tnx & remarks from a newbie

[Guest guest]

I'm reading posts, site info, books, etc. as fast as I can. I've bent Lynne's private ear a bit. I have lots to yet learn; learn to the point I really know, without having to go look it up in reference material. What I expect, why, when, how, and can discuss it with my doc so she can't browbeat me out of what is best for me, or into some foolish/toxic protocol she may offer or deem best. And I'm very grateful for the time you women spend, sharing your experiences and knowledge: the posts, the charts, the research, the web sites.... Its a treasure.

I'm also grateful I've somehow arrived at this during this WP P-dosing discussion phase. My land, that lady Suzie sounds to me like she's somehow allowed herself to get put into a position of defending what seems to be a major glitch in her theory, defending it by ignoring it and pretending it doesn't exist. We all know that won't work, not long-term anyway. But I now want to do a lot more info seeking on this P subject before I start supplementing with it....and...as a bc survivor, I think I want to be taking low dose unopposed estrogen, so I'm staying in "study mode" for a bit here until I get more up to speed on current info on this subject. I'll mostly lurk and probably comment little, meanwhile. But as many have been kind enough to offer replies/remarks to me, I didn't want to not thank you. I know it aggravates me, in my breast cancer group when newbies come in, ask tons of questions and never share back how/what they are doing or if we've helped them. So, pls feel thanked by me, and I'll continue to mostly lurk. I'm sure that within another month or two I'll feel comfortable to jump into experimenting with actual supplementing.

Its funny how some simple thoughts have impressed me. For example: a post here, or a copy/pasted research (I forgot the who/when) said that historically, women had very FEW periods because they were either pregnant or nursing most of their reproductive life. What impressed me about this is: if we're really recognizing that we ARE trying to fool mother nature with hormone supplementing, maybe we should be really trying to convince her we're pregnant, not just an ovulating female? I have no idea what/which hormones levels s/b for pregnancy, but that's on my list of stuff to learn. Maybe Suzie in SLM even says something about this? If she did, I forgot it. What impressed me most about SLM was the idea of the four times extra trips around the sun we all have made, without thinking about it due to our society norms. I'm sure she's right on that. So, if we've internally aged ourselves way beyond our chronological years, and our "saving grace" is to fool mother nature with bioidentical hormone supplementation, doesn't being pregnant seem to trump ovulating?

....and another subject: if the P isn't showing up in serum tests, nor in saliva tests, reliably...then internal tissue sampling would almost have to be the other definitive test, eh? Makes me wonder if there isn't already good research on this, using mice or some animal? Surely the depo-provera mfg, or other progestin mfg did research on this? I've often found animal biology research lends a lot when I research bc topics. Sounds reasonable the mfg of the other progestins surely did have to "Prove" some stuff about liver toxicity, renal accumulations, bladder dumpings, allergic reactions with immune antibodies treating it as antigen, on and on...I thought ALL "drugs" had to do this to get FDA approval? I'll do some looking into this too, as time permits. Maybe animal studies can help us know where the excess P is hiding.

Katy