Posted on 01/30/2006 6:35:28 PM PST by Lauren BaRecall
In a breathtaking act of bravado, Wyeth is trying to take away your right to access bioidentical hormones and compounding pharmacies by enlisting so-called women’s and physician groups like The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG which is funded in part by Wyeth), North American Menopause Society (NAMS) and The American Medical Women's Association (AMWA also a 'partner' of Wyeth) which have become nothing more than covert "fronts" for the pharmaceutical industry.
In October 2005 Wyeth filed a citizen petition with the FDA essentially asking for elimination of the compounding of bioidentical hormone option for women of all ages.
Please join me in stopping Wyeth from maneuvering us out of our rights and becoming victims of a healthcare system run by the monopoly of big pharma and motivated solely by money.
Bioidentical to Premarin?
Unlikely, unless the compounder owns alot of pregnant horses.
Premarine is horse urine.
No kidding!
Pregnant Mare Urine.
Yup. It's the raw source from which the drug is produced.
Before premarin was developed, pregant human urine was used as a source. Folks were paid by volume delivered, so eventually the whole family added their pee to the pot, in order to increase the $$$ brought home. It was because of those problems with purity that the decision was made to move to equine wee-wee.
I don't recall yams being a vertebrate.
I don't know if I agree with the definition of synthetic vs natural/bio-identical. Sounds like a marketing scam to me. Is 17-b estradiol, like Estrace, synthetic or bio-identical? Doesn't come from yams...
OK.
How would Wyeth interfere with a mans access to testosterone? There are several T drugs on the market...patches, gel, buccal, injectable...
How is T derived from a plant superior to T from a lab, AKA pharmaceutical T?
Here are some relevant links:
Legal Response from the International Academy of Compounding Pharmacists
FDA link to SEC. 127. APPLICATION OF FEDERAL LAW TO PRACTICE OF PHARMACY COMPOUNDING - 21 U.S.C. 353a Sec. 503a
Compounding is not something that the average person may know about, or ever need, but it is vitally important to those who benefit from the personalization of their prescription medicine. Compounding pharmacists dispense at the direction of your physician. We are not talking about late-night infomercials hawking "natural" this and that. Please take the time to become familiar with this issue and get involved in order to prevent the FDA from making yet another decision that is bad for the health of consumers yet good for the pocketbook of drug manufacturers.
Synthetic hormones are not chemically identical to human hormones. They are close enough to "trick" the body into "thinking" they are the the real stuff. Natural hormones are chemically identical to human hormones, and do not have the links to cancer that synthetic hormones have. This is scientific fact. In addition, natural hormones are very effective.
As I have said, Dr. Erika's website is very informative. I'm not trying to sell anything - I just believe that women and men need to be aware of the health options that are out there. And need to know that a big drug company is trying to eliminate one of these options.
Compounders do a great job, especially in preparing formulations with a unique vehicle, tailored to the needs of the patient.
When I worked for Wyeth as a sales rep, we were told that the compounders were competition.
I just do not buy the argument that a final product derived from plant sources (phyto-estrogens) is superior to pharmaceutical products. A molecule is a molecule is a molecule.
"Natural hormones are chemically identical to human hormones, and do not have the links to cancer that synthetic hormones have."
That's a dangerous statement. Show me two prospective, blinded, head-to-head studies between "natural" hormones and "synthetic" hormones with a P-value of 0.05 or better with your claim as a primary endpoint...
Thanks for the links, and I agree with you wholeheartedly.
I understand your point about "a molecule is a molecule" and won't pretend to be able to specifically address the biocemistry and pharmacodynamics involved. That said, I do know from personal experience that compounded bioidentical hormone therapy such as estradiol and progesterone creams can help with many "female" symptoms that have not been previously relieved by more traditional synthetic hormone replacement therapy. Perhaps the key is that the patient can apply the cream in certain amounts prescribed and monitored by their physician according to their current symptoms? Research is still underway regarding the treatment of such maladies as PMS and menopausal symptoms, so perhaps this is a case of "use it if it works." There are too many unknowns at this point to make a broad judgement and I just think it would be a shame to lose compounding as an option in our personal healthcare "arsenals."
I have called on physicians for 8 years. Psychs, GP, IM, Neuro, ID, OB-GYN, Pulmonologists, Allergists, Urologists... And there are a few things I have learned:
1. They are not God.
2. They can be wrong.
3. They can disagree with each other WRT practicing medicine.
4. They can have agendas.
I'm not trying to impugn you. I am trying to say that Dr Schwartz, although an MD, may be quite wrong.
I referenced the scientific standard for proof of efficacy or comparison of side-effect profile or mortality/morbity between drugs. The reason I did, is because there are NO studies that support the claim that plant-derived hormones are safer than other hormones. In my view, any perceived lack of side-effects is usually proportional to lack of efficacy.
I don't mean to be rude. It's just that I've seen both sides, and there is crap on either.
Take care!!!
Agreed.
As I said, the compounders are very adept at creating a customized vehicle for the patient.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.