Bioidentical Hormones on L.A. TV Tonight

it was a good piece, Anom you are right as usual, the opposing doctor definately got many facts wrong, its a shame really, I hope the women watching do their own research! I start my topical progesterone today!!

NewsProducer, thanks!

Hi NewsProducer!

There are of course certain hormones you shouldn't put into your body if you are an ER+ BC survivor. There are so many hormones, the "bad" one estridiol is what causes havoc in our system, but progesterone and estriol are protective (see attached link for more info on progesterone), its key to have balanced hormones, not eliminate all of one's estrogen, that is just setting yourself up for a host of other problems i.e. heart disease, bone loss etc.  I don't know if you have time, but take a look at the 2:16 ratio, the good stuff 2 hydroxyestrone is protective the bad stuff  is 16 hydroxyestrone so  the goal is to keep the balance between the two so you are not dominant with the 16 hydroxyestrone - again this is the one that causes problems. I have been "estrogen dominant" my whole life (unknowingly), which was evident by me having entometriosis, fibrocystic breasts, very bad PMS, ovarian cysts. I have been trying to balance my hormones naturally, this morning I had an ultra sound on an existing ovarian cyst and guess what it has shrunk by 1/2, it just convinced me even more that balance is good, not eliminating, so if a women has her hormones tested properly by someone who knows what they are doing, they are able to tell exactly what is going on and treat accordingly, one size does not fit all which seems to be the trend in traditional breast cancer treatment.

http://www.yourlifesource.com/progesterone-breast-cancer.htm

I know how you feel!! We learn more on these boards and from each than we can learn from our docs, sad but true, knowledge about this disease is power, we research our butts off, hopefully we can help others somehow......Keep doing what you are doing, it WILL make a difference!

Well IF the doc (I didn't watch the piece) had errors within the facts - isn't it good journalism to call those corrections out?  Wouldn't that be the job of a producer?  Also if no one is "fact checking" how can anything in the piece be considered "fact"..  and then shouldn't that be stated as well??  Just saying that journalism needs to be a "clean" process and if errors are stated they should be corrected..

A study came out showing that for 30% of the women who were given estradiol orally (6mg's per day) after an aromitase inhibitor failed them -- the estradiol "confused" the tumors and had shrinkage for a period of time. Then, when the cancer readjusted to the influx of estradiol and started to grow again, you go back on one of the AI's that originally worked and then failed and the estradiol "rebooted" the efficacy of the AI.  30% is a higher result rate than chemo or tamoxifen for stage IV's, which I am.  I have been on estradiol for over 2 months and will be scanned after three months.  However, my gyno feels that if the estradiol is working and I continue to take it for another 3 months, that I should take progesterone to counter the possibility of uterine cancer that can come from what he calls "unopposed estrogen".  This tx is for Stage IV only but wanted to address IvoryMom's question.

Robin 

Newsproducer-While I did not see the show, I am not from your area, I wish that that news reports would just stop doing these kinds hit pieces on health. They always just give a little of the story, and just as in this case, they may feature people who misrepresent the facts. People go away with the "I heard this is bad for me" mentality and the truth never comes out. If you don't have time to explore the facts, then why do you just do a partial story? Maybe you need to do a series so that you can give more information.

I listened to the story again and most of it focuses on women who are using bioidentical hormones and feeling great as a result. Yes, the story does include mouthpieces trained by the big pharma to be naysayers cautioning women against the unknown risk of taking bioidentical hormones.  I expressed support of more stories on this based on the assumption that future stories would shed light on the errors stated, such as bioidenticals being 'completely unregulated.'  Yes, since it's untrue, it shouldn't have been in the story at all.  But since it was in the story, what are the plans to correct this misinformation?  

And what about some answers to questions like these:

If women are taking bioidentical hormones and feeling great, how does this translate into the FDA viewing them as "unsubstantiated claims"? 

If mainstream doctors know so little about hormones, why is it such a widespread practice for oncologists to prescribe hormone therapy to their breast cancer patients without so much as a glance at existing hormone levels, let alone monitoring during treatment?  

The next time a doctor advises caution against bioidentical hormones based on 'unknown risks,' perhaps you could ask if that same doctor warns patients of the death rate resulting from properly prescribed AND administered pharmaceuticals (which is 100,000 per year by the way, 2.5 times the death rate of breast cancer).  If they're SO concerned about patient safety, how does that translate into persistent ignornance surrounding bioidenticals while they recommend hormone therapy to breast cancer patients without a second thought.  Arimidex alone can cause serious joint pain and bone loss, and serious impact to the quality of life.  How is that ok and bioidenticals aren't?  

These are the kinds of questions I like to see answered.   Otherwise, I agree with some comments of others -- if you're going to participate in the continuing practice of spreading lies about bioidentical hormones, just leave it alone in the first place.  Personally, I'd like to see layers of lies peeled away.  If that is the goal of further stories, I support that.  

You're right, it would be a tall order to address all those things in 3 minutes.  Taking just one thing at a time would be a place to start, such as examining these 'statements' that compounding pharmacies which produce bioidentical hormones are unregulated.

I'd wager a guess that your very own program is also fueled by dollars from big pharma.  Drilling all the way down to the truth is not likely to happen on your show.  So, perhaps you could just refrain from further spreading of untruths as you encounter them.  That in itself would be an improvement.  On the other hand, if you really want to report accurate information, there's a world of information deserving of media attention.