RE: Estrogen NOT culprit in breast cancer, NEWS

[Guest guest]

Thanks Hollis, *smiling* here myself.

Appreciate that.

Dee~

[Guest guest]

A year or 3 from now there'll be yet ANOTHER study whiich refutes this . It's like a yo yo and I think we probably shouldn't be putting a lot of faith in any studies on any subject. For every favorable study out there - there is an unfavorable one to contest it. We need to be aware that much of this studying and restudying is a result of pharmaceuticals companies pushing for it because they've lost sales on the LAST study or the study before that, etc.

My opinion is that somewhere in the middle ground lies the truth in all these studies and we can only keep as informed as possible about any drug we wish to take. Unfortunately that means more pros and cons than we can shake a stick at!!!!

Dusty

-----Original Message-----From: VulvarDisorders [mailto:VulvarDisorders ] On Behalf Of DeeTrollSent: Thursday, April 13, 2006 4:55 PMTo: VulvarDisorders Subject: Re: Estrogen NOT culprit in breast cancer, NEWS

Thanks Hollis, *smiling* here myself.

Appreciate that.

Dee~

[Guest guest]

HI Dusty....

'I' think they're 'finally' just telling us the truth and what's been known for a long time. There are far too many previous studies that said the same thing but were totally ignored or not published by Jama or the AMA (purposely?) because of Big Pharma and Big Bucks, all along in my opinion. (don't forget the support they get) I can remember being so furious to even think they were doing this last WHI study when those reports were out there already. So if I as a layman knew all about them, why in the H---, didn't they? Surely they did but money talks. Politics will always come first.

Estrogen has never been shown to promote breast cancer in living tissue, only in vitro as far as I've seen. (and could have missed something I admit but I've not seen it.) And the key word is 'promote', not that it won't feed an existing cancer but many things will, even histamine for example. Let alone studies (long before this last report) that have shown those on 'no' estrogen replacement had a higher percentage risk for breast cancer than those on it just simply by virtue of getting older. (and that's likely because of more Estrone being produced naturally which loves being stored in fat (aka breast tissue)

It's just been given the black eye unfairly all along in my opinion, when again too many studies that I've seen have always had the progestins as the problem and not the E. But it's those little 'catch' word that most people, meaning the media mainly, overlook. Like 'and' or 'combined' and then of course always the 'cover my ass' words, like 'may' or 'might' or 'possibly'.

Then on top of it all, I've venture to say that 99 % of any major study (like the Pepi, HERS, Harts, WHI trial, etc) that does talk about E? ... they're always done with Premarin (the synthetic made with preg.mares urine) as the product and rarely with 17b Estradiol, our own natural estrogen that we produce our whole lives. And you can only know that if you dig it out yourself as the media hype will use the generic term estrogen, and that's the word that sticks. *estrogen*, and most people have no idea of the differences. Thank goodness some of the later studies in the last few years though are being done with the bio-identical 17b Estradiol.

Then the catch again was when Premarin was given the black marks, from then on 'all' estrogen products (regardless of types) were given the same negative reports & remarks and it wasn't fair, but they had no choice if they wanted approval from the FDA to go with the same guidelines.

But one guess who it was that sponsored those studies in most cases and donated their product? Yep, Wyeth the Premarin producers, talk about bias. Who are now the ones by the way trying to get 'compounded' meds (with the natural bioidentical E for one) off the market or severe restrictions put on them from the FDA. but supposedly no bias? Yeah right! Read about it here. http://tinyurl.com/b5bez

Anyway it does remain to be seen, you're probably right, but what is the moral? The drug we all love one day can become anathema the next (Look at Vioxx, Bextra, Celebrex, etc.), as data accumulates and the hypotheses are tested and retested. Truth (as Pilate observed) is as elusive in science as it is everywhere else.

As one physician said "the root word in medicine is skepticism" and no doubt we are all prone to our own bias's, but I'm convinced from all the evidence "I've' seen and could be wrong and who knows may some day change my mind, *grin* but it's also from the viewpoint of many studies and not just one or two and not biased by a big drug company, nor fooled by silly statistics and how those are juggled, but that's another long rant. *grin. Two people in a race, did he come in 2nd or last? *smile* it's all in how it's presented.

Again just 'my' $.02 cents worth.

Dee~

[Guest guest]

Hi Dee, Thanks for info below. I too have done a lot of reading and what is left out of your comment below is that MANY (just about every other study as I mentioned in my original email) of the studies do indeed show that E alone has a higher risk of breast cancer, but in many of those very studies shows that it causes a bit fewer cases of cancer than use of combined HRT therapy. THis is also true of the study they did of ALL the stuide which have been done to try and definitively find out which "study" is the right study (where they added all the studies together to come up with a average of sorts of what all the ghazillions of studies mean). In that study is was determine that both methods of replacement revealed an increase in breast cancer, with a slightly higher incidence in HRT as opposed to estrogen alone.

I know how useful the estrogen has been for you and for me. But the bottom line is there are plenty of questions left about the safety of hormones and the misuse of it. I think if docs actually did what they should and tested hormone levels on women and gave hormones where they were necessary - fewer women would get resulting problems. To throw hormones at women who don't have shortages, or to withhold hormones from women who do is bad medicine and until that changes, we will find far more problems with women and hormones than are necessary. Docs contribute greatly by not doing the necessary testing.

I think we need to kkep our eyes and ears open on this subject and NOT assume anything. Its too easy to pick apart a study based on what our own desires for the results are. I keep my fingers and toes and eyes crossed daily that some study that no one can argue with will come through and say its safe because I can't give it up with this vv - but that just isn't reality in my opinion. Truth is, nature made us to age,and fade away - and that includes our youthful hormones. Ideally we would all age and fade with a gradual reduction of those hormones as nature indended but as in all things medical that doesn't happen for some of us (result - people like you and me and VV!). I'm grateful the hormones are there to help me, but I'm never going to let my guard down about their potential dangers.

Just my thoughts on this subject.

Dusty

Re: Estrogen NOT culprit in breast cancer, NEWS

HI Dusty....

'I' think they're 'finally' just telling us the truth and what's been known for a long time. There are far too many previous studies that said the same thing but were totally ignored or not published by Jama or the AMA (purposely?) because of Big Pharma and Big Bucks, all along in my opinion. (don't forget the support they get) I can remember being so furious to even think they were doing this last WHI study when those reports were out there already. So if I as a layman knew all about them, why in the H---, didn't they? Surely they did but money talks. Politics will always come first.

Estrogen has never been shown to promote breast cancer in living tissue, only in vitro as far as I've seen. (and could have missed something I admit but I've not seen it.) And the key word is 'promote', not that it won't feed an existing cancer but many things will, even histamine for example. Let alone studies (long before this last report) that have shown those on 'no' estrogen replacement had a higher percentage risk for breast cancer than those on it just simply by virtue of getting older. (and that's likely because of more Estrone being produced naturally which loves being stored in fat (aka breast tissue)

It's just been given the black eye unfairly all along in my opinion, when again too many studies that I've seen have always had the progestins as the problem and not the E. But it's those little 'catch' word that most people, meaning the media mainly, overlook. Like 'and' or 'combined' and then of course always the 'cover my ass' words, like 'may' or 'might' or 'possibly'.

Then on top of it all, I've venture to say that 99 % of any major study (like the Pepi, HERS, Harts, WHI trial, etc) that does talk about E? ... they're always done with Premarin (the synthetic made with preg.mares urine) as the product and rarely with 17b Estradiol, our own natural estrogen that we produce our whole lives. And you can only know that if you dig it out yourself as the media hype will use the generic term estrogen, and that's the word that sticks. *estrogen*, and most people have no idea of the differences. Thank goodness some of the later studies in the last few years though are being done with the bio-identical 17b Estradiol.

Then the catch again was when Premarin was given the black marks, from then on 'all' estrogen products (regardless of types) were given the same negative reports & remarks and it wasn't fair, but they had no choice if they wanted approval from the FDA to go with the same guidelines.

But one guess who it was that sponsored those studies in most cases and donated their product? Yep, Wyeth the Premarin producers, talk about bias. Who are now the ones by the way trying to get 'compounded' meds (with the natural bioidentical E for one) off the market or severe restrictions put on them from the FDA. but supposedly no bias? Yeah right! Read about it here. http://tinyurl.com/b5bez

Anyway it does remain to be seen, you're probably right, but what is the moral? The drug we all love one day can become anathema the next (Look at Vioxx, Bextra, Celebrex, etc.), as data accumulates and the hypotheses are tested and retested. Truth (as Pilate observed) is as elusive in science as it is everywhere else.

As one physician said "the root word in medicine is skepticism" and no doubt we are all prone to our own bias's, but I'm convinced from all the evidence "I've' seen and could be wrong and who knows may some day change my mind, *grin* but it's also from the viewpoint of many studies and not just one or two and not biased by a big drug company, nor fooled by silly statistics and how those are juggled, but that's another long rant. *grin. Two people in a race, did he come in 2nd or last? *smile* it's all in how it's presented.

Again just 'my' $.02 cents worth.

Dee~

[Guest guest]

HI,

I have been concerned about using the estradial patch as it is the

more active of the estrogens. I've been on .075 dosage. I mentioned

this to the vulvar specialist's assistant and she offered to give me

a prescription for .025! She had not done a blood test or anything.

I am on the hormone because I was tested by a hormone specialist!

Anyway, I decided to cut the patch in half anad try that. I did this

for a week and my Vulvodynia symptoms got much worse!

I keep thinking that I really should get estrogen more locally

instead of a patch so I am confused. I had some bi-est cream I never

finished and tried to use that locally but I think that made me

worse too.

I am wondering if anyone has tried homeopathic remedies. I spoke

with a women who was recommended to me who said she has a 40-100%

success rate meaning they are 40-100% better.

Diane

[Guest guest]

I had the same experience when dropping from .75 to .50. Much worse pain,

so I went back to .75.

If the hormone specialist did blood/saliva tests and said .75 is what you

needed, perhaps you could go back to him and be retested. He could also

probably give you topical with an explanation of how and when to use.

Dusty

Re: Estrogen NOT culprit in breast cancer, NEWS

HI,

I have been concerned about using the estradial patch as it is the

more active of the estrogens. I've been on .075 dosage. I mentioned

this to the vulvar specialist's assistant and she offered to give me

a prescription for .025! She had not done a blood test or anything.

I am on the hormone because I was tested by a hormone specialist! Anyway, I

decided to cut the patch in half anad try that. I did this

for a week and my Vulvodynia symptoms got much worse!

I keep thinking that I really should get estrogen more locally

instead of a patch so I am confused. I had some bi-est cream I never

finished and tried to use that locally but I think that made me

worse too.

I am wondering if anyone has tried homeopathic remedies. I spoke

with a women who was recommended to me who said she has a 40-100%

success rate meaning they are 40-100% better.

Diane

**IF REPLYING TO THIS POST, PLEASE REMOVE ORIGINAL POST, THANKS**

Our HOME page is http://groups.yahoo.com/group/VulvarDisorders

to search our archives, files, articles, etc.

***

[Guest guest]

Hi Dusty,

Smiling here as I'm thinking about what you wrote and thanks for the feed back,I appreciate that and do like a lively discussion about whatever and I know me, this'll probably be long as the wheels start turning, *grin*.

I'm still just saying in my opinion that the estrogen has not been shown to 'trigger' BC (breast cancer). You just won't find studies like that outside of a test tube and not on living tissue it's just not been proven as far as I know.

Those studies you're talking about that show a slight increase in BC? Keep in mind they 'were' likely using a progestin, and I'd be willing to bet in all of them if you looked each of them up, at least in all the ones I've seen that had negative results, but It's not that I left it out of the equation for this reason, I think we're talking about 2 different things. Maybe?

As I'd mentioned I know estrogen can feed an already 'exisiting' BC and so can other things but it's still not the trigger or initiating cause in my opinion.

That's the difference in those studies... those you mentioned were women say on HRT, (and both E & P) who 'then' developed BC, (and that's what the study results showed) and of course by taking the HRT, they were feeding it unknowingly so the studies still didn't show that E was the cause, and today they're as positive as I was that it's the P. component and not the E. So that accounts for the studies you were mentioning you thought I left out. (If I understood you correctly) they weren't studies showing E. 'caused' the BC in my opinion.

I also know that statistically deaths are far less for those who were on HRT than not so they do fair better than those who were not on HRT if BC does happen.

It's all very interesting and I agree that one should know if estrogen or any of the hormones are depleted or needed before going on them willy nilly no doubt about that, and what's SO important is the correct balance. And that brings up another thought in this head of mine, *chuckle* that anyone who is on E alone for hormone replacement, also lessens & depletes their testosterone as well.. and why 'both' are necessary and needed, Again why testing and balance is so important.

You did it the right way little by little till you found a level that worked for you. I was fortunate to have past tests to know my own levels of E & T so that I could use that as a baseline.

But no matter who the woman is, the estrogen (and the testosterone) does decline eventually as you mentioned simply by nature, no one escapes it, tho they may think they do well in meno without it and even though it's not life-threatening, it can alter a woman's quality of life considerably AND those around them. *chuckle*

I'm chuckling here thinking of my mother who's still always so proud to say how she went thru Meno with nothing and it was basically a breeze, but it was pure hell for those of us around her *grin* and she has no idea of the changes that went on with her, (forgive me mom)and she'd never say any of it was true but we lived it.

To me it's no different than saying I'll eventually lose my sight or hearing and osteo as I age so should I just accept it? Nope, not me anyway. I think a big part of it is the fear that's been instilled and promoted incorrectly for ages as far as I'm concerned and E it was the scapegoat, just as 'finally' they're coming to realize the benefits of Testosterone (T) for women!

Let alone how they've learned that adding E alone depletes the T. even further. *sigh* and instead far too often make the mistake of increasing the E and when that doesn't work they throw an antidepressant at them. *grrrrrrrrrrrrr. And yes women are by 'far' the biggest users of antidepressants!

The benefits are not just for hot flashes either,*grin* if it was that alone no big deal, that would be the least of it as far as I'm concerned. (as often I'll see that mentioned in articles as if it's the only reason) how ignorant to think that.

But it's the tremendous benefits for so many other things is my main reason, let alone the vulvar tissue as one 'big' one. *grin* Estrogen keeps that lactobacilli healthy and there, that's what keeps our pH levels in the right pH acidic range to prevent infections (both yeast and bacteria). As estrogen levels decline, the pathogenic bacteria overgrow, and vaginitis results. It also prevents atrophy of the vagina and vulva.

The vagina and vulva are easily traumatized when physically manipulated, and has a greater tendency to bleed without proper estrogen. Small ulcerations may form in the superficial layer of the tissue, which, when healing, then can create scar tissue. Vaginal adhesions may occur, almost closing up the vag. canal, even shortening the depth of it and making the vagina less elastic resulting in painful intercourse. It helps our paps to stay healthy, and in some cases it's been used to reverse a positive pap.

It's what keeps us healthy as women and when we lose it we get all those problems or symptoms of meno they talk about, especially bone loss, we get hair thinning, we have an atrophic vagina and dryness as I'd mentioned, painful sex, increased UTI's is another big one, and loss of libido and esp. lubrication too.

Estrogen improves the brain, the memory, and mood, and even those aches & pains such as in arthritis & fibro, (they know E can help with that) and most of all the skin and not only the genital skin. The wound healing effects of estrogen alone are amazing. Estrogen also can lower the bad cholesterol while increasing the good.

Estradiol itself has a direct affect on the function of the reproductive system, not only that but the nervous system too with protecting nerve endings & lessening pain, as well as the cardiovascular system and especially the skeletal system. We've those E. receptors all over our body and why it's SO important as far as I'm concerned for just overall quality of life.

It helps with Blood sugar levels, thyroid function, and fertility, and we know it's wonderful for our skin. I've several articles that talk about applying it facially for it's benefits for the face and I do when I think of it *grin*. Skin in addition to certain other organs is ''definitely'' dependent on estrogen. So estrogen deficiency is associated with impaired wound healing and vag. atrophy and thus more pain as well as leaving one susceptible to vag. infections and UTI's.

It helps with the thickness, collegen, elasticity, and blood flow of the skin and other tissues as well as internally such as the heart & circulation by keeping the arteries elastic and toned up. It also lowers cholesterol levels, increasing the good while lowering the bad, Thinning of the skin, brittle nails, hair loss, and 'generalized aches and pains' are all associated with reduced estrogen levels. and those are just 'some' functions that are ''significantly'' influenced by estradiol!

Not only those but it's important for Mood, (T is especially for mood enhancement and of course libido) It helps with a good nights sleep, also we have a lowering or lessening of pain when estradiol is high as it helps with the 'nerve' endings. It's also why some have more vag. pain, pre & during their periods when E is the lowest & P (progesterone) is the highest (PMS week) as well as other aches & pains, Vliet and others also mention the Testosterone lack as a major factor in Fibro.....and Testosterone cream by the way is also good for the tissue as a healing factor.

Then the benefit for osteoporosis is well known and it's bone strengthening qualities but they're finding out that T may even be 'more' beneficial for bones than E. even.

BUT....keep this in mind, E or T won't 'reverse' the bone loss or heart problems with arteries, etc., once it's started. By the way that heart study & E and saying it increases some heart problems? That was done with women who 'already' had heart problems to begin with, and why in my opinion one should go on it as soon as it's needed to 'prevent' bone loss or arterial problems before they start. So they won't necessarily reverse a condition but can at least halt it where it is or stop it before it begins.

Estradiol improves memory (brain fog) and concentration, helps to prevent that dowager hump with the loss of heighth as the spine compresses from loss of E in the bones. Estradiol also helps the libido along with testosterone, though the libido hormone is T. By the way testosterone is a good one for Fibro some feel too and it has helped.

But it's honestly not just because of the V. tissue or hot flashes or sleeplessness that I take it, it's for my whole body's benefits. There are E receptors all over the body and yes without it the body will decline no doubt about it and it will a heck of a lot faster than someone who takes hormones and of course we'll all age regardless but if I can help it a bit and do it gracefully I'm sure glad we have E & T available. And if I did get breast cancer I'd surely never blame the E on it. *grin* but that's me and how strongly I feel about it as not being the 'cause' or trigger and the quality of life it can lend would make it worth while to 'me' even 'if' there was a small risk. (which I doubt)..

WOW, that's way more than enough and I know I've said a lot of this before so forgive me for those who may have seen some of it and it's just a ramble about E and nothing against what you said Dusty at all, It just gave me an opening to chat about the benefits of E. again and why I'd never give mine up. *grin*...

I know quite a few of you are younger so I don't want you to think you necessarily need to add estrogen or testosterone at all or that this applies to you, this is mainly for a menopausal women yet by using the E & T creams just 'topically' it can have wonderful benefits for the V. tissue alone without having it be systemic (little if any) if just a small dab is used and that 'is' for younger women as well..

All just my opinion and two cents worth of course.

thanks again for the chat.

Hugs

Dee~

[Guest guest]

HI Diane,

Just caught your post hon and from what I understand and that's with taking more than a few CME's (cont. med. ed. classes) using estrogen via the body route just isn't that beneficial for V. tissue specifically. It might help some but it's minimal and to me would take a heck of a lot longer to be effective so I'm not saying it won't either but the biggest effect is using it topically.

I'm going by my own experience as well as what I've read. I was on a high dosage of hormone replacement, my blood levels were fine and it's a FAR higher dosage than what you mentioned and it did nothing for the V tissue until I added a topical and a big part of the problem might be defective or less or no Estrogen 'receptors' perse and not necessarily the blood levels of the E. The blood levels might be fine but it doesn't mean the actual receptors are working efficiently so by adding a topical we hope to saturate those receptors from an external source. I don't mean saturate that tissue *grin* but it's the term used.

So a direct local application like a topical E...(as in Estrace cream) is the best thing you can do (in my opinion of course) to benefit that skin and area and it's rarely systemic using a small peasize and massaged in. You'd use your patch for the whole body's benefits but that topical would be for the vulva/vagina benefits and why to this day I 'still' use both forms. One topical for my V area to keep it good & healthy and then the oral for my whole body benefits.

Just my thoughts on it hon and I'd surely give it a try, esp. as you mentioned just cutting your patch in half did increase your V. pain. The Bi Est cream should help too and it shouldn't have made you worse so that might be the 'base' it's compounded in moreso than the estrogens in it (estradiol & estriol)

hugs and good luck!

Dee~

[Guest guest]

My pain begins or increases in the vagina. hugs, ML

“Pleasant words are a honeycomb, sweet to the soul [mind, will and emotions] and healing to the bones.” Proverbs 16:24

-----Original Message-----What exactly do you experience that tells you that it's time for a new one? Hollis --