Suzanne Somers Promotes "Bioidenticals"

[grayman]

Suzanne Somers has a new book (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15497863/site/newsweek/)on the benefits of "bioidenticals". This of course has traditional doctors upset.

This month Somers is at it again with her newest book, "Ageless." Subtitled "The Naked Truth About Bioidentical Hormones," the cover features a coquettish shot of the actress unclothed from the collarbone up. Inside, she calls bioidenticals "the juice of youth" and also promotes the questionable dosage advice of a former actress and "independent researcher" named T.S. Wiley (whose academic credentials are limited to a bachelor's degree in anthropology) who thinks menopausal women should have as much estrogen in their bodies as 20-year-olds.

Doctors who specialize in treating menopausal women feel they're fighting a tsunami of misinformation. "Highly sophisticated, unsubstantiated and downright dangerous marketing is leading women to go in and make demands for these bioidentical products, believing them to be effective and safe," says Dr. Wulf Utian, executive director of the North American Menopause Society.

Enjoy.

[T'ai Chi]

Does the book have a disclaimer?

[Soapy Sam]

"Unclothed from the collarbone up? "

That's no fun.

[MRC_Hans]

"Unclothed from the collarbone up? "

That's no fun.Caught my eye, too ;) . I assume this kind of pictures are meant to evoke the notion that she is also undressed from the collarbone and down :rolleyes: .

Oh, the real topic? Dunno, where are the published clinical trials?

Hans

[Katana]

Suzanne Somers has a new book (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15497863/site/newsweek/)on the benefits of "bioidenticals". This of course has traditional doctors upset.
Shouldn't they be upset?

[scotth]

Shouldn't they be upset?

I would say that it is Grayman's position that they should be upset. That was my reading of it.

I should let Grayman answer for himself. Being quiet now.

[Katana]

I would say that it is Grayman's position that they should be upset. That was my reading of it.

I should let Grayman answer for himself. Being quiet now.

You're probably right, and I could have asked that differently.

[grayman]

What Scotth said.

I wasn't sure what to write, I just wanted to get the info on the book out here for comment and debate.

The part where it talks about, "promot[ing] the questionable dosage advice of a former actress and "independent researcher" named T.S. Wiley (whose academic credentials are limited to a bachelor's degree in anthropology) should give you a little insight to my thoughts. I get bothered when I see yet another "celebrity" dispensing health advice.

Does that help, Katana? :)

[Orangutan]

Bioidenticals? Is that twins? I'm all for twins :)

[Katana]

What Scotth said.

I wasn't sure what to write, I just wanted to get the info on the book out here for comment and debate.

The part where it talks about, "promot[ing] the questionable dosage advice of a former actress and "independent researcher" named T.S. Wiley (whose academic credentials are limited to a bachelor's degree in anthropology) should give you a little insight to my thoughts. I get bothered when I see yet another "celebrity" dispensing health advice.

Does that help, Katana? :)

Yes! :thanks

Oh, and I second what you said.

Also, I get bothered when millions believe these celebrities and rush out to buy untested, unproven, and potentially dangerous junk. Actually, I get bothered when people do this whether a celebrity is involved or not.

[Eos of the Eons]

Clueless somers was on Larry King live saying that her book will save millions of lives by getting women off of HRT "drugs" and onto these "natural hormones" instead.

What she hasn't figured out is that a hormone is a hormone, just like vitamin C is vitamin C no matter how it got in the vitamin bottle.

Sad thing, like with all other "all natural" junk, you don't know what dose you're getting in those supplements. Their other claims are completely unproven, and Somers will cause much grief with that stupid book. I guess patients are asking their doctors for that stuff in droves, and are unduly alarmed about what they are currently taking.

[clarsct]

Nothing like going to a doctor and telling him what prescriptions he ought to be writing.

Next we'll go to a MMA studio and teach them katas...


:rolleyes:

[Skeptic Guy]

Bioidenticals? Is that twins? I'm all for twins :)

Unclothed from the neck up or neck down....

[Skeptic Guy]

Clueless somers was on Larry King live saying that her book will save millions of lives by getting women off of HRT "drugs" and onto these "natural hormones" instead.

What she hasn't figured out is that a hormone is a hormone, just like vitamin C is vitamin C no matter how it got in the vitamin bottle.

Sad thing, like with all other "all natural" junk, you don't know what dose you're getting in those supplements. Their other claims are completely unproven, and Somers will cause much grief with that stupid book. I guess patients are asking their doctors for that stuff in droves, and are unduly alarmed about what they are currently taking.

Exactly, a chemical is a chemical whether it cam from a radish or a labratory. (Don't know where I got radish from, but you get the point) A friend of mine insists "sea salt" is much healthier for you than regular salt. I tell him sodium chloride is sodium chloride...

[Serenity]

Exactly, a chemical is a chemical whether it cam from a radish or a labratory. (Don't know where I got radish from, but you get the point) A friend of mine insists "sea salt" is much healthier for you than regular salt. I tell him sodium chloride is sodium chloride...Agreed. Ever see those (so we're supposed to think) exotic bags of potato chips advertised "with sea salt" added? I burn-up at such misleading advertisement that takes advantage of people's ignorance. One can probably ingest more trace minerals from their water supply than from sea salt.

As for bioidenticals--The most influential event I could envision happening would be for that Dr. Oz guy that frequently guest stars on Oprah to come out against it. That show has an enormous following and such an announcement would sway many minds. Judging by the info on his website, it sounds like he's against it, or at the very least; admits there are quality control issues and no data to back up bioidentical claims. Perhaps some letters and e-mails to both the show and their personal website would be effective.

http://www.realage.com/news_features/articler.aspx?id=12068

[Eos of the Eons]

Thank you for the link Serenity, good idea!

Another good point:
http://www.oss.mcgill.ca/yasked/bioidentical.pdf

Then they refer to the Women’s Health Initiative and its findings that the
common prescription hormones have been linked with heart disease, cancer and a host of
other problems. Surely, they say, bioidentical hormones cannot do such nasty things,
because they are “natural.” Not so. It is the raising of hormone concentrations in the blood to levels that are not natural to menopause that is the problem, not the source of the
hormones.

[Skeptic Guy]

Thank you for the link Serenity, good idea!

Another good point:
http://www.oss.mcgill.ca/yasked/bioidentical.pdf

Exactly. And even drinking too much water will kill you too.

[nraden]

Exactly, a chemical is a chemical whether it cam from a radish or a labratory. (Don't know where I got radish from, but you get the point) A friend of mine insists "sea salt" is much healthier for you than regular salt. I tell him sodium chloride is sodium chloride...

Actually, you are mistaken. The "estrogen" in Premarin is a conjugate of over 39 substances, predominantly a horse estrogen that has has chemically "tweaked" so that the original inventor (now owned by Wyeth) could patent it. In a bioidentical compound, the estrogen used is derived from a plant (and since most people are plants anyway) which is identical to the human for of E1, E2 and/or E3 which are, respectively, Estrone, Estradiol and Estriol.

Similarly, "natural" progesterone is just that, while pharmaceutical HRT is an artifical substance, progestin, that does not exist in nature.

[nraden]

Yes! :thanks

Oh, and I second what you said.

Also, I get bothered when millions believe these celebrities and rush out to buy untested, unproven, and potentially dangerous junk. Actually, I get bothered when people do this whether a celebrity is involved or not.

Let's set the record straight. T.S. Wiley is the author of two books, Lights Out: Sleep, Sugar and Survival and Sex, Lies and Menopause. She is not a "credentialed" scientist. Instead, she is a member of the New York Academy of Sciences, has published her original research in peer-reviewed scientific journals on molecular oncology (check PubMed), she has authored chapters that are in use in medical school textbooks, keynotes at medical conferences and teaches courses to doctors for which they receive CME credit (Continuing Medical Education), a requirement for maintaining their licenses.

Her goal is not to be famous and appear on television. Instead,. she wants a national trial of compounded bioidentical hormones, which can only happen if there is standardization in both compounding and the way doctors administer and follow the protocol. This is why she has so many enemies - if she is right, with her rhythmic cycling, they are all wrong, and there is a lot of money involved. Doctors and pharmacies are making a fortune on BHRT, but the Wiley Protcol is only $37.50/month (Wiley does not sell it, it is dispensed by pharmacies that agree to compound it according to her instructions).

The publicity hound doctors like Schwartz and Schwarzbein do not want standardization, it will cost them.

My suggestion is that before you comment on the life work of a crusader for women's health, who receives no comnensation for her efforts, you should at least familiarize yourself with her body of work.

Start at her website.

[briandunning]

"Unclothed from the collarbone up? "

That's no fun.

I dunno - have you seen Suzanne Somers LATELY?

[Starthinker]

I purchased a Body Row from Suzanne several years ago. After a few days the wheels under the seat crumbled so I contacted the company and they sent me a new set of wheels. Within a few days the new wheels crumbled so I called the company again and they said I was too heavy for the wheels and sent me a third set of wheels. I wanted to use it to lose weight but if it can't hold 275 pounds then what good is it? I really like it and if I ever find a set of steel wheels that fit I will start using it again. Or at least just start using it.

[Hydrogen Cyanide]

...

My suggestion is that before you comment on the life work of a crusader for women's health, who receives no comnensation for her efforts, you should at least familiarize yourself with her body of work.

Start at her website.

:jaw-dropp No compensation?

Well I found this little article (http://www.nytimes.com/2006/10/15/fashion/15suzanne.html?pagewanted=2&ei=5088&en=2189c0d5aad92a84&ex=1318564800&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss) with this quote:
According to her Web site, Ms. Wiley charges doctors $1,500 to become certified in her methodology; pharmacies are charged $500 for the right to dispense the product. She said 60 doctors have been trained in the protocol and 12 pharmacies have signed on, though none have paid. On her site, thewileyprotocol.com (http://thewileyprotocol.com/), she promises that in exchange for the right to use the Wiley Protocol name, she will “drive a revenue stream of customers to you by listing your pharmacy on this Web site” and in a coming book. "

Well, now I know why you are spamming at any less than complimentary comment about this woman. Whose BA in anthropology in 1975 is still pending... see it says so here:
http://www.thewileyprotocol.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=19&Itemid=29 Pending B.A. in Anthropology, Webster University, 1975

[Yahzi]

I purchased a Body Row... I wanted to use it to lose weight but if it can't hold 275 pounds then what good is it?
You want a Concept II rowing machine. Best purchase I have ever made off of the internet (well, except for that ticket to Australia that got me my wife :D ).

http://www.concept2.com/us/default.asp

The thing is solidly constructed. I can't find it on the website, but I seem to recall them saying it was rated to 600 lbs.

[Modified]

Exactly, a chemical is a chemical whether it cam from a radish or a labratory. (Don't know where I got radish from, but you get the point) A friend of mine insists "sea salt" is much healthier for you than regular salt. I tell him sodium chloride is sodium chloride...

Sea salt contains magnesium, calcium, and potassium salts, and other trace minerals, in much higher concentrations than does table salt. The health benefits (or detriments) may be negligible, but the taste is different.

[Serenity]

Sea salt contains magnesium, calcium, and potassium salts, and other trace minerals, in much higher concentrations than does table salt. The health benefits (or detriments) may be negligible, but the taste is different.Have you considered: Differences in taste could be attributed to variations in crystal structure and size more than anything else?

Eos- Thanks!

[luchog]

Have you considered: Differences in taste could be attributed to variations in crystal structure and size more than anything else?

Pure sodium chlorine doesn't change taste with crystal size (structure is uniform); and most uses of salt end up with it disolved in the food, so size is irrelevant anyway.

The taste of sea salt varies widely depending on where it's obtained, because of the differing presence of various other salts and trace minerals.

[Serenity]

Pure sodium chlorine doesn't change taste with crystal size (structure is uniform); and most uses of salt end up with it disolved in the food, so size is irrelevant anyway.

The taste of sea salt varies widely depending on where it's obtained, because of the differing presence of various other salts and trace minerals.
Crystal has more than one definition and what you’ve applied defines salt at the molecular level. More relevant and from an FCC food grade perspective, crystal refers to the individual granules of salt.

I would largely disagree, granule size, shape, and probably density, are very relevant to the way salt is dissolved on the tongue and hence perceived, tactilely and chemically. As for salt dissolved into food, I would agree to a limited extent. For example, if granule size affects salt distribution (i.e., baked goods) it could have adverse effects on the resulting product.

[zizzybaluba]

She should have stuck with the Thighmaster...

[Serenity]

She should have stuck with the Thighmaster...You mean the ThyroidMaster.
She's coming out with it next month... watch for the debut on the Montel Williams show. ;)

[Eos of the Eons]

Oh, Double Post.

[Eos of the Eons]

You're welcome serenity.



Now, what the:

Actually, you are mistaken. The "estrogen" in Premarin is a conjugate of over 39 substances, predominantly a horse estrogen that has has chemically "tweaked" so that the original inventor (now owned by Wyeth) could patent it. In a bioidentical compound, the estrogen used is derived from a plant (and since most people are plants anyway) which is identical to the human for of E1, E2 and/or E3 which are, respectively, Estrone, Estradiol and Estriol.

Similarly, "natural" progesterone is just that, while pharmaceutical HRT is an artifical substance, progestin, that does not exist in nature.


Seems we have a fan here, and someone who is stuck on the whole semantics of so called "natural" vs. synthetic, while ignoring how the hormone (no matter how it got in the pill) has the exact same effect on the body and carries the exact same risks (or could be worse, but the studies haven't been done).

What we have pushing bioidenticals are a bunch of self proclaimed "experts" selling the usual "natural alternative" without the background or the ability to conduct research to back up their claims.

I got news for ya: whether cyanide is made in a lab or isolated from a plant or animal, it will still kill a person, no matter if you figure it is synthetic or "naturally derived".

What you get in any pill after all the processing (no matter if it comes from a plant or horse) has the exact same effect on the body. Only difference at this point is that the FDA approved product must be tested for safety and efficacy. They must all come in pills that have a known dosage and no unknow contaminants.


The chemical formula is the same for premarin, and for any other estrogen, no matter what its name:

C18H21NaO5S

No matter if you get it from human or horse, plant or lab, it is the same, and has the same effect on the body.

Here are some other names, but they all are the same chemical, and are the same as the formula above.


Conestoral
Estrone-sulfate
Estrogens
Estrone Estrone Hydrogen Sulfate
Estrone Hydrogen Sulfate
Estrone Sodium Sulfate
Estrone Sulfate
Estrone Sulfate Sodium
Estrone Sulphate
Evex
Hyhorin
Morestin
Oestrone Sulphate
Par Estro
Premarin
Prempro/Premphase
Sodium Estrone SulfateDon't fooled by idiots selling alternatives. They don't care about the facts, they just know people are quite easily misled to fear anything mislabelled "unnatural".

I don't know why you figure premarin is a conjugate whatchamahoeey, but premarin is estrogen, and is clearly not 39 anything, just the chemical combination as posted above.

[Modified]

Have you considered: Differences in taste could be attributed to variations in crystal structure and size more than anything else?

In my experience, not "more than anything else". Calcium chloride (used in many pickles) and potassium chloride (salt substitute) both taste delicious and weird, and even though sea salt only contains a bit of them, that taste comes through.

[Serenity]

In my experience, not "more than anything else". Calcium chloride (used in many pickles) and potassium chloride (salt substitute) both taste delicious and weird, and even though sea salt only contains a bit of them, that taste comes through.
I tried Potassium Chloride ONCE and couldn’t shake the overbearing, metallic taste.

I’d be surprised to learn trace elements in salt (http://www.saltinstitute.org/15.html) could be discerned reliably. Evaporated/solar salt is typically over 99% pure… USDA requires better than 97.5%. My hunch is you’re perceiving differences resulting from structure, not trace elements, unless the purity is in question and below standard.

You could always test yourself. Try finding two similarly grained salt brands; one salt, the other Kosher--no additives--and undergo a blind taste test.

[Modified]

You could always test yourself. Try finding two similarly grained salt brands; one salt, the other Kosher--no additives--and undergo a blind taste test.

To eliminate the effect of grain, just dissolve both in water and taste the salt waters.

From what I can gather from a Google search, most sea salt is about .5% calcium chloride and .1% potassium chloride.

[luchog]

I would largely disagree, granule size, shape, and probably density, are very relevant to the way salt is dissolved on the tongue and hence perceived, tactilely and chemically.
Tactilely, I'd agree. Chemically, no, since the salt cannot be tasted until after it's dissolved in saliva. The molecules affect the receptor in precisely the same way, since they're all identical molecules. The crystal size and shape affects one thing and one thing only, how quickly it dissolves, and therefore the intensity of the taste. The only way to change the taste is to change the molecule.

As for salt dissolved into food, I would agree to a limited extent. For example, if granule size affects salt distribution (i.e., baked goods) it could have adverse effects on the resulting product.

Except, of course, that it doesn't affect distribution, since salt is completely dissolved by the liquid portion of the products. The only way that this would not be the case is if the crystals used are simply too big to dissolve during the limited processing time; something that isn't done for specifically that reason. The only way that it would affect the taste of the finished product is by concentration of salt in portions of the finished product, not by any change in the nature of the taste of the salt itself.

The only way to make salt taste different is by the addition of trace minerals and non-sodium salts, both of which can be discerned in very small concentrations.

[nraden]

You're welcome serenity.


I don't know why you figure premarin is a conjugate whatchamahoeey, but premarin is estrogen, and is clearly not 39 anything, just the chemical combination as posted above.

I'm sorry, but you need to do your homework:

1. If the estrogen in Premarin were the same as "natural" estrogen, which is impossible because estrogen is a group of hormones, such as E1, E2 and E3, it still wouldn't matter because it is a conjugate of 39 SUBSTANCES, not 39 estrogens. Some of those estrogens you listed are actualy metabolites of estradiol and should only be created in the body from the cascade process, not induced externally. I can explain why they are there if you like, but the short story is because the Premarin deranges the whole process.

2. If you know anything about in vitro fertilization, you would know that estrace and the rest of the (patentable junk) in Premarin is NEVER used. Only natural bioidentical hormones are used in in vitro. Why do suppose that is?

There is a school of thought (Wiley's) that says the synthetic/bioidentical conundrum may not even be the most important issue, it's how it's dosed, formulated, compounded and followed, but you'd have to read her book to understand it.

Ultimately, what matters is that drug companies and their love puppets, the HRT doctors, not dictate to 60 million women (in the US alone) what they do about their health with HRT. You can make all the other arguments you want, about the chemistry, and the personalities, but that is what it boils to. The AMA and the FDA are going to use this controversy to hand doctors and Big Pharma another huge victory.

-NR

[Eos of the Eons]

Ohhhh, misinformation, halleluhiah (sp?)!!!

I have to ask for your source because it IS hooey.

HRT/birth control pills have active ingredients, and those are isolated from various sources or synthesized. In the case of premarin, it is estrogen isolated from an animal yes. There is also progesterone usually in HRT that is made via FDA approved processes. Then the other fillers don't have an effect on the body, and can't be pointed to as "substances" that are "unnatural" and having a bad effect on the body, since they are usually sugars and starches. There aren't 39 kinds of hormones in Premarin/estrogen or any other types of HRTs, unless you are swallowing unknowns in various plant matter that hasn't undergone the process to isolate the chemical (and even that's a stretch). You won't get this problem from FDA approved HRT.
http://www.madehow.com/Volume-4/Birth-Control-Pill.html
In 1982 a biphasic birth control pill was introduced, followed by a triphasic pill in 1984. These low-dose pills contained varying ratios of progestin to estrogen. In 1988 all three drug companies still manufacturing high-dose birth control pills withdrew their high-dose products from the market, at the FDA's request. By 1990, the amount of estrogen in birth control pills had been reduced by at least two-thirds.
You don't seem to have the basics of chemistry down. Chemicals like estrogen from the animal source must be isolated through a process because it is not synthesized. It is isolated through this process until you are left with the hormone. All the other "substances" aren't left in the pill, they are used along the way. If you use cheesecloth to squish water out of cottage cheese, you are left with cottage cheese, and not the cheesecloth to go in your cheesecake.

That is why I looked up Premarin and its chemical composition. There is nothing but that chemical, and not 38 other "substances", heck there aren't even 39 molecules making up the chemical Premarin/Estrogen.


If Wiley is your source, then you are really eating crap hook line and sinker. Wiley is not qualified to be writing on the topic, and it shows. Did you even check Wiley's background? Anthropology does not make one an expert on the human body or any type of chemical. http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2006/11/from_the_ridiculous_to_the_sublime_a_jou.php

Oh goody, the usual buzzwords of conspiracy, and accusations that the drug companies and doctors want to just poison us all.

Sorry, but we've all been through this before, and it won't work here.

[Katana]

Let's set the record straight. T.S. Wiley is the author of two books, Lights Out: Sleep, Sugar and Survival and Sex, Lies and Menopause. She is not a "credentialed" scientist. Instead, she is a member of the New York Academy of Sciences, has published her original research in peer-reviewed scientific journals on molecular oncology (check PubMed), she has authored chapters that are in use in medical school textbooks, keynotes at medical conferences and teaches courses to doctors for which they receive CME credit (Continuing Medical Education), a requirement for maintaining their licenses.
Oh, this T.S. Riley?

Wiley claims to be a hormone expert, despite academic credentials she has said are limited to a bachelor's degree in anthropology from Webster University. In fact, the university's records show that Wiley never earned a college degree. When questioned, Wiley said, "I thought I got a degree or a diploma, but it's possible I was an hour or two short." Asked for a copy, she said, "I live in a 23-room house with 13 people. I don't know how long it would take to find it. Could you just say that I don't have a degree and leave it at that?"

On her Web site, Wiley claims membership in two "professional" organizations: the American Association of Anthropologists (actually the American Anthropological Association) and the New York Academy of Sciences. Both groups say they require no academic credentials. Wiley's Web bio also states she was a "keynote speaker" for the International Hormone Society. A spokesman for the Endocrine Society, the premier association for those specializing in hormones, said it had "never heard of this group." The IHS's Web site confirmed that Wiley was a speaker at its 2005 convention, appearing on the program with a psychiatrist who lectured that hormones could be renamed after Greek gods and goddesses: testosterone could become "Hercules."
...

In response to criticism of Somers's book, last week the American Medical Association's House of Delegates passed a resolution calling on the FDA to increase its oversight and regulation of bioidentical hormones. Wiley's Web site now notes that her degree is "pending."
Link (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15791227/site/newsweek/)

[my bold]

Hmmm. Yes. I can see why you would consider her an expert.

As for her "research", she is not the first author of any of those four publications. What this means is two things: 1) It may be original research, but it wasn't hers and 2) As second or third author, she may have done little more than count cells under a microscope (in other words a job that doesn't require even a bachelor's degree).

Since I couldn't find it, please provide information about your claim that she has been an author of med school textbooks. Please use a source more credible than her own website.

Her goal is not to be famous and appear on television. Instead,. she wants a national trial of compounded bioidentical hormones, which can only happen if there is standardization in both compounding and the way doctors administer and follow the protocol. This is why she has so many enemies - if she is right, with her rhythmic cycling, they are all wrong, and there is a lot of money involved. Doctors and pharmacies are making a fortune on BHRT, but the Wiley Protcol is only $37.50/month (Wiley does not sell it, it is dispensed by pharmacies that agree to compound it according to her instructions).
As Hydrogen Cyanide pointed out, you have been bit naive to think that she has only atruistic motivations. You seem to have bought into her conspiracy-theory, fear-mongering tactics that raise anything anti-establishment up onto some undeserved pedestal. You're in a skeptics' forum. Time to demonstrate some critical thinking.

The publicity hound doctors like Schwartz and Schwarzbein do not want standardization, it will cost them.
And what would debunking her claims cost her?

My suggestion is that before you comment on the life work of a crusader for women's health, who receives no comnensation for her efforts, you should at least familiarize yourself with her body of work.

Start at her website.
I would challenge you to do the same, but, this time, look beyond her website.


Ultimately, what matters is that drug companies and their love puppets, the HRT doctors, not dictate to 60 million women (in the US alone) what they do about their health with HRT. You can make all the other arguments you want, about the chemistry, and the personalities, but that is what it boils to. The AMA and the FDA are going to use this controversy to hand doctors and Big Pharma another huge victory.

-NR

Why do you portray docs as dictating to women what they should do? Why are you so angry and distrustful of physicians? Frankly, docs are now having to deal with all of the confusion and fear caused by unsupportable claims by unqualified people on top of poorly-designed studies such as the WHI (and the pathetic press coverage). No wonder women are confused. Do you think that you're advocating for women more than the physicians who have to sift through all of the misinformation just so women can feel like they're making an informed decision? What intrerest would a doc have in putting a patient on HRT over something else or nothing?

What? You think that all docs prescribing HRT are in cahoots with drug companies? Frankly, it is as ignorant to assume that all docs make money off the drugs they prescribe as it is to assume that people like T.S. Wiley don't make any off their businesses. Then again, it must be so reassuring to live in such a black and white world. Unfortunately, you do a disservice to (and are missing out on) the physicians out there who truly do have their patients' best interests at heart.

[debv]

nraden is Neil Raden, T.S. Wiley's husband, hustling her protocol.

As has been noted, T.S. Wiley does not have even a B.A. in anthropology. It is a fabrication she's been claiming for some time now, but she's been exposed.

The premise of the Wiley Protocol is the following "thought experiment" (their words): that if declining hormones are the reason we age, become diseased, and eventually die, then replacing them means we won't age, become diseased, and "we may not have to die".

You might think this is a hypothesis worth studying. Or you might think that this is a promise worth marketing and selling. Women interested in the protocol are told they must purchase only hormones branded with Wiley's name from pharmacies under a licensing agreement with T.S. Wiley. (Anything else is risky, and you don't want to get sick, do you?) Doctors and pharmacists who pay Wiley $1500 and $500 respectively to become certified/registered get what is, in effect, advertising space on Wiley's site. (EDIT: And referrals, of course.) Women who solicit pharmacies for registration are rewarded with free hormones.

There are no clinical studies and no credible documentation of the Wiley Protocol's effects. When asked why they're peddling such fantastically extreme dosages of hormones to the general public without studying it first, the Wiley camp has pleaded impatience.

Many women have become ill on this protocol -- dangerously so. I won't give the full litany but many have become suicidal and other reports include severe alopecia, weight gain, anxiety, and weakness. Some women have experienced incapacitation to the extent that they were house-bound and unable to work.

Women who have come forward and made the mistake of using their real names or revealing an e-mail address have been harassed and even libeled by Neil Raden, who often hides behind fake names. (I've caught him at it many times. IP addresses, e-mail headers, web logs...)

There's a lot more to this -- I'm trying to be brief. Just Google "wiley protocol".

[scotth]

Welcome, debv.

I've been expecting a post like that this one (with the nraden connection) for a bit. I suspected there was a connection.

[Hydrogen Cyanide]

nraden is Neil Raden, T.S. Wiley's husband, hustling her protocol. ....

So he was spamming for a quack, also known as an "alt-shill"! If anyone questions the "Wiley Protocol" it has a direct impact on his bank account.

[debv]

Thank you, scotth. I must say, Neil certainly has a lot of chutzpah thinking he can hustle this crowd.

[scotth]

Thank you, scotth. I must say, Neil certainly has a lot of chutzpah thinking he can hustle this crowd.

This is definitely a crowd that investigates.

[ponderingturtle]

Thank you, scotth. I must say, Neil certainly has a lot of chutzpah thinking he can hustle this crowd.

And not much brains to be using such a clear name of who he is, and not properly identifying himself.

Welcome to the the forum

[Hellbound]

Hmmm.

Bioidenticals.

Sounds like a name for an alternative rock group.

Or a new sci-fi thriller.

ETA: Better yet, a name for a Biohazard tribute band :D

[Katana]

And not much brains to be using such a clear name of who he is, and not properly identifying himself.

Welcome to the the forum

Well, any question of brains can be answered further by reading his/her posts.

[scotth]

Will nraden have the courage to return and defend his (apparently) lie infested 3 posts? Or will he be smart enough to realize that he'd only be digging a deeper hole?

[Katana]

:popcorn1

[nraden]

.

I'll make a deal with you. If this is truly a skeptics site, and not just a place where you rearrange your prejudices, then do this. Apply your skepticism to RhythmicLiving.com and Debv's cohorts and if you do, including deconstructing Bent Formby, whose scinece is laughable, and the stories about the sick (but nameless) women there, I will never write another thing about Wiley.

Fair is fair, but these hate mongers operate without scrutiny. They are a moderated site and do not allow dissenting commentary on thier site. If you are truly skeptics, then you will out ******** wherever you find it.

[Fordama]

I always aproach salesmen not just with skepticism, but outright cynicism.

What Raden does for a living:

http://www.hiredbrains.com/services.html

That's just me, though.

Fordama

[scotth]

nraden.... before I bother looking at the message bringers, lets look at the factualness of your statements.

You've been called out as being factually wrong (deliberately so, I'd say) by existing members of this board. When I personally check the discrepancies, your version always comes up wanting.

You've been associated with T.S. Wiley by debv as the husband of. Who cares if debv is Satan incarnate or what his/her motives might be? I don't see you denying the connection.

We had the rest already, debv just supplied the motive. But, nice try with the ad hom.

[ponderingturtle]

I'll make a deal with you. If this is truly a skeptics site, and not just a place where you rearrange your prejudices, then do this. Apply your skepticism to RhythmicLiving.com and Debv's cohorts and if you do, including deconstructing Bent Formby, whose scinece is laughable, and the stories about the sick (but nameless) women there, I will never write another thing about Wiley.

Fair is fair, but these hate mongers operate without scrutiny. They are a moderated site and do not allow dissenting commentary on thier site. If you are truly skeptics, then you will out ******** wherever you find it.

That would properly be the domain of a separate thread, but if you want to start one feel free.

[Ben Tilly]

Tactilely, I'd agree. Chemically, no, since the salt cannot be tasted until after it's dissolved in saliva. The molecules affect the receptor in precisely the same way, since they're all identical molecules. The crystal size and shape affects one thing and one thing only, how quickly it dissolves, and therefore the intensity of the taste. The only way to change the taste is to change the molecule.

Even so crystal size can affect taste.

Suppose we have a salt that is a mix of two different kinds of salt, with different sizes of crystals. Suppose the sodium chloride crystals are large, and the potassium chloride crystals are small. Then the potassium chloride crystals will dissolve faster, and their initial impact on taste will be more intense than would happen if you reversed the sizes of the crystals.

Cheers,
Ben

[JJM]

Although I don't have a degree in anthropolgy (apparently, not required), I have contributed to the understanding of steroid biosynthesis:
"Mechanism of Mevalonate Pyrophosphate Decarboxylase" - Biochemistry, 1994, 33:45 pp. 13355-13362. Despite this, I find the metabolism and pharmacology of steroids quite complex. So, please forgive some naive questions.

Where do the Wiley compounders get their "identical" hormones? For a while the local quacks were promoting "bioidentical" phytoestrogens. Doesn't the prefix "phyto" mean plant-derived? More recently, the quacks have been advertizing "bioequivalent" hormones; do you suppose they recognized the problem? Isn't a mare (mammal) more likely to provide "identical" hormones than shrubbery?

Also, Mr. Raden wrote of Premarin as "a conjugate of 39 SUBSTANCES." What does this mean?

Apparently Raden does not understand his own homework. From the Merck Manual (11th edition), it is a "form of conjugated estrogens." Now, I don't know exactly to what those estrogens are conjugated; but it has a meaning which a scientist can comprehend.

[Katana]

I'll make a deal with you. If this is truly a skeptics site, and not just a place where you rearrange your prejudices, then do this. Apply your skepticism to RhythmicLiving.com and Debv's cohorts and if you do, including deconstructing Bent Formby, whose scinece is laughable, and the stories about the sick (but nameless) women there, I will never write another thing about Wiley.

Fair is fair, but these hate mongers operate without scrutiny. They are a moderated site and do not allow dissenting commentary on thier site. If you are truly skeptics, then you will out ******** wherever you find it.

Let me make sure I undersand. You came onto our site, one based on a respect for critical thinking, you made claims, those claims have been questioned, and now you respond by offering a deal with (I guess) me that requires me to go to a site whose rules preclude my ability to call their claims into question just so you will never write another thing about Wiley?

Why don't you tell us what reasons you have for writing another thing about Wiley independent of that site?

When Debv makes a claim, we will expect no less of her than we did of you. Having said that, the one that she has made so far should rightfully be answered by you and that is that you're T.S. Wiley's husband. It's one which you, quite conspicuously, have not denied.

[debv]

Please, scrutinize. I'm confident what you find will only substantiate what I and my "cohorts" have said about the Wiley protocol and its stakeholders. If it turns up any errors and inaccuracies, I'll gladly correct them. I don't recall that it's happened yet, but I'm fallible and at times have to rely on judgments of character. Allegations I've made but have not (yet) substantiated, I don't expect anyone to take on faith.

It's nice that for once I'm not the one pointing out the diversionary tactics. Neil's comments and arguments predominantly consist of ad hominem, recriminations, and general water-muddying, and I don't allow that sort of junk through.

(My site, BTW, is Wiley Watch. I hope it's okay to mention that, though forum policy prevents me from linking.)

EDIT: http://wileywatch.org. The only cash flow from it is the one going out of my pockets. :) Thanks, Huntsman.

[Hellbound]

debv:

We generally don't have problems with linking, as long as it isn't commercial in nature (i.e.-"Cum C my l33t new sit and by my stuff!!1!1!"). The no linking rule is primarily to stop spam-bots that create a forum account and post hundreds of links in every thread.

If you type in your web site without the "http:" and "www" part, it should accept it (not as a link, but we can cut 'n' paste) :)

[scotth]

And finishing Huntsman's thought..... you'll be able to post links after some small number of posts (10 or 20 I think).

[Hellbound]

And finishing Huntsman's thought..... you'll be able to post links after some small number of posts (10 or 20 I think).

Er, yeah, what he said :)

I think it's 15.

[Eos of the Eons]

debv, so good to have you here-awesome website you have, and Katana, you're the coolest too.

Here I was kind of hoping for a new woo to toy with, but don't really have time anyway, unless ol' raden wants to go for a few more rounds :p That big hypocrite is essentially just parroting the same old same old though. Can't any of these people ever come up with something original?

[a_unique_person]

It's not hormones making you old, it's you body stopping regenerating itself around 50.

[Hydrogen Cyanide]

I'll make a deal with you. If this is truly a skeptics site, and not just a place where you rearrange your prejudices, then do this. Apply your skepticism to RhythmicLiving.com and Debv's cohorts and if you do, including deconstructing Bent Formby, whose scinece is laughable, and the stories about the sick (but nameless) women there, I will never write another thing about Wiley.....

Perhaps... but this is so much more amusing:
http://wileywatch.org/ts_wileys_credentials

What about T.S. Wiley's stint as a guest investigator? This was a favor from Dr. Formby in 1997. “We appointed her as guest investigator at Sansum Medical Research Institute for 3 months. By doing so she became affiliated with an academic institution.... We were all very nice to her and glad to be able to support an ordinary housewife with an interest in bioscience.”

Apparently it didn't work out so well. “I was very surprised to discover how illiterate TS was in science and math. She knew absolutely nothing. She did not even know the difference between hydrogen and oxygen or the square root of a number.... She told me she never had science and math in high school.” And, “That was a great mistake because she has absolutely no knowledge about science and how a scientific laboratory with all the applied molecular techniques works.”

By the way, Bert Formby is not a guru either. He is not a doctor, but he does have a real PhD... and looking at www.pubmed.gov (http://www.pubmed.gov) he is the first author on a few papers (some with TS Wiley as the second author).

I'm not sure about the whole bunch of these "researchers." A search on www.pubmed.gov (http://www.pubmed.gov) on "hormones menopause" finds that there is lots of research, much of it contradictory to other studies. There is this one that does not recommend "bioidentical" hormone replacement (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=pubmed&cmd=Retrieve&dopt=AbstractPlus&list_uids=17107222&query_hl=3&itool=pubmed_docsum) ... and it is from the "Southwest College of Naturapathic Medicine" (a type of research facility we kind of at look skeptically). Then I found this editorial (Pubmed also indexes non-peer reviewed stuff like letters and editorials):
http://www.menopause.org.au/public/media_detail.asp?ID=72
It ends with this comment:
In Australia and the USA, there has been a recent proliferation of compounding chemists who have taken advantage of postmenopausal women’s need for and anxiety about conventional HRT and the loopholes in current legislation in these countries. These compounding pharmacies are now manufacturing ‘bioidentical’ hormonal mixtures and delivery systems in such proportions that they have effectively become a large, inadequately regulated pharmaceutical industry. It is time for the international drug regulatory authorities to regulate this industry, which is based on false promise, pseudo science and pecuniary interest without responsibility for the interests and health of the consumer.

[Eos of the Eons]

:eye-poppi Thank you HCN. These quacks go on about the the greed of "big pharma", but profit from the kindness extended to them by folks they are now slapping in the face. Crude crude, crud crud crud. Wiley and her hubby are despicable. Somers is rotten by association and for profiting with these wolves in sheep coverings.

[switchtech]

Exactly. And even drinking too much water will kill you too.

Yeah, that nasty di-hydrogen monoxide kills thousands every year, either through accidental inhalation or some other isideous means.

I remember when a serious news site linked to a joke di-hydrogen monoxide site. They didn't realize the joke! I'm sure you can find the site still by internet searching for di-hydrogen monoxide. (something like: www dmho org - fill in the dots)

It has such an evil sounding chemical name and all, too - that monoxide stuff...:D

On the other hand, all those purveyors of "natural" medicine are doing a world of disservice. My wife often buys into the its natural so it must be ok from time to time (and it doesn't work to point out arsenic is natural).

jbs

[switchtech]

(My site, BTW, is Wiley Watch. I hope it's okay to mention that, though forum policy prevents me from linking.)


You should be able to edit your profile to put your web site there. If you click on a member name you get a little drop down with a bunch of options. On my name one option is to visit my home page (not that I specifically recommend anyone follow it - it has nothing to do with critical thinking - on the other hand if you're interested in who I am - go for it).

And cudos on your web site. It looks well done and seems quite informative. Thanks.

jbs

[Eos of the Eons]

Here's the link to our newbie's web: http://www.wileywatch.org/

I did a search on Wiley, and this great site didn't come up for me. Are there tags or something that can be attached to the website?

[debv]

By the way, Bert Formby is not a guru either. He is not a doctor, but he does have a real PhD...
(laughing) No, I don't believe it's within Bent's character to aspire to or ever accept the title "guru". :) As for PhDs, he has two of them.

I consider him a very kind and honest man, but he inadvertently helped T.S. Wiley acquire a status she should never have had, and perhaps a lot of suffering might have been averted had he not. I get a real sense that he regrets it, and I think his assistance and forthcomingness are a testament to his character.

Somers is rotten by association and for profiting with these wolves in sheep coverings.
Yes, I think Suzanne Somers has really stepped into a big one here.

I've been watching the Wiley camp for over a year and a half, taking careful records of just about everything. Wiley Watch actually first launched well over a year ago, but we knew that Suzanne Somers would be endorsing Wiley in her next book, and we decided at some point that it would be better to wait. It seemed there was no point in going after Wiley at a time when nobody knew who she was nor cared. Basically, we realized that the fame and attention Wiley desired would instead end up being her gravest threat. So we lay low and stockpiled information.

As a nice side-effect, I think this gave them a false sense of security. Wiley Watch hadn't spent much ammunition yet and went without updates for many months at a time. About two months ago, before Somers' book came out, Neil Raden wrote to his circle of Wiley enthusiasts, "What they [Wiley critics] don't understand is that WP is a lot bigger than they are the train has already left the station. They have no idea what's already happened and is going to emerge in the next few months, it can't be stopped. Just ignore them, that's the best approach (and it always gives them ulcers)."

I think it's more accurate to say that we knew what was coming and they didn't. And I don't think Suzanne Somers did either.

(And I can assure you, many women who have spoken up wish Neil Raden would ignore them. But of course he's talking to his flock here...)

Anyway, when the book came out, Wiley Watch relaunched in the form you see today and the game is now on.

If I could place a bet, I would wager that Suzanne Somers is going to really, REALLY regret this...

[debv]

Here's the link to our newbie's web:

I did a search on Wiley, and this great site didn't come up for me. Are there tags or something that can be attached to the website?
I may be a newbie but I've loved Mr. Randi since I was a teenager. :)

What was your search term? When I search "wiley protocol", we're #2 on Google and #1 on Yahoo -- ahead of Wiley herself. We're not so high on "t.s. wiley" and I'm working on "neil raden", just because I believe in justice.

It's my understanding that search engines don't give much or any weight to meta tags these days.

[Katana]

debv, so good to have you here-awesome website you have, and Katana, you're the coolest too.
Right back atcha, Eos. :)

I'm always impressed with your posts (especially #60 in this thread :D).

[grayman]

When I posted this thread I expected maybe a few comments and then it would fade away.

But once again the members of this forum (too many to name) have proved to me their willingness to call to account anyone making an absurd claim. Whether the claim is scientific, medical, paranormal, whatever, there is always someone ready to say "prove it".

There usually are well thought out comments and research during the debate.

And what really impresses me about this group is the maturity of the discussion; it rarely falls to the level of personal attacks and name-calling.

I had to make this comment praising you before my coffee kicked in and I talked myself out of it. The members of this forum are the best.

Carry on.

[Hellbound]

When I posted this thread I expected maybe a few comments and then it would fade away.

But once again the members of this forum (too many to name) have proved to me their willingness to call to account anyone making an absurd claim. Whether the claim is scientific, medical, paranormal, whatever, there is always someone ready to say "prove it".

There usually are well thought out comments and research during the debate.

And what really impresses me about this group is the maturity of the discussion; it rarely falls to the level of personal attacks and name-calling.

I had to make this comment praising you before my coffee kicked in and I talked myself out of it. The members of this forum are the best.

Carry on.

Except for me.

I'm just a cynical a**hole.

:D

[debv]

Yes, this has been very refreshing for me. Thank you!

And thank you for the nice comments about the site.

[luchog]

Even so crystal size can affect taste.

Suppose we have a salt that is a mix of two different kinds of salt, with different sizes of crystals. Suppose the sodium chloride crystals are large, and the potassium chloride crystals are small. Then the potassium chloride crystals will dissolve faster, and their initial impact on taste will be more intense than would happen if you reversed the sizes of the crystals.

Erm... no. That's a truism not even related to what was being discussed. Serenity's assertion was the crystal size of sodium chloride affects how it tastes; which is demonstrably untrue. That different salts taste different, regardless of crystal size and dissolve rates, is a given.

[JJM]

Even so crystal size can affect taste.

Suppose we have a salt that is a mix of two different kinds of salt, with different sizes of crystals. Suppose the sodium chloride crystals are large, and the potassium chloride crystals are small. Then the potassium chloride crystals will dissolve faster, and their initial impact on taste will be more intense than would happen if you reversed the sizes of the crystals.

Cheers,
BenGiven good mixing, smaller crystals of a particular compound dissolve faster. However, the rate of dissolution for crystals of different compounds, of the same size, depends on their chemical composition. Some compounds inherently dissolve faster than others.

[Eos of the Eons]

If I may pry a bit more, may I ask Debv what her stance is on biodenticals vs fda approved treatments? I find her site a bit fuzzy on that, and would like to see more on exposing the fallacies of "bioidenticals" in general, and was wondering about thoughts on that? A little science taking down bioidenticals would be the icing on the cake of a site, so to speak.

[JJM]

If I may pry a bit more, may I ask Debv what her stance is on biodenticals vs fda approved treatments? I find her site a bit fuzzy on that, and would like to see more on exposing the fallacies of "bioidenticals" in general, and was wondering about thoughts on that? A little science taking down bioidenticals would be the icing on the cake of a site, so to speak.I posted a facetiously-worded set of questions about bioidenticals. I am a chemist and I really can't sort out the claims; but it seems to me the proponents can't do so, either. The Larry King transcript that Debv's site linked (thank you) shows bioident proponents arguing with the bioident program promoted by TS Wiley, et al.

I finally found this by working my way through the Mayo Clinic web site (wwwdotmayoclinicdotcom). Go to the CAM area, and then go to the herbs and supplements.
[T]here is no evidence that bioidentical hormones are safer or more effective than standard hormone replacement therapy.
snip
... bioidentical hormones are available in FDA-approved [forms.]
snip
These products come in many different doses and forms. So, you don't need to turn to unregulated, individually compounded products as your only source of "natural" products.That seems to sum it up neatly.

Note about the MAyo Clinic site- some of the articles, like this one, provide critical analysis. Others are by woo-proponents trying to sound critical. For example, the "homeopathy" article says it is controversial.

There is no scientific controversy concerning homeopathy. Proponents would have you think there is one, so they create a social controversy and hope the public can't tell the difference. (Creationists did the same when promoting Intelligent Design as "science.") Thus, the article on homeopathy is unreliable.

Considering the mix of critical and uncritical arguments, it seems the Mayo Clinic has no quality-control over the site.

[Eos of the Eons]

Thank you JJM, and I asked some point blank questions myself that haven't been addressed by folks selling "plant" bioidenticals. I'm definitely seeing the woo claims as false, misleading, and set up to misinform the masses to make them fear anything they aren't selling.

[debv]

I don't know enough about that debate to take a stand on it. I barely have enough time to put into the Wiley issue.

It's certainly nonsense, as has been pointed out here, to claim that bioidenticals are safe because they're "natural". (And it seems Wiley wants to have her cake and eat it too, advocating that peri- to post-menopausal women artificially elevate their hormone levels to those of a 20-year-old -- at times a pregnant one.) Whatever their source, (exogenous) hormones and hormone-like substances are powerful drugs.

I'm more focused on the collosal irresponsibility of advocating massive doses of these drugs, based on little more than a conjecture, a "thought experiment", -- that doing so will prevent and cure age-related diseases and may lead to immortality. (According to Raden, Wiley says, "My clinical study is millions of young women." It's revolutionary science.)

And of course I'm focused on the disingenuous behavior I have observed from the stakeholders in this scheme. I might have lost interest in the Wiley Protocol long ago had I not observed that Raden and one of the Wiley pharmacists were using fake names on a message board to attack women -- the women who were coming forward and reporting that the protocol was making them sick. (It was easy to spot. Every post had the IP address it originated from. I don't think they knew what those four numbers meant. I was able to get a copy of the logs for the board which showed that these posts were not only coming from the same IP addresses, but almost certainly the same web browsers.)

That pharmacist, incidentally, was also posting fake glowing testimonials about her own pharmacy, which it seems to me is clearly illegal under the California Business and Professions Code. This was reported to the California Board of Pharmacy, who inexplicably took no action.

On another note, I see that nraden has not returned to this board since throwing out his challenge.

[Eos of the Eons]

Thank you debv.

(According to Raden, Wiley says, "My clinical study is millions of young women." It's revolutionary science.)


It's not close to revolutionary, nor science. Bad study designs and false claims are not science in the least. Young women? The product is pushed at menopausal women.

nraden caught my eye on another board when I searched for "wiley" on google. It must be nice to have time to troll boards with biased and overblown claims for Wiley. So professional. I sure want they are selling!

[fls]

Note about the MAyo Clinic site- some of the articles, like this one, provide critical analysis. Others are by woo-proponents trying to sound critical. For example, the "homeopathy" article says it is controversial.

There is no scientific controversy concerning homeopathy. Proponents would have you think there is one, so they create a social controversy and hope the public can't tell the difference. (Creationists did the same when promoting Intelligent Design as "science.") Thus, the article on homeopathy is unreliable.

Considering the mix of critical and uncritical arguments, it seems the Mayo Clinic has no quality-control over the site.

I will admit to a bias on this issue, but I think you are being unreasonable. <g>

I agree that the article on homeopathy is couched in somewhat concilliatory terms (as are some of the other articles on sCAM), but I think that reflects the fact that the Mayo Clinic recognizes that many people are inclined to use sCAM and doesn't want to alienate them. Knowing the author of that article, rather than a woo-proponent trying to sound critical, he is more like a proponent of conventional medicine trying to not sound critical.

This article in that same section at least focuses on the issue of scams and wishful thinking.
http://www.mayoclinic.com/health/alternative-medicine/SA00078

And their information on supplements is very good, including a grade for the kind of evidence for each indication.

Linda

[debv]

It's not close to revolutionary, nor science. Bad study designs and false claims are not science in the least. Young women? The product is pushed at menopausal women.
I think what Wiley is claiming there is that if 20-year-old women are healthy with cycling hormones at those levels, then 70-year-old women will be healthy, women with cancer will be healthy, etc. If it's safe for the young, then it must be safe for everyone.

That's her "clinical study".

[JJM]

I agree that the article on homeopathy is couched in somewhat concilliatory terms (as are some of the other articles on sCAM), but I think that reflects the fact that the Mayo Clinic recognizes that many people are inclined to use sCAM and doesn't want to alienate them. Knowing the author of that article, rather than a woo-proponent trying to sound critical, he is more like a proponent of conventional medicine trying to not sound critical.Thank you for this explanation. I see the problem.

[nraden]

(laughing) If I could place a bet, I would wager that Suzanne Somers is going to really, REALLY regret this...

I rest my case. Deb doesn't, and can't, argue about the WIley Protocol on its merits, she only deals in personalities. She hates TS Wiley and only wants to ruin her with no care for the consequences. By association, she wants to ruin Somers too. It's all spite, a little person behind a computer taking down someone.

Ask Deb about the time she posted a comment on her blog and attributed it to my wife, then had to reverse herself when I caught her. This is not an honest broker.

I made an offer here, and no one took me up on it. Read Sex Lies and Menopause, talk to a doctor or two who prescribes the protocol. Read some science. Then we can discuss. You aren't acting like skeptics here, you're acting like gossips.

[nraden]

Let me make sure I undersand. You came onto our site, one based on a respect for critical thinking, you made claims, those claims have been questioned, and now you respond by offering a deal with (I guess) me that requires me to go to a site whose rules preclude my ability to call their claims into question just so you will never write another thing about Wiley?

Why don't you tell us what reasons you have for writing another thing about Wiley independent of that site?

When Debv makes a claim, we will expect no less of her than we did of you. Having said that, the one that she has made so far should rightfully be answered by you and that is that you're T.S. Wiley's husband. It's one which you, quite conspicuously, have not denied.

1. "a site whose rules preclude my ability to call their claims into question.." What does that mean? Go to the site and question whatever you want. Read the book, too - Sex, Lies and Menopause.

2. I will not debate with Debv, she has no interest in debate.

3. I didn't conspicuously deny it, I am T.S. Wiley's husband, this is my first response to that. I've been gone for a week for the holiday. I chose not to reveal that in my first post.

Again, I am very disappointed in this site. Not one "skeptic" has looked for the counter-counter argument - why does DebV hate T.S. Wiley? What are HER motives. Everyone on here has accused me of being a shill, a salesman and I can't remember what else.

Bring this up a notch and I'll respond.

[nraden]

I think what Wiley is claiming there is that if 20-year-old women are healthy with cycling hormones at those levels, then 70-year-old women will be healthy, women with cancer will be healthy, etc. If it's safe for the young, then it must be safe for everyone.

That's her "clinical study".

Two deliberate rhetorical arguments here. First, the premise is that the decline in sex hormones initiates the diseases of aging. From this came Willey's theory that replacing hormones in the same rhythm as a normal cycle was the key. This is Rhythm in "Rhythmic Living," and Debv and Co. have never acknowledged that Wiley invented the idea. No claim was ever made that the WIley Protocol would cure cancer, for example.

That isn't the "clinical" study, the clinical study is the experience of over 70 doctors that I KNOW OF (all listed on the website) administering the protocol to their patients. There are many other doctors prescribing the protocol through non-registered pharmacies, so their experience is not known.

Also, you need to examine Debv's comments carefully. Here is a bit from the Rhythmic Living website about Bent Formby:

"He has published more than 100 scientific publications and is a member of several societies including the European Menopause Society, the New York Academy of Sciences and the Danish Academy of Sciences."

Fact - on most of those papers, he is not the first author, a charge Debv levels at TS Wiley

Fact - In over 25 years in US, Formby has joined exactly one medical/scientific society - The New York Academy of Sciences. Debv derides Wiley for joining that society as one that requires no academic credentials. She considers it a sham, but does not mention it in Formby's credentials.

So why, you should ask her, does Debv promote Formby for exactly those things she condemns Wiley?

And the money. Wiley makes nothing and has been working on this for 12 years. Her company charges doctors for a manual and a 2-day class and the pharmacies pay a $500 fee which doesn't cover the lawyers' fees to draw the contract. The only income she has is from book royalties, which she splits with Formby. Even Steven. He refuses to separate himself from that "revenue stream." And one more thing about Formby - he says, in print, the most insulting things about Wiley, but Wiley has never said an unkind word about him.

As for all the other stuff that Debv points out, the flame notes, the fake names, sure, I did some of that and it was a mistake. I was trying to defend my wife (of 33 years). It was wrong.

I don't want to be the center of this discussion. I would prefer that others avail themsleves of some information and toss this around. So far, it's been Wiley-0, not-Wiley-15, but I haven't seen any well-informed arguments. It seems to have started as "Suzanne Somers is a bimbo so let's dismisss her," but I don't think you're doing the subject justice.

[nraden]

Thank you debv.

nraden caught my eye on another board when I searched for "wiley" on google. It must be nice to have time to troll boards with biased and overblown claims for Wiley. So professional. I sure want they are selling!

Again, you accuse me of trolling boards, but why don't you ask Debv what she's doing here? Doesn't this seem one-sided to you?

[nraden]

This is definitely a crowd that investigates.

What exactly have you investigated? I'd suggest you start before you get behind a hate-monger like Debv.

[nraden]

Will nraden have the courage to return and defend his (apparently) lie infested 3 posts? Or will he be smart enough to realize that he'd only be digging a deeper hole?

Here I am.

[nraden]

nraden.... before I bother looking at the message bringers, lets look at the factualness of your statements.

You've been called out as being factually wrong (deliberately so, I'd say) by existing members of this board. When I personally check the discrepancies, your version always comes up wanting.



Which facts?

[nraden]

:eye-poppi Thank you HCN. These quacks go on about the the greed of "big pharma", but profit from the kindness extended to them by folks they are now slapping in the face. Crude crude, crud crud crud. Wiley and her hubby are despicable. Somers is rotten by association and for profiting with these wolves in sheep coverings.

Fact - compounding pharmacists who compound hormone preparations and the doctors who prescribe them are making a fortune on menopausal women. There is NO clincal evidence about the efficacy of any of it.

Fact - Wyeth, having taken a huge hit over Premarin, has seen a big erosion in its HRT business so that are going after compounding pharmacy by petitioning the government to regulate it.

Surprise - Wiley actually agrees with Wyeth. Her experience with some compounders, and the business that supplies them, PCCA in Houston, is that they are a bunch of "tight-fisted, pin-headed mixologists." She could never get a consistent product because they loved to tinker.

This is the reasoning behing the Wiley Registered pharmacies - to control the quality, consistency and PRICE of compounded hormones. Wiley pharmacies charge only $37.50/month for a hormone prescription ($75.00 for two). That is down from hundreds of dollars. The fact that she made this therapy affordable is conveniently ignored by her critics.

Wiley makes nothing from homones. Zero. Her company only sells the packaging for a small fraction of the cost of the prescription.

How can someone on a skeptic site make wild and insulting claims about someone with no evidence, no research? What is wrong with you??

[Eos of the Eons]

Tee hee, it came back, and I only wish I had time to play right now :p

So, just a fly by post to say...

LIAR. I'll say why when I have time.

[JJM]

Actually, you are mistaken. The "estrogen" in Premarin is a conjugate of over 39 substances ...What do you imagine this means? You would be a better shill for your wife if you had some understanding of the subject.

Similarly, "natural" progesterone is just that, while pharmaceutical HRT is an artifical substance, progestin, that does not exist in nature.Progestin is a synonym for progesterone. What, exactly, do you imagine is the difference? "Natural" vs. "synthetic" is not a difference, except to magical thinking.

Why not simply direct us to the Phase 3 clinical trial that supports your claims?

Surely, a guy writing on a technical topic knows that anecdotes, no matter how numerous, mean nothing, and "a conjugate of 39 substances" is meaningless, and natural vs. synthetic is a difference without a distinction.

[fls]

I think the following points need to be made.

Natural and synthetic hormones act by binding to estrogen receptors. Estrone and estradiol are the hormones that are produced in humans. Exogenous hormones have an estrogenic effect by either being metabolized to Estrone or Estradiol, by sharing an identical core structure (the steroid ring plus a phenolic hydroxy group and a hydroxy group (estradiol) or a ketone group (estrone)), or by imitating the structure of the estrogens. Premarin is a conjugated estrogen which survives the process of digestion to be absorbed and converted to estrone. Phytoestrogens share the core structure or imitate the structure.

It is disingenuous (or sometimes even wrong) to claim that plant estrogens are identical to those found in humans or that they are more similar than other pharmaceuticals - Premarin in particular. Also, if one divides hormones (or any chemical) into "those derived from plants", "those derived from animals" and "those synthesized in a lab", one cannot assume any of the relevant characteristics (active, harmful, safe, etc.) can be applied to one group over the other, or to all the members of the group (even if one accepts the use of fuzzy qualifiers like "most" or "many").

There is no clinical data of any type supporting T. S. Wiley's idea. This information is critical to obtain since we know that the placebo effect will have a tremendous influence of the types of symptoms and conditions that she claims to help. The observations of doctors using the medication in an uncontrolled manner fails to be a form of evidence.

Regardless of the source, chemicals work by binding to estrogen receptors. This means that these chemicals are not exempt from the assumption that they can lead to the same kinds of harm that endogenous and exogenous estrogens lead to. Without controlled clinical data, we have no idea of the risks or benefits associated with this treatment. In particular, since there is a general concensus (admitedly controversial) that hormone replacement leads to more harm than good in menopausal and post-menopausal women, the assumption in the absence of data has to be that the Wiley Protocol is harmful until proven otherwise. There is no reason to assume that varying the doses of the hormones will avoid harm. It is a reasonable idea to test in a systematic manner, but no assumptions can be made about what the results will be beforehand.

The physicians that use the Wiley Protocol are not practising evidence-based medicine. Since the current standard of care is to use evidence-based medicine, they will be unable to defend themselves if legal or professional charges are brought against them. They have been fortunate so far, perhaps helped by the tendency of people that buy into the "natural" fallacy to be uncritical.

The credibility of T. S. Wiley is a major issue in this debate as she is making claims that are unsupported by evidence. The credibility of Bent Formby is not relevant except in his role as a witness to her expertise (or lack thereof).

Physicians are not compensated for prescribing HRT.

There's probably more, but that'll do for now.

Linda

[nraden]

What do you imagine this means? You would be a better shill for your wife if you had some understanding of the subject.

Progestin is a synonym for progesterone. What, exactly, do you imagine is the difference? "Natural" vs. "synthetic" is not a difference, except to magical thinking.

Why not simply direct us to the Phase 3 clinical trial that supports your claims?

Surely, a guy writing on a technical topic knows that anecdotes, no matter how numerous, mean nothing, and "a conjugate of 39 substances" is meaningless, and natural vs. synthetic is a difference without a distinction.

Thank you for displaying your ignorance:

"The recognition of progesterone's ability to suppress ovulation during pregnancy spawned a search for a similar hormone that could bypass the problems associated with administering progesterone (low bioavailability when administered orally and local irritation and pain when continually administered parentally) and, at the same time, serve the purpose of controlling ovulation. The many synthetic hormones that resulted are known as progestins. Some examples of progestins that have been used in hormonal contraceptives are norethynodrel (Enovid), norethindrone (many brand names, most notably Ortho-Novum and Ovcon) norgestimate (Ortho Tricyclen, Ortho-Cyclen), norgestrel, levonorgestrel (Alesse, Trivora-28), medroxyprogesterone (Provera, Depo-Provera) and desogestrel."

[nraden]

Thank you for engaging in a discussion of the issues.

I think the following points need to be made.

Natural and synthetic hormones act by binding to estrogen receptors. Estrone and estradiol are the hormones that are produced in humans. Exogenous hormones have an estrogenic effect by either being metabolized to Estrone or Estradiol, by sharing an identical core structure (the steroid ring plus a phenolic hydroxy group and a hydroxy group (estradiol) or a ketone group (estrone)), or by imitating the structure of the estrogens. Premarin is a conjugated estrogen which survives the process of digestion to be absorbed and converted to estrone. Phytoestrogens share the core structure or imitate the structure.

It is disingenuous (or sometimes even wrong) to claim that plant estrogens are identical to those found in humans or that they are more similar than other pharmaceuticals - Premarin in particular. Also, if one divides hormones (or any chemical) into "those derived from plants", "those derived from animals" and "those synthesized in a lab", one cannot assume any of the relevant characteristics (active, harmful, safe, etc.) can be applied to one group over the other, or to all the members of the group (even if one accepts the use of fuzzy qualifiers like "most" or "many").

I'm not qualified to argue this point.

There is no clinical data of any type supporting T. S. Wiley's idea. This information is critical to obtain since we know that the placebo effect will have a tremendous influence of the types of symptoms and conditions that she claims to help. The observations of doctors using the medication in an uncontrolled manner fails to be a form of evidence.

I'm not sure which idea you're referring to. In point of fact, she has said many times that she isn't sure "synthetic" hormomes are the problem, that it is the administration that matters - timing, dose, rhythm, etc.

Also, finally, there is a university that is conducting a true clinical trial of the Wiley Protocol. This trial has no connection to Wiley at all. The details will be announced January 3.

There is, however, some "clinical" evidence. Dr. Taguchi did a chart review at ACAM a few weeks ago of her 58 cancer patients who have been on the Wiley Protocol for up to three years. I won't characterize the results, because the flamers here will not believe it. Check with ACAM. I think there will be a release by Dr. Taguchi to the media. Not sure, she is part of a large medical practice, not in private practice, and she is an onocologist. Giving hormones to people diagnosed with cancer is unprecedented. [/quote]


the assumption in the absence of data has to be that the Wiley Protocol is harmful until proven otherwise. There is no reason to assume that varying the doses of the hormones will avoid harm. It is a reasonable idea to test in a systematic manner, but no assumptions can be made about what the results will be beforehand.

Actually, there is no template in nature for ANY OF THE EXISTING HORMONE THERAPIES. Including, especially, birth control pills. Dru8g companies sell pills and patches, compounders prepare all sorts of crazy concoctions and not one of them matches one of the five templates found in humans. The core of the Wiley protocol is the peaks and valleys of the therapy over the course of a month. I can't quite understand why you would single out one. Wiley is the first and only therapy that attempts to mimic a template that exists in nature. Static doses are unnatural.

The physicians that use the Wiley Protocol are not practising evidence-based medicine. Since the current standard of care is to use evidence-based medicine, they will be unable to defend themselves if legal or professional charges are brought against them. They have been fortunate so far, perhaps helped by the tendency of people that buy into the "natural" fallacy to be uncritical.

I think that is a fair statement, but you overlook the favorable experience people, AND SOME OF THE DOCTORS ON THE PROTOCOL, are having. At least some of the disgruntled women on Rhythmic Living were not following the protocol and pursued alternatives that Wiley warned against. On the other hand, there are hundreds of women jsut here in Santa Barbara who have been on the protocol for some time and have no intention of changing.

The credibility of T. S. Wiley is a major issue in this debate as she is making claims that are unsupported by evidence. The credibility of Bent Formby is not relevant except in his role as a witness to her expertise (or lack thereof).

Agreed.

Physicians are not compensated for prescribing HRT.

Oh yes they are. Many receive kickbacks one way or the other from the compounding pharmacies they (illegally) direct their patients to. Others, like Erika Schwartz, charge $850 for a 15 minute telephone interview and then prescribe without ever seeing the patient, directing them to a pharmacy THEY OWN which dispenses at inflated prices. Most "wellness" doctors sell supplements directly from their offices. Part of the reason so many of the "natural" BHRT docs are up in arms with Wiley is that she threatens their livelihood. She is down on the supplements and strongly suggests (she can't set) that the registered pharmacies not charge more than $37.50 per hormone per month.

Also, there is a notion in BHRT that each patient needs a "customized" hormone preparation. The doctors charge an arm and a leg to do this, which usually results in a Rx from a short list of templates that they've worked out with their pharmacist.

Thanks for your thoughts Linda.

[JJM]

Thank you for displaying your ignorance:
"snip
(... local irritation and pain when continually administered parentally)
snip"

I am trying not to be ignorant. But, you do not answer my questions: for example "a conjugate of 39 substances." What does this mean?

Why not simply direct us to the Phase 3 clinical trial that supports your claims?

What is the difference between natural and synthetic? And how are phytoestrogens "bio-identical" to mammalian estrogens?

You note "... local irritation and pain when continually administered [B]parentally" how do parents exacerbate the harm. A lot of menopausal women do not rely on their parents. Where did that come from? (And, yes, I know the question ends in a preposition).

By the way, where did you get the quote?

[Hellbound]

By the way, where did you get the quote?
He plagarized Wikipedia.

[fls]

I'm not sure which idea you're referring to. In point of fact, she has said many times that she isn't sure "synthetic" hormomes are the problem, that it is the administration that matters - timing, dose, rhythm, etc.

That is the idea that I'm referring to.

Also, finally, there is a university that is conducting a true clinical trial of the Wiley Protocol. This trial has no connection to Wiley at all. The details will be announced January 3.

Good.

There is, however, some "clinical" evidence. Dr. Taguchi did a chart review at ACAM a few weeks ago of her 58 cancer patients who have been on the Wiley Protocol for up to three years. I won't characterize the results, because the flamers here will not believe it. Check with ACAM. I think there will be a release by Dr. Taguchi to the media. Not sure, she is part of a large medical practice, not in private practice, and she is an onocologist. Giving hormones to people diagnosed with cancer is unprecedented.

I did already hear about that review. Without a control, you don't know if the results would have been any different without the Wiley Protocol.

Actually, there is no template in nature for ANY OF THE EXISTING HORMONE THERAPIES. Including, especially, birth control pills. Dru8g companies sell pills and patches, compounders prepare all sorts of crazy concoctions and not one of them matches one of the five templates found in humans. The core of the Wiley protocol is the peaks and valleys of the therapy over the course of a month. I can't quite understand why you would single out one. Wiley is the first and only therapy that attempts to mimic a template that exists in nature. Static doses are unnatural.

I single it out because it is the topic of this thread and it has no evidence as to its benefit or risk. The other therapies that you mention do have evidence as to their benefit and risk (excluding other purveyors of "natural" hormones).

I think that is a fair statement, but you overlook the favorable experience people, AND SOME OF THE DOCTORS ON THE PROTOCOL, are having. At least some of the disgruntled women on Rhythmic Living were not following the protocol and pursued alternatives that Wiley warned against. On the other hand, there are hundreds of women jsut here in Santa Barbara who have been on the protocol for some time and have no intention of changing.

In addition to the placebo effect, I would also expect some treatment effects with this regimen (you are using ingredients that would be expected to act on estrogen receptors, after all). My complaint is that you are promoting an untested therapy that has a good chance of causing harm.

Oh yes they are. Many receive kickbacks one way or the other from the compounding pharmacies they (illegally) direct their patients to. Others, like Erika Schwartz, charge $850 for a 15 minute telephone interview and then prescribe without ever seeing the patient, directing them to a pharmacy THEY OWN which dispenses at inflated prices. Most "wellness" doctors sell supplements directly from their offices. Part of the reason so many of the "natural" BHRT docs are up in arms with Wiley is that she threatens their livelihood. She is down on the supplements and strongly suggests (she can't set) that the registered pharmacies not charge more than $37.50 per hormone per month.

Also, there is a notion in BHRT that each patient needs a "customized" hormone preparation. The doctors charge an arm and a leg to do this, which usually results in a Rx from a short list of templates that they've worked out with their pharmacist.

That information is unsubstantiated and not particularly relevant. The majority of physicians act in a ethical manner and are not compensated. That a few physicians participate in illegal practices does not excuse anything. The relative level of compensation that you and others receive for the pushing of untested and unproven therapies is not the factor that determines whether or not it is okay.

Linda

[Katana]

I'll start by addressing something that I should have covered earlier:

2. If you know anything about in vitro fertilization, you would know that estrace and the rest of the (patentable junk) in Premarin is NEVER used. Only natural bioidentical hormones are used in in vitro. Why do suppose that is?
You clearly know nothing about IVF. Estrace is used in IVF during the luteal phase (following embryo transfer).

As for these natural bioidentical hormones of which you speak, are these the ones?

Gonal-F® RFF (follitropin alfa injection) is a prescription medication containing FSH, manufactured by recombinant DNA technology.

Follistim® AQ (follitropin beta injection) is a pure FSH preparation manufactured by recombinant DNA technology.

Bravelle® (urofollitropin for injection, purified), is a highly purified follicle-stimulating hormone (hFSH) derived from urine.

Repronex® (menotropin for injection, USP) is a purified preparation of urine-derived gonadotropins, FSH and LH.

Pregnyl® (chorionic gonadotropin), a highly-purified preparation derived from the urine of pregnant women, was introduced in Europe in 1932 as the first hCG preparation drug and still continues to be one of the leading hCG therapies manufactured and sold today.

Ganirelix Acetate Injection (formerly called Antagon™) is a synthetic gonadotropin-releasing hormone (GnRH) antagonist that is used to suppress premature luteinizing hormone (LH) surges in women during assisted reproductive technology (ART) treatment.

Cetrotide® (cetrorelix acetate for injection), is a synthetic gonadotropin releasing hormone (GnRH) antagonist used to suppress premature luteinizing hormone (LH) surges in women during assisted reproductive technology (ART) treatment.

Which hormones were you talking about?

There is a school of thought (Wiley's) that says the synthetic/bioidentical conundrum may not even be the most important issue, it's how it's dosed, formulated, compounded and followed, but you'd have to read her book to understand it.
According to her website:
It’s much easier to ablate hormones, than to understand the complicated mechanisms underlying real restoration of the rhythms that kept you alive and healthy. Real HRT, synthetic or bio-identical, has never been attempted until now with the Wiley Protocol®. Science and medicine are still confused by “drug administration treatments” that pass for endocrinology.

So, a replacement regimen like the Wiley Protocol® that not only includes real estrogen and progesterone, but estrogen and progesterone in significantly higher amounts than anyone has ever conceived of anywhere, outside of fertility treatments, is not an easy sell to your doctor. If you can direct him or her to this website or get them to read the book, it might give you an edge.
She is clearly pushing her own hormone preparations. What I will give her credit for is the open admission that this has never been done before and she is proposing what almost sound like supratherapeutic doses of hormones. However, as others have mentioned, what about the potential health hazards? What evidence does she have outside of her (and your) anecdotal accounts?

Don't expect to come here, make claims, throw up your hands to the fact that we would have to read her book to understand them, and act surprised that we are less than convinced.

I rest my case. Deb doesn't, and can't, argue about the WIley Protocol on its merits, she only deals in personalities. She hates TS Wiley and only wants to ruin her with no care for the consequences. By association, she wants to ruin Somers too. It's all spite, a little person behind a computer taking down someone.
You are not arguing the Wiley Protocol on its merits. You are making claims supported by anecdotal evidence at best and trying to deflect attention from yourself by bringing up the evils of Big Pharma and Deb. Why don't you go back to the topic at hand and start making some evidence-based arguments for Wiley's claims if you can?

Ask Deb about the time she posted a comment on her blog and attributed it to my wife, then had to reverse herself when I caught her. This is not an honest broker.
Calling Deb's credibility into account does not elevate yours.

I made an offer here, and no one took me up on it. Read Sex Lies and Menopause, talk to a doctor or two who prescribes the protocol. Read some science. Then we can discuss. You aren't acting like skeptics here, you're acting like gossips.
Why do you expect us to take you up on your "offer" when you have neither addressed the inaccuracies in the information that you provided earlier nor have you provided reason for us to take your (and Wiley's) arguments seriously?

And do not condescendingly tell us to read some science when you cannot or refuse to do the same.

And, as for who is acting like what, you are acting like a pouty politician who, finding himself backed into a corner, can do little but insult his challengers. Rather than addressing the issues raised against your statements, you would rather send everyone on a wild goose chase.

1. "a site whose rules preclude my ability to call their claims into question.." What does that mean? Go to the site and question whatever you want. Read the book, too - Sex, Lies and Menopause.
What does it mean? It stems from your own comments:
Fair is fair, but these hate mongers operate without scrutiny. They are a moderated site and do not allow dissenting commentary on thier site. If you are truly skeptics, then you will out ******** wherever you find it.

Again, I am very disappointed in this site. Not one "skeptic" has looked for the counter-counter argument - why does DebV hate T.S. Wiley? What are HER motives. Everyone on here has accused me of being a shill, a salesman and I can't remember what else.

Bring this up a notch and I'll respond.
Be disappointed then. You presume a bit in believing that your opinion of us is a persuasive reason to pursue a counter argument to the flawed, unsupported one that you and your wife champion.
Again, you accuse me of trolling boards, but why don't you ask Debv what she's doing here? Doesn't this seem one-sided to you?
Why do you continue to deflect attention from yourself? We didn't need Deb's help to see through your claims. I am not interested in your history with her nor is anyone else. It is clear that you two have been traveling together much to your dismay, no doubt. You are both passionate about your causes. You move through forums, and she tails you. Do you think that any of us thought that your arrival at roughly the same time was just a coincidence?

There now. So why don't you stop deflecting and start addressing the questions that have been directed at you (and your wife's claims)?

[Katana]

I won't address everything from this post because fls is doing a fine job.

I'm not sure which idea you're referring to. In point of fact, she has said many times that she isn't sure "synthetic" hormomes are the problem, that it is the administration that matters - timing, dose, rhythm, etc.
Is that why she says this?
Choosing the Wiley Protocol® is not only a vote for Nature, but it’s a vote for Science. The Wiley Protocol® is the only HRT or BHRT that has been developed under the scrutiny of a practicing Oncologist. We have gathered over the last three years a preponderance of anecdotal evidence in over a thousand women ages nineteen to ninety that the Protocol® is safe and effective. That can’t be said for any statically dosed form of BHRT. What can be said, though, is that the WHI has proven that synthetics –Premarin and PremPro are dangerous. The common assumption among women using bio-identical regimens is that they are doing something “safer.” It bears repeating that the synthetics may have caused harm, not just because they weren’t bio-identical hormone molecules, but because of the way they were statically dosed.
She begins by referring to anecdotes to support her protocol and then undermines "statically" dosed BHRT by saying that there are no anecdotes to suggest that it is safe (doesn't say that it's not, mind you). Yes, she finishes with talking about the dosing schedule but only after emphasizing just how dangerous "synethetic" hormones were proven to be by the WHI. The message is quite clear.

I'm actually surprised that she would use the WHI in the same way that the media did to spread fear of HRT. I would have thought that she would be more critical of the obviously-flawed study. Then again, I suppose that it is too great a temptation to misrepresent it for personal gain.

Giving hormones to people diagnosed with cancer is unprecedented.

No. It's not.

Actually, there is no template in nature for ANY OF THE EXISTING HORMONE THERAPIES. Including, especially, birth control pills. Dru8g companies sell pills and patches, compounders prepare all sorts of crazy concoctions and not one of them matches one of the five templates found in humans. The core of the Wiley protocol is the peaks and valleys of the therapy over the course of a month. I can't quite understand why you would single out one.
1) What are these five templates of which you speak?

2) That part about the "especially, birth control pills"? You are aware, aren't you, that the reason why birth control pills work is that they create an "unnatural" hormonal state? If all they did was mimic perfectly the body's natural hormonal fluctuations, they would have no contraceptive properties.

Wiley is the first and only therapy that attempts to mimic a template that exists in nature. Static doses are unnatural.

By Wiley's own words, again...

like the Wiley Protocol® that not only includes real estrogen and progesterone, but estrogen and progesterone in significantly higher amounts than anyone has ever conceived of anywhere, outside of fertility treatments...

Infertility treatments produce just about the highest hormone levels out there. She is advocating supraphysiologic doses of hormones. How is her protocol "natural"?

[Ducky]

Giving hormones to people diagnosed with cancer is unprecedented.


This is a flat out falsehood. There are several hormone treatments given to prostate and breast cancer patients. You can review the types of hormone treatments for cancer patients here. (http://www.cancer.org/docroot/CRI/content/CRI_2_4_4X_Androgen_Suppression_Hormone_Therapy_36 .asp?sitearea=)

Please know what you're talking about before making false claims.


In fact, you can go read this (http://gateway.ut.ovid.com/gw1/ovidweb.cgi?WebLinkFrameset=1&S=IDNJHKIDLDHINN00D&returnUrl=http%3a%2f%2fgateway.ut.ovid.com%2fgw1%2 fovidweb.cgi%3f%26Full%2bText%3dL%257cS.sh.38.40%2 57c0%257c00001622-200509000-00014%26S%3dIDNJHKIDLDHINN00D&directlink=http%3a%2f%2fgraphics.ovid.com%2fovftpd fs%2fIDNJHKIDLDHINN00D%2ffs047%2fovft%2flive%2fgv0 24%2f00001622%2f00001622-200509000-00014.pdf) paper nicely summing up the literature on HRT for women with either a history of breast or endometrial cancer. I'll quote a little for you, if you like:

The possible association of replacement therapy with re-
gard to hormonally dependent cancers has been discussed
for decades. There is general agreement that unopposed es-
trogen in a woman with a uterus does increase the risk of
endometrial cancer severalfold. The rationale for using com-
bined estrogen plus progesterone in such an individual is
that in some studies the incidence of endometrial carcinoma
is reduced to normal or even is protective against endometrial carcinoma.

[grayman]

Also, finally, there is a university that is conducting a true clinical trial of the Wiley Protocol. This trial has no connection to Wiley at all. The details will be announced January 3.


Would you tell us which university is doing the study, please?

[nraden]

Would you tell us which university is doing the study, please?

I will on January 3.

[nraden]

This is a flat out falsehood. There are several hormone treatments given to prostate and breast cancer patients. You can review the types of hormone treatments for cancer patients here. (http://www.cancer.org/docroot/CRI/content/CRI_2_4_4X_Androgen_Suppression_Hormone_Therapy_36 .asp?sitearea=)

Please know what you're talking about before making false claims.




You must be kidding! This article is about hormone ABLATION not replacement. Do you not know the difference?

[nraden]

I'll start by addressing something that I should have covered earlier:


You clearly know nothing about IVF. Estrace is used in IVF during the luteal phase (following embryo transfer).

Estrace is a brand name. It contains estradiol, a "natural" hormone.

[/quote] As for these natural bioidentical hormones of which you speak, are these the ones?

Gonal-F® RFF (follitropin alfa injection) is a prescription medication containing FSH, manufactured by recombinant DNA technology.

Follistim® AQ (follitropin beta injection) is a pure FSH preparation manufactured by recombinant DNA technology.

Bravelle® (urofollitropin for injection, purified), is a highly purified follicle-stimulating hormone (hFSH) derived from urine.

Repronex® (menotropin for injection, USP) is a purified preparation of urine-derived gonadotropins, FSH and LH.

Pregnyl® (chorionic gonadotropin), a highly-purified preparation derived from the urine of pregnant women, was introduced in Europe in 1932 as the first hCG preparation drug and still continues to be one of the leading hCG therapies manufactured and sold today.

Ganirelix Acetate Injection (formerly called Antagon™) is a synthetic gonadotropin-releasing hormone (GnRH) antagonist that is used to suppress premature luteinizing hormone (LH) surges in women during assisted reproductive technology (ART) treatment.

Cetrotide® (cetrorelix acetate for injection), is a synthetic gonadotropin releasing hormone (GnRH) antagonist used to suppress premature luteinizing hormone (LH) surges in women during assisted reproductive technology (ART) treatment.

Which hormones were you talking about?

I wasn't referring to all of the LH, FSH, etc hormones. I was referring to Estrogen and Progesterone. Women don't take LH or FSH in HRT.

[quote]
She is clearly pushing her own hormone preparations. What I will give her credit for is the open admission that this has never been done before and she is proposing what almost sound like supratherapeutic doses of hormones. However, as others have mentioned, what about the potential health hazards? What evidence does she have outside of her (and your) anecdotal accounts?

What evidence is there for any HRT other than those pushed by drug companies who have the money to fund a clinical trial? When the hormones are compounded in a drug store, how do you suppose you could get a pharmacist to contribute thousands of prescriptions? How can you get a hundred pharmacies to make the identical product so each could contribute, say, 10 each? That is what Wiley is doing with the registered pharmacies so that there can, finally, be a credible trial of a BHRT protocol. She is forcing standardization in compounding, at least in the pharmacies that carry the WP. That is how there will be a clinical trial in 2007.


And do not condescendingly tell us to read some science when you cannot or refuse to do the same.

I'm sorry, I don't recall being directed to anything.

snip

[nraden]

My complaint is that you are promoting an untested therapy that has a good chance of causing harm.

There are many people who have been on this protocol for years. Untested in the sense of a randomized clinical trial? True. Do you have any idea how many things you use in a day that have not been through such a trial?

However, you are right, it has not been put through that kind of test, hopefully it will soon. But my question for you is why do you think it "has a good chance of causing harm?" What evidence do you have for that?



That information is unsubstantiated and not particularly relevant. The majority of physicians act in a ethical manner and are not compensated. That a few physicians participate in illegal practices does not excuse anything. The relative level of compensation that you and others receive for the pushing of untested and unproven therapies is not the factor that determines whether or not it is okay.

Linda

Sorry, you're wrong. I know many doctors in the HRT business and they are all making money it. What you would call ethical and what a doctor sees as their property are not the same. Doctors think they are going broke. They think they have to find a way to make money beyond just office visit fees. It's endemic. Sorry, you are wrong.

I receive no compensation and neither does T.S. Wiley. I've already explained that. At some point, if the WP is very popular, her company that provides training and branded packaging could provide a nice income, but it hasn't for 12 years. It is pointless for all of you to look for a big payoff motive here, it doesn't exist.

[nraden]

He plagarized Wikipedia.

So here is a question: why does someone who takes a position get filleted here for every little thing? Huntsman, go kick your dog.

I put quotes around it, so anyone who isn't blind could see I was quoting something. I put in the link to Wikipedia, but it was bounced because I didn't have 15 posts.

Now, am I working against a tide of negative opinion or what?

Is anyone here interested in getting to the bottom of this or this just a fun game people who have nothing better to do? I've already agreed that I've made some errors, conceded some points. I'm trying to have a real discussion. Is anyone else?

[debv]

Ask Deb about the time she posted a comment on her blog and attributed it to my wife, then had to reverse herself when I caught her. This is not an honest broker.
I'm a little surprised that Neil would goad me into telling the story behind this.

Shortly after Wiley Watch relaunched, a couple of anonymous comments were posted: "You guys are idiots with too muh time on your hands. Give up. Get medicated . Go away." and "Laurel is a [defamatory term] who started this web site when T.S. Wiley wouldn't let her be businiss partiners in the Wiley Protocol."

Here are the log entries ("http" and "www" part removed because forum won't let them through):
72.205.193.253 - - [15/Oct/2006:16:08:55 -0400] "POST /comment/reply/5 HTTP/1.1" 302 5 "wileywatch.org/comment/reply/5" "Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 6.0; Windows NT 5.1; SV1; .NET CLR 1.1.4322)"72.205.193.253 - - [15/Oct/2006:16:11:41 -0400] "POST /comment/reply/5 HTTP/1.1" 302 5 "wileywatch.org/comment/reply/5" "Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 6.0; Windows NT 5.1; SV1; .NET CLR 1.1.4322)"Approximately three minutes later an e-mail with just the subject line "Buy Suzanne's book, you'll love it!" was sent to the aforementioned Laurel of Rhythmic Living.

From the headers:
Received: from momofficenew ([72.205.193.253])
by fed1rmimpo02.cox.net with bizsmtp
id akEP1V00T5UVtWo0000000
Sun, 15 Oct 2006 16:14:23 -0400
From: "TS Wiley" <tswiley@hiredbrains.com>That was good enough for me. I put Wiley's name on