Natural Progesterone - Cancer in a Cream?
We respond to a UK report published in the May 2006 edition of ‘What Doctors Don’t Tell You’.
The body of evidence gathered by this Advisory Network in collaboration with the women out there at the coal face using bioidentical progesterone cream for over a decade is inconsistent with the findings presented by Dr. Ellen Grant and Lynne McTaggart in the WDDTY May 2006 newsletter.
In this point-by-point rebuttal, let’s tackle some of the more outrageous statements put forward in their report for the benefit of our readers (and the authors of this WDDTY article) who are perhaps a little confused!
“The evidence is now clear - natural progesterone is just another form of HRT.”
Clear to whom? A revelation to some members of the medical fraternity with their heads in the sand, perhaps!
Prior to the findings of the Women’s Health Initiative July 2002, our doctors “pooh poohed” any suggestion that over-the-counter (OTC) progesterone creams were actually “working”. If we were realising results then it had to be, according to GPs, placebo. In other words, we’d have imagined the results we were seeing & feeling in our body! Coincidental, don’t you think, that these same creams should now be tagged ‘dangerous’ in articles like this one, a short time after conventional HRT has lost its lustre!
Women associated with this Advisory Network appreciate that “natural progesterone” (also called bioidentical progesterone) is, in some countries, classified a Schedule 4 drug that is a component of ‘Bioidentical Hormone Replacement Therapy” (BHRT). Consequently, ALL women are encouraged, where possible, to embark on any progesterone supplementation under the watchful eye of a skilled healthcare practitioner who embraces & understands BHRT treatment protocols.
“There are few long-term studies of the effect of rub-on progesterone. However, now that progestogens have been found to act on the body similarly to natural progesterone, the many studies of the Pill and HRT give some idea of the cancer risks.”
Dr Grant’s conclusions here are flawed! She wrongly asserts that natural progesterone is a “cancer risk” based on evidence pertaining to artificial progestogens (progesterone analogues) found in the Pill and Hormone Replacement Therapy (HRT). Hormones fit onto their receptors just like a “lock and key”, so any slight alteration of their chemical structure creates a “monster hormone”. Drug companies intentionally create/invent these synthetically altered monster hormones (i.e., progestogens) that are NOT found in the human body or anywhere else in nature for the sole purpose of owning exclusive rights.
The Women’s Health Initiative (WHI) revealed in July 2002 that women taking combined estrogen and progestogen hormone therapy were at increased risk of breast cancer and stroke. The hormone trial had two studies: the estrogen-plus-progestogen study of women with a uterus and the estrogen-alone study of women without a uterus.
In October 2002, the Women’s International Study of Long Duration Oestrogen after Menopause (WISDOM), a British trial evaluating hormone therapy, was also stopped after finding elevated risks of breast cancer.
This was followed, twelve months later, by the results of the Million Women Study that indicated for the first time that the increased risk started between one and two years of HRT use (estrogen-plus-progestogen & estrogen-alone). The risks grew larger the longer the HRT treatment continued.
The results of the Million Women Study disagreed with the fact that the Women’s Health Initiative reported an increase in breast cancer not observed in the estrogen only arm of the clinical trial (an average follow-up has now reached about 7 years).
In early 2004, Swedish researchers stopped yet another study examining the impact of hormone replacement therapy (HRT) in women with a history of breast cancer because of an unacceptably high risk of recurrence of the disease.
These studies DID NOT include bioidentical progesterone.
The findings of the Bassett Healthcare study, published in March 2004, suggested that “a popular, over-the-counter progesterone cream (Pro-Gest) is absorbed into the blood to the same extent as FDA approved progesterone capsules, meaning that progesterone cream is as strong as the pills.”
Well, hello!!! We’ve be saying as much for years! Bioidentical progesterone, when applied transdermally at a physioligical dose as low as 2% ~ 20mg per 1 gram application (such is the case with Pro-Gest), WILL supplement the hormone progesterone in our body. And it will do this MINUS all the side effects and health risks of an artificial progestogen.
The WDDTY report goes on to state, “multiple studies show that combined hormone replacement therapy—estrogen plus progestogen—or progestogen alone for five years or longer is associated with a 26-53 percent increase in breast cancer and other side effects.” Hold on a minute! How are damning studies relating to artifical progestogen and breast cancer relative to the safety of bioidentical progesterone creams? Where’s the connection??
“Progesterone, rather than estrogen, is the most carcinogenic hormone of the two.”
IF this statement by Ms McTaggart IS based on scientific fact then hundreds of thousands of women undergoing IVF around the globe ought to seek legal advice most urgently, as bioidentical progesterone is routinely used in fertility clinics as a supplement during assisted reproductive technology (ART) cycles and into early pregnancy.
But then would governing medical authorities in any country sanction prenatal exposure to a supposedly carcinogenic hormone at the very point where life begins if they genuinely believed, or were sitting on evidence to suggest human-identical progesterone is linked to cancer?
Maybe Ms McTaggart can answer this one for us?
“Results show that natural progesterone and synthetic progestogens both have a similar action in the body.”
Similar does not = the same!
Synthetic (not-natural-to-the-body) progestogens are associated with birth defects, yet progesterone is essential for a viable and healthy pregnancy.
Synthetic progestogens don’t show up in blood and saliva tests, meaning they don’t raise progesterone levels in the body.
Bioidentical progesterone does not cause the side effects listed for medroxyprogesterone acetate (Provera).
Progesterone 101
Bioidentical progesterone is NOT the same as an artificial progestogen.
To lump both bioidentical progesterone and artificial progestogens in the same basket is, in my humble opinion, “stupid science”.
An artificial progestogen has a different molecular structure to that of bioidentical progesterone. That’s how drug companies get their progestogens patented in the first place … by manipulating the progesterone molecule way beyond its ‘natural’ state.
Major pharmaceutical companies ‘tamper’ with the molecular structure of USP progesterone to produce progesterone’s synthetic cousin - progestogen - that the body no longer sees as bioidentical. Typically, our doctors insist on prescribing artificial progestogens despite new emerging evidence that these not-natural-to-the-body, synthetic analogues of progesterone ineptly replace our natural hormones, and have been found to increase the risk of heart disease, cancer and blood clots.
Bioidentical progesterone has a significant safety margin because the body see as ‘natural’ that which has the same molecular configuration.
Bioidentical progesterone is not produced anywhere in the plant kingdom. It is manufactured in a laboratory with the aid of an enzyme. The substance diosgenin, found in the Mexican Wild Yam or Soy plant, has to undergo a series of chemical changes whereby it is synthesised or converted from its raw state into United States Pharmacopeia (USP) or British Pharmacopoeia (BP) grade progesterone.
The difference between a progesterone and a progestogen is NOT their source - whether they come from soy or yam or are developed in a test tube. The distinction lies in their basic molecular arrangement. If the chemical structure of the product identically matches that of a woman’s naturally occurring hormone, it is considered to be natural. Simply, a natural hormone is intended to mimic the human female hormone. The natural form of progesterone appears to have several benefits. The bioidentical version helps to balance estrogen as well as other sex hormones; it utilizes more efficiently and leaves the body quickly, as do our own hormones.
Here’s what the “natural” progesterone hormone looks like:
Here’s what the altered molecular structure of a progestogen looks like:
Look closely at the two molecule below. Not much difference? Wrong. Estradiol tells your body it is female and testosterone tells your body it is male. The lesson here is obvious enough … if such small differences in molecular structures have such big real effects then beware of man made alterations.
“Progesterone encourages breast cancer to spread rapidly and metastasize.”
The Johns Hopkins University conducted a 20 year study, published in 1981 in the American Journal of Epidemiology, showing that women who had good progesterone levels had less than a fifth of the amount of breast cancer, and less than a tenth of all the cancers that occurred in women who were low in progesterone. These outcomes suggest that having a normal level of progesterone protected women from nine-tenths of all cancers that might otherwise have occurred.
Dr. David Zava, Ph.D., hormone expert and co-Author, What Your Doctor May Not Tell You About Breast Cancer writes, “Most oncologists and general practitioners that work with natural progesterone find that primary breast cancer, and breast cancer recurrences are less frequent in women using topical progesterone, but it does happen. My experience, in reviewing pathology reports from women who have developed breast cancer while using topical progesterone, is that they usually have tumors that do not contain progesterone receptors, or the receptors are very low.
Dr. Jane Murray, a respected M.D. in the States and former President of the American Academy of Family Physicians and author of a Women’s Health in Primary Care paper Natural Progesterone: What Role in Women’s Health Care? argues there have been no studies to date that document harm to women from real progesterone.
“According to this article, I should be dead by now!” writes Alyssa Burns-Hill MSc, FRSPH, MIHPE, Hormone Health Specialist. “This is an astonishing piece of reporting and publishing and as someone who had invasive breast cancer in 2001, had no drugs or radiotherapy, and has been using natural progesterone to balance my hormones ever since, I have been rendered almost speechless!”
“Progesterone is more carcinogenic for the breast than estrogen.”
Estrogen dominance is a term coined by the late Dr John Lee in his first book on natural progesterone. It describes a condition where a woman can have deficient, normal, or excessive estrogen but has little or no progesterone to balance its effects in the body. Even a woman with low estrogen levels can have estrogen-dominance symptoms if she doesn’t have any progesterone. Xenoestrogens and obesity are contributing factors.
According to Dr Cavalieri, Professor at the Eppley Institute for Research in Cancer and Allied Diseases and his team at the University of Nebraska Medical Centre in Omaha Nebraska, all the evidence implicated estrogens (including the natural hormones estradiol and estrone), as a major cause of breast cancer [National Cancer Institute Monograph #27, Oxford University Press]. Estrogens, says Dr Cavalieri, are initiators and promoters of cancer. All the important human cancers that we get in Western civilisation have the same origin - which is estrogen.
In two studies funded by the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences, researchers at Fox Chase Cancer Center in Philadelphia have demonstrated that two plasticizer compounds, BPA and BBP, are environmental estrogens capable of affecting gene expression in the mammary glands of young female laboratory rats exposed to the compounds through their mothers’ milk.
Raquel Moral, Ph.D., a postdoctoral associate in the Fox Chase laboratory of Jose Russo, M.D., presented the results on April 19, 2005 at the 96th Annual Meeting of the American Association for Cancer Research. “Development of breast cancer entails multiple events, in which estrogen appears to play an important role,” explained Russo. “Our laboratory has pioneered an in vitro system of cell transformation using estrogens and their metabolites as carcinogenic agents in human breast cells. Estrogenic agents involved in breast development and possibly in breast cancer may include foreign estrogens, or xenoestrogens, that are used in manufacturing a number of products.”
Breast cancer is a growing risk for both men and women, and it’s a cancer for which the obesity link has been clearly established. Fat produces excess estrogen; excess estrogen produces breast cancer. And in the reverse, weight loss reduces cancer risk. The data is clear.
Researchers write in the Archives of Internal Medicine, “we found that estrogen therapy was associated with an increased risk of breast cancer with longer-term use.”
We know that the only known cause of uterine cancer is unopposed estrogen. Without progesterone to balance the hormone cycle, estrogen overstimulates the tissue lining the uterus and causes uncontrolled growth, a condition known as hyperplasia. If untreated, hyperplasia may develop into cancer.
Who’s agenda does this sort of reporting serve?
In Australia, the number of HRT scripts plummeted by more than 1.2 million (from nearly 4.2 million in 2001-2002) the year after the WHI’s seemingly calamitous findings. The Bulletin, October 2005 reported that Wyeth Australia, one of the largest HRT manufacturers, had lost 50% of its market and it says its numbers are “still in steady decline”.
“If I were a pharmaceutical company think tank”, says Dr Zava some years ago, “I would set up a front to first get other competitors off the market (i.e., OTC progesterone) by scare tactics. I would do this by saying that a) topical progesterone is far more potent than we ever thought (duh, we have been saying this for years); b) recent studies show that progesterone in combination with estrogens leads to increased health problems (false statement but most doctors don’t know the difference between medroxyprogesterone acetate and progesterone); c) because of a and b indicating the potency and potential danger of progesterone, OTC progesterone should be banned and only used by prescription.
Something for us to think about, particularly when we review articles like this one.
“For nearly 200 years the main treatment for breast cancer was removal of her ovaries to take away her main source of progesterone production.”
Why not reveal the ‘whole’ story here. Removal of a woman’s ovaries would not only cut off her source of progesterone, it would interrupt her production of estradiol and estriol, and reduce her testosterone production by half.
Breast cancer treatment these days centres around anti-estrogen drugs that can be given to women with estrogen-receptive tumours to reduce estrogen-receptor activation (selective estrogen receptor modulators or SERMs).
Progesterone confers a degree of protection against estrogen-driven cancers.
Women using BHRT for over a decade have found that progesterone, at optimal levels, is the body’s natural anti-estrogen.
Where’s the research on bioidentical progesterone?
The 1995 PEPI trials clearly demonstrated that natural progesterone actually works better than synthetic progestogen in terms of protecting the heart, and that natural progesterone can protect against uterine cancer as well as synthetic progestogen. Yet drug companies continue to convince us otherwise!
A study from researchers at the College of Nursing and Health Sciences at The University of Texas at Tyler, led by Kenna Stephenson, M.D., clearly showed that 30 women using 20 mg of progesterone daily, in a cream, had relief of their menopausal symptoms and didn’t have the side effects associated with the progestogens such as Provera. The study was published in the November issue of Blood: The Journal of The American Society of Hematology.
“We are gratified that such a highly recognized, authoritative journal has published our abstract,” said Dr. Kenna Stephenson, visiting associate professor and scholar in residence, “and we are confident that women can consider bio-identical hormones, such as natural progesterone cream, to be a viable option for relief of menopausal symptoms…. With natural progesterone cream, we found no markers for inflammation or clotting-indicators for most of the serious diseases related to use of traditional hormone replacement therapy, like Provera and Prempro.”
The results of a large cohort study in 2005 suggest that, when combined with synthetic progestogens, even short-term use of estrogens may increase breast cancer risk. Micronized progesterone may be preferred to synthetic progestogens in short-term HRT.
In one of the few “head to head” comparisons of bioidentical vs. synthetic hormones, the effects of substituting a synthetic oral progestogen, with a bioidentical progesterone cream were studied in 26 healthy menopausal women with an average age of 57. The aim was to determine patients’ acceptance of transdermal progesterone cream and its effects upon the endometrium (uterine lining) compared to standard hormone therapy.
Dr. Helene Leonetti’s study shows promise for using a bioidentical progesterone cream instead of a synthetic progestogen (medroxyprogesterone acetate or MPA) to protect the uterus in women using hormone replacement therapy. The demonstration of effectiveness here might warrant a study with a larger cohort of women over a longer period of time to confirm the effectiveness of progesterone cream. At the end of the study, 77% of the 26 women stated they preferred the bioidentical progesterone cream over the MPA.
Women in Balance recently had the opportunity to talk with several presenting officials, including Dr. Jacques Rossouw, one of the original designers of the WHI study, and the Project Officer of the WHI National Heart, Lung and Blood Institute, a division within NIH. They asked Dr. Rossouw for his comments regarding the future of hormone research, and what in particular, he thought might be explored, designed, or funded.
“We are interested in the role that progesterone plays in women’s health and its protective attributes,” he said. “There are currently two studies that might yield information about the role of bioidentical hormones: the KEEPS (Kronos Early Estrogen Prevention Study) and the ELITE (Early versus Late Intervention Trial with Estradiol), both using a bioidentical estrogen and progesterone.” Dr. Rossouw revealed that NIH agencies are already providing funding to the ELITE study.
Click here to download additional progesterone research material from this website.
“Taking extra sex hormones at any point in your life is likely to give you cancer.”
Is there any evidence out there to suggest this is actually true of BHRT? Clearly, women find ourselves between a rock and a hard place. All the more reason to examine the quality of the information we take on board.
“I think that those of us who are serious about the use of natural progesterone are not suggesting that women be on progesterone for the rest of their lives,” responds Loretta Lanphier, ND, CN, HHP and founder of Oasis Advanced Wellness. “We are using something that is bio-identical which means the exact same molecular structure as what the body produces to alleviate symptoms and bring the hormones into balance. Once symptoms have been relieved, women can begin to cut-down. In many cases this will trick the body into producing the correct amount of progesterone in order to maintain balance. Let’s be reminded that for many natural supplementation products, huge studies or clinical trials have not been done. Studies and clinical trials are not indicative of promising results or even safety. The pharmaceutical industry is the “poster child” for clinical trials and studies and still provide the public with drugs that are not safe or even effective.”
No wonder women are confused and frightened
Virginia Hopkins, co-author, with John R. Lee, M.D. of the books: ‘Dr. John lee’s Hormone Balance Made Simple’, ‘What Your Doctor May Not Tell You About Breast Cancer’, ‘What Your Doctor May Not Tell You About PREmenopause’, and the best-selling classic, ‘What Your Doctor May Not Tell You About Menopause’ writes, “The Dr. Ellen Grant – Lynne McTaggart article about progesterone and breast cancer, titled “Cancer in a Cream?” sounds convincing on the surface, but in truth it’s hopelessly muddled and riddled with inconsistencies and inaccuracies. The article has created quite a stir because it was widely spread around on the internet, and as I said earlier, it sounds quite convincing if you’re not familiar with the research. However, the information on breast cancer, as well as the additional information about progesterone and the immune system, isn’t accurate or convincing once you have the facts in hand.”
Dr. Randolph, trained pharmacist and Board Certified practicing gynecologist, and co-author of From Hormone Hell to Hormone Well writes in his response to Ms. McTaggart, “My concern stems from the fact that both your opinion voiced in your Viewpoint, as well as the data presented by Dr. Ellen Grant in the Special Report, grossly misrepresent the medical research and clinical data supporting the health benefits of maintaining optimal hormonal equilibrium via safe and effective bio-identical progesterone or progestogens (not to be confused with synthetic progestins) replacement. My dismay stems from the fact that, by erroneously characterizing progesterone as carcinogenic and overlooking the wealth of data implicating estrogen as the main sex hormone initiating and promoting breast cancer, this issue of WDDTY provides false information to both physicians and female healthcare consumers. The end result of reading and buying into your false premises? More women at risk for breast cancer, not less.”
The standard line now parroted by every doctor and expert committee on HRT post Women’s Health Inititave findings is that, when considering any form of HRT, women should access the risks themselves and make up their own minds! Doctors, in fact, need to take the initiative to read all the medical evidence; e.g. the studies that incriminate synthetic HRT as well as the ones that support bio-identical HRT. More women will be better off once more doctors find their brains, review the literature and, then, decide for themselves what type of HRT they feel is best for their patients.
Was Dr John Lee’s “message” not only wrong, but dangerous, as Ms McTaggart claims? We, the “guinea pigs” at the coal face of this HRT debate, do not believe so. Dr Lee bravely championed the use of bioidentical progesterone in the treatement of hormone imbalance despite the medical fraternity’s inability to embrace his theories. And because of Dr Lee’s indefatigable stance, millions of women around the world - myself included - continue to be eternally grateful.
In light, love & laughter,
Catherine P. Rollins
Founder / CEO
Natural-Progesterone-Advisory-Network.com
“Supporting Women in their Choice of Bioidentical Hormone Replacement Therapy (BHRT)”
Disclaimer: The Natural-Progesterone-Advisory-Network.com is staffed by lay people who have made women’s health issues their passionate cause. We are not medical professionals nor do we claim to be. The information we present here comes from a multitude of reliable sources and represents years of extensive research. The sole purpose of the Natural-Progesterone-Advisory-Network.com is to disseminate the information we find. What you choose to do with this information is strictly a personal matter between you and your health care provider.
References
- What Doctors Don’t Tell You, May 2006, Volume 17 / Issue 2, WDDTY Publishing Ltd, London.
http://www.wddty.com/ - Women’s Health Initiative 2002, Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center in Seattle, WA, USA.
http://www.whiscience.org/about/overview.php - Women’s International Study of Long Duration Oestrogen after Menopause (WISDOM) 2007, Vickers et al; BioMed Central Ltd., joint initiative of the UK Medical Research Council (MRC) and the UK Departments of Health.
http://www.biomedcentral.com/1472-6874/7/2 - Million Women Study 1996-2001, collaborative project between Cancer Research UK and the UK National Health Service.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12927427?dopt=Abstract - Swedish HABITS (hormonal replacement therapy after breast cancer diagnosis—is it safe?) Study 2004, L Holmberg, Scandinavia.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/14962527 - Bassett Healthcare Study 2004, Bassett Healthcare. Washington, DC, USA
http://www.bassett.org/pressreleases/prDisplay.cfm?prID=372 - Breast Cancer Indicence in Women With a History of Progesterone Deficiency 1981, American Journal of Epidemiology Vol. 114, No. 2: 209-217
http://aje.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/short/114/2/209 - John R. Lee M.D., David T. Zava Ph.D., Virginia Hopkins, M.A. 2002 What Your Doctor May Not Tell You About Breast Cancer, Penguin, Australia
- Health Care Practitioner Refutes Progesterone Study, Says it Irresponsibly Causes Alarm Among Women 2004, Jane L. Murray, M.D., CMD Public Relations, Portland, Ore., USA
http://www.natural-progesterone-advisory-network.com/PDFs/Murray_Study.pdf - Natural Progesterone: What Role in Women’s Health Care? 1998, Jane L. Murray, M.D., Women Health Primary Care, USA
http://www.natural-progesterone-advisory-network.com/PDFs/murray.pdf - Estrogens as Endogenous Genotoxic Agents—DNA Adducts and Mutations 2000, Ercole Cavalieri, D.Sc., Journal of the National Cancer Institute Monographs, No. 27, 75-94, Oxford University Press
http://jncimono.oxfordjournals.org - Compounds in Plastic Packaging Act as Environmental Estrogens Altering Breast Genes 2005, Fox Chase Cancer Center, Philadelphia, PA, USA
http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/23011.php - Breast Cancer: A Growing Danger for Overweight Men and Women 2006 Caroline J. Cederquist, M.D., www.OBGYN.net
http://www.obgyn.net/bh/bh.asp?page=/bh/press/breast_cancer_cederquist - Unopposed Estrogen Therapy and the Risk of Invasive Breast Cancer 2006, Archives of Internal Medicine Vol. 166 No. 9, May 8, San Francisco, California, USA
http://archinte.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/short/166/9/1027 - Effects of estrogen or estrogen/progestin regimens on heart disease risk factors in postmenopausal women. The Postmenopausal Estrogen/Progestin Interventions (PEPI) Trial, Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) 1995 Jan 18;273(3):199-208
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/7807658?dopt=Abstract - Topical Progesterone Cream Does Not Increase Thrombotic and Inflammatory Factors in Postmenopausal Women 2004, Kenna Stephenson, M.D., American Society of Hematology
http://bloodjournal.hematologylibrary.org/ - Breast cancer risk in relation to different types of hormone replacement therapy in the E3N-EPIC cohort 2004, Equipe E3N, Institut National de la Sante´ et de la Recherche Me´dicale (INSERM), Villejuif, France; Unit of Nutrition and Cancer, International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC-WHO), Lyon, France; Dept. of Preventive and Predictive Medicine, Istituto Nazionale Tumori, Milan, Italy.
http://www.natural-progesterone-advisory-network.com/PDFs/BreastCancer.pdf - Transdermal progesterone cream as an alternative progestin in hormone therapy 2005, Helene B Leonetti, M.D., Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, St Luke’s Hospital, Bethlehem, Pa, USA.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16320858?dopt=Abstract - Women In Balance (WIB), Overland Park, KS, USA.
http://www.womeninbalance.org - Kronos Early Estrogen Prevention (KEEP) Study, Kronos Longevity Research Institute, Phoenix, AZ., USA.
http://www.keepstudy.org/ - Early Versus Late Intervention Trial With Estradiol (ELITE) 2005, Howard N. Hodis, M.D., University of Southern California, Atherosclerosis Research Unit, Division of Cardiovascular Medicine, Department of Medicine.
http://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT00114517 - Natural-Progesterone-Advisory-Network.com, Geelong, Australia.
http://natural-progesterone-advisory-network.com - Oasis Advanced Wellness, Loretta Lanphier, ND, CN, HHP, Houston, TX, USA.
http://www.oasisadvancedwellness.com - Virginia Hopkins Health Watch 2006 (Vol 2, Issue 2), Virginia Hopkins, M.A., One to One Inc., Phoenix, AZ, USA.
http://www.virginiahopkinstestkits.com/hhwpf_0610.html - C.W. Randolph, Jr., M.D., R.Ph., Genie James, M.M.Sc., From Hormone Hell to Hormone Well 2004, Natural Hormone Institute of America
http://www.hormonewell.com/
PCOS affects an estimated 5-10% of women of reproductive age. It is one of the leading causes of female infertility.
Over half of women with migraine report having them right before, during, or after their period. Others get them for the first time when taking birth control pills. And some women start getting them when they enter menopause.
This publication is a MUST HAVE consumer guide to purchasing and using bioidentical progesterone.
protects your financial information with industry-leading security and fraud prevention systems. When you use PayPal, your financial information is not shared with us (the merchant). Once your payment is complete, you will be emailed a receipt for this transaction. The information practices of PayPal, Inc. have been reviewed and meet the standards of the Better Business Bureau’s BBBOnline Privacy Programme.
Judy I. Miller | Dec 28, 2008 | Reply
Dear Catherine,
Thank you so much for your stand on natural progesterone. I have worked in a local health food store for 12 years and had my own natural hormone consulting business for a couple of those years. In that time I have helped literally thousands of women achieve hormone balance. Natural progesterone was the major hormone needed by most women. And often times the only one. I have used natural progesterone for my own hormone balance for 13 years. I have five daughters and extended femily members that all use it. My family is large and consists of mainly females, so I have a vast proving grouind. I had one sister die of breast cancer (she did not use natural progesterone but did use premarin for eight years before discovering the grapefruit-like appearance of the right breast. She died five years later. I was reading John Lee’s menopause book for the first time while at her bedside. She died the next day. That was the day I began to understand estrogen dominance and how to correct it with natural progesterone. The day I bought my first jar of cream. As time passed, I realized our large family of women and girls were all estrogen dominant for one reason or many, exhibiting numerous and varied symptoms. I connected my aunts death from uterine cancer the previous year to estrogen dominance. It slowly dawned on me that my mother and three of my sisters had uterine cancer and had been treated for it. An additional sister had precancerous tissue and was treated for it. Another one had huge fibroids and all the related symptoms. I was stunned in my acceptance of the reality of Dr. Lee’s shining truths being played out in my life in such a dramatic way. I had not developed any cancers but I had been premenopausal for years since having my last child at 38 yr. of age. I also developed what the doctors said was lupus. I understood the connection, thanks again to Dr. Lee. Today, I rarely exhibit symptoms as long as I gradually expose my skin to springtime sunlight, about five minutes each time then increase the time. The addition of natural progesterone cream has taken care of at least half of the symptoms related to lupus. Interesting, huh? In addition to all of these estrogen dominant conditions and diseases I have two first cousins and a cousin once removed that have been diagnosed with MS. The two cousin are about my age.
Thanks again Catherine.
Be Well,
JudyI. Miller