SubscribeAnd despite Somers's claim that her specially made, non-FDA-approved bioidenticals are "natural" and safer, they are actually synthetic, just like conventional hormones and FDA-approved bioidenticals from pharmacies—and there are no conclusive clinical studies showing they are less risky.
'Bioidentical hormones' is a term created by the lay media to refer to chemicals derived from plants that are modified to be structurally identical to endogenous human hormones... Patients assume bioidentical hormones are natural and safer than synthetic hormones with regard to the risk of developing breast cancer and other diseases, but there is little evidence to support this belief...*I have a degree in biochemistry, but my mom doesn't.
The term 'bioidentical' hormone replacement therapy (BHRT) is widely misunderstood by the patient population and misrepresented in patient literature. Within the clinical community, BHRT is currently being prescribed by some as an 'innovative therapy' with no published evidence in peer-reviewed journals that it is better than the current standard of care; in at least one case, BHRT is being used as a study agent in unregulated and unethical research involving very high doses of estrogen and progesterone. Additionally, professional ethics problems abound within the prescribing population, since those claiming expertise and training in BHRT vary widely in competencies, may cross practice boundaries, and may have overt conflicts of interest if they are selling or promoting their own for-profit recipes of BHRT on commercial forums. Ultimately, BHRT presents clinical, research and professional ethics problems that are discussed in depth.*
Compounded [biodentical hormone therapies (BHTs)] have been promoted by some as natural, safer, and in some cases more efficacious than conventional hormone therapies, but there is a dearth of scientific evidence to support these claims. Compounded BHTs lack well controlled studies examining route of administration, pharmacokinetics, safety, and a critical, science-based rationale for the mixture and ratios of bioidentical estrogens employed in many preparations. Many advocates of compounded BHTs customize prescriptions based on saliva tests or blood sera levels in direct contradiction to evidence-based guidelines, which support tailoring HT individually according to symptoms. Currently, scientific uncertainties associated with compounded BHTs make their use less preferable to that of [conventional hormone therapies (CHTs)], as CHTs have been and continue to be assessed by clinical trials regarding both benefits and risks and are indicated for use according to evidence-based guidelines.
saying that BHRT is safe and there is now research beginning to support it is not shilling. It's giving you a side of the story that is still (for now) in the minority.So, you know it's safe but the research is only now beginning to support its safety... that's lucky.
And if you start back way at the beginning you will see I was just correcting what I felt to be a semantic error in the title. I never came in here shilling anything. you all asked questions, I did my best to answer them. Then when I wanted to talk science instead of credentials, it becomes a witch hunt.I actually know far more about this subject than I think you can imagine.
What about T.S. Wiley's stint as a guest investigator?(from the Wiley Watch site)
This was a favor from Dr. Bent Formby – Wiley's scientific mentor – in 1997. “We appointed her as guest investigator at Sansum Medical Research Institute for 3 months. By doing so she became affiliated with an academic institution.... We were all very nice to her and glad to be able to support an ordinary housewife with an interest in bioscience.”
Apparently it didn't work out so well. “I was very surprised to discover how illiterate TS was in science and math. She knew absolutely nothing. She did not even know the difference between hydrogen and oxygen or the square root of a number.... She told me she never had science and math in high school.” And, “That was a great mistake because she has absolutely no knowledge about science and how a scientific laboratory with all the applied molecular techniques works.”
Formby scoffs whenever T.S. Wiley titles herself a microbiologist, cancer researcher, and the panoply of other labels. “She has not – absolutely not – any knowledge of experimental biomedical research. Has never been in my lab.”
(Today, Dr. Formby openly feels no affection whatever for T.S. Wiley. He never endorsed the protocol and in fact he opposed its last-minute inclusion in the book on ethical grounds. After he attempted to help the women suffering on the protocol by explaining the science behind their symptoms, the Wiley camp turned on him, smearing his name in public and private – a recurring pattern, incidentally.)
A reminder: BUYER BEWARE: I have NOTHING to do with acai berry scams on internet. Have tasted only ONE time on my show.Buyer beware, indeed, Oprah.
2:43 PM May 29th from web
biochemists aren't MD's. I wouldn't expect them to know the difference.Which was in turn a response to Inspector.Gadget (quoting jakeelala):
"Bio-identical protocols rely the actual, unaltered molecules of progesterone, testosterone, estrogen etc. for replacement."Summary: jaeelala asserted that a biochemist wouldn't know the difference between actual, unaltered molecules of progesterone, testosterone, estrogen etc. and altered versions thereof. A statement made, most likely, to hide jakeelala's own profound ignorance of biochemistry.
Ten bucks* if you can get a biochemist in here to explain why this matters at all.
*not really.
« Older Some common solecisms... | Last year we discussed a recen... Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
Can't she just stick to her fucking day job?
posted by kldickson at 12:55 PM on June 1, 2009