View Single Post
Old 28th November 2006, 03:11 PM   #99
Katana
Illuminator
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 4,812
I'll start by addressing something that I should have covered earlier:

Originally Posted by nraden View Post
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?

Originally Posted by nraden
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:
Quote:
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.

Originally Posted by nraden View Post
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?

Originally Posted by nraden
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.

Originally Posted by nraden
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.

Originally Posted by nraden View Post
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:
Quote:
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.
Originally Posted by nraden
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.
Originally Posted by nraden View Post
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)?

Last edited by Katana; 28th November 2006 at 03:41 PM. Reason: grammar
Katana is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top