1 reply to this topic

[Shepard]

http://www.skeptic.c...ex.html#feature

[david ellis]

Thanks Shepard for the link, it was well worth the read. The article was a good counterpoint to Suzanne's claims. And provided a reasoned explanation of the dangers of HRT. I was surprised to find out that all-cause mortality was roughly the same. But still the bottom line was the dangers were not worth the risks to justify long-term use of HRT.

From Dr Hall's Article
They recommend estrogens and progesterone from natural plant sources. Premarin comes from pregnant mare’s urine: that seems more natural to me, since we’re much more closely related to a horse, another mammal, than we are to a plant. And the plant isn’t used in a natural form; it’s used as the basis of laboratory synthesis. And there is a reason that we started giving women progestins like Provera instead of natural progesterone: natural progesterone is not absorbed well. Progestins were reliably absorbed and dosage easily controlled.

“Bioidentical” is not standard medical terminology. It’s their way of saying it is the same exact chemical compound found in the human body. But there are lots of different estrogenic compounds found in the body, including estriol, estradiol and estrone. Nothing we do is likely to replace all the estrogenic compounds in exactly the way they occur in the body.

Dr Hall was a bit slippery here - she tries to make Premarin appear more natural than bioidentical claiming "they" (I don't know who "they" is, definitely not Suzanne Summers) say their product is more natural because it comes from plants. "They recommend estrogens and progesterone from natural plant sources." I don't remember that from Suzanne Summers book, I remember that Suzanne said "bioidentical".

And Dr Hall agrees with the bioidentical definition as shown by her following statement "it’s used as the basis of laboratory synthesis". So, Suzanne and Dr Hall both agree, the molecules are bioidentical to human estrogen. Bottom line, Premarin is a customized patented pharmaceutical and is not human estrogen. I would trust Dr Hall more if she hadn't tried to confuse this point. Confusing this point benefits the pharmaceutical industry more than it benefits me, Dr Hall, or Suzanne Summers. So I doubt that she is an impartial observer.

Dr Hall's assessment of treatment using saliva tests is true, saliva tests are not likely to be useful. And the symptoms checklists also strike me as not very helpful either. The probability of finding incompetent help with bioidentical hormones seems very high.