I wish we heard from the other side-the proponents of bioidentical hormones as opposed to pharma created ones
Inside and Out, We've Got
to Treat Them Like They
Deserve to be Treated
|
| |

Last week, the New York Times featured this headline on it’s front page: Breast Cancer Seen as Riskier With Hormone. The article, written by reporter Denise Grady, goes on to say:
Hormone treatment after menopause, already known to increase the risk of breast cancer, also makes it more likely that the cancer will be advanced and deadly, a study finds. Women who took hormones and developed breast cancer were more likely to have cancerous lymph nodes, a sign of more advanced disease, and were more likely to die from the disease than were breast cancer patients who had never taken hormones.
The new information comes from the continuing follow-ups with 12,788 women who were in the Women’s Health Initiative, a major federally financed study that compared women taking hormones with a group taking placebos. The study was halted in 2002, three years ahead of schedule, because researchers found that the hormones were causing small but significant increases in the risk of breast cancer, heart disease, strokes and blood clots in the lungs.
Click here to read the full article.
We’ve featured several stories on menopause and hormone therapy on Faboverfifty and we were alarmed to see this most recent report. Should we start telling women to throw their hormones down the toilet? We reached out to some of our favorite FOF health experts, many of whom have advocated hormone use in the past. Below, their reactions to the story:
“This is mostly already published data from 2004. The only change is a very small increase in mortality from breast cancer in the women taking Prempro. This increase amounts to ONE WOMAN per 10,000 women per year! There is minimal statistical significance to this and no clinical significance whatsoever, hence, too much is being made about such a minimal increase. Additionally, when you talk about the specific small increase in risk, you also have to talk about the potential benefits that may accrue while being exposed to the potential risk. These benefits have been previously reported in the Women’s Health Initiative (WHI) study http://www.nhlbi.nih.gov/whi/ as well as numerous other studies.
"This is 'déjà vu' all over again. The WHI has presented a rehash of data on breast cancer first presented six years ago with a few small additions. There is no mention of the long term benefits of hormone therapy that help decrease the risk of death in order to balance these risks and put them in context. There is no mention of the WHI's own data showing decreased heart attack, osteoporotic fracture, diabetes and colon cancer in women who start the appropriate hormones at the appropriate time--within 10 years of their final menstrual period. The WHI researchers are once again overstating the risks and thereby frightening women into throwing their hormones down the toilet.”
"The study found the increased risk translates into 2.6 vs. 1.3 deaths from breast cancer each year for every 10,000 women taking hormones. There was no increase in breast cancer risk with estrogen alone (without progestin) among women with hysterectomy over an average of 7 years of randomized treatment. The current new lower doses of hormone and natural progesterone as opposed to synthetic progestin are not included in this study.
“This is not a huge increase in breast cancer. If you look at the data one way, you think, “oh my, it’s double the risk of beast cancer!” But if you look at the overall risk, it went from 1.9 to 2.9, an increase of just one woman out of every 10,000.
Reply
Reply
Reply
Reply
Reply
Reply
Reply
Reply
(You must be logged in to leave a comment. Not a member? Register here.)
Enter comment: