Wellness Posts by Beth Rosenshein

5 Experts Who Are Wrong On Menopause

support@wellness.com — Fri, 21 Aug 2020 07:00:00 Z

Wellness.com - 5 Experts Who Are Wrong On Menopause by Beth Rosenshein

Recently 5 menopause experts from different universities from the United States and Canada were asked the following question: - Is hormone replacement therapy safe? - Their answers prove they are no experts. Not one doctor acknowledged menopause as a disease. By definition, disease is defined by predictable signs and symptoms. The signs of menopause are predictable and universal - loss of bone density, loss of body hair, loss of muscle tone, constipation, dry skin, shriveled genitals. It happens to every menopausal woman whether she feels it or not. Real menopause experts would recognize menopause as a disease - Not one of these doctors showed an understanding of basic human physiology. Menopause happens because of organ failure not because the human body ever loses its need for its hormones. A person’s body works the same way at the age of 105 as it does at the age of 25. Our DNA and what fuels it (hormones, vitamins, and minerals) never changes. This means your body needs the same thing at 105 as it does at 25 to stay healthy. This means treatment should be lifelong. Real menopause experts would recognize treatment is forever not just a few years - Not one of these doctors acknowledged that the organs that failed, the ovaries, produce four hormones, not just one or two. The ovaries produce hormones that work together to keep a woman’s whole body healthy, including her brain, nervous system, skin, intestines, and muscles. Complete treatment of ovarian failure means complete hormone replacement which includes progesterone, testosterone, DHEA, estradiol. Real menopause experts would recognize complete menopause treatment includes all of the ovarian hormones, not just one or two, which would be considered under-treatment - Each doctor used the Women’s Health Initiative (WHI) clinical trial as a model for treatment options. Not one of these doctors took the time to see the unethical choices made in this clinical trial. For instance, it was supposed to be an HRT or hormone replacement trial for menopause, yet no hormone testing was done. How can hormone replacement be proved if no hormone testing was done? In the medical world, only blood tests prove replacement has been accomplished. Real menopause experts would recognize unethical hormone trials and dismiss their findings - Not one of these doctors suggested the use of bio-identical hormones. It’s a fact that bioidentical hormones which are maintained at normal, youthful levels can have few to no side effects. It is also a fact that synthetic or non-bioidentical hormones will always have side effects no matter what blood level they have. Side effects from synthetic hormones are always worse than those from bio-identical hormones. Bio-identical hormones like testosterone, have been proven to prevent breast cancer while synthetic hormones have been shown to increase breast cancer. Real menopause experts would understand that using synthetic hormones is like putting square tires on a car and expecting it to have a smooth ride - It takes more than just having an MD after your name to be a menopause expert. As always, one should do his or her own own research based on their specific symptoms and other health conditions they might need to consider. For example, hormone therapy -might not- be the best solution for anyone who has- had breast cancer, ovarian cancer, endometrial cancer, blood clots in the legs or lungs, stroke, liver disease. But it should always be part of the conversation. Here is the list of menopause experts who are wrong on menopause. Dr. K. Flood-Shaffer, Associate Professor in the Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology at the University of Cincinnati in Ohio. Dr. Joseph Ragaz, Medical Oncologist and Clinical Professor of Medicine in the School of Population & Public Health at the University of British Columbia in Canada - Dr. Neil Goodman, Chairman of the Reproductive Medicine Committee of the American Association of Clinical Endocrinologists and Professor of Medicine at the University of Miami in Florida - Dr. Michael A. Thomas, Professor and Director of the Division of Reproductive Endocrinology and Infertility at the University of Cincinnati in Ohio - Dr. John E. Buster, Professor of Obstetrics and Gynecology at Warren Alpert Medical School at Brown University, and Associate Director of the Division of Reproductive Endocrinology at the Women & Infant's Hospital of Rhode Island - References: - https://www.diamondrf.org/

Orgasm Without Sexual Sensation

support@wellness.com — Wed, 15 May 2019 07:00:00 Z

Wellness.com - Orgasm Without Sexual Sensation by Beth Rosenshein

An orgasm without sexual sensation is not as uncommon as you would think. If you normally have, or have had, normal sexual response and then you find that you feel the vibrations of an orgasm without the intense pleasure, then you have had an orgasm without sexual sensation. It is often called sexual anhedonia, orgasmic anhedonia or pleasure dissociative orgasmic dynfunction (PDOD), and can affect males or females. I do not know of any doctor or menopause group that prepares people for this event or tells them what to do about it. I hope this article helps. If this has happened to anyone you know you might want to share this article with them. To say the least this can be very disconcerting, particularly when it happens for the first time and you felt arousal during the sexual encounter. The reason this happens is because there are nerve fibers that give sensation and there are muscle fibers that produce the vibrations that are felt when an orgasm occurs. If the nerve fibers aren't firing for some reason, then you will only feel the vibrations of the orgasm without the sexual sensation. Minimum levels of each sex hormone are necessary for arousal and orgasm. Both women and men need normal levels of progesterone, testosterone, estradiol and DHEA. Therefore, testing these hormone levels is a good first step for anyone experiencing the symptoms described above. If someone has hormone levels that are too high or too low, then adjusting them to normal can bring back normal or near normal orgasms. While there may be sufficient hormone levels for arousal, there may -not- be sufficient levels for a normal orgasm. The most common imbalance in men is when their estradiol levels are too high and their progesterone levels are too low... The easiest way to lower a man's estradiol levels is to bring his progesterone levels up to normal which will naturally lower his estradiol level. For men, an estradiol level of 20-30 pg/ml and a level of progesterone of approximately 1000 pg/ml is optimal. Start with approximately 6 mg of progesterone rubbed into the skin at bedtime. You can buy progesterone cream on the internet or you can get a prescription from your doctor to be filled by a compounding pharmacy. For women, the most common problem is that their testosterone level may be too low... An optimal level of testosterone is 40-80 ng/dl. A prescription for testosterone might be necessary if a woman's testosterone level is out of this range, and must be filled by a compounding pharmacy. The Intrinsa patch is a testosterone patch for women that works really well to increase testosterone levels to normal for women. Unfortunately, the Intrinsa patch is no longer available on the internet, as the FDA has put a stop to it, so for now get a testosterone cream from a compounding pharmacy. Women also need a minimum of 50 pg/ml of estradiol at all times. The low dose estradiol patches often do not get to this level so a higher dosage patch may be necessary. My hope is that this information helps someone to achieve a more predictable and happy sex life. Unfortunately, two things may stand in your way, your healthcare provider and lack of appropriate pharmaceuticals. Too many doctors don't even realize how important estradiol levels are to a man's sexual response or the importance of testosterone and estradiol levels to a woman's sexual response. Additionally, men and woman must get prescriptions for a compounding pharmacy because there are no prepackaged products to fill this very real need. If your doctor isn't willing to work with you, then move on and find someone else who will. Your sex life is far too important to sacrifice due to a know-it-all health professional. Your efforts will be worth it.

Discrimination in the KEEPS trial, Part 4 of 5

support@wellness.com — Thu, 12 Jun 2014 17:33:24 Z

Wellness.com - Discrimination in the KEEPS trial, Part 4 of 5 by Beth Rosenshein

The discrimination in the KEEPS trial is very real and very damaging to the clinician's and patient's ability to receive appropriate care of advanced/profound hypogonadism (untreated menopause). The KEEPS clinical trial uses archaic and uncomfortable methods, ignores modern technology and misrepresents the drugs used as hormone therapy as neither regimen are predictably therapeutic. You can read more about the discrimination in the KEEPS trial in parts 1, 2, 3 of my series. The KEEPS clinical trial is not only discriminatory towards women but it is also an unethical clinical trial. Informed consent laws are clear in that all participants in a clinical trial must be properly informed of the intent of the trial and about the regimens used. Not one of the recruited women were properly informed about the regimens they were to receive. In violation of the informed consent laws none of the women were informed of the following: - They would not receive treatment for the illness that qualified them for the KEEPS trial, profoundly low ovarian hormone levels. There was never any intent to bring ovarian hormone levels to normal. The intent of the trial was to create abnormal hormone levels. FDA drug studies of the two regimens documents the abnormal hormone levels with the two KEEPS drug regimens prior to the start of the KEEPS trial. Studies have been available for 2 decades that show that the dose of bio-identical hormones in the estradiol patch used does not bring estradiol levels above the lowest pre-menopausal level. In a paper by Limor Raz et al., Mayo clinic 2014, the following was said of the KEEPS study; - "With the transdermal product used in this study, premenopausal levels of 17beta-estradiol were not achieved" - No horse hormone levels were measured. If they were it would be clear to see just how abnormally high the estrogen levels would be – about the equivalent of 2-3 birth control pills. Drug studies provided by the manufacturer of the horse excrement, Pfizer, to the FDA confirm the abnormally high levels of estrogen. Combine high doses of progesterone to the respective KEEPS regimens and you get the following: - Horse excrement and progesterone resemble an estrogen secreting tumor with a progesterone secreting tumor that turned on and off every two weeks. Bio-identical patch and progesterone resemble continued menopausal hormone levels with a progesterone secreting tumor that turned on and off every two weeks. The KEEPS trial like all clinical trials has to be reviewed by an institutional Review Board (IRB). A review of the informed consent document shows that the recruited women were not properly informed about what the KEEPS trial called 'hormone therapy'. So where are the bio-ethicists when the fundamental rights of the recruited women are being trampled? Is no one watching? Each university that the KEEPS trial is involved in has a bio-ethical department. Why the silence? - The design of the KEEPS trial is nothing short of scientific misconduct. Implicit in the misconduct is the FDA and National Institutes of Health for not stopping it. The whole point of clinical trials is to improve the health and welfare of people. The bio-ethical community is supposed to make sure that happens. Treatment of hypogonadism can be safe and effective and clinical trials like the KEEPS trial make it look like an untreatable illness. Every day that women are denied treatment for chronically low ovarian hormone levels is another day of lost opportunity to have healthy levels of ovarian hormones and their health and sexual function restored. Even without the bio-ethical community women can still get effective treatment. When women ask for treatment they should make it clear that they have an illness and to treat that illness by bringing all of their ovarian hormone levels to normal. Drug studies show that only bio-identical hormones, given in appropriate dosages, work to do that. Without the bio-ethical community it is unlikely a real hormone replacement clinical trial using bio-identical hormones will take place in the foreseeable future. If and when a real hormone replacement trial takes place then greater numbers of women around the world will be able to maintain their health and sexual function. Until then the situation remains the same, continue interviewing doctors until you get one that understands how and is willing to treat profound hypogonadism in women. Beth

Discrimination in the KEEPS trial - Part 5 of 5

support@wellness.com — Thu, 12 Jun 2014 07:00:00 Z

Wellness.com - Discrimination in the KEEPS trial - Part 5 of 5 by Beth Rosenshein

In my final installment of my 5 part series describing the discrimination in the KEEPS trial I will discuss what the future holds for the treatment of profound/advanced hypogonadism in women if trials like the KEEPS trial remain the norm. Unless something changes then the future will be as bleak as the present. Currently, there are no published standards for the optimal levels of estradiol, testosterone or even progesterone. Instead each healthcare provider is on their own. This pits consumer against doctor in an awkward and unproductive manner where the consumer generally loses. Why are there no standards? Primarily, because horse excrement (Premarin) has dominated the clinical trials. In clinical trials that use horse excrement it is the norm not to test any hormone levels, human or the accumulated horse estrogens in a human woman. Even without testing any hormone levels one can easily see that over the last 80 years it has been proven over and over again that horse excrement is nothing more than a slow poison. Now does it makes sense why the recommendation for its use is for as short as time as possible? - It is with 100% certainty that a woman will get sick when taking horse excrement. How can I be so sure? It is a universal truth that abnormal hormone levels always lead to poorer health. Horse excrement only creates significantly abnormal hormone levels 100% of the time. Hence, it will slowly make a woman sicker and sicker as a slow poison would. Horse excrement makes a woman sick because it creates estrogen toxicity and androgen deprivation. Estrogen toxicity happens when there is too much estrogen and androgen deprivation happens when there is too little androgens. Both of these conditions would be picked up if hormone testing was done. Now does it make sense that horse hormone levels are never, ever measured, including in the KEEPS study, because it would show clearly the estrogen overdose and the severely low levels of androgens (i.e. testosterone) that always occurs when using horse excrement? Where are the bioethicists when clinical trials say they use hormone replacement and there is no hormone testing to prove it? - Why do you think the KEEPS trial used a slightly lower dose of horse excrement than previous clinical trials and now called it HT instead of HRT? To reduce the amount of estrogen toxicity and androgen deprivation in the hopes that women could tolerate it better and wouldn't mind that it reduced further what little sexual function they may have had. To what end? Why create abnormal hormone levels that will make a woman sick when you can create normal hormone levels and restore her health and her sexual function? Renaming horse excrement HT from HRT only reinforces that it was not replacement for any human hormones. The fact that horse excrement will always make a woman sick proves it is not therapeutic at all. In my opinion, it is a win-win for the medical industry as a whole. Predictably, abnormal hormone levels are uncomfortable and unhealthy. Studies of horse excrement show that the majority of women who start on it stop it within months preferring menopausal hormone levels which is exactly what happened in the KEEPS trial. Either way the recruited women will remain and continue to be sick. The recruited women will either get sick from the abnormal hormone levels induced by the horse excrement, the inadequate bio-identical patch or profoundly low levels of ovarian hormones in the placebo arm of the KEEPS study. It's guaranteed illness that the pharmaceutical industry as well as the surgical, nursing home, hospital and internal medical industry, is happy to treat and profit from. What the public doesn't realize is that every day that horse excrement is prescribed to women is another day a woman loses an opportunity to prevent breast cancer. The reason is that horse excrement is a potent anti-androgen. For nearly 100 years it is well known within the medical community that testosterone can prevent breast cancers and can dissolve some breast cancer tumors. Even as recently as September 2013 two studies were published that demonstrated, once again, that normal (youthful) levels of testosterone prevents breast cancer and testosterone applied locally to a breast cancer tumor dissolved it. Time will tell if it's a cure. For sure though the cancerous tumors disappeared. Testosterone also can prevent fibroids and derivatives of testosterone are currently being given as a treatment. Disease doesn't just happen because a woman ages. It happens because her body is literally starving for what it needs. Profound hypogonadism is a real illness and is completely treatable. Some pharmaceutical companies have tried to improve the treatment options by creating testosterone products for women. The FDA has consistently turned them down even though they are bio-identical and produce normal testosterone levels for women. Why? - Testosterone will change the face of medicine. Effective treatment of profound hypogonadism would be attainable with testosterone. Women would take testosterone, estradiol, progesterone and dhea (available over the counter) and within 6 months would have normal bone density and would significantly reduce their risk of breast cancer. In my opinion, this is why the FDA refuses to approve testosterone because along with other ovarian hormones it will eradicate osteoporosis and make a women's risk of breast cancer the same as a man's, 1 in 1000 instead of 1 in 9. Profound hypogonadism isn't being taken seriously. It is a serious illness which will take its toll on a woman's body and a toll on her quality of life. Profound hypogonadism ends the vast majority of women's ability to become sexually aroused and have an orgasm. This is reality. Many women continue to engage in sexual activity without meaningful sexual function. As scores of women have confided in me, "you get used it", "it's your duty", "it keeps my marriage together". Women are often told that their lack of sexual function is complicated. Not really. Genitals do not just stop working. Genitals need adult levels of ovarian hormones to work. Horse excrement only provides abnormal levels of hormones which is why in the nearly 100 years it has been used it has never claimed to improve sexual function. The KEEPS trial as well as every other clinical trial that has used horse excrement has made it more difficult to receive treatment or even acknowledgment for profound hypogonadism. Is profound hypogonadism even listed on intake forms when women visit their doctor? It is the proverbial elephant in the room that the doctor is not empowered to treat and the woman not empowered to ask for treatment. As it stands now only a few women will receive treatment for profound hypogonadism. The bio-ethical community could come forward and change that but has remained silent. The medical community could come forward but as a whole has not. The research community could come forward but appears to be steadfast in its need to pedal a slow poison to women. The pharmaceutical industry could boldly acknowledge that they want to produce products to treat profoundly low ovarian hormone levels in women and create bio-identical combination products to make it easier and more affordable for a greater number of women. Instead, they give up and walk away. That is what happened with the Intrinsa patch, a wonderful testosterone patch that really worked well. It was once available in Europe and now it is gone. The only thing that can be done is for the public and those bold few in the medical community who understand an illness when they see it is to empower themselves with information. Normal hormone levels are always healthy - Abnormal hormone levels are always unhealthy - My sincere hope is that these simple truths will empower those with the power to make a positive difference for women all around the world. Here's to a better and healthier future for all women. Beth

Discrimination in the KEEPS trial - Part 3 of 5

support@wellness.com — Wed, 05 Mar 2014 04:09:40 Z

Wellness.com - Discrimination in the KEEPS trial - Part 3 of 5 by Beth Rosenshein

To recap from parts 1 and 2: The KEEPS trial is one of two hormone trials out of the Kronos Longevity Research Institute. One trial is for men and one is for women, both for the same condition, low hormones. The difference is that discrimination is designed into the women's clinical trial.-
-The difference is that the men's trial:-
-
-included modern hormone products-
-tested and adjusted hormone levels-
-used pure drugs with no impurities-
-restored youthful levels and used a comfortable, state of the art, gel application onto the skin.-
-
-In sharp contrast, the women's trial:-
-
-used technology nearly 100 years old-
-did not test or adjust hormone levels-
-used drugs with many, many impurities-
-did not restore youthful levels and used an uncomfortable skin patch or a pill derived directly from horse excrement.-
-
-Both of these trials are advertised as state of the art in their design and implementation. Clearly, only the men's trial is state of the art. This shows bias against women as well as false advertising about the KEEPS clinical trial.-
-The discrimination against women at the Kronos Longevity Center in the KEEPS trial is clear and evident. But what is so important about one clinical trial? The answer is how it translates into continuing the discrimination from the clinical trial to the doctor's office.-
-Think of the KEEPS trial as a 'dry run' for your doctor.-
-Let's say a husband and wife show up in the office of their doctor. Being that both the husband and wife are in their mid-50's they are both suffering from the same illness, low hormones. Based on the Kronos Longevity clinical trials for men and women, the doctor will follow the pattern in the men's trial for the husband and the pattern for the wife in the women's trial. This is called evidence based medicine. Basically, do what the clinical trial does to get the results of the trial. This is also called translational medicine as it translates what was done in a clinical trial into what is done in the doctor's office.-
-So how are the husband and wife likely to feel after they receive their treatment based on these two hormone trials?-
-The husband is likely going to feel very good. He is going to be taking a pure, bio-identical hormone with no impurities delivered in a comfortable daily gel. He is going to get his hormone levels checked and adjusted to the normal adult range to feel his very best. His sexual function will likely improve significantly.-
-The wife is likely not going to feel so good. She is going to get either an uncomfortable bio-identical hormone patch or a pill made directly from horse excrement containing many, many impurities. She is not going to get any hormone testing. Without hormone testing or adjustments her hormones levels will remain below normal because the patch contains too little hormone and the pill made from horse excrement creates very abnormal hormone levels. No attempt will be made to bring hormone levels to the normal, adult range because it was never done in the KEEPS trial. After treatment, the wife will continue to suffer from abnormally low hormone levels and may feel it is better to abandon treatment because low hormone levels is less uncomfortable than abnormal hormone levels. It is unlikely her sexual function will improve as neither of these treatments create normal hormone levels.-
-With such blatant discrimination weaved into the KEEPS trial why are such prestigious universities participating in the KEEPS trial? Why sully the reputations of these universities with outright discrimination against women?-
-First you have to ask yourself, are the universities even aware of the discrimination designed into the KEEPS trial? Universities rely on staff who solicit or are solicited to be involved with clinical trials. These staff are called Principal Investigators or PIs. A PI is supposed to conduct high quality research, protect the rights and welfare of those enrolled, and maintain integrity of the clinical trial and ethical standards.-
-Are the universities below aware of the nature of the KEEPS trial? Is it possible that each PI for each university could not see the discrimination woven into the KEEPS trial? If not, is the academic bar not high enough at these universities?-
-Here is a list from the Kronos Longevity website of the universities and their PIs involved in the KEEPS trial-
-
-In New York City, New York, Albert Einstein College of Medicine/Montefiore Medical Center and Columbia University College of Physicians and Surgeons, Principal Investigators, Drs. Nanette Santoro, Genevieve Neal-Perry-
-In Boston, Massachusetts, Harvard Medical School/Brigham and Women's Hospital, Principal Investigators, Principal Investigator, Dr. JoAnn Manson-
-In Rochester, Minnesota. Mayo Clinic College of Medicine, Principal Investigator, Dr. Virginia Miller-
-In San Francisco, California, University of California, San Francisco/Center for Reproductive Health, Principal Investigator, Dr. Marcelle Cedars-
-In Salt Lake City, Utah, University of Utah School of Medicine, Principal Investigators, Drs. Eliot Brinton and Paul Hopkins-
-In Seattle, Washington, University of Washington School of Medicine, Principal Investigator Dr. George Merriam-
-In New Haven, Connecticut, Yale University School of Medicine, Principal Investigator, Dr. Hugh Taylor-
-
-All of us rely on prestigious universities to further and improve medical care via clinical trials. We also rely on the Principal Investigators to conduct only ethical clinical trials that protect the rights and welfare of those enrolled. What do you think the women that were enrolled would say if they knew about this discrimination? Do you think they would have enrolled? Unlikely.-
-When a prestigious university is associated with a clinical trial we tend to listen more to its results. The dose of bio-identical hormone for the women's trial is so low that it will not be much help. The dose of horse excrement will cause harm and it will show more over time. The bottom line here is that women who take the bio-identical hormones will still have low hormone levels and will continue to have illnesses associated with low hormone levels. The remaining women who take horse excrement pills will have abnormal hormone levels meaning they will continue to suffer long term from a new, completely manufactured and unnecessary illness.-
-On the Kronos Longevity website the KEEPS trial is described as a state of the art translational clinical trial. That means that the way this trial was designed is what is expected to be carried out after the trial. This means it is expected that doctors will do to women what this trial did to their recruited women. This perpetuates the discrimination and the myth that it used state of the art medicine.-
-Assuming these prestigious universities know of this discrimination, are they participating in the KEEPS trial because they are turning a blind eye to the discrimination, they are indifferent to the well being of women, or something else? Shouldn't we expect Principal Investigators from such prestigious institutions to represent the best that medicine has to offer?-

-More to come in part 4.

Beth

Discrimination in the KEEPS trial- Part 2 of 5

support@wellness.com — Wed, 17 Apr 2013 03:48:40 Z

Wellness.com - Discrimination in the KEEPS trial- Part 2 of 5 by Beth Rosenshein

To recap from part 1: The KEEPS trial is one of two hormone
trials out of the Kronos Longevity Research Institute (KLRI) with the same
doctor designing and running both trials. One trial is for men and one is for
women, both for the same condition, low hormones. The trial for men uses pure,
bio-identical hormone and checks hormone levels periodically and adjusts the
dosage to maintain youthful, adult levels. In the women’s hormone trial there
is no dose adjustment. Some of the women received pure, bio-identical product
in a dosage so small adult levels could never be reached and the rest of the
women received pills made from horse excrement, which always results in
abnormal hormone levels. The horse excrement is collected from chained,
pregnant horses via bags strapped between their legs for months at a time,
obtained in the same way as nearly 100 years ago. Kronos Longevity Research
Institute claims to use state of the art technology. It is clear that
state of the art technology is reserved for the men’s hormone trial only. Let’s look at a few things and you’ll begin to understand
how deep the discrimination goes in the KEEPS trial. Let’s start with what is the same in the men’s hormone trial and the women’s hormone trial: - 1) - Both hormone trials are treating the same illness, low hormones - 2) - Both hormone trials have the same goal, preventing or reducing the progression of arteriosclerosis (heart disease) - 3) - Both trials were designed by the same doctor, who has a strong background in hormone research - That’s straightforward. Same illness, same goals, designed by the same doctor who is an expert in the field of hormones - Now let’s look at what is different about these hormone
trials: - 1) - Treatment for men includes modern hormone products and modern laboratory monitoring - 2) - Treatment for women includes old technology with no laboratory monitoring - The same designer chose which technology to use, modern or old, based on the sex of the subject. Another difference is in the purity of each drug: - 1) - The treatment chosen for men fully restores youthful hormone levels and the drug contains no impurities - 2) - Neither treatment chosen for women restores youthful hormone levels, and one of the drugs contains many, many impurities - Again, the same trial designer, an expert in the field of
hormones, chose to use either a pure treatment or an impure treatment based on the sex of the subject. Lastly, the cost of each drug is different: - 1) - Treatment for men costs about $250 per month and is a brand name, comfortable, bio-identical gel - 2) - Treatment for women costs about $28 per month for an uncomfortable, generic, bio-identical patch, or $15 per month for pills (horse excrement) - Yet again, the trial designer chose the cost and comfort level based on the sex of the subject. That shows bias. There is no medical reason to keep modern technology and pure drugs from women. The choice of drugs here is the very definition of discrimination. Unequal treatment for the same illness based solely on the sex of the subject. Discrimination; plain and simple. Like I said before this
is only the tip of the iceberg. More in part 3. Beth -
-

Discrimination in the KEEPS trial Part 1 of 5

support@wellness.com — Fri, 05 Apr 2013 19:39:03 Z

Wellness.com - Discrimination in the KEEPS trial Part 1 of 5 by Beth Rosenshein

It is discrimination, plain and simple. At the Kronos Longevity Research Institute (KLRI) there are two hormone trials going on; one for women and one for men.

One clinical trial uses pure, bio-identical hormones and levels are checked to make sure they are raised to normal and in the other clinical trial the source of the hormones is horse excrement and no hormone levels are checked or adjusted to normal levels.

Guess which trial is for men and which is for women? You guessed it. The clinical trial for men used pure, bio-identical hormone gel which was rubbed onto the skin. Included in the men's clinical trial were scheduled blood tests to make sure the hormone levels were in the normal adult range and the dose was adjusted as needed.

And the clinical trial for women? Some of the 720 recruited women got pills condensed down from horse excrement (urine) and the rest of the women got pure, bio-identical hormones in a skin patch. Unfortunately, this patch contained so little hormone that it was impossible to ever reach normal adult levels. None of the 720 recruited women received any hormone testing to make sure adult levels were reached so there was no dose adjustment like in the men's trial. All of the women in the KEEPS study started with abnormal levels of hormones and continued to have abnormal levels of hormones with both hormone regimens, from the patch and from the pills condensed from horse excrement. This fact is covered up by not doing any hormone testing before or after the trial started.

The results from the KEEPS trial are predictable. There will be no harm from the pure, bio-identical hormone group because the body knows what to do with bio-identical estradiol and will put it to good use. Imagine how much better the health of the recruited women would be if actual adult levels were achieved.

There will be harm in the group given the horse excrement because the body knows what is foreign and will always try and protect itself from it. This group of women will have side-effects, like increased triglycerides, increased risk of blood clots, and reduced thyroid hormone availability. The significant reduction in availability of all androgens, including testosterone, is a side-effect of the body trying to cope with the stronger estrogens from a 2000 pound animal now circulating in a 150 pound woman.

There is no excuse for this kind of discrimination and deception. The principle investigator, S. Mitch Hartman, MD, has a strong background in the study of hormones in both women and men. He should have known that if he was going to recruit women with the promise of menopausal hormone therapy then he should have followed through on that promise. Every woman in the clinical trial was recruited with a promise to use menopausal hormone therapy which created an expectation that all of the ovarian hormones would be brought up to normal levels. Clearly, this promise wasn't kept and it was not the intent of this trial to bring hormone levels up to normal because no testing was done on any of the recruited women to verify adult levels were achieved and no provisions were made to adjust any dosages. Further, using a non bio-identical product ensures side effects because the body has to protect itself from foreign (pregnant horse) hormones.

Dr. Hartman is the director of the Kronos Longevity Research Institute and advertises on his website that KLRI is a not-for-profit 501 (c) (3) organization that conducts state-of-the-art clinical translational research on the prevention of age-related diseases and the extension of healthier human life.

State of the art? Collecting urine from horses with a bag strapped between their legs all day long? Denying these pregnant horses water so their urine is more concentrated to make it easier to condense the urine into pills? Chaining these pregnant horses into very small stalls for 6 months straight during their pregnancy so they can't move very much to lessen the chance of dropping urine from the collection bags? This is how hormones were produced nearly 100 years ago. Dr. Hartman, is this state of the art clinical translational research and state of the art in medical technology?

Not for women, it isn't. This is just the tip of the iceberg for the KEEPS study. More to come in part 2.

Beth

Why is being gay front page news?

support@wellness.com — Fri, 17 Aug 2012 14:00:26 Z

Wellness.com - Why is being gay front page news? by Beth Rosenshein

Anderson Cooper, I'm happy for you that you are comfortable and happy being gay. Frankly, I never thought about your sexuality. You are a good reporter and I enjoy your reporting. I find that you are good at getting the facts and weaving them together to make an informative story. Being gay is part of the human condition so the fact that you are gay does not need to be front page news.

Because of your position Anderson Cooper, you have the power to make something front page news. You can make your personal, private life front page news, or you can use your position to expose an issue that impacts millions of women across the country and around the world. What you should be making front page news is the unnecessary suffering that menopausal women, the ones they love, and their employers are forced to endure.

The reason they are forced to endure significant ill health is because the federal government, specifically the National Institutes of Health, allows clinical trials to vilify real HRT and intentionally confuse it with the non-HRT, particularly Premarin, which is so unhealthy. It is this non-HRT, Premarin, which has been used in nearly every clinical trial for the past 70 years and which has been proven over and over again to be unhealthy.

Anderson Cooper, you have the resources to find out why for the past 70 years the federal government referred to Premarin as HRT with absolutely no proof of replacement of any hormone, not from any drug studies or hormone testing, and now refers to Premarin as HT or hormone therapy. In 2007 all of a sudden Premarin was called HT instead of HRT. All of the websites were changed as were documents pertaining to the Women's Health Initiative. So women that were recruited up until 2007 were recruited with the promise of HRT but after 2007 the same drug was called HT with the 'R' for replacement dropped. Finally, there was acknowledgment that Premarin was never replacement and that it only makes abnormal hormone levels even worse. Taking out the 'R' acknowledges that thousands of women were recruited into the Women's Health Initiative as well as every other clinical trial that used Premarin were lured into the trials with a falsehood.

Premarin creates extremely abnormal hormone levels and that it is why it is so unhealthy. Premarin will increase estrogen levels many times higher than normal and reduce the levels of every androgen, progesterone, and dhea in the body to below menopausal levels. Not performing a single hormone test on the recruited women in the Women's Health Initiative and every other clinical trial is the perfect way to cover this up.

How different is Premarin from real HRT? Different enough that hormone levels are never measured when using Premarin.

Anderson Cooper, look into how the Women's Health Initiative had a budget of over $600 million dollars and didn't schedule a single hormone test for any woman in a clinical trial purporting to use HRT! Do you think hormones levels weren't measured because there wasn't enough money to pay for them? Do you think the technology wasn't available to measure them? Why hide the hormone levels that were created by taking Premarin? That one is easy, because the hormone levels would show the severely abnormal hormone levels that Premarin creates. What would motivate the NIH to be so irresponsible?

What should be front page news is you breaking the silence on one of the biggest scientific scams in United States history. Here are some of the headlines I'd like to see you talk about.

"Women have been misled for decades! Non-HRT intentionally confused with real HRT"

"Clinical trials advertised to contain HRT have never contained HRT! It makes sense why they don't work"

"Keeping women sick for profit, Real HRT never used"

"Osteoporosis could have been eradicated 50 years ago were it not for Premarin masquerading as HRT"

"Sex for a lifetime only if real HRT used"

"Fraud in hormone trials uncovered! Women's Health Initiative covered up lack of HRT with no hormone testing!"

Anderson Cooper, put yourself in a menopausal women's shoes. You have abnormally low levels of 4 important hormones and you feel horrible. You ask for treatment to bring these 4 important hormone levels back to normal. You are given a drug that instead of bringing your hormone levels back up to normal lowers your hormone levels even further! This drug, Premarin, and the way the body metabolizes it makes 3 of your hormone levels go down below menopausal levels and one of your hormone levels many times higher than normal. You feel terrible on this drug and want to stop it. You say you want real HRT and you are told that you just had it. You are told that HRT is bad for you and not to take it. You ask for proof that you were given HRT but you can't get it because the FDA has never made the manufacturer of Premarin submit any data that proves replacement of any hormone and doesn't stop it from being called HRT. Further, hormone testing is never done in so-called HRT clinical trials.

Anderson Cooper, you have the resources to break one of the biggest violations of human rights right here in the US. That is front page news.

HRT -> HT -> H

support@wellness.com — Thu, 28 Jun 2012 06:43:29 Z

Wellness.com - HRT -> HT -> H by Beth Rosenshein

The intellectual abyss widens between what is and what isn't HRT.

I am sure many of you have heard recently that a task force was formed to evaluate the results of the 'HRT' trials that have been done over the years. Well, the task force has released their draft results and they say that HRT is bad for you. The task force was partly right. The drugs reviewed are bad for you. The task force was also wrong as the authors widened the intellectual abyss between what is and what isn't HRT by calling the drugs that they reviewed HRT when none of the regimens contained replacement levels of any ovarian hormones. Real HRT is very specific, it is measured and it is monitored. In the studies reviewed by these authors no hormone testing was done and drug studies show the hormones used provide no replacement.

These two reasons are why the National Institutes of Health (NIH) stopped calling the drugs in hormone clinical trials HRT since 2007. The NIH dropped the 'R' because there is no replacement in the hormone drugs used in their clinical trials. That's the first change, from HRT -> HT. At the very least the authors of the task force should have called the drugs reviewed HT to follow the convention of the NIH.

Since the task force has declared this HT to be unhealthy it is time to drop the 'T' because these drugs are not therapeutic. If the NIH follows the recommendations of the task force then it has no choice but to drop the 'T' and call the drugs used in these menopausal hormone trials H.

Drop the 'R' because there is no replacement and drop the 'T' because there is no therapy.

- HRT -> HT -> H -

Now the NIH can refer to the drugs used in their clinical trials as H or hormones because they are not replacement and they are not therapeutic. At what point is the NIH going to apologize to the thousands of women lured into these clinical trials that were promised HRT but never got it? Has there been an apology to the public for denying millions of women around the world proper healthcare because clinical trials said they were testing HRT and didn't? When is the NIH going to do the right thing? When are women going to be offered real HRT to protect their health?

Before releasing their final recommendations the task force offered the public a chance to comment on their draft findings. Read below for the questions they asked and the comments I submitted in response.

When the final report is published we'll know if the intellectual abyss continues to widen or not.

-How could the USPSTF (US Preventative Services Task Force) make this draft Recommendation Statement clearer?-

The final recommendation is very clear. The drug regimens that were reviewed were found to be unhealthy. However, that is not a complete representation of all of the facts.
To make the recommendations complete the authors should have:
-
-Pointed out that none of the studies reviewed used HRT.-
-Made it clear that they were reviewing drug regimens that did not contain any replacement levels of ovarian hormones.
-Made it clear that drug studies show either lower than normal or higher than normal levels of ovarian hormones were created in the reviewed drug regimens.-
-Pointed out that none of the clinical trials ever measured any ovarian hormone levels making it a guessing game as to what hormone level was achieved.-
-Pointed out the unethical treatment of the women who were told that they would receive HRT and never did.
- What information, if any, did you expect to find in this draft Recommendation Statement that was not included?-

I expected the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force to:
-
-Notice that there was no proof of replacement in any study reviewed by either blood tests or pharmacokinetic studies.-
-Notice that since 2007 the NIH no longer refers to the drug regimens used in the reviewed studies as HRT instead they are now referred to as HT or hormone therapy.
-Notice that the change in description of these regimens by the NIH is because it is recognized that no replacement of any hormone was given in any of the reviewed studies.-
-Require proof that demonstrates replacement of all ovarian hormones before a regimen can be called Hormone Replacement.-
- Based on the evidence presented in this draft Recommendation Statement, do you believe that the USPSTF came to the right conclusions? Please provide additional evidence or viewpoints that you think should have been considered.-

I believe that the draft recommendation, which recognizes the drug regimens reviewed are unhealthy, came to the right conclusion for that regimen. However, calling that regimen HRT is the wrong conclusion.

The NIH recognizes that replacement of any ovarian hormone is not done with the studies reviewed. Therefore, before the review the drug regimen should be called HT or hormone therapy. Now that the USPSTF has finished its review of the ineffectiveness of the drugs reviewed it is clear that none of the regimens are therapeutic.

Now that it is clear the drugs regimens reviewed are not replacement per NIH mandate (HRT-> HT) and are not therapeutic, per USPSTF recommendations, the 'T' should be dropped (HT->H). These drug regimens should be simply be referred to as H or hormones.

Finally, based on the evidence, the recommendation that HRT is unhealthy is unjustified because the studies reviewed did not use HRT. Since HRT was not investigated, it should be made clear that non-HRT is not recommended.

-What resources or tools could the USPSTF provide that would make this Recommendation Statement more useful to you in its final form?-

Comparing what was used in the studies with real Hormone Replacement Therapy and describing the failings of the studies would be more useful. Clearly explaining that the recommendations given only apply to inappropriate treatment would show primary care givers and other interested parties the information they need to make informed decisions about real HRT, actual replacement of ovarian hormones that are measured and monitored.

-The USPSTF is committed to understanding the needs and perspectives of the public it serves. Please share any experiences that you think could further inform the USPSTF on this draft Recommendation Statement.-

The USPSTF should recognize profound hypogonadism for what it is, a treatable illness. Real HRT is successful in every area of endocrine medicine because it is measured and monitored. Statements from the USPSTF saying HRT is unhealthy create an opportunity for doctors to deny appropriate treatment to women with a treatable illness.

Women who request treatment for profound hypogonadism should be able to receive treatment just as easily as it is to receive treatment for every other hormone deficiency illness.

-Do you have other comments on this draft Recommendation Statement?-

I am disappointed in the lack of intellectual curiosity on the part of the writers of this recommendation. Each author should have the background to see that in the field of endocrinology hormone replacement, when done methodically with the intention of replacement, is therapeutic 100% of the time. Why wasn't this point brought up? If it were it would help bring to light that the failure of the reviewed studies was caused by using non-HRT regimens.

The authors have not included in this draft any indication that no replacement had been given in any of the reviewed regimens and yet the term HRT continues to be used. By not acknowledging that none of the studies used HRT shows this panel to be ill chosen to the task requested of them. While they correctly identified the ill health associated with non-HRT regimens reviewed in this draft document, they failed to recognize that true HRT would have a very different result. Failing to contrast the predicable ill health of non-HRT regimens with potentially lifesaving real HRT is a failure to come to a complete conclusion.

This task force should have pointed out that real HRT works in every area of medicine in which it is employed to improve both short and long term health. Real HRT, which is measured and monitored, works for all age groups from infancy to the oldest old, because metabolic pathways that utilize hormones never change during a person's lifetime. The authors did not point out that no hormone testing was done at all in any trial. The authors did not point out that not one drug study exists that demonstrates replacement of any hormones. The authors did not point out that women were given doses of hormones without regard to levels and observed for years for ill effects. The authors did not show the scientific rigor necessary to reach a complete and accurate result.

The studies reviewed do not contain replacement and are not therapeutic. Another task force that can understand basic chemistry, basic pharmacodynamics, and basic human physiology should be assembled to revisit the topic with the scientific rigor that is applied to actual HRT regimens.

Be smart and get healthy

support@wellness.com — Wed, 15 Jun 2011 20:36:02 Z

Wellness.com - Be smart and get healthy by Beth Rosenshein

You may soon hear from the media that perhaps the Women's Health Initiative was judged too harshly, that HRT isn't so bad after all, and that it should be considered for menopausal women.

You were manipulated once into believing that HRT was used in the WHI. Don't be manipulated again.

"Rethinking" the WHI means opening up more sales for Premarin.

Premarin is still bad for you. It creates extremely unnatural hormone levels and every woman taking it will suffer ill health. Every woman who takes it will not be able to reverse bone loss or maintain strong bones. Over time, Premarin actually weakens bones.

The Women's Health Initiative is a scientific tragedy of epic proportions. It misled thousands of women into thinking that they might be given replacement and have relief from the bleak and unhealthy existence of profound hypogonadism. The National Institutes of Health knew Premarin was not replacement for any hormone, would not restore sexual function, would not reverse osteoporosis, and would not keep bones strong because studies that had been done on Premarin over the 50 years before the WHI started never showed these benefits or any replacement of any kind.

Use this information to your advantage. If the stigma of using hormones is lifted don't run to what was used in the WHI because it isn't replacement and it isn't good for you. Take this opportunity to work with your doctor and use genuine hormone replacement. You'll have a sex life again and you won't ever have to take a bisphosphonate again. No more Fosamax, Boniva, or Actonel. You'll have the bone density of a young woman for the rest of your life.

Be smart and get healthy. Get the treatment that has been unfairly denied to you. Get safe and healthy treatment of profound hypogonadism and enjoy it. The Women's Health Initiative is a national disgrace and world-wide tragedy. If the stigma of treating profound hypogonadism is lifted at least some good should come of it.