NewsBlaze search box Daily News header

Hormones: Still Pushed by Pharma; Still Dangerous


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.


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

Coca-Cola has disclosed that the company spent $118.6 million in scientific research and partnerships over the last five years.
A drug whose safety and initial approval were in question was given wide use in the US food supply, bit it is encouraging US pork producers are hearing consumers.
The PEFPAR program now provides HIV testing and counseling to more than 14 million pregnant women, and it will soon reach another 300,000 children.
Countless teen girls heading back to school in the fall rely on breast surgery to give them self confidence. Suicide, cancer are risks parents should know about.
While there are definitely some positive aspects to carpet, it may not be quite as beneficial as you might think. Studies fuel the debate on health effects that stem from the use of carpet.
Two Kenyan children in Kenya died after their measles shots, but world media has largely remained quiet about the tragedy, as is often the case with vaccines.


NewsBlaze Writers Of The Month

Popular Stories This Month

newsletter logo

Copyright © 2004-2015 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