“GOOD" and "BAD" ESTROGEN

Dr. Jonathan V. Wright M.D., author of Nutrition & Healing, explains that the term estrogen doesn’t actually describe a single molecule; instead, it’s a “group word” covering two dozen estrogen metabolites. Early estrogen research focused mostly on three estrogen metabolites: estrone (labeled E1), estradiol (E2), and estriol (E3).  Estradiol (E2) and its nearby metabolite estrone (E1) were both found to be carcinogenic. Researchers found that the body treats these two hormones with extreme care, rapidly converting them to estriol (E3).

Wright tells of an important study in Israel that found estriol (E3) works to prevent cancer. The researchers reported estriol interferes with the pro-carcinogenic effects of estradiol (E2) by covering as many of the body’s estrogen receptors as possible, so that not as much estradiol can be “absorbed.”  In another study, researchers found a clear protective effect based on the amount of estriol (E3) women produced during their pregnancies: More estriol, less cancer later in life! Women in the uppermost 25% of estriol production during pregnancy had 58% less breast cancer over the next 30-40 years than women with the lowest 25% of estriol.

Bio-identical HRT (BHRT)

1) Uses hormones with the same structure as the hormones produced by the human body (synthetic hormones have the structure appropriate for horses, with only approximately 30% identical to human hormones);

2) Is prepared by a compounding pharmacist and not available from a drug manufacturer;

3) Uses progesterone, not progestin, and different estrogens (see above);

4) Is individualized or customized to each woman’s needs, symptoms, hormone levels, etc., and can be easily adjusted; and

5) Is prepared in a dosage form, i.e., troche, capsule, cream, or suppository, based on what your doctor recommends or you prefer.
 

ADDITIONAL INFORMATION:

The Cancer Causing Facts about HRT and Why Bio-Identical Hormone Therapies (BHRT) are a Safe Alternative

Many women and their physicians have been shocked to learn that conventional hormone replacement therapy (HRT) can actually increase the chance of getting a major disease. The most recent controversial  Women’s Health Initiative trial was abruptly halted in July 2002 because it showed that conventional HRT, using synthetic hormones such as Premarin, Prempo, Premphase, Provera, Cycrin, Amen, or any medication containing conjugated equine estrogens (made from  horse urine) and a synthetic (manmade) progestin, medroxyprogesterone acetate, increased the chance of some major diseases, as follows: * A 41% increase in strokes, * A 29% increase in heart attacks, * A 26% increase in breast cancer, * A 22% increase in total cardiovascular disease, * A doubling of the rate of blood clots, * A possible contribution to Alzheimer’s disease.

In July 2005, the United Nation’s cancer research agency reclassified synthetic hormone therapies from “possibly carcinogenic” to “carcinogenic.”  Why, with this much evidence as to the carcinogenic properties of synthetic HRT, are so many women still taking them? Better question: Why are their doctors still prescribing them?  

“The problem,” says Dr. C.W. Randolph, Jr., an internationally known authority on natural medicine and women’s health concerns, “is that most physicians are ignorant about BHRT. We were not taught about bio-identical hormones in medical school…As a trained pharmacist and Board Certified gynecologist, I am appalled that synthetic HRT remains the treatment of choice for so many physicians.  Additionally, volumes of medical research supports the fact that when bio-identical progesterone and bio-identical estrogen are administered in physiologic doses (e.g. in dosages that re-establish the body’s optimal hormonal ratio of estrogen to progesterone) the bio-identical progesterone actually has cancer protective effects.”

Good News ... And Lots of Questions
A dramatic decline in breast-cancer rates may be linked to a decrease in the number of women using hormone therapy. What women need to know about the new findings.

By Barbara Kantrowitz
Newsweek, Updated: 4:28 p.m. ET Dec 15, 2006

Dec. 15, 2006 - It was big news this week when researchers from the M. D. Anderson Cancer Center in Houston reported that breast-cancer rates dropped after millions of women stopped taking hormone therapy to relieve menopausal symptoms. But does that mean that these hormones (basically estrogen and sometimes a progestin) actually cause breast cancer? That’s the provocative question raised by the study. The researchers found an overall 7 percent decline in breast-cancer incidence in 2003, a year after a major study of hormones called the Women’s Health Initiative (WHI) was halted early because of increased breast cancer and heart disease among participants. The steepest decline, 12 percent, occurred in the number of women diagnosed with a kind of breast cancer that is especially sensitive to hormones.

Another recent study, by researchers in California, echoes these findings. Christina Clarke, an epidemiologist at the Northern California Cancer Center, and her colleagues found that breast-cancer rates in California dropped even more steeply after the WHI—12 percent fewer in 2003 and 2004. Clarke attributes the difference to the fact that California women were more likely to use hormones than women in other states. “We rarely see changes this dramatic over such a short time period,” Clarke says.

But while the connection may seem clear, researchers caution that they really won’t understand the meaning of the drop until they see national numbers for 2004, which are expected next spring, and analyze these and other statistics more carefully. Scientists need to know whether there’s a difference in breast-cancer rates between women who’ve been on hormone therapy and those who haven’t and what happens to former hormone users years after they quit. It’s possible that stopping hormone therapy merely slowed the growth of tumors that will eventually emerge—which means breast-cancer rates could rise again. Without all that data, the current numbers show only an association, not causation, says Marcia Stefanick, chair of the WHI steering committee and a professor of medicine at Stanford University.

Doctors who treat menopausal women say the new numbers shouldn’t be the only basis for a decision on whether or not to use hormones. “This isn’t a cause for alarm,” says Dr. JoAnn Manson, chief of the Division of Preventative Medicine at Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston. “It has been known for a while that estrogen plus progestin increases the risk of breast cancer.” But, she adds, that shouldn’t necessarily stop women with severe symptoms from using low-dose hormones for two or three years. “I think it underscores the importance of looking at your personal risk factors for breast cancer and cardiovascular disease,” says Manson, author of “Hot Flashes, Hormones & Your Health,” “and whether the benefits are likely to outweigh the risks.”

That emphasis on balancing risks and benefits is an important legacy of the WHI, says Clarke. “I think we’re really moving into an era in science where medicine is going to become personalized. It really depends on you and how bad your symptoms are and what your personal risk is for breast cancer. Do you have a history? Have you been diagnosed with a benign breast tumor before? I think you have to put all those things together with your doctor to come up with a decision.”

Since the WHI, pharmaceutical companies have begun offering many more different forms and dosages of hormone therapy—not just pills, but also lotions, patches and local therapy for symptoms like vaginal dryness. All these give women many more choices. But researchers say that if you do take hormones, it’s important to reconsider that decision regularly with your doctor—at least once a year if not more. “We don’t know how long you can go before your risk exceeds some benefits,” says Brenda K. Edwards, associate director of the surveillance research program at the National Cancer Institute. “Women and their physicians need to keep that in mind.” When it comes to hormone therapy, about the only thing that’s certain is that we need more information.

                                                                           Blessings,
                                                                                       Tami