Suzanne Somers Promotes "Bioidenticals"

[debv]

It's not close to revolutionary, nor science. Bad study designs and false claims are not science in the least. Young women? The product is pushed at menopausal women.

I think what Wiley is claiming there is that if 20-year-old women are healthy with cycling hormones at those levels, then 70-year-old women will be healthy, women with cancer will be healthy, etc. If it's safe for the young, then it must be safe for everyone.

That's her "clinical study".

 

[JJM]

I agree that the article on homeopathy is couched in somewhat concilliatory terms (as are some of the other articles on sCAM), but I think that reflects the fact that the Mayo Clinic recognizes that many people are inclined to use sCAM and doesn't want to alienate them. Knowing the author of that article, rather than a woo-proponent trying to sound critical, he is more like a proponent of conventional medicine trying to not sound critical.

Thank you for this explanation. I see the problem.

 

[nraden]

(laughing) If I could place a bet, I would wager that Suzanne Somers is going to really, REALLY regret this...

I rest my case. Deb doesn't, and can't, argue about the WIley Protocol on its merits, she only deals in personalities. She hates TS Wiley and only wants to ruin her with no care for the consequences. By association, she wants to ruin Somers too. It's all spite, a little person behind a computer taking down someone.

Ask Deb about the time she posted a comment on her blog and attributed it to my wife, then had to reverse herself when I caught her. This is not an honest broker.

I made an offer here, and no one took me up on it. Read Sex Lies and Menopause, talk to a doctor or two who prescribes the protocol. Read some science. Then we can discuss. You aren't acting like skeptics here, you're acting like gossips.

 

[nraden]

Let me make sure I undersand. You came onto our site, one based on a respect for critical thinking, you made claims, those claims have been questioned, and now you respond by offering a deal with (I guess) me that requires me to go to a site whose rules preclude my ability to call their claims into question just so you will never write another thing about Wiley?

Why don't you tell us what reasons you have for writing another thing about Wiley independent of that site?

When Debv makes a claim, we will expect no less of her than we did of you. Having said that, the one that she has made so far should rightfully be answered by you and that is that you're T.S. Wiley's husband. It's one which you, quite conspicuously, have not denied.

1. "a site whose rules preclude my ability to call their claims into question.." What does that mean? Go to the site and question whatever you want. Read the book, too - Sex, Lies and Menopause.

2. I will not debate with Debv, she has no interest in debate.

3. I didn't conspicuously deny it, I am T.S. Wiley's husband, this is my first response to that. I've been gone for a week for the holiday. I chose not to reveal that in my first post.

Again, I am very disappointed in this site. Not one "skeptic" has looked for the counter-counter argument - why does DebV hate T.S. Wiley? What are HER motives. Everyone on here has accused me of being a shill, a salesman and I can't remember what else.

Bring this up a notch and I'll respond.

 

[nraden]

I think what Wiley is claiming there is that if 20-year-old women are healthy with cycling hormones at those levels, then 70-year-old women will be healthy, women with cancer will be healthy, etc. If it's safe for the young, then it must be safe for everyone.

That's her "clinical study".

Two deliberate rhetorical arguments here. First, the premise is that the decline in sex hormones initiates the diseases of aging. From this came Willey's theory that replacing hormones in the same rhythm as a normal cycle was the key. This is Rhythm in "Rhythmic Living," and Debv and Co. have never acknowledged that Wiley invented the idea. No claim was ever made that the WIley Protocol would cure cancer, for example.

That isn't the "clinical" study, the clinical study is the experience of over 70 doctors that I KNOW OF (all listed on the website) administering the protocol to their patients. There are many other doctors prescribing the protocol through non-registered pharmacies, so their experience is not known.

Also, you need to examine Debv's comments carefully. Here is a bit from the Rhythmic Living website about Bent Formby:

"He has published more than 100 scientific publications and is a member of several societies including the European Menopause Society, the New York Academy of Sciences and the Danish Academy of Sciences."

Fact - on most of those papers, he is not the first author, a charge Debv levels at TS Wiley

Fact - In over 25 years in US, Formby has joined exactly one medical/scientific society - The New York Academy of Sciences. Debv derides Wiley for joining that society as one that requires no academic credentials. She considers it a sham, but does not mention it in Formby's credentials.

So why, you should ask her, does Debv promote Formby for exactly those things she condemns Wiley?

And the money. Wiley makes nothing and has been working on this for 12 years. Her company charges doctors for a manual and a 2-day class and the pharmacies pay a $500 fee which doesn't cover the lawyers' fees to draw the contract. The only income she has is from book royalties, which she splits with Formby. Even Steven. He refuses to separate himself from that "revenue stream." And one more thing about Formby - he says, in print, the most insulting things about Wiley, but Wiley has never said an unkind word about him.

As for all the other stuff that Debv points out, the flame notes, the fake names, sure, I did some of that and it was a mistake. I was trying to defend my wife (of 33 years). It was wrong.

I don't want to be the center of this discussion. I would prefer that others avail themsleves of some information and toss this around. So far, it's been Wiley-0, not-Wiley-15, but I haven't seen any well-informed arguments. It seems to have started as "Suzanne Somers is a bimbo so let's dismisss her," but I don't think you're doing the subject justice.

 

[nraden]

Thank you debv.

nraden caught my eye on another board when I searched for "wiley" on google. It must be nice to have time to troll boards with biased and overblown claims for Wiley. So professional. I sure want they are selling!

Again, you accuse me of trolling boards, but why don't you ask Debv what she's doing here? Doesn't this seem one-sided to you?

 

[nraden]

This is definitely a crowd that investigates.

What exactly have you investigated? I'd suggest you start before you get behind a hate-monger like Debv.

 

[nraden]

Will nraden have the courage to return and defend his (apparently) lie infested 3 posts? Or will he be smart enough to realize that he'd only be digging a deeper hole?

Here I am.

 

[nraden]

nraden.... before I bother looking at the message bringers, lets look at the factualness of your statements.

You've been called out as being factually wrong (deliberately so, I'd say) by existing members of this board. When I personally check the discrepancies, your version always comes up wanting.

Which facts?

 

[nraden]

Thank you HCN. These quacks go on about the the greed of "big pharma", but profit from the kindness extended to them by folks they are now slapping in the face. Crude crude, crud crud crud. Wiley and her hubby are despicable. Somers is rotten by association and for profiting with these wolves in sheep coverings.

Fact - compounding pharmacists who compound hormone preparations and the doctors who prescribe them are making a fortune on menopausal women. There is NO clincal evidence about the efficacy of any of it.

Fact - Wyeth, having taken a huge hit over Premarin, has seen a big erosion in its HRT business so that are going after compounding pharmacy by petitioning the government to regulate it.

Surprise - Wiley actually agrees with Wyeth. Her experience with some compounders, and the business that supplies them, PCCA in Houston, is that they are a bunch of "tight-fisted, pin-headed mixologists." She could never get a consistent product because they loved to tinker.

This is the reasoning behing the Wiley Registered pharmacies - to control the quality, consistency and PRICE of compounded hormones. Wiley pharmacies charge only $37.50/month for a hormone prescription ($75.00 for two). That is down from hundreds of dollars. The fact that she made this therapy affordable is conveniently ignored by her critics.

Wiley makes nothing from homones. Zero. Her company only sells the packaging for a small fraction of the cost of the prescription.

How can someone on a skeptic site make wild and insulting claims about someone with no evidence, no research? What is wrong with you??

 

[Eos of the Eons]

Tee hee, it came back, and I only wish I had time to play right now

So, just a fly by post to say...

LIAR. I'll say why when I have time.

 

[JJM]

Actually, you are mistaken. The "estrogen" in Premarin is a conjugate of over 39 substances ...

What do you imagine this means? You would be a better shill for your wife if you had some understanding of the subject.

Similarly, "natural" progesterone is just that, while pharmaceutical HRT is an artifical substance, progestin, that does not exist in nature.

Progestin is a synonym for progesterone. What, exactly, do you imagine is the difference? "Natural" vs. "synthetic" is not a difference, except to magical thinking.

Why not simply direct us to the Phase 3 clinical trial that supports your claims?

Surely, a guy writing on a technical topic knows that anecdotes, no matter how numerous, mean nothing, and "a conjugate of 39 substances" is meaningless, and natural vs. synthetic is a difference without a distinction.

 

[fls]

I think the following points need to be made.

Natural and synthetic hormones act by binding to estrogen receptors. Estrone and estradiol are the hormones that are produced in humans. Exogenous hormones have an estrogenic effect by either being metabolized to Estrone or Estradiol, by sharing an identical core structure (the steroid ring plus a phenolic hydroxy group and a hydroxy group (estradiol) or a ketone group (estrone)), or by imitating the structure of the estrogens. Premarin is a conjugated estrogen which survives the process of digestion to be absorbed and converted to estrone. Phytoestrogens share the core structure or imitate the structure.

It is disingenuous (or sometimes even wrong) to claim that plant estrogens are identical to those found in humans or that they are more similar than other pharmaceuticals - Premarin in particular. Also, if one divides hormones (or any chemical) into "those derived from plants", "those derived from animals" and "those synthesized in a lab", one cannot assume any of the relevant characteristics (active, harmful, safe, etc.) can be applied to one group over the other, or to all the members of the group (even if one accepts the use of fuzzy qualifiers like "most" or "many").

There is no clinical data of any type supporting T. S. Wiley's idea. This information is critical to obtain since we know that the placebo effect will have a tremendous influence of the types of symptoms and conditions that she claims to help. The observations of doctors using the medication in an uncontrolled manner fails to be a form of evidence.

Regardless of the source, chemicals work by binding to estrogen receptors. This means that these chemicals are not exempt from the assumption that they can lead to the same kinds of harm that endogenous and exogenous estrogens lead to. Without controlled clinical data, we have no idea of the risks or benefits associated with this treatment. In particular, since there is a general concensus (admitedly controversial) that hormone replacement leads to more harm than good in menopausal and post-menopausal women, the assumption in the absence of data has to be that the Wiley Protocol is harmful until proven otherwise. There is no reason to assume that varying the doses of the hormones will avoid harm. It is a reasonable idea to test in a systematic manner, but no assumptions can be made about what the results will be beforehand.

The physicians that use the Wiley Protocol are not practising evidence-based medicine. Since the current standard of care is to use evidence-based medicine, they will be unable to defend themselves if legal or professional charges are brought against them. They have been fortunate so far, perhaps helped by the tendency of people that buy into the "natural" fallacy to be uncritical.

The credibility of T. S. Wiley is a major issue in this debate as she is making claims that are unsupported by evidence. The credibility of Bent Formby is not relevant except in his role as a witness to her expertise (or lack thereof).

Physicians are not compensated for prescribing HRT.

There's probably more, but that'll do for now.

Linda

 

[nraden]

What do you imagine this means? You would be a better shill for your wife if you had some understanding of the subject.

Progestin is a synonym for progesterone. What, exactly, do you imagine is the difference? "Natural" vs. "synthetic" is not a difference, except to magical thinking.

Why not simply direct us to the Phase 3 clinical trial that supports your claims?

Surely, a guy writing on a technical topic knows that anecdotes, no matter how numerous, mean nothing, and "a conjugate of 39 substances" is meaningless, and natural vs. synthetic is a difference without a distinction.

Thank you for displaying your ignorance:

"The recognition of progesterone's ability to suppress ovulation during pregnancy spawned a search for a similar hormone that could bypass the problems associated with administering progesterone (low bioavailability when administered orally and local irritation and pain when continually administered parentally) and, at the same time, serve the purpose of controlling ovulation. The many synthetic hormones that resulted are known as progestins. Some examples of progestins that have been used in hormonal contraceptives are norethynodrel (Enovid), norethindrone (many brand names, most notably Ortho-Novum and Ovcon) norgestimate (Ortho Tricyclen, Ortho-Cyclen), norgestrel, levonorgestrel (Alesse, Trivora-28), medroxyprogesterone (Provera, Depo-Provera) and desogestrel."

 

[nraden]

Thank you for engaging in a discussion of the issues.

I think the following points need to be made.

Natural and synthetic hormones act by binding to estrogen receptors. Estrone and estradiol are the hormones that are produced in humans. Exogenous hormones have an estrogenic effect by either being metabolized to Estrone or Estradiol, by sharing an identical core structure (the steroid ring plus a phenolic hydroxy group and a hydroxy group (estradiol) or a ketone group (estrone)), or by imitating the structure of the estrogens. Premarin is a conjugated estrogen which survives the process of digestion to be absorbed and converted to estrone. Phytoestrogens share the core structure or imitate the structure.

It is disingenuous (or sometimes even wrong) to claim that plant estrogens are identical to those found in humans or that they are more similar than other pharmaceuticals - Premarin in particular. Also, if one divides hormones (or any chemical) into "those derived from plants", "those derived from animals" and "those synthesized in a lab", one cannot assume any of the relevant characteristics (active, harmful, safe, etc.) can be applied to one group over the other, or to all the members of the group (even if one accepts the use of fuzzy qualifiers like "most" or "many").

I'm not qualified to argue this point.

There is no clinical data of any type supporting T. S. Wiley's idea.

This information is critical to obtain since we know that the placebo effect will have a tremendous influence of the types of symptoms and conditions that she claims to help. The observations of doctors using the medication in an uncontrolled manner fails to be a form of evidence.

I'm not sure which idea you're referring to. In point of fact, she has said many times that she isn't sure "synthetic" hormomes are the problem, that it is the administration that matters - timing, dose, rhythm, etc.

Also, finally, there is a university that is conducting a true clinical trial of the Wiley Protocol. This trial has no connection to Wiley at all. The details will be announced January 3.

There is, however, some "clinical" evidence. Dr. Taguchi did a chart review at ACAM a few weeks ago of her 58 cancer patients who have been on the Wiley Protocol for up to three years. I won't characterize the results, because the flamers here will not believe it. Check with ACAM. I think there will be a release by Dr. Taguchi to the media. Not sure, she is part of a large medical practice, not in private practice, and she is an onocologist. Giving hormones to people diagnosed with cancer is unprecedented. [/quote]

the assumption in the absence of data has to be that the Wiley Protocol is harmful until proven otherwise. There is no reason to assume that varying the doses of the hormones will avoid harm. It is a reasonable idea to test in a systematic manner, but no assumptions can be made about what the results will be beforehand.

Actually, there is no template in nature for ANY OF THE EXISTING HORMONE THERAPIES. Including, especially, birth control pills. Dru8g companies sell pills and patches, compounders prepare all sorts of crazy concoctions and not one of them matches one of the five templates found in humans. The core of the Wiley protocol is the peaks and valleys of the therapy over the course of a month. I can't quite understand why you would single out one. Wiley is the first and only therapy that attempts to mimic a template that exists in nature. Static doses are unnatural.

The physicians that use the Wiley Protocol are not practising evidence-based medicine. Since the current standard of care is to use evidence-based medicine, they will be unable to defend themselves if legal or professional charges are brought against them. They have been fortunate so far, perhaps helped by the tendency of people that buy into the "natural" fallacy to be uncritical.

I think that is a fair statement, but you overlook the favorable experience people, AND SOME OF THE DOCTORS ON THE PROTOCOL, are having. At least some of the disgruntled women on Rhythmic Living were not following the protocol and pursued alternatives that Wiley warned against. On the other hand, there are hundreds of women jsut here in Santa Barbara who have been on the protocol for some time and have no intention of changing.

The credibility of T. S. Wiley is a major issue in this debate as she is making claims that are unsupported by evidence. The credibility of Bent Formby is not relevant except in his role as a witness to her expertise (or lack thereof).

Agreed.

Physicians are not compensated for prescribing HRT.

Oh yes they are. Many receive kickbacks one way or the other from the compounding pharmacies they (illegally) direct their patients to. Others, like Erika Schwartz, charge $850 for a 15 minute telephone interview and then prescribe without ever seeing the patient, directing them to a pharmacy THEY OWN which dispenses at inflated prices. Most "wellness" doctors sell supplements directly from their offices. Part of the reason so many of the "natural" BHRT docs are up in arms with Wiley is that she threatens their livelihood. She is down on the supplements and strongly suggests (she can't set) that the registered pharmacies not charge more than $37.50 per hormone per month.

Also, there is a notion in BHRT that each patient needs a "customized" hormone preparation. The doctors charge an arm and a leg to do this, which usually results in a Rx from a short list of templates that they've worked out with their pharmacist.

Thanks for your thoughts Linda.

 

[JJM]

Thank you for displaying your ignorance:
"snip
(... local irritation and pain when continually administered parentally)
snip"

[bold added]

I am trying not to be ignorant. But, you do not answer my questions: for example "a conjugate of 39 substances." What does this mean?

Why not simply direct us to the Phase 3 clinical trial that supports your claims?

What is the difference between natural and synthetic? And how are phytoestrogens "bio-identical" to mammalian estrogens?

You note "... local irritation and pain when continually administered parentally" how do parents exacerbate the harm. A lot of menopausal women do not rely on their parents. Where did that come from? (And, yes, I know the question ends in a preposition).

By the way, where did you get the quote?

 

[Hellbound]

By the way, where did you get the quote?

He plagarized Wikipedia.

 

[fls]

I'm not sure which idea you're referring to. In point of fact, she has said many times that she isn't sure "synthetic" hormomes are the problem, that it is the administration that matters - timing, dose, rhythm, etc.

That is the idea that I'm referring to.

Also, finally, there is a university that is conducting a true clinical trial of the Wiley Protocol. This trial has no connection to Wiley at all. The details will be announced January 3.

Good.

There is, however, some "clinical" evidence. Dr. Taguchi did a chart review at ACAM a few weeks ago of her 58 cancer patients who have been on the Wiley Protocol for up to three years. I won't characterize the results, because the flamers here will not believe it. Check with ACAM. I think there will be a release by Dr. Taguchi to the media. Not sure, she is part of a large medical practice, not in private practice, and she is an onocologist. Giving hormones to people diagnosed with cancer is unprecedented.

I did already hear about that review. Without a control, you don't know if the results would have been any different without the Wiley Protocol.

Actually, there is no template in nature for ANY OF THE EXISTING HORMONE THERAPIES. Including, especially, birth control pills. Dru8g companies sell pills and patches, compounders prepare all sorts of crazy concoctions and not one of them matches one of the five templates found in humans. The core of the Wiley protocol is the peaks and valleys of the therapy over the course of a month. I can't quite understand why you would single out one. Wiley is the first and only therapy that attempts to mimic a template that exists in nature. Static doses are unnatural.

I single it out because it is the topic of this thread and it has no evidence as to its benefit or risk. The other therapies that you mention do have evidence as to their benefit and risk (excluding other purveyors of "natural" hormones).

I think that is a fair statement, but you overlook the favorable experience people, AND SOME OF THE DOCTORS ON THE PROTOCOL, are having. At least some of the disgruntled women on Rhythmic Living were not following the protocol and pursued alternatives that Wiley warned against. On the other hand, there are hundreds of women jsut here in Santa Barbara who have been on the protocol for some time and have no intention of changing.

In addition to the placebo effect, I would also expect some treatment effects with this regimen (you are using ingredients that would be expected to act on estrogen receptors, after all). My complaint is that you are promoting an untested therapy that has a good chance of causing harm.

Oh yes they are. Many receive kickbacks one way or the other from the compounding pharmacies they (illegally) direct their patients to. Others, like Erika Schwartz, charge $850 for a 15 minute telephone interview and then prescribe without ever seeing the patient, directing them to a pharmacy THEY OWN which dispenses at inflated prices. Most "wellness" doctors sell supplements directly from their offices. Part of the reason so many of the "natural" BHRT docs are up in arms with Wiley is that she threatens their livelihood. She is down on the supplements and strongly suggests (she can't set) that the registered pharmacies not charge more than $37.50 per hormone per month.

Also, there is a notion in BHRT that each patient needs a "customized" hormone preparation. The doctors charge an arm and a leg to do this, which usually results in a Rx from a short list of templates that they've worked out with their pharmacist.

That information is unsubstantiated and not particularly relevant. The majority of physicians act in a ethical manner and are not compensated. That a few physicians participate in illegal practices does not excuse anything. The relative level of compensation that you and others receive for the pushing of untested and unproven therapies is not the factor that determines whether or not it is okay.

Linda

 

[Katana]

I'll start by addressing something that I should have covered earlier:

2. If you know anything about in vitro fertilization, you would know that estrace and the rest of the (patentable junk) in Premarin is NEVER used. Only natural bioidentical hormones are used in in vitro. Why do suppose that is?

You clearly know nothing about IVF. Estrace is used in IVF during the luteal phase (following embryo transfer).

As for these natural bioidentical hormones of which you speak, are these the ones?

Gonal-F® RFF (follitropin alfa injection) is a prescription medication containing FSH, manufactured by recombinant DNA technology.

Follistim® AQ (follitropin beta injection) is a pure FSH preparation manufactured by recombinant DNA technology.

Bravelle® (urofollitropin for injection, purified), is a highly purified follicle-stimulating hormone (hFSH) derived from urine.

Repronex® (menotropin for injection, USP) is a purified preparation of urine-derived gonadotropins, FSH and LH.

Pregnyl® (chorionic gonadotropin), a highly-purified preparation derived from the urine of pregnant women, was introduced in Europe in 1932 as the first hCG preparation drug and still continues to be one of the leading hCG therapies manufactured and sold today.

Ganirelix Acetate Injection (formerly called Antagon™) is a synthetic gonadotropin-releasing hormone (GnRH) antagonist that is used to suppress premature luteinizing hormone (LH) surges in women during assisted reproductive technology (ART) treatment.

Cetrotide® (cetrorelix acetate for injection), is a synthetic gonadotropin releasing hormone (GnRH) antagonist used to suppress premature luteinizing hormone (LH) surges in women during assisted reproductive technology (ART) treatment.

Which hormones were you talking about?

There is a school of thought (Wiley's) that says the synthetic/bioidentical conundrum may not even be the most important issue, it's how it's dosed, formulated, compounded and followed, but you'd have to read her book to understand it.

According to her website:

It’s much easier to ablate hormones, than to understand the complicated mechanisms underlying real restoration of the rhythms that kept you alive and healthy. Real HRT, synthetic or bio-identical, has never been attempted until now with the Wiley Protocol®. Science and medicine are still confused by “drug administration treatments” that pass for endocrinology.

So, a replacement regimen like the Wiley Protocol® that not only includes real estrogen and progesterone, but estrogen and progesterone in significantly higher amounts than anyone has ever conceived of anywhere, outside of fertility treatments, is not an easy sell to your doctor. If you can direct him or her to this website or get them to read the book, it might give you an edge.

She is clearly pushing her own hormone preparations. What I will give her credit for is the open admission that this has never been done before and she is proposing what almost sound like supratherapeutic doses of hormones. However, as others have mentioned, what about the potential health hazards? What evidence does she have outside of her (and your) anecdotal accounts?

Don't expect to come here, make claims, throw up your hands to the fact that we would have to read her book to understand them, and act surprised that we are less than convinced.

I rest my case. Deb doesn't, and can't, argue about the WIley Protocol on its merits, she only deals in personalities. She hates TS Wiley and only wants to ruin her with no care for the consequences. By association, she wants to ruin Somers too. It's all spite, a little person behind a computer taking down someone.

You are not arguing the Wiley Protocol on its merits. You are making claims supported by anecdotal evidence at best and trying to deflect attention from yourself by bringing up the evils of Big Pharma and Deb. Why don't you go back to the topic at hand and start making some evidence-based arguments for Wiley's claims if you can?

Ask Deb about the time she posted a comment on her blog and attributed it to my wife, then had to reverse herself when I caught her. This is not an honest broker.

Calling Deb's credibility into account does not elevate yours.

I made an offer here, and no one took me up on it. Read Sex Lies and Menopause, talk to a doctor or two who prescribes the protocol. Read some science. Then we can discuss. You aren't acting like skeptics here, you're acting like gossips.

Why do you expect us to take you up on your "offer" when you have neither addressed the inaccuracies in the information that you provided earlier nor have you provided reason for us to take your (and Wiley's) arguments seriously?

And do not condescendingly tell us to read some science when you cannot or refuse to do the same.

And, as for who is acting like what, you are acting like a pouty politician who, finding himself backed into a corner, can do little but insult his challengers. Rather than addressing the issues raised against your statements, you would rather send everyone on a wild goose chase.

1. "a site whose rules preclude my ability to call their claims into question.." What does that mean? Go to the site and question whatever you want. Read the book, too - Sex, Lies and Menopause.

What does it mean? It stems from your own comments:

Fair is fair, but these hate mongers operate without scrutiny. They are a moderated site and do not allow dissenting commentary on thier site. If you are truly skeptics, then you will out ******** wherever you find it.

Again, I am very disappointed in this site. Not one "skeptic" has looked for the counter-counter argument - why does DebV hate T.S. Wiley? What are HER motives. Everyone on here has accused me of being a shill, a salesman and I can't remember what else.

Bring this up a notch and I'll respond.

Be disappointed then. You presume a bit in believing that your opinion of us is a persuasive reason to pursue a counter argument to the flawed, unsupported one that you and your wife champion.

Again, you accuse me of trolling boards, but why don't you ask Debv what she's doing here? Doesn't this seem one-sided to you?

Why do you continue to deflect attention from yourself? We didn't need Deb's help to see through your claims. I am not interested in your history with her nor is anyone else. It is clear that you two have been traveling together much to your dismay, no doubt. You are both passionate about your causes. You move through forums, and she tails you. Do you think that any of us thought that your arrival at roughly the same time was just a coincidence?

There now. So why don't you stop deflecting and start addressing the questions that have been directed at you (and your wife's claims)?

 

[Katana]

I won't address everything from this post because fls is doing a fine job.

I'm not sure which idea you're referring to. In point of fact, she has said many times that she isn't sure "synthetic" hormomes are the problem, that it is the administration that matters - timing, dose, rhythm, etc.

Is that why she says this?

Choosing the Wiley Protocol® is not only a vote for Nature, but it’s a vote for Science. The Wiley Protocol® is the only HRT or BHRT that has been developed under the scrutiny of a practicing Oncologist. We have gathered over the last three years a preponderance of anecdotal evidence in over a thousand women ages nineteen to ninety that the Protocol® is safe and effective. That can’t be said for any statically dosed form of BHRT. What can be said, though, is that the WHI has proven that synthetics –Premarin and PremPro are dangerous. The common assumption among women using bio-identical regimens is that they are doing something “safer.” It bears repeating that the synthetics may have caused harm, not just because they weren’t bio-identical hormone molecules, but because of the way they were statically dosed.

She begins by referring to anecdotes to support her protocol and then undermines "statically" dosed BHRT by saying that there are no anecdotes to suggest that it is safe (doesn't say that it's not, mind you). Yes, she finishes with talking about the dosing schedule but only after emphasizing just how dangerous "synethetic" hormones were proven to be by the WHI. The message is quite clear.

I'm actually surprised that she would use the WHI in the same way that the media did to spread fear of HRT. I would have thought that she would be more critical of the obviously-flawed study. Then again, I suppose that it is too great a temptation to misrepresent it for personal gain.

Giving hormones to people diagnosed with cancer is unprecedented.

No. It's not.

Actually, there is no template in nature for ANY OF THE EXISTING HORMONE THERAPIES. Including, especially, birth control pills. Dru8g companies sell pills and patches, compounders prepare all sorts of crazy concoctions and not one of them matches one of the five templates found in humans. The core of the Wiley protocol is the peaks and valleys of the therapy over the course of a month. I can't quite understand why you would single out one.

1) What are these five templates of which you speak?

2) That part about the "especially, birth control pills"? You are aware, aren't you, that the reason why birth control pills work is that they create an "unnatural" hormonal state? If all they did was mimic perfectly the body's natural hormonal fluctuations, they would have no contraceptive properties.

Wiley is the first and only therapy that attempts to mimic a template that exists in nature. Static doses are unnatural.

By Wiley's own words, again...

like the Wiley Protocol® that not only includes real estrogen and progesterone, but estrogen and progesterone in significantly higher amounts than anyone has ever conceived of anywhere, outside of fertility treatments...

Infertility treatments produce just about the highest hormone levels out there. She is advocating supraphysiologic doses of hormones. How is her protocol "natural"?