Plant-Based Bioidentical Hormones

Plant-Based Bioidentical Hormones
3.8 (76%) 5 votes

Do compounded bioidentical hormones for menopause carry the same risks as conventional hormone replacement drugs, such as Premarin?

Comenta
Comparte

Below is an approximation of this video’s audio content. To see any graphs, charts, graphics, images, and quotes to which Dr. Greger may be referring, watch the above video.

As Martha Rosenberg noted (the author of an excellent book, Born with a Junk Food Deficiency), just as this lithograph tells you everything you need to know about slavery, the fact that electroconvulsive therapy (electroshock treatments) were prescribed for menopause in the United States tells you everything you need to know about Western medicine’s view about aging women.

Here, in this 1946 medical journal ad, amphetamines (speed) was recommended, in conjunction “with such fundamental measures as electric shock and estrogenic therapy.” Doctors could throw in a little thorazine, too, while they’re at it.

Hormone replacement therapy grew to prominence in the 1990s, when millions of women were sold hormones from pregnant mare urine, on the promise that it would prevent age-related diseases. But instead, it may have caused them. Women on hormone replacement therapy suffered increased risk of heart disease, stroke, pulmonary embolism, and invasive breast cancer. They said it would help preserve women’s memory—but may have, in fact, caused dementia, as it shrinks women’s brains.

When the truth got out in 2002, and the number of prescriptions dropped, so did the rates of breast cancer. And, horses got to walk around once again.

Thanks to high-profile celebrity endorsements, though, interest then switched to so-called compounded bioidentical hormones—from plant rather than equine sources, and advertised as not carrying the same risks.

What does the science say? A bunch of new reviews on the subject out from the American College of OB/GYNs, the Mayo Clinic, to the editors-in-chief of the Journal of the International Menopause Society. All concluded that bioidentical hormones, being bioidentical, carried the same risks, benefits, and side effects—which is not a good thing.

And, even worse, when the FDA actually analyzed them to see if the contents matched the label, nearly a third failed the analysis. Even in the same bottle, doses could be all over the place.

Okay, all universally opposed, but, look, how do we know everyone isn’t just in the pocket of the pharmaceutical industry—you know, just doesn’t want the competition?

Well, whenever I’m skeptical, I turn to The Medical Letter on Drugs and Therapeutics, considered to be one of the least-biased sources in medicine. They’re kind of like the Consumer Reports of the drug world, and, in fact, was actually co-founded by the co-founder of the publisher of Consumer Reports, more than 50 years ago.

As they like to brag on their website, The Medical Letter does not accept grants— from any source; donations—from any one; funding—from any entity. They won’t let their work be used for promotional purposes, and they don’t accept any advertising.

They recently reviewed bioidentical hormones, and came to the same conclusion: “There is no acceptable evidence that ‘bioidentical’ hormones are safe or effective. Patients should be discouraged from taking them.”

Please consider volunteering to help out on the site.

Images thanks to Quadell via Wikimedia Commons; Lameer Witter; Dan & Corina Lecca; Marji Beach of Duchess Horse Sanctuary via flickr; mtholyoke.edujustthismoment, and Bonkers Institute for Nearly Genuine Research.

Images thanks to Dan & Corina Lecca; Lameer Witter; mtholyoke.edu; justthismomentBonkers Institute for Nearly Genuine ResearchQuadell via Wikimedia Commons; and Marji Beach of Duchess Horse Sanctuary via flickr. 

Below is an approximation of this video’s audio content. To see any graphs, charts, graphics, images, and quotes to which Dr. Greger may be referring, watch the above video.

As Martha Rosenberg noted (the author of an excellent book, Born with a Junk Food Deficiency), just as this lithograph tells you everything you need to know about slavery, the fact that electroconvulsive therapy (electroshock treatments) were prescribed for menopause in the United States tells you everything you need to know about Western medicine’s view about aging women.

Here, in this 1946 medical journal ad, amphetamines (speed) was recommended, in conjunction “with such fundamental measures as electric shock and estrogenic therapy.” Doctors could throw in a little thorazine, too, while they’re at it.

Hormone replacement therapy grew to prominence in the 1990s, when millions of women were sold hormones from pregnant mare urine, on the promise that it would prevent age-related diseases. But instead, it may have caused them. Women on hormone replacement therapy suffered increased risk of heart disease, stroke, pulmonary embolism, and invasive breast cancer. They said it would help preserve women’s memory—but may have, in fact, caused dementia, as it shrinks women’s brains.

When the truth got out in 2002, and the number of prescriptions dropped, so did the rates of breast cancer. And, horses got to walk around once again.

Thanks to high-profile celebrity endorsements, though, interest then switched to so-called compounded bioidentical hormones—from plant rather than equine sources, and advertised as not carrying the same risks.

What does the science say? A bunch of new reviews on the subject out from the American College of OB/GYNs, the Mayo Clinic, to the editors-in-chief of the Journal of the International Menopause Society. All concluded that bioidentical hormones, being bioidentical, carried the same risks, benefits, and side effects—which is not a good thing.

And, even worse, when the FDA actually analyzed them to see if the contents matched the label, nearly a third failed the analysis. Even in the same bottle, doses could be all over the place.

Okay, all universally opposed, but, look, how do we know everyone isn’t just in the pocket of the pharmaceutical industry—you know, just doesn’t want the competition?

Well, whenever I’m skeptical, I turn to The Medical Letter on Drugs and Therapeutics, considered to be one of the least-biased sources in medicine. They’re kind of like the Consumer Reports of the drug world, and, in fact, was actually co-founded by the co-founder of the publisher of Consumer Reports, more than 50 years ago.

As they like to brag on their website, The Medical Letter does not accept grants— from any source; donations—from any one; funding—from any entity. They won’t let their work be used for promotional purposes, and they don’t accept any advertising.

They recently reviewed bioidentical hormones, and came to the same conclusion: “There is no acceptable evidence that ‘bioidentical’ hormones are safe or effective. Patients should be discouraged from taking them.”

Please consider volunteering to help out on the site.

Images thanks to Quadell via Wikimedia Commons; Lameer Witter; Dan & Corina Lecca; Marji Beach of Duchess Horse Sanctuary via flickr; mtholyoke.edujustthismoment, and Bonkers Institute for Nearly Genuine Research.

Images thanks to Dan & Corina Lecca; Lameer Witter; mtholyoke.edu; justthismomentBonkers Institute for Nearly Genuine ResearchQuadell via Wikimedia Commons; and Marji Beach of Duchess Horse Sanctuary via flickr. 

Nota del Doctor

Another way to rid ourselves of excess estrogen is in the way nature intended: Relieving Yourself of Excess Estrogen. We can also stop consuming steroid hormones; see Anabolic Steroids in Meat, and Acne & Cancer Connection. For other ways to decrease breast cancer risk, see The Answer to the Pritikin PuzzleBreast Cancer Survival and Soy; and Broccoli Versus Breast Cancer Stem Cells. And check out my new 2018 video Soy Phytoestrogens for Menopause Hot Flashes

For more context, check out my associated blog posts: Stool Size and Breast Cancer RiskMushrooms for Breast Cancer PreventionTreating Breast Pain with Diet; and Are Bioidentical Hormones Safe?

If you haven’t yet, you can subscribe to my videos for free by clicking here.

Comment Etiquette

On NutritionFacts.org, you'll find a vibrant community of nutrition enthusiasts, health professionals, and many knowledgeable users seeking to discover the healthiest diet to eat for themselves and their families. As always, our goal is to foster conversations that are insightful, engaging, and most of all, helpful – from the nutrition beginners to the experts in our community.

To do this we need your help, so here are some basic guidelines to get you started.

The Short List

To help maintain and foster a welcoming atmosphere in our comments, please refrain from rude comments, name-calling, and responding to posts that break the rules (see our full Community Guidelines for more details). We will remove any posts in violation of our rules when we see it, which will, unfortunately, include any nicer comments that may have been made in response.

Be respectful and help out our staff and volunteer health supporters by actively not replying to comments that are breaking the rules. Instead, please flag or report them by submitting a ticket to our help desk. NutritionFacts.org is made up of an incredible staff and many dedicated volunteers that work hard to ensure that the comments section runs smoothly and we spend a great deal of time reading comments from our community members.

Have a correction or suggestion for video or blog? Please contact us to let us know. Submitting a correction this way will result in a quicker fix than commenting on a thread with a suggestion or correction.

View the Full Community Guidelines

Deja una respuesta

Tu correo electrónico no se publicará Los campos obligatorios están marcados *

Pin It en Pinterest

Share This