Oprah and Somers misrepresenting self hormone therapy

[hottiescientist]

Disclaimers:

1. I do not watch Oprah.
2. I work in aging research. I work on the third floor where the labs are, but I often drop by the second floor where the "rich donors" get their one on one time so I often hear the misconceptions that float around.
3. I just want to advocate knowledge, hypothesis over fact, real controlled experiments, and I do not intend to "diss" either Oprah or Somers.

Please click to read the article:
http://www.newsweek.com/id/183842

 

[teddy16410]

This has been a controversial topic L-O-N-G before Somers & Oprah got involved. I have been following bio-identical HRT for 25 years...5 years ago I started on a treatment plan & it changed my life for the better like I never could have imagined. Because it wasnt covered by insurance I had to stop 1.5 years ago and I am so miserable that I am now going to drastic measures to get some semblance of a quality life back.

I believe that every woman has a right to options other than traditional medicine approved by FDA & pharmaceutical companies. It is also every womans responsibility to check out all the pros & cons.

 

[kathryn]

Thanks for the link!

 

[TarHeelMom]

Thanks so much -- very thought-provoking article!

 

[Govtgirl]

Ok, I'm gonna talk about the elephant in the room:

Suzanne Sommers looks HIDEOUS, yikes, she is so pumped full of collagen and who knows what else, she looks like her face will pop. I think it's ironic that she talks about natural hormones and says she hasn't had plastic surgery! I mean, come on. It's like that RIchard Pryor (?) bit, "Are you going to beleive me or your lying eyes?"

This brings Oprah down in my opinion even lower than she was before. This isn't science for Pete's sake, yet a lot of her fans will beleive it because its on her show. Phooey!

 

[hiitdogs]

I believe that every woman has a right to options other than traditional medicine approved by FDA & pharmaceutical companies. It is also every womans responsibility to check out all the pros & cons.

THANK YOU! I couldn't agree more.

I don't see the problem. Suzanne Somers has used them for years, she says they worked well for her. Oprah started taking them and she said it changed her life for the better. Different therapies work for different people, Oprah is a talkshow host. Why shouldn't she talk about it.

The pharmaceutical industry has their darn products commercial on TV all the time. People need to know that there are other possibilities and choices and then make their choice instead of just blindly buying into what the pharma industry feeds them or their doctors.

There are benefits and risks to everything.

I disagree that Suzanne Somers looks "hideous". She is 62 years old for crying out loud! I couldn't care less if she did plastic surgery or not.

 

[chefling]

Because it wasnt covered by insurance I had to stop 1.5 years ago and I am so miserable that I am now going to drastic measures to get some semblance of a quality life back.

Most insurance companies do cover the FDA approved Bio-identicals by pharmeseutical companies. Estrogel, Evamist, Vivel dot etc for Estrgoen and Procheive, Prometrium etc for progesterone and even testosterone. Some insurance companies (Anthem) will cover the compounded creams if you use their compounding pharmacy.

Just wanted to give you some options if you are still suffering.

 

[hottiescientist]

The pharmaceutical industry has their darn products commercial on TV all the time. People need to know that there are other possibilities and choices and then make their choice instead of just blindly buying into what the pharma industry feeds them or their doctors.

There's nothing wrong in talking about Carola, and that wasn't my intention of posting the link. As someone else said, its up to every woman to check all the pros and cons, and it seems that they may have misrepresented some of the facts regarding self-regulated HT. People do treat Oprah as an information source, and she was trained as a journalist as well. So when someone with her influence and public platform says things, there is a standard for her to present information accessibly and honestly. And to what I understand, it isn't like Oprah doesn't do that with other guests. Because people should have the right to choose how they want to treat themselves, its imperative (to me) that they understand the facts. People should know that there is no to little oversight for safety or quality for a lot of compounding pharmacies or that there are links to cancer by adding too much estrogen to your body.

I feel like it someone saying, "I lost so much weight with no exercise but I only ate 900 calories day," and not mention the slow damage you're doing to your system over time would be misrepresenting the diet. Just because two people "benefited" from it, the instant they have such a public platform, I think people expect a bit more responsibility. I think its the difference between an Emmy winning talk show and an infomercial.

So, mind you, I have no problem with people taking their health into their own hands but I want everyone to get the facts. I don't have a high opinion of the Pharm companies either so don't think I'm defending them. I just posted the link so that people who did watch the show could see where some of the holes were.

 

[bundschuh]

I have been on bioidentical hormones for 12 years, specifically 12 years of progesterone because of estrogen dominance.

After a misdiagnosed ruptured appendix (gotta love overworked, over tired ER physicians who are unable to listen to patients), I ended up with an extremely low (39 beats per minute) heart rate. A physician who specializes in bioidenticals took me as a patient and started me on thyroid medication (bioidentical not synthroid) and then proceeded to check all my other hormones.

He lowered my progesterone doage, started me on DHEA (the mother of all hormones), Vitamin A, and iodine. After close to 35 years of PMS, period hell (flooding with clots for 10 days at a time), I have normal cycles, breasts that don't ache and energy to get through very long days managing a manufacturing plant.

Natural progesterone finally allowed me my second son after numerous miscarriages. Scientific data is often manipulated (read Gary Taube Good Calories, Bad Calories).

I will take bioidenticals any days over high estrogen, low iron, sore breasts and murderous PMS.

 

[Sunshine1528]

I am currently reading the book that Robin McGrath wrote on being 55 and going though menopause. She uses bioidentical also.

bundschuh - What type of a doctor is your physician? Or does anyone else have a suggestion on the kind of doctor that would be best to evaluate these symptoms and would likely be covered by insurance?

 

[fit44]

Thanks for the link!

I want to know all my options so I can make an informed decision.
I do not see anything wrong with it.

 

[bundschuh]

Hi Sunshine:

I am in Canada, so my physician is an MD who practices under the Health Care Act.

I did find him by looking for a compounding pharmacy in my city. I found 3 of them and they all suggested my doctor.

Good luck!!

 

[jackie7]

Do you stay on bioidenticals forever?

 

[AliCurtis]

You do what you have to do

Well, I thank God and the people who create compound HRTs!

I am 35 years old and experienced early menopause. I started experiencing HOT Flashes from hell when I was 27 which lead to me not sleeping. You would be amazed at what you would try after not having quality sleep for a few years. Not to mention my nonexistent sex drive while being married to a VERY VIRILE man. OMG, I was in hell!!!!!!

My doctor put me on Premarin, then Alivil, then Prometrium, then black cohosh, soy products, etc.. It was a vicious cycle. Then, I learned about compound HRTs; and I noticed a difference. It was not right a way, but a gradual change. I have been using cmpd HRT for about 2 years, and I love it.

I did and still do a lot of research on early menopause and cmpd HRT. I take a series of tests twice a year to make sure there are no adverse reactions. But, for me the choice was clear; the pros for out weighed the cons.

 

[bundschuh]

I am starting with the signs of menopause, my cycle is lengthening and irregular, so I suspect, when I don't have periods for 1 year, I will probably be off progesterone. My doctor is already starting to taper off on my dosage of hormones.

 

[hiitdogs]

There's nothing wrong in talking about Carola, and that wasn't my intention of posting the link. As someone else said, its up to every woman to check all the pros and cons, and it seems that they may have misrepresented some of the facts regarding self-regulated HT. People do treat Oprah as an information source, and she was trained as a journalist as well. So when someone with her influence and public platform says things, there is a standard for her to present information accessibly and honestly. And to what I understand, it isn't like Oprah doesn't do that with other guests. Because people should have the right to choose how they want to treat themselves, its imperative (to me) that they understand the facts. People should know that there is no to little oversight for safety or quality for a lot of compounding pharmacies or that there are links to cancer by adding too much estrogen to your body.

I feel like it someone saying, "I lost so much weight with no exercise but I only ate 900 calories day," and not mention the slow damage you're doing to your system over time would be misrepresenting the diet. Just because two people "benefited" from it, the instant they have such a public platform, I think people expect a bit more responsibility. I think its the difference between an Emmy winning talk show and an infomercial.

So, mind you, I have no problem with people taking their health into their own hands but I want everyone to get the facts. I don't have a high opinion of the Pharm companies either so don't think I'm defending them. I just posted the link so that people who did watch the show could see where some of the holes were.

I didn't mean to imply that you were somehow making a recommendation one way or another.

It's just reading yet another article by an expert who slams everything that is not "mainstream" conventional medicine. And usually the experts are "consultants" to the pharmaceutical industry.

I have yet to see any big boohaha complaints when there is a talkshow or report on TV about any major disease like cancer and all they talk about is surgery, chemo and radiation. No one in the mainstream media would write an article that it is a biased report or show because they are just talking about those three options proclaiming this is the state-of-the-art treatment. Where I stand that doesn't show the whole picture because there are IN FACT alternatives.

I am not sure that I would expect a talkshow host to give a complete picture of any disease and their treatment. To have Suzanne Somers as an expert with any medical advice is pushing the envelope for me a little bit but she did write a book about it and that's what a talkshow does, they talk about events, books, etc. It's not like a report on 20/20 or Dateline.

I believe that the pharmaceutical industry supported by the FDA has a monopoly in this country. It is not about healing people from diseases or preventing diseases, it is about the profit of the drug companies and preserving the status quo.

People should get information and if a talk show gets people to start thinking, doing research, questioning their doctors and taking responsibility for their health that's a-good in my book.

That being said, it is nothing new that the mainstream or establishment is questioning and condemning anything new. After all it was the mainstream medical profession who rejected, ridiculed and ignored the theories of Professor Semmelweiss who in the late 1800s proclaimed that it would be a good idea for a doctor to wash his hands before they deliver a baby and for a surgeon to wear gloves.

 

[DirtDiva]

I believe that the pharmaceutical industry supported by the FDA has a monopoly in this country. It is not about healing people from diseases or preventing diseases, it is about the profit of the drug companies and preserving the status quo.

PERFECT!!!. Its the real reason the big pharmaceuticals are suing the little compounding pharmacists. They want their lucrative monopoly (think PremPro). Right now, they are trying to stop natural hrt and shut-down the compounding pharmacists, which would make many women suffer. If it passes, it will again prove that the FDA is ruled by the drug companies.

 

[Runcrazy]

Thanks for posting this! I saw part of that show. I do think the message that women need to find out what is best for them and what their options are is important. But Suzanne is definitely a fanatic.

Jo

 

[rjroubi]

Someday I hope we will get through all the hype. Trying to call bio-identical hormones natural tends to make women believe that they are somehow safer....and that's simply untrue. Yes, it's true some experts favor bio-identicals even though they're not PROVEN safer. And yes, there can be some benefits in compounding hormones in that the dose can be customized if done correctly. If necessary, there are also already precompounded FDA approved "bio-identical" hormones (a term not recognized by the FDA) in regular pharmacies that come in different strengths to suit a women's needs.

Let's not loose sight of the fact that you are taking hormones, period. These are not innocuous and should be used for the shortest times possible. I don't care what you want to call them.....bio-identical hormones have the same chemical structure as the synthetic ones. It's just a brilliant marketing scheme! They are all hormones.

Risks are risks.......Because many of claims regarding the efficacy, saftey, and superiority of compounded bioidentical drugs have not been proven, FDA is concerned that these claims mislead patients and practitioners. Compounded products that have identical chemical structures to synthetic hormones can be expected to have the same benefits and risks associated with FDA approved hormone therapy.....more so I would say if not compounded correctly.

For more information on what I've already stated from the FDA:

http://www.fda.gov/cder/pharmcomp/BHRT_qa.htm

Personally, I was very disappointed in Oprah's presentation on hormone replacement therapy. It was clearly biased. I wish Oprah would have asked Suzanne about her breast cancer and how it related to BHRT. I've often wondered. We needed to hear more from the doctors and less from Suzanne Somers, who has no qualifications. And to be fair, the FDA's point of view should have been presented.


I really believe after viewing the program we could possibly have a backlash of women beginning bioidentical hormones for the wrong reasons. (Also remember that any drug has a large placebo effect.....it can be as hight as 35%.) Remember in 2003, the University of Texas researchers recorded a 7% drop in new breast cancer cases in the US. They told a US cancer conference the fall could be linked to the fact that millions of women gave up HRT following reports questioning its safety. With Oprah now blatantly promoting it (with over the top bubbly 50 year olds dressed in brightly colored miniskirts after using it).....I only wonder if we will see those numbers rise again. Geeze.

 

[LizO66]

THANK YOU! I couldn't agree more.

I don't see the problem. Suzanne Somers has used them for years, she says they worked well for her. Oprah started taking them and she said it changed her life for the better. Different therapies work for different people, Oprah is a talkshow host. Why shouldn't she talk about it.

The pharmaceutical industry has their darn products commercial on TV all the time. People need to know that there are other possibilities and choices and then make their choice instead of just blindly buying into what the pharma industry feeds them or their doctors.

There are benefits and risks to everything.

I disagree that Suzanne Somers looks "hideous". She is 62 years old for crying out loud! I couldn't care less if she did plastic surgery or not.

The issue with FDA are the claims that these companies are making. If they are intended to treat a disease or condition, they must submit safety data to the agency for review. This is to ensure, in part, that the product on the market is relatively safe and manufactured to certain standards. Certain products are cleverly marketed so that they don't treat the disease or condition (for example, "Enzyte for natural male enhancement" and not erectile dysfunction). So many people misunderstand what Congress has allowed FDA to do (or not do). The agency has nothing to gain by "keeping" products from consumers, but does have a mission to "protect and promote the public health."

Just sayin!
Liz