​





​Scientists are uncovering new details in the connection between using certain hair straightening products, such as chemical relaxers and pressing products, and an increased risk of cancer in women.
Ongoing research previously suggested that hair straightening chemicals are associated with an increased risk of certain hormone-related cancers, including breast and ovarian cancers, and now, a new study links use of hair straightening products with an increased risk of uterine cancer. Black women may be more affected due to higher use of the products, the researchers noted.

The study, published Monday in the Journal of the National Cancer Institute, estimates that among women who did not use hair-straightening chemical products in the past 12 months, 1.6% developed uterine cancer by age 70, but about 4% of the women who frequently use such hair-straightening products developed uterine cancer by age 70.

That finding “also communicates that uterine cancer is indeed rare. However, the doubling of risk does lead to some concern,” said Chandra Jackson, an author of the study and researcher at the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences.

“In this study, women with frequent use in the past year had an over two-fold higher risk of uterine cancer,” she said. Frequent use was defined as more than four times in the previous year.


Cancer risk was most pronounced in Black womenThe new study includes data on nearly 34,000 women in the United States, ages 35 to 74, who completed questionnaires about their use of certain hair products, including perms, dyes, relaxers and straighteners. The researchers, from the National Institutes of Health, also tracked the incidence of cancer diagnoses within the study group.

The researchers found a strong association between hair straightening products and uterine cancer cases but the use of other hair products – such as dyes and perms or body waves – was not associated with uterine cancer.

The study data also showed that the association between hair straightening products and uterine cancer cases was most pronounced for Black women, who made up only 7.4% of the study participants, but 59.9% of those who reported ever using straighteners.

Several factors likely play a role in the frequent use of hair straightening products: Eurocentric standards of beauty, social pressures placed on Black and Latina women in workplace settings related to microaggressions and the threat of discrimination, along with desired versatility in changing hairstyles and self-expression.
“The bottom line is that the exposure burden appears higher among Black women,” Jackson said.

“Based off of the body of the literature in this area, we know that hair products marketed directly to Black children and women have been shown to contain multiple chemicals associated with disrupting hormones, and these products marketed to Black women have also been shown to have harsher chemical formulations,” she said. “On top of that, we know that Black women tend to use multiple products simultaneously, which could contribute to Black women on average having higher concentrations of these hormone-disrupting chemicals in their system.”

The researchers did not collect information on brands or ingredients in the hair products the women used, but they wrote in the paper that several chemicals identified in straighteners could contribute to the increased incidence of uterine cancer observed in their study.

“To our knowledge this is the first epidemiologic study that examined the relationship between straightener use and uterine cancer,” Alexandra White, head of the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences Environment and Cancer Epidemiology group and lead author on the study, said in a news release Monday.
“More research is needed to confirm these findings in different populations, to determine if hair products contribute to health disparities in uterine cancer, and to identify the specific chemicals that may be increasing the risk of cancers in women.”

A new and growing area of research’Some substances found in hair-straightening products, especially those most used by and marketed to Black and Latina women, are hormone-disrupting chemicals, said Tamarra James-Todd, an epidemiologist at Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, who was not involved in the new study but separately has led some of the earliest research finding links between hair products and cancer.

“They modify our body’s normal hormonal processes. So, it makes sense to look at cancers that are hormonally mediated,” she said, adding that hormone-disrupting chemicals could impact other parts of the body too.

“​The challenge is that the impact of these chemicals might not be limited to hormonal processes, but they could also impact other systems, including our immune and vascular systems. Understanding how these chemicals work beyond the hormonal system is still a new and growing area of research,” James-Todd told CNN.

“So, it could be that the way these chemicals are operating is through altering ​not only hormonal responses, but also by altering immune or even vascular responses,” she said. “All of these processes are linked to cancer.”

While the new study is “well done” and shows an association between hair-straightening chemical products and increased uterine cancer risk, it is unable to determine that the products directly cause the cancer, Dr. Otis Brawley, professor at the Johns Hopkins University Bloomberg School of Public Health and former chief medical officer of the American Cancer Society, said in an email to CNN.

“It is unable to show cause, it could be pure association,” said Brawley, who was not involved in the new study.
Yet “the question how do we settle this is difficult. The scientific ideal is a randomized trial of 40,000 or so; 20,000 with regular hair straightener use and 20,000 never using it and never having used it and follow them for 20 years,” he said, adding that at this point, “it’s impossible for science to answer better than” the recent study.


By Jacqueline Howard / CNN

​


At least five hours sleep a night may cut the over-50s' chances of multiple chronic health problems, researchers say.

Ill health can disrupt sleep - but poor sleep may also be a forewarning or a risk itself, they say.
There is evidence sleep helps restore, rest and rejuvenate the body and mind - but why the "golden slumber number" might matter remains unclear.
The PLoS Medicine study tracked the health and sleep of UK civil servants.
All of the about 8,000 participants were asked: How many hours of sleep do you have on an average weeknight?"
Some also wore a wrist-watch sleep tracker.

And they were checked for chronic conditions, including diabetes, cancer and heart disease, over two decades of follow-up:

• Those who slept five hours or less around the age of 50 had a 30% greater risk of multiple ailments than those who slept seven hours
• Shorter sleep at 50 was also associated with a higher risk of death during the study period, mainly linked to the increased risk of chronic disease

Experts generally recommend about seven or eight hours, the researchers, from University College London and Paris Cité University, say.

Why do we sleep?Scientists do not know for sure, but it is clear that sleep helps the brain process memories and is good for mood, concentration and metabolism.
Sleep is also an opportunity for the brain to be cleared of waste.

Good-sleep tips

• Tire yourself out during the day by keeping busy and active but slow down towards bedtime
• Avoid daytime naps
• Establish a good night-time routine and make sure your bedroom is relaxing and conducive to sleep - thick curtains or blackout blinds, a comfy room temperature and bedding, and no big distractions, such as scrolling on a smartphone in bed
• Reduce or eliminate caffeine and alcohol close to bedtime
• If you can't nod off, don't force it or become frustrated - get up and do something relaxing for a bit, such as reading a book, and then return when sleepier
• If you work antisocial shifts, try and have a short nap before your first shift in a run of nights, to transition. If you are coming off nights, try a nap to see you through and then go to bed early that evening

Surrey Sleep Centre director Prof Derk-Jan Dijk told BBC News: "This work reinforces that getting only short sleep is not good for us. Generally, it's not healthy - although for some, it may be OK.
"The big question is why do some people sleep less. What is causing it and is there anything we can do about it? Sleep is a modifiable lifestyle factor to a certain extent."
Long stretches of bad sleep can severely affect wellbeing.
GPs now rarely prescribe sleeping pills, which can have serious side-effects and cause dependency.

Source: By Michelle Roberts
Digital health editor / BBC

Do you know your blood type? 

You wouldn't know it by looking on the surface, but coursing through your veins every second of every day are tiny variations that categorize your blood into one of these groups: A+, A-, B+, B-, O-, O+, AB+ and AB-. Unless you've donated blood, were given a transfusion or found out during pregnancy, maybe you've never thought twice about it.

Ongoing research into blood type suggests it may matter more than we give it credit for -- at least when assessing risk for certain health conditions, especially heart disease. These invisible differences in the blood may give some people an edge at staving off cardiovascular problems, and may leave others more susceptible.

What does blood type mean, and how are they different?

The letters A, B and O represent various forms of the ABO gene, which program our blood cells differently to form the different blood groups. If you have type AB blood, for example, your body is programmed to produce A and B antigens on red blood cells. A person with type O blood doesn't produce any antigens.  

Blood is said to be "positive" or "negative" based on whether there are proteins on the red blood cells. If your blood has proteins, you're Rh positive. 

People with type O- blood are considered "universal donors" because their blood doesn't have any antigens or proteins, meaning anybody's body will be able to accept it in an emergency.

But why are there different blood types?

Researchers don't fully know, but factors such as where someone's ancestors are from and past infections which spurred protective mutations in the blood may have contributed to the diversity, according to Dr. Douglas Guggenheim, a hematologist with Penn Medicine. People with type O blood may get sicker with cholera, for example, while people with type A or B blood may be more likely to experience blood clotting issues. While our blood can't keep up with the different biological or viral threats going around in real time, it may reflect what's happened in the past.

"In short, it's almost like the body has evolved around its environment in order to protect it as best as possible," Guggenheim says.

The blood types most at-risk for heart disease 

People with type A, type B or type AB blood are more likely than people with type O to have a heart attack or experience heart failure, according to the American Heart Association. 

While the increased risk is small (types A or B had a combined 8% higher risk of heart attack and 10% increased risk of heart failure, according to one large study) the difference in blood clotting rates is much higher, per the AHA. People in the same study with type A and B blood were 51% more likely to develop deep vein thrombosis and 47% more likely to develop a pulmonary embolism, which are severe blood clotting disorders which can also increase the risk of heart failure.

A reason for this increased risk, according to Guggenheim, might have to do with inflammation that happens in the bodies of people with type A, type B or type AB blood. The proteins present in type A and type B blood may cause more "blockage" or "thickening" in the veins and arteries, leading to an increased risk of clotting and heart disease. 
Guggenheim also thinks this may describe the anecdotal (but currently inconclusive) decrease in risk of severe COVID-19 disease in people with type O blood, which has inspired research. Severe COVID-19 disease often causes heart problems, blood clotting and other cardiovascular issues.

Other consequences of blood type

People with type O blood enjoy a slightly lower risk of heart disease and blood clotting, but they may be more susceptible to hemorrhaging or bleeding disorders. This may be especially true after childbirth, according to a study on postpartum blood loss, which found an increased risk in women with type O blood.

People with type O blood may also fare worse after a traumatic injury due to increased blood loss, according to a study published in Critical Care.

Other research has found people with type AB blood might be at an increased risk for cognitive impairment when compared to people with type O. Cognitive impairment includes things like trouble remembering, focusing or making decisions. 
​
Should I change my lifestyle based on my blood type?  While research available now shows that blood type can tip the scale in terms of someone's risk of developing heart disease, big factors such as diet, exercise or even the level of pollution you're exposed to in your community are the major players in determining heart health. 

Guggenheim says that for patients trying to keep their heart healthy, there's no special recommendation that he'd make other than a good heart healthy diet that lowers inflammation, regardless of someone's blood type. 

But, he notes, future research could offer more definitive ways doctors treat patients based on their blood type. All factors considered equally, a patient with healthy cholesterol levels and type A blood may benefit from taking aspirin each day whereas it might not be necessary for a person in the same boat with type O blood. 

"A well-balanced, heart-healthy diet in general is going to be what any physician is going to recommend, and I would say that ABO doesn't change that," Guggenheim says. 

"I don't think there's a protective benefit from just having type O blood that contributes to being scot free," he adds.
The information contained in this article is for educational and informational purposes only and is not intended as health or medical advice. Always consult a physician or other qualified health provider regarding any questions you may have about a medical condition or health objectives.

A recent study by the University of Oxford, UK suggest that a potential link exists between eating saturated fat from meat and developing heart disease. The findings of a new study performed on more than 100,000 individuals were recently presented at ESC Congress 2021.

Study author Dr. Rebecca Kelly of the Nuffield Department of Population Health, University of Oxford, UK said, "The association seen between saturated fat and cardiovascular disease risk in observational studies has previously been unclear; our findings are important because they provide a possible explanation -- that the relationship may vary depending on the food source."


She added, "We found that saturated fat from meat may be associated with a higher risk than other food sources - in part because those consuming large amounts of meat also had a higher body mass index (BMI) than low consumers."
Cardiovascular disease is a leading cause of death and disability worldwide. Eating higher amounts of saturated fat is linked to elevated low-density lipoprotein (LDL) or "bad" cholesterol, which increases the risk of cardiovascular disease. There is some evidence that different types of foods rich in saturated fat, particularly meat and dairy, may have different associations with cardiovascular disease. Therefore, this study examined how saturated fat from various foods relates to ischemic heart disease, stroke, and total cardiovascular disease (heart disease and stroke combined).


The study included 114,285 UK Biobank participants who were free of cardiovascular disease at the start of the study. Participants completed dietary assessments asking what they ate the day before to estimate their usual intake of total saturated fat and saturated fat from different foods (e.g. dairy and meat). They also completed a detailed lifestyle questionnaire and had blood samples and body measurements taken.

The researchers tracked participants for around 8.5 years using information from linked hospital and death records to find out whether they developed cardiovascular disease. During the follow-up period, total cardiovascular disease, heart disease, and stroke occurred in 4,365, 3,394, and 1,041 participants, respectively.


The data were analysed to assess if there were any links between intake of total saturated fat and saturated fat from different foods and cardiovascular disease outcomes. The analyses accounted for multiple lifestyles, socioeconomic and medical factors. There were no clear associations between total saturated fat and cardiovascular disease outcomes. However, consuming 5 per cent higher total energy from saturated fat from meat was associated with 19 per cent and 21 per cent elevated risks of total cardiovascular disease and heart disease, respectively - but the associations did not remain significant after accounting for BMI.

Researchers also found that associations of SFA from dairy with heart disease went in the opposite direction, but this association was not clear after accounting for BMI. Dr. Kelly said, "Our results suggest that differences in BMI may be responsible, in part, for the association between cardiovascular disease and saturated fat from meat. It is not possible to determine whether this is because of a specific impact of saturated fat from meat on BMI or because those with a higher BMI consume more meat. In addition, it is difficult to fully disentangle whether part of the effect of saturated fat on cardiovascular disease may be through higher LDL cholesterol in this cohort because cholesterol-lowering medication use is high in UK adults."
​
Dr. Kelly concluded, "We recommend following the dietary guidelines advice to consume less than 10 per cent of daily energy from saturated fat. Our findings emphasize the importance of studying the different food sources of saturated fat when examining the risk of cardiovascular disease. Further research is needed to ensure that these observations were not influenced by dietary or non-dietary factors that were not measured in this study."

The EU’s policing agency, Europol, has warned that the pandemic is being exploited by terrorists “to spread hate propaganda and exacerbate mistrust”, in its report examining the threat of extremism throughout the bloc.

​Looking at the impact of Covid-19 on terrorism, Europol officials highlighted the threat posed by individuals who are seeking to use the chaos caused by the pandemic to “erode democratic structures, spread fear and polarize society.”

Throughout the year, 57 terrorist attacks were either completed, failed or foiled in EU member states, causing 21 fatalities, and resulting in 449 arrests on suspicion of terrorism-related offenses.

The impact of the global pandemic “further accelerated” the polarization of political discourse in the EU, according to the Europol report, with terrorists attempting to take advantage of this development to “pollute the social climate with violent ideologies.”

Addressing the findings, both Ylva Johansson, the European Commissioner for Home Affairs, and Catherine De Bolle, the Executive Director of Europol, cited the increased use of digital activity by terrorists to promote extremist views.
“In a world, which has become considerably more digital, targeting the propagation of hatred and violent ideologies spread online is an imperative,” De Bolle said in a press release.

The agency says its annual report on terrorism uses information provided by authorities across the 27 member states to compile a picture of the situation throughout the EU, including data on attacks and related arrests.

​This is the second report in recent weeks to warn that the Covid pandemic has increased the risk of terrorism, with the UN Security Council Counter-Terrorism Committee stating that the outbreak is “likely to have increased the underlying drivers and structural factors that are often conducive to terrorism.”

​




US authorities have apparently seized the web domains of Iran’s international media outlets Press TV and Al-Alam, along with the Yemeni TV channel Al Masirah, run by the Houthi faction, and an Iraqi Shia satellite channel.Visitors to the three domains were greeted on Tuesday with a notice that they were seized under US laws that allow civil and criminal forfeiture of property involved in “trafficking in nuclear, chemical, biological, or radiological weapons technology or material, or the manufacture, importation, sale, or distribution of a controlled substance.”

The seizure notice by the US Department of Justice also invokes a law governing presidential authority in dealing with “unusual and extraordinary threat; declaration of national emergency,” which includes the Iran Nonproliferation Amendments Act of 2005 and the ironically named Iran Freedom Support Act of 2006.

Launched in July 2007, Press TV is the international English-language service of the Islamic Republic of Iran Broadcasting (IRIB), Tehran’s state media agency. Al-Alam goes back to 2003 and is broadcast in Arabic, Farsi and English to audiences in the Middle East and the Mediterranean.

Al-Masirah is not owned by Iran, but by Ansarullah – the movement of the Houthis in Yemen, a faction the US has accused of being “proxies” of Iran on account of them being Shia Muslims and resisting the invasion of Yemen by Saudi Arabia since 2015. The TV channel is headquartered in Beirut, Lebanon.

Neither the US nor the Iranian authorities have commented on the seizures just yet. Meanwhile, the NGO Yemen Solidarity Council (YSC) condemned “the deliberate silencing of the Yemeni voice by the American regime.”
In a statement released through the YSC, Al Masirah said it was “not surprised” by the apparent seizure, as it “comes from those that have supervised the most heinous crimes against our people.”

The“ban” on the website “reveals, once again, the falsehood of the slogans of freedom of expression and all the other headlines promoted by the United States of America, including its inability to confront the truth,” the outlet said.
PressTV only said that a seizure message has appeared "on the websites of a series of Iranian and regional television networks" in "what seems to be a coordinated action."

Another site that displayed the seizure notice on Tuesday was that of Al Forat Network, an Iraqi satellite TV outlet owned by a Shia Muslim cleric and politician Ammar al-Hakim.

In the absence of any official word, there has been speculation that the domains may have been hacked instead. Furthermore, the seizures appear to have affected only the .com and .net domains that are under US jurisdiction. PressTV remains available at the .ir domain. 

Washington’s apparent move comes just a day after the newly elected Iranian President Ebrahim Raisi urged the US to lift all sanctions on Tehran and rejoin the 2015 nuclear deal, negotiated by the Obama administration but unilaterally repudiated by President Donald Trump in 2018.

Raisi called on the US to “live up to your commitments” in the deal, known as the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA). He also said the Iranian ballistic missile program was “not up for negotiation.”

While the Trump administration took a hard-line approach to Iran, imposing unprecedented sanctions and even assassinating a senior Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) general – resulting in Iranian missile strikes against US bases in Iraq – it never moved against legitimate media outlets.

Back in October 2020, the Trump administration seized 92 domains accused of being “fake news” outlets waging a “disinformation campaign” on behalf of the IRGC. The seizure was overshadowed by sanctions against the Iranian banking sector announced the same day, however. 
​
The Biden administration was thought to be open for relaxing tensions. Just last week, Iranian negotiators said they had reached a deal with their US counterparts to lift the Trump-era sanctions.

Cuba’s Soberana 2 vaccine candidate has shown 62% efficacy with just two of its three doses, state-run biopharmaceutical corporation BioCubaFarma said on Saturday, citing preliminary data from late phase trials.

Cuba, whose biotech sector has exported vaccines for decades, has five vaccine candidates in clinical trials, of which two – Soberana 2 and Abdala – are in late phase trials.

“In a few weeks we should have the results for the efficacy with three doses which we expect will be superior,” said Vicente Vérez​, director of the state-run Finlay Vaccine Institute, which developed Soberana 2.

The news comes as the Caribbean’s largest island is facing its worst outbreak since the start of the pandemic in the wake of the arrival of more contagious variants, setting new records of daily coronavirus cases.

The Communist-run country has opted not to import foreign vaccines but rather to rely on its own. Experts say it is a risky bet but if it pays off, Cuba could burnish its scientific reputation, generate much-needed hard currency through exports and strengthen the vaccination drive worldwide.

“We know our government has not been able to provide this project all the funding it required, and nonetheless this is a result of global standing,” President Miguel Diaz-Canel said at the presentation of the results on state-run television.

Several countries from Argentina and Jamaica to Mexico and Venezuela have expressed an interest in buying Cuba’s vaccines. Iran started producing Soberana 2 earlier this year as part of late-phase clinical trials.

Cuba’s authorities have started administering the experimental vaccines en masse as part of “intervention studies” they hope will slow the spread of the virus.

Daily cases have halved in the capital since the start of this vaccination campaign, according to official data, although that may also be due to stricter lockdown measures.

AstraZeneca Plc’s (AZN.L) COVID-19 vaccine is effective against Delta and Kappa variants, which were first identified in India, the company said on Tuesday, citing a study.

The study by the Oxford University investigated the ability of monoclonal antibodies in blood from recovered people and from those vaccinated to neutralize the Delta and Kappa variants, the statement said.

Last week, an analysis by the Public Health England (PHE) showed that vaccines made by Pfizer Inc (PFE.N) and AstraZeneca offer high protection of more than 90% against hospitalization from the Delta variant.

The latest Oxford study results are built on the recent analysis by PHE, the company said.
​
The Delta variant is becoming the globally dominant version of the disease, the World Health Organization’s chief scientist said on Friday.

Source: Reuters
​

After more than 30 years of attempts, there may be a promising advance in the search for a vaccine for HIV, the virus that causes AIDS if left untreated.

Now, preliminary data from an early stage clinical trial out of the International AIDS Vaccine Initiative and The Scripps Research Institute in La Jolla, California, suggests that a new HIV vaccine may hold promise.

"These are very early studies. But nonetheless, they are provocative," said Dr. William Schaffner, a professor of preventative medicine and infectious diseases at Vanderbilt University in Nashville, who was not involved in the clinical trial.

Although the vaccine candidate will still need to be tested in larger studies, experts are hopeful this vaccine might succeed where others have failed.

"This is a very innovative approach to developing a vaccine that hasn't been done before," Schaffner said, who described the underlying vaccine technology as "kind of a culmination of 21st century science."

When HIV was first discovered as the cause for AIDS in the early 1980s, researchers thought that a vaccine for this virus could be created rapidly, as had been done for diseases like measles, chickenpox and hepatitis B. In fact, the then-U.S. secretary of health and human services, Margaret Heckler, predicted in 1984 that a vaccine would be available in two years. Researchers soon found that there were more hurdles than they had initially thought.

HIV is a virus that mutates rapidly, creating a moving target for vaccines. HIV also has many different subtypes, so a vaccine offering protection against one subtype of HIV may be ineffective against another.

The new research out of IAVI and Scripps aims to address these difficulties by developing a vaccine that helps the body create "broadly neutralizing antibodies." The researchers hope to stimulate a person's immune system against many HIV variants and mutations.

This research is based on "identification of a subset of HIV-infected individuals ... who, in the course of their infection, do make so-called broadly neutralizing antibodies, which basically means these antibodies are able to potently block infection of diverse HIV variants, and that is the key goal," said Dr. Mark Feinberg, Ph.D., the CEO of IAVI.

Their early stage, phase 1 clinical trial, which is still underway, involved 48 healthy adults who received a total of two doses of either the vaccine or placebo, two months apart. Preliminary data showed 97% of those who received the vaccine had early evidence that their immune system may be able to make these broad antibodies.

"The broadly neutralizing antibody is important, because the virus can mutate so rapidly that they need something that's a shotgun, not a rifle ... to prevent a whole variety of different kinds of HIV configurations," said Schaffner.

The decadeslong search for an HIV vaccine lies in stark contrast to the development of vaccines for COVID-19, "where the science was ready, and we were able to develop vaccines, plural, very, very quickly," Schaffner added.

The researchers at IAVI and Scripps are collaborating with companies, like Moderna, to harness the mRNA technology used in the development of vaccines against COVID-19.

Sara Yumeen, M.D., is a preliminary-year internal medicine resident at Hartford Healthcare St. Vincent's Medical Center in Connecticut and is a contributor to the ABC News Medical Unit.

The reproductive years for women in the United States may be increasing, according to a new study.

On average, the reproductive years for women increased from age 35 to 37.1, according to the study published Wednesday in the Journal of the American Medical Association.

The age of 35 has for decades been regarded in the medical community as the age when women's reproductive systems slow down and it becomes more difficult to have and sustain a pregnancy. Women who become pregnant at age 35 and above are considered of advanced maternal age and face risks including miscarriage, genetic abnormalities, fetal growth issues, preterm birth, preeclampsia and stillbirth, experts say.

Giving birth later in life is a growing reality in the U.S. though. Since 2007, the birth rate has risen 19% for women in their early 40s, 11% for women in their late 30s and just 2% for women in their early 30s. Birth rates for women in their 20s declined from 2015 to 2016, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

The new study that found women's reproductive span now extends to 37 years of reproductive years, on average, looked at 60-year trends in age at natural menopause and reproductive life span and other factors among U.S. women. This increase in reproductive years may be a result of later ages of menopause and earlier ages of first period, on average.

The data showed that average age of menopause for women increased, from 48.4 years to 49.9. And the age that a girl got her first period dropped slightly, on average, from 13.5 years to 12.7.

"These are important numbers," said Dr. Jennifer Ashton, ABC News chief medical correspondent and a board-certified OBGYN. "It's good to get a grip on what's happening over a woman's reproductive life."

The changes in women's reproductive life spans could have potential implications for cases of both heart disease and cancer in women, according to Ashton.

She said the broadening of the life span could mean a slight decrease in cardiovascular disease among women, but could raise the risk of breast cancer, ovarian cancer and endometrial cancer, also known as hormonally responsive cancers.

"The more hormonal stimulation [there is] across a woman's lifetime, those cancers can go up," explained Ashton.

The milestone reproductive moments in women's life spans also come with side effects, which range from mild to severe, according to Ashton.

The side effects can range from fatigue and cramping on the mild end to mood changes, severe pelvic pain and heavy bleeding on the more severe end, according to Ashton. Women may also experience irregular menstrual cycles, changes in sleep patterns, and hot flashes in the years leading up to menopause, which is when women stop having menstrual periods.

"We have to remember these milestones in life, while natural, can be problematic," she said. "There's a range of symptoms."