Suzanne Somors hormone replacement???

Options
12467…15

Comments

  • Rosemary44
    Rosemary44 Member Posts: 2,660
    edited February 2009

    Anomdenit,  I still don't see where it says that.  Is it the first study on the list.  Small print drives me nuts.

    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • anondenet
    anondenet Member Posts: 715
    edited February 2009

    < 

    Rosemary, I got that percentage of O'Meara from someplace else. Originally the whole article was on the net in a different place than www.breastcancerchoices.org/hrt

    You can write to Dr. O'Meara at the University of Washington and I'm sure she will send you the whole article.

    See the article below which shows they "matched" the breast cancers so they would be comparing like with like, not ER+ with ER- , age disease type, etc.

    http://www.families-first.com/hb/breastca5.htm

    A study published in the Journal of the National Cancer Institute (May 2001) reveals that HRT or hormone replacement therapy after a diagnosis of breast cancer  does not increase the risk of recurrence of the disease and may even lower chances that the cancer will return.

    Dr. Ellen O'Meara, a University of Washington cancer researcher and the lead researcher on this study, suggests that breast cancer patients should not fear hormone replacement therapy or HRT. According to Dr. O'Meara, "The data are reassuring for women who take HRT after a breast cancer diagnosis and HRT need not be ruled out automatically."

    In their study, Dr. O'Meara and Dr. Noel Weiss along with other co-authors, at the group health Cooperative of Puget Sound, analyzed data from a group of 2,755 women who had been diagnosed with invasive breast cancer. Within this group were 174 women who began using hormone replacement therapy after the cancer diagnosis. Each of the women who were HRT users were matched with other women who were the same age, had the same disease type, and had the same year of breast cancer diagnoses but did NOT use HRT. By studying and following these women, researchers found the rate of breast cancer recurrence for the HRT users was 17 in 1,000 person-years, while for nonusers the rate was 30 per 1,000 person-years. A person-year is one year of human life. Morbidity or death from breast cancer was 5 per 1,000 person-years for HRT users and 15 per 1,000 person-years for non-HRT users.

    The study found some information possibly suggesting that the HRT might increase the chance of developing breast cancer in the breast that was previously unaffected. Researchers said the risk of developing tumors in the unaffected breast was 12 per 1,000 person-years for the HRT users and 8 per 1,000 person-years for non-users.

    Dr. O'Meara added that the numbers of HRT users who developed cancer in the unaffected breast were too small to make a strong scientific conclusion.

    This study provides an opened door for investigating the role HRT may have in breast cancer. Two large studies looking at questions about HRT and breast cancer are going on in Sweden and in Britain.

    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • Rosemary44
    Rosemary44 Member Posts: 2,660
    edited February 2009

    Yes, they probably have a lot more info in the original paper.  My interest is strictly with high estrogen foods.  They're out there and we're eating them without knowing about it.  Should we worry or should we not worry.  If they are giving synthetic hormones to women who are dx'd with ER+ tumors and not seeing a large problem, then maybe we shouldn't be worried about eating foods high in phytoestrogens either.  If one has anything to do with the other, is unknown by me, but I'd like to know.  So that's why I'm here questioning the research and how they did it and on who, and for how long. 

    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • pk0199
    pk0199 Member Posts: 586
    edited February 2009

    Hi All,

    I have a few questions as I am having trouble following some of your comments and am finding I am just getting confused.

    If hormone status has no bearing on recurrance or bc in the first place, why do they test for it?

    Now if I have misunderstood that and hormone status does have a bearing , why would one want to use biotins (?sp) if it is derived from soy in which is my understanding is something to stay away from if hormone +?

    Why has the food and drug admin not cleared these biotins(?) is it not enough research or just not been around long enough?

    Also read at one point not to take flax , not sure if I read it on this forum or another, but so much debate there, again, confused.

    Rosemary where would I find a list of high estrogen foods, again though is it necessary.

    I am hormone + and as soon as my rads are done, that needs to be addressed so I am just starting my research (yes I have been procrastinating) but as with all research unfortunately I tend to just get confused.

    Respectfully although very confused

    Penny

    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • Rosemary44
    Rosemary44 Member Posts: 2,660
    edited February 2009

    Penny,

    I can only speak a little bit on this issue.  HRT's are blamed for some of us getting BC.  So that's one side.  On the other side, the research they are talking about here are for using HRT's after being dx'd with BC which is another thing entirely.  It might not harm, or it could even be beneficial. 

    If we really want to go deeper.  I was taking HRT's.  I read the small print about it could give me BC and immediately stopped taking them.  Within 3 years, I got BC.  What did it?  My taking the HRT's or my stopping taking them?  

    The research needs more review.  How long did the study last?  How many BC patients had ER+ tumors and of those women, what exactly happened to them after taking HRT's and for how many years were they taking the HRT's after dx?  That really needs to be gone through a lot more thoroughly.  

    Until we know more answers to our questions, I'm going with what I know.  I've been on Arimidex for the last 41/2 years without a relapse of any kind.  So I'm for the anti-estrogen therapy. 

    Phytoestrogen food list:

    http://www.dietaryfiberfood.com/phytoestrogen.php

    That's the short list, there are longer ones.  We eat phytos all day long.

    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • Anonymous
    Anonymous Member Posts: 1,376
    edited February 2009

    >Within 3 years, I got BC. What did it?

    My money's on teflon, not HRT (or stopping it).

    I think it will be shown, eventually, to be the worst health risk perpetrated on the general public by a corporation.

    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • Hindsfeet
    Hindsfeet Member Posts: 2,456
    edited February 2009

    I had lunch with a friend today who used Estriol for 30 years, and has not had breast cancer. She is post menapausel. Before today, I haven't heard of Estriol. I found this little blip on it..just checking it out. Anyone out there who used it?

    Estriol for ERT

    Estriol is also being researched for ERT. It is a weak estrogen that provides the anti-aging benefits of therapy without the apparent increased risk of cancer. During pregnancy, large amounts of estriol are secreted by the placenta and high estriol levels appear to protect the fetus. Estriol is used extensively in Europe for ERT. Because it is a weak estrogen larger doses are used. A dose of 2 to 3 mg of estriol is equivalent to about 1 mg of the type of conjugated estrogens that were used in Premarin.  Premarin tended to cause endometrial hyperplasia, a condition which may precede uterine cancer. Estriol therapy does not cause endometrial hyperplasia. Estriol therapy reverses vaginal atrophy and improves cervical mucus. Estriol therapy seems to avoid other side effects reported for other estrogens such as nausea and breakthrough bleeding. Both researchers and estriol users have especially remarked on the quality of skin improvement.

    Estriol may help prevent breast cancer. Dr. H. M. Lemon and associates of the University of Nebraska Medical Center found that estriol reduced mammary tumors induced by gamma radiation in female rats from 75% to 48%. In another study by Lemon and his colleagues, estriol was found to have "the most significant anti-mammary carcinogenic activity of 22 tested compounds" and "estriol is less likely to induce proliferative changes in the target organs of cancer-prone women than estrone or estradiol".

    Estriol is used at 8 mg daily or taken in a combination of 80% estriol, 10 % estrone and 10% estradiol in a product called TriEst. TriEst, with it's 10% estradiol is felt to have better effects on improving improving learning and memory. Estriol or TriEst are available in Europe.

    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • vivre
    vivre Member Posts: 2,167
    edited February 2009

    Barry, this is very interesting reading about estriol. It does not surprise me that it is available in Europe and not here. Did your friend use progesterone replacment too?

    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • Hindsfeet
    Hindsfeet Member Posts: 2,456
    edited February 2009

    vivre, check out http://www.earlymenopause.com/hrt_estriol.htm

    I like what' I'm learning about it. It seems like a possible option for breast cancer women. My friend said she had a prescription for it???? She is 62 and still is on it. She looks 50!

    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • pip57
    pip57 Member Posts: 12,401
    edited February 2009

    Remember that these studies are looking for commonalities.  Not everyone who smokes get lung cancer and not everyone who gets lung cancer smokes.  However, there is an undeniable link between the two.  I suspect it is much the same for HRT and bc.

    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • Deirdre1
    Deirdre1 Member Posts: 1,461
    edited February 2009

    Barry:  This is a great thread!  I was on natural progesterone until my dx of ER+/PR+ bc..  I have to admit that I have been tempted to get back on this wonderful cream but I am a bit concerned that the research (as was placed one this thread earlier) although only done on synthetic estrogen - there are no studies I can find either to negate progesterone or allow it.. so just what does PR+ mean?  I was under the assumption that it meant the same as ER+ (again limited studies but studies that show that synthetic estrogen feeds ER+ tumor), yet there isn't any data on it that I could find.. and that stuff made my life wonderful.. I slept like a baby, was much more even tempered (although I am usually even tempered anyway - but this took ANY edge off) my skin was more youthful...  As I said since it was DCIS I have been tempted to go back on the bio-progesterone - has anyone seen research that disallows progesterone??  I'd love to see the stats!!!

    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • Hindsfeet
    Hindsfeet Member Posts: 2,456
    edited February 2009

    Deirdre, I tried looking up bio-proesterone satistics and thus far found nothing. There is a lot more said on estrogen receptors.  Dr. Lee's book on Cancer may answer your question, and mine as well. I just don't want to read a long book about cancer. But if some one has read the book and could summarize the information, or give some kind of satistical account for bio-progesterone recurrence that would be great.

    You had a bi lateral mx? If you do not have breast then you don't have ducts? If you don't have ducts (breast) then how can bio-hormones hurt?

    Since learning about the positive side of natural hormones I' am very open to using them. Just slightly timid ... a little fearful about a recurrence..or if I still have dcis in my breast it might not be such a good thing. I wish all this information could be simpliar put. 

    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • vivre
    vivre Member Posts: 2,167
    edited February 2009

     I put this on the other thread but thought I would add it here. This is an interesting article by a doctor about HRT:

    http://www.obgmanagement.com/pdf/1406/1406OBGM_Article1.pdf

    It is still making me furious that there seems to be so much positive info out there about HRTyet doctors do not seem to be aware of it. They continue to go by the data from only one study against it, although there are many more that seem to promote it. Nonetheless, I think the biggest disaster is their insistant that we need estrogen blocking drugs to keep breast cancer from recurrance. More and more, it seems that just the opposite is true. Have been sold a gigantic can of worms by the drug companies or what?????

    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • Hindsfeet
    Hindsfeet Member Posts: 2,456
    edited February 2009

    Good article!.I would like to give hormone therapy a try. Since my doctors are against estrogen & progesterone for bc women then how do I get it, and how will I know how much to take? What's safe?

    I agree...I think we've been sold a gigantic can of worms. The more I read about the side affects of drugs the more skeptical I' am about them. It seems that which is healthy for us has become the enemy...such as foods with estrogen. It's the hormones and vitamins in them that's holding our body together.

    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • desdemona222b
    desdemona222b Member Posts: 776
    edited February 2009

    Premarin is not a "synthetic" hormone, either.  It is made from a natural source, mare's urine.  Actually, there's no such thing as "synthecized estrogen."  It's all made from urine or phytoestrogens.

    Suzanne Sommers was ER+.  She turned down chemo and tamoxifen and I remember when she was first diagnosed and turning that into a gigantic publicity stunt, she said on television, and I quote, that estrogen "just seems like such a healthy, natural thing."

    My breast cancer was caused by HRT, and estrogen is estrogen, period.  IT FEED ER+ CANCER, PEOPLE.

    A very low dose of Premarin completely and totally resolved my hot flashes. 

    Suzanne Sommers is a represhensible individual who has fashioned herself into a breast cancer and dietary expert and has made millions giving women advice contrary to what their doctors have given.  And the "experts" she cites are merely people who are willing to give her information that confirms her own notions. 

    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • lisasayers
    lisasayers Member Posts: 850
    edited February 2009

    dedemonna would you please share your resources...I would love to read them.  I've been readying/studying BHRT for several years and would like to see the information you have. 

    As far as Suzanne Sommers...I think nobody should judge her.  I'm choosing not to take Tamoxifen.  Does that make me ignorant?  No, I'm doing what is right for ME.  MY BODY, MY CHOICE, MY LIFE, MY DECISION!  

    I applaud Oprah for bring information out for people so that they can become SELF-EDUCATED.  She is just putting the information out there and suggesting that people look into it.  If they aren't interested...it's like I say "Hit the Delete button"  Nobody is forcing anybody to believe what is being said. I surely don't believe everything that I see on TV or read in the papers. 

    I don't believe everything the doctors tell me either, that is why I self-educate myself! 

    vivre...great article!  Had not seen that one.  Thanks for finding and sharing! 

    Incidentally, Dr. Uzzi Reiss, is an expert in BHRT, as well as Dr. Erika Schwartz, Dr. Christiane Northrup and many others. 

    Lastly....everybody here is entitled to their own OPINION that is why we call it a free world!

    Make it a great day!

    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • vivre
    vivre Member Posts: 2,167
    edited February 2009

    I never took any HRT and I got breast cancer. I look back and wish I had. My hormones were really out of whack. I had all the symptoms of estrogen overload. I did not have hot flashes, which shows I had lots of estrogen. I had lots of weight gain and I was totally addicted to sugar and junk food. This may be because of low progesterone. Hence, I was too estrogen dominant. My saving grace was that  I did like to exercise, and this probably kept my tumor from spreading. I decided to take that to heart and run with it. Taking a pill might have been a lot easier, but the potential long term side effects are still too scary to me.So I decided to change my habits. I got off my butt and upped my exercise routine from a couple of times a week to every day. I changed my diet drastically and never touch any fast food, dairy, or sodas. I have lost 40 pounds and feel 20 years younger. Seems to me that is much better than feeling like I am 20 years older, the way gals on arimidex often say.

    I appreciate people like Susanne Somers who are bringing the positive effects of BHRT into the public eye. I still believe that I need to add natural progesterone to my health regimen and I really appreciate everyone on this and the other HRT threads who are sharing what they have learned. The hard part for me is finding a doctor who understands it enough to give me a proper prescription. I hope that we can continue to support each other in finding the truth to better health.

    Oh and I totally agree with SS that estrogen is a healthy natural thing. Why would our miraculously bodies even have estrogens if it was a killer. Estrogen is needed to keep our minds alert, our bones and teeth healthy, and our hearts working properly. Like everything in life though, we can have too much of a good thing. That is why it seems more logical to balance our hormones rather than to destroy them.

    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • desdemona222b
    desdemona222b Member Posts: 776
    edited February 2009

    lisa,

    You're right, it is your decision and your life.  And no one said you're not entitled to your own opinion, but when it's based on your own notions and gut-level feelings rather than scientific research, it's not exactly the smartest thing to do. 

    I did all of my research on HRT and ER+ breast cancer seven years ago, so the best advice I can give you about resources is to google the topics.  Estradiol patches are made from yam extract.  Premarin is made from mare's urine.  The fact is, there's no such thing as "synthecized" (which of course means articifcially created) estrogen.

    Obviously you're convinced that Suzanne Sommers is a better authority than your doctors and the medical community, and you're right, you have every right to do whatever you please.  I wish nothing but the best of luck. 

    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • lisasayers
    lisasayers Member Posts: 850
    edited February 2009

    For those of you interested...a great book to read is "A Dietitian's Cancer Story" by Diana Dyer.  Great information and lots of resources listed in the back of the book.  She is a three time cancer survivor. 

    She had a childhood cancer, neuroblastoma and two separate breast cancers.  After her first breast cancer at the age of 34, she had a modified radical mastectomy with lymph node dissection, with one positive node.  She did 6 cycles of CMF and took Tamoxifen for five years.  Her second breast cancer was found on her 10 year anniversary mammogram.  It was a brand new cancer, not a recurrence.  She chose a mastectomy and chemo (AC) and then she changed her lifestyle...through diet and exercise.  She continues to be cancer free and that second diagnosis was in 1995.

    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • lisasayers
    lisasayers Member Posts: 850
    edited February 2009

    I never said I was basing my decision on just my gut feelings...that would be really stupid! LOL  I've been researching BHRT for five years and have all kinds of scientic research to back my decision, rather than following the recommendations of big pharma. 

    I also never said I was basing my decision on Suzanne Somers, but I did research her doctors.  Again, following what Suzanne believes would be dumb.  I'm MUCH more educated than that. 

    As far as mare's urine...that is NOT natural to me.  To a horse, yes, but not me.  Incidentally, BHRT can be made from yams and soy.  They are closer to my hormones than mare urine. 

    As I tell people at my health seminars...don't be a sheep and follow blindly behind anybody!  Including the medical community or the FDA.  Shall we talk about Vioxx?

    I wish you the best of luck as well.  Moving on.....

    Make it a great day!

    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • anondenet
    anondenet Member Posts: 715
    edited February 2009

    Desdemona,

    Lisa and Vivre have done and are doing the research. When you have cancer, your life is at stake and you cannot afford to rely on your doctors alone. Doctors treat from treatment guidelines, not evidence.

    You cannot affort to rely just on google either or you will get the current conventional wisdom/conventional ignorance. Get the medical evidence. We can read as well or better than any doctors because of the stakes. READ, read, read.

    Please look at the research before you close your mind See: www.breastcancerchoices.org/hrt

    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • crazy4carrots
    crazy4carrots Member Posts: 5,324
    edited February 2009

    I think we need to seriously consider the research studies done by highly respected bc scientists throughout the world who seem to have come to the same conclusions -- that estrogen does feed certain breast cancers.  I was not surprised to find that my bc was e-positive.  I had a very easy menopause -- no hot flashes, no night sweats, no loss of elasticity in my joints, no facial wrinkles etc.  It's obvious now that I was still producing sufficient estrogen and I thought I was lucky!

    Now I'm on Femara (since August) and am starting to look my age and feel much older.  I want to go off Femara and get my old self back, but need to do much more research -- from, as I said, highly reputable researchers, a few of whom I know personally -- before I take that chance.  Sommers doesn't cut if for me either, and I stay away from anyone whose primary income seems to be from promoting anything that isn't the accepted wisdom of these dedicated researchers.

    Another thing I consider is studies by clinical researchers whose research is supported by the pharma companies who manufacture HRT drugs and other drugs reputed to be "safe" for us. There's a huge difference between clinical research and basic research, and that isn't always obvious when reading these studies.  Having said that, I believe estrogen and the other hormones are an essential component of our well-being, and eliminating them completely can't be good for us, either short-term or long-term.  So, before going off Femara, I (and my oncologist) need to find out much more than the knowledge currently available.  

    JMHO, of course.

    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • Anonymous
    Anonymous Member Posts: 1,376
    edited February 2009

    There is more than "one study" against estrogen.

    There is the fact that breast cancer statistics took a huge DIVE when doctors stopped prescribing HRT after that "one study" (a big study, mind you) revealed the risk.

    Yet more evidence:

    http://www.cnn.com/2009/HEALTH/02/04/health.hormone.cancer/index.html?eref=rss_health 

    http://www.webmd.com/menopause/news/20090204/menopause-hormone-therapy-safe-time?src=RSS_PUBLIC 

    200,000 cases of breast cancer caused by HRT.

    If the 2x4 isn't making you folks realize it, will a 4x6?

    Amondenet, stop spamming your web site.

    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • vivre
    vivre Member Posts: 2,167
    edited February 2009

    Hey Anom

    Thanks for all the great links you have provided me with over the past year. I have learned a lot from you! Please keep it up!

    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • Anonymous
    Anonymous Member Posts: 1,376
    edited February 2009

    Hey, can anyone explain to me what a "sock puppet is" in relation to posting on forums?

    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • desdemona222b
    desdemona222b Member Posts: 776
    edited February 2009

    When you have cancer, your life is at stake and you cannot afford to rely on your doctors alone. Doctors treat from treatment guidelines, not evidence.

    WHAT??  Treatment guidelines are most certainly based on very extensive research - billions of dollars of research that was conducted under controlled situations with the scientific method, not speculation about juicing and "natural" hormones..

    Anway, like I said, I wish all of you ladies who are disregarding your doctors' advice the best of luck.   

    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • Deirdre1
    Deirdre1 Member Posts: 1,461
    edited February 2009

    There is a big difference between mare urine and yams and since yams can also be fuel for our body's I would imagine the problem with hormone replacement is that it isn't "replacement" at all it is putting something foreign into the body.. The point about science would have been OK before the pharmacutical companies started paying for many of these studies when they saw women's money going off to buy "natural" replacements and by the way paying the FDA to support them (pharmacuticals) ..  I would  agree that mare urine is not "natural" for a human being.. but the bio-identical forms are things that we, as human women, might eat in the natural world and so I find (as do many doc's) that they fall into a different catagory altogether..

    Barry, thanks for the tip, I have read Dr.Lee's book and was looking for more information about bio-identical (and specifically on progesterine) since Dr. Lee is now dead he hasn't been able to follow through with the more recent information about the HRT being pulled and the drops in breast cancer when that happened (and actually - women let me know if I am wrong - he predicted major problems with synthetic HRT).   But to your question about where you get it, estrogen is under a ban I believe in the US (bio or not) but progesterone can be gotten on line from several firms that prepare the way Dr. Lee structured his applications.. pm me if you want a good site..

    By the way, I see the confussion here alway jumping back to HRT - when the topic is really the bio-identicals (the products that can be consumed in nature by human women/beings).. I think that is where this thread went off track - perhaps!!??? 

    And I have not decided if estrogen/progesterin is "safe" for myself yet so I am not suggesting it for anyone - just adding my 2 cents!

    Best

    PS  Barry, sorry I forgot this.. I have had a bi-lateral but there is never a full garantee that all of the breast tissue is gone - so there is always a small chance of that tissue being encouraged to produce cancer yet again - if it is ER+ (I don't know about PR+ because there is so little data) and mine was ER+..  I asked my most liberal doc this same question - he said they just aren't sure enough yet and so not to take the chance.. again showing the uncertain approach I have seen through this entire process of breast cancer, both with myself now and my father the last 20 years..  They actually put my dad on a progesterine medication early on it was suppose to "relieve" his symptoms - so go figure.. that's why I still have unanswered questions about progesterine specifically!

    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • juliebb
    juliebb Member Posts: 140
    edited February 2009

    Here's something else about estriol.

     http://www.tahoma-clinic.com/hrtbreastcancer.shtml

    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • pip57
    pip57 Member Posts: 12,401
    edited February 2009

    I don't get why so many people are taking the advice of Suzanne Somers.  I thought she looked old, tired and sick, with one too many plastic surgeries.  Just because she claims to feel youthful and full of energy isn't good enough for me.  I think she hyped her bc dx to sell her book.  Now she is selling another one.  

    That being said, I am quite interested in the various studies posted here.  Obviously, some studies are poorly structured and others are totally biased, on both sides of the debate.  The only thing that is clear to me is that bc is a VERY complex beast.  I don't think we have begun to understand all the complexities.  Right now we have to rely on one size fits all type of tx.  And that obviously isn' good enough. 

    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • vivre
    vivre Member Posts: 2,167
    edited February 2009

    I do not think we are taking Suzanne Somers' advice. At least I am not doing looking into BHRT because it is endorsed by a celebrity. In fact, I too was very skeptical at first for just that reason. Then I started to research it on my own and realized there is a lot of proof out there that hormone replacement is important to good health. I would never do somthing just because some celebrity extolls its virtues. But sadly, it takes celebrities like SS and Oprah to bring this information out into the mainstream because our doctors are so controlled by drug companies, insurance companies, and do not have the time to follow all the research out there, that they are not always able to think outside the box. However, I do think that because celebrities are speaking up about this that more doctors will get the message and I bet that there are going to be a lot of changes in medicine in the next few years because of it.

    I read that Oprah's Doctor OZ is going to do a radio show on this on Friday on sirius. I do not get this, but I am hoping I can find a webcast.

    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter

Categories