Suzanne Somers Promotes "Bioidenticals"

[a_unique_person]

It's not hormones making you old, it's you body stopping regenerating itself around 50.

 

[Chris Haynes]

I'll make a deal with you. If this is truly a skeptics site, and not just a place where you rearrange your prejudices, then do this. Apply your skepticism to RhythmicLiving.com and Debv's cohorts and if you do, including deconstructing Bent Formby, whose scinece is laughable, and the stories about the sick (but nameless) women there, I will never write another thing about Wiley.....

Perhaps... but this is so much more amusing:
http://wileywatch.org/ts_wileys_credentials

What about T.S. Wiley's stint as a guest investigator? This was a favor from Dr. Formby in 1997. “We appointed her as guest investigator at Sansum Medical Research Institute for 3 months. By doing so she became affiliated with an academic institution.... We were all very nice to her and glad to be able to support an ordinary housewife with an interest in bioscience.”

Apparently it didn't work out so well. “I was very surprised to discover how illiterate TS was in science and math. She knew absolutely nothing. She did not even know the difference between hydrogen and oxygen or the square root of a number.... She told me she never had science and math in high school.” And, “That was a great mistake because she has absolutely no knowledge about science and how a scientific laboratory with all the applied molecular techniques works.”

By the way, Bert Formby is not a guru either. He is not a doctor, but he does have a real PhD... and looking at www.pubmed.gov he is the first author on a few papers (some with TS Wiley as the second author).

I'm not sure about the whole bunch of these "researchers." A search on www.pubmed.gov on "hormones menopause" finds that there is lots of research, much of it contradictory to other studies. There is this one that does not recommend "bioidentical" hormone replacement ... and it is from the "Southwest College of Naturapathic Medicine" (a type of research facility we kind of at look skeptically). Then I found this editorial (Pubmed also indexes non-peer reviewed stuff like letters and editorials):
http://www.menopause.org.au/public/media_detail.asp?ID=72
It ends with this comment:

In Australia and the USA, there has been a recent proliferation of compounding chemists who have taken advantage of postmenopausal women’s need for and anxiety about conventional HRT and the loopholes in current legislation in these countries. These compounding pharmacies are now manufacturing ‘bioidentical’ hormonal mixtures and delivery systems in such proportions that they have effectively become a large, inadequately regulated pharmaceutical industry. It is time for the international drug regulatory authorities to regulate this industry, which is based on false promise, pseudo science and pecuniary interest without responsibility for the interests and health of the consumer.​

​

 

[Eos of the Eons]

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.

 

[switchtech]

Beware the dihydrogen monoxide

Exactly. And even drinking too much water will kill you too.

Yeah, that nasty di-hydrogen monoxide kills thousands every year, either through accidental inhalation or some other isideous means.

I remember when a serious news site linked to a joke di-hydrogen monoxide site. They didn't realize the joke! I'm sure you can find the site still by internet searching for di-hydrogen monoxide. (something like: www dmho org - fill in the dots)

It has such an evil sounding chemical name and all, too - that monoxide stuff...

On the other hand, all those purveyors of "natural" medicine are doing a world of disservice. My wife often buys into the its natural so it must be ok from time to time (and it doesn't work to point out arsenic is natural).

jbs

 

[switchtech]

(My site, BTW, is Wiley Watch. I hope it's okay to mention that, though forum policy prevents me from linking.)

You should be able to edit your profile to put your web site there. If you click on a member name you get a little drop down with a bunch of options. On my name one option is to visit my home page (not that I specifically recommend anyone follow it - it has nothing to do with critical thinking - on the other hand if you're interested in who I am - go for it).

And cudos on your web site. It looks well done and seems quite informative. Thanks.

jbs

 

[Eos of the Eons]

Here's the link to our newbie's web: http://www.wileywatch.org/

I did a search on Wiley, and this great site didn't come up for me. Are there tags or something that can be attached to the website?

 

[debv]

By the way, Bert Formby is not a guru either. He is not a doctor, but he does have a real PhD...

(laughing) No, I don't believe it's within Bent's character to aspire to or ever accept the title "guru". As for PhDs, he has two of them.

I consider him a very kind and honest man, but he inadvertently helped T.S. Wiley acquire a status she should never have had, and perhaps a lot of suffering might have been averted had he not. I get a real sense that he regrets it, and I think his assistance and forthcomingness are a testament to his character.

Somers is rotten by association and for profiting with these wolves in sheep coverings.

Yes, I think Suzanne Somers has really stepped into a big one here.

I've been watching the Wiley camp for over a year and a half, taking careful records of just about everything. Wiley Watch actually first launched well over a year ago, but we knew that Suzanne Somers would be endorsing Wiley in her next book, and we decided at some point that it would be better to wait. It seemed there was no point in going after Wiley at a time when nobody knew who she was nor cared. Basically, we realized that the fame and attention Wiley desired would instead end up being her gravest threat. So we lay low and stockpiled information.

As a nice side-effect, I think this gave them a false sense of security. Wiley Watch hadn't spent much ammunition yet and went without updates for many months at a time. About two months ago, before Somers' book came out, Neil Raden wrote to his circle of Wiley enthusiasts, "What they [Wiley critics] don't understand is that WP is a lot bigger than they are the train has already left the station. They have no idea what's already happened and is going to emerge in the next few months, it can't be stopped. Just ignore them, that's the best approach (and it always gives them ulcers)."

I think it's more accurate to say that we knew what was coming and they didn't. And I don't think Suzanne Somers did either.

(And I can assure you, many women who have spoken up wish Neil Raden would ignore them. But of course he's talking to his flock here...)

Anyway, when the book came out, Wiley Watch relaunched in the form you see today and the game is now on.

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

 

[debv]

Here's the link to our newbie's web:

I did a search on Wiley, and this great site didn't come up for me. Are there tags or something that can be attached to the website?

I may be a newbie but I've loved Mr. Randi since I was a teenager.

What was your search term? When I search "wiley protocol", we're #2 on Google and #1 on Yahoo -- ahead of Wiley herself. We're not so high on "t.s. wiley" and I'm working on "neil raden", just because I believe in justice.

It's my understanding that search engines don't give much or any weight to meta tags these days.

 

[Katana]

debv, so good to have you here-awesome website you have, and Katana, you're the coolest too.

Right back atcha, Eos.

I'm always impressed with your posts (especially #60 in this thread ).

 

[grayman]

When I posted this thread I expected maybe a few comments and then it would fade away.

But once again the members of this forum (too many to name) have proved to me their willingness to call to account anyone making an absurd claim. Whether the claim is scientific, medical, paranormal, whatever, there is always someone ready to say "prove it".

There usually are well thought out comments and research during the debate.

And what really impresses me about this group is the maturity of the discussion; it rarely falls to the level of personal attacks and name-calling.

I had to make this comment praising you before my coffee kicked in and I talked myself out of it. The members of this forum are the best.

Carry on.

 

[Hellbound]

When I posted this thread I expected maybe a few comments and then it would fade away.

But once again the members of this forum (too many to name) have proved to me their willingness to call to account anyone making an absurd claim. Whether the claim is scientific, medical, paranormal, whatever, there is always someone ready to say "prove it".

There usually are well thought out comments and research during the debate.

And what really impresses me about this group is the maturity of the discussion; it rarely falls to the level of personal attacks and name-calling.

I had to make this comment praising you before my coffee kicked in and I talked myself out of it. The members of this forum are the best.

Carry on.

Except for me.

I'm just a cynical a**hole.

 

[debv]

Yes, this has been very refreshing for me. Thank you!

And thank you for the nice comments about the site.

 

[luchog]

Even so crystal size can affect taste.

Suppose we have a salt that is a mix of two different kinds of salt, with different sizes of crystals. Suppose the sodium chloride crystals are large, and the potassium chloride crystals are small. Then the potassium chloride crystals will dissolve faster, and their initial impact on taste will be more intense than would happen if you reversed the sizes of the crystals.

Erm... no. That's a truism not even related to what was being discussed. Serenity's assertion was the crystal size of sodium chloride affects how it tastes; which is demonstrably untrue. That different salts taste different, regardless of crystal size and dissolve rates, is a given.

 

[JJM]

Even so crystal size can affect taste.

Suppose we have a salt that is a mix of two different kinds of salt, with different sizes of crystals. Suppose the sodium chloride crystals are large, and the potassium chloride crystals are small. Then the potassium chloride crystals will dissolve faster, and their initial impact on taste will be more intense than would happen if you reversed the sizes of the crystals.

Cheers,
Ben

Given good mixing, smaller crystals of a particular compound dissolve faster. However, the rate of dissolution for crystals of different compounds, of the same size, depends on their chemical composition. Some compounds inherently dissolve faster than others.

 

[Eos of the Eons]

If I may pry a bit more, may I ask Debv what her stance is on biodenticals vs fda approved treatments? I find her site a bit fuzzy on that, and would like to see more on exposing the fallacies of "bioidenticals" in general, and was wondering about thoughts on that? A little science taking down bioidenticals would be the icing on the cake of a site, so to speak.

 

[JJM]

If I may pry a bit more, may I ask Debv what her stance is on biodenticals vs fda approved treatments? I find her site a bit fuzzy on that, and would like to see more on exposing the fallacies of "bioidenticals" in general, and was wondering about thoughts on that? A little science taking down bioidenticals would be the icing on the cake of a site, so to speak.

I posted a facetiously-worded set of questions about bioidenticals. I am a chemist and I really can't sort out the claims; but it seems to me the proponents can't do so, either. The Larry King transcript that Debv's site linked (thank you) shows bioident proponents arguing with the bioident program promoted by TS Wiley, et al.

I finally found this by working my way through the Mayo Clinic web site (wwwdotmayoclinicdotcom). Go to the CAM area, and then go to the herbs and supplements.

[T]here is no evidence that bioidentical hormones are safer or more effective than standard hormone replacement therapy.
snip
... bioidentical hormones are available in FDA-approved [forms.]
snip
These products come in many different doses and forms. So, you don't need to turn to unregulated, individually compounded products as your only source of "natural" products.

That seems to sum it up neatly.

Note about the MAyo Clinic site- some of the articles, like this one, provide critical analysis. Others are by woo-proponents trying to sound critical. For example, the "homeopathy" article says it is controversial.

There is no scientific controversy concerning homeopathy. Proponents would have you think there is one, so they create a social controversy and hope the public can't tell the difference. (Creationists did the same when promoting Intelligent Design as "science.") Thus, the article on homeopathy is unreliable.

Considering the mix of critical and uncritical arguments, it seems the Mayo Clinic has no quality-control over the site.

 

[Eos of the Eons]

Thank you JJM, and I asked some point blank questions myself that haven't been addressed by folks selling "plant" bioidenticals. I'm definitely seeing the woo claims as false, misleading, and set up to misinform the masses to make them fear anything they aren't selling.

 

[debv]

I don't know enough about that debate to take a stand on it. I barely have enough time to put into the Wiley issue.

It's certainly nonsense, as has been pointed out here, to claim that bioidenticals are safe because they're "natural". (And it seems Wiley wants to have her cake and eat it too, advocating that peri- to post-menopausal women artificially elevate their hormone levels to those of a 20-year-old -- at times a pregnant one.) Whatever their source, (exogenous) hormones and hormone-like substances are powerful drugs.

I'm more focused on the collosal irresponsibility of advocating massive doses of these drugs, based on little more than a conjecture, a "thought experiment", -- that doing so will prevent and cure age-related diseases and may lead to immortality. (According to Raden, Wiley says, "My clinical study is millions of young women." It's revolutionary science.)

And of course I'm focused on the disingenuous behavior I have observed from the stakeholders in this scheme. I might have lost interest in the Wiley Protocol long ago had I not observed that Raden and one of the Wiley pharmacists were using fake names on a message board to attack women -- the women who were coming forward and reporting that the protocol was making them sick. (It was easy to spot. Every post had the IP address it originated from. I don't think they knew what those four numbers meant. I was able to get a copy of the logs for the board which showed that these posts were not only coming from the same IP addresses, but almost certainly the same web browsers.)

That pharmacist, incidentally, was also posting fake glowing testimonials about her own pharmacy, which it seems to me is clearly illegal under the California Business and Professions Code. This was reported to the California Board of Pharmacy, who inexplicably took no action.

On another note, I see that nraden has not returned to this board since throwing out his challenge.

 

[Eos of the Eons]

Thank you debv.

(According to Raden, Wiley says, "My clinical study is millions of young women." It's revolutionary science.)

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.

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!

 

[fls]

Note about the MAyo Clinic site- some of the articles, like this one, provide critical analysis. Others are by woo-proponents trying to sound critical. For example, the "homeopathy" article says it is controversial.

There is no scientific controversy concerning homeopathy. Proponents would have you think there is one, so they create a social controversy and hope the public can't tell the difference. (Creationists did the same when promoting Intelligent Design as "science.") Thus, the article on homeopathy is unreliable.

Considering the mix of critical and uncritical arguments, it seems the Mayo Clinic has no quality-control over the site.

I will admit to a bias on this issue, but I think you are being unreasonable. <g>

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.

This article in that same section at least focuses on the issue of scams and wishful thinking.
http://www.mayoclinic.com/health/alternative-medicine/SA00078

And their information on supplements is very good, including a grade for the kind of evidence for each indication.

Linda