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

free skin care · Thu Aug 13, 2009 10:48 am

Hi Aprile,
Thank you for taking the time to respond to my post at length. It's always good to exchange ideas and bring different points of view!

aprile wrote:

First off, the FDA has a terrible reputation of releasing dangerous drugs onto the marketplace before they've been adequately tested only to have to yank them at a later date.

Well that's for sure, we can remember HRT and how everyone was happy to jump the bandwagon!

aprile wrote:

Someone needs to tell us what the FDA has done to determine whether or not they are safe. Have they ordered the pharmaceutical companies to perform ANY large scale studies on the bio-identicals? Short answer ~ No.

The thing is that it's not the FDA's mandate to do that. Companies interested in getting the FDA's "OK" are the ones that have to fund their own RCTs to prove efficacy and safety. If BHRT companies are so sure about their efficacy and safety they should be willing to do these trials, but they haven't. In that sense, I don't consider them any more (un)scrupulous than big pharmaceutical companies, especially given all the unproven claims the boast about. It's sad, but it's very hard to find companies that truly care about the wellbeing of people Sad

aprile wrote:

Well, given the fact that the studies that were performed by the WHI proved that conventional HRT was in fact dangerous, that would lead me to believe that it was the chemical MIS-configuration of those drugs that caused the problem. Take for instance the drug Premarin, created in a laboratory from the urine of pregnant mares. The problem with this equation is this ~ the human body does not contain the hormone, Equillon. Should there be no problem putting this hormone into the human body? You bet there is! Obviously, there was a huge problem with that drug.

The problem is not really because the source of the hormones was animal. The problem was the ESTROGENIC effect of those drugs, which BHRT hormones also have.

Women who "naturally" have an hormonal imbalance (or for e.g. obese women who naturally have more external convertion to estrogen), have an increased risk of gynecological cancers, including breast cancer, and stroke, and other diseases. And they are not taking external hormones is really bio-identical hormones who are doing the change.

As we age, our cell reproduction slows down. This is actually good because since we're old, our cell division doesn't work as well, so there are more chances of cells "mutating" or becoming abnormal after division. Thankfully, our immune system (among other things) "catches" these cells and kills them most of the time. Sometimes they don't die and so we have ... cancer.
Now if you take estrogens, whether they're bio-identical or not, you will stimulate cell division in certain tissues that are susceptible to estrogen (e.g. breast cancer). So by stimulating cell division you're increasing the rate at which cell divide and thus increasing the chances of abnormal cell division. Increasing the chances of abnormal cell division will increase your risk of getting cancer, just because the more abnormal cells you have, the more chances that the immune system will not be able to "kill them all".

aprile wrote:

While I agree with you about the disastrous results of the WHI trial, natural hormones or bio-identiccals shouldn't be lumped into the same category as those chemical based drugs.

The problem is that BHRT has estrogenic effects. And estrogenic stimulation, by different methods including bioidentical hormones (though in vitro) has shown stimulation of cancer cells.

So given the fact that substances that have estrogenic effects are associated with cancer and other adverse effects, unfortunately the sensible thing to assume from a public health perspective is that BHRT will have the same effects as other estrogenic compounds (esp. since when there's increased natural estrogenic load there's also increased risk of cancer). It would be irresponsible to say that the're safe, though people are free to choose their course of action.

aprile wrote:

I know you are saying that you would never ever take any product containing any form of estrogen. However, at age 35 I doubt you are at the point of having terrible symptoms. If you are, please forgive me. Assuming you're not at that point yet, you might rethink your stance if you've lost your memory, your hair, your sex drive, you're retaining tons of water, you're short-tempered, depressed, have anxiety, a hard time sleeping, you're exhausted, have achy bones ~ PLUS your face is beginning to drop from a lack of testosterone.

I don't have any terrible symptoms (thank God!) but I have patients who have terrible symptoms, plus I saw many patients with terrible symptoms during my menopause fellowship. Personally, the decision for me it's easy because I have a strong family history of breast cancer, including my mom and grandma, have lost many family members to breast cancer, so I wouldn't want to risk it. I have never even taken OCP.

As a doctor, I have had to put less than 1% of the women on HRT that I have treated. Most of the times, we find alternative treatments and the women are satisfied. Of course, it is a LOT more intensive than prescribing HRT or BHRT, since you really need to see the woman every week and re-evaluate, and tweak things here and there until you have controlled everything. That's also why many doctors would rather prescribe HRT than try to work out with the woman the best non-hormonal solution. And I've never lost a patient, so they must be happy since they don't switch to someone else!

Yes, there are things that no matter what, you cannot achieve without HRT and in the end is the decision of each women whether they want to take the risks or not.

One of my mom's best friends died last year of estrogen-positive cancer. Unfortunately the cancer spread everywhere and she ended up with an inoperable brain tumor that did not respond to any treatment.

One of the reasons she took HRT was because she liked the "one-pill" solution and because HRT gave her a glow in her skin that all her friends (including my mom) envied! She consulted me about HRT and I told her what I thought and I said that if I were her, I would try other things, but that without hormones it was hard to keep the skin glow. Well, she knew the risks and still chose to take it and then when she got sick she was still not regretting her decision to take HRT.

So we all have different things we want in life, different things are important to different people, so in the end, as long as the choice is doing fully knowing the benefits and risks, then it's an educated choice. Smile

All the best,
Josee

free skin care · Thu Aug 13, 2009 12:20 pm

Josee, thank you for the very generous sharing of your knowledge and time!

I had been on Premarin for 21 years when I stopped taking it in February (tapering off for several months before actually stopping).

All of the symptoms I would have had at an appropriate age I am now experiencing at 69. I have considered BHRT for some relief but because of your invaluable input here in this forum, I am seriously rethinking that. I am in good health and not taking any medications so I just might ride this one out.

Thank you again!

free skin care · Thu Aug 13, 2009 5:18 pm

Please note that there is a safety net in US already. If a personal income is below a particular level health care is provided for free. Once you get above this level you are expected to pay.

Health care discussion boils down to two basic principles which are not really health care related. One focuses on individuals the second one on collective.

From individualistic stand point one is responsible for his own being etc. On the other hand from collective point of view needs are expected to be satisfied at someone else expense. There is no free lunch and in order to get something for "free" it should be taken from someone else. Anything so called "free" comes with strings attached, and overall level of life declines. It applies to health care as well.

When individual rights are in focus those come with individual responsibilities. Which include rights to succeed or to fail. There are no guarantees. US was founded on these principles.

free skin care · Thu Aug 13, 2009 5:35 pm

AnnieR I think you should take the advice from above (can't recall who suggested it) and find compounding pharmacies in your area and then call to find out what doctors are prescribing it.

I had to read and summarize a TOME for a client, The Divided Welfare State by Jacob Hacker, while it was very dry it was very informative. He talks about all of our entitlement programs and how they came to be. America's system is a mix of direct state spending which is regulated by govt.(such as Social Security/Medicare) and private spending like employer plans/pensions that are encouraged by tax subsidies (like tax-advantaged 401(k) plans and health insurance).

Health care is provided/funded primarily by private employer-based insurance programs and also heavily subsidized (which encourages those with deep pockets who are being treated favorably by tax subsidies to put huge money into fighting any changes). And the old and the poor are covered by govt. programs.

Universal health care is very difficult to get through Congress because of the huge huge system of private health care, whose stakeholders tend to risk their enormous profits. Hacker didn't discuss the role of Big Pharm but he did talk about how the AMA has resisted any change because doctors have historically wanted to charge more for those who can pay more. But that's all changed because a lot of doctors now support health care change because they don't want to push papers and employ enormous offices of insurance de-tanglers and they want to provide the care they think a patient needs (not have to check that their insurance co. will cover it). The other huge consideration is that universal care has to be a mandate because if a few don't opt in then they will be the ones to keep costs artificially high (for example someone without insurance in a pool of insured people gets hit by a bus and is in a trauma unit for 3 months without insurance, then all insured end up paying for his care). So how to mandate all be insured has been a difficult thing, not everyone has the same financial ability.

The health care proposal that's being worked on has provisions like, if you already have health insurance that you like you can keep it but you'll pay less because the point of all of this is to get rid of the fluff that is costing everyone so much while continually going up in cost, while making a few very very rich. Obama has said he's not going to sign anything that doesn't lower costs. Govt. bureaucrats aren't going to be deciding your care (right now insurance bureaucrats are) instead the plan is to provide a "public option" that would help the uninsured get coverage and keep the insurance companies "honest."

They want to reform the system by expanding coverage, improving quality, lowering costs, honoring patient choice and holding insurance companies accountable.

The other aspect is to promote responsible science and technological innovation ahead of ideology when it comes to medical research (rather than allowing pharm etc. to beat and massage the data so that they can push their drugs for trumped up illnesses). And so that they can insure that innovations and medical science are credible and everyone has equal access (as possible).

Finally the plan is to promote smart preventative care, like cancer screenings and better nutrition, and make critical improvements/changes in electronic health records & technology to reduce errors and redundancy in care and tests that's enormously costly.

I like to actually read the literature and make up my own mind about issues. So I hope that some of my reading is helpful here too.

free skin care · Thu Aug 13, 2009 9:11 pm

I am a political junkie and as I understand the politicians in office (how sad is that) have not read the entire healthcare proposal. Apparently a large and unwieldy document (so what does that mean?) Loopholes, provisions for anything the government decides to change, etc. Ametica's government is changing dramatically. If it was a document that everyone could access, read and understand it would surely help the approach to have universal health care, but sadly it is not that.

free skin care · Fri Aug 14, 2009 5:48 am

sister sweets wrote:

I am a political junkie and as I understand the politicians in office (how sad is that) have not read the entire healthcare proposal. Apparently a large and unwieldy document (so what does that mean?) Loopholes, provisions for anything the government decides to change, etc. Ametica's government is changing dramatically. If it was a document that everyone could access, read and understand it would surely help the approach to have universal health care, but sadly it is not that.

Sisters sweet, I was appalled to read that some congressmen had not read the proposal yet!!

You know what you can do, you can ask your congressman for a copy of it. We have resident who's from NY and he asked his congressman for a copy of it and he got it. Now we all have copies of it and are reading it (though we're all canadians, we're following this health care debate with great interest!).

It's not that difficult to read, and if you're a politics junkie I'm sure you'll enjoy it!

free skin care · Fri Aug 14, 2009 6:09 am

mpstat wrote:

Please note that there is a safety net in US already. If a personal income is below a particular level health care is provided for free. Once you get above this level you are expected to pay.

Actually not everyone that has low income qualifies for Medicaid and even if you qualify for medicaid, not all services are free. For e.g. if you're diagnosed with HIV, your cell count needs to drop to a certain level to get the drugs. This is obviously not good since the current medical recommendations state that all HIV+ patients should get treatment. However, obviously low-income people would not be able to afford the drugs.

Another big problem is that there's a lot of people that don't qualify for Medicaid, but their health insurance and deductibles are very high because they have multiple chronic diseases.

And yet another big problem is people that don't qualify for medicaid but can't afford insurance, another is that some people are "uninsurable" because no one wants to insure them due to their multiple chronic diseases, etc, etc.

mpstat wrote:

Health care discussion boils down to two basic principles which are not really health care related. One focuses on individuals the second one on collective.

From individualistic stand point one is responsible for his own being etc. On the other hand from collective point of view needs are expected to be satisfied at someone else expense. There is no free lunch and in order to get something for "free" it should be taken from someone else.

Yes, this is in the end, what the debate comes to and it's somewhat of an irreconcilable philosophical position.
Some people (like myself) believe that we are all in a sense responsible for everyone's well-being in a society, even if that comes at a certain cost.
I live in Canada and in the province that pays the MOST taxes. It's crazy. However, I personally pay my taxes happily because I know that with my taxes, free health-care is provided for everyone, subsidized education (including university education) is provided for everyone, subsidized day-care is also provided, and many other benefits.
But I understand that this is my philosophy and there's other people that believe that they work really hard and should not be paying for others. In the end is society as a whole who determines which policy will be followed. In Canada, health care is really viewed as a human right so most people support universal health care.

mpstat wrote:

Anything so called "free" comes with strings attached, and overall level of life declines. It applies to health care as well.

I actually disagree with this. As it has been said all over this thread, countries who have universal health care score better than the US in health care rankings and quality of life rankings. Countries with progressive taxation are among the top in the development indexes.

mpstat wrote:

When individual rights are in focus those come with individual responsibilities. Which include rights to succeed or to fail. There are no guarantees. US was founded on these principles.

Yes, if all of us were born in the same condition, then that premise would be true. But we are not all born in the same position. For e.g. I was lucky to go to a very good school which allowed me to go to a very good university. I didn't have to work through university which allowed me to have great grades and lots of electives which then allowed me to go to a really good med school. And so on.
I doubt that someone born to a junkie mother, went to a terrible public school, had no support whatsoever would have the same success chances as I had.

Finally, if you read the preamble of the Constitution of the United States (and the biographies of the founding fathers), I think you would conclude that the founding fathers were trying to guarantee the well-being of all and that they did not suscribe at all to the "you're on your own, if you can success, then great, if not, it's your responsibility and deal with it".

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, ensure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

All the best,
Josee

free skin care · Fri Aug 14, 2009 7:38 am

Josee, could you please comment on why estriol (e3) has been found to be preventive in terms of breast ca development? It is my understanding that it cannot in itself induce ca, but targets the estrogen receptors in breast tissue, in effect preventing the stronger estrogen, e1, from targeting the receptors and causing cell replication. This is mentioned in Dr. Marcus Laux's writings and those of Christine Conrad.

free skin care · Fri Aug 14, 2009 11:21 am

Antonia wrote:

Josee, could you please comment on why estriol (e3) has been found to be preventive in terms of breast ca development? It is my understanding that it cannot in itself induce ca, but targets the estrogen receptors in breast tissue, in effect preventing the stronger estrogen, e1, from targeting the receptors and causing cell replication. This is mentioned in Dr. Marcus Laux's writings and those of Christine Conrad.

Actually estriol has not been found to prevent breast cancer and people claiming otherwise are selectively citing some literature and wrongly interpreting other. IMHO, they should be more responsible before making such claims.

People who claim "estriol prevents breast cancer" base their claim mainly on:

a. In some animal models, rats that were given estriol (and then given a breast-cancer inducing substance) had less breast cancer than rats who had been given placebo. They were given the estriol 48-72 hours before the insult.
However, it's quite obvious that this should not be extrapolated to human beings. In addition, many estrogens given in a short-term in breast cancer patients produce temporary remission, but it doesn't mean that estrogens are protective of breast cancer!

b. In older studies (in the 70s mostly) it was shown that women with no breast cancer had higher estriol than women with breast cancer. However, to conclude that "estriol" is then protective is flawed for 2 reasons:

1. Estriol could be a MARKER of disase-free, not necessarily a causal factor. This is very common. As it is usually said in the medical sciences "association does not mean causation".

2. Estriol in postmenopausal women did not show the same association. Increase in serum estriol, estrone and estradiol are associated with increased risk of breast cancer

There are absolutely no interventional long-term studies that indicate that estriol is protective of breast cancer.

There are 2 main estrogen receptors, alpha and beta (let's name them ER1 and ER2).

ER1 is associated with breast cancer while ER2 is either less associated with breast cancer or could actually have an anti-proliferation effect (evidence is contradictory).

Estradiol(whether bioidentical or not) binds to both receptors, estrone (bioidentical or not) favors ER1 and estriol favors ER2. In addition, estriol has a much weaker estrogenic effect.
It is for these reasons that estriol could have less negative effects than estrone or estradiol, but by no means it means that it's protective. However, we need to remember that estriol is metabolized to 16-hydroxyestrone, which is increased in patients with breast cancer.

Estriol is prescribed greatly for short-term relief of vaginal dryness, hot flushes, and urinary incontinence, but it seems it has no effect on osteoporosis or CV health.

Finally, this is one of the reasons why I find many "alternative medicine" people as inescrupulous as pharmaceutical companies. These people choose selective pieces from the medical literature to make their claims misleading lots and lots of people. They make assertions out of thin air and don't seem to care about the consequences. They are making LOTS and LOTS of money and still never try to conduct serious studies to try to prove their claims Sad

All the best,
Josee

free skin care · Fri Aug 14, 2009 11:28 am

Antonia wrote:

It is my understanding that it cannot in itself induce ca, but targets the estrogen receptors in breast tissue, in effect preventing the stronger estrogen, e1, from targeting the receptors and causing cell replication.

Sorry I forgot to answer this. This was believed years ago before the nature of ER was clarified. But since then it has been shown that tissues do not exhibit a particular preference for estriol or estradiol/estrone uptake and that in fact, estriol binds to ER2 more selectively, so that debunked the theory.

One of the best articles on estriol is :
Unconventional Estrogens: Estriol, Biest, and Triest, by Tayoor, M. It was published in Cinical Obstetrics and Gynecology, Volume 44 (4), pp 864-879.

free skin care · Fri Aug 14, 2009 11:48 am

The Constitution contains guaranteed and protected rights and freedoms of US citizens. The Constitution guarantees rights and freedoms to everybody that do not cost anybody to give up their property or time. The rights guaranteed and protected by constitution include freedom of religion and speech, the right to peacefully assemble, keep and bear arms etc. Universal health care is not a guaranteed right.

Medicare and Medicaid are social medical programs in place today already. Medicaid is entirely free, and that is true you need to meet certain requirements to qualify for them, and thousands of really needy people qualify for it. Those programs are broke and inefficient as everything else run by government.

Which brings another point why not to apply all the great proposals for the new healthcare system to already existing social medical programs? They are already in place. Make them all cost effective, efficient, highly competitive first.

I agree that individualism vs collectivism are irreconcilable philosophical positions. And we are unlikely to come to a mutual agreement on multiple issues including healthcare.

From my personal experience I have lived in several countries, including socialist and capitalist counties so I have a broad range of experiences with different systems. I am still to find what exactly government runs better, more efficient, and with greater satisfaction, then private sector……

free skin care · Fri Aug 14, 2009 12:25 pm

Josee wrote:

Antonia wrote:

It is my understanding that it cannot in itself induce ca, but targets the estrogen receptors in breast tissue, in effect preventing the stronger estrogen, e1, from targeting the receptors and causing cell replication.

Sorry I forgot to answer this. This was believed years ago before the nature of ER was clarified. But since then it has been shown that tissues do not exhibit a particular preference for estriol or estradiol/estrone uptake and that in fact, estriol binds to ER2 more selectively, so that debunked the theory.

One of the best articles on estriol is :
Unconventional Estrogens: Estriol, Biest, and Triest, by Tayoor, M. It was published in Cinical Obstetrics and Gynecology, Volume 44 (4), pp 864-879.

So Josee, when a lab tells me that the reason I have "abnormally high" free estradiol is likely because my estrogen receptors have been targeted by the estriol that I use, this is likely not true? My estradiol was up to a pre-meno figure yet I am six years past.

While not suggesting that what you are saying isn't accurate, I need to do a little more updating of my knowledge if the estriol uptake theory and associated risk of breast cancer is no longer valid. So does my doctor (allopathic) and my naturopathic physician. I will try to get into this at the weekend. Thanks for your response...

free skin care · Fri Aug 14, 2009 12:45 pm

I agree with mpstat.

Having personal experience in several countries with socialized medicine and USA and having info about the system in Germany, France and Australia - the one we have is still second to none (if you know how to navigate it), even with all the problems that are present - under-insured people, unscrupulous HMOs, unscrupulous insurance companies, hospitals, pharmaceuticals, etc.

I must be not the only one thinking that since people from around the world are coming to USA to get treated (many buy special international insurance to get covered).

There are 3 government run medical programs today in USA - medicaid, medicare and VA.

All are in in trouble (i.e. only 25 cents of each $1 spent on Medicare is actually going towards the services the recipient gets, the rest is "administrative costs").

That is what should be fixed IMHO - less "paper pushers" in "non-for-profit" hospitals, limit hospital's fee, guidelines for professional fees (doctors, labs, etc), guidelines for hospital regarding their fees, amount of non- professional employees (no more then 25%), etc.; strict guidelines for insurance companies (no cherry picking, no exempting pre-existing conditions, etc); some way of discarding frivolous law suits while allowing the real cases to proceed (but not the tort reform proposed now), etc.

The medicaid should be expanded that people with low incomes can pay very little to get it and have access to basic care.

The professional fees to medicaid and medicare providers should be increased, so there is a way to provide good care and make a normal living, etc.

All of that can be done without destroying the current system, but enhancing it and expanding when needed - but it would go against Big Pharma, Hospital Corp., GE and insurance companies,...

In any case - I have tons of ideas, and no one interested in listening to them. So I appreciate the opportunity to present them - thanks to all of you for your patience and best of health to all!

free skin care · Fri Aug 14, 2009 1:07 pm

I hate to see people who need and would be helped by BHRT avoiding it because of fear. You go to a dr who specialises in this, and have ongoing saliva tests to determine your true levels (blood tests are almost useless once your hormone levels start to drop). You are aiming for a level you had at 30 years old. My dr says BHRT is prescribed for women with breast cancer.

free skin care · Fri Aug 14, 2009 1:24 pm

Justine, I am encouraged to hear that...

free skin care · Fri Aug 14, 2009 1:46 pm

Josee, ia the study to which you refer (involving rats)this one:

Melamed M, Castano E, Notides AC, Sasson S. Molecular and kinetic basis for the mixed agonist/antagonist activity of estriol. Mol Endocrinol. 1997 Nov;11(12):1868-78. ?

free skin care · Fri Aug 14, 2009 2:30 pm

Justine1900 wrote:

I hate to see people who need and would be helped by BHRT avoiding it because of fear. You go to a dr who specialises in this, and have ongoing saliva tests to determine your true levels (blood tests are almost useless once your hormone levels start to drop). You are aiming for a level you had at 30 years old. My dr says BHRT is prescribed for women with breast cancer.

Prescribing BHRT or HRT to women who had breast cancer is not only irresponsible but against absolutely all the science that is out there. It is also in contradiction with every single treatment guideline of every single medical organization.

Most breast cancers are ESTROGEN dependent which means they GROW stimulated by estrogen. This is the reason the STANDARD care is to prescribe tamoxifen (an antiestrogen) to women who had breast cancer. In most cases this estrogen is the one YOU produce, which is by definition BIOIDENTICAL.

Why would anyone prescribe BHRT or HRT to someone who had breast cancer is beyond me.

free skin care · Fri Aug 14, 2009 3:15 pm

Antonia wrote:

Josee, ia the study to which you refer (involving rats)this one:

Melamed M, Castano E, Notides AC, Sasson S. Molecular and kinetic basis for the mixed agonist/antagonist activity of estriol. Mol Endocrinol. 1997 Nov;11(12):1868-78. ?

Yes that's the study I was referring to, but it was not done in rats.

It was done with synthesized human ERs (cell-free).
The problem is that studies done in vivo and with tissue don't support the theory.

free skin care · Fri Aug 14, 2009 3:21 pm

How strange that the Life Extension Foundation cites this study in support of estriol and BHRT. I think I have my reading cut out...

free skin care · Fri Aug 14, 2009 3:49 pm

Antonia wrote:

So Josee, when a lab tells me that the reason I have "abnormally high" free estradiol is likely because my estrogen receptors have been targeted by the estriol that I use, this is likely not true? My estradiol was up to a pre-meno figure yet I am six years past.

While not suggesting that what you are saying isn't accurate, I need to do a little more updating of my knowledge if the estriol uptake theory and associated risk of breast cancer is no longer valid. So does my doctor (allopathic) and my naturopathic physician. I will try to get into this at the weekend. Thanks for your response...

Antonia, there are many reasons why your estriol could be high that have little to do with taking or not taking estriol and that might not reflect what's happening at the tissue.

Did you do your test by saliva or by blood? Because saliva tests do not correlate well AT ALL with bioavailable serum levels. Its reproducibility is also not good and it's highly influenced by the time of the day and even what you eat. For e.g. there was a recent study in which So you can have high saliva levels, but low serum levels, and it's serum levels that matter.

We really wanted to institute salivary test in the service, they're so convenient and way better than blood tests. But after doing lots of research (if you want I can provide you with several references) and seating through lots of companies' rep we decided against it Sad

We are still considering implementing it for other things where absolute values are not as important.

All the best,
Josee

free skin care · Fri Aug 14, 2009 3:53 pm

Josee, I don't know if you made a typo or I confused you there...my E1 was abnormally high, not my E3. It was a salivary test. My doctor did a blood test at the same time and my E1 came in at "prepubescent levels." (What a frightful term.)

free skin care · Fri Aug 14, 2009 4:00 pm

Antonia wrote:

How strange that the Life Extension Foundation cites this study in support of estriol and BHRT. I think I have my reading cut out...

I think that's just what everyone does unfortunately. It's very easy to get biased and selectively quote things to support your point of view without addressing the opposing point of view.

And I also think it's very sad that most naturopathic doctors do not seem interested in doing the research to prove what they claim.

I work closely with a woman that's a doctor in traditional chinese medicine. Now THAT is something that it's incredible and it's a shame that so little is translated into english and has reached us. But they have many different natural remedies that are backed by great careful research, and sometimes by thousands of years of experience.
She is very serious and has helped many of my patients, especially women with preeclampsia and other hypertensive disorders.

I think we have lots to learn and benefit from "natural" medicine, but proponents of it should start treating it more seriously and stop selling it with pseudo-science.

free skin care · Fri Aug 14, 2009 4:01 pm

Antonia wrote:

Josee, I don't know if you made a typo or I confused you there...my E1 was abnormally high, not my E3. It was a salivary test. My doctor did a blood test at the same time and my E1 came in at "prepubescent levels." (What a frightful term.)

Yes sorry it was a typo. I meant estradiol. But are you saying that your estrone (E1) was high? I thought it was your estradiol... sorry for the confusion!

In general there is a problem with sex steroids measured in saliva (that includes the 3 of them). The salivary levels do not correlate well with serum levels (as was with your case actually).

free skin care · Fri Aug 14, 2009 4:56 pm

Hi all! I am pretty sure that I have entered the perimenopause stage of my life, but I'm not really sure how to deal with it. I have my yearly exam coming up in October. What kind of tests should I ask my doctor to do? I want to be proactive and I would love to have any help that would alleviate some of my problems and give me back some control of my life. Thanks for your help!!

free skin care · Fri Aug 14, 2009 5:25 pm

Josee wrote:

Antonia wrote:

Josee, I don't know if you made a typo or I confused you there...my E1 was abnormally high, not my E3. It was a salivary test. My doctor did a blood test at the same time and my E1 came in at "prepubescent levels." (What a frightful term.)

Yes sorry it was a typo. I meant estradiol. But are you saying that your estrone (E1) was high? I thought it was your estradiol... sorry for the confusion!

In general there is a problem with sex steroids measured in saliva (that includes the 3 of them). The salivary levels do not correlate well with serum levels (as was with your case actually).

Gawd. Now I'm typo-ing...lol. I mean Estradiol (E2) not Estrone. I believe I made the same error at the beginning of this thread.

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.