Track your comments!
[x]


When you register, comments on your articles and replies to your comments appear here. Register Now!

Sign in to your account
[x]

Not a Scientific Blogging member yet?

Register Now for a Free Scientificblogging.com Account

  • Customize your profile with pictures, banner, a blogroll and more.
  • Leave comments on articles, add other members to your friend lists, chat with people on the site.
  • Write blog posts that can be seen by hundreds of thousands of readers.

It's free and it only takes a minute!

Already a Scientific Blogging member?

Sign In Now

Banner
By Jeffrey Dach | June 14th 2009 09:54 AM | 28 comments | Print | E-mail | Track Comments
.

More Natural Medicine 101 by Jeffrey Dach MD articles

All

About Jeffrey Dach

Jeffrey Dach MD, is founder of TrueMedMD, a clinic in Hollywood Florida specializing in bioidentical hormones, natural medicine, and natural thyroid. 4700 Sheridan Suite T, Hollywood, Florida 33021... Full Bio

Cover of Newsweek Oprah Winfrey BioIdentical Hormones


(Original article can be found here).

Why should Newsweek attack Oprah Winfrey?

Here's Why:

Oprah's TV show advocates Natural Medicine and Bioidentical Hormones in direct competition to the interests of the Pharmaceutical Industry that makes synthetic hormones.  Newsweek is merely an attack dog for the drug industry. A typical issue of Newsweek magazine contains $2 million in pharma ads, That's Why

Falsely Depicted as Voodoo Witch

Left Image: Cover of Newsweek depicting unflattering image of Oprah as a witch.  Courtesy of Newsweek.

(Original Version of this article can be found here.)

Smash and Grab the Loaf of Bread


To make matters worse, all print media is suffering from declining readership, a casualty of the Internet Revolution.  According to the LA Times, Newsweek is starving along with the rest of the print media, with decling readership and declining ad revenue.  Rather than ponder ethical standards, a starving homeless man will smash and grab the loaf of bread in the bakery window.  It's the same for Newsweek, a magazine described as “an infomercial masquerading as medical news” and “an example of corruption in journalism".

Bread in the bakery windowNewsweek is a Desperate Mouthpiece for the Pharmaceutical Industry

Five national consumer organizations have complained about Newsweek.  They have charged Newsweek magazine with unethical journalism in the promotion of the drug industry's agenda.  Specifically, Newsweek ran a  special edition, entitled Health for Life, paid for by the drug industry's PhRMA.  Newsweek promotes a biased drug agenda, all the while pretending to be impartial and objective.  This is truely deceptive.

Above left image: Where's the Bread, Man?

Oprah is Immensely Popular

Oprah Winfrey Normal Appearance With a personal fortune of 2.7 billion, and 40 million weekly viewers, Oprah Winfrey is immensely popular.  Her O magazine sells 2 million copies a month and her new cable television channel will reach 70 million homes. 

Beautiful Oprah

Left Image: A more flattering image of Oprah Winfrey courtesy of her web site.

Why is Oprah so popular? I suggest it is  because Oprah is a champion of the interests of the people.  In this case she has championed Natural Medicine and Bioidentical Hormones, topics which are immensely popular with the public. 

Is Oprah hurt or concerned about the photo on the Newsweek Cover? In this new day of viral marketing, any publicity is good publicity, including this Newsweek hatchet job article.  I suspect Oprah is laughting all the way to the bank.

Suzanne Somers - Advocate of BioIdentical Hormones

Susanne Somers Dangerous Arch Enemy of the Drug IndustryLeft Image:  Suzanne Somers arch-enemy of the synthetic hormone drug company, Wyeth. Her books on bioidentical hormones have cost the Drug Industry millions of dollars in lost revenue.  Courtesy of Suzanne Somers Blog.

Just Another Misinformation Campaign in a Medical Information War Between Natural Medicine and Big Pharma.

Newsweek Reaches a New Low in Tabloid Journalism with Smears, Lies and Falsehoods

For those of you interested in the actual details of the Newsweek article lies and deceptions, I have itemized a few of them for you below:

1) Newsweek says: "bioidentical hormones are unregulated".


This is an outright falsehood. Compounded bioidentical hormones are highly regulated at all levels. Just walk into a pharmacy and ask the pharmacist in charge about the regulations.  There are literally hundreds of them.  They are regulated up the Wazoo from start to finish at county, state and federal levels.  And yes, compounded hormones ARE FDA approved, and the same hormones, estradiol,  progesterone, and testosterone are found at the corner drugstore (examples are estrace, vivelle, prometrium etc.).  Just think about this: all prescription medication in the US must be FDA approved in order to be able to sell to the public.  

2) Newsweek says: "Somers is simply repackaging the old, discredited idea that menopause is some kind of hormone-deficiency disease, and that restoring them will bring back youth," says Dr. Nanette Santoro, director of reproductive endocrinology at Albert Einstein College of Medicine and head of the Reproductive Medicine Clinic at Montefiore Medical Center."

This is another outright falsehood.  Menopause is characterized by hormone deficiency, and this is the absolute truth proven by lab tests I see every day. This idea has not been discredited.  Well, maybe Newsweek wants the public to think so. 

3) Newsweek says: "Hormone therapy can increase a woman's risk of heart attacks, strokes, blood clots and cancer". 

Here we see a typical tactic by Newsweek.  Newsweek is attempting to confuse the public about two very different types of hormones.  Synthetic hormones are the monster hormones.  Bio-identical hormones are the good ones that I recommend.

Yes, Newsweek is correct that synthetic monster hormones (such as Provera) are associated with cancer and heart disease. However, Newsweek has not told the public the truth, that bio-identical hormones are safe and are not associated with increased risk of cancer or heart disease.



3) Newsweek says: "And despite Somers' claim that her non-FDA-approved bioidenticals are "natural" and safer, they are actually synthetic, just like conventional hormones and FDA-approved bioidenticals from pharmacies—and there are no conclusive clinical studies showing they are less risky. "



This is outright deceitful and misleading.  Number one, hormone raw materials are all FDA approved. Otherwise, they could not even be marketed in the US. '

Number two,  Newsweek is trying to confuse the public into believing that synthetic chemically altered hormones (provera) are the same as bioidentical hormones.  They are not.  Synthetic means chemically altered, and this creates a monster hormone causing cancer and heart disease.  Bio-identical Hormones are not chemically altered.  They are identical to the hormones in the human body. The medical literature is replete with studies showing that bioidentical hormones are safe and effective, while, on the other hand,  the chemically altered synthetic hormones are monsters and should never have been approved for human use.

4) Newsweek says:"Unless a woman has significant discomfort from hot flashes—and most women don't—there is little reason to prescribe them."



Newsweek is wrong again.  Hot flashes are only one of many symptoms of estrogen deficiency,  Other symptoms include vaginal dryness, sweats, difficulty sleeping, cognitive dysfunction, menopausal arthritis etc.  These are all valid symptoms and good reasons for prescribing bioidentical hormones.

5) the Newsweek article also provided misinformation about iodine suplementation, an essential mineral added to table salt since 1924.  Supplementation with Iodine is safe and beneficial for health, and highly recommended.

Follow the Money: 
Jake Crosby, a history student at Brandeis University, has this comment about Newsweek:



 



An Infomercial Masquarading as Medical News

"In a magazine filled with pharma ads, accused in 2001 by five consumer groups of breaching journalism ethics by working with the lobby group PhRMA, having a special advertising relationship with pharmaceutical corporations and allowing its publication to be used by pharma lobbyists for public relations purposes, Newsweek’s agenda is no secret. One consumer advocate described Newsweek as “an infomercial masquerading as medical news” and “an example of corruption in journalism. Newsweek has surrendered its professional credentials by shamelessly engaging in disease mongering aimed at increasing profits for the mental health industry.”

Above quoted from Jake Crosby.

Newsweek Writer,  Pat Wingert, Also Wrote A Book (?) On Menopause

Pat Wingert of Newsweek bashes Oprah WinfreyMenopause Book Cover by Pat WingertPat Wingert, the co-writer of the Oprah-bashing Newsweek Article, also co-authored a book on menopause entitled, "Is it Hot in Here? Or is it me? The Complete Guide to Menopause" available on Amazon.  This book advocates synthetic hormones and promotes a drug company agenda.

Left Image Pat Wingert. Right Image Pat's book cover.  Courtesy of Newsweek and Pat Wingert.

Book Reviews on Amazon - Pat Wingert's Menopause Book

Here are a few unflattering book reviews on Amazon from people who do not apreciate a drug company propaganda book that pretends to be medical advice. These reader reviews give you an idea about the level of journalism we are dealing with:

Get This Book Off the Market

"I have been dealing with menopause for several years and this book in no way, shape or form helped me to find a cure for my symptoms. But then again why would I buy a book written by journalists about medical conditions?!?! And as a side, I have found that bio-identical hormones are the ONLY therapy that has saved my life, instead of "possibly" risking my life by taking synthetic hormones.  Get this book off the market! 

Garbage

"This book is complete garbage! I agree with another reviewer who said that this book should be taken off the market. "

Total Waste 

"Let me save you the price of this book, This book (by Pat Wingert) was a total waste of my time and money." 

Where to Go For Medical Advice?  Turn to these Medical Heroes.

Erika Schwartz MD Medical Hero Rather than get your medical advice from a light-weight tabloid journalist like Pat Wingert, who promotes a biased drug company agenda, I recommend Erika Schwartz MD, Kent Holtorf MD, and David Brownstein MD, three medical heroes with active bioidentical hormone practices.  Erika's comments about the Newsweek Oprah bashing article can be found here.  In this article, Dr. Erika reveals that she gave a lecture on bioidentical hormones at Harvard Med School in February 2, 2009, and the first slide of the talk was Oprah with Suzanne Somers.  Dr. Erika then asked the chairman of the department of ob-gyn, Isaac Schiff, MD and the rest of the audience, 'How come Suzanne Somers and Oprah are the ones to teach the public about bioidentical hormones?  Oprah has stepped up to the plate and has given the public the missing information about bio-identical hormones. And the public has spoken. Oprah is their leader, not the American Medical Association."

Left Above Image: Erika Schwartz MD, medical director of busy bioidentical hormone practice in Manhattan New York.

Erika Schwartz MD and Kent Holtorf MD Say BioIdentical Hormones are Safe and Effective.

Kent Holtorf MD Medical Hero Erika Schwartz and Kent Holtorf recently co-authored a chapter in Primary Care Clinics on Bioidentical Hormones. This is their conclusion:

"The current state of evidence demonstrates bioidentical hormones as a safe and effective option. Risks associated with the use of conjugated estrogen and progestins (synthetic monster hormones), including the increased risks of breast cancer and cardiovascular events, have not been reported with the use of bioidentical hormones."

Left Image: Kent Holtorf MD,  medical driector of busy bioidentical hormone practice in Califiornia.

The Truth About Hormone Therapy in the Wall Street Journal

David Brownstein MD Medical Hero Rather than rely on Pat Wingert's Newsweek propaganda for the Drug Industry, you may want to read this recent Wall Street Journal article  on bioidentical hormones, written by ERIKA SCHWARTZ MD , KENT HOLTORF MD, and DAVID BROWNSTEIN MD.

This is what they say:

"There are 25 years of scientific research with hundreds of studies in the U.S. and Europe that have demonstrated that bioidentical hormones, estradiol and micronized progesterone, are equally or more effective than synthetics -- and safer. Yet mainstream medicine has buried its head in the sand and refused to take these studies seriously."

Above left image: David Brownstein MD, medical director of busy bioidentical hormone practice in Michigan.

CW Randolph MD comments on the Newsweek attack article:

CW Randolph MD Naturall Hormone Institute and medical hero"Multiple medical studies have linked synthetic hormone replacement therapies, such Premarin and Prempro, to health risks such as breast and uterine cancers, heart attack, stroke. Meanwhile, recent medical research and multiple clinical studies validate the safety and efficacy of bioidentical hormone replacement therapies."

Left Image: Courtesy of CW Randolph MD.

CW Randolph MD is director of the Natural Hormone Institute of America and runs a busy bioidentical hormone practivce in Jacksonville Florida.

How to Find a bioidentical hormone doctor in your area:
Try the doctor's directory at these links: A4M   ACAM   AHMA

Links and References:


http://www.newsweek.com/id/200025

Live Your Best Life Ever! Wish Away Cancer! Get A Lunchtime Face-Lift! Eradicate Autism! Turn Back The Clock! Thin Your Thighs! Cure Menopause! Harness Positive Energy! Erase Wrinkles! Banish Obesity! Live Your Best Life Ever! By Weston Kosova and Pat Wingert | NEWSWEEK
Published May 30, 2009  From the magazine issue dated Jun 8, 2009


http://www.prweb.com/releases/2009/06/prweb2522034.htm
Bioidentical Hormone Replacement Is REAL Medical Science, Not Entertainment Medicine by C.W. Randolph, Jr., M.D., Medical Director of the Natural Hormone Institute.



http://www.huffingtonpost.com/deepak-chopra/mainstream-medicine-and-t_b_213132.html

Mainstream Medicine and the Oprah Factor by Deepak ChopraAuthor, Sirius radio host, founder of the Alliance for a New Humanity Posted: June 9, 2009  

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/claire-shipman-and-katty-kay/did-anyone-else-think-the_b_212819.html
Did Anyone Else Think The Newsweek Photo of Oprah Was Misogynistic? And Just Plain Dumb? by Claire Shipman and Katty Kay




Newsweek decides to go the other way--withholding information seems the point.   Reading this Newsweek article, you'd think there was really no difference between the synthetic hormones provided by drug companies and the bio-identical hormones that many doctors prescribe, but which are not produced by major drug companies. "They are actually synthetic, just like conventional hormones." Hardly.

Yes, they are both "man-made," but the bioidenticals are created to have the same molecular structure as our own hormones. Synthetic are not, it's a one size fits all approach that leaves many women with uncomfortable side effects. The bioidentical process is quite arduous, and requires lots of testing, but each woman gets a regimen much more suited to her body.

Was anybody troubled by the glib disclosure that Newsweek correspondent Pat Wingert, who worked on this article, wrote a book on menopause? Excuse me? Talk about a dog in the fight! I imagine she can't be a big fan of bioidentical hormones in her book.




http://www.newsweek.com/id/33610




Pat Wingert. Coming to Newsweek after a nine-year journalism career in Chicago, Wingert had worked as a reporter for The Chicago Tribune from 1985 to 1986 and The Chicago Sun-Times from 1977 to 1984. While working at the Sun-Times, she worked as legman to Chicago's legendary Pulitzer-Prize winning columnist, Mike Royko. A Chicago native, Wingert received a B.S. in journalism from the University of Illinois, Champaign-Urbana. She resides in Washington D.C. with her husband Brian Kelly, the executive editor of U.S. News magazine, and their three children.




http://www.ageofautism.com/2009/06/newsweeks-newspeak-pharmas-weapon-against-oprah.html

Newsweek’s Newspeak: Pharma’s Weapon Against Oprah By Jake Crosby  Jake Crosby is a history student at Brandeis University



"More likely, the explanation is that 10 of the 31 pages of ads are for pharma, 5 of them for Wyeth, including an inside-cover triple-page ad. Naturally, a failing magazine is going to want to receive more ad dollars by running more articles pleasing to sponsors. It seems practical and makes sense, though unethical, dishonest, defamatory and morally reprehensible all at the same time. ...  Perhaps Newsweek can also run an article on the 5000 lawsuits Wyeth is facing for the damages attributed to its own, admittedly unnatural, FDA-approved version. If they did, it would help their case of proving Ms. Somers’ alleged belief wrong, that “the media” is “in the pocket of the pharmaceutical industry.”...What matters is if Newsweek’s articles fit its agenda. In a magazine filled with pharma ads, accused in 2001 by five consumer groups of breaching journalism ethics by working with the lobby group PhRMA, having a special advertising relationship with pharmaceutical corporations and allowing its publication to be used by pharma lobbyists for public relations purposes, Newsweek’s agenda is no secret. One consumer advocate described Newsweek as “an infomercial masquerading as medical news” and “an example of corruption in journalism. Newsweek has surrendered its professional credentials by shamelessly engaging in disease mongering aimed at increasing profits for the mental health industry.”




http://www.familiesusa.org/resources/newsroom/statements/2001-statements/press-statement-consumer-groups-criticize-newsweek-for-transgressing-ethical-bounds-by-working-with-the-pharmaceutical-drug-lobby.html

Press Statement  CONSUMER GROUPS CRITICIZE NEWSWEEK FOR TRANSGRESSING ETHICAL BOUNDS BY WORKING WITH THE PHARMACEUTICAL DRUG LOBBY

Drug Lobby's Exclusive Sponsorship of Newsweek's Special Health Edition and Other Joint Efforts Improperly Aided Drug Lobby's Agenda, Groups Claim




October 2, 2001  Contact:  Dave Lemmon, Director of Communications
Geraldine Henrich-Koenis, Deputy Director of Communications
Robert Meissner, Press Secretary  



http://www.nclnet.org/newsweekpr1002.htm
Consumer Groups Criticize Newsweek for Transgressing Ethical
Bounds by Working with the Pharmaceutical Drug Lobby



Drug Lobby's Exclusive Sponsorship of Newsweek's Special Health Edition and
Other Joint Efforts Improperly Aided Drug Lobby's Agenda, Groups Claim
Washington D.C. - Five national consumer organizations today charged Newsweek magazine with transgressing ethical bounds by working with the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America (PhRMA) in a way that promotes the drug lobby's public policy agenda. In a joint letter to Newsweek Chairman and Editor-in-Chief Richard M. Smith, the groups contended that, as a result of a "virtually unprecedented" special advertising relationship with the drug lobby, Newsweek allowed the drug lobby to use a supposedly independent media outlet "to promote its public policy agenda."



http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123717056802137143.html



MARCH 16, 2009 The Truth About Hormone Therapy Wall Street Journal
By ERIKA SCHWARTZ , KENT HOLTORF , and DAVID BROWNSTEIN
Mainstream medicine has been given a wake-up call on a matter critical to the health of 65 million women in the U.S. At issue are the options for treatment of menopause

http://newsmax.com/insidecover/newsweek_time_circulation/2009/01/17/172579.html
Newsweek May Stop Weekly Circulation January 17 2009 Battered by a one-two punch of declining readership and ad pages, Newsweek magazine is getting an extreme makeover this year that will include a large circulation reduction, deep cuts in operating costs, and a new effort to attract advertisers by concentrating on an elite audience.



http://www.latimes.com/entertainment/news/la-et-onthemedia20-2009may20,0,7785135.column
Can Newsweek relight the readership flame? The newsweekly aims to carve out a perch among its many competitors with a new, deeper focus. But dwindling circulation in the magazine industry points to a tough battle ahead. James Rainey May 20, 2009

http://cosmeticmdnation.blogspot.com/2009/06/newsweek-on-oprah-pot-calling-kettle.html
Newsweek on Oprah: Pot calling the kettle black when it comes to bioidentical hormones? Dr. Mitchell Matez, D.O. Sanctuary Medical Aesthetic Center, Boca Raton

http://jeannesmusings.typepad.com/notsogrounded/2009/06/my-entry.html
You Go, Oprah! by Jeanne Supin   But the real secret is Oprah remains steadfastly relevant, and Newsweek does not.  Unfortunately at a time when we most benefit from national dialog, Newsweek chooses to be a gasping periodical in a dying industry, regurgitating the same empty story week-after-week, with writers and editors -- no matter how skilled and well-intentioned -- increasingly talking only to the shrinking pool of people just like themselves.  There's a whole new world out here, far larger than Newsweek's antiquated universe.  Maybe if they took some bioidentical hormones they'd finally feel well enough to find it, join it, and share that story.

Link to original article:
http://jeffreydach.com/2009/06/11/newsweek-attacks-oprah-and-bioidentical-hormones-by-jeffrey-dach-md.aspx



Comments

jtwitten's picture
The point is that one should get their medical advice from competent doctors and the medical research, not talk show hosts or the individuals recruited/begging to be on them.

Newsweek has a conflict of interest.  Shock.  Awe.  Wonderment.

Doesn't that standard mean one should also disregard the entire contents of this article too?
Jeffrey Dach MD, is founder of TrueMedMD, a clinic in Hollywood Florida
specializing in bioidentical hormones, natural medicine, and natural
thyroid.

Who decides that these folks are heroes?
Rather than get your medical advice from a light-weight tabloid
journalist like Pat Wingert, who promotes a biased drug company agenda,
I recommend Erika Schwartz MD, Kent Holtorf MD, and David Brownstein
MD, three medical heroes with active bioidentical hormone practices.

Does research by heroes get a benefit on the statistical significance of the results?  That sounds like Dungeons&Dragons, with apologies to Dungeons & Dragons.
Cape of Bioidentical Heroism: +2 to save vs statisical insignificance

What does the body of medical literature, as a whole, have to say on the issue.  Science is what have you done for me lately.  Linus Pauling was a genius and a "hero", but he also became a crank.

jeffrey dach md's picture
Josh - thanks for the comment.

In general it is important to understand the underlying conflict between natural medicine represented on one side by the bioidentical hormones, and on the other side by patented drugs which are made by the drug industry.  Bioidentical hormones are natural and cannot be patented, and are therefore not profitable, or only marginally profitable.

The drug industry controls medical research, the FDA, the Congress  and prescribing practices of physicians.  In short, they control the practice of medicine.

Bioidentical hormones are present in the human body naturally and by definition are safe and effective with very few adverse side effects when used in appropriate dosages.   Synthetic hormones are chemically altered monster hormones.  These are the MONSTER hormones made and sold to the public by the drug industry because they can be patented and bring in huge profits.

The bioidentical hormone conflict is only a small subset of the larger conflict between the Natural Medicine world and the Drug industry which depends on synthetic chemically altered versions of natural medical substances.

In all cases, the natural medicine version is more effective with fewer side effects when compared to the altered versions.

Newsweek and the rest of the failing print media relies on Drug Company advertising for synthetic drugs, and is therefore a mouthpiece for drug company propaganda which is deceitful and misleading, designed to sell an inferior product.

Read more about this topic in my book: Natural Medicine 101

regards from Jeffrey Dach MD

critser@earthlink.net's picture

Before I get going, I have to agree with your take on Newsweek (and Time, for that matter). In researching my book on drug companies (Generation Rx, 12.95 in paper, on amazon, etc., getitnow) it became overwhelmingly clear that both publications are in the sway of drug companies; more than one marketing person with the magaines admitted to me that, as one said, "if we can get a pill on the cover, that's a bankable cover." Too which I say: Bank this!

About hormones: I just finished writing a book about anti-aging medicine, titled Eternity Soup: Inside the Quest to End Aging ( avail bookstore january 24, 2010, 24.95, note it on your calendar), and if any one thing became clear, it is how fuzzy the claims of hormone users and their opponenets are. Generally, both lie about what their opposition says. The bioidentical crowd claims benefits over traditional hormones that don't exist, and the industry pawns and establishment vonces overstate the dangers of such. Testosterone, only a 10 years ago reviled as a possible cancer risk, is now openly ambraced by mainstream endocrinology. Human Growth Hormone (HG), on the other hand, seems to be highly idiosyncratic in bestownng any long term benefits, save for its vacuuming of your wallet.

I saw Susan Somers at an anti-aging conference, and of all the kazoo-headed speakers, she was the most socially conscious. "Right now, our kind of medicine is confined to people who can afford it. That's wrong. We've got to find a way for the poor andthe middle class to also take advantage of hormones."
--Greg Critser

jeffrey dach md's picture
Dear Greg,

"The bioidentical crowd claims benefits over traditional hormones that don't exist, and the industry pawns and establishment vonces overstate the dangers of such. Testosterone, only a 10 years ago reviled as a possible cancer risk, is now openly ambraced by mainstream endocrinology. "


You are quite right in your above opinion when it comes to the boiler room operations sellng HGH and testosterone on the Internet to unwary customers.  I would discourage this practice.

However, the use of bioidentical hormones by an experienced and licensed medical practitioner  brings us into the world of medical practice as it should be, with a non-patentable natural substance (a bioidentical hormone)  which is more effective and more beneficial than the chemically altered synthetic counterparts made by the drug industry.  Bioidentical hormones are more effective and safer than synthetic hormones, and this has been documented many times in the medical litereture.  See my book Natural Medicine 101 for details.

This distinction between natural hormones and synthetic hormones and the economic consequences of patentability lies at the heart of the medical information war going on in the print media.  Hence the Newsweek attack on Oprah for advocating bioidentical hormones which is merely another salvo in the information war between the Drug industry and natural medicine.

regards,

jeffrey dach md

critser@earthlink.net's picture

I read no studies that indicate that the content of bioidentical is safer; but i think the flexibility of dosing may make it safer.

similarly, notjhing has convinced me they are more effective (incl. Jon Wright), but I think the type of person who takes them is more likely to be a health pro-active person. in other words, the "better than synthetic" data is an artifact.

patentability is at the core, witness Lilly's recent application to do an estriol [patch].

i think hgh is only effective when taken with a sex hormone, but that is never mentioned in the come-ons for it.The  fear of cancer data is hyped by opponents, but effectiveness is hyped by proponenets, but, if baseball player experience is to be believed, it provides an iincremental edge.

best

greg

jeffrey dach md's picture
Greg said:

I read no studies that indicate that the content of bioidentical is safer; but i think the flexibility of dosing may make it safer. similarly, notjhing has convinced me they are more effective.


Greg, you are quite mistaken.  Here is the scientific evidence for BioIdentical Hormones as more effective and safer than the chemically altered Monster Hormones made by the pharmaceutical idustry and perscribed by mainstream medicine.  This evidence is summarized in these two articles in the recent medical literature:

The first article has over 200 references in the medical literature, and both were published in peer reviewed litereature.  To make the statement,  "there are no studies" as you have said is a blatant falsehood.

Holtorf Bioidentical Hormones Jeffrey Dach MDThe Bioidentical Hormone Debate: Are Bioidentical Hormones (Estradiol, Estriol, and Progesterone) Safer or More Efficacious than Commonly Used Synthetic Versions in Hormone Replacement Therapy? by Kent Holtorf, MD.  Postgraduate Medicine, Volume 121, Issue 1, January 2009, (2)
.
.
.
Holtorf Bioidentical Hormones Erika Schwartz Hormones in Wellness and Disease Prevention:

Common Practices, Current State of the Evidence, and Questions for the Future Erika T. Schwartz, MD, Kent Holtorf, MD. Prim Care Clin Office Pract 35 (2008) 669–705 (3) Left Image Cover is courtesy of Primary Care Clinics. Above Image Logo courtesy of PostGraduate Medicine.

.
.


.
To suggest that BioIdentical Hormones are not FDA approved is another falsehood.

Bio-Identical Hormones are all FDA Approved.
 

The following is a list of FDA-approved bio-identical hormone commercial products available at the drugstore commonly used to treat menopause and andropause:

Alora (estradiol): FDA approved 1996 - Watson Labs
Climara (estradiol): FDA approved 1994 - Bayer
FemPatch : FDA approved 1997 - Parke Davis
Vivelle-Dot (estradiol): FDA approved 1994 - Novartis
Estraderm: FDA approved 1986 - Novartis
Esclim: FDA approved 1998 - Women's First Healthcare
Estrace (estradiol): FDA approved 1993 -Bristol Myers Squibb
Estring: FDA approved 1996 - Pharmacia UpJohn
Prometrium (natural progesterone): FDA approved 1998 - Solvay
Androgel (natural testosterone): FDA approved 2000 - Unimed Pharmaceuticals
Crinone: FDA approved 1997 - Columbia Labs

FDA approved Estradiol containing products:Estrace, Progynova, estrofem, Alora, Climara, Vivelle, Vivelle-Dot, Menostar, Estraderm TTS Estrasorb Topical, Estrogel, Elestrin, Lunelle Estring, Femring

FDA approved Progesterone products Prometrium, Utrogestan, Minagest, Microgest, CRINONE, PROCHIEVE, Cyclogest

FDA approved testosterone:Testoderm, Androderm, AndroGel

Read more related content:

FDA Declares War on BioIdentical Hormones by Jeffrey Dach MD

The Importance of BioIdentical Hormones by Jeffrey Dach MD

The Safety Of Bio-Identical Hormones by Jeffrey Dach MD

The Battle for BioIdentical Hormones by Jeffrey Dach MD

BioIdentical Hormones, Cook Book or Tailor Made? by Jeffrey Dach MD

Breast Cancer Prevention and Iodine Supplementation by Jeffrey Dach MD




Dr. Dach -- I fear that you may be using this website to promote your business interests, i.e. TruMedMD. This is made clear by your constant use of the pejorative phrase "MONSTER hormones" for standard HRT preparations. Here is the other side of the story, presented as a review in Curr Opin Obstet Gynecol. 2008 20:400-7.

Bioidentical hormone therapy: a panacea that lacks supportive evidence.

Boothby LA, Doering PL.
Auburn University, Harrison School of Pharmacy, Auburn, Alabama, USA. lisa.boothby@crhs.net

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: In the practice of 'bioidentical hormone therapy', it is our belief that pharmacists are compounding bioidentical hormone therapy with the best intentions. These pharmacists are, however, ill informed regarding the lack of scientific underpinning associated with the efficacy and safety of the practice of bioidentical hormone therapy. It is the purpose of this review to systematically examine the scientific rigor of the arguments posed by the proponents of bioidentical hormone therapy, and to differentiate the practice of bioidentical hormone therapy from the legitimate practice of pharmacy compounding. RECENT FINDINGS: Most medical organizations have in essence refuted the bioidentical hormone therapy claims as unsubstantiated. The profession of pharmacy needs to address this issue in an authoritarian, scientific way, outside of the compounding issue. SUMMARY: Bioidentical or natural hormones are expected to have similar efficacy and safety profiles as the commercially available hormonal therapies that have been studied in clinical trials, regardless of whether the active principle hormones are compounded by individual pharmacies or manufactured by large companies. Estriol is a weak estrogen that is not Food and Drug Administration approved for use as a prescription drug in the United States; thus, clinical trials are necessary to demonstrate the efficacy and safety profile for estriol. Further, supplementary clinical trials are necessary to determine whether there are efficacy or safety differences between natural progesterone and synthetic progestin, as studies to date are inconclusive.

jeffrey dach md's picture
Dear Dave (whoever you are).  You really can't be serious with this obviously drug company funded article which is full of deception and misinformation.  Sadly, our medical journals are funded by the drug companies and are full of them.
 

RECENT FINDINGS: Most medical organizations have in essence refuted the bioidentical hormone therapy claims as unsubstantiated.


This article is based on the proclamations of  "Most medical organization".  Perhaps the author omitted a small piece of information.  Let me add the missing words:  "Most medical organizations that are funded by the drug companies that make the synthetic MONSTER HORMONES". 

Yes, that is right.  I am saying these synthetic hormones are Monsters that should never have been approved for marketing to the public.  Having this in print does little to advance my little office practice, TrueMedMD as your refer to it.  Having the word MONSTER HORMONE in print does, however, alert the public to this issue, and means the drug companies are losing the medical information war, and having lost revenue  from lost product sales.  

There are many medical organizations that support the use of bioidentical hormones as more safe and effective than their synthetic counterparts.  I belong to a few of them.  None of these however are funded by the drug industry that makes the synthetic hormones.  This is all about the money.

Dave, you are attempting to promote the busines of the synthetic hormone drug industry with false information to the public.  Why are you doing this?  Are you an employee of a drug company?


Becky Jungbauer's picture
Dr. Dach - you say in your response to Josh that  "bioidentical hormones are natural and cannot be patented, and are therefore not profitable, or only marginally profitable." Yet later you reply to Greg with a long list of FDA-approved drugs that DO have patents and ARE profitable. Just picking from the list at random, Androgel's patent still has a few years left. And if you look at drug pipelines, hormones are still undergoing clinical testing.

As to the issue of bioidentical hormones and synthetic hormones, you say in your article:
"They are actually synthetic, just like conventional hormones." Hardly. Yes, they are both "man-made," but the bioidenticals are created to have the same molecular structure as our own hormones.

They are still created, man-made. They are not, therefore, naturally occurring as, for example, insulin removed from a person's body. This doesn't necessarily confer less safety, less efficacy, or (perhaps most importantly) less immunogenicity.

Which brings up a crucial point - there has been significant struggle to bring biosimilars to market as approved by FDA because of the inherent nature of biologics. Yes, I agree that the pharma industry has a big stake in trying to get as long a patent life as possible for incentives, while the generic industry wants a shorter patent/exclusivity period. But the science has struggled as well - if you have issues with generics of small molecule drugs, how are you supposed to avoid problems with biologics? The field has a long way to go, and while there may be some studies indicating their safety, "natural" does not mean "natural to humans" or even that it is better for us than chemicals.

Gerhard Adam's picture
Becky, you bring up a good point regarding the vocabulary of this debate.  Premarin is considered a "synthetic" drug despite the fact that the estrogen is naturally occurring.  The distinction is that the estrogen is occurring in a pregnant mare, but it can hardly be called synthetic.


jtwitten's picture
One can patent both compounds and the process of generating them.

Becky Jungbauer's picture
My point exactly.

jeffrey dach md's picture
Premarin is considered a "synthetic" drug despite the fact that the estrogen is naturally occurring.  The distinction is that the estrogen is occurring in a pregnant mare, but it can hardly be called synthetic.


Gerhard, I agree with you that premarin is a natural substance, as it comes from pregnant horses that are natural.  However, if you bother to look in the PDR, you will see that a large part of premarin is Equilin.  Equilin is a horse hormone not found in humans.  So yes Premarin is natural, but it is not human.  Wouldn't it make sense to take the human hormone version?  It is available, safe inexensive and works very well.  It's called human estrogen.

Synthetic hormones are chemically altered versions of human hormones.  These are MONSTERS that should not have been approved for human use. 

jtwitten's picture
These are MONSTERS that should not have been approved for human use.

Why not?  What is your evidence of harm?  These are FDA approved just like the bioidenticals on your list.

jeffrey dach md's picture
Josh said:


Why not?  What is your evidence of harm?  These are FDA approved just like the bioidenticals on your list.


Ever hear of the Women's Health Initiative ? This was the large NIH funded study which was terminated early because they found that  synthetic hormones were MONSTER HOMRONES that caused increased risk of cancer and heart disease.

Women's Health Initiative Papers


Anderson GL. Effects of conjugated equine estrogen in postmenopausal women with hysterectomy: the Women's Health Initiative randomized controlled trial. Jama 2004;291:1701-12.


Chlebowski RT. Influence of estrogen plus progestin on breast cancer and mammography in healthy postmenopausal women: the Women's Health Initiative Randomized Trial. Jama 2003;289:3243-53.


Rossouw JE. Risks and benefits of estrogen plus progestin in healthy postmenopausal women: principal results From the Women's Health Initiative randomized controlled trial. Jama 2002;288:321-33.


Manson JE. Estrogen plus progestin and the risk of coronary heart disease. N Engl J Med 2003;349:523-34.


Jackson RD. Effects of conjugated equine estrogen on risk of fractures and BMD in postmenopausal women with hysterectomy: results from the women's health initiative randomized trial. J Bone Miner Res 2006;21(6):817-28.


Stefanick ML. Effects of conjugated equine estrogens on breast cancer and mammography screening in postmenopausal women with hysterectomy. Jama 2006;295(14):1647-57.


Manson JE. Estrogen therapy and coronary-artery calcification. N Engl J Med 2007;356(25):2591-602.



jeffrey dach md's picture
By the way Josh,

FDA approval doesn't really mean that the drug is safe.  20% of all drugs given FDA approval are later either banned or given a black box warning.

Click here for more about BAD drugs that have been FDA approved you need to avoid:

BAD DRUGS that have been FDA APPROVED

jtwitten's picture
That's why they do follow-up data gathering on the treatments.  I was simply following your implication that FDA approval of bio-identicals meant that they were proven safe and effective.  Can we also expect 20% of your list to be labeled as BAD drugs in the next few years?

jeffrey dach md's picture
That's why they do follow-up data gathering on the treatments.  I was simply following your implication that FDA approval of bio-identicals meant that they were proven safe and effective.  Can we also expect 20% of your list to be labeled as BAD drugs in the next few years?

So far, none of the bioidentical hormones have been banned by the FDA.  Regarding their track record of excellent safety and efficacy, I would not expect any of the bioidentical hormones to be ever be banned in the future.  After all think about this: Bioidentical Hormones have been present in the human body for 50 million years of Darwinian evolution.  I would say that constitutes a successful 50 million year medical experiment.

Newsweek harps on the FDA approval thing, and makes the false claim that bioidentical hormones are NOT FDA approved.  That's why I presented the list of FDA approved bioidentical hormones - to show Newsweek was spreading a falsehood.

jtwitten's picture
I am indeed familiar with the WHI.  It is an excellent resource and an interesting study.  Unfortunately, the WHI does not support your monster hormone conclusion.  Your repeated use of the adjective monster for rhetorical effect suggests that the WHI compared "synthetic" hormones to "bioidentical" hormones.  This study (results can be seen here) compared hormone replacement therapy to placebo, identifying both benefits and risks relative to placebo.  The study was stopped due to elevated risk of stroke.  Treatment also had benefits.  In fact, there was no significantly increased mortality, but the low benefits (mainly fracture reduction) were determined to not be worth the risks (stroke). 
  From the WHI Hormone Program Update 2004Studies of the safety and efficacy of FDA approved "bioidentical" hormones show similar results to "synthetic" hormones.

The WHI study argues against long-term hormone replacement therapy. 
use of these hormones is now generally recommended only for short-term relief of menopausal symptoms.
-WHI Findings Summary

The most parsimonious concluson and the one supported by data is that the effects of both "synthetic" an "bioidentical" hormones are the same and due to the effects of hormone treatment.  This suggests that any long-term hormone replacement therapy is not a good idea.

Gerhard Adam's picture
I'm assuming that you would agree then, that cow's milk is inappropriate for human consumption since it's nutrients and hormones are oriented towards cows and not humans?

jeffrey dach md's picture
I'm assuming that you would agree then, that cow's milk is inappropriate for human consumption since it's nutrients and hormones are oriented towards cows and not humans?


We see quite a few patients with lactose intolerance and cow's milk allergies, who should, of course, avoid milk and dairy products.
 
Otherwise, there has been no problem, and no I don't generally oppose the consumption of cow's milk as a food.

This is very different from using a horse hormone which has a specific molecular structure and relies on a lock and key mechanism.  Hormones attach directly onto nuclear DNA.

Cow's milk is a food that supplies proteins, carbohydrates and fats which are then taken up by the liver and converted into proteins and other useful body components.   Milk is not supposed to be a hormone, unless there are exogenous hormones in the milk (such as BST).  Organic milk would be recommended to avoid the Hormones, Antibiotics, and Pesticides otherwise present in regular milk.

Gerhard Adam's picture
Otherwise, there has been no problem, and no I dont oppose the consumption of cow's milk as a food.



It is not supposed to be a hormone, unless there are exogenous hormones in the milk such as BST.

Then perhaps you need to examine what cow's milk actually contains?




"Among the routes of human exposure to estrogens, we are mostly concerned about cow's milk, which contains considerable amounts of female sex hormones," Ganmaa told her audience. Dairy, she added, accounts for 60 percent to 80 percent of estrogens consumed.


http://www.news.harvard.edu/gazette/2006/12.07/11-dairy.html



Even with the suggestion that there is a fundamental difference with BioIdentical hormones, the simple truth is that the delivery system is vastly different than what the human body expects and coupled with the other hormone variables being consumed from varied sources, there is still no real understanding of what effects (if any) this actually represents.



jeffrey dach md's picture
Thanks for the information about the hormones in cow'smilk.  I havent seen this report before this.

I wonder if this applies only to regular milk or if it also applies to organic milk? 

The article did not comment on whether the milk was organic, so I would assume they tested regular milk.

Gerhard Adam's picture

Why would you even say that?  I'm not talking about pesticides, or growth hormones.  I'm talking about the naturally occurring hormones that come from cows.  This is what calves nurse from.  The label of "organic" to describe what cows produce is gibberish, since a cow, by definition, can't be anything except organic.

If you want to deal with artificial hormones and their impact on the food chain, that's one thing.  But these hormones (estrogen, progesterone, prolactin), have nothing to do with anything artificial, but rather they come from the cows themselves.



jeffrey dach md's picture
While we are on the topic of milk, here is an entire article on why milk should not be consumed.

Becky Jungbauer's picture
I'm confused - should we drink milk? You said above that you "don't generally oppose the consumption of cow's milk as a food" but here you say it should not be...

Dr. Dach, I may be myopic, but isn't there a problem quoting from a web page on milk from a Doctor that is a strict vegetarian that makes his living from a vegetarian practice?

jtwitten's picture
But, what I really want to know, is: are we going to get an explanation of how we could have saved MJ?


Russert Heart Attack Has Many On Alert



Posted by jeffrey dach md
Tuesday, July 01, 2008 7:36 AM EST

Two
beloved American celebrities have succumbed to heart disease before
their time. The national response has been disappointment in a medical
system that could allow this to happen. What could have been done
differently to save the lives of both Tim and George, to avoid this
fatal outcome?

For more....
Saving Tim Russert and George Carlin by Jeffrey Dach MD

http://jeffreydach.com/2008/06/26/saving-tim-russert-and-george-carlin-b...


Jeffrey Dach MD
4700 Sheridan Suite T
Hollywood FL 33021
http://www.drdach.com



Add a comment

The content of this field is kept private and will not be shown publicly.
  • Allowed HTML tags: <sup> <sub> <a> <em> <strong> <center> <cite> <code> <TH><ul> <ol> <li> <dl> <dt> <dd> <img> <br> <p> <blockquote> <strike> <object> <param> <embed> <del> <pre> <b> <i> <table> <tbody> <div> <tr> <td> <h1> <h2> <h3> <h4> <h5> <h6> <hr> <iframe>
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.
  • Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.
CAPTCHA
If you register, you will never be bothered to prove you are human again. And you get a real editor toolbar to use instead of this HTML thing that wards off spam bots.