You TubeTwitterFacebook  
Home Ayurvedic Medicine Integrated Medicine Education Contents Articles Links Products Search Feedback Contact Forum Site map
It is currently Wed Jun 19, 2013 3:59 pm

All times are UTC + 7 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 5 posts ] 
Author Message
PostPosted: Fri Jul 13, 2007 5:51 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun May 14, 2006 11:30 am
Posts: 10003
Location: Chiang Mai


Health Risk to Older Women Is Seen in Hormone Therapy By GINA KOLATA
Published: April 4, 2007

A new analysis of combined data from two parts of a large federal study of hormone therapy has found that women in their 50s do not appear to have an increased heart attack risk if they take the drugs. But it also found that women in their 60s and 70s who still had hot flashes and night sweats were at increased risk for heart attacks, even if they were not taking hormones. And if these women took hormone therapy, their risk was higher still.

The main indication now for hormone therapy is hot flashes and night sweats, said Dr. Jacques Rossouw, a researcher for the National Heart, Lung and Blood Institute who directed the federal study, the Women's Health Initiative. This says that if you are older than 60, you should not take it.

That observation needs additional study to confirm and understand it, Dr. Rossouw said. It's quite new and unexpected, he added. Because this group of older women with menopausal symptoms was not specified before the studies began, the researchers described their analysis as exploratory rather than definitive.



The new analysis was designed to answer persistent questions about hormone therapy that arose from the Women's Health Initiative.
Its two studies included 27,347 women ages 50 to 79 who were randomly assigned to receive hormones or not. One study involved women who had not had hysterectomies. They took Prempro, a drug made by Wyeth that combines estrogen and progestins. The other involved women who had had a hysterectomy and who took estrogen alone. Estrogen alone can cause cancer of the uterine lining and should not be used by women with a uterus.

The main objective of those studies was to ask whether hormone therapy could prevent heart attacks; many doctors had expected it would. Instead, Prempro increased the risk of heart attacks, strokes and breast cancer, and estrogen alone increased stroke and breast cancer risk.
Those findings were a shock to many women and their doctors, who had thought the hormones were an unmitigated good and who had considered the drugs a sort of fountain of youth. Even the name the treatment was given, hormone replacement therapy, gave that impression replacing hormones lost to aging. Researchers and the Food and Drug Administration no longer use the term hormone replacement therapy, but it persists in popular use.

And the studies were criticized by gynecologists, in particular, who pointed out that most of the women were long past menopause. Did the findings really apply, they asked, to younger women, in their 50s, who had just entered menopause?

To get an answer to that question, the investigators combined data from both studies and asked about health risks in the 50s, 60s and 70s.
They concluded in their new analysis that while women in their 50s taking Prempro or estrogen alone had a slightly increased risk of strokes and breast cancer, there was no increase in their risk of heart attacks.
That is somewhat reassuring, Dr. Rossouw said. He suggested that if women in their 50s wanted to take hormone therapy to relieve menopause symptoms, they should be sure their blood pressure was controlled and they should have regular mammograms. But the result does not mean, Dr. Rossouw added, that if women start taking hormones in their 50s, they can safely continue into their 60s and 70s.
If the concern is heart attack risk, he said, we were as clear as could be that there seems to be a window of opportunity to use it in that short interval, but there is not a window of opportunity into the future,Dr. Rossouw said. And we know for sure that if you start taking it in older age, it is bad news for heart disease.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Jul 17, 2007 3:21 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun May 14, 2006 11:30 am
Posts: 10003
Location: Chiang Mai
C1: I am continually amazed that wyeth has managed to somehow get 99.99% of the public and probably a greater percentage of doctors to equate synthetic progestins and horse urine with the term "hormone replacement". The fact that this combination (or either drug alone) does enough good to counteract the harm it does so that the studies are at times equivocal or even beneficial says something about how badly the body wants any hormone that it used to enjoy for its health and well being (even bad ones). Jeff Baird DO


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Jul 17, 2007 3:22 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun May 14, 2006 11:30 am
Posts: 10003
Location: Chiang Mai
C2: the answer is, use appropriate HRT. Even the WHI faction now concede that Prempro is not hormone replacement HRT but hormone therapy HT - substitution of the bioidentical with patentable wannabe substitutes.

all the hype and hysteria about HRT since 2002 - and the misery suffered by millions of women through denial of appropriate HRT before and since- was avoidable if only gynecologists and trial planners had followed physiological basics: that gonadopause is just another endocrine deficiency, but the commonest , since all women, and most men, develop it to some degree after midlife.

Endocrinology has always replaced deficient hormones by 3 principles:
1. whatever the deficiency, measure the suspected deficency by both clinical and hormone levels.
2. replace hormones by the most physiological route, to restore measurable biomarkers to normal.- insulin (sc), erythropoeitin (sc), growth hormone(sc), vasopressin (eg spray), whatever . (DHEA, cortisol, thyroid and the co-hormone metformin are as it happens among the few (co)hormones that can be effectively and safely replaced orally).

3. titrate the dose to both response and to restore objective hormone markers (eg blood sugar, hemoglobin, lipidemia or erectile function in the case of insulin, Epo, metformin or testosterone respectively ) to the mean range of healthy younger people.

But these principles do not suit drug companies, whose profits depend on profitmaking drugs- which ol' human hormones are not. And few doctors, politicians and academics can resist the incentives that drug companies offer. And as a gynecologist famously explained at a USA gyne congress a few years ago, it doesnt pay to argue with a woman who wants her bleeding womb out now with quick-fix hysterectomy and oral Hormone therapy, rather than conserving her womb and titrating systemic hormones for gtradual womb control and longterm multisystem protection. The woman wants immediate gratification, and so does the doctor's bank balance. The medical schemes in USA have at least conquered this one by paying cardiologists to make vascular procedures unnecessary with appropriate natural preventatives (eg Sinatra and Roberts 2007)

So drug companies - who have to reward investors with at least 40% yields after all expenses and losses- fund only trials, trialists and promotion of profitable patentable new drug substitutes (for the natural old and proven) eg progestins, statins, biphosphonates, SSRIs, SERMS, NSAIDs, clotbusters, antiplatelet, anti-impotence, anti-obesity, contraceptives and antidiabetic agents. eg
thus As soon as the excellent circulation drug Cosaldon R patent expired, the manufacturer replaced it with an equally effective new patent Trental.
similarly, BMS and Merck no longer promote the only proven safe oral antidiabetic - metformin(1922), but heavily promote their largely unnecessary and hypoglycemic but patent combinations of metformin with a sulphonylurea.

But no modern chronic drugs ( ie of the of the past 50 years) for the chronic degenerative diseases have been shown to be as good as the safe and old - which each (let alone when combined) reduce all-cause mortaliy and morbidity by about a third:
-fish oil; metformin; appropriate human sexhormone replacement in both genders; and combined other nutriceuticals (vits, minerals, biologicals, herbs). No modern chronic drugs reduce common major all-cause mortality and all-cause morbidity.
see http://www.imsoc.org%20and%20http://www.issam.ch

. kind regards,

Neil D Burman Specialist Internist
Cape Town RSA; HealthSpan Research Foundation


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Jul 17, 2007 3:24 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun May 14, 2006 11:30 am
Posts: 10003
Location: Chiang Mai
C3: This information is worthless for at least a couple of reasons. It should not be "reassuring" for anyone that there was not an increase in heart attack risk in women in their 50's.Atherosclerosis is a cummulative disease that is underwritten by an inflammatory response in the blood vessels of people with a particular genetic polymorphism. Unless you separate out that cohort you have diluted results. These results are similar to testing the efficacy of sun tanning lotion on a largely African American cohort and saying that there was no increase in skin cancer.
Secondly,of course,is the fact that real human hormones have not been evaluated. CRP levels go up 80% with the use of Premarin. You should expect an increase in a wide spectrum of diseases associated with inflammation such as diabetes, breast cancer, stroke and "heart attacks". The fact that these diseases are at a very low incidence when a woman has high levels of bio identical hormones suggest that there is a qualitative difference between them and non-bio-identical hormone substitutes. It is beyond me to think that any rational person would still consider giving this proven class A carcinogen to any woman for any reason.
I would add that while most of you may think that there was a decrease in the incidence of colon cancer deaths in the WHI, there was not. There was as slight decrease in incidence of colon cancer, but actually a higher number of colon cancer deaths in women taking Premarin. These cancers were also higher grade. This is what killed my mother after 20 years of Premarin. She was also the only one of her 6 sisters to get breast cancer.
Roby Mitchell M.D.(Dr Fitt)


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Oct 29, 2011 7:11 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 25, 2010 11:28 pm
Posts: 968
Related topics:

• Low Testosterone Increases Mortality in Older Men
http://www.dreddyclinic.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=122&t=4316
• Metabolic solution for baby boomers?
http://www.dreddyclinic.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=122&t=4491
• Hitting 50 and HRT
http://www.dreddyclinic.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=122&t=4195
• Hormone Therapy and Healthy Skin
http://www.dreddyclinic.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=122&t=4705
• Growth Hormone
http://www.dreddyclinic.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=122&t=4703

_________________

"Green Living" Cleanse Starter Kit

$208.89
[ learn more ]

Add to Cart

Kit Includes: 1 Multi-Tech XJ-3000E Home or Office Air Purification System, 1 Home Water Test Kit, 1 Safe Space Cell Phone Radiation Protector, 1 Safe Space II Computer or Home Radiation Protector

Cleanses: The Starter "Green Living" Cleanse.

Dr. Group's Opinion: Great introductory kit for improving your air and water quality in your indoor environments.



436x180_start_button_weil

DrEddyClinicShop: http://myghcstore.com/dreddyclinic/ http://www.dreddyclinic.com/products/ghchealth.php


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 5 posts ] 

All times are UTC + 7 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group