While I have not read that one, I have done
so with several other studies that get into to medical literature.
I am left with the distinct impression that "Medical
Research" is an oxymoron. Too often, half-baked correlations
(the probability that two things happen together) is wrongly
interpreted as causation (one thing can produce the other).
This is fallacy of the worst kind, and most Master's programs
in any science would throw you out for proposing this in your
thesis. Most medical journals, however, will publish it.
So, for example, HRT cuts a woman's chances of a heart attack
(biggest killer of women past menopause) in half. Saves a
lot of lives. But, the older you get, the more likely you
are to get breast cancer. So, on one big survey the medical
people followed women on HRT. Since many more were alive to
get cancer and other things at the end of 10 years, more were
dying. So, the medical people claim that HRT only helps for
Or likewise, French people don't seem to have as many heart
attacks as were expected. Another correlation, and presto,
they are calling a press conference to announce that it is
all the wine the French drink that save their hearts. Never
mind that there are millions of other differences.
HRT, progesterone, and cancer? Well, HRT cuts your heart
attack risk in half, so more women will be around to develop
breast cancer. No matter what you do to or for a women, about
one in eight will get breast cancer. The last 20 years have
been looking at HRT (mostly with the very alien horse estrogens)
to look for an effect. No two studies have agreed. The most
condemning ones say that it goes up to one in seven. Most
are unable to state a clear effect (if you count out the women
who would be dead from heart attacks), and a few suggested
a protective effect. All kind of vague. And, if all you do
is look at self-selected groups, you will never be able to
get any closer to cause and effect.
Avoid natural progesterone? If I were a woman, that would
be the last thing that I would think about doing.
- Estrogen, in post-menopausal women, without a progestin
or progesterone will, most likely, lead to endometrial hyperplasia
in about a year or two (depending on a lot of variables).
This amounts to a written invitation for a D&C.
- Keep up the estrogen and no progesterone for a few years,
then your chances of endometrial cancer starts to climb
into a range that we are unable to find elsewhere.
- The progesterone belongs in your body, does not negate
estrogen's beneficial effect on lipids like progestins do,
and actually increases bone density. A lot of women die
before their time from hip fractures and osteoporosis.
I feel that, even in women who are not taking estrogen, taking
progesterone is a cheap insurance policy that can protect
your endometrium and possibly other tissues from unopposed
natural estrogens and the sea of xeno estrogens that we swim
Don Michael, MD
For More Information: