TO JOZI OF TX: Yes, the article says that they DID use Progestin instead of Progesterone, but they sort of stated it in a misleading way and in parentheticals. Like you said, they used Progestin and Progesterone interchangeably as if they are the same thing. One wonders how women are supposed to navigate their health issues correctly when it is "experts" who are purposefully misleading them so often for financial gain.
Mustang Sallyof AZ11:50AM April 17, 2012
It's unfortunate that progestin is till used interchangeably with progesterone. When in fact progestin is synthesized to simulate progesterone and is not bioidentical; progesterone is what human bodies produce. This article uses the terms synonymously, my guess is the study was using progestin. Progesterone helps to put the brakes on estradial.
Joziof TX1:05PM April 03, 2012
Echoing Dr. Norton in a slightly different way, I would say that the jury is still out on what to make of this study altogether primarily because they haven't released enough information. One major unanswered question is the overall mortality rate of the HRT group in comparison to non-users. They did state that women on HRT didn't die of breast cancer at a higher rate, but what about death from cardiovascular disease, Alzheimer's disease, or complications of diabetes and osteoporosis. These nurses were followed for 30 years so many of them have reached their 80s. At this late stage of life, the incidence of and death from Alzheimer's disease and cardiovascular disease is considerably higher than breast cancer. What effect did long-term HRT or ERT alone have on the incidence of these diseases? Presenting incomplete data on breast cancer alone and drawing conclusions about whether HRT should be used long term without addressing the other more important killers of older women only leads to further misinformation and confusion. The decision to take any medication for a long time requires carefully weighing the risks and benefits it may have for all the diseases and symptoms it can impact. I hope no woman makes a decision to stop or not start HRT based on this incomplete report.
Furthermore, in the majority of the article there is continued use of the term 'progesterone' denote the very different drug medroxy progesterone acetate, also known as Provera, even though at one point the author parenthetically notes that it is actually this synthetic progestin (the correct term) that the majority of the nurses used. There compelling data from a similar cohort (E3N) of women in France showing that when women use actual progesterone (the molecule normally found in their bodies before menopause) in combination with estradiol they have no increased risk of breast cancer over non-users of HRT.
Two major controlled trials, KEEPS and ELITE, are due to report in the next year or two their findings on the effect of HRT on precursors of cardiovascular disease and dementia in menopausal women. Their results will add greatly to our understanding of the benefit side of the equation and which forms of HRT are most beneficial.
Joseph M. Raffaele, MD
PhysioAge Medical Group
Joseph M. Raffaele, MDof NY11:21AM April 02, 2012
Progestin is made from horse urine and is synthetic and is associated with all the bad things about the old school HRT. The word "progesterone" as used in this article is only speaking of Progestin, which is incorrect and misleading. Progesterone, the real thing, is not dangerous.
Estrogen therapy should always include progesterone (NOT Progestin), whether a woman has had a hysterectomy or not.
There is a HUGE difference between the old school HRT, SYNTHETIC bioidentical HRT and NATURAL bioidentical. When speaking of "bioidentical" HRT, one must know whether they are getting SYNTHETIC or NATURAL -- they are totally different. ONLY NATURAL bioidentical HRT should be used by anyone.
As Suzanne Somers (and many doctors who are honest and have kept current) states that NATURAL BIOIDENTICAL HRT can be used indefinitely and helps keep a woman youthful and healthier, because it is only replacing what begins to be lost around age 35. The level of HRT to be used should comport with the levels of a healthy 20 year old woman, explains Somers in her book Ageless. It is NOT normal for a woman to start losing her hormones at 35, that is a function of the Fall of Man (see your Bible). To fight the aging that results from the wrongful loss of hormones (and the diseases that come with it), one must take NATURAL bioidentical HRT indefinitely. See a Naturopath or a hormone doctor who is NOT a "sell-out" to the (unfortunately large) portion of the medical establishment that keeps issuing these repeatedly wrong and deceptive articles and studies that do not differentiate between SYNTHETIC and NATURAL bioidentical HRT. The results of this study mean NOTHING because NATURAL bioidentical HRT was not studied. We must be our own health advocates and not swallow these articles lock, stock and barrel. Read and study! WHY do they keep telling us lies? Because so many diseases we associate with aging can be avoided with NATURAL bioidentical HRT, and that costs the medical establishment money they would otherwise receive by treating the results of loss of hormones!!!!!
Mustang Sallyof AZ11:06PM April 01, 2012
It's interesting that we allow the producers of a drug or hormone manufacturer to do 'scientific studies' about its safety and effectiveness. It's laughable that anyone would take such studies seriously. There are many safe, natural remedies that reduce or eliminate challenging menopause symptoms. Added hormones are unnecessary and could cause dangerous side-effects. In any case, whatever treatment a woman chooses to help her handle difficult menopause symptoms, making healthier lifestyle choices is the best strategy for a better menopause and life beyond.
Reader Comments
Back to article
Mustang Sally of AZ 11:50AM April 17, 2012
Jozi of TX 1:05PM April 03, 2012
Joseph M. Raffaele, MD of NY 11:21AM April 02, 2012
Mustang Sally of AZ 11:06PM April 01, 2012
Wendy Vineyard of NY 10:02PM April 01, 2012