HRT Debate Rages On

by Gregory Allen Butler

I know that the HRT debate is a hot topic for a lot of women. When my wife saw an article in today's Wall Street Journal about some important new research, she requested that I mention it on my blog to help get the word out.

The Wall Street Journal article reports that the North American Menopause Society, one of the leading scientific organizations that advises doctors about the care of women in midlife, has acknowledged that the risks and benefits of hormones are likely different for younger women than for older women. The bottom line is that they conclude that the benefits outweigh the risks for women closer to menopause but that for women who were 20 years past menopause, there was a 71% higher risk of heart attack if they used estrogen and progestin.

The younger women closer to menopause actually had an 11% lower risk of heart problems, according to data from the Women's Health Initiative, a major government study of the issue.

According to the Wall Street Journal, the menopause society's new recommendations won't change anything. "Hormone therapy still is generally recommended only for the short-term treatment of menopause symptoms."

The NAMS report seems to have some double-speak. For instance, while saying that women shouldn't take hormones to protect their hearts, they point out a trend toward lower heart risk for younger women using HRT. But more startlingly, despite the 71% increased risk of heart attack for older women using HRT, they say that hormones are one option to prevent osteoporosis among certain women at high risk. This is a contrast to the past when they said non-symptomatic women at risk for osteoporosis should always try other bone drugs first.

That logic, as it applies to older women, seems unfathomable in light of the fact that heart disease is the number one killer of women. It sounds like an invitation to play Russian Roulette.

HRT Debate and Money

The article states "critics note that the Menopause Society accepts money from pharmaceutical companies, including those that make hormone drugs such as Wyeth, whose Premarin and Prempro are the largest sellers."

The Wall Street Journal article notes that this new information signals that the science of menopause hormones is still evolving. "The verdict is still out on the risks and benefits of HRT to prevent chronic disease, particularly cardiovascular disease, diabetes and osteoporosis."

If the HRT debate brings up fear in you, you might ease those fears by speaking to a holistic health care professional, who can show you natural therapies without dangerous side-effects. Consider what Gary Null says in his book, The Complete Encyclopedia of Natural Healing: "Menopause is not just an estrogen deficiency. Balancing estrogen, testosterone, DHEA, and progesterone is essential. When a deficiency arises, it needs to be corrected. These hormones affect the entire system and are linked to fatigue, brain electrical activity and cognitive function, healthy sexual function, vaginal lubrication, proper sleep, mood, skin, hair, muscle tone and a general feeling of well-being."

Perhaps Eric R. Braverman, MD has the final word on the HRT debate. He is the director of the Place of Achieving Total Health (PATH). He recommends a testing protocol before natural estrogen therapy is used. His protocol is a physical examination with standard blood work, attention testing, memory assessment, analysis of hormone and nutrient levels, allergic and toxic metal screening and cancer screening.

Who could argue with that?

For more reading on the HRT debate, I recommend you visit hrt-debate.com. The site raises a lot of questions on the subject.

It will be great when the medical community moves from this HRT debate to a real understanding and consensus. HRT Debate? What debate?