How To Find Your Way Out of the Hormone Trap Part 1

[Guest guest]

How To Find Your Way Out

 

of the Hormone Trap

 

What are women to do now that hormone replacement therapy has no

 

proven health benefits and slightly increases risks for disease?

 

By Bill Sardi

 

Special Report

 

1 | How To Find Your Way Out of the Hormone Trap

 

" The entire picture of routine postmenopausal estrogen

 

therapy is in a state of complete confusion. We must

 

proceed with circumspection and caution. We need

 

less passion, fewer hypotheses, and more facts. " --

 

Berger and WC Fowler Jr, Journal of Reproductive

 

Medicine, April, 1977

 

Introduction

 

• Hormone replacement therapy, widely prescribed

 

decades, is now falling into disfavor. 5000 women each

 

day join the ranks of the 40 million American women

 

already in menopause. Only a small percentage

 

women continue to take HRT, mostly for symptoms

 

of hot flashes and night sweats and " retaining beauty "

 

rather than any health benefits. What now for these

 

women? How will they avoid bone loss, breast cancer,

 

uterine cancer?

 

• With millions of dollars spent on research, there is

 

still no preventive measure for breast cancer, only

 

treatment after it has been diagnosed, which consists

 

of estrogen-blocking tamoxifen after conventional

 

surgical, chemo or radiation therapy. But tamoxifen

 

itself promotes endometrial cancer and turns on every

 

woman and promotes breast cancer so it cannot be

 

taken for more than five years. Has the wonder drug

 

tamoxifen had its day?

 

• New aromatase inhibitor drugs, which stop the

 

production of estrogen in fatty tissues, rather than

 

block its entry into cells like tamoxifen, are being

 

widely studied because they prolong tumor remissions

 

more so than tamoxifen. But in the long run aromatase

 

inhibitors only delay the inevitable for women with

 

breast cancer. They don’t reduce mortality rates and

 

they may accelerate bone loss and mental depression.

 

• This pushes American women into the unguided use

 

of phytoestrogens, plant, seeds, beans and herbs that

 

have estrogen-like molecules. But are they any safer

 

or effective?

 

• Why does crushed whole flaxseed exhibit unusual

 

health benefits for the heart, kidneys, bones, prostate

 

and breast tissues? What is it that whole flaxseeds

 

provide that other herbal phytoestrogens do not, which

 

produces such incredible health benefits? Read the

 

following three-part report.

 

PART I: Hormone Replacement

 

Therapy

 

So much has been said about hormone replacement

 

therapy and the state of breast cancer treatment, yet

 

so many questions still remain to be answered. This

 

limited report will never be able to answer all the

 

remaining questions American women have about

 

supplemental hormones. But it may provide a clearer

 

picture of what is really going on. And it may, for the

 

first time, give interested readers a valid scenario for

 

the prevention of breast cancer altogether.

 

For almost three decades American women have had

 

estrogen and progesterone, pharmaceutically extracted

 

from horse mare urine, prescribed for the change of life,

 

first to calm the hot flashes and mood issues associated

 

with the change of life, and second to allegedly improve

 

bone health, reduce cardiovascular risk and inhibit the

 

onset of breast cancer.

 

In 1976 Consumer Reports indicated the use of

 

hormone replacement had almost tripled from 1965 to

 

1976 and the incidence of cancer rose in women over

 

50 were in high-socioeconomic groups, the groups most

 

likely to use estrogen therapy. Estrogen therapy was

 

supposed to be restricted solely to women with vaginal

 

shrinkage or a few other narrow indications. Consumer

 

Reports said: " Earlier reports suggested estrogen

 

might protect against breast cancer; most recent

 

studies suggest the opposite. " [Consumer Reports 41:

 

642-45, 1976] Doctors weren’t there to step into the

 

breech and protect American women. They acquiesced

 

to the pharmaceutical companies because hormone

 

replacement therapy filled their appointment books and

 

the greatest yet-to-be-proven medical experiment was

 

underway.

 

Phytoestrogens Dismissed

 

In the meantime, non-prescription, plant-based

 

estrogens (called phytoestrogens) were cast aside and

 

mis-characterized. A 1978 report said phytoestrogens

 

" can markedly enhance tumor cell proliferation. "

 

[Endocrinology 103: 1860-67, 1978] Of course, this

 

conclusion was drawn from test-tube studies where

 

cells were flooded with plant estrogens rather than

 

being given in doses commonly found in raw plantfood

 

plantfood

 

diets. One of the biases revealed in animal and

 

test-tube studies is that they may utilize very high,

 

if not unobtainable, levels of plant estrogens which

 

would then induce the same side effects as estrogen.

 

In one such study, 300 milligrams of black cohosh per

 

kilogram (2.2 pounds) of body weight was given to

 

rodents. That is equivalent to nearly 22,000 milligrams

 

of black cohosh in an adult human, or 1100 black

 

cohosh pills. [J Medicinal Food 4: 171-78, 2001]

 

So doctors proceeded to prescribe millions of American

 

women pharmaceutical-grade estrogen, and while

 

they conceded estrogen replacement increased the

 

risk of endometrial cancer, this risk was dismissed

 

by prescribing progesterone and advising women on

 

hormone replacement to come in for frequent checkups.

 

[Postgraduate Medicine 62: 73-79, 1977] All the while,

 

doctors were saying food supplements like flaxseed,

 

black cohosh and red clover were unproven, even

 

" snake oil. "

 

The Bomb Drops on Hormone

 

Replacement Therapy

 

For decades doctors continued to prescribe hormones

 

to postmenopausal women under the assumption they

 

improved health for postmenopausal women. But

 

after years of customary use it was time for a scientific

 

review. Did hormone replacement therapy really

 

improve health?

 

The bomb dropped in July of 2002 with reports that

 

hormone replacement slightly increased the risk of

 

breast cancer and cardiovascular events like strokes.

 

At the time the news report hit the American public,

 

6 million women were taking these prescribed

 

hormones.

 

With the news that hormone replacement therapy posed

 

health risks, doctors were so overwhelmed by phone

 

calls from millions of women that they simply shut off

 

their office phones.

 

Then just 11 months later American women were

 

hearing news stories about hormone replacement

 

therapy increasing their risk for being mentally

 

demented in their later years of life. Among 2229

 

postmenopausal women who took estrogen plus

 

progesterone replacement pills beginning in 1996

 

thru 2002, 40 were diagnosed with probable dementia

 

compared with just 21 in a group of 2303 women who

 

did not use hormone pills. The relative risk doubled

 

among the hormone users. The absolute risk was low,

 

1.8 percent among hormone users, just 0.9 percent

 

among non-users. Among the 6 million American

 

women now taking hormone replacement therapy this

 

could increase the number of cases of Alzheimer’s

 

disease by about 13,800 annually. [J Am Med Assoc

 

289: 2651-62, 2003] The increased risk was still

 

small but the point had been made. A small increased

 

risk weighed against no potential benefits meant the

 

widespread use of hormone pills had to be re-evaluated.

 

In March of 2003 the FDA approved a lower dose of

 

Prempro, the most popular hormone replacement pill,

 

due to concerns over side effects. Imagine trying to

 

be a sales representative for Wyeth Labs, the producer

 

of Prempro. By May of 2003 postmenopausal women

 

were being told still more bad news.

 

Here is what Judy Siegel-Itzkovich of the Jerusalem

 

Post had to say about hormone replacement therapy. It

 

can’t be said any better than this: " Middle-aged women

 

should think twice before taking combined progestinestrogen

 

pills to alleviate their hot flashes, night

 

sweats, and other disturbing menopausal symptoms,

 

according to an analysis of data from last year’s

 

US Woman’s Health Institute study on the effects of

 

hormone replacement therapy. What pharmaceutical

 

companies have pushed for decades as a ‘preventive

 

fountain of youth’ for menopausal women, now seems

 

to increase the risk of breast cancer even when taken

 

for only one year. " [Jerusalem Post June 25, 2003; J

 

Am Med Assoc 289: 3243-53, 3254-63, 2003]

 

With the negative scientific studies, the use of estrogen

 

therapy in Canada has dropped an astonishing 32

 

percent from 2001 to 2002. [J Am Med Assoc 289:

 

3241-42, 2003] But statistically the increased risk

 

for breast cancer was small, and some women simply

 

didn’t want to face a return to all those hot flashes and

 

mood problems. So a few million women keep taking

 

the pills. And for good reason, at least in the minds of

 

those who take hormone replacement. As a report in

 

New York Times so aptly said, " Some women said they

 

could never give up the pills, not because they needed

 

them for severe menopause symptoms but because they

 

were convinced that estrogen prevented wrinkles or

 

because it staved off mental fogginess. " [New York

 

Times July 5, 2003]

 

" Some women said they could

 

never give up the pills, not because

 

they needed them for severe

 

menopause symptoms but because

 

they were convinced that estrogen

 

prevented wrinkles or because it

 

staved off mental fogginess. "

 

[New York Times July 5, 2003]

 

Women have been conditioned to accept menopause

 

as a period of life where life-long medication with

 

hormones is normal. Although there have been many

 

warnings against the use of hormone replacement,

 

" they have either been ignored or trivialized. " [int J

 

Health Services 31: 769-92, 2001] Not counting the

 

cost of doctor’s office visits, hormone replacement pills

 

cost nearly $2 billion in the USA annually.

 

Even more bombs dropped on hormone replacement

 

therapy (HRT) in August of 2003. First the New

 

England Journal of Medicine reported after five years

 

that HRT (estrogin + progestin) ncreased the risk of a

 

heart attack by a relative 81 percent. [New Eng J Med

 

239: 523-34, 2003] In the same week the British medical

 

journal The Lancet reported that HRT increased the risk

 

for breast cancer by 5 per 1000 users which resulted

 

in about 20,000 extra cases of breast cancer in Britain

 

over the past decade. [The Lancet 362: August 9, 2003]

 

Incredibly, a spokesperson for one of the hormone drug

 

companies responded to this study by saying: " The

 

representation of these findings may cause unnecessary

 

alarm and distress to some women taking HRT. These

 

findings do not necessitate any urgent changes to a

 

woman’s treatment. " [The Guardian, Aug. 8, 2003]

 

What will American women do now as menopause

 

approaches and they experience all those symptoms of

 

night sweats, hot flashes and mood changes? It’s quite

 

a dilemma since there are about 5000 more American

 

women who reach menopause, the permanent end of

 

menstruation, each day, added to the 40 million who are

 

already in their menopausal years.

 

Reactions to menopause appear to be culturally

 

conditioned in females. Mayan women from Guatemala

 

*******************************************************************

 

CHART:

 

Annual Increased Risk from Use of Estrogen/Progesterone

 

Risk/benefit Change per year

 

Source: National Institute on Aging

 

Annual increase/decrease among

 

estimated 4 million users of hormone

 

replacement

 

Heart attacks 7 more cases in 10,000 women +2800 new cases

 

Breast cancer 8 more cases in 10,000 women +3200 new cases

 

Strokes 8 more cases in 10,000 women +3200 new cases

 

Blood clots 18 more cases in 10,000 women +7200 new cases

 

Dementia 23 more cases in 10,000 women* +9200 new cases

 

Hip fractures 5 fewer cases in 10,000 women -2000 fewer cases

 

Colon cancer 6 fewer cases in 10,000 women -2400 fewer cases

 

* Over age 65

 

Increased Risk for Uterine Cancer with Use of Estrogen

 

Using no hormones after 10-19 years +4.4 cases in 10,000 women

 

Using estrogen alone for 20 years or more +14 cases in 10,000 women

 

*******************************************************

 

look forward to menopause and their newfound

 

freedom and consider the symptoms of menopause as

 

evidence of their improved status. [Maturitas 44: 293-

 

97, 2003] Whereas many women in America have been

 

conditioned to run to the doctor for a pill for their hot

 

flashes and night sweats.

 

Breast Cancer

 

The rate of breast cancer varies widely worldwide.

 

Japanese and other Asian women only experience a risk

 

of breast cancer about a third to half that of American

 

Caucasian women. [European J Cancer Prevention 11:

 

519-22, 2002] The reduced risk for breast cancer is

 

often attributed to the consumption of phytoestrogens,

 

primarily soy in Asian diets. However, the effect is

 

not consistent. In a telephone survey of women who

 

were diagnosed with breast cancer, the consumption

 

of plant estrogens had little or no effect upon cancer

 

risk with the average intake of less than one serving

 

of tofu per week. [Am J Epidemiology 154: 434-41,

 

2001] Possibly much higher consumption is required

 

to exhibit a protective effect.

 

The assumption has been, since vegetarian women

 

have lower circulating estrogen levels, that this is the

 

primary reason why they exhibit lower rates of breast

 

cancer and that the inclusion of phytoestrogens in

 

plant-food diets is the primary dietary factor involved.

 

This is only partly correct. Estrogen is dumped into

 

the digestive tract at the end of the monthly cycle and

 

women who consume more meat will reabsorb more

 

of their dumped estrogen and thus exhibit higher

 

circulating levels of estrogen and longer periods. To

 

the contrary, women who consume fiber-rich plant

 

foods excrete 2 to 3 times more estrogen in their feces

 

and thus have lower circulating estrogen levels and

 

shorter monthly cycles. [Cancer Research 41: 3771-

 

73, 1981] But while estrogen is a major player in the

 

onset of breast cancer, it’s not the only factor. There are

 

other overlooked factors, to be explained in Part III of

 

this report.

 

A review of scientific data reveals that advancing

 

age, not necessarily a change in sex hormone levels,

 

is the major factor involved in the onset of breast

 

cancer. More than 80 percent of cases of breast cancer

 

occur after age 50 and only 1.5 percent under age 35.

 

[Clinical Obstetrics Gynecology 25: 387-92, 1982]

 

What many American women have been taught is that

 

breast cancer may be inevitable, that is, it’s genetically

 

programmed. The fact that women who moved to the

 

US from countries such as Japan with low breast cancer

 

rates approach the higher risk levels of US women

 

within one generation as a result of their adoption

 

of western lifestyle foods and health practices, is

 

unequivocal proof that breast cancer, for the most part,

 

is not genetic. [Network 10: 1-3, 1989] Very little

 

breast cancer is linked to genetic factors. The Council

 

for Responsible Genetics says only 5 to 10 percent

 

of breast cancer cases involved inherited mutations.

 

[breast Cancer Genes, Myths & Facts] All women have

 

BRCA1 and BRCA2 genes. Mutations in these genes

 

increase the risk for breast cancer. It is misleading

 

to say that there is about an 80 percent lifetime risk

 

for breast cancer if there are mutations in the BRCA

 

genes. This misstatement is used to sell women on the

 

idea of mastectomy (breast removal). [Journal of the

 

National Cancer Institute, November 7, 93:1585, 2001]

 

Mutations in the BRCA gene do not necessarily result

 

in breast cancer. Colin B. Begg of Memorial Sloan-

 

Kettering Cancer Center in New York said this high risk

 

rate cannot be applied to every woman with mutations

 

of the BRCA genes. The risk is likely much lower

 

than that. [Associated Press, August 20, 2002] But

 

the 80 percent lifetime risk figure is frequently quoted,

 

particularly by surgeons groups.

 

Here is what one internet resource for women had to

 

advise women about genetic testing and breast cancer:

 

Regardless of the test results, all women should

 

still take preventive measures to help reduce

 

their risk of breast cancer. These preventive

 

measures include: practicing monthly breast

 

self-examination, having regular clinical breast

 

exams, and having yearly mammograms (at 40

 

years of age and older). Though testing from

 

BRCA mutations may help identify women who

 

are at a higher risk for breast cancer, 80 percent

 

of women who develop breast cancer have no

 

known risk factors.

 

But these measures only detect breast cancer at an

 

earlier stage, they have nothing to do with prevention.

 

Breast care centers are just scouting for more treatment

 

to deliver, not to prevent disease from occurring in the

 

first place. Here are the known factors which increase

 

the risk for breast cancer which can be modified by

 

women.

 

• Alcohol consumption (even moderate consumption is

 

troublesome)

 

• Red meat consumption

 

• Lack of whole grains in the diet

 

• Diets containing corn oil (omega-6 oils) rather than

 

fish oil or flax oil (omega-3 oils)

 

• Over consumption of fatty foods; the consumption of

 

animal fat is another risk factor, but true to course, this

 

was not shown in a US study of 90,000 nurses. The

 

Japanese increased their intake of animal fat from 10 to

 

25 percent from 1955 to 1975 without a corresponding

 

increase in the rate of breast cancer. [Tidsskr Nor

 

Laegeforen 30: 1745-48, 1991]

 

• Being overweight (postmenopausal women)

 

• Smoking tobacco

 

• Lack of sunshine (vitamin D)

 

[J Womens Health 12: 183-92, 2003; Nutrition &

 

Cancer 44: 23-34, 2002; Cancer Causes Control 13:

 

883-93, 2002]

 

There is something odd about the statistics provided

 

about breast cancer. It is widely claimed that the

 

lifetime risk to develop breast cancer is 1 in 8 in the

 

USA. That would amount to 16 percent of women.

 

Most cases of breast cancer occur among women after

 

menopause. There are 40 million women in the US

 

in the postmenopausal age group, but only 2 million

 

are known to be living with breast cancer and another

 

225,000 or so fresh cases are diagnosed annually.

 

About 40,000 of these women die each year. So about

 

5.5 percent of postmenopausal American women suffer

 

with breast cancer at any given time. The lifetime

 

figure of 1 in 8 is a cumulative figure. This figure has

 

been criticized and health authorities claim it helps to

 

get women to come in for exams on a more regular

 

basis and aids in capturing more funds for research.

 

Over $400 million is spent on breast cancer research

 

annually, about $200 per active breast cancer patient.

 

How much of those research funds actually go towards

 

true prevention is unknown.

 

Inventing a pill that would truly prevent breast cancer

 

would stop a whole industry. Too many jobs rely upon

 

 

 

the detection of fresh cases of breast cancer to prevent

 

the disease. There are over 14.5 million health care

 

workers in the US representing 10.5 percent of the

 

workforce. This writer has too often been censored by

 

nurses who guard internet chat rooms for breast cancer

 

patients to " maintain the status quo " for the doctors

 

they work for.

 

 

 

Contunued In Part 2

 

 

 

NEW WEB MESSAGE BOARDS - JOIN HERE.

Alternative Medicine Message Boards.Info

http://alternative-medicine-message-boards.info

 

 

 

The New with improved product search