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

free skin care · Thu Feb 10, 2011 6:37 pm

Keliu wrote:

I am going there - many of my daughter's friends have CHOSEN to have a cesarean because they didn't want the pain of childbirth - it is more common than you think.

And I am not "blaming" women for taking birth control - I took it myself. I'm simply pointing out that it is not "natural" - and that waiting until you are old enough to have what is medically known as a "geriatric pregnancy" is not ideal.

Perhaps some women have chosen C-sections over natural childbirth, but certainly the idea came from somewhere. If they didn't know the option would exist for them; they wouldn't ask in the first place. As for your comment about "waiting for a geriatric pregnancy" ~ not everyone does this by choice. Like I said, for many women it's because they haven't found the right one yet...or heaven forbid they waited until age 35 and now they aren't as fertile. Who's to say that becoming a mom in your teens or twenties is preferable? For one thing, you hardly know who you are in your teens and twenties. It may have been preferable at a time when twenty something was considered middle age, but today things are quite different. People are living longer. Not to mention that most young people are still living at home in their teens and twenties because it's too expensive to live on your own in today's economy. I would have liked to have been able to have a child at a younger age, but that wasn't in the cards for me. But, I am ever so grateful to have experienced a natural conception and birth at age 41 and now at 54 am happy to be raising a teenager. I work full-time, am a part-time freelance writer on the side and run everywhere with him. It's all good.

free skin care · Thu Feb 10, 2011 8:45 pm

SoftSkin wrote:

Her patients told her they were suffering miserable side effects! Example: one woman didn’t know she was allergic to horses until she took Premarin and swelled up like a balloon. Being a caring physician, she searched for alternatives, did some research and discovered BHRT. Problem solved.

This has nothing to do with HRT or BHRT but merely being allergic to something. This would be the same as saying that oranges are terrible because someone who was allergic to oranges had a bad reaction.

SoftSkin wrote:

The reason most docs don't want to take the time to fine tune dosing is because they don't get paid enough by insurance companies.

I actually think it has to do with lots of things and money is not really that much of a factor. Every time you see a patient you bill, so seeing a patient multiple times is not a bad thing. So in reality, adjusting the dose can be done in short visits. You just need to give a patient a sort of “checklist” of symptoms and side effects that you’re looking for and tell her to write it down until the next visit. The patient comes, you check the list, you ask her some questions and then you have more than enough information to adjust it. No reason to lose money there.
In the same coin, I see people prescribing BHRT and not really caring to go to the lowest possible dose. They just give a highish dose to begin with and stay there. And the vast majority of people that prescribe it do not stress the importance of getting an ultrasound to rule out endometrial hyperplasia.

SoftSkin wrote:

She also doesn’t take insurance because she won’t allow insurance companies to dictate patient care. Consequently, I get a full hour of her time. She does a lot of lab work in-house and has her own bone scan machine.

I hate to break it but doctors don’t take patients with insurance because they want to make more money. In the office, insurance companies do not dictate care at all. Insurance companies dictate what it’s covered, but you can choose to still prescribe it to a patient and the patient can pay for it him/herself. The difference is that for the services covered (e.g. doctor’s visits) the insurance gets a cut, so you make less money. And also you have to deal with less paperwork so you even make more money because you spend less on secretaries.
So if a patient comes to me with insurance and I want to prescribe XYZ test that the insurance won't cover, either the patient pays for it or she gets something different or gets nothing. But still that visit (just the medical visit) will be paid by the insurance company.

SoftSkin wrote:

Compounding pharmacies are a red herring in this debate. Most people don’t use them and you don’t need them because you can get estradiol patches and progesterone cream easily. It’s cheaper than all the different “Prem___” HRT junk, too.

As I said before, you don’t even need to have the money yourself. Any of these celebrity (and non celebrity) doctors who are earning millions off women could indeed apply for an NIH grant to get the money for a study. However… somehow I don’t see them publishing

free skin care · Thu Feb 10, 2011 9:12 pm

secretly wrote:

I think Western doctors overall are way too drug oriented (Boniva seriously?????? now that's a risk/benefit trade off, necrotic jaw anyone?). I stopped seeing mainstream doctors completely, and I see nutritional MD and an osteopath who is what you'd call in the 60s a far out hippie, he's so effective that my friends are all seeing him now, I like being served tea and chocolate after I get Rieki, osteopathy and acupuncture. The guy's a genius too.

Yes but it’s easy to go to your doctor and like it when you’re basically healthy. But most people who have said “oh I don’t trust western doctors” … who do you think they go to when they are sick? Few people would choose not to go to a western doctor if they had cancer. You had dry eyes and went to the ophthalmologist, you go to a dermatologist, you had peels and when you were in pain you thought of taking a Vicodin.
I don’t understand the doctor and naturopath bashing and being pitted against each other. It’s just different and they both complement each other and I think people would do a disservice to themselves if they discard either.
I love my osteopath, I love my massages, I have an AMAZING acupuncturist that I recommend to women giving birth for pain control during birth. However, my osteopath could not cure my PCL tear. He helped, but he needed help.
Good western doctors are just good doctors. They care for their patients, they don’t think that everything is cured by drugs, they listen to the patient and they work with the patient . Western medicine is GOOD medicine. Western medicine is responsible for extending the life expectancy by quite a bit. Western medicine is responsible for so many wonderful things! However, is Western medicine the be-all end-all? No. Can Western medicine learn from alternative systems? Yes it can and it should.
Now if there are bad doctors out there, they’re just bad doctors. Western medicine or the FDA or even big pharma are not to blame for the lack of empathy, manners and competency those doctors might have.

free skin care · Fri Feb 11, 2011 12:58 am

aprile wrote:

Perhaps some women have chosen C-sections over natural childbirth, but certainly the idea came from somewhere. If they didn't know the option would exist for them; they wouldn't ask in the first place.
As for your comment about "waiting for a geriatric pregnancy" ~ not everyone does this by choice. Like I said, for many women it's because they haven't found the right one yet...or heaven forbid they waited until age 35 and now they aren't as fertile. Who's to say that becoming a mom in your teens or twenties is preferable? For one thing, you hardly know who you are in your teens and twenties. It may have been preferable at a time when twenty something was considered middle age, but today things are quite different. People are living longer. Not to mention that most young people are still living at home in their teens and twenties because it's too expensive to live on your own in today's economy. I would have liked to have been able to have a child at a younger age, but that wasn't in the cards for me. But, I am ever so grateful to have experienced a natural conception and birth at age 41 and now at 54 am happy to be raising a teenager. I work full-time, am a part-time freelance writer on the side and run everywhere with him. It's all good.

"Geriatric pregnancy" is not my term, it's a medical term. One I learned when I became pregnant at the age of 36. (I actually ended up having a miscarriage). All I am pointing out here is that the biological optimum age to have your first baby is between 18 and 25. The fact that we are living longer has not changed those parameters. Yes, these days (thanks to the contraceptive pill) women have choices. And many are choosing a career over having children. I'm not saying that is wrong - of course it's not. But waiting until you are in your late 30s to fall pregnant isn't what nature intended (biologically) and it is why so many women have difficulty in conceiving.

free skin care · Fri Feb 11, 2011 6:04 am

Like Josee, I also can't understand the "It's my way or the highway" attitude when discussing BHRT and Western Medicine. I'm extremely glad I live in a day and age where I can take advantage of the developments in science and technology. On the other hand, I also appreciate alternative treatments such as acupuncture or Bowen Therapy etc. There is room for ALL forms of treatment and they can exist side by side.

I'm also getting a little tired of the "horse's piss" reference. Have any of you any idea what is in Traditional Chinese Medicine? Seahorses are heading for extinction in some areas because of the demand for them in TCM. Other ingredients can include rhinoceros and Saiga antelope horns, tiger and leopard bones, musk glands from musk deer, bear gallbladders, fur seal bacula (penis bone). They have also been found to have dangerous levels of heavy metals such as mercury, lead, and arsenic.

Incidentally, one of the first methods of HRT in China was the drinking of young girls’ urine. This might be a viable alternative for those of you seeking natural therapies (providing you have daughters, that is!)

As for the woman who was allergic to Premarin - anyone can be allergic to anything, I'm allergic to Penicillin. You can't blame HRT or the prescribing doctor for that.

I've actually just returned from seeing my doctor and asked her about my continuing to take HRT. She said the version of HRT that I am taking (Livial/Tibolone) is much safer than Premarin because it isn't Estrogen based. However, it's a steroid so I'm sure it has it's own set of risks - still, if there's no Estrogen, maybe it's safer than BHRT!

The bottom line is I think everyone is quite capable of deciding what is best for them without all the demeaning attacks on doctors and the medical profession.

free skin care · Fri Feb 11, 2011 3:41 pm

I'm terribly sorry if I sounded hypocritical in my attempt to explain what I choose for myself and family. I'm in no way trying to recruit anyone or saying it's my way or the highway. My choices are only FOR ME, and for my family. I'm just contributing to this lively discussion.

I agree everyone has the right to make their own choices. I cannot back down on my personal opinion that medicine isn't being practiced in the way I believe it should be. I don't hate doctors or medicine, I'm EXTREMELY wary and cautious. I think modern medicine is amazing, I don't think the way most medicine is doled out is though.

When I'm sick I see integrative doctor. Do I trust most doctors with my health, no I don't.

I too think there's massive hypocrisy when talking about health and medicine. Last night I read Dr. Oz suggest eating jello the day before a colonoscopy because it's easier to pass. REALLY DR. OZ????? neurotoxic dye and high fructose corn syrup???? Isn't that poison? Why not suggest having some organic chicken broth? That would have had a lot more credibility with me.

I think it's hypocrisy that there are vending machines filled with toxic poison in hospitals. I think it's appalling that pink M&Ms are used for breast cancer fund-raising, again neurotoxic dyes, HFCS, and toxic free radical filled fats.

But..........that's just my reactions and opinions, everyone is free to choose their own care and take whatever medicine (or eat anything) they want.

And re: my crippling eye pain that I finally sought care for after years of excruciating pain? It was determined that my glands were damaged by medication I used in the past. And because I'm not comfortable putting steriods/immunosuppressants eye drops in my eyes for the rest of my life I'm going to get IPL treatments that will hopefully fix the problem (yes I'm seeing ophthalmologist to have this done).

My mom died a sudden death when I was 39 from medical malpractice so we have a long history in my family well deserved of being wary of doctors. But seriously I really don't want to offend anyone, I will bow out of this discussion if I continue to offend.

free skin care · Fri Feb 11, 2011 4:11 pm

secretly wrote:

I too think there's massive hypocrisy when talking about health and medicine. Last night I read Dr. Oz suggest eating jello the day before a colonoscopy because it's easier to pass. REALLY DR. OZ????? neurotoxic dye and high fructose corn syrup???? Isn't that poison? Why not suggest having some organic chicken broth? That would have had a lot more credibility with me.

I've had three colonoscopies so I'm familiar with the instructions. You get a whole list of things that you can and can't eat for the preceding days - then you have to fast. But you're not allowed to eat any of the foods that would normally be considered preferable, such as whole grains and high fibre foods. They basically give you a list of "crap" food to eat. That's why the jello is recommended - it fills you up but contains no fibre. This is for the purpose of having one test that could save your life. Eating a bit of "crap" food for a day or two isn't going to kill you - but it will ensure that your colonoscopy is successful.

secretly wrote:

But seriously I really don't want to offend anyone, I will bow out of this discussion if I continue to offend.

You haven't offended me - and my comments weren't directed at you especially. Everyone is entitled to express their comments here (as I am too) so there's certainly no reason to feel that you need to bow out of any discussion. I do think it's healthy for everyone to try and look at things in a more rounded, balanced way though. Nothing in this world is either all good or all bad. Very Happy

free skin care · Fri Feb 11, 2011 8:25 pm

Keliu wrote:

Geriatric pregnancy" is not my term, it's a medical term. One I learned when I became pregnant at the age of 36. (I actually ended up having a miscarriage). All I am pointing out here is that the biological optimum age to have your first baby is between 18 and 25. The fact that we are living longer has not changed those parameters. Yes, these days (thanks to the contraceptive pill) women have choices. And many are choosing a career over having children. I'm not saying that is wrong - of course it's not. But waiting until you are in your late 30s to fall pregnant isn't what nature intended (biologically) and it is why so many women have difficulty in conceiving.

Well then I think they ought to use a more modern term because the definition from Websters (c 1909) is "a branch of medicine dealing with problems and diseases of old age and aging people - gerontology. I hardly think someone in their late 30's - early 40's is headed for the geriatric ward. Also, since natural menopause doesn't occur at the same time for every woman perhaps that is why conception is possible for some women well into their forties. Who really knows? For instance, by the time a woman hits her forties, it is expected she will have experienced about a 75% decrease in her progesterone. Yet, personally my levels were still in a "youthful" range at that age. I believe there is a lot more to learn about the process because it is so different for everyone. Also, I think the reasons many women have difficulty conceiving is more than just an age thing. For instance, a lack of balance due to long periods on chemicalized hormones which shut down the body's natural hormone production, as well as lack of progesterone as well as other factors like stress, etc.

free skin care · Fri Feb 11, 2011 9:32 pm

aprile wrote:

Well then I think they ought to use a more modern term because the definition from Websters (c 1909) is "a branch of medicine dealing with problems and diseases of old age and aging people - gerontology. I hardly think someone in their late 30's - early 40's is headed for the geriatric ward.

Yes, the term geriatric is associated with old age. However, when used in conjunction with "pregnancy" it simply relates to "fertility" age.

A geriatric pregnancy is defined as one where the mother is 35 years old or older. Fertility decreases with age, meaning that a woman will be less easily able to become pregnant as the years go by. Additionally, fertility treatments to help the process along become less effective once a woman reaches around 35 years old. A healthy 30-year-old woman, for example, has about a 20 percent chance of getting pregnant each month. By the time she is 40, that percentage plummets to 5 percent.
http://www.ehow.com/about_5032741_geriatric-pregnancy.html

aprile wrote:

Also, I think the reasons many women have difficulty conceiving is more than just an age thing. For instance, a lack of balance due to long periods on chemicalized hormones which shut down the body's natural hormone production, as well as lack of progesterone as well as other factors like stress, etc.

There can be many reasons (both physical and mental) why a woman might have difficulty conceiving. However, in her 30s and 40s a woman produces far less eggs than she did when she was in her teens and 20s. So the "window of opportunity" regarding fertility can't be ignored.

But society's attitudes to early pregnancy have shifted. When I was young, I was expected to get married and have children ASAP. That is not the case today (thank heavens!) However, women who choose to have babies at a young age tend to be frowned upon now. In Edwardian and Victorian times, a girl was considered marriageable at 15 or 16. That would be considered pedophilia today!

My daughters are 35 and 37 - neither has had a baby yet (by choice). However, I think my eldest would like to in the near future and is getting a little worried about the prospect. Her best friend, who is the same age, is currently on IVF and is completely stressed out about it, crying every month when it doesn't happen.

I also wonder what things are going to be like in the future - everyone is going to be a twin! The amount of twins born to Hollywood celebs is mind-blowing.

free skin care · Sat Feb 12, 2011 7:33 am

gosh...I'd love to see you all discuss the Wiley protocol. That is what Susan Sommers does. The protocol puts your hormones back to what they are when you are in your early 20's...you still have cycles..the whole nine yards.

This, Dr. Wiley...says something to the affect that women who don't want to replace their hormones to youthful levels need to get a cane because they're going to get old...feel old.

All of this discussion is confusing. Many women here always discuss how they start aging at an accelerated pace after menopause. Just seems, logically, that there would be a link. In my opinion...I think hormones fluctuate..and Doctors can no way monitor the situation..so a lot of guess work..and therefore mistakes.
Would be nice to have home testing kits for hormone levels.

free skin care · Sat Feb 12, 2011 10:18 am

Hi hotdocgirl

Have you done any reading at Wiley Watch?
http://wileywatch.org/ Very interesting indeed! There are always two sides to any story, but to openly misrepresent yourself, as Ms. Wiley did, is not acceptable EVER.

I hope that I will be able to continue taking my HRT (estradiol only) until the day I clock off. I am really happy with the positive way it affects so many 'parts' of me, the least of all my facial skin. Cool

free skin care · Sat Feb 12, 2011 11:40 am

Yeah..I've heard of the Wiley Watch..but on her site they discredit some of that.... I think confusion over her Dr.? right?

very interesting stuff though

Sounds like you are listening to your body..I think sometimes a person just "knows" what is right for them.

free skin care · Sat Feb 12, 2011 4:52 pm

HippoMe wrote:

Hi hotdocgirl

Have you done any reading at Wiley Watch?
http://wileywatch.org/ Very interesting indeed! There are always two sides to any story, but to openly misrepresent yourself, as Ms. Wiley did, is not acceptable EVER.

I hope that I will be able to continue taking my HRT (estradiol only) until the day I clock off. I am really happy with the positive way it affects so many 'parts' of me, the least of all my facial skin. Cool

Good Grief!!! Thanks for posting that link - I was unaware of all of this.

free skin care · Sat Feb 12, 2011 6:09 pm

It isn't a good idea to only take estradiol since a lot of women are estrogen dominant which puts you at a higher risk of cancer. You need to balance it with natural progesterone which requires blood tests for the optimal amount. I'm sure some women might not need the progesterone but you need blood tests to know for sure. Better safe than sorry.

I guess I didn't make myself clear: The woman allergic to horses was an extreme example. However, so many of my doc's patients who weren't allergic to horses had terrible side effects from the Big Pharma HRT that she totally ditched it for everybody and now only prescribes BHRT.

I think most of us would agree to disagree. What frightens me is the power of Big Pharma because they have all of the money. I hope I don't live to see the day when we have to get prescriptions for vitamins sold by them or have to smuggle BHRT over the border.

free skin care · Sat Feb 12, 2011 7:49 pm

SoftSkin wrote:

It isn't a good idea to only take estradiol since a lot of women are estrogen dominant which puts you at a higher risk of cancer. You need to balance it with natural progesterone which requires blood tests for the optimal amount. I'm sure some women might not need the progesterone but you need blood tests to know for sure. Better safe than sorry.

If you are taking estradiol (and have a uterus), you should take progesterone.
Blood or saliva levels are not really useful.

The levels vary a lot between women and they do not correlate well with symptoms. Women in perimenopause can have estrogen levels between 50 and 500! So a woman might have a relatively high level of estrogen and progesterone in blood and still have symptoms, and a woman can have low levels of estrogen and/or progesterone and be asymptomatic.

So OK you should do a first blood test as baseline but really that’s about it. Further tests will not help “tweaking” but symptoms will. Yes, you do other measurements from time to time to make sure your estrogen level is not off the charts but that's about it. There is not a "one ideal" hormone level for all women. It will vary among women and the "ideal" level is the level that provides the best symptom relief and it's not measured in a lab Smile

I very strongely believe that anyone promoting testing as tweaking is just trying to make money off women.

Most importantly, blood or saliva levels WILL NOT help decide is the estrogen is sufficiently opposed with progesterone or not. Please, if you have a uterus and are taking estrogens, you need to get ultrasounds to make sure there is no endometrial hyperplasia. That is the only way to know that your levels of estrogen and progesterone are relatively safe.

free skin care · Sat Feb 12, 2011 7:50 pm

you can get your hormones tested through the mail via a saliva test. Just google it...lots of info online.
I agree..best to see where you're at..then go from there.

I think recent word is that a urine test is very accurate..then the saliva test.. lastly a blood test...which I hear is not a true reading.

again..conflicting information out there. what are women to do? Under represented in medicine for so many years. A lot of catching up to do.

free skin care · Sat Feb 12, 2011 10:52 pm

SoftSkin wrote:

It isn't a good idea to only take estradiol since a lot of women are estrogen dominant which puts you at a higher risk of cancer. You need to balance it with natural progesterone ...

Hi, I take 1mg estradiol orally daily (patches/gels didn't work for me) and rub into my skin, rotating the sites, 1 pump Wink

of progesterone cream (SOLAL) for 15 days a month (even though I don't have a uterus) - I have found, amongst other things, the prog helps me sleep better and helped me with my (sadly lacking) libido. I do get a yearly serum test to make sure my levels are normal for me . Oh, Vitamin D, a precurser hormone by-the-way is so, so important for our health http://www.vitamindcouncil.org/

free skin care · Sun Feb 13, 2011 6:08 pm

Josee wrote:

SoftSkin wrote:

Her patients told her they were suffering miserable side effects! Example: one woman didn’t know she was allergic to horses until she took Premarin and swelled up like a balloon. Being a caring physician, she searched for alternatives, did some research and discovered BHRT. Problem solved.

This has nothing to do with HRT or BHRT but merely being allergic to something. This would be the same as saying that oranges are terrible because someone who was allergic to oranges had a bad reaction.

Josee ~ Although one can certainly have a reaction to something natural, I would hardly describe traditional HRT as natural. Further, I don't believe the reaction Softskin describes is due to other ingredients mixed with the hormones. There have been many more stories from women with similar reactions like the story Softskin describes. Not everyone may experience the same side effects, because not everyone’s body chemistry is the same. Some women may not even notice certain side effects because they are not in tune with their bodies, while others are much more sensitive. Personally, I have nothing against extracting hormones from a pregnant mare's urine or from dirt, as long as they are an exact replica of the hormones found in a woman’s body. I realize you prescribe both, but I do not understand how can you equate Equilin with Estradiol. ~ Aprile

free skin care · Sun Feb 13, 2011 6:34 pm

aprile wrote:

Josee wrote:

SoftSkin wrote:

Her patients told her they were suffering miserable side effects! Example: one woman didn’t know she was allergic to horses until she took Premarin and swelled up like a balloon. Being a caring physician, she searched for alternatives, did some research and discovered BHRT. Problem solved.

This has nothing to do with HRT or BHRT but merely being allergic to something. This would be the same as saying that oranges are terrible because someone who was allergic to oranges had a bad reaction.

Josee ~ Although one can certainly have a reaction to something natural, I would hardly describe traditional HRT as natural.

Anyone can have an adverse reaction to ANYTHING, natural or unnatural - I don't believe that Josee was necessarily classifying HRT as "natural" in the context of her reply to the issue of the allergy.

But what is really "natural" anyway? I would regard menopause as a "natural" bodily function - so it could be argued that interfering with this function is "unnatural" (regardless of what is used).

free skin care · Sun Feb 13, 2011 7:20 pm

As someone deathly allergic to penicillin the real deal grown from rye mold (natural) I can tell you if it's a lab created identical molecular structure, I am just as allergic! So natural or lab created makes no difference in many cases. Natural does not equal safe necessarily cyanide is a natural substance, I could go on and on.....

free skin care · Sun Feb 13, 2011 7:22 pm

Natural or unnatural menopause hits some women very hard--and I don't mean hot flashes. I am talking mood swings, anxiety, depression, memory loss and worst of all--rage.I am not a drama queen, never had pms, have always been even-tempered, level-headed and calm--until I hit menopause and turned into someone I didn't know and didn't particularly like. Anti-depressants and anxiety meds helped a little but my mood swings were going to destroy my life. BHRt gave me my life back--I would say saved my life. More power to you if you can go through menopause without missing a beat, but for some of us the loss of hormones is debilitating.

free skin care · Sun Feb 13, 2011 7:38 pm

Cuddles wrote:

Natural or unnatural menopause hits some women very hard--and I don't mean hot flashes. I am talking mood swings, anxiety, depression, memory loss and worst of all--rage.I am not a drama queen, never had pms, have always been even-tempered, level-headed and calm--until I hit menopause and turned into someone I didn't know and didn't particularly like. Anti-depressants and anxiety meds helped a little but my mood swings were going to destroy my life. BHRt gave me my life back--I would say saved my life. More power to you if you can go through menopause without missing a beat, but for some of us the loss of hormones is debilitating.

I appreciate what you're saying. When I was 17, I had shocking mood swings. I basically cried non-stop - although I had nothing to cry about. I was in a terrible state, so my doctor put me on the contraceptive pill and that helped me allot.

I believe that you should do whatever it takes if it makes you feel better (within reason, of course). I just don't like the "HRT is unnatural" argument. Lots of things are unnatural, but can still be beneficial.

free skin care · Sun Feb 13, 2011 7:54 pm

Well said Cuddles and I couldn't agree with you more!! Although BHRT eliminates many horrible physical symptoms, the emotional toll of menopause is very real for many of us. I recently went through a really rough patch emotionally. Due to finances, I was only taking estradiol and progesterone. A friend of mine suggested I start taking testosterone again. The addition of that hormone made all the difference in the world for me. My confidence was back, I was able to think clearly, make decisions again and no longer felt like a cloud of doom was hanging over my head. I am with you on this 100%.

free skin care · Mon Feb 14, 2011 12:52 am

This is a quote from an article in this month's Madison magazine entitled "Could That Health Food Really Be Bad For You":

Quote:

The Cancer Council NSW, meanwhile, warns women with breast cancer to limit soy to one or two servings a day. This is because the phytoestrogens in soy mimic the female hormone estrogen and may interfere with conventional medical treatment by feeding the tumour.

Which brings us back to the original question about whether BHRT is any safer than HRT. This is basically the crux of the matter. NOT whether you choose to take hormone replacement or not. There has been allot of press lately about the problems of too much estrogen. Apparently, there's "hidden" estrogen in lots of things (plastic babies' bottles for one) and this is thought to be causing the onset of early menstrual cycles in girls as young as 7 and 8.

free skin care · Mon Feb 14, 2011 4:55 am

aprile wrote:

Josee ~ Although one can certainly have a reaction to something natural, I would hardly describe traditional HRT as natural.

I do not consider HRT or BHRT as natural, the same way I do not consider vaccines as natural, blood pressure medication natural, etc, etc.

aprile wrote:

Further, I don't believe the reaction Softskin describes is due to other ingredients mixed with the hormones. There have been many more stories from women with similar reactions like the story Softskin describes. Not everyone may experience the same side effects, because not everyone’s body chemistry is the same.

I do not know (and we can't know) to exactly what part of the compound was the patient allergic to. But certainly being allergic to something doesn't really take merit points from anything since people are allergic to all kinds of things.

aprile wrote:

Personally, I have nothing against extracting hormones from a pregnant mare's urine or from dirt, as long as they are an exact replica of the hormones found in a woman’s body. I realize you prescribe both, but I do not understand how can you equate Equilin with Estradiol. ~ Aprile

I actually do have a problem with extracting hormones from a horse but it has to do with farming practices (I’m a vegetarian). The reason I equate Equilin to Estradiol is that there’s nothing out there that tells me that one is safer than the other. In the case of progesterone, there’s a bit of evidence that there’s more women’s satisfaction (and less side effects) with the progesterone than MPA but it’s based on observational studies so there’s probably quite a bit of confounding by indication and the groups were not matched by dose, which makes it very difficult to draw a conclusion.

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.