A few years ago, former "Three's Company" star Suzanne Somers embarked on a new career: She became a proponent of bioidentical hormones, which she describes as safe and natural therapies for menopausal women. She wrote three bestselling books on the topic, "The Sexy Years," "Ageless" and "Breakthrough." And to cap it all off, she will appear in a movie--titled "Suzanne Somers' Breakthrough Tour," which will show in some movie theaters on November 4 and November 9.
In the trailer for this theatrical event (see below), Somers declares, "I'm 63 and I am healthier and happier than I have ever been--ever." She goes on to urge people to see the movie to "learn how to reverse the aging process and really live your life."
I am among a small group of journalists, doctors and others who have been trying mightily to debunk Somers' anti-aging theories. Why? It's scientifically unsound to suggest that aging can be reversed. More importantly, Somers' theories about how alternative hormone replacement can help menopausal women are flawed.
Before I tell you why that is, let me explain a bit about bioidentical hormones. These are estrogen and progesterone products that are derived from plant sources such as yams and soybeans. The anti-aging industry calls them "bioidentical" because they are molecularly identical to what the human body makes naturally, as explained in this statement from the American Academy of Anti-Aging Medicine.
Bioidentical hormones began to take off in 2002, when the Women's Health Initiative (WHI) study revealed an increased risk of breast cancer in postmenopausal women taking Prempro--a drug derived from the urine of pregnant mares--which was once widely prescribed to relieve hot flashes and other symptoms of menopause. (A recent update to WHI, published in the Journal of the American Medical Association on October 20, suggests those women also faced a higher mortality risk.)
In her first book on bioidentical alternatives, 2004's "The Sexy Years," Somers described her struggles against "the Seven Dwarfs of Menopause," whom she called "Itchy," "Bitchy," "Sweaty," "Sleepy," "Bloated," "Forgetful" and "All Dried Up." The cure: bio-identical hormones, or in her words, "the elixir--the juice of youth that has sent the Seven Dwarfs of Menopause off to the coal mines never to return!"
Somers urges women to purchase bioidentical hormones from compounding pharmacists, who make mixtures of estrogen and progesterone that they say are tailored to what each individual patient needs.
Problem is, that isn't telling the whole story. So in my ongoing effort to tell the other side of the anti-aging story, I will present here a few of the key theories from her books, along with some evidence to the contrary.
Somers Says: Bioidentical estrogen is safe and natural because it's the same as what women's bodies make in their younger years.
Contrary Evidence: Mainstream medical organizations including the Endocrine Society (see official statement here) warn that there are no published studies in peer-reviewed journals showing that bio-identical hormones are safer than other menopause treatments. Even the hormones that our bodies make naturally can be dangerous: In a Harvard project called the Nurses' Health Study, scientists examined blood samples from 1,000 nurses who were not taking any pharmaceutical hormones and discovered that women with the highest levels of naturally occurring hormones were the most likely to develop breast cancer.
Somers Says: Women should get bio-identical hormones from compounding pharmacists because only they can tailor hormones to your particular needs.
Contrary Evidence: Pharmaceutical companies have been making hormones derived from soy and other natural sources for years, and many of them come in different doses so patients can tailor them to their own needs. Some examples of the estrogen products are Bayer's Climara, Esprit Pharma's EstroGel and Novartis's Vivelle-Dot. The difference is that these products are approved by the U.S. Food & Drug Administration, therefore they come with extensive warnings about the aforementioned risks of estrogen replacement--warnings that women may not get if they obtain hormone products from compounding pharmacists.
Somers Says: But pharmaceutical hormones don't include estriol, a form of estrogen that's abundant in younger women and therefore should be a part of a healthy hormone-replacement program.
Contrary Evidence: True, but estriol is not contained in any FDA-approved products. Studies on this form of estrogen are sparse. Estriol fans often quote research done in the 1970s by a University of Nebraska scientist named Henry Lemon. But in 1980, Lemon himself published a study revealing that when he gave estriol to 24 women with breast cancer, six of them saw their tumors grow and two developed endometrial hyperplasia--a precancerous condition of the uterus. (The National Women's Health Network provides a rather sobering description of this study here.) The FDA has received more than 25 reports of adverse events from women taking estriol and in 2008 it put out a consumer warning about bioidentical hormones.
Last year, Somers got a major boost when she was invited to appear as a hormone expert on the Oprah Winfrey Show. She sat on the stage, while two doctors who were also interviewed during the hour were relegated to seats in the audience--giving the distinct impression that Somers was the true "expert." I was in an anti-aging clinic that week reporting my book, "Selling the Fountain of Youth." The phones were ringing off the hook. The doctors joked about being "Oprah-whelmed." Their business went through the roof. And now we have this new movie.
I'll leave you with a question to ponder: When it comes to guiding important medical decisions, should celebrities have such power?
Here are some good resources on bioidentical hormone replacement, from a few of the many organizations that have tried to counter the Hollywood message: The Endocrine Society ("Bioidentical Hormones"), the North American Menopause Society ("Bioidentical Hormone Therapy") and the Mayo Clinic ("Bioidentical Hormones: Are They Safer?").
WATCH:
Follow Arlene Weintraub on Twitter: www.twitter.com/awjourn
If there still isnt the education & knowledge & or concern to help women out there & so far it hasnt been there in My Mother's & or my Grandmother's life, then why attack someone who is @ least trying to help other women, thats doing more than most of the male doctors I ever went to .
In closing let me just say that If Men went through menopause, you better believe there would have been a cure years ago .
http://sellingthefountainofyouth.com/?p=255
As Erika Schwartz MD once said addressing a group of OB Gyne doctors at Harvard Medical School, if you doctors don't give the information to patients about bioidential hormones, then Suzanne Somers will. I think this is very true. The French Cohort study was a peer reviewed study published in a major journal concluding that progesterone is preferable to progestins. Many studies including the recent JAMA 11 year follow up of the WHI show that progestins are "bad drugs". Synthetic chemically altered Progestins cause cancer and heart disease. There is no doubt about it. Women are smart and have abandoned synthetic hormones, switching to safer more effective bioidenticals. That's the bottom line. After this massive switch in 2003, national breast cancer rates plummeted. The truth has been deliberately withheld by the media and the drug industry in order to protect pharmaceutical profits with patented synthetic hormones. It's time to stop the charade and ban synthetic hormones as the monsters they have been shown to be.
For more:
http://jeffreydach.com/2010/10/20/hormone-therapy-increases-breast-cancer-says-jama-study-by-jeffrey-dach-md.aspx
jeffrey dach md
http://www.femalepatient.com/html/arc/sig/view/articles/034_08_028.asp
Regarding your link to the above article,
Bioidentical Hormones: Ethics and Misinformed Consent by M. Sara Rosenthal, PhD:
This article has a very pro-industry tone and bias even though the author claims no financial conflict. However looking a little deeper, the author is married to an academic endocrinologist at the U of Kentucky, Kenneth Ain. Dr. Ain is a paid speaker for Abbott Labs and Genzyme. Dr. Ain receives research funding from Celgene and Bristol-Myers Squibb. So it now becomes obvious where her pro-industry bias is coming from. The article itself looks like it could have been written by a ghostwiter from PharmaWrite, the company that is being investigated by Grassley's Senate committee for ghostwritng 40 articles for Wyeth in the mainstream medical literature downplaying the adverse effects of synthetic hormones and disparaging biodenticals. So in conclusion, the Rosenthal article is an excellent example of pro-industry bias and spin designed to deceive the reader and the public. The truth is that synthetic hormones are the "bad drugs" in litigation, and the bioidenticals are the preferred choice, being safer and more effective.
regards, jeffrey dach md
Now the first thing we must realize is that there have been more leaps in technological innovation in the past 100 years that all of the past 10,000 years before it. From Alexander Graham Bells first shout of 'Come quickly Watson' to satellite phones is but one sparse example.
Where are the tolls, parameters and pylons to guide us in our health and health maintenance?
Simply there are none. We are making this up as we go. What-,...for example-,..is the actual history of cancer as a disease? Why have we seen such a huge rise in rates?
At the risk of oversimplifying, doctors generally treat symptoms, not cure a disease.
Point one, ma'am: you actually do not have contrary evidence that bioidentical estrogen is safe and natural. As you say, you need a double-blind study. i.e. theres also no contrary evidence to show that corn flakes help prevent cancer.
Point two, ma'am: If theres no evidence that natural hormones are "bad for you", in what sense should they come with "warnings"? Is this what people potentially suffering from genuinely "need"?
Finally in essence I think what you are advocating for here is caution. But I don't think power of celebrity is a question FDA seeks approval to administer to.
I wish the pharmaceuticals and the gal who wrote this article would spend more time finding and funding solutions instead of slamming people who are. As for the FDA--another government agency. Hardley a credible trusting source.
Both Suzanne Somers and the gal who wrote this piece are trying to sell their books, so that has to weigh in a bit on there motives. That being said, Suzanne seems to have come from the direction of personal experience. Having cancer can be quite the motivator to finding solutions.
As a science reporter who spent many years researching this topic--interviewing doctors on both sides of the issue and reading hundreds of scientific studies on estrogen--I stand by the statement that estrogen is estrogen, regardless of the source.
Also please be aware that yet another risk of hormone creams--its tendency to spread to children and pets--has come to light this week:
http://well.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/10/25/when-hormone-creams-expose-others-to-risks/?ref=science
Many pharmaceuticals have side effects because they are produced to treat a symptom, not an illness. I'll take natural remedies over drugs any day.