TheRedArchive

~ archived since 2018 ~

  • Subreddits

      Popular

    • /r/askTRP
    • /r/TheRedPill
    • /r/MarriedRedPill
    • /r/MensRights
    • /r/MGTOW
    • /r/PurplePillDebate
    • /r/WhereAreAllTheGoodMen
    • Other

    • /r/AllPillDebate
    • /r/AlreadyRed
    • /r/altTRP
    • /r/AntiFeminists
    • /r/askFDS
    • /r/askMRP
    • /r/askRPC
    • /r/becomeaman
    • /r/BlackPillScience
    • /r/Chadfish
    • /r/Divorce_Men
    • /r/EverydayMisandry
    • /r/ExRedPill
    • /r/FemaleDatingStrategy
    • /r/FeminismStopsWhen
    • /r/GEOTRP
    • /r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates
    • /r/MalePsychology
    • /r/Male_Studies
    • /r/MenSupportMen
    • /r/MGTOW2
    • /r/MuslimRedPill
    • /r/newTRP
    • /r/PussyPass
    • /r/PussyPassDenied
    • /r/RedPillBooks
    • /r/RedPillParenting
    • /r/RedPillWives
    • /r/RedPillWomen
    • /r/RedPillWorkplace
    • /r/RPChristians
    • /r/seduction
    • /r/ThankTRP
    • /r/TheRedPillStories
    • /r/trpGAME
    • /r/TRPOffTopic
    • /r/TrueBlackPillMGTOW
    • /r/WhereAllTheGoodMenAre
  • Blogs

      Popular

    • Dalrock
    • Heartiste
    • Illimitable Men
    • Return of Kings
    • Rian Stone
    • The Rational Male
    • Woujo
    • Other

    • Artful Prudence
    • A Voice for Men
    • Alpha Game
    • Black Label Logic
    • Caleb Jones
    • Captain Capitalism
    • Corporate Machiavelli
    • Days of Game
    • Deep Strength
    • Dicipres
    • Donal Graeme
    • Female Misogynist
    • Free Northerner
    • Gaming My Wife
    • Good Looking Loser
    • Hawaiian Libertarian
    • In Mala Fide
    • KillToParty
    • Kill Your Inner Loser
    • Krauser PUA
    • LaidNYC
    • Married Man Sex Life
    • NO MA'AM
    • Omega Virgin Revolt
    • Pook's Mill
    • Random Xpat Rantings
    • Red Pill Theory
    • Red Pill Wifery
    • RedPillDad
    • RedPillDoctor
    • Seasons of Tumult and Discord
    • Sigma Frame
    • The Feminine Woman
    • The Futurist
    • The Masculine Principle
    • The Modern Man
    • The New Modern Man
    • The Obsidian Files
    • The Power Moves
    • The Private Man
    • The Red Pill Room
    • The Red Quest
    • The Rules Revisited
    • The Spearhead
    • Troy Francis
    • Wintery Knight
    • Young Man Red Pill
  • Books
  • Dictionary
  • @TRParchive
  • Please help TheRedArchive stay alive

In 2011, 2 researchers at the university of toronto found a very strong positive correlation between oral contraceptive and prostate cancer. the media ignored it, and the two researches have since been essentially ghosted

Ok_Produce_3260

November 17, 2022
33 upvotes
/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/11/111114221021.htm#:~:text=FULL%20STORY-,Use%20of%20the%20contraceptive%20pill%20is%20associated%20with%20an%20increased,40%20years%2C%20say%20the%20authors.
Download the post

Want to save the post for offline use on your device? Choose one of the download options below:

PDF TXT EPUB
Share
Share Tweet Reddit Email
Post Information
Title In 2011, 2 researchers at the university of toronto found a very strong positive correlation between oral contraceptive and prostate cancer. the media ignored it, and the two researches have since been essentially ghosted
Author

Ok_Produce_3260

Upvotes 33
Comments 16
Date November 17, 2022 3:42 PM UTC
(3 years ago)
Subreddit Posted in /r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates
Original Link https://old.reddit.com/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates/comments/yxthf6/in_2011_2_researchers_at_the_university_of/
Archive Link https://theredarchive.com/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates/in-2011-2-researchers-at-the-university-of-toronto.1139959
https://theredarchive.com/post/1139959
Red Pill terms in post
ghosting
Top posts by Ok_Produce_3260

In 2011, 2 researchers at the university of toronto found a very strong positive correlation between oral contraceptive and prostate cancer. the media ignored it, and the two researches have since been essentially ghosted

1 upvotes
November 17, 2022
/r/MensRights

Comments

[–]fcsquadleft-wing male advocate 9 points10 points11 points 3 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

I was scratching my head reading the title trying to figure out if my mate using an oral contraceptive was supposed to somehow increase my rate of prostate cancer. Like, how?

But apparently it shows a correlation between a society's overall use of oral contraception and prostate cancer in that society. (The mechanism here presumably being estrogen exposure through water or food.) So it seems to point more towards the need for better water treatment facilities than anything.

[–]Tevorino 8 points9 points10 points 3 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Same here. My first thought was "Wait, there is a commerically available contraceptive pill for men? Since when?"

Then, as I was reading it, and seeing that they were talking about the contraceptive pill for women, I was wondering if they were talking about the sex partners of these women being exposed to something in their vaginal secretions, during unprotected sex, that increases the risk of prostate cancer.

Finally, at the end, they explained their theorised chain of causation from user, to urine, to environment.

The author of this article really needs to take some remedial journalism classes or something. They are supposed to seriously consider the order in which details are mentioned.

[–]Poly_and_RA 4 points5 points6 points 3 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

"the Pill might raise environmental levels of endocrine disruptive compounds (EDCs) -- which include by-products of oral contraceptive metabolism. These don't break down easily, so can be passed into the urine and end up in the drinking water supply or the food chain, exposing the general population, say the authors."

This, frankly, sounds like a stretch, especially in more developed countries.

I can't see ANY realistic way noticeable amounts of urine ends up in the drinking water or food chain in countries where wastewater is treated and released to the ocean. (that is, unless they argued that human womens use of contraceptives is sufficient to make the oceans themselves contain noticeably elevated levels of oestrogen, and that'd be even MORE absurd.

Seems much more likely to me this got largely ignored because it's not particularly good science.

[–]Ok_Produce_3260[S] 3 points4 points5 points 3 years ago (13 children) | Copy Link

a study found a link between oral birth control and prostate cancer. VERY strong evidence. they were silenced and the story buried.

why was it be buried? why havent the researchers have published since? what are the implications if birth control does in fact increase the rate of prostate cancer

[–]dzialamdzielo 12 points13 points14 points 3 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

A "link" is not a scientific term; they found a correlation. They claim to have adjusted for nation wealth (as people in wealthier, healthier nations live longer and get cancers of all types more often) but I sort of find that hard to believe and their methods section is suspiciously empty.

They corrected several data entry errors (which is probably why the paper didn't get much traction) after the fact. Condom use also correlated with prostate cancer which also points, imo, towards the wealth hypothesis. Further, there was no statistically significant prostate cancer MORTALITY correlation which also points to a wealth origin (wealthy countries with populations healthy enough to live long enough to get prostate cancer are generally wealthy enough to treat it)

Their operationalisation is just generally quite suspect, given that the survey data was only from women and sort of crowd sourced.

Like sure it probably could get some more interest to drive down tease out what the actual correlations are but this is kind of an objectively unimpressive study by itself. The fact that the authors didn't go far with this is probably more a function of the hypothesis not having legs, really.

The bioplausibility is sort of halfway intriguing but more work to be done to make that argument.

[–]Ok_Produce_3260[S] -3 points-2 points-1 points 3 years ago* (3 children) | Copy Link

what are you even talking about?

They then analysed the data for individual nations and continents worldwide to see if there was any link between use of the contraceptive pill and illness and death caused by prostate cancer.

Their calculations showed that use of intrauterine devices, condoms, or other vaginal barriers was not associated with an increased risk of prostate cancer.

But use of the contraceptive pill in the population as a whole was significantly associated with both the number of new cases of, and deaths from, prostate cancer in individual countries around the world, the analysis showed. These findings were not affected by a nation's wealth.

you're just waving that all away based on a hunch?

A "link" is not a scientific term;

i literally used the word "correlation" in the title. what are you talking about? you know exactly what i mean by link, thats a ridiculous nitpick.

They claim to have adjusted for nation wealth (as people in wealthier, healthier nations live longer and get cancers of all types more often) but I sort of find that hard to believe and their methods section is suspiciously empty.

so "i find that hard to believe" is your counter argument? just because you dont think so?

im beginning to wonder if you read it at all

the correlation was astonishingly strong, very very very strong. undeniably so.

[–]dzialamdzielo 4 points5 points6 points 3 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

I read the actual underlying paper not the random article describing the findings.

correlation was astonishingly strong, very very very strong. undeniably so.

Lol, no it wasn’t. And the confidence intervals were also massive.

[–]Ok_Produce_3260[S] -1 points0 points1 point 3 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

can you link to me where you actually found the study?

[–]dzialamdzielo 0 points1 point2 points 3 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

It’s linked at the bottom of the article you posted…

http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2011-000311

[–]Tevorino 3 points4 points5 points 3 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

What, exactly, was done to silence them?

[–]Poly_and_RA 2 points3 points4 points 3 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

They didn't find a "link" -- they found correlation. Piles of things correlate without being causally related AT ALL.

Did you know babies that grow up in homes with marble countertops are more likely to go to College?

[–]dzialamdzielo 1 point2 points3 points 3 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Or that children with larger feet are better at math?

[–]MelissaMiranti 1 point2 points3 points 3 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

Please note that "buried" is not the same as largely ignored. I can't read the study in question, so I can't quite comment on its significance, but I'm inclined to say that this might be a case where we have to make choices as a society over which does less harm.

[–]AwfulUsername123 7 points8 points9 points 3 years ago* (1 child) | Copy Link

this might be a case where we have to make choices as a society over which does less harm.

"We"? Certainly the people kept in the dark aren't making a choice.

[–]MelissaMiranti 0 points1 point2 points 3 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Nobody is being kept in the dark. The research is published and available. It's also not conclusive.

[–]Ok_Produce_3260[S] 1 point2 points3 points 3 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

i remember finding it, the evidence was VERY solid. even broken down regionally, for example north vs south italy.

im pro birth control 100%, but if a method is causing cancer, that method should be replaced, or fixed.

for the record i think birth control isnt alone in introducing harmful substances to our bodies, from chemicals in cleaning products to artificial crap in junk food, we're poisoning ourselves.

Browse all authors
You can kill a man, but you can't kill an idea.

© TheRedArchive 2026. All rights reserved.
created by /u/dream-hunter