Dr. Louise Newson, a British physician known for her work in hormone replacement therapy (HRT), has voiced significant concerns regarding the potential long-term health risks associated with the contraceptive pill, particularly its link to cancer. In her new book, "The Power Of Hormones," Newson describes the pill's widespread prescription since the 1960s as a "scientific scandal" and a "human experiment."
Newson highlights what she calls an "increasing mountain of evidence" suggesting that while the pill is effective at preventing ovulation, it may also be "potentially enormously damaging." She points to an increased risk of heart attack, elevated cholesterol, Crohn's disease, and blood clots as acknowledged side effects. However, her focus sharpens on the association with cancer.
According to Newson, the combined oral contraceptive pill, which typically contains synthetic hormones, has been linked to a roughly 25 percent increase in breast cancer risk. She cites a 2023 Oxford University study that found hormonal contraception, including the pill and hormonal coils, raised breast cancer risk by approximately a quarter. Newson also references research from the 1940s suggesting that ethinylestradiol, a synthetic estrogen in the pill, can accelerate existing cancer growth.
She further posits that the pill could contribute to the disparity in cancer rates between young men and women. "Women under 50," she writes, "have an 82 percent higher cancer rate than men in the same age group, up from 51 percent in 2002. It is not possible to state that this is directly related to hormonal contraceptive use in women, but we cannot continue to ignore the risk of cancer in women who take it."
While acknowledging the pill's effectiveness in preventing pregnancy, Newson questions the lack of comprehensive understanding and discussion surrounding its hormonal impacts. She notes that the World Health Organization classifies the combined oral contraceptive pill as a "grade one carcinogen," though other organizations, like Cancer Research UK, suggest a potential long-term protective effect against ovarian and colorectal cancers that may outweigh the increased risk of breast and cervical cancers.
Newson's advocacy for "body-identical" HRT, made from plant compounds chemically identical to natural hormones, contrasts with the synthetic hormones found in many contraceptive pills. She argues that many general practitioners lack the knowledge to differentiate between synthetic and body-identical hormones and to adequately inform patients about the risks.
"I find it really hard with my knowledge of how cancer forms to believe that natural hormones will increase that cancer risk," Newson stated. She believes natural hormones offer numerous benefits, including potentially lowering the risks of dementia, autoimmune diseases, kidney disease, and depression, while fitting hormone receptors perfectly. She is critical of the medical establishment's handling of hormone treatments, citing personal and family experiences of misdiagnosis and inadequate care. Newson's work has faced scrutiny, including a BBC Panorama investigation that questioned her prescribing practices. However, her clinic was later rated "Outstanding" by the Care Quality Commission (CQC), and General Medical Council complaints against her were closed, vindicating her approach to HRT.
Newson emphasizes that her intention is not to discourage contraception but to advocate for informed choices. She suggests that women should be aware of alternatives and the potential risks associated with synthetic hormones, advocating for the greater use of body-identical options when available, such as the Zoely pill which contains natural estradiol. She also points out that some hormonal contraceptives, like the Mirena coil, carry their own risks, particularly regarding mental health.
For menopausal women, Newson continues to champion easy access to HRT, noting that only a small percentage of women in the UK are prescribed it. She argues that HRT is vital for preventing conditions like osteoporosis and that it should be considered a long-term treatment, akin to insulin for diabetes. She maintains that the risks of HRT, especially body-identical forms, are often overstated, referencing the widely discussed Women's Health Initiative study from 2002 as obsolete due to its focus on synthetic hormones.