bio-identical hormones
EDS Skin Care Forums Forum Index » EDS Lounge

free skin care · Sat Jan 15, 2011 6:01 pm

Just to follow up on the excess estrogen somehow resulting in testosterone production, I can find absolutely no evidence of this anywhere other than what my doc explained. I think I may be confusing people (and myself) by the semantics of estradiol converting to estrogen. It is mighty weird that she ended up with something along the lines of, "So if we switch you to estriol, that will solve the problem, you won't produce excess testosterone and your hair should stop falling," and that's exactly what happened. I'll have to speak to an endocrinologist to see if she has any clues.

free skin care · Sat Jan 15, 2011 8:06 pm

Antonia wrote:

Just to follow up on the excess estrogen somehow resulting in testosterone production, I can find absolutely no evidence of this anywhere other than what my doc explained. I think I may be confusing people (and myself) by the semantics of estradiol converting to estrogen. It is mighty weird that she ended up with something along the lines of, "So if we switch you to estriol, that will solve the problem, you won't produce excess testosterone and your hair should stop falling," and that's exactly what happened. I'll have to speak to an endocrinologist to see if she has any clues.

Antonia,

I see this is a complicated issue and very individualized. I think it's to some extent a bit over our heads in many cases no matter how very intelligent one may be.

I spoke to both my gyn again and the OB/GYN who is both a friend and saw me through 4 pregnancies and only one of my births! Smile

and regardless of what brand or percentage with my iron levels they both are emphatic about me not even using any topically.

free skin care · Wed Jan 19, 2011 5:02 am

Toby wrote:

I have not read this thoroughly but as I scan it the article seems to answer many of the questions raised on this thread about the difference between BHRT and HRT. I will get it started and then link it....

Quote:

the rest is here http://www.lef.org/magazine/mag2009/oct2009_Bioidentical-Hormones_01.htm

This is such an excellent article with very detailed explanations that even I can understand! Thank you Toby. I received my Progesterone cream yesterday and will start using it this morning. I will let everyone know what happens. I use it for 21 days and off for 7. If I end up with a period I WILL stick an ice pick through my ear Laughing

! I had a Beautiful, youthful 70 yr old client who's nails I was doing one morning, say to me you are never going to believe this , but after all these years I have a period! Her doctor told her It would keep her young forever, he was Darn near right! That was 20 yrs ago. She never had a wrinkle(still sleeps only on her back), and remains sharp as a tack, no sags or bags(good surgeon) still does yoga.Inspirational!

free skin care · Wed Jan 19, 2011 3:11 pm

rmc7 wrote:

Toby wrote:

I have not read this thoroughly but as I scan it the article seems to answer many of the questions raised on this thread about the difference between BHRT and HRT. I will get it started and then link it....

Quote:

the rest is here http://www.lef.org/magazine/mag2009/oct2009_Bioidentical-Hormones_01.htm

This is such an excellent article with very detailed explanations that even I can understand! Thank you Toby. I received my Progesterone cream yesterday and will start using it this morning. I will let everyone know what happens. I use it for 21 days and off for 7. If I end up with a period I WILL stick an ice pick through my ear Laughing

! I had a Beautiful, youthful 70 yr old client who's nails I was doing one morning, say to me you are never going to believe this , but after all these years I have a period! Her doctor told her It would keep her young forever, he was Darn near right! That was 20 yrs ago. She never had a wrinkle(still sleeps only on her back), and remains sharp as a tack, no sags or bags(good surgeon) still does yoga.Inspirational!

Well I have read this article in full, not just scanned it. I believe Josee addressed parts of it in her earlier discussions on this thread (pages 5-7). For more recent information on the efficacy of compounded progesterone creams you can take a look at these studies:

Transdermal progesterone creams for postmenopausal women: more hype than hope?
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15748136

Transdermal natural progesterone cream for postmenopausal women: inconsistent data and complex pharmacokinetics.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17999287

Bioidentical Hormones, Compounding, and Evidence-Based Medicine: What Women’s Health Practitioners Need to Know. (on Medscape)

Page 4 of the above Medscape article specifically discusses compounded bioidentical hormones, including pregesterone creams. There are other studies on PubMed which you can read; just do a search for "progesterone creams transdermal".

Mon Jan 31, 2011 6:42 pm

Hi, my doc wrote script for 3% estriol cream at my request but pharmacy has no idea how to compound it. Doc isn't familiar with this, prescribed Estrace which I told him I'd use on face, but it has bad ingredients. I want to try the estriol. Where do I find a pharmacy to compound it? Do they need more info or can I just say it is for facial use? Thanks.

free skin care · Thu Feb 03, 2011 11:14 pm

Antonia wrote:

Lacy, regarding the conversion to testosterone, this is something my doctor explained to me in some length. However, the precise details are now sketchy since this was a while back. I believe it involved some sort of back conversion or some such term to DHEA first. Let me see what I can find.

I think maybe you misunderstood your doctor. Estriol does not get converted to testosterone.
DHEA is the precursor of estrogen, not the other way around. You can check it on any endo or gyne book.

Progesterone can convert to androgens.

Antonia wrote:

OK, I'll look for more later but this from an acne site:

The idea of adding progesterone into the body is to balance up excessive estrogen over insufficient blood progesterone level. The androgenic effects become increased in this scenario of female sex hormone imbalances because the excess estrogen are converted into a kind of androgen (called androstenedione) in our adrenal gland. This chemical naturally found in body is the forerunner of testosterone.

There is also bigger conversion of excess estrogens into natural testosterone by the fat cells in the body; women with oestrogen excess tend to be overweight with fat cells, resulting in more testosterone conversion.

Therefore natural progesterone works by blocking the effects of rising androgen which are the result of excessive estrogen converted to testosterone.

The website has some inaccuracies.

To begin with, adipocytes cannot convert estrogen to testosterone. They simply don't have the enzymes to do so. They do secrete aromatase which can convert estradiol and thus that's why obese women have a relative hyperestrogenic state and are at increased risk of estrogen-dependent cancer.

The adrenal gland does not convert estrogen to testosterone. The adrenal gland secretes androgens itself.

In acne, the pill that's given is a compound that has some progestational activity but that is mainly an anti-androgen. So it's not because of some sort of imbalance of progesterone.

And the main reason we want to balance progesterone is due to the risks of unopposed estrogen.

free skin care · Fri Feb 04, 2011 12:59 am

The adverse effects of the WHI RCT was due to the combination of E + P and E alone in hysterectomized women.

I'm sure you all remember the history of the WHI. Several observational studies had concluded that HRT had good CV effects, prevented cancer, etc, etc. Everyone was singing the praises of HRT, everyone was prescribing it and then... the WHI came. The WHI had to be stopped because of the adverse effects which included cardiovascular events, stroke, etc.

Now this was not a huge surprise. Lots of things that were considered good in observational studies, ended up being neutral or bad in randomized controlled trials. Observational studies are susceptible to biases that cannot be controlled and that really only randomization gets rid of.

Now I have yet to read one paper that says that "natural" progesterone activates any different receptors than medroxyprogesterone acetate so I don't know why we would expect such different effects.

In addition, women that have increased levels of "natural" estrogens are at increased risk of estrogen-dependent cancers.

So I do not understand how can anyone make the leap and say that BHRT is absolutely harmless.

I also do understand that postmenopausal symptoms can be unbearable and thus I do understand many people taking a risk in order to increase quality of life.

Personally, if I had postmenopausal symptoms I would:

a. Try to see if I can solve them with non-hormonal therapy. If it doesn't then...

b. I would use BHRT but not in creams, in pill form. With the cream you can't guarantee how much you're really taking and the absorption rate varies too much for my taste

c. I would take the lowest possible dose to control my symptoms.

There are no good ways of measuring estrogen/progestagens. Salivary levels are unfortunately useless. They correlate poorly with plasma levels, are not standardized so 2 labs can get completely different levels with the same sample.

Even with plasma levels there's no agreement of what constitutes "normal" levels of progestagen/estrogen in postmenopausal women. Estrogen/progestagen levels in women vary day to day. There is not one single study that shows that salivary levels reflect hormone status. I personally consider it a scam. So I would not rely on that but I would rather just go by symptom relief

d. I would try to take it for a couple of years only if possible

Nowadays there is a HUGE market on BHRT and lots of people are making money and making outrageous claims. Labs are making money measuring salivary levels even though they know they are not good levels, hormones are promoted, etc, etc.

Public citizen usually has great reviews of drugs and they are known for bashing the FDA and big pharma. They are also calling out the BHRT industry for taking advantage of women and not doing their homework:
https://www.worstpills.org/results.cfm?drug_id=1774&drugfamily_id=0&disease_id=0&druginduced_id=0&keyword_id=0&x=45&y=17

free skin care · Sun Feb 06, 2011 4:43 pm

Hi Josee,
Many doctors who prescribe bioidentical hormones feel the creams are more effective. For one thing, they bypass the digestive track, are better absorbed by the body, hence the dose doesn't need to be so high. If you look to the experts in the field, Dr. Jonathan Wright, Dr. John Lee (now deceased) and Dr. Uzzi Reiss (anti-aging doctor to the stars), they all recommend the creams. The reason being, if you take hormones in a pill form, you cannot take tailor it to your personal needs. So, if you need more, you cannot take more (you can’t just double your pill dose.) Likewise, if you need less, you can’t decrease your dose. Hence, the creams give you much more control. Also, since most women do not have estrogen levels checked prior to experiencing menopausal symptoms, we don't really know what is "normal" for each of us. Not to mention that blood levels are not always reliable since they fluctuate so much. The other factor to consider is that every woman is so unique in how she experiences the change. Some women, like those who have more body fat will store estrogen in their fat cells and rarely experience any menopausal symptoms, while thinner women with less body fat (like myself and someone like Antonia) may be more sensitive to those changes. Regarding your comment: “In addition, women that have increased levels of "natural" estrogens are at increased risk of estrogen-dependent cancers”. I’m not sure where you got this information from, but there is no proof of this statement. In fact, many cancers happen because of other contributory factors like hormonal imbalance. Women who are too young to take hormones, but may be taking birth control pills are also taking chemicalized hormones whether they know it or not. That, coupled with xeno estrogens from toxins in our environment, personal care &, cleaning products, and even hormones found in the meat and dairy we eat more more likely to contribute to excess estrogen in the body, and without sufficient progresterone to protect us, cancer may grow.. Also, cancer often happens in women of peri-menopausal or menopausal age when estrogen levels are normally low. I love the comment by Dr. Reiss who said, “Currently estrogen is under attack as a major risk factor in the epidemic of breast cancer. I find this ludicrous. Estrogen is the hormone that distinguishes women’s unique gender. After two million years of human evolution, could the female hormone have suddenly turned into a serial killer? Would nature suddenly decide to create a one-gender series? Of course not. Incriminating estrogen is as logical as saying that your liver is the cause of liver cancer.” Regarding using other substances to treat menopausal symptoms: there aren’t many products that can actually relieve symptoms like the real deal can. Not to mention, many women who are taking over-the-counter preparations to avoid taking estrogen & are getting relief ARE actually taking estrogen, it’s just not listed on the packaging and not in the same dosage. “As for the WHI study, women not only experienced heart disease and stroke, some also died from cancer. The reason many feel that bioidentical hormones are a safer choice is simple. It’s not just because they are made from plants or wild yam extract, it’s because they are an exact replica as those produced by the human body. Hence the term bio-identical. By contrast, Estrogen from pregnant mares urine is Equillin, and women don’t produce Equillin, so it doesn’t belong in a woman’s body any more than other harmful drug. Also, regarding medroxyprogesterone ~ this a monster drug that causes all sorts of horrible symptoms, including water weight gain, which you cannot get rid of until you have been off the product for over a month. It is also another chemicalized hormone and I would never even consider it in the same category as natural progesterone. Natural progesterone equals protection and helps balance estrogen. You would never get horrible symptoms from bioidentical progesterone unless you had an underlying condition such as candidasis, and therefore had a paradoxyl response because of it. The only other reason you would have a bad response to it would be because your progesterone levels were already in the “normal” range for your body and didn’t need to replace it in the first place. ALSO, although you may think bioidentical hormones are something new – they have been around for a lot longer than you might think. In fact, Dr. Jonathan Wright created the Tri-Est formulation over 25 years ago. I see from your profile that you are only 34 years old ….. Let me just say that although you may feel a certain way right now, you may feel very differently by the time you hit menopause yourself! And if you’re lucky maybe, just maybe there might be a study to prove that they are, in fact, totally safe. ~ Aprile

free skin care · Sun Feb 06, 2011 6:10 pm

Aprile - I'm in no way up to speed on all of this, but I have been doing a bit of research lately. And everything I have read says that creams are not an accurate method of treatment. Sucking a lozenge is the preferred method as the lining of the mouth is easily penetrable - as is the lining of the vagina. Applying the creams to other areas of the skin (such as the face) is not a reliable method.

Quote:

Bio-identical hormone replacement therapy is administered generally, in the form of a troche (lozenge) or as a transdermal cream which are absorbed into the blood stream without having to go through the digestive system creating stress on the liver. We find Troches are the most suited form for Natural Hormone Replacement Therapy mainly because of the ease in which the ingredients in each prescription can be altered, and because of their superior transbuccal absorption.

http://www.hormoneclinic.com.au/bio_identical_hormone_replacement_therapy.php

Also, I still don't understand why Bio-identical hormones are considered "natural" when they are manufactured in a lab - plus they don't come from a human source. I know the thought of horse urine might be off-putting, but surely horse urine is as natural as anything else!

BTW - I believe Josee is a gynecologist and her field of specialty is hormone replacement so she is very knowledgeable on the subject. (Josee, correct me if I'm wrong).

free skin care · Sun Feb 06, 2011 7:16 pm

Hi Keilu,
I believe from what I've read the problem with lozenges and even sublingual drops is that if you swallow the liquid or chew the lozenge rather than have it absorbed in the mucosal, it will pass through the GI tract rather than be directly absorbed into the system. I know for a fact that the doctors I mentioned agree that creams are the best form. Although I did not know Josee was a GYN, I meant no disrespect to her, I was merely quoting the doctors opinions who I know are indeed experts in the field of bioidentical hormones. I know, the fact remains that many mainstream GYNs want to "paint all hormone replacement with the same brush" while they are, in fact, quite different for all of the reasons I mentioned. I could care less if the hormones are created in a lab or are derived from horses or cows or shoe leather as long as they are exact replicas of human hormones. The chemicalized versions created by “big pharma” were anything but exact replicas. Again, Equillin is horse estrogen and that configuration is quite different than human estrogen so it is very unfair of mainstream medicine to lump them in the same category. It is also wrong of mainstream medicine to try to scare women about their own hormones. Speaking about doctors hopping on the bioidentical hormone wagon, well I think big pharma did the same thing when they made Estrace and other "more natural" versions of estrogens & proclaim them as safer because the FDA regulates them. Well to me that's a joke. Just look at how many dangerous drugs have been released onto the marketplace under the watchful eye of the FDA. Not to mention, they make them in one-size fits all dosing. Also, I truly feel that when a woman reaches peri menopause, her perspective definitely changes particularly if she has horrible symptoms. We are living a lot longer than our ancestors and we shouldn’t have to suffer with symptoms like lack of sleep, forgetfulness, body aches and pains, vaginal dryness or pain, lack of desire, dry skin, hair, increased wrinkles, so and so forth. Talk about a poor quality of life. I truly believe that then and only then can a woman make that important decision. Btw, there are no large scale studies on bioidenticals because who would pay for them?
Best,
Aprile

free skin care · Sun Feb 06, 2011 7:23 pm

aprile wrote:

Just look at how many dangerous drugs have been released onto the marketplace under the watchful eye of the FDA.

We are living a lot longer than our ancestors and we shouldn’t have to suffer with symptoms like lack of sleep, forgetfulness, body aches and pains, vaginal dryness or pain, lack of desire, dry skin, hair, increased wrinkles, so and so forth. Talk about a poor quality of life.

I agree with you April. The FDA frankly has no credibility with me at all. The have too much hand holding with corps with deep pockets. And they don't protect us even in the chemicals they allow on the market much less all the toxic drugs that are pushed in the media.

I also agree about quality of life issues and that we're all so different. I'm so happy to use bioidentical hormones, I want to be happy, comfortable and enjoy every minute of the rest of my life!!!

free skin care · Sun Feb 06, 2011 7:44 pm

aprile wrote:

Btw, there are no large scale studies on bioidenticals because who would pay for them?

Well, isn't that the crux of the problem. If there are no studies with concrete evidence, how do we know what will work and what won't? If one group of BHRT experts state that creams don't work and that lozenges do, and another states that lozenges don't work and that creams do - how is any lay person supposed to know what the truth is without proper clinical studies.

I read something somewhere that another reason that the lozenges were considered preferable was because they avoided certain substances ending up in the liver (sorry, I'm drawing on memory now so I'm a bit hazy about it and I forgot where I read the info).

Also, I don't hold much credence in the "I used the cream and feel so much better" anecdotes because the Placebo Effect holds so much sway.

free skin care · Sun Feb 06, 2011 10:19 pm

This from one seller, it's out of the FDA's hands what compounding pharmacies do anyway! Of course on the site they would have you believe they are FDA approved as the hormones themselves are?
Just a thought who do we think have the labs and facilities large enough and equipped well enough to supply these sellers with the hormones in the first place?

http://www.bodylogicmd.com/faq/are-bioidentical-hormones-approved-and-regulated-by-the-fda

The ingredients in bioidentical hormones such as estrogen, progesterone and testosterone are approved by the FDA. However, state and local pharmacy boards have jurisdiction over them, not the FDA. It is important to know you are using the highest quality compounding pharmacy and that they follow the most stringent guidelines and have excellent quality assurance.

free skin care · Mon Feb 07, 2011 4:07 am

This article may have been posted before, not sure. But it contains some interesting information:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2219716/

Quote:

BACKGROUND
Progesterone creams and natural or bioidentical compounded estrogen preparations are being promoted to consumers as safe alternatives to conventional menopausal hormone therapy and as health-promoting tonics. No reliable data support these claims.

SAFETY
Natural hormones, including estradiol, estriol, estrone, and progesterone, can be expected to have the same adverse event profile as conventional menopausal hormone regimens.

SALIVARY HORMONE TESTS
Salivary tests may be used to persuade asymptomatic consumers to use hormones (or symptomatic patients to use higher doses than those needed to mitigate symptoms), a practice that can be expected to result in adverse events.

Further to my comment about bio-identicals being manufactured in a lab comes this quote from a very interesting article from Trusted.MD at http://trusted.md/blog/docrkp/2009/05/15/the_bioidentical_hormone_debate#axzz1DGfdW1Oa

Quote:

Despite their name, BH are synthesized in a lab from both plant (soy or yam) and animal (pigs and horses) hormones. CH products come from the same sources. Thus, many experts have concluded that the term BH is just a marketing term that helps to sell the perception that one drug is more natural, safer and better than another.

The author sums up by saying:

Quote:

People like Suzanne Somers and other advocates for BH often accuse drug makers or doctors of being in bed with pharma and trying suppress "the truth" about bioidenticals. But every study, wherever you stand on this issue, receives funding from somebody that stands to bias their results. Rather than solely focus on the money trail, look instead at the quality of the science--which studies give us valid results, the kind that can be repeated to ensure they're accurate, and can be applied most to a very specific group or people (in this case, postmenopausal women). It's also worth being very clear about the risks of anything you put into your body in terms of what it is, the amount and how long you take it.

I should make it clear that I don't have a particular stance on this subject - I'm a fence-sitter on this one. But I do wonder why it is really necessary to take any hormone replacement at all, given that menopause is a completely natural biological process and is not an illness. I wonder how we would react if it was suggested that children should take some form of medication in order to deal with the symptoms of puberty. However, at the moment I am taking traditional HRT - it was recommended by my doctor because my mother had chronic osteoporosis. And there are clinical studies which show that HRT does indeed increase bone density. I do wonder though whether I should be taking BHRT instead, but there are simply NO clinical studies which prove that BHRT is any safer than HRT.

I also wanted to point out to those of you who blame the FDA for everything and even accuse it of endangering the health of the citizens it is obligated to protect - that the FDA only has jurisdiction in the US. There's a whole world out there and each country has its own authoritative bodies who make decisions on what is safe for its citizens to take. So I don't believe that the "conspiracy theories" hold water.

free skin care · Mon Feb 07, 2011 6:10 am

Keliu wrote:

But I do wonder why it is really necessary to take any hormone replacement at all, given that menopause is a completely natural biological process and is not an illness.

Neither my mother nor my sister took HRT or BHRT. They went through menopause naturally. My mother had horrible "symptoms" with the crying, hot flashes, etc., but my sister has had none other than insomnia. I think it is mostly a matter of how many symptoms you are having and what you are willing to deal with! I am peri and it was already suggested I go on BHRT due to my "symptoms", but I have not done so, as I am also on the fence about this issue!

free skin care · Mon Feb 07, 2011 6:32 am

rileygirl wrote:

Neither my mother nor my sister took HRT or BHRT. They went through menopause naturally.

None of the mothers of my generation took HRT - it wasn't around then. And what about all the women in third world and developing countries - they wouldn't have the opportunity to take it. Apparently the use of HRT is low in Central, Eastern and Southern Europe and China.

free skin care · Mon Feb 07, 2011 9:50 am

I'm wary of the FDA because they don't protect me personally. I walk outside my condo and I cannot breathe and become physically sick because of the poison spewing out of my neighbor's dryers. Why do they allow me to be poisoned? Why do they say something that is making my physically sick is safe?

I don't think it's conspiracy per se, I think it's big money that won't allow change. A lot of us are tired of fighting against all the toxins in the environment and being deluged with ads for drugs and can't figure out why we can't just stop the madness.

I would love to see the same amount of media focused on healing and health as there are toxic commercials and ads.

If you google FDA whistleblower you'll see there's so much wrong going on there. Take Avandia for example, people DIED while risks were covered up.

I also agree about placebos! I was just talking about how useful that would be in CFS and other illness, doctors SHOULD tell people they can recover rather than saying all we can do is throw these antidepressants and other drugs at you. Why can't doctors be more optimistic even if they don't personally believe? the mind body connection is a truly untapped resource....(read Healing and Recovery by Dr. David Hawkins)

free skin care · Mon Feb 07, 2011 10:01 am

aprile wrote:

Hi Josee,
Many doctors who prescribe bioidentical hormones feel the creams are more effective. For one thing, they bypass the digestive track, are better absorbed by the body, hence the dose doesn't need to be so high.

Bypassing or not bypassing the digestive tract is not what really matter. What matters is how much concentration reaches the bloodstream.

In the past I would have agreed with you regarding absorption (of progesterone mainly, since there was never much problem with estrogens). But since micronized progesterone, there is no problem with absorption anymore.

Levels with creams are so unreliable that there are many cases reported of endometrial cancer following BHRT. This was obviously because the estrogen was not opposed properly with the progesterone cream.

With estrogens, it was always the other way around... way higher concentrations are achieved by ingesting e.g. 1 mg estriol dose po than dermally.

aprile wrote:

If you look to the experts in the field, Dr. Jonathan Wright, Dr. John Lee (now deceased) and Dr. Uzzi Reiss (anti-aging doctor to the stars), they all recommend the creams.

I would not consider any of these people experts in the sense of carrying out research but that`s beyond the point. The reason Dr. Wright advocates from cream (and at least in the medical community he advocates for intravaginal cream) it`s because he says it`s more "natural" and reflects more how nature releases hormones. However, he does not show any advantages to that.

aprile wrote:

The reason being, if you take hormones in a pill form, you cannot take tailor it to your personal needs. So, if you need more, you cannot take more (you can’t just double your pill dose.) Likewise, if you need less, you can’t decrease your dose.

You can actually find compounding pharmacies that will compound the pills so you can adjust it as you want.

aprile wrote:

Also, since most women do not have estrogen levels checked prior to experiencing menopausal symptoms, we don't really know what is "normal" for each of us. Not to mention that blood levels are not always reliable since they fluctuate so much.

Yes I agree which is why I think that HRT should be tailored to symptoms and not to bogus hormon levels. In addition, always ultrasounds should be done to control for endometrial hyperplasia.

aprile wrote:

Regarding your comment: “In addition, women that have increased levels of "natural" estrogens are at increased risk of estrogen-dependent cancers”. I’m not sure where you got this information from, but there is no proof of this statement. In fact, many cancers happen because of other contributory factors like hormonal imbalance. Women who are too young to take hormones, but may be taking birth control pills are also taking chemicalized hormones whether they know it or not. That, coupled with xeno estrogens from toxins in our environment, personal care &, cleaning products, and even hormones found in the meat and dairy we eat more more likely to contribute to excess estrogen in the body, and without sufficient progresterone to protect us, cancer may grow.

This would be the same as saying that really there`s no proof that cigarette smoke has anything to do with lung cancer and that all the other environmental causes are what`s doing it.

Yes, environmental factors definitely affect the cancer rate. But so do estrogens. Tamoxifen (a drug that blocks natural estrogen) has dramatically cut breast cancer relapse. Women with PCOS and estrogen dominance are at increased risk of endometrial and breast cancer.

aprile wrote:

Also, cancer often happens in women of peri-menopausal or menopausal age when estrogen levels are normally low.

Cancer is DETECTED in peri-menopausal or menopausal women, but that does not mean that it started at that point. In addition,even though the total estrogen load might be low, there is estrogen dominance which is the postulated culprit.

aprile wrote:

I love the comment by Dr. Reiss who said, “Currently estrogen is under attack as a major risk factor in the epidemic of breast cancer. I find this ludicrous. Estrogen is the hormone that distinguishes women’s unique gender. After two million years of human evolution, could the female hormone have suddenly turned into a serial killer? Would nature suddenly decide to create a one-gender series? Of course not. Incriminating estrogen is as logical as saying that your liver is the cause of liver cancer.”

Well... I find his comment ludicrous Smile

I could say the same thing for so many things... let`s say... T3 (thyroid hormone). Could, after million years, T3 be a killer? Did nature make a mistake? No, but if you start taking T3 like crazy you`re going to have problems. The same with every single hormone.

In addition, bringing up the past also makes no sense. Yes, people used to die at 30 from infectious diseases so I guess at that time it didn`t matter whether you popped kilos of estrogen or not.

aprile wrote:

Regarding using other substances to treat menopausal symptoms: there aren’t many products that can actually relieve symptoms like the real deal can. Not to mention, many women who are taking over-the-counter preparations to avoid taking estrogen & are getting relief ARE actually taking estrogen, it’s just not listed on the packaging and not in the same dosage.

I would disagree with this. Lots, and lots of people get symptom control with other meds. Some don`t and need to take HRT.

aprile wrote:

“As for the WHI study, women not only experienced heart disease and stroke, some also died from cancer. The reason many feel that bioidentical hormones are a safer choice is simple. It’s not just because they are made from plants or wild yam extract, it’s because they are an exact replica as those produced by the human body.

Again, I have yet to see ONE study that somehow shows that BHRT activates different receptors than regular HRT. So far, all that`s been published attests to the the contrary.

aprile wrote:

I see from your profile that you are only 34 years old ….. Let me just say that although you may feel a certain way right now, you may feel very differently by the time you hit menopause yourself! And if you’re lucky maybe, just maybe there might be a study to prove that they are, in fact, totally safe. ~ Aprile

As I said before, even with the current evidence, if I had no symptom control with other therapies, I would consider HRT. That doest not mean that I consider them harmless.

free skin care · Mon Feb 07, 2011 10:24 am

secretly wrote:

I'm wary of the FDA because they don't protect me personally. I walk outside my condo and I cannot breathe and become physically sick because of the poison spewing out of my neighbor's dryers. Why do they allow me to be poisoned? Why do they say something that is making my physically sick is safe?
If you google FDA whistleblower you'll see there's so much wrong going on there. Take Avandia for example, people DIED while risks were covered up.

I`m no fan of the FDA. However, I`m also no fan of anyone trying to make cash while not guaranteeing safety to the public. And I don`t see any difference between chemical companies selling BHRT and big pharma. Neither has the best interest of the patient in mind. Neither will go an extra step or lose a bit of money to carry out research for safety.

free skin care · Mon Feb 07, 2011 11:27 am

Grrrr... sorry I posted the same thing twice.

I`d like to add also that there`s nothing "natural" in HRT, the same way that there`s nothing "natural" about using Retin-A.

For hundreds of years women did not use HRT. The "natural" thing is for hormone levels to decline.

So to be honest, this "natural" claim that the doctor makes... does not hold any water.

free skin care · Mon Feb 07, 2011 4:59 pm

Josee wrote:

Grrrr... sorry I posted the same thing twice.

I`d like to add also that there`s nothing "natural" in HRT, the same way that there`s nothing "natural" about using Retin-A.

For hundreds of years women did not use HRT. The "natural" thing is for hormone levels to decline.

So to be honest, this "natural" claim that the doctor makes... does not hold any water.

Exactly!! I often wonder, if nature intended for our hormone levels to decline, what are we doing to ourselves by replacing them?

free skin care · Tue Feb 08, 2011 7:20 am

Sorry ~ I was having trouble getting the quote key to work, I tried posting several times and so I decided to go this route. ~ Aprile

Bypassing or not bypassing the digestive tract is not what really matter. What matters is how much concentration reaches the bloodstream.

I HAVE READ THAT THE PROBLEM WITH TAKING ESTROGEN ORALLY IS THAT IT TRAVELS BY MOUTH DIRECTLY TO THE DIGESTIVE TRACT. THEN ONCE IN THE LIVER, THE LIVER PERCEIVES THERE IS TOO MUCH ESTROGEN AND RELEASES A SURGE OF SHBG TO BIND UP THE EXCESS ESTROGEN. I'VE READ THIS IS PARTICULARLY TRUE WHEN YOU TAKE ESTROGEN IN PILL FORM. SO BECAUSE OF THIS, YOU WON'T BE RECEIVING THE FULL BENEFIT FROM YOUR DOSE AND YOUR BODY WILL NEED EVEN MORE. I'VE ALSO READ THAT SHBG NOT ONLY CANCELS OUT ESTROGEN, BUT ALSO OTHER HORMONES ALONG WITH IT. I’VE READ IT CAN HAPPEN WITH CREAM FORM BUT TO A MUCH LESSER EXTENT.

Levels with creams are so unreliable that there are many cases reported of endometrial cancer following BHRT. This was obviously because the estrogen was not opposed properly with the progesterone cream.

REALLY? I HAVE NOT BEEN ABLE TO FIND ONE SINGLE LARGE-SCALE STUDY ON BHRT. I WOULD HONESTLY LIKE TO KNOW WHERE WE CAN VIEW THAT INFORMATION. WHO FUNDED THE STUDY AND WHAT WERE THE EXACT FINDINGS. ALSO, SINCE AS YOU SAY CANCERS HAVE MOST LIKELY BEEN GROWING FOR A WHILE IN THE BODY BEFORE THEY ARE DETECTED, HOW IS IT THE STUDY INCRIMINATED BHRT?

Yes, environmental factors definitely affect the cancer rate. But so do estrogens. Tamoxifen (a drug that blocks natural estrogen) has dramatically cut breast cancer relapse. Women with PCOS and estrogen dominance are at increased risk of endometrial and breast cancer.

WHILE TAMOXIFEN MAY DECREASE BREAST CANCER, THOSE PATIENTS MAY BE TRADING ONE CANCER FOR ANOTHER. EVEN THE BREASTCANCER.ORG WEBSITE STATES THAT “TAMOXIFEN MAY ALSO CAUSE NON-CANCEROUS CHANGES IN THE UTERUS. IN SOME WOMEN, IT MAY INCREASE THE RISK OF BLOOD CLOTS OR ENDOMETRIAL CANCER (CANCER IN THE LINING OF THE UTERUS).”

I could say the same thing for so many things... let`s say... T3 (thyroid hormone). Could, after million years, T3 be a killer? Did nature make a mistake? No, but if you start taking T3 like crazy you`re going to have problems. The same with every single hormone.

YES, OF COURSE, BUT WE ARE NOT TAKING ESTROGEN LIKE CRAZY, WE ARE TAKING IT TO RID OURSELVES OF SYMPTOMS.

I would disagree with this. Lots, and lots of people get symptom control with other meds. Some don`t and need to take HRT.

OTHER MEDS? ARE YOU REFERRING TO TAKING MEDICATIONS TO CONTROL MENOPAUSAL SYMPTOMS SUCH AS SLEEPING PILLS FOR TROUBLE SLEEPING, ANTI-DEPRESSANTS FOR DEPRESSION AND ANXIETY OR ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT USING HERBAL TREATMENTS? I HAVE READ THAT HERBALS DON’T HELP A VERY LARGE PERCENTAGE OF WOMEN, CERTAINLY NOT THOSE WITH A WIDE ARRAY OF SYMPTOMS. FOR INSTANCE, BLACK COHOSH CAN LESSEN HOT FLASHES, BUT THAT IS JUST ONE SYMPTOM. MACA IS SUPPOSED TO LESSEN MORE SYMPTOMS, BUT IS NOT RECOMMENDED FOR THOSE WITH BREAST CANCER HISTORY OR THOSE AT RISK. RED CLOVER AND POMEGRANATE ARE ESTROGEN COMPOUNDS AND SOY IS A WEAK PHYTOESTROGEN THAT CAN BE HELPFUL FOR SOME WOMEN. SO I’D BE CURIOUS TO KNOW WHAT YOU MEAN BY “OTHER MEDS.”

Again, I have yet to see ONE study that somehow shows that BHRT activates different receptors than regular HRT. So far, all that`s been published attests to the the contrary.

ISN’T IT MORE IMPORTANT TO LEARN HOW TO PROTECT AGAINST THE BAD METABOLITES (16 AND 4 HYDROXY ESTRONE? WHAT ABOUT THE VARIOUS SUPPLEMENTS SUCH AS INDOLE 3 CARBINOL, CURCUMIN? ALSO, I WOULD LIKE TO SEE THE STUDIES YOU SPEAK ABOUT THAT PROVE THAT BHRT AFFECTS THE BODY THE SAME AS TRADITIONAL EQUINE HRT.

free skin care · Tue Feb 08, 2011 8:19 am

Keliu wrote:

rileygirl wrote:

Neither my mother nor my sister took HRT or BHRT. They went through menopause naturally.

None of the mothers of my generation took HRT - it wasn't around then. And what about all the women in third world and developing countries - they wouldn't have the opportunity to take it. Apparently the use of HRT is low in Central, Eastern and Southern Europe and China.

I am not sure this is completly correct Keliu, my mother had a hystorectomy at 40, that was 52 years ago and was put on hormones to aleive symptoms of "overnight menopause". However the hormone replacement was much worse in her case than any symptoms from her hystorectomy and she refused to continue them after a short period of time. She felt much better OFF hormones than ON. Going through an artificial "menopause" almost instantly would seem harder to tolerate than a natural, gradual process?
I can't say exactly what the pills were as I was only 5 at that time.

free skin care · Tue Feb 08, 2011 10:15 am

I guess it comes down to personal choice, severity of symptoms and so on... and given the information you have re: risks benefits. Here's just one paper in the literature (there are quite a few actually):

The bioidentical hormone debate: are bioidentical hormones (estradiol, estriol, and progesterone) safer or more efficacious than commonly used synthetic versions in hormone replacement therapy? Postgrad Med. 2009 Jan;121(1):73-85.

Abstract

BACKGROUND: The use of bioidentical hormones, including progesterone, estradiol, and estriol, in hormone replacement therapy (HRT) has sparked intense debate. Of special concern is their relative safety compared with traditional synthetic and animal-derived versions, such as conjugated equine estrogens (CEE), medroxyprogesterone acetate (MPA), and other synthetic progestins. Proponents for bioidentical hormones claim that they are safer than comparable synthetic and nonhuman versions of HRT. Yet according to the US Food and Drug Administration and The Endocrine Society, there is little or no evidence to support claims that bioidentical hormones are safer or more effective.

OBJECTIVE: This paper aimed to evaluate the evidence comparing bioidentical hormones, including progesterone, estradiol, and estriol, with the commonly used nonbioidentical versions of HRT for clinical efficacy, physiologic actions on breast tissue, and risks for breast cancer and cardiovascular disease.

METHODS: Published papers were identified from PubMed/MEDLINE, Google Scholar, and Cochrane databases, which included keywords associated with bioidentical hormones, synthetic hormones, and HRT. Papers that compared the effects of bioidentical and synthetic hormones, including clinical outcomes and in vitro results, were selected.

RESULTS: Patients report greater satisfaction with HRTs that contain progesterone compared with those that contain a synthetic progestin. Bioidentical hormones have some distinctly different, potentially opposite, physiological effects compared with their synthetic counterparts, which have different chemical structures. Both physiological and clinical data have indicated that progesterone is associated with a diminished risk for breast cancer, compared with the increased risk associated with synthetic progestins. Estriol has some unique physiological effects, which differentiate it from estradiol, estrone, and CEE. Estriol would be expected to carry less risk for breast cancer, although no randomized controlled trials have been documented. Synthetic progestins have a variety of negative cardiovascular effects, which may be avoided with progesterone.

CONCLUSION: Physiological data and clinical outcomes demonstrate that bioidentical hormones are associated with lower risks, including the risk of breast cancer and cardiovascular disease, and are more efficacious than their synthetic and animal-derived counterparts. Until evidence is found to the contrary, bioidentical hormones remain the preferred method of HRT. Further randomized controlled trials are needed to delineate these differences more clearly.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19179815

free skin care · Tue Feb 08, 2011 4:37 pm

http://www.mayoclinic.com/health/bioidentical-hormones/AN01133

Question
Bioidentical hormones: Are they safer?
Are bioidentical hormones safer and more effective than traditional hormone therapy for menopause symptoms?

Answer
from Mary Gallenberg, M.D.
No, they aren't. According to the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and several medical specialty groups, bioidentical hormones may be riskier than standard hormone therapy, and there's no evidence they're any more effective.

Bioidentical hormones have become popular in recent years, partly because of celebrity endorsements and partly in reaction to reports of increased health risks with standard hormone therapy. The term "bioidentical" means the hormones in the product are chemically identical to those your body produces. In fact, they are — but so are the hormones used in many FDA-approved hormone replacement products.

Marketers of bioidentical hormones say their products have these advantages over standard hormone therapy:

They're derived from plant chemicals, not synthesized in a laboratory. Some FDA-approved products (Estrace, Climara patch and Vivelle-Dot patch, and Prometrium natural progesterone) are also derived from plants.
They're produced in doses and forms that differ from those in FDA-approved products. Some bioidentical hormone products are available without a prescription, but most require a prescription. Also, for many nonstandard combinations, you need to go through a compounding pharmacy. Compounding pharmacies specialize in making medications customized for individual needs, such as inability to swallow solids or allergy to a binding agent in a tablet. However, products from compounding pharmacies have not been subject to the same rigorous quality assurance standards that standard commercially available hormonal preparations have to meet.
They're custom made for you, based on a test of your saliva to assess your unique hormonal needs. Unfortunately, however, the hormone levels in your saliva don't reflect the levels in your blood or correspond to menopause symptoms.
Some women may benefit from nonstandard doses and forms of hormones in bioidentical hormone preparations, but there is almost no scientific support for an advantage of these compounds over common commercially produced preparations.

Automatic Message

If this is your first visit to the EDS Forums please take the time to register. Registration is required for you to post on the forums. Registration will also give you the ability to track messages of interest, send private messages to other users, participate in Gift Certificates draws and enjoy automatic discounts for shopping at our online store. Registration is free and takes just a few seconds to complete.

Click Here to join our community.

If you are already a registered member on the forums, please login to gain full access to the site.