| TO
WELCOME
TO CONTENTS |
|
| There has been zero published research done or clamored for by any of the estrogen dominance theory folk | I think I recall from Dr.
Lee's book that this "father of estrogen dominance' had a third of his
patients on some amount of estrogen.
My comment: emperor's new clothes time Another thought, nobody
has PMS in that part of the cycle when estrogen is dominantly high and
progesterone is minimal, only when progesterone is high just before your
period
PMS when progesterone naturally
skyrockets includes breast tenderness, mild depression, and a bunch of
other goodies, that the so-called estrogen dominance theory says more progesterone
"cures".
Published research shows
estrogen alone in women with hysterectomies increases and/or maintains
bone density in the absence of progestins or progesterone. No ovaries,
no progesterone produced, none added by prescription. To say estrogen doesn't
have a positive bone impact of some sort is ridiculous.
Natural progesterone is commercially available AND patentable if the application method is not an ordinary oral tablet. It's on the market here in the US as a vaginal gel (Crinone) and in Canada and Europe, etc. as Prometrium and Utrogestan. Prometrium (micronized oral progesterone in oil) produced by Schering-Plough is at this time under FDA application for US distribution. [now approved - Tishy] Lee's statements are a theory, Prior's work is an analysis. Neither have been supported by clinical trials performed on live menopausal women. There is no published research that proves any of this works for real in our group of women (or any other group of women). There has been zero published research done or clamored for by any of the estrogen dominance theory folk on the realities of progesterone being helpful or the DOSAGE required to get an effect. 1 Somehow they (progesterone cream folks) went right ahead to selling a cosmetic cream containing exactly that minimal amount of progesterone that would get by the FDA as a cosmetic. The usual method to producing a helpful drug is to package a dosage which matches the amount that got proven results in published research. Even our somewhat slow NIH started doing clinical research on an "natural" agent that looks favorable to help something such as St. John's wort. Ask yourself, how come with all the clamor for women's health research and cures for breast cancer, and research dollars available, if progesterone were the answer, doctors are writing direct to women about this miracle cure instead of using their really very fancy credentials and knowledge to get the clinical research organized, funded and done. Are we getting marketing here instead of science on the push for using progesterone. A Plea from me: Please don't confuse, unproven, unresearched theories that support marketing cosmetic creams such as [name deleted due to manufacturer's petulance] as a miracle cure/preventive. Peer-reviewed published clinical research that looks for proof of efficacy and repeat reliability in the group of people the drug is supposed to treat is the usual way to establish an agent as helpful. Even other sophisticated countries like Germany and Israel that already have progesterone on the commercial market and are also doing research using natural agents as treatments are uninterested in looking at progesterone as either an osteoporosis or breast cancer preventive or for menopausal relief. The absence of progesterone clinical research can't be assumed to prove the agent works but is uncommercial. Other possibilities are that research at the cell biology level can not be extrapolated to the whole menopausal women for some reason, or a possibility is that it is already known to be useless and not worth looking into further. The Internet is full of marketing miracle cures, We all want an easy answer on how to take good care of our health. No easy or even difficult answer has been found to date, It is fairly certain progesterone is not a cure-all and none who speak of it to us seem willing to proselytize for it in customary research circles. They seem to want to tantalize us with hopes for miracle preventives of dreaded diseases and "too long to explain here, buy my book when it comes out" statements. Scratch every proponent of "estrogen dominance", and you find someone who is making or selling a progesterone cream, writing or speaking for money about it, or has a co-marketing arrangement with a manufacturer or seller of the cream or someone who has heard about it from one of the above. Missing are reports from clinicians in current medical practice using it. Missing are reports from clinical researchers. Missing are reports from licensed pharmacists. Why don't these proponents marshal their claimed considerable credentials to do research or get research bucks behind the estrogen dominance/progesterone as breast cancer preventive/cure Again, a reminder: There are ZERO published clinical trials in postmenopausal women or other women that show progesterone alone administered in any fashion in any amount prevents breast cancer, or protects bone density. Such a study
has since been done -
It failed to show benefits
for bone density but did claim relief of hot flashes. Bear in mind however
that the study was not randomised for hot flashes as it was set up primarily
as an osteoporosis prevention study
|