why don't you check with the UN. The pill is listed as highly carcinogenic, causing, breast, liver and cervical cancers in women.

Ginny DeGrazia, Huntingdon Vly,

Great, so who's ready to be selfish?

Tom, Austin, TX

seems like misleading reporting of a study's findings to me...
why not huge headline "Taking the Pill increases risk of cancer 22%!"
most girls I know start when they are 18 or younger...8 years seems reasonable

Jacobi, Buenos Aires, Argentina

Didn't the break between positive benefits and massive negative ones raise a flag to these researchers. Maybe the pill chemicals aren't a benefit at: not having as many children is, but as is well documented, having some children does provide benefits. Someone on the pill for a very long time is likely to have never had children. Likewise, someone who was on it for short periods probably managed their rate of child birth. this makes for a serious selection bias in this study that wasn't addressed

john, NY, USA

Hardly good news. Girls starting "the pill" at 15 will have a 22% higher risk of cancer by the age of 23.
What about life-time users who then resort to HRT after the menopause. Perhaps oestragens could be considered a major pollutant

John Griffin, Bath, UK

One less cancer in 2200 women or one less in 10,000 women is not statistically significant. Eventually, it will be realized that the excess levels of estrogen introduced into the bodies of women from taking birth control pills are causing a spike in breast cancer.

John Fairplay, Beaverton, USA

Given the role of Human Papilloma Virus and other STDs in e.g. cervical cancer, the significance of using only persons in married or stable relationships needs to be made clearer. The accuracy of claimed or actual monogamy could easily be an uncontrolled or lied about factor >25%. What can the experimenters answer about sexually active persons with multiple partners , serial monogamy, etc ?

Bill , Manchester,