THX

LikeLike

LikeLike

Even if I had symptoms, and even if Premarin were safe, I would not take it because of the methods used to gather the horse urine used in its manufacture. I can’t see abusing any animal like that to create a med for a non-life threatening condition. Ethics aside, I question how well the human body can utilize estrogen from another species. The episode left me questioning my doctor’s knowledge, judgement, and ethics.

My unscientific observations of friends and relatives who’ve tried HRT leave me very unimpressed with it.

The side effects, the struggles to find the right product and the right balance, resembled alchemy more than medicine. Putting off the inevitable and dragging out the estrogen dependence makes HRT seem like a hormone methadone program.

LikeLike

The “financial gains” of acting in this necessary role for such women seem hardly in the same league as the “financial gains” of Wyeth in their ruthless goal of achieving $2 billion annual sales targets. And as Dr. Fugh-Berman explained, the PLoS article “does not critique the appropriate prescription of hormones for hot flashes, but addresses the perplexing question of why physicians resist the conclusions of the Women’s Health Initiative, the definitive study of HT in asymptomatic women.”
Regards,
C.

LikeLike

The problem I have with the PLoS article is this –

“Dr. Fugh-Berman is also a paid expert witness on behalf of women who developed breast cancer while taking menopausal hormone therapy.”

A bit of the pot calling the kettle black if you ask me, when it comes to feeding the literature in support of your financial gains…

LikeLike

The reason why so many gynecologists (including myself) are still prescribing HRT is that it is a highly effective treatment for the vasomotor symptoms of menopause. Like all medication, it has risks as well as benefits, and some women make the informed choice to use it. Some of these women use it short term, others longer term, depending on their individual menopausal experience and symptoms.

I’ve posted my rules for prescribing HRT on my blog.

IMO, the problem is (1) those selling bioidenticals who misinform women that their products do not carry the same risks as Prempro, and prescribe it willy-nilly to women as an anti-aging fountain of youth (the very thing they accused Wyeth of doing for years…) and (2) Wyeth and other pharma continuing to feed the window hypothesis on HRT’s cardiac benefits into the medical literature – each article essentially repeating the one before – and discounting the breast cancer risks, which for most women are the most important concern when it comes to making a decision about treating menopausal symptoms.

Thanks again for posing me to the PLoS article.

LikeLike

Except for short-lived severe unrelenting symptoms, menopausal women generally don’t need their hormones “replaced”. My doctor has been actively pushing HRT on me since I was in my 40s – – – implying that it’s some kind of universal wonder drug that all middle-aged women should take. I’m going to ask him if he’s read this PLOS Medicine journal article yet. Thanks for this.

LikeLike

LikeLike

Her final paragraph reaffirms my clinical point of view, and that of many natural medicine practitioners. I think we should take copies of this to our GPs and Gynaecologists!

How is it possible that half of all gynecologists are still prescribing hormone replacement therapy to their patients for uses that are clearly unsupported by evidence – despite the alarming warnings of the largest randomized, placebo-controlled trial of HRT ever performed? This reality is “curious” according to Dr. Adriane Fugh-Berman at Georgetown University Medical Center, in a new study* examining 340 medical journal articles about HRT. Read More […]

LikeLike