The headline is broadly defensible, but the qualifications matter. Effect sizes vary by population, the strongest claims rest on shorter trials, and credible voices push back on how it's typically framed.
some iuds are coated with progesterone progestin not progesterone progestogen and those end up decidualizing the endometrium so thinning that lining from that constant progesterone to the point where you stop bleeding so a lot of my patients really loved that option of being aaric no periods just for the convenience of it but they were still ovulating in the background
Every Sunday: the week’s new conflicts and verdict changes — and nothing else.
Native comments, Twitter mentions, and Reddit threads about this claim — surfaced together so the conversation isn't fragmented across platforms.
Bookmarking — the dossier-vs-overview split is the right call. Most of the time I want overview; sometimes I want receipts.
Would love a "what would change this verdict" RSS feed. Sign me up if it exists.
It typically suppresses ovulation in the first two years, but then progesterone levels drop and it tends not to suppress ovulation, but that chronic progesterone exposure thins the endometrial lining to the degree that many women do not have periods anymore.