bio-identical hormones

Count me in as a bioidentical user.

Me too - I am a bio-identical believer.

Beth

Sometimes a good place to start is to contact your local compounding pharmacy who can give you referrals to local doctors. Also  - functional medicine/anti-aging docs do hormones - you can go to the Institute for Functional Medicine website and search for providers. If all that fails - you can PM me for a referral who does do long distance consults.

Beth

sorry Claire, but I don't think you have all the facts when it comes down to hormone balance.  Do your research and then comment.

. I don't think you should assume that any of us going this chosen path did this on a whim.  I have done my research, as have many others on this "alternative" forum. There are risks/benefits in every single treatment decision. I do not judge anyone for the path they have chosen. Instead, I think we need to support each other in fighting this awful disease.

My choices were not for short term comfort, they were made because I believe that hormone balance is an important factor in breast cancer prevention. I also work with very qualified medical professionals who are committed to treating me as a biochemical individual, addressing every phase of my health and possible underlying causes. I much prefer this to a "one size fits all".

FYI - My onc, who is quite conservative and very highly regarded breast cancer specialist, was the one who first suggested vaginal estriol.

Beth

I too, respect Dr. Northrop. SHe actually talks about how many oncs do not understand that PR+ does not mean that the cancer is fueled by progestrone. It was because of her that I rubbed bioidentical progestrone on my breasts for the two weeks before my MX - I was grateful for her advice that it could help my survival rate. It was one of the many books and research  I read that made be a believer in bioidentical progestrone.

I guess we can all read the same thing and still come to different conclusions.

Isn't freedom of choice a wonderful gift!

Beth

Dear ruthbru,

My daughter was dx with TNBC in June of 2007. She has been on BHRT since June of 2009, and is doing quite well. It is the imbalance of hormones which I believe, and so does my daughter, which causes BC. My daughter did her homework, and quite extensively, I might add, before taking BHRT. My daughter also takes many supplements, and follows the Anticancer diet recommended by Servan-Schreiber. It's not a matter of "feeding" it more estrogen, it is a matter of balancing all the hormones. Natural Progesterone is known to prevent BC, where synthetic HRT and birth control is known to cause BC.

My daughter wanted quality of life after a dx of TNBC, chemo poisoning and rads, and she now has quality of life. Kudos to Suzanne Somers for continuing to work with doctors who think outside the box, and for publishing books on the benefits of BHRT. The Life Extension Foundation backs up all of her books. I have read all of her books.

In Europe women and men have been taking BHRT I believe since the 1970's, and the BHRT is touted in Europe, and yet here in the US we are told..."be afraid...be very afraid". That comes from the pharmaceutical companies, and yet they are the ones selling the BHRT in Europe.

estrogen doesn't cause breast cancer, unopposed estrogen is the problem, estradiol is the problem, if you balance your hormones, i.e. add progesterone to balance unopposed estrogen you will begin to see the picture.  I have spent the last 18 months reading everything I can get my hands on with regards to hormones, I haven't taken this path lightly. When I asked my onc to test my hormones when I was first diagnosed he said no as it was not important! ummm, does that make any sense? When I asked him what progesterone positive BC meant, he said he had no idea, noone has a clue why they even test the progesterone receptor, and I have talked to many many doctors.  You have to read and educate yourselves on your disease know it inside out and backwards, its not a quick fix, it takes time and persistance, I wished I would have know this s..t BEFORE!!  It breaks my heart that women are walking around without the knowledge that they can possibly prevent BC in their future by acting now and balancing their hormones, just my opinion.

Ruthbru, I am going to assume your 40% risk reduction stat is a relative risk reduction as opposed to a absolute risk reduction? Huge percentages like that are thrown around by oncologists who don't understand the difference. Your comment about having more hormones than you knew what to do with in your twenties is exactly right, estrogen dominance.  But you are right, each to their own, and as long as we are all happy with the paths we are choosing then that should be that. 

ijl, yup, scary huh?? I have had the hardest time! However, I am now on the right path with a naturopath and someone who totally gets, and understands the whole hormone balance "song"  

L

Which drug would you rather take? One that reduces your risk of cancer by 50 percent, or another drug that only eliminates cancer in one out of 100 people? Most people would choose the drug that reduces their risk of cancer by 50 percent, but the fact is, both of these numbers refer to the same drug. They're just two different ways of looking at the same statistic. One way is called relative risk; the other way is absolute risk.

Here's how it works: Let's say that in a trial involving 100 people, two people would normally get breast cancer during the trial duration, but when all 100 people are put on the drug, only one person gets breast cancer, meaning the reduction of breast cancer is one person out of 100. Yet the pharmaceutical industry will exclaim that the relative risk reduction is 50 percent because one is 50 percent of two. In other words, the risk is cut in half from a relative point of view.

The headlines promoting this drug, therefore, will always talk about the relative risk -- "A whopping 50 percent reduction in risk!" -- and these headlines will be parroted by the mainstream press, medical journals, the FDA, doctors and drug marketing reps who are always pushing and exaggerating the supposed benefits of their drugs while minimizing their risks. Because, you see, even though this drug may help one out of 100 people, its side effects create increased risks to all 100 people. Everyone suffers some harm from the potential side effects of the drug, even if that harm is not immediately evident. Yet only one out of 100 people was actually helped by the drug.

When you look at drug claims, especially miracle-sounding claims on drugs like Herceptin be aware that these statistics are routinely given as relative statistics, not absolute. The numbers are distorted to make the drugs look more effective than they really are. Herceptin, for example, produced only a 0.6% absolute reduction in breast cancer risk, yet the medical hucksters pushing this drug are wildly screaming about it being a "breast cancer cure!" and demanding that practically all breast cancer patients be immediately put on it. Yet it's not even effective on one person out of a hundred.

Reverse the perspective for natural treatments

At the same time, when conventional medicine promoters want to discredit a natural substance, an herbal remedy or the effects of nutrition on health, they always talk about absolute risk. If taking green tea supplements reduce the risk of cancer by that same 50 percent, eliminating cancer in one out of 100 patients, the news about that supplement would be something like this: "Green tea doesn't work. Only helps one out of 100 patients."

In fact, a study comparing some anti-cancer drug with green tea might report: "New breakthrough drug reduces cancer risk by 50 percent! Green tea only helps one out of 100."

It's the old joke about an Olympic race between the United States and the old Soviet Union. In the race, there were only two participants. The Soviet runner came in first, the U.S. runner came in second, but the U.S. newspapers reported, "U.S. Wins Silver Medal, Soviet Union Comes In Next to Last."

Now you know how drug companies, the FDA, the popular press and many doctors lie with this numerical shell game. It's a clever way to promote the minuscule benefits of pharmaceuticals while discrediting the enormous healing effects of natural remedies,

Now, do you want to hear some real statistics on cancer? I'll share a few. Out of every 100 women who might get breast cancer, 50 of them can avoid breast cancer by simply getting adequate levels of vitamin D in their body, and that's available free of charge through sensible exposure to natural sunlight, which produces vitamin D. This vitamin, all by itself, reduces relative cancer risk by 50 percent, which is better than any prescription drug that has ever been invented by any drug company in the world.

Combine that with green tea, and your prevention of breast cancer gets even stronger. Even the World Health Organization says that 70 percent of all cancers are preventable, and in my view, that number is conservative, because if you combine sunlight therapy and green tea with anti-cancer herbs, anti-cancer foods such as garlic, onions, raw broccoli and raw sprouts, plus some rainforest herbs that are well-known for inhibiting the growth of cancer cells, then you can boost your cancer prevention success to well over 90 percent.

There's nothing in the world of pharmaceutical medicine that even comes close. Yet the only thing you'll ever hear from the drug company-controlled mainstream media, medical journals, the FDA and most old-school doctors is that natural remedies are useless, but prescription drugs have all been scientifically proven. Sure they have, if you fall for the relative risk gimmick and can't do basic math.

I've been on Bio estrogen since June 2006 and feeling super.

It's a personal decision and no one should talk you into it, or out of it IMO.

Somewhere in time (though not soon enough), a study will be published to include all of us "BC & Bio Users" and that, IMO, will be an eye-opener.

Ruthbru-- that link didn't go through. And where did the website info come from and how was it measured? If you don't know that, you're just taking somebody's word for it.

Anyway, this thread is about bioidenticals. I hope we get back to that.