Daily News header

Hormones: Still Pushed by Pharma; Still Dangerous

By

The medical press trumpeted again this month the shopworn pharma factoid that menopausal hormones may be good for you, not bad. This is at least the eighth time researchers have tried to resuscitate the therapy and its franchise profits since a government study linked it to cancer and heart disease in 2002.

The report stemmed from a poster Dr. Joseph Ragaz, clinical professor at the University of British Columbia, presented at the San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium this month.

The evidence that estrogen can protect against breast cancer has "been largely ignored" news reports quote Dr. Joseph Ragaz saying.

sleepz

Estrogen was once thought "the culprit in the elevated breast cancer risk seen among women" in the government-funded Women's Health Initiative, says a Medpage article.

That study, funded by the National Heart, Lung and Blood Institute, was terminated in 2002 because the risks to women outweighed the benefits. Progestin with estrogen were linked to a 26 percent increase in breast cancer, 41 percent increase in strokes, 29 percent increase in heart attacks, 22 percent increase in cardiovascular disease and double the rate of blood clots.

Hormone therapy is also linked to lung, ovarian, breast and gall bladder cancer, melanoma and dementia in medical studies and journal articles. Over 5,000 women have brought suit over breast cancers they developed on the drugs.

But what Medpage does not mention is that progestin was added to estrogen because women taking estrogen alone developed endometrial cancer!

So many women developed endometrial cancer, the cancer rate actually dropped when they quit taking estrogen by itself, usually as the drug Premarin, in the 1980s.

Just like the breast cancer rate fell when women quit taking estrogen and progestin, usually as Prempro, in 2002.

Why are reports that a drug that causes endometrial cancer but may reduce breast cancer good news? Is the idea to switch cancers?

And why are Pfizer-linked researchers at major universities trying to bring back the lucrative franchise by testing cognitive and cardiovascular "benefits" in defiance of hormones' known heart and dementia side effects?

Does anyone need a second opinion?

Martha Rosenberg is a columnist and cartoonist, who writes about public health

  Please leave a comment here     If it does not display within 10 seconds, please refresh the page

Related Health News News

Martha Rosenberg investigates a proposal that people watch the animals they eat being killed. Some say it encourages insensitivity and lack of empathy for suffering.
The first estimates of the global burden of TB in children given by the WHO in 2012, suggested that there might be 530,000 children suffering from it. Subsequently there has been an uptake in the research in this field.
We know that nearly one third of the 35 million people living with HIV (PLHIV) have tuberculosis (TB), and 13% of 8.6 million new TB cases every year are HIV positive. Also 1 in 5 HIV associated deaths are due to TB.
Ebola is big news in the U.S. just now because two infected missionary aid workers were brought to Atlanta for treatment and to study the disease. But it is not NEW to Africa. Ebola is very deadly; however, it is just another virus infection.
Without innovation, at the current pace of HIV responses, we are likely to fail meeting the targets. We need to accelerate the search for better technologies
Could sunscreen actually be dangerous? The science says YES. the scientific illiterate say NO. Check out the REAL story based on actual medical research. Vitamin D in high doses cuts malignant melanoma mortality in half!

 

NewsBlaze Writers Of The Month



Popular Stories This Month

newsletter logo

NewsBlaze
Copyright © 2004-2014 NewsBlaze Pty. Ltd.
Use of this website is subject to our Terms of Service and Privacy Policy  | DMCA Notice               Press Room   |    Visit NewsBlaze Mobile Site