Bill and Jo

The Great Hormone Replacement Therapy (HRT) Debate

Before 2002

Until 9-7-2002 all was well with HRT. Hundreds of thousands of women were taking prescription HRT (Hormone Replacement Therapy). Undisputed were the benefits of freedom from disturbing flushes, sweats, dry vagina, eye and mouth secretions; improved moods and mind, less aches and stronger bones.

Many women felt more feminine, had better sex drive and enjoyed sex more, and looked more youthful.

Researchers found from other clinical trials that heart risks were much less so HRT was then promoted widely to help prevent the increasing tide of female heart disease.

Maybe the risks of breast cancer was less too. Certainly bowel cancer was less on HRT.

So all was well.....

Then in 2002 the news hit the wire. The WHI (Women's Health Initiative Study) of 17,000 women on HRT or not, results were published. They looked bad. Multiple news media hit on it rapidly and the news exploded onto the public arena and prescribing medical doctors medical journals. They said,

Women on HRT have increased risks of:

But also there were reduced risks of:

Take the breast cancer situation, the most feared of all. A 26% increase was interpreted as "you have a 26% increase risk of getting breast cancer if you are on HRT!" Like a 1 in 4 chance according to some media, and some doctors. These odds sounded horrific. No wonder there was panic.

Percentages can be used and abused.

Lets look at the real situation. Out of every 10,000 mature women NOT on HRT, about 30 will get breast cancer per year anyway.

Out of 10,000 women ON HRT, a 26% increase goes from 30 to 37. Only another 7 out of 10,000. In no way does this detract from the tragedy and despair of any woman with breast cancer, but it is still a risk of only 7 out of 10,000. Far from the panic of a 1 in 4 chance of getting breast cancer. In fact many women were very prepared to take the odds of 7 chances in 10,000 risk as being very reasonable for getting their lives back.

So lets re look at the risk factors in ACTUAL REAL RISK TERMS

Event Percentage Risk as Quoted Actual risk per 10,000
Heart Attacks 29% increase only 7 more per 10,000
Strokes 41% increase only 8 more per 10,000
Breast Cancer 26% increase only 8 more per 10,000
Clots 111% increase only 18 more per 10,000
Colon Cancer 63% reduction 6 less
Hip Fractures 66% reduction 18 less

This WHI trial of HRT was using the most commonly prescribed non-bioidentical hormones. The estrogen was Premarin (derived from pregnant horses urine) and Methoxyprogesterone (MPA) an altered form of progesterone. Is it any surprise at the findings. Interestingly, when the MPA was dropped out of a sub-trial in the study, there seemed to be no more risk of heart or breast problems.....so even horse estrogen appears so far, safe, at low doses.

The key is to only put into the human body, the exact same identical hormones, Natural BIO-IDENTICAL HORMONE THERAPY (BHT).

But are they proven? How do we know that even human identical hormones wont be a problem?

Here are some reasons:

  1. Doing what nature already does seems logical and commonsense.
  2. A woman has had these same hormones all her life till now, does it seem likely that trouble would suddenly occur when she continues longer at a very much reduced level to what she has had all those years? Is nature that cruel?
  3. Women have had these natural hormones for 100's of thousands of years - is that proof enough?
  4. Is it not strange that most of the disorders we are talking about tend to come on at an age when these same hormones are in a grossly deficient state anyway? Younger women with higher levels of E and P in general do not get cancer and heart attacks etc at the same rate as older, deficient women.
  5. Tens of thousands of women have been using bio-identical hormones for well over 10 years. Increasing numbers of doctors have taken time to be trained properly in the safe use of hormones. Some prominent doctors have published observational studies based on research - no evidence of these risks is emerging.
  6. A very recent publication in the prestigious medical journal Postgraduate Medicine 2009 concluded that natural hormones (bio-identical) were more effective than the synthetic non-human brands of HRT, as well as having far less side-effects and less risk of cancer and heart disease. And should be considered as first line choice. This confirms what we have been saying for the last 10 years! Drug companies wont take this lying down - be sure of that.

Precautions: The following situations may mean either caution with doses and hormone type or avoiding hormones altogether.