Comments on: HRT PANIC FINALLY LAID TO REST? http://www.bloggernews.net/15952 High-quality English language analysis and editorial writing on the news. Tue, 02 Dec 2008 08:31:40 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.3.3 By: Jane MacCutcheon http://www.bloggernews.net/15952#comment-88759 Jane MacCutcheon Sat, 15 Sep 2007 16:15:13 +0000 http://www.bloggernews.net/15952#comment-88759 Just saw JWR's comments. No one mentioned the word "synthetic" that JWR has latched onto to prove how inept others are in their comments. Of course, unless someone took hormones from another human and injected them in another, then any hormones made for ingestion are synthetic. The key words are "bioidentical" and "non-bioidentical." Please take the time to look at the molecular structure of the horse urine hormones, they have non-bioidentical aspects. These aspects are what make them PATENTABLE and therefore PROFITABLE. Bio-identical hormones are exactly like human hormones and can't be patented. This is a major distinction when one is ingesting these "synthetics." Oh, and the, as you state it, "rather vile source" (horse urine) is harvested at the expense of the horses who are kept imprisoned in stalls while pregnant to collect the urine. Why would anyone support such an unnecessary and abhorrent process when the hormones can be made from cheap plant sources that harm no one. Your callousness further undermines your position. Just saw JWR’s comments. No one mentioned the word “synthetic” that JWR has latched onto to prove how inept others are in their comments. Of course, unless someone took hormones from another human and injected them in another, then any hormones made for ingestion are synthetic. The key words are “bioidentical” and “non-bioidentical.” Please take the time to look at the molecular structure of the horse urine hormones, they have non-bioidentical aspects. These aspects are what make them PATENTABLE and therefore PROFITABLE. Bio-identical hormones are exactly like human hormones and can’t be patented. This is a major distinction when one is ingesting these “synthetics.” Oh, and the, as you state it, “rather vile source” (horse urine) is harvested at the expense of the horses who are kept imprisoned in stalls while pregnant to collect the urine. Why would anyone support such an unnecessary and abhorrent process when the hormones can be made from cheap plant sources that harm no one. Your callousness further undermines your position.

]]> By: Carole http://www.bloggernews.net/15952#comment-15198 Carole Thu, 19 Apr 2007 15:21:26 +0000 http://www.bloggernews.net/15952#comment-15198 HRT PANIC FINALLY LAID TO REST? Do you work for a DRUG company? I was off taken off HRT medication in August, 2002 after the STUDY came out in June, 2002 (apparently my doctor took the study seriously!) That made me very happy until I found out I turned out to be one of the 28% (in all the JAMA articles I have read) to get CANCER from having taken HRT medication! I was diagnosed with breast cancer in October 2002! The two centimeter malignant tumor was not found by my gynecologist nor myself with an exam! It was found on a MAMMOGRAM. Determined by the Pathologist to be HORMONE FED! I had taken the "wonder drugs for HRT", of which, the drug companies made to sound like the greatest medicine in the world. False statements were made in their ads in all the major women's magazines. They made it sound like a NECESSARY drug and it was NOT! The drug worked fine for relieving symptoms of menopause, but the symptoms of menopause do not last long, perhaps a year. I was told by my Doctor, when I asked how long I had to take them (CONDERNED ABOUT EXPENSE, NO PRESCRIPTION COVERAGE!) that I had to take them the rest of my life! Wrong! My thoughts NOW, are, you take them until they cause cancer and KILL you! Talk about expense! I had untold out of pocket medical bills in addition to those that the insurance company paid after my diagnosis of breast cancer! What happened with me later, after stopping the treatment, is, I suffered menopause symptoms all over again at the same time I was undergoing the cancer treatment, horrific! Yes, I am now a STATISTIC in the cancer count. If they do a new study or statistical count, you can bet I will try my best to be included. You should not make light of the studies! More studies should have been done before the DRUGS were put on the MARKET. Women have gone through MENOPAUSE in the past without HRT medication and were the more healthier as a result! How do you explain the new study that cancer rates have dropped since the HRT is not being prescribed as much for women now? I advise NO one to take HRT medication unless they want to experience worse health issues because of it. Everyone I meet I tell them about my experience and to consider the consequences for taking it or NOT and that they should get hold of a medication insert BEFORE having the prescription filled! Let me tell you, you need to rethink the statements you made in this blog. Indeed calling the study CRAP! It is real and true that HRT medicines can cause cancer. I am living PROOF! There is no history of breast cancer in my family. I am into my fifth year of being cancer free. But one never knows if, and when, cancer can strike again, odds are I can get it in the other breast or ovaries perhaps, just from taking HRT medications! A thought I live with every day. Cancer treatment is no picnic, and no one should suffer needlessly for a drug company's profits! There are also more things I suffer from now, as a result of the cancer treatment, (too many to mention here). I am glad you chose to write your blog because it gave me a chance to rebuke what you stated and helped me to vent and express my point of view from another perspective. Now I will never put another substance into my body except FOOD! NO MEDICATIONS AT ALL FOR ME, FOREVER, I HOPE! Keeping one's immune system in tiptop shape is the way to go. HRT PANIC FINALLY LAID TO REST?
Do you work for a DRUG company?

I was off taken off HRT medication in August, 2002 after the STUDY came out in June, 2002 (apparently my doctor took the study seriously!)

That made me very happy until I found out I turned out to be one of the 28% (in all the JAMA articles I have read) to get CANCER from having taken HRT medication!

I was diagnosed with breast cancer in October 2002!

The two centimeter malignant tumor was not found by my gynecologist nor myself with an exam! It was found on a MAMMOGRAM. Determined by the Pathologist to be HORMONE FED!

I had taken the “wonder drugs for HRT”, of which, the drug companies made to sound like the greatest medicine in the world. False statements were made in their ads in all the major women’s magazines.

They made it sound like a NECESSARY drug and it was NOT! The drug worked fine for relieving symptoms of menopause, but the symptoms of menopause do not last long, perhaps a year.

I was told by my Doctor, when I asked how long I had to take them (CONDERNED ABOUT EXPENSE, NO PRESCRIPTION COVERAGE!) that I had to take them the rest of my life! Wrong! My thoughts NOW, are, you take them until they cause cancer and KILL you!

Talk about expense! I had untold out of pocket medical bills in addition to those that the insurance company paid after my diagnosis of breast cancer!

What happened with me later, after stopping the treatment, is, I suffered menopause symptoms all over again at the same time I was undergoing the cancer treatment, horrific!

Yes, I am now a STATISTIC in the cancer count.

If they do a new study or statistical count, you can bet I will try my best to be included.

You should not make light of the studies! More studies should have been done before the DRUGS were put on the MARKET.

Women have gone through MENOPAUSE in the past without HRT medication and were the more healthier as a result!

How do you explain the new study that cancer rates have dropped since the HRT is not being prescribed as much for women now?

I advise NO one to take HRT medication unless they want to experience worse health issues because of it. Everyone I meet I tell them about my experience and to consider the consequences for taking it or NOT and that they should get hold of a medication insert BEFORE having the prescription filled!

Let me tell you, you need to rethink the statements you made in this blog. Indeed calling the study CRAP!

It is real and true that HRT medicines can cause cancer. I am living PROOF! There is no history of breast cancer in my family.

I am into my fifth year of being cancer free. But one never knows if, and when, cancer can strike again, odds are I can get it in the other breast or ovaries perhaps, just from taking HRT medications! A thought I live with every day.

Cancer treatment is no picnic, and no one should suffer needlessly for a drug company’s profits! There are also more things I suffer from now, as a result of the cancer treatment, (too many to mention here).

I am glad you chose to write your blog because it gave me a chance to rebuke what you stated and helped me to vent and express my point of view from another perspective.

Now I will never put another substance into my body except FOOD!

NO MEDICATIONS AT ALL FOR ME, FOREVER, I HOPE!

Keeping one’s immune system in tiptop shape is the way to go.

]]> By: gurmeet singh http://www.bloggernews.net/15952#comment-13737 gurmeet singh Sun, 15 Apr 2007 07:28:15 +0000 http://www.bloggernews.net/15952#comment-13737 this study is on C.E.E and C.E.E+M.P.A and what about TIBOLONE, whether it s safe or not, have u got any study? this study is on C.E.E and C.E.E+M.P.A and what about TIBOLONE, whether it s safe or not,
have u got any study?

]]> By: JWR http://www.bloggernews.net/15952#comment-13570 JWR Sat, 14 Apr 2007 19:35:15 +0000 http://www.bloggernews.net/15952#comment-13570 True, bioidenticals haven't been studied! Which is why their safety isn't proven. They sound "better" but you have to have a randomized clinical trial to PROVE they don't have any risks and are in fact better for you than conventional hormones. By the way, the word "synthetic" applies to ALL hormone therapies. They are all "synthesized" in a lab. Last I heard, they hadn't discovered a bioidentical HRT pill or patch growing from a bush. If what you mean is "artificial" then you would still be incorrect. Premarin is a mixture of natural estrogens (mostly estrone sulfate) from a rather vile source (horse urine). This is actually the predominate estrogen in postmenopausal women's bodies. So in a nutshell, this idea that there is such a vast difference between so called bioidentical estrogens and "synthetics" has no data to back it up. No one's saying they're any better or worse for you; it's just that scientists don't know. Women are best served, FOR NOW, to assume Premarin's risks apply to other hormone therapies until prospective trial data prove otherwise. True, bioidenticals haven’t been studied! Which is why their safety isn’t proven. They sound “better” but you have to have a randomized clinical trial to PROVE they don’t have any risks and are in fact better for you than conventional hormones. By the way, the word “synthetic” applies to ALL hormone therapies. They are all “synthesized” in a lab. Last I heard, they hadn’t discovered a bioidentical HRT pill or patch growing from a bush. If what you mean is “artificial” then you would still be incorrect. Premarin is a mixture of natural estrogens (mostly estrone sulfate) from a rather vile source (horse urine). This is actually the predominate estrogen in postmenopausal women’s bodies. So in a nutshell, this idea that there is such a vast difference between so called bioidentical estrogens and “synthetics” has no data to back it up. No one’s saying they’re any better or worse for you; it’s just that scientists don’t know. Women are best served, FOR NOW, to assume Premarin’s risks apply to other hormone therapies until prospective trial data prove otherwise.

]]> By: Jane MacCutcheon http://www.bloggernews.net/15952#comment-13504 Jane MacCutcheon Sat, 14 Apr 2007 13:48:10 +0000 http://www.bloggernews.net/15952#comment-13504 I continue to read these comments about HRT which totally ignore BIO-IDENTICAL hormone replacement therapy. You all must be in some way representatives of the conventional medical establishment or are connected to the non bio-identical hormone pharma companies. How much common sense is required to understand that if you replace something in the body, in this case a chemical, you should replace it with a chemical as close as possible to the one that occurs in the body. That's what bio-identical hormones are, identical chemicals to the hormones in the body. The Women's Health Initiative used hormones that are made from horse urine and that have components in them that are alien to the body. And guess what, like all alien matter introduced into the body, the liver produces c-reactive proteins in response. C-reactive proteins cause inflammation. And guess what, inflammation is a major factor in producing most illness in the body, including heart disease and cancer. Why does this occur, again, common sense, constant inflammation causes breakdown of cell processes because of stress. The cells wear out, lose their intelligence. Unadulterated BIO-IDENTICAL HORMONES do not produce inflammation, and if prescribed in the proper manner, not only are safe, but are extremely beneficial for both women and men. A large portion of the population is aware of this, when are the rest of you going to get it? This is beyond ridiculous, this information has been around for decades. There is only one reason that bio-identical hormones weren't studied in the WHI, cash! Big pharma, most notably Wyeth is now trying to stop the formulation of bio-identical hormones which are cheap and unpatentable by getting foolish congressman to shut down the compounding pharmacies. If you care about your health you will call Edward Kennedy, Pat Roberts and Richard Burr who are responsible for legislation supporting this absurd notion. These people listen to the ignorant conventional doctors who have never had an original thought and the drug companies who manipulate and finance them, and in the process, they jeopardize our health. Anyone can look at Sen Kennedy and see that he needs hormone replacement. He is overweight, and his back is stiff, two clear signs of hormone deficiency. I continue to read these comments about HRT which totally ignore BIO-IDENTICAL hormone replacement therapy. You all must be in some way representatives of the conventional medical establishment or are connected to the non bio-identical hormone pharma companies. How much common sense is required to understand that if you replace something in the body, in this case a chemical, you should replace it with a chemical as close as possible to the one that occurs in the body. That’s what bio-identical hormones are, identical chemicals to the hormones in the body. The Women’s Health Initiative used hormones that are made from horse urine and that have components in them that are alien to the body. And guess what, like all alien matter introduced into the body, the liver produces c-reactive proteins in response. C-reactive proteins cause inflammation. And guess what, inflammation is a major factor in producing most illness in the body, including heart disease and cancer. Why does this occur, again, common sense, constant inflammation causes breakdown of cell processes because of stress. The cells wear out, lose their intelligence. Unadulterated BIO-IDENTICAL HORMONES do not produce inflammation, and if prescribed in the proper manner, not only are safe, but are extremely beneficial for both women and men. A large portion of the population is aware of this, when are the rest of you going to get it? This is beyond ridiculous, this information has been around for decades. There is only one reason that bio-identical hormones weren’t studied in the WHI, cash! Big pharma, most notably Wyeth is now trying to stop the formulation of bio-identical hormones which are cheap and unpatentable by getting foolish congressman to shut down the compounding pharmacies. If you care about your health you will call Edward Kennedy, Pat Roberts and Richard Burr who are responsible for legislation supporting this absurd notion. These people listen to the ignorant conventional doctors who have never had an original thought and the drug companies who manipulate and finance them, and in the process, they jeopardize our health. Anyone can look at Sen Kennedy and see that he needs hormone replacement. He is overweight, and his back is stiff, two clear signs of hormone deficiency.

]]> By: JWR http://www.bloggernews.net/15952#comment-13396 JWR Sat, 14 Apr 2007 06:25:36 +0000 http://www.bloggernews.net/15952#comment-13396 "Crap" science?? How is a randomized double-blind placebo controlled trial "crap"? The new analysis of that trial is merely exploratory and was not part of the original protocol, so its results are inconclusive. This new data isn't inherently more "high quality" than overall data reported in 2002. On that note, none of the findings in younger women were statistically significant, which means they could have occurred by chance. And, hypothetically, if a heart benefit that so many "experts" think exists from taking HRT at the start of menopause, there is no way to tell, whatsoever, if it would last. After all, estrogen couldn't possibly be the only factor having to do with the aging and health of a woman's arteries. In addition, I would love to know how a drug could possibly prevent the same disease it exacerbates once it exists. That is scientifically flimsy and counterintuitive. Trying to force the results (which seems to the be the thinly veiled motive behind this new analysis) does women no good. People are going to have to accept the fact that menopause does not "cause" heart disease and that HRT doesn't prevent it. And a heightened risk of breast cancer and stroke (at ANY age) doesn't sound too reassuring if you ask me. Lastly, observational data (like those cited above about reduced mortality among under-60 HRT users) do NOT count as proof; they are suggestive, nothing more. And to try and contort a clinical trial to match unreliable observational studies represents a real lack of objectivity. “Crap” science?? How is a randomized double-blind placebo controlled trial “crap”? The new analysis of that trial is merely exploratory and was not part of the original protocol, so its results are inconclusive. This new data isn’t inherently more “high quality” than overall data reported in 2002. On that note, none of the findings in younger women were statistically significant, which means they could have occurred by chance. And, hypothetically, if a heart benefit that so many “experts” think exists from taking HRT at the start of menopause, there is no way to tell, whatsoever, if it would last. After all, estrogen couldn’t possibly be the only factor having to do with the aging and health of a woman’s arteries. In addition, I would love to know how a drug could possibly prevent the same disease it exacerbates once it exists. That is scientifically flimsy and counterintuitive. Trying to force the results (which seems to the be the thinly veiled motive behind this new analysis) does women no good. People are going to have to accept the fact that menopause does not “cause” heart disease and that HRT doesn’t prevent it. And a heightened risk of breast cancer and stroke (at ANY age) doesn’t sound too reassuring if you ask me. Lastly, observational data (like those cited above about reduced mortality among under-60 HRT users) do NOT count as proof; they are suggestive, nothing more. And to try and contort a clinical trial to match unreliable observational studies represents a real lack of objectivity.

]]>