ISF Logo   IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Science, Mathematics, Medicine, and Technology
 

Notices


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Tags suzanne , somers , bioidenticals

Reply
Old 24th November 2006, 12:04 PM   #81
debv
Student
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 44
Originally Posted by Eos of the Eons View Post
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".

Last edited by debv; 24th November 2006 at 12:12 PM.
debv 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
Old 24th November 2006, 12:56 PM   #82
JJM
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 1,853
Originally Posted by fls View Post
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.
JJM 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
Old 27th November 2006, 04:58 PM   #83
nraden
Student
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 46
Originally Posted by debv View Post
(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 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
Old 27th November 2006, 05:06 PM   #84
nraden
Student
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 46
Originally Posted by Katana View Post
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 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
Old 27th November 2006, 05:51 PM   #85
nraden
Student
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 46
Originally Posted by debv View Post
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 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
Old 27th November 2006, 05:55 PM   #86
nraden
Student
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 46
Originally Posted by Eos of the Eons View Post
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 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
Old 27th November 2006, 05:57 PM   #87
nraden
Student
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 46
Originally Posted by scotth View Post
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 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
Old 27th November 2006, 05:58 PM   #88
nraden
Student
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 46
Originally Posted by scotth View Post
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 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
Old 27th November 2006, 05:59 PM   #89
nraden
Student
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 46
Originally Posted by scotth View Post
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 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
Old 27th November 2006, 06:12 PM   #90
nraden
Student
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 46
Originally Posted by Eos of the Eons View Post
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??
nraden 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
Old 27th November 2006, 08:29 PM   #91
Eos of the Eons
Mad Scientist
 
Eos of the Eons's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 13,840
Tee hee, it came back, and I only wish I had time to play right now

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

LIAR. I'll say why when I have time.
__________________
Motion affecting a measuring device does not affect what is actually being measured, except to inaccurately measure it.
the immaterial world doesn't matter, cause it ain't matter-Jeff Corey
my karma ran over my dogma-vbloke
The Lateral Truth: An Apostate's Bible Stories by Rebecca Bradley, read it!
Eos of the Eons 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
Old 28th November 2006, 02:52 AM   #92
JJM
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 1,853
Originally Posted by nraden View Post
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.

Originally Posted by nraden View Post
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.
JJM 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
Old 28th November 2006, 07:27 AM   #93
fls
Penultimate Amazing
 
fls's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 10,232
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

Last edited by fls; 28th November 2006 at 08:46 AM. Reason: Wording.
fls 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
Old 28th November 2006, 01:49 PM   #94
nraden
Student
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 46
Originally Posted by JJM View Post
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 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
Old 28th November 2006, 02:13 PM   #95
nraden
Student
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 46
Thank you for engaging in a discussion of the issues.

Originally Posted by fls View Post
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.

Quote:
There is no clinical data of any type supporting T. S. Wiley's idea.
Quote:
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]


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.

Quote:
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.

Quote:
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.

Quote:
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.
nraden 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
Old 28th November 2006, 02:14 PM   #96
JJM
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 1,853
Originally Posted by nraden View Post
Thank you for displaying your ignorance:
"snip
(... local irritation and pain when continually administered parentally)
snip"
[bold added]

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 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?
JJM 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
Old 28th November 2006, 02:16 PM   #97
Hellbound
Merchant of Doom
 
Hellbound's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Somewhere between the central U.S. and Hades
Posts: 10,124
Originally Posted by JJM View Post
By the way, where did you get the quote?
He plagarized Wikipedia.
__________________
Science is like safety testing cars. You don't coddle a new theory; you slam it head-on into other theories. You sideswipe it, rear-end it, and roll it over at 60 mph. If it survives better than the old theory, it's good. And the way it fails, and under what conditions, gives you the information to make the next theory even better.

I reserve the right to be wrong.
Hellbound 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
Old 28th November 2006, 02:38 PM   #98
fls
Penultimate Amazing
 
fls's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 10,232
Originally Posted by nraden View Post
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.

Quote:
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.

Quote:
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.

Quote:
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).

Quote:
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.

Quote:
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
fls 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
Old 28th November 2006, 03:11 PM   #99
Katana
Illuminator
 
Katana's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 4,876
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)?
__________________
"I think Katana is as big of a perv as the rest of us." - Dragonrock
"The rationality was there, and clear and concise. The condescention was hinted at and was like french onion dip on the perfect potato chip. Tasted like woo smackdown." - Fowlsound (aka Ducky, darnit)
"Katana is one quick shut-yo-mouth!" - JonnyFive
StopSylviaBrowne

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
Old 28th November 2006, 03:36 PM   #100
Katana
Illuminator
 
Katana's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 4,876
I won't address everything from this post because fls is doing a fine job.

Originally Posted by nraden View Post
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?
Originally Posted by her own website
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.

Originally Posted by nraden
Giving hormones to people diagnosed with cancer is unprecedented.
No. It's not.

Quote:
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.

Originally Posted by nraden
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...

Originally Posted by her own website
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"?
__________________
"I think Katana is as big of a perv as the rest of us." - Dragonrock
"The rationality was there, and clear and concise. The condescention was hinted at and was like french onion dip on the perfect potato chip. Tasted like woo smackdown." - Fowlsound (aka Ducky, darnit)
"Katana is one quick shut-yo-mouth!" - JonnyFive
StopSylviaBrowne
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
Old 28th November 2006, 03:53 PM   #101
Ducky
Titanium Puprhero
 
Ducky's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 12,204
Originally Posted by nraden View Post
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.

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


In fact, you can go read this 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:

Quote:
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.

Last edited by Ducky; 28th November 2006 at 04:21 PM.
Ducky 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
Old 28th November 2006, 04:37 PM   #102
grayman
Happy-go-lucky Heretic
 
grayman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 6,131
Originally Posted by nraden View Post
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?
__________________
Stupidity is a condition. Ignorance is a choice. - Wiley

All great truths begin as blasphemies. - George Bernard Shaw

God is evil. As soon as you accept that, it all makes sense. - Sledge
grayman 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
Old 28th November 2006, 05:10 PM   #103
nraden
Student
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 46
Originally Posted by grayman View Post
Would you tell us which university is doing the study, please?
I will on January 3.
nraden 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
Old 28th November 2006, 05:14 PM   #104
nraden
Student
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 46
Originally Posted by fowlsound View Post
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.

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 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
Old 28th November 2006, 05:27 PM   #105
nraden
Student
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 46
Originally Posted by Katana View Post
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?[quote]

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.


Quote:
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 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
Old 28th November 2006, 05:35 PM   #106
nraden
Student
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 46
Originally Posted by fls View Post
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?



Quote:
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 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
Old 28th November 2006, 05:40 PM   #107
nraden
Student
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 46
Originally Posted by Huntsman View Post
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?
nraden 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
Old 28th November 2006, 06:01 PM   #108
debv
Student
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 44
Originally Posted by nraden View Post
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):
Code:
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)"
Code:
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:
Code:
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 those comments.

A few days later Neil left a comment apologizing, saying that he suspected one of his "silly kids" must have left those comments. Amused, I responded, "You didn't ask how dared I to put your wife's name on those comments. I guess you knew where they came from as well as I do. What a surprise." He then insisted it was specifically their daughter. (EDIT: His comment and subsequent e-mails originated from the same IP address above.)

Do I believe this story? Of course not. But if they're capable of pinning this sort of thing on one of their kids, I think the world should know about it. So I substituted in "T.S. Wiley's daughter" and explained why on the site.

Quote:
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.
Back on April 3, I caught Neil (not for the first time) sending harassing e-mails under a fake name -- this time as "Wilson Pickett" and using the e-mail address "wilson_pickett2001@yahoo.com". On 11/14, somebody calling himself "Steve" posted a comment on Erika Schwartz's blog, using the e-mail address "wilson_pickett2001@yahoo.com". Unless I'm mistaken, that puts an upper limit on the age of this moral contrition of about two weeks.

Last edited by debv; 28th November 2006 at 06:36 PM.
debv 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
Old 28th November 2006, 06:11 PM   #109
ponderingturtle
Orthogonal Vector
 
ponderingturtle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 28,683
__________________
Sufficiently advanced Woo is indistinguishable from Parody
"There shall be no *poofing* in science" Paul C. Anagnostopoulos
Force ***** on reasons back" Ben Franklin
ponderingturtle 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
Old 28th November 2006, 06:27 PM   #110
JJM
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 1,853
Originally Posted by JJM View Post
I am trying not to be ignorant. But, [nraden does] 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 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).
nraden- can I expect to be edified?
JJM 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
Old 28th November 2006, 08:29 PM   #111
Ducky
Titanium Puprhero
 
Ducky's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 12,204
Originally Posted by nraden View Post
You must be kidding! This article is about hormone ABLATION not replacement. Do you not know the difference?
Can you not read? Did you not even look at the links I have provided?

Here I will quote the pertinent part for you again:

Quote:
The possible association of replacement therapy with re-
gard to hormonally dependent cancers has been discussed
for decades.
Go back and check the links I gave.

ETA: Or did you miss the link I added? Well sir, go back and check it.

Last edited by Ducky; 28th November 2006 at 08:35 PM.
Ducky 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
Old 28th November 2006, 08:33 PM   #112
fls
Penultimate Amazing
 
fls's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 10,232
Originally Posted by nraden View Post
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?
Yes. Zero. That is not relevant to this discussion. Deflecting criticism by attacking others gives the impression that you cannot support your position otherwise.

Quote:
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?
The harm that is associated with the use of exogenous estrogens - increased risk of blood clots, breast cancer, and stroke, for example - from controlled studies. As I mentioned before, there is no reason to assume that the Wiley Project drugs will not have these effects as they act in the same manner as the tested drugs.

Quote:
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.
I have not stated that you are looking for a big pay-off as your motive. And trying to create a diversionary tactic by making unsubstantiated claims of endemic fraud has nothing to do with whether or not it is appropriate for you to push untested and unproven drugs. It is not inappropriate because you are getting paid for it. It is inappropriate because we have discovered that we have fooled ourselves hundreds or thousands of times, even when we sincerely thought we were doing the right thing. And the only way to prevent this is to perform the studies that remove the possibility of bias.

The money issue simply undermines your credibility.

Linda
fls 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
Old 29th November 2006, 04:27 AM   #113
JJM
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 1,853
Originally Posted by nraden View Post
"snip local irritation and pain when continually administered parentally. snip"
Mr. Raden, this has me concerned. I am not a father; but I am an uncle. If I administer drugs avuncularly, is that a problem, too?

You called me ignorant; but when I ask what "a conjugate of 39 substances" means, you don't explain. How can I learn?
JJM 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
Old 29th November 2006, 06:59 AM   #114
Katana
Illuminator
 
Katana's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 4,876
Originally Posted by nraden View Post
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.
Then what was your point in bringing up IVF?

Again, your statement:

Originally Posted by nraden
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?
Estrace is used, as I said. You were wrong on at one.

I listed the other hormones used, which I doubt fall into your classification of bioidentical hormones.

All of them fall into your "patentable junk" category.

What are these bioidentical hormones of which you speak that are used in IVF?

Originally Posted by nraden
What evidence is there for any HRT other than those pushed by drug companies who have the money to fund a clinical trial?
Have you actually looked at the vast amount of peer-reviewed studies on HRT that are not sponsored by drug companies? I appears that you have not.

Originally Posted by nraden
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.
Not sure I'm following the first sentences there, but the final point comes across. Haven't you kind of put the cart before the horse, so to speak, in advocating an untested hormonal regimen to who knows how many women?

Originally Posted by nraden
I'm sorry, I don't recall being directed to anything.
Do you really need us to do this for you?
__________________
"I think Katana is as big of a perv as the rest of us." - Dragonrock
"The rationality was there, and clear and concise. The condescention was hinted at and was like french onion dip on the perfect potato chip. Tasted like woo smackdown." - Fowlsound (aka Ducky, darnit)
"Katana is one quick shut-yo-mouth!" - JonnyFive
StopSylviaBrowne
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
Old 29th November 2006, 07:23 AM   #115
Katana
Illuminator
 
Katana's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 4,876
Originally Posted by nraden View Post
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?
Just who are these doctors in the "HRT business"? I don't know any. You make sweeping generalizations like this, and then make comments like this to clarify:

Originally Posted by nraden
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.
Who are these "wellness" doctors"? Are you talking about medical doctors (MDs)? Or are you making statements that apply only to a fringe few who portray themselves as something that they are not?

Originally Posted by nraden
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.
Physicians are being squeezed by reductions in reimbursements and increases in malpractice and administrative costs. To take that as some type of proof that they are all resorting to unethical behavior is just sad. But I'll go so far ask to ask why you think that any doc would open him/herself up to the medicolegal risks that such behavior carries? Aside from being unethical, it's just not practical.

Originally Posted by nraden
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.
And yet you allege so many profit motives among physicians. Again, must be comforting to live in such a black and white world.

No. It's not pointless to look for your profit motive. If you were really interested in helping women, you wouldn't make false accusations about physicians, misrepresent the information that is out there such as that in the WHI while also acting like there is no good non-Big-Pharm studies showing HRT's benefits, you wouldn't provide inaccurate information here or on the website, and you would have established the efficacy and safety of Wiley's protocol before avocating it publically.

Maybe it is a desire to elevate your own importance which is at the root of this. Put a wedge between women and those who really wish to help them and then ingratiate yourselves with women by portraying yourselves as coming to their rescue with your own, untested but natural remedy. If it's not a profit motive driving this, then perhaps it's a hero complex.
__________________
"I think Katana is as big of a perv as the rest of us." - Dragonrock
"The rationality was there, and clear and concise. The condescention was hinted at and was like french onion dip on the perfect potato chip. Tasted like woo smackdown." - Fowlsound (aka Ducky, darnit)
"Katana is one quick shut-yo-mouth!" - JonnyFive
StopSylviaBrowne
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
Old 29th November 2006, 08:19 AM   #116
sophia8
Master Poster
 
sophia8's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Posts: 2,419
Originally Posted by nraden View Post
There are many people who have been on this protocol for years. Untested in the sense of a randomized clinical trial? True.
Sir, I hope that you and your wife made these women sign waivers stating that that they knew they were taking part in long-term trials of untested pharmacueticals.
If not, some lawyer is going to toast your asses one day.
__________________
"Nature is floods and famines and earthquakes and viruses and little blue-footed booby babies getting their brains pecked out by their stronger siblings! ....Nature doesn't care about me, or about anybody in particular - nature can be terrifying! Why do they even put words like 'natural' on products like shampoo, like it's automatically a good thing? I mean, sulfuric acid is natural!" -Julia Sweeney
sophia8 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
Old 29th November 2006, 08:35 AM   #117
fls
Penultimate Amazing
 
fls's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 10,232
Originally Posted by JJM View Post
Mr. Raden, this has me concerned. I am not a father; but I am an uncle. If I administer drugs avuncularly, is that a problem, too?
In that situation, I would suggest that your wife administer the drugs. Those side-effects shouldn't occur if they are administered auntally.

Linda
(In my defense, that is probably the worst pun I have ever attempted.)
fls 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
Old 29th November 2006, 10:12 AM   #118
JJM
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 1,853
GROAN. The question, fls, is whether he knows what we are going on about? The nerve of someone who knows nothing about medicine arguing with, at least one, doctor here. Maybe TS would like acting lessons from the doctor …

But, seriously, I note that debv refers to Erika Schwartz (MD) as an opponent of Wiley. However, Dr. S has her own form of bioidentical hormone therapy (as I recall), and my understanding is that all of it is hokum.

http://www.ncahf.org/digest05/05-45.html
ACOG warns against "bioidentical hormone therapy" and saliva testing.”

The ACOG press release:
http://www.acog.org/from_home/publications/press_releases/nr10-31-05-1.cfm
There is no scientific evidence to support claims of increased efficacy or safety for individualized estrogen or progesterone regimens prepared by compounding pharmacies, according to a new Committee Opinion released today by The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG). Furthermore, hormone therapy does not belong to a class of drugs with an indication for individualized dosing.” [italics added]

http://www.pharmwatch.org/strategy/bioidentical.shtml
Steer Clear of "Bioidentical" Hormone Therapy
JJM 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
Old 29th November 2006, 10:37 AM   #119
Hellbound
Merchant of Doom
 
Hellbound's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Somewhere between the central U.S. and Hades
Posts: 10,124
Originally Posted by nraden View Post
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?
Go f**k yourself

There, now that we've both acted like children, quoting without identifiying the source was pointed out, because this is a violation of forum rules, the ones you must agree to before posting here.

And a simple "From Wikipedia:" at the beginning of the statement is all that's required, there is an edit function. But apparently taking 15 seconds to add attribution was too much.

And, as an aside, Wikipedia is hardly an authorative reference source. I'm as likely to accept "some guy in a bar said" as Wikipedia. Use fact-checked references rather than Internet popularity contests and they'll be recieved better.

I'[m not trying to have a real discussion. Your level of ignorance is too high to even make this possible. I have absolutely zero interest in listening to the tripe you're shilling. You do not have the background knowledge to understand your claims, the counter-arguments, or to even present the claims in a manner that does not include inherit logical contradictions. As such, you aren't worht a debate, because the claims are nonsense at face value. No "natural" treatment would produce un-natural levels of hormones, so you've shot yourself in the foot before you begin.

Now, others here may be trying to have a discussion. Good for them. I am not, nor do I see anywhere that I ever implied, stated, or hinted that I was. I am here to laugh at the funny man, much as one might laugh at the poo-flinging monkeys in the zoo. I see no reason to have a "discussion" with an obviously delusional, uninformed person who is doing nothing more than spreading propoganda for an unnatural, unproven, , highly questionable, logically inconsistent, and likely dangerous medical treatment for his own profit.

Have a nice day.
__________________
Science is like safety testing cars. You don't coddle a new theory; you slam it head-on into other theories. You sideswipe it, rear-end it, and roll it over at 60 mph. If it survives better than the old theory, it's good. And the way it fails, and under what conditions, gives you the information to make the next theory even better.

I reserve the right to be wrong.
Hellbound 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
Old 29th November 2006, 12:05 PM   #120
fls
Penultimate Amazing
 
fls's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 10,232
Originally Posted by JJM View Post
But, seriously, I note that debv refers to Erika Schwartz (MD) as an opponent of Wiley. However, Dr. S has her own form of bioidentical hormone therapy (as I recall), and my understanding is that all of it is hokum.
Yeah, I don't think she's a credible critic. It looks like she is in competition with T. S. Wiley.

Linda
fls 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
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Science, Mathematics, Medicine, and Technology

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 01:51 AM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
© 2014, TribeTech AB. All Rights Reserved.
This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.